[ Page 125 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

On the amendment.

Mr. King –– 125

Mr. Davis –– 127

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 128

Mrs. Dailly –– 130

Division –– 131

Throne speech debate

Mr. Shelford –– 131

Mr. Levi –– 136

On the amendment.

Mr. Lea –– 143

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 147

Mr. Skelly –– 149

Division –– 150

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. KING: Before the adjournment for the dinner hour, I had just briefly recounted some of the steps that had been taken by the New Democratic Party government in making life easier for the women of the province of British Columbia, providing access to employment in various areas of the government service, providing apprenticeship training, particularly in the trades area of the province of British Columbia. We did put through the first female apprentices in the history of this province.

MR. KAHL; You said that before dinner.

MR. KING: We did introduce a Human Rights Code, Mr. Speaker, that resulted in the elimination of discriminatory wage rates that had been set up and followed in the health field in the province for many, many years. The cost of doing that was extremely high, but believing as we do that all working people in the province of British Columbia should be paid on the basis of the function that they perform, rather than judgments on the basis of sexism, we were prepared to pay the price. It perplexed me greatly to hear the Minister of Labour (Ron. Mr. Williams) get up and suggest that the New Democratic Party government had done nothing for women in this province.

But I want to say to you that I am not particularly disappointed in the Minister of Labour. I think his conduct and his performance and his statement were quite consistent with the performance of the government that he now sits with. Their whole attitude, Mr. Speaker, seems to be one of diversion. They refuse to come to grips with the problems that confront this province today. They refuse to recognize that they are the government, that they were elected in 1975 and given a mandate by the people of this province on the basis of their campaign approach, which had for its main thrust the proposition that here was a group of people that could benefit the economic health of the province and provide a constant level of high employment.

Here we are in the Legislature today. We've just debated the throne speech for a few days. We've had a number of amendments to it. Every time the opposition raises questions regarding the inadequacy of the steps that have been outlined by this administration, we have the classic diversionary tactic followed by each and every government member that has been up to speed thus far.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not warfare; this is a chamber of debate. While diversions in battle have been effective over history, I want to suggest to you and I want to suggest to the government that the people of this province that are suffering unemployment, that are watching their businesses go down the drain in bankruptcies, are not going to be lulled into a false sense of security by diversionary tactics espoused by representatives of this government. They expect answers and we as a responsible opposition speaking to the amendment expect answers. We expect the government to respond in a positive, responsible way to the criticism that are voiced across the floor. Let me say that the throne speech is completely bereft of any positive new programme that would provide jobs and opportunity for women in the province of British Columbia; it's absolutely devoid of any initiative whatsoever. My colleagues have pointed out, correctly so, that more and more women are the prime - and in many cases, the sole - breadwinners of families in the province at this point in time.

I've had personal experiences, Mr. Speaker, within the last few weeks, of women who came to my office up in the interior, who were unable to find any employment and who were dealt with in very harsh fashion by the local Ministry of Human Resources. I do not blame the local Human Resources ministry workers. They are operating on the basis of directives put out by that benevolent little minister for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the women in my area are far from happy with the kind of treatment and the kind of counsel they are receiving from the Ministry of Human Resources.

I had one situation that I want to tell you a little about. A mother and her 16-year-old daughter, who also had a baby, were living together, the husband and father having abandoned them. Because there was a visitation by the daughter's husband, the daughter was deprived of her welfare, and instead of receiving benefits on the basis of a family of three, these three women in one home were forced, through a cutback, to exist on a subsistence level that is designed for two

[ Page 126 ]

people. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that is a punitive approach to social problems and family problems that are crippling and demoralizing in this province. This is the kind of mentality which holds that families most be split up in order to enjoy a subsistence level of income maintenance from the Ministry of Human Resources. I had to accompany this lady and her daughter and the infant child, the grandchild, to the Human Resources office to fight for maintenance that would enable them to survive, much less live in any kind of dignity. And the sin that they had committed, Mr. Speaker, was to allow the husband of the daughter - this becomes somewhat confusing - the 16-year-old girl's husband to live in that house for a few days. He was visiting. He had been off in Alberta looking for work, Mr. Speaker, because there were no jobs in British Columbia. He comes back and visits his wife and child, and his wife is cut off benefits by the Ministry of Human Resources.

To hear the government members get up as they have done today and say, "Yes, we recognize that there are not enough jobs to go around, but the Minister of Human Resources will look after them, " completely flies in the face of the experience I have had in my own riding. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that experience is common the length and breadth of this province. That is an inhumane approach. Completely inhumane. But we digress.

I think the main thrust of the non-confidence motion in this government is aimed at their lack of any initiative, any proposal, or any promise of coming forward with a positive programme which would enable people to become self-employed, which would enable people to maintain their own security through gainful employment. Certainly that is a much better way than having people rely on the likes of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for assistance in times of a stagnant economy in this province.

We are very concerned, and I think we have the right and the obligation to be concerned, and to voice those concerns in the Legislature. I would expect from the government a response that is mature, a response that is rational in terms of outlining what their problems are in failing to come up with programmes that recognize the social and economic plight of women in the workforce in British Columbia today. That's what I would expect; not attacks on what happened under the NDP tenure of government. The election of 1975 is over. You people hold the reins of government at this time and you're going to have to answer to the electorate on the basis of your performance, or lack thereof, not on a diversion as to what some other administration did in the past. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that until these people come to that realization they are going to face a very bleak time at the polls in the next election, if that continues to be their' attitude.

One of the areas that is in the most severe economic trouble in the province today is the small-business community. My colleague, the leader of the official opposition, has outlined the high incidence of bankruptcies in the province. A high percentage of those bankruptcies are taking place in the smaller communities, in small service-oriented businesses. This is the traditional employment area f or women throughout the province. Women do not really enjoy equal opportunity or equal access to the large, organized resource industries. That is generally the preserve of men, and, incidentally, it is generally the organized sector enjoying the highest rates of pay. However, in communities the length and breadth of this province, that almost 60 per cent of the business community which is not organized by the trade union movement is the natural and historical preserve of women in the work force. I am concerned that I see absolutely nothing in the throne speech which gives any impetus or any hope to the small businesses of the province.

I don't know what the government plans -whether they have perpetrated a bit of a hoax in terms of introducing a throne speech such as this one without provisions to give hope to women, whether they are waiting for the arrival of the budget to try to initiate something through that device or not.

But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that traditionally the throne speech has been the blueprint for legislation for the current session of the Legislature, and I certainly would have expected to see something in that throne speech pertaining to women in the work force.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. KING: Nonsense? I don't think it's nonsense. I think that when we have 115,000 people unemployed in this province, a large percentage of them women....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about legislation.

Interjection.

[ Page 127 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member said lie doesn't know how phony I can be. I want to assure him that I will never be as phony as the pale programme that the government has put forward in the form of a so-called throne speech this session. I shall never be that phony. And for the minister to suggest that it's nonsense to express concern about the unemployed in this province is a scandalous proposition - absolutely scandalous. The only thing that is twisted in this House this evening is the member's mind. Everything beyond that is quite straightforward.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite capable of putting my points of view forward without prompting or coaxing from the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . He never has anything very intelligent to offer in this debate, Mr. Speaker. He satisfies himself with sitting back and sniping at members who are trying to make an intelligent contribution. Shame on him. Then he runs out. He takes the lead from the Premier and runs away, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and I am going to conclude my remarks very briefly. One of the things that has characterized this government that bothers me a great deal.... They apparently have no defence over their throne speech; they apparently intend to offer none. They apparently intend to discuss no programmes that the people of the province are waiting for expectantly so that they might have some hope for the future in terms of earning a living in this province. But in this debate on this particular motion, as in the performance so far in the House today, we see a tendency to run away from the issue. I think that approach, that reaction, is set by the Premier. It's a runaway approach. As soon as the government is called upon to account for their own programmes and their own policies, they run away f rom the issue. They attempt a diversion and they attempt to blame everyone else but the government that was elected and given the mandate and the responsibility to administer the affairs of this province. I think that's regrettable. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you it is not going to be tolerated too much longer by the people of this province.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) talks about a pale programme. He's talking about the Speech from the Throne, presumably.

MR. SPEAKER: No, to the amendment, hon. member; he's speaking to the amendment.

MR. DAVIS: Oh, he's speaking to the amendment. It was hard to detect.

I would like to say a few words in a much more optimistic vein about a power programme. I wish the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) was here; he was here a minute ago. I want to talk a little about his area and the area of the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) .

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, perhaps these remarks would be directed more appropriately during the main question. We are on the amendment, which has to do with the economy as it affects women in the province.

MR. DAVIS: Well, there are a few women in the Atlin area I want to refer to. Listening to the member next to me, there are many women, very attractive ones, also in the East Kootenays. Coal mining, as the times change, may be a vocation as well for women.

AN HON. MEMBER: It already is. Read the changes in the Mines Regulations Act.

MR. DAVIS: Well, it was exactly in that context that I wanted to raise the powerful prospects of the Groundhog area in the famous constituency of Atlin.

In the view of many it has one of the finest thermal coal resources not only in this province but in the world, and it's one, with developing markets in Japan, Korea and even California, that will be in production within the next f five to ten years. Whether it's a pipeline that carries the coal out to Stewart or a railway that carries it down through to Ridley Island near Prince Rupert, that's one area where men and women will be employed in increasing numbers in the next decade.

Down in the East Kootenays there is coal. It's mined; it's metallurgical coal; it goes abroad to manufacture steel, where women are also employed. There is coal left behind which is relatively low grade - middlings - coal that's left as an eyesore at the present time. That certainly can be utilized. There are new burning techniques, fluid-bed combustion is one, which should develop new town sites, new opportunities of employment for all - men and women. Using new technology there, possibly exporting surplus power to the United States in that area, there is a real prospect for more jobs. This is the kind of forward-looking development which, I think, certainly will happen under this present government with the developing climate which attracts capital and ingenuity. In both these instances we'll see new technology, we'll see a very abundant resource put to work, and we'll see lots more jobs for men and women in two important

[ Page 128 ]

corners of the province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary on the amendment.

Would it help the House if I read the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The second amendment reads:

"That the motion in reply to the opening speech of his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the following words: 'but this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to outline any measures to alleviate the impact of this serious downturn in the economy on the women of this province.' "

I should remind hon. members that debate is strictly relevant to the amendment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, I'd like to relate to the remarks made by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) wherein he suggested that the throne speech did not in any way address itself to women. Throughout the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, there are many references to job creation in the province of British Columbia that have already been accomplished and which will be accomplished during this year and the following years. Programmes which are giving employment to people today have been substantiated by figures given by this side of the House, and jobs and employment will be provided in the future.

In respect to the member for Revels toke-Slocan, to suggest that those jobs that are mentioned in this throne speech and the jobs that have been created in this province are only created for men is downright discriminatory, and I am tremendously surprised that a member of the socialist party of this House that has long parroted the views that they stand for anti-discrimination and pro women and pro minority groups in this House should stand in their places today and say this is a discriminatory throne speech, because it is not.

I want to make it clear, too, this evening, because it has been mentioned various times on the floor of the House.... I am sorry that the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) is not in his place tonight because earlier in the day in his address to the throne speech he suggested in reference to the Status of Women organization in this province that their budget had been cut in half. There have been references from the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) that the budget for the Status of Women has been cut in half. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you and the members of the House very clearly tonight that that has not been the case in the province of British Columbia. I want to give you the facts on this because that rumour or that suggestion has been perpetrated by members of the House who should know better.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the history of the Status of Women is that it was started through a grant from the federal administration and financed through the federal administration. It is one of the very many organizations that were started by LIP grants and organizational grants by the federal administration and then, after pulling out after two years, they left the responsibility to the provincial government, as they have done on many programmes. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the provincial administration through the previous NDP government and through this government has had to pick up the pieces where the federal government opted out, and this is another case.

The federal government does not recognize this organization any longer and has refused to finance it, apparently. But can I suggest to you that in this particular case, the provincial government of the Social Credit Party has been generous in comparison to many programmes which we have placed before us.

Let me just give you an example. The grant in 1975-76 was $75,000; 1976-77 was $75, 000. Recently through my ministry I was able to tell the president of the Status of Women, Mrs. Lee Grills, that we would continue the grant for the next year for $75,000. You will recall through the press recently that there has been a great deal of concern expressed by the Status of Women. In fact they picketed my office on Fraser Avenue, Mr. Speaker, because they were not pleased with that amount of money.

I want to share with the House the kinds of dollars that come out of this particular grant. Let me explain to the House that there are several grants within my ministry which address themselves to worthy organizations and worthy causes in this province. I am pleased that I have the opportunity, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, to place those dollars in the hands of worthwhile people for worthwhile programmes. In this particular phase, then, of this granting programme, there is a portion of the grants which go to organizations. This does not encompass large amounts of grants for people such as the cancer-fighting organizations and the B.C. Cancer Association and so on. So I am only going to give you some comparable statistics

[ Page 129 ]

of those that are organizational grants who get a monthly cheque f rom the of f ice of the Provincial Secretary.

I would like to give you some comparisons: the Big Brothers of British Columbia - $3,000 a month; the Boys' and Girls' Clubs of British Columbia - $1,000 a month; the Boy Scouts of Canada - $3,100 a month; the British Columbia Association for the Mentally Retarded - $1,800 a month; the Canadian Mental Health Association - $3,500 a month; the Canadian Paraplegic Association - $4,000 a month; the Canadian Youth Hostels Association - $1,350 a month; the Girl Guides of Canada, B.C. Council - $1,600 a month; St. John's Ambulance -$1,250 a month; the YWCA Travelers' Aid for Destitute Women - $400 a month; the Salvation Army Maywood Home for Unmarried Mothers - $950 a month.

All of these organizations, Mr. Speaker -each one that I have read and each one on this organizational monthly grant file, and I have not read some of them which are $700 and $625 and $200 and so on - each one of them is less in total per month than the $6,250 a month which is granted to the Vancouver Status of Women.

I comment on that for one reason. First, I want to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has recognized, in spite of the comments that have come from the other side of the House, the fact that there is a place in this province for women to have some kind of status and pay tribute to the fact that they need some kind of assistance in that regard. But I also want to tell you and I want to make it clear to this House that this is the only organization that is fully funded by this ministry. The organizations that I have read, which are extremely worthy organizations and which all need moneys and more moneys, obtain volunteer help from other citizens, from other organizations, from assistance through the community. They get backing from the community.

In my conversations with and from my letters to the Vancouver Status of Women in the past I have said to them - and I will repeat this evening for the benefit of the members on the other side who do not seem to understand -that in order for any organization to be viable and to warrant the support certainly of this provincial government, they have to have community support as well in depth, in fact and in reality. Last year that was given to the Vancouver Status of Women very clearly and apparently, according to their brief before the cabinet in Saanich approximately three or four weeks ago, they were not able to get the required assistance from the community. So, Mr. Speaker, they were given their grant once again and they refused to accept it in that they said it wasn't sufficient. Yet it was not cutting down their grant, in spite of the warning they had that they should get some support from the community to prove their worth within the community. I hope this closes the matter in respect to whether or not they have been discriminated against in any way, whether or not they have been cut down in any way.

I want to make it clear to the House, and to you, Mr. Speaker, that the following telegram has been received from Mrs. Lee Grills, the Vancouver Status of Women president. It reads as follows, addressed to myself. "Re your letter of March 23...." 1 think I should read my letter to her first. My letter of March 23 to Mrs. Grills reads:

"I have for acknowledgment your telegram of March 17 in which you advise that your executive staff and membership has decided that the $75,000 grant offered your organization for the coming fiscal period is insufficient. Would you please let me know by return mail if your organization is prepared to accept continuation of the grant at the present level or if you wish to seek support elsewhere? My ministry has a number of grant applications pending and the funds presently allocated to the Vancouver Status of Women could be utilized to support other programmes.

"Your request for full funding is not justifiable as a number of your activities are in part duplication of government services now provided by other ministries and with the advent of the ombudsman's office, many additional services will be available to women in need of guidance and support. The grant payments from my ministry in past years were intended to cover partial operating costs and your organization was expected to develop other resource areas to meet your total financial needs.

"You will recall that this policy was reiterated to your organization last year. The financial involvement of the community has not taken place, and I would suggest a review of your programmes and objectives be undertaken by your executive to determine why this increased outside support was not forthcoming."

Then in response to that letter, Mr. Speaker, the telegram from Mrs. Lee Grills, the Vancouver Status of Women, reads thus:

It seems the Vancouver Status of Women

[ Page 130 ]

accepts the response f rom the provincial government and it seems as though the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and the members opposite wish to make political advantage and take political advantage once again on people they wish to make as an example of their own political persuasion. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you there are many women in this province who believe in some of the things that the Status of Women stand for, and that is equal pay for equal work, that is recognition in the marketplace for women, and recognition in all areas of life in British Columbia for women. But, Mr. Speaker, those Sam women do not want to be used as political pawns in the province of British Columbia and they will not be used as political pawns.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to another area which falls under my jurisdiction, and that is in the area of work for women in the Travel Industry ministry. In this past year we have seen the most aggressive - somebody said the most active -marketing programme for the province of British Columbia, which has resulted in the most dramatic increase in tourism that any province in Canada has enjoyed this past year. In 1978, this year, we are going to have as dramatic an increase, which will bring a record number of dollars into the province to provide work for women.

The travel industry is one of the largest, if not the largest, employer in the province, Mr. Speaker, and as such provides much employment for women in the service industries and in the hospitality industries, which will continue in 1978 because of the concentration that this government places and because of the work that this government places in those tasks and those jobs that are done by people who serve the people of British Columbia and the visitors of the people of British Columbia, the tourists.

Last year, 1977, brought just under 11 million visitors and tourists throughout our province and just under $1.4 billion, making it the third largest industry in the province. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that with that kind of effort, with that kind of support from our fellow citizens of British Columbia who believe in a positive programme of employment, a positive programme for the future of our province and do not believe in the negativism that is constantly coming from that side of the political spectrum, we will succeed in providing jobs for women in this province again in 1978.

MRS. DAILLY: When I seconded the amendment to the throne speech yesterday, I spent some time on the plight of women in this province primarily because of the attitude and policies of the Social Credit government, so 1 hadn't intended to repeat any remarks here again in this amendment, Mr. Speaker. But after listening to the Provincial Secretary, who if any one in that government should be giving leadership to the women of this province and assistance, that is the minister who should be doing it.... She has the power; she has the power of the grants; she is a woman herself; she should understand the problems that women face. But instead we find that this minister shows a complete ignorance of the struggles of women in this province today. She shows a complete ignorance of a very fine organization, the Status of Women organization of Vancouver.

The statements that she made tonight regarding that organization I consider were insulting to the group, Mr. Chairman. They're based on complete ignorance, or else that minister is playing straight politics with this House, and surely she wouldn't do that when she's accused the opposition of doing that.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) referred to the fact that the Status of Women were unable to get their money because they had been originally financed, I believe, by the federal government, or even had trouble receiving any money from them, 1 don't think she's even read their brief, which outlines page by page the history of the Status of Women in Vancouver. And there is the minister making erroneous statements about a group and then making arbitrary decisions based on complete misinformation, or lack of understanding.

The other point, Mr. Speaker, which has been absolutely shocking, is that the minister is trying to suggest that this matter of grants to the Status of Women has been used as a political football. Any of us who have met.... 1 know other members and backbenchers in the Social Credit government have had an opportunity to meet with delegations from the Status of Women, and they know they come from all political parties. But they came to all of us - I'm sure everyone in this House received a message from them months ago - pleading to all parties, and what were they saying? Remember, they're made up of a multi-political group. They were saying we're going to run out of our budget for this year. We have been waiting months to hear from the Provincial Secretary, and here we are at a deadline where we don't even know if we can keep going another year. We still haven't heard from the Provincial Secretary. She played this little

[ Page 131 ]

game with them, Mr. Speaker, last year; she's repeated the same game this year. And then, at the final moment, despite their well laid-out brief, she decides, once again, that she is not going to accede to what I consider very legitimate requests.

She bases her non-agreement with them on the fact that they haven't gone out into the community and raised equivalent moneys. Mr. Speaker, this shows that the Provincial Secretary isn't aware of the economic situation in this province created by her own government. This is a very difficult time for any group to try to go out and voluntarily gain money from other groups in this province who are struggling to get by themselves. And she can sit there blithely and talk about going to the community, and because they haven't gone to the community she uses that as an excuse. I think it was a shameful defence of her non-agreement and her lack of understanding, Mr. Speaker, of the needs of the women of this province.

For the minister to say that her government is providing the services that are now being provided by the Vancouver Status of Women, which makes them in many cases redundant, is absolutely wrong. She made that statement last year and, if I recall, she cannot back it up. She cannot specify what those redundant services are. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have spoken before on this subject; I won't take up the time of the House. But may I say that that Provincial Secretary is symbolic of a government that does not understand the needs of the women of this province.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 17

NAYS - 30

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

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say congratulations to you on being elected as Speaker. We know you will do a good job.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

MR. SHELFORD: We have always had good Speakers in this Legislature since the time I have been here.

I must say I enjoyed the speech this afternoon by the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) about sweat-shop workers. I would say there is only one small little problem in her speech that I would criticize, and that was the fact that she was really just 100 years too late in making such a speech. In my observation of working conditions around this province and the people who are working, to talk about the downtrodden worker with a boat in his backyard, a camper in his front driveway, a snowmobile by his fence and a nice home and two cars .... I think we should be proud that our workers are very well off in this province. I don't think the speech deserves more comment than that. In fact, as I've said on many occasions, we spend far too much time criticizing each other anyway.

I was very pleased to see a new construction programme announced by the government in the Speech from the Throne to help unemployment. I would say everyone in this House supports a move in this direction. There are certainly many new buildings we want to see in the Skeena area, especially the courthouse at Terrace along with the new health centre. No doubt this will do more for unemployment than likely any other thing. It's amazing to see how much the economic condition of Terrace has changed since the dark days of 1974-75. We talk about how many people are out of work or how many people are working. One of the reasons why there weren't so many unemployed for awhile in Terrace was that nearly one quarter of the total work force left for Alberta. This is history and certainly can be supported by facts. And I think we should remember this. This year in Terrace there's a brand new, very large shopping centre going in, two new, quite large cafes, one large enough to seat 350 people. It does show that our economies are built on nothing but faith, faith in the future. I am very pleased to see the economy of Terrace moving ahead quite well. I would say there will actually be a shortage of skilled workers in that area this

[ Page 132 ]

summer.

MR. LOEWEN: Are they coming back f rom Alberta?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. SHELFORD: Not too many, no. They've got a very good government in Alberta and they are all very secure. It's one of the problems we have to face up to and 1 have mentioned it to Manpower on many occasions, that if things do move ahead very rapidly we will have a shortage of skilled people throughout the whole north country. There's no question about it. We've got more skilled people over here than you have over there - yes, that's correct.

But in dealing with the question of unemployment, there's no question we are still facing a very serious problem throughout Canada and especially in the the Indian villages, where there is a great need for training programmes and new ideas of how to get them involved in the work force because there is extremely high unemployment, especially in the Hazelton area, where it's claimed to be as high as 30 and 40 per cent. This is not going to be solved overnight. I think we have to face the facts of life. With our high costs of money, labour and materials we're not going to resolve the unemployment situation quickly, because there are so many business people who will refuse to put their money into Canada for production units when they could put it in across the line and ship their products back into a high-cost area like Canada. 1 will be saying a great deal more about this, on agriculture, later on.

One of the reasons for high employment in many of the trades is the simple fact that over 50 per cent of our total population simply can't afford to hire, for instance, a carpenter, plumber or bricklayer, et cetera, at $10 or $11 an hour when they themselves are only making $6 and $7 an hour. That's one of the reasons why the classes in the vocational schools are more than full of people trying to learn how to do this kind of thing themselves. It's something that all trades should give serious consideration to.

MR. LEA: And who hires the lawyers?

MR. SHELFORD: I'll tell you a story about a lawyer if you won't be quiet.

1 was also glad to see that a major highway programme will be carried out again this year because, with the tremendous amount of work done in my area, I would like to thank the government and the minister for it. It was over $20 million spent and it certainly did bring a lot of our highways up to a very good standard throughout the north country. There is a great deal of work needing to be done on Highway 16 and I think my friend from Prince Rupert will even agree with me on this, which is unusual - on the road between Terrace and Prince Rupert. I drive this highway quite often and I do hope that the minister will be able to get the national government to put more money into highway-building throughout this north country...

MR. LEA: You allowed them to take it out.

MR. SHELFORD: ... because the amount of money put in so far is extremely small when you compare it with the amount of money spent by the provincial government on these highways. Highway 37 north is a very important road link in the future development of the whole province and it will be of great benefit to even the southern part of the province when completed. The key to northern development, in my opinion, is the Kitimat port development and the road north to the Yukon. If this is completed, trucks and supplies wishing to move north for the new pipeline from Alaska will move halfway up the province with practically no fuel and will save two drivers on their trip to the north. There are a lot of truckers and truck companies in the U.S. that are very interested in this link if it's ever brought about.

I certainly urge the government to do everything they ran to try and make the CPR put a proper service into Kitimat which will serve the whole north country. If this is not done, all major supplies to the north will come out of Alberta. Already the people of my area are asking for air links - town councils, regional districts, et cetera - between Terrace, Prince Rupert and Edmonton. Unless this link to Kitimat goes in, there's no question that British Columbia will lose millions of dollars as a supply centre for that northern development. Last year alone there was a 20 per cent increase in the supply of products from Alberta into my part of British Columbia. It's something we should consider, because we'll lose, as I say, millions of dollars in sales tax, income tax, et cetera, plus many thousands of jobs.

I hope others will consider the feasibility of this link. All you need do is take a map and take a line from Crofton north to the Yukon and it goes right through Kitimat and up Highway 37 to Alaska. Certainly the minister will have the highway ready for traffic, I

[ Page 133 ]

would expect, before there's a ferry coming to Kitimat. But I hope a move is made in this direction quickly, because if the CPR won't do this work, well, then 1 for one will certainly expect the government to carry out their responsibility and put in a ferry that will give a service to this area. I'm sure that British Columbia needs the trade of the north country and the north country needs a supply base in Vancouver.

.1 was glad to hear that the government will carry out an increase in the forest management programme, which is something that is greatly needed to get the 10 million idle acres back into production. This is something that I've asked for for a long time. Back in the years when 1 was chairman of the forestry committee, 1 used to say our motto should be: "Cut a tree, plant a tree." But today it should be; "Cut a tree and plant 10 trees, " to catch up on this 10 million acres which we have to remember is the best growing site in this province and is laying idle. All government job-creation programmes, such as federal works programmes and other provincial programmes to hire people, should be funnelled in this direction. We've seen so many useless programmes put into effect by the national government where nothing is achieved that 1 think it would be nice to see people put out into the forests to improve our forest management so that we'll be able to build something for the future. Because it must be pretty frustrating for some of these young people to spend their summer working and yet achieving nothing. I can't think of anything worse than that.

AN HON. MEMBER.. We're doing it, though.

MR. SHELFORD: We're doing it, yes. 1 don't think we should be very proud of it, though, as Canadians, but we are doing it. It's quite true.

People working, as 1 said, will be able to see their achievements and as years go by they'll be able to send their youngsters into the forest and say: "I helped plant those trees which will be of value to this province in the years ahead. " They do this in some European countries and it's extremely successful.

I'm also pleased to see, naturally, a new wildlife management plan mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. This is greatly needed to replace the lack of management for the last six years. Many of our best game herds face extinction due to mismanagement by the experts. I'll be talking about this when the minister's estimates come up, because I think it's extremely important to the northern part of this province. It is a shame, because hunting will disappear in this province within the next three years unless we take action now. I was very pleased to hear the minister's announcement in Smithers that he does intend to do something about it.

Government assistance to small business is welcome and we'll be looking forward to the budget to see exactly what's going to be done, because over the many years we have seen governments come and go. They've all talked about assistance to small business, yet normally it's been assistance in the wrong direction. So I certainly do hope to see a real change in policy which will really help the small businesses of this province. I've had many suggestions over the years, during the gas price inquiry and elsewhere, where I showed where small business could be really assisted. So far no government has seen fit to take any notice of my proposals, so I hope this is a step in the right direction.

As I said before, it's encouraging to see a government that's so concerned with unemployment and mentioned the various crises through the throne speech. It is Canada's number one problem, and long-term solutions just have to be found. I'm old enough to remember years just prior to World War II when people were running around looking for jobs, and I think it's extremely unfortunate that in a so-called civilized world the only method we've found so far to solve unemployment has been wars. I think we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves when we have to realize that that, so far, has been the only solution.

MR. LAUK: Hasn't it occurred to you that it may be the system?

MR. SHELFORD: It's occurred to me that it might be the system, but no one has shown me a better system; that's my problem! I've seen quite a number of systems working in different countries in Europe, but I must say, with all of our faults, we still have the best system.

I would further say that we can no longer leave unemployment to chance, that something will turn up that will make it go away. I would say it simply won't go away without major changes and a complete stop to inflation, which is one of our greatest enemies. All moves so far by governments, especially the federal, are nothing more than band-aid solutions which make-work programmes are, as I mentioned earlier. All these programmes do - and I must say they do some good - is put money into circulation, even though they don't serve any particularly

[ Page 134 ]

useful purpose otherwise.

Many people and members, I would say, have the mistaken notion that private companies will resolve all of this for us, and I would say they simply can't, due to the many regulations and socialist philosophies that have crept in over the years. We've scuttled industry being able to do what they want to do, and we'll have to find some changes.

MR. LAUK: Do you believe that?

MR. SHELFORD: Yes, I certainly do believe it, Mr. Member. Why shouldn't I after looking at your effort?

AN HON MEMBER: You'd better go home, Gary.

MR. SHELFORD: With our high costs of all kinds and excessive regulations, it's amazing how business is managing to survive at all. For this reason I'm glad that the government will review the regulations governing all departments of Crown corporations. I certainly think it's a very brave step and it'll be interesting to see exactly how it's done, but it must be done if we're to allow industry to expand and be able to get back and capture foreign markets, which we must do to survive.

MR. LAUK: How do you propose that?

MR. SHELFORD: There is no solution to unemployment unless this action is successful. I would like to point out one example of what's going on at the present time, and I think we should take note of the many examples that we can point out. For instance, at Hazelton this last summer, there was an enterprising young fellow in the mining industry who wanted to build a road up the mountain to what he thought was a mine. Whether there was or there wasn't, I don't know. As my friend Gordon Gibson used to say: "A mine is a hole in the ground, and the owner is a liar." But anyway, this fellow applied in May to build this road, and between May and September, five different federal and provincial departments held up approval under various regulations.

MR. LAUK: What was his name?

MR. SHELFORD: I'll get it f or you if you want.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: No, it's not.

MR. LAUK: Is that the only one you have?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you'll have your turn in debate when the hon member for Skeena has finished.

MR. SHELFORD: He has his turn in every debate. Now here this fellow was stopped by five different departments, which is not good enough because unless one department is responsible to make the decisions, no one makes it at all. I would think this is one of the number one things government must concentrate on, that when a decision is required someone has to be responsible to make it or, as Gary knows, he just passes it on to the next guy and it won't get back to him for the next five years. This just simply isn't good enough, and I think we all know how the system works, and we have to streamline it if we want to see people employed.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: No, it's not; wrong case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. member for Skeena would continue debate, please. The hon. members will have their opportunity as the occasion arises.

MR. SHELFORD: You know, Mr. Speaker, the lawyers in the House always give us a bad time.

It reminds rm~ of a story of three fellows out in a boat fishing when it started to go down. The Anglican minister jumped in and said, "I'll swim ashore for help." As he jumped in the sharks ate him up. The United Church minister jumped in and he said, "I'll get to shore and save at least one of us." The sharks ate him up. The lawyer jumped in and swam ashore. When he got to shore, a friend standing on the shore said; "How come you got ashore when the other two were eaten up?" He said; 110h, just professional ethics." (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Stop attacking the Clerk.

MR. SHELFORD: Finally when this fellow got approval, it was too late; there was already snow up on the mountain and he couldn't go ahead and build the road. Now this is a small example of a fellow who wanted to hire 18 people - Cat drivers, loggers, et cetera - to take the timber off. Eighteen people were unemployed because of too many regulations and no one willing to make a decision.

Now any one of us, I think, can cite 10 or a

[ Page 135 ]

dozen such examples of where people have been slowed down. You can multiply these small projects all across the total economy of Canada and you have the unemployment that we have today. To resolve this problem, we should all quit blaming governments and look at our own records as citizens of the country. In my experience in watching governments, not just our own, governments generally try to do what the people want, and that includes yours. In fact, in my opinion, governments listen too much to the numerous pressure groups rather than mapping out a definite direction of policy and clear-cut leadership which often changes direction when pressure groups come in. It only adds to confusion. I would point out that the people have their say at the next election. If the government doesn't do a good job of governing, well then, they won't be there too long.

This is the way democracy works. That's the way it should work. If people try to govern and tell governments which direction to go and governments keep changing direction, the electorate is confused and soon there's frustration, and we see that in the electorate today. People are confused; they are not sure even which party they should vote for because they say: "Well, they're all as bad anyway and so it doesn't make that much difference." We have to change that image and we have to show it, I think, by clear-cut leadership in the direction we're going in this country.

It's interesting to note that often the same people and groups that protest unemployment also protest development and help cause the problem in the first place. It is not my intention to say who is right and whether all these projects I am going to mention are good. I only want to point out that society itself causes unemployment by excessive demands and demands for regulation and legislation. Governments appear to be not strong enough to show clear direction, and I would say this is largely true with most governments, including the one I served with. Rather than make decisions that could be unpopular, they are inclined to hire an expert or set up a committee.

MR. LAUK: Like the royal commission.

MR. SHELFORD: You set up an awful lot of committees in the north country; five in one area. Normally, this is only done to save someone from making a decision now by trying to put it off to make the decision next year. As an example, I would point out where people ask for delay or stoppage.

No. I - and this is yours, my friends from Vancouver Centre - the Kitimat steel plant. This was protested by the Terrace-Kitimat Labour Council; in fact, they met the Japanese delegation at the airport and told them to go home. This is certainly not the way to bring capital into our country and have good relations with any country.

MR. LAUK: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: I must say I felt sorry for you on that occasion.

MR. LAUK: You didn't have to.

MR. SHELFORD: I did, though.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: No, no, I'll give him credit. He didn't want to see us.

Second, the CN rail extension up the Nass was protested by SPEC, VOICE and other groups. I must point out that there were six studies and committees formed to study the railway. This railway has been studied since before the turn of the century. It was studied by people on foot; it was later studied by people on saddle horse; later by float planes and helicopters. And the strange thing is they all came out with the came conclusion: it should be built from Hazelton in the first place. You sometimes wonder about these studies. The cost of the studies certainly could have built the rail line.

The Kitimat oil port and pipeline was protested by many groups - the labour council, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Indians, fishermen, environmentalists and goodness only knows what. I get letters from all of them.

The Kispiox Road and the link to the Nass, which I am trying to get my friend, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , to build, protested mainly by SPEC and stopped, and by a group of non-Canadian settlers that wanted to get away from crowded California, so they didn't want to turn British Columbia into California, which I can't say I would blame them for either; and again by the fish and wildlife branch.... Again this project was stopped.

AN HUN. MEMBER: They didn't want any employment, eh?

MR. SHELFORD: No, that's correct. it's all very well saying, "We want jobs and we want employment, " but let's take a look at our own record and see what we've done to stop the employment which we're crying about. Logging

[ Page 136 ]

of timber sales on the Skeena Valley, protested again by the environmentalist groups, which delayed the cutting by over one year and has taken large areas of the sustained yield out to single use and will greatly affect the sustained yield of the Skeena PSYU, because.... You can't grow the same amount of carrots on half an acre as you could on an acre, and timber is no different to growing carrots. It's only a crop, and to have proper forest management you have to have a constant acreage which....

MR. LAUK: Timber and carrots?

MR. SHELFORD: Why not? Carrots and trees, they're all just a farm crop and they should all be under the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) .

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: You'd rather import them from the U.S.; I'd rather grow them at home.

Land applications take between two and three years, if you're lucky, mainly caused by regulations, by federal Fisheries, by federal Environment, and goodness knows, three other provincial departments.

Another case' - Smithers plywood plant was completely stopped by the environmentalists, which would create many thousands.... Just these I've mentioned alone, and there's many more, would create many thousands of jobs throughout that north country. Many of these will never come back. We won't have a second chance.

I think it is something every one of us members must take a very serious look at. We all want to protect the environment; I think we agree on that. But we want to do it with a little bit of reason and make clear-cut decisions that we either stop it or we let it go ahead. I don't agree with letting things sit in limbo for two, three, four or five years.

Now add all these projects together, with four or five workers in one case and 50 to 100 in another and we're denying all of these people employment. They add up to a total failure of the Canadian economy which has to be remedied or all of us in Canada are in serious trouble.

In my opinion, the first step should be taken by local governments that possibly, should take a plebiscite in their own communities and find out what people want. Do they seriously want development at all? Because I'm convinced that there are communities that don't want development. If they don't want development, then the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is wasting his time trying to find industry for those particular areas.

So I think the first thing that should be done is for the local governments to take a survey of the people in their area and f find out whether in fact people do want development. I know there's a lot of people that are a little bit like myself sometimes; they like the fishing in the north country and would like to see it stay that way. But if that is the true wish of the people of that particular area, well, then, they should be able to sit there and enjoy themselves.

MRS. JORDAN: But don't cry about no jobs.

MR. SHELFORD: Yes, that's right. The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) just said that after doing that they shouldn't cry that there's a shortage of employment.

If nothing else, I've tried to impress on the members that we had many opportunities in the north country over both your government and our own that have been lost. Now if we're happy to sit by and watch these chances disappear, then, of course, we won't resolve anything. If we want to take advantage of the opportunities, whether it be Japanese or anyone else, then, of course, we should streamline our organization, streamline our regulations and get on with the job of building a better province.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to let the opportunity go by to compliment the previous speaker. He was a little touch of sanity coming from that side. I must say that in the years that I've known him and listened to him, he's somewhat unique. He has a touch of Will Rogers, a little bit of Charlie Farquharson as well, maybe a little touch of Wallace Beery, and a heck of a lot of Cyril Shelford; and we're better off for it.

Now having dealt with the sane side of the House I'd like to go back to some of the insanity that we dealt with a little earlier on. I'd like to go first of all to some of the comments that were made by the statistical genius on that side, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who in an attempt to rally the troops got up and decided that he wanted to give us a lesson in statistics.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: He tripped over and fell into his Birks' box - that's what happened to him.

[ Page 137 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I think is important is that ministers of the Grown, particularly a Minister of Labour who takes the trouble to be responsible for the production of a Labour Research Bulletin that comes out every month and is full of a great deal of interest, should not in any way, when speaking, attempt to suggest to the House that statistics and the situation in terms of the labour market, jobs and women, are anything but what the facts are in the publication that he puts out. He said in his speech that when the government took over in January, 1976, there were 973,000 people employed. Now I'm not sure why he said that. Perhaps he was trying to leave the impression that once we got over the million mark in terms of the labour force and then we really got going things would be pretty good.

Now I'd like to point out to the minister, just for his interest, Mr. Speaker, that according to the Labour Research Bulletin, January, 1977, which covers the years 1975 and 1976, the labour force figures started in April, 1975, to go over one million. By the time we got to December, 1975, there were 1,013, 000 people in the work force. Social Credit took office in December, and by January we had 973,000. We had 994,000 in February and then we started to go up gradually again, over the million mark, to 1,051, 000. Right now, in the statistics in terms of the labour force, which he did quote to us, we have something over 1,130, 000 people in the work force, but we do have a large number of unemployed - the kind of unemployment that isn't acceptable not just to this side; it's not an acceptable proposition.

Now I just want to point out to the minister that it's all very well for us to talk about the broad question of statistics, to say we've got 115,000 unemployed or, as the Premier was wont to do the other night on TV, argue with the press about whether it's 115,000 or 109,000. 1 do not think that's what's important. What we have to try and understand is: what does unemployment mean?

I was in touch with the employment and immigration department of the federal government the other day. That's the new name for Canada Manpower. I asked them if they would give me some figures on the number of people who were collecting unemployment insurance in certain areas of the province. I wanted to get some idea, without getting into all of the statistical analysis and seasonally unemployed. They sent me a letter which arrived today and they say: 'Further to your telephone conversation, here are the unemployment insurance counts for selected communities as of March 24, 19 78. " The communities that I asked them to tell me about were Victoria, Nanaimo, Campbell River, Mission, Chilliwack, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Prince George, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John a-d Cranbrook. The total number of people registered for unemployment insurance in those 12 areas is just under 38,000.

I think that when we talk about unemployment we should really look at a town and try to get some understanding of what kind of human misery is created. For instance, let's take Kelowna. According to the employment and immigration department of the Canadian government, there are 4,103 people in Kelowna who are registered for unemployment insurance. They are getting cheques. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) pointed out that there was an advertisement in one of the newspapers which demonstrated that there were some 264 businesses for sale, and he reeled off a number of kinds of businesses - motels, restaurants, small stores. No doubt many of those businesses are seeking to sell because business is not good. Well, what do we do when we examine 4,100 people who are unemployed in the town of Kelowna? What kind of impact does that have on small business? You could ask the same question, for instance, in Victoria, where, as of March 24, there were 10,982 people registered for unemployment insurance. In Kamloops, there are 4,473; in Penticton, 1,876. Put them together, Kelowna and Penticton, what - 35 miles apart? Over 6,000 people unemployed. Now this has got to have an incredible impact, both on the community in terms of small business, and big businesses too, because the majority of the food stores are large businesses. It has a lot of impact.

The question that we have been debating on this side of the House, that we've attempted to try and extrapolate from the throne speech, is: what is the government going to do? I for one often have some mixed feelings - even when we were in government - about the kinds of programmes that we create, for instance, for university students. I think it's fine that we create special programmes for university students, because they have to go back to school. We have a very heavy investment in their education and we want to see that they can get back to complete that. But I have always wondered why it w~s that we never really come to grips with that other group of young people who are not university students, who make a very significant part of our unemployment force amongst the youth. There is not a degree of equity there in terms of the

[ Page 138 ]

lower socio-economic groupings or those young people who come from whatever group who don't happen to go to university and are unemployed. So we do have to seek some form of equity there, not just as we've been debating this afternoon about women and the creation of jobs for women but also for the equitable creation of jobs for young people, not just university students. If we are going to put ourselves out for that group, we certainly have to put ourselves out for the other group. Otherwise we often use the argument that we are spending enormous amounts of money with these people. Some of them get into trouble, some of them are on welfare, some of them don't even make it into the labour markets sufficiently long enough to get unemployment insurance. We have a large pool of non-earners who become an expense to the taxpayers. We are not just talking about a small group; we are talking about a very significant group.

When we talk about employment, when we debate it, let's try and relate it very much to what the effects are on the human beings themselves about being unemployed. 1 think that after we get through all of the rhetoric and all of the partisan politics in this House, we should really talk about what most of the people in our society want to do in relation to their contribution. It is my contention that 1 know very few people who don't want to work, contrary to what we hear f rom. all sorts of people. There are very few people who would not work given the opportunity. Those are the great difficulties. It's a question of creating opportunity.

It's not a question of talking about how we cannot have a reasonable social assistance system because somehow we think the people are going to be taking advantage of that. We operate social service programmes for the benefit of the greatest number. If we were to gear the operation of the assistance because we were afraid that somehow we were going to get a great deal of rip-off, we wouldn't get into them in the first place. When we feel that we are being attacked because enough is not happening in terms of job creation, we get very worried. My successor in the Ministry of Human Resources sent up a cry about people who are unemployed going on to the welfare rolls. Well, I say to him, welcome to the club, my friend. I had the same problem when 1 was minister and my predecessor had exactly the same problem.

But 1 think if we talk about these things in a rational way.... Sure, we're a country. I used to refer to British Columbia when I used to go to conferences as the province of last resort in Canada because everybody wanted to come here. We have more sunshine, it's a beautiful place and we do attract people. We attract one heck of a lot of people. But we were never able, never, to talk to the federal government about equity in terms of the load that we carry. We do carry a load because people do come out here and feel that it is the place where they want to live. We carry a load. We couldn't demonstrate to them that in terms of the equalization of payments, we pay our share, but at the same time we're also packing a big load.

In 1975, as I recall, we took in 27 per cent of all of the immigration in this country. That was one of the biggest immigration years - something over 200,000 people. You're talking to the federal ministers about a large number of old people amongst that group. We're going to have to pick them up on the health system. There are young people who are going to have to go into the schools.

There has been no real continuation of that kind of discussion, unfortunately, because we have got ourselves into an incredible box which I think is not productive in this whole debate about national unity. If you go to Kelowna or to Prince George or Fort St. John or Dawson Creek and meet some of the 921 registered for unemployment insurance, their major concern is not national unity. Their major concern is how we're going to get through the winter. What are we going to live on? It's that kind of thing that we have to think about and not in the broad, sweeping kinds of nonsensical generalizations about statistics. That's the important thing. If you don't understand, Mr. Minister, stick your head down on the table and I'll get to you in a minute.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Just keep quiet. I'm sure you will learn something. All we've heard from you in the last two years is all sorts of bravado. You have yet to produce one job, one new job in this province. So just keep quiet and listen. What we're talking about is what concerns people.

I spent the last 16 months since I have been critic of Corporate and Consumer Affairs going around every day, meeting two and three people from the business community. A remarkable thing about them is that you can call them up and say: "I'd like to come and talk to you. You tell me something about what you can help me with and I'll answer some questions." So I've done this. I've been down to your Economic Development people and Iove gone along to some of the staff and talked to a

[ Page 139 ]

range of people. There are some very serious concerns that I have, Mr. Speaker, about the operation of his department. One of the things that comes through when you talk to people -and I don't just mean talking to people who operate places like Can-Cel or MacMillan Bloedel. I'm talking about people who operate small businesses. They have a real concern that lie does not have a concern for them. One has to extrapolate from all the noise and the thunder that he gets involved with, which is very entertaining but not too much in content.

He said yesterday that he had 1,800 inquiries. Now what were the inquiries? He said he had 1,800 inquiries from small business. Were all of those inquiries from small-business people who were concerned about how they could get access to some loans to assist them with their cash flow or to assist them if they wanted to do some inventory building? There's nowhere for them to go. If you go to the IDB people, you practically take out a second mortgage to get some kind of assistance. So there is an opportunity for that minister, certainly when his estimates are on, to tell us exactly what it is that he is prepared to do for small-business people. All we've heard is a lot of talk of 1,800 inquiries. He hasn't told us what the inquiries are. So the important thing is, when he talks about that, to be informative to the people in this House, and also that will go outside into the community and people will understand that he is really thinking about it. The impression you get, of course, is that that's not the case at all.

In my riding, on West Broadway, if you go from McDonald to two blocks east of Alma (which is near Collingwood which is the border) , 31 businesses went bankrupt in the latter part of 1977. They had some major problems. About one-third of them shouldn't have been in business in the first place; they didn't have the business know-how; they had not bothered to get sufficient advice from people - so they shouldn't have been in business. But the other two-thirds were making an attempt but they all suffered basically from the same kind of thing. They suffered from a kind of under-capitalization. It's very easy, I think, for people who have access to large amounts of capital to say: "Don't go into business if you are under-capitalized." There are some people who will take an element of risk. After all, we are often told that in business risk is part of the whole game. So these people go into business and then they look around to see where they can get some help, and that help is not forthcoming. I'm not talking about the large companies that might employ 40, 50 or 75 people. I'm talking about businesses which employ one, two or three people. If you have 30 businesses close down as a result of bankruptcy, you have probably lost somewhere around 75 jobs, 75 jobs feeding maybe 20 or 30 single people and the rest family people. So it affects a lot of people. ,

All right, it's very difficult when you are a government to think about that and then to somehow pull it all across the province in order to give people the feeling that something is being done. MY considered opinion, after spending 16 months looking at this kind of thing, is that it is not being done. What we've had from the Minister of Economic Development is a lot of talk and no action, and no real direction. So when his estimates come up he will have an opportunity to tell us in some very meaningful way just what he is prepared to do. We don't want to hear about the coal business any more. We don't want to hear about what he did in Japan or his version of what he did in Japan, plus the versions of other people about what he did in Japan. We want to hear him tell us in some very cogent terms what it is he is prepared to do. If he can't do it then he had better go further down the line and let one of those young, strapping backbenchers who are dying to get up into the cabinet get up and have a go at it. He's had two years. And in two years we have some very unenviable records. It's been repeated in the House time and time again: we have more business failures than any other province; we have more bankruptcies; we have more foreclosures, and that's a serious problem.

Last August in this House I raised with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) the question of the impending problem of the increase in mortgage foreclosures. 1 asked him to consider a moratorium. I asked him that primarily to see whether in fact we could get his attention and some of the attention of the public. In September and October of last year I and another researcher spent some time in the Land Registry offices of Vancouver and New Westminster and found to our horror that mortgage foreclosures had gone up well over 100 per cent; and they are still climbing. They are climbing at an incredible rate.

But there is an interesting phenomenon that is taking place. This is a phenomenon that is being acted out by young people, young couples who have somehow gotten themselves into a situation where they have purchased a home, very often with assisted home ownership. With two people working and packing a mortgage that

[ Page 140 ]

might be around $500 or $600 a month, all sorts of things can happen. The marriage can break down. If one of the people loses his job, then suddenly they can't make the mortgage payments. And, 10 and behold, something that the industry has not met before is taking place: young people are simply getting up, walking out of the house and leaving it. They have no equity; they can't deal with the situation because if they are unemployed they have no hope of getting a job; and they are not able to carry it.

Let me say that in talking to the mortgage insurance people they themselves have known the kind of problem that they've been facing. In the first nine months of 1977 the Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada found that their losses were in excess of $5.2 million, which is up over 100 per cent over 1976. They've gone to great lengths to allow people a longer period to pay off; they've cancelled payments and told people to come back in three months if their situation changes; they've gone into debt counselling; they've even done some social work. Nevertheless, the problem is very serious. It's far more serious than some of the ministers in the cabinet are prepared to accept. The government has to show some leadership in terms of understanding this problem and doing something about it. It is a very serious problem when we have people who are unable to meet their responsibilities in any way whose only alternative is to walk away from them.

We talked about bankruptcies. Well, in the bankruptcies situation I am informed by the specialist down at the Corporate and Consumer Affairs - the federal office which is responsible for dealing with these matters -that the f figures that we see in terms of bankruptcies represent only a third of the actual business failures that are taking place. There is one-third devoted to the business of receiverships which is not a matter of record in terms of the statistics that they gather. Then again, there is the other third that relates to the people who simply close up, walk away, aren't interested in their creditors and just disappear.

Now surely we have to ask ourselves that when you put all of that together - the serious problem in terms of the business failures and the mortgage foreclosures and people's reaction to how to deal with it - You people, particularly on the other side, must be concerned. After all, what is crumbling is the system that you support. You feel that the free-enterprise system is the answer. Yet, as I've said earlier, we can show all sorts of economic indicators that tell us that we're in terrible shape. Yet you can - and not too vigorously, I might say, Mr. Speaker - defend the system. We didn't have a very vigorous defence of the system by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) ; I think he is too sage a politician to get into that kind of a box.

But something is happening to that system. We on this side have said for many years that the system cannot work by itself, that you're going to have to get involved and accept that there has got to be some kind of mixed-economy approach. You might very well say to yourselves that unfortunately the government becomes the employer of last resort in this country. We find that some of the business people, particularly the multinational people, much prefer to make business decisions in terms of where they invest in other countries. Surely those are serious problems that that government which speaks for the free-enterprise system has to think about, not just to ignore and to go sailing along and then, when the debate comes around the throne speech, produce a document. They tell us that every problem that we have in this province is mentioned in this document; and also that in terms of job creation we are doing something new: we're going to have a building programme; we're going to build more schools, more hospitals and community clinics. Mr. Speaker, we might very well ask: "Well, what's new under the sun if that's the employment programme?"

It reminds me of the kind of thing that Gillespie did to the First Ministers when they were down there a couple of months ago, when he talked about the incredible investments in energy and said, "We're going to generate hundreds of thousands of jobs, " until somebody pointed out to him: "Hey, that stuff is already in operation anyway." Well, that's the same kind of thing that you're doing. That's what they doing, Mr. Speaker. They're telling us that they're going to create more jobs with programmes for building that have been on the books, that are budgeted for. So what's new? Nothing is new, nothing is new.

If they had anything really new, the Premier would have been out on the steps in front of those 2,000 people last week and saying to them: "This is what we, re going to do. " But you couldn't go out on the steps with this kind of thing because he doesn't deliver anything for people. It's not new; its the same kind of argument that we heard before from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) .

She makes a virtue out of saying that she has not cut back on the grants to the Status of Women. Well, isn't that beautiful? The fact

[ Page 141 ]

that the grant was the same in 1975,1976 and 1977 - she hasn't cut back - completely ignores some of the economic facts about increase in costs. They haven't cut back? Of course, she's cut back, probably on the order of 30 per cent in terms of the value of the money that she's granted, and yet we have an idiotic statement that she hasn't cut back. Yet she can live with that kind of thing. I can't live with that. That kind of logic I can't live with. To me that's incredible, that kind of logic.

It's the same as it relates to the business of job creation. Be specific! Tell us if you're going to; then we probably are going to have to wait now until next Monday to see what we I re going to get.

But I want to go back to discuss again some of the issues surrounding the problems of small-business people because the government has made some special mention in the budget. And I don't know why they've done that. It may very well be because they've perhaps seen that many of us on this side have taken some trouble to try and understand the problems of those people, particularly members who represent rural areas where small businesses become the vital parts of the community - the everyday kind of living where people are affected by the corner store or the hardware store, that kind of thing. So they've given some special mention to the business community.

That indicates to me that they must be very concerned about what is happening to the: business community out there. They cannot just pass off in generalized statements about what they say they think they've done in terms of small business. Now that's going to have to come down to something very specific. If that budget next week in terms of small-business does not include an availability to small business people who want to go into business and who are in business some access to funds that will assist them in the day-to-day operations and their cash flow and that kind of thing, then it's not going to be very successful.

We have not been successful at all in this province or in Canada in bringing the banks to heel in terms of their responsibility to all of the community, and particularly to the small business community. That hasn't happened. Of all of the operations of the enterprises that go on in this country, the banks go sailing ahead with 25 and 30 per cent increase in their profits by the quarter. Twenty-seven per cent in the first quarter of this year is what their profits are an incredible increase in their assets yet there's no sense of responsibility, nothing forthcoming from the government or the Minister of Finance about what's going to happen in that respect. So we have to be concerned about what is going to happen in terms of the programmes that they are going to put into operation.

If we think that we can ignore this and that we can go along and simply think that somehow the economy will get better as time goes by when we have no indicators.... Members over there have referred to the Conference Board of Canada. Well, I have never seen such a jumped-up upside-down operation in my life in the conference board of Canada. You could pick up the paper every two months and you see a different version of what the state of the economy of British Columbia is going to be -every two months. They are using indicators that they actually develop every couple of months. As soon as something goes up a little bit, they say it's fine and then the next month they say it's not so fine. That's what we're relying on.

Is the government relying on any other kind of indicators? Have they built any kind of capability to get some understanding of just where the economy is going, what the problems are, whether in fact it's going to be necessary to do some change in terms of the taxation policy to put some money in people's pockets? Those are the kinds of problems that people are meeting.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, in the months of February, March and April, what happens to people in this province every year, particularly since 1976, when you have to talk about the increase in the automobile insurance rates? People are looking at their taxation problem when they have to fill out their taxes and they have to look at what's available. Those are the kinds of realistic problems that people face every year.

The government two years ago started out, in my perception, to teach the voter a lesson. So they brought down the harsh measures, and they've continued with the same kind of measures. We have no indication whatsoever that anything at all is on the horizon. The Premier went down to Ottawa, he talked about a national strategy and he kind of got laughed out of the arena. We're more interested in a provincial strategy. With the 10 or 12 volumes which are devoted to his ideas of how you solve problems for most of Canada, we have enough trouble dealing with the problems here.

Besides, who is listening down there? If it's not this month or next month, in two or three months we I re going to have a federal election. Maybe we'll have the Liberals in;

[ Page 142 ]

maybe we'll have the Conservatives in. You won't notice any change; just the colours will be different. You will have the big blue machine instead of the big red machine. But that's it.

So our urgency is to deal with problems here - to deal with those problems because they are not getting any better. The employment situation is not getting any better and it's not unpatriotic to say that. People over there somehow feel that the opposition should join you in your wallowing in the kind of directionless paths that you are taking simply because to talk any other way is unpatriotic. Our job is to wake some proposals, to oppose you in some of the things that you do, to depose you, and as we did in the last two years, to expose some of the things that were going on. So don't tell us that we shouldn't talk badly about the state of the province, because when we talk about the facts, that's the state of the province. What you have to do is to say: "That's the way it is and it will get better."

Three weeks ago I was in Penticton. There was a debate going on in the Penticton Herald between two people regarding the farm income assurance. I am informed by local people that one person who wrote one letter which was printed in almost four columns in the paper was a well-known conservative and the other one was a well-known socialist. They were both giving a bad time to the Minister of Agriculture (Ron. Mr. Hewitt) .

But what are they talking about? They are using as an example the fact that he has cut back the programme by 14 per cent. He is quoted in the paper, very much like the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy): "No, I didn't cut it back." One of the arguments that one of the people used was that if he has cut back by 14 per cent, and they just used the city of Penticton as an example, what effect would that be on the people in the Penticton area if that kind of cut goes ahead? The person suggested that there would be a loss of some $600,000 to the farmers in that area because of the 15 per cent. Then they talked about the multiplier effect of the expenditure of that money and they suggested that there was a loss in the community of $2 million to $3 million.

All right, that's one particular problem created by one minister in relation to one town - a loss of income of some $3 million in terms of what rolls over the community. Now we know that in the Kelowna area it's a very, very flat area right now economically. There's a high unemployment rate and there is a very high rate of business failures. Yet along comes the Minister of Agriculture and his contribution to that problem is to make it worse.

I'm not taking about the whole province tonight; I'm talking about Penticton. We can also use a similar example around the Kelowna area. Those are the realities of dealing not with the whole province but talking about specifics in terms of towns like Kelowna and Penticton.

Of course, we could adopt the philosophy of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) . He's very enamoured of South Korea. He thinks we should behave like the South Koreans in terms of our productive capacity over here. lie was over there for three or four days, became an expert, and suggests that that's the way the economy should run over here. He made a speech before the Truck Loggers Association. I'm informed that he was lucky to get out of there with his ears. When his estimates come up we'll have an opportunity to go over that speech and to ask him exactly what he is talking about. What kind of thoughts does he have about the economy of this province, if he's thinking very much in the vein of what goes on in places like South Korea and Indonesia? That's the kind of mentality that we're having to deal with, with the kind of economic neanderthals that live in that government and that kind of thinking.

How can one say that there is anything but an insane approach in terms of the Minister of Agriculture when he wants to cut back this kind of assurance to farmers, when the direct effect is that it's going to affect the community - not just the farmers, but the people who live in that community and who benefit from the expenditure of money that is cut back? It's that kind of thing, it's that kind of short-sightedness that we have to get very excited about. We've had a constant removal of disposable income from people's pockets in all areas of this province and in all ranges of employment and endeavours that people get involved with.

How much more time do I have?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's five.

MR. LEVI: Let me just say this: we can stand here on this side and we can go into great harangues. But it's 10 o'clock at night and we want to be quieter. As you've noticed, Mr. Speaker, it's been kind of quiet. You and I have had an opportunity for this one-way exchange, which is the way it should be - much more pleasant that way.

But the main thing is that what I've been attempting to do is to reduce the enormity of

[ Page 143 ]

the problem that exists in this province in terms of the economy to human terms, in terms of the people who are unemployed in the various towns that I've talked about, in terms of the people who operate the businesses and find that the business is going to go bankrupt, in terms of the young people who are losing their homes. They are part of the victims of that whole problem of mortgage foreclosures. And we know that they're not the only victims because there are people who have money invested in mortgages, and they also are victims. The reality is in terms of the everyday problems of the human beings that are affected by these things. These are very serious problems and they look to the government for some kinds of solutions.

I'm hoping that when we get into the debate with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) that we can talk about some of the problems of AHOP - whether in fact that is the kind of programme that can really assist people. In fact what you do is pile debt upon debt, and then if you want to be able to get out of it .... Some of you may have read the remarks of Henry Block, who said people walk away from many of their obligations in terms of any pending mortgage foreclosure because they can't find any way to extricate themselves, particularly from some of the involvements in AHOP. If they have an $1,800 payback to make if they want to get out in short time, it becomes twice that amount -something that's very difficult for them to handle.

So in respect to those problems, those very human problems in relation to the economy, particularly now dealing not in the broad, large corporation sense but in the very human individual sense, I join with my colleagues in being opposed to this Speech from the Throne. I want to move an amendment which is seconded by Mr. Lea, the member for Prince Rupert, that the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the words: "...but this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to provide any positive policies to stem the rising tide of personal and business bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, perhaps you could care to have this regularized by having the seconder sign the motion.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: The motion reads:

"That the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the words: '...but that this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to provide any positive policies to stem the rising tide of personal and business bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures.' "

The motion appears to be in order. Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can you inform the House as to how many amendments are permitted on this motion?

MR. SPEAKER: In the address to the reply, to the best of my knowledge, it's an unlimited number of amendments. However, there is a limited amount of time for the entire debate. The debate on the question, together with all amendments, must be covered in eight sittings or six sitting days. That's the limitation.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just to further inform the minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We can't do that by a point of order.

MR. COCKE: On this point of order, all amendments must be complete tomorrow at 5:30.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, there is a time by which amendments must be concluded.

On the amendment.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to join others, when I take my turn in this House, in congratulating you on becoming the Speaker of this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. LEA: I would like to say that I, and I know my colleagues, have faith in your judgment.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) has probably given in this House tonight a very well-thought-out, well-researched speech. I think for that very reason there were very few people listening. I doubt whether there were many people up in the press gallery, because you don't get attention in this House by speeches full of content. You get attention both on the floor of this House and in the press gallery with drama.

Interjection.

[ Page 144 ]

MR. LEA: I have never been thrown out of this House, but I know of some who should be, and I think that will happen at the next election, because flim-flam only goes so far, Mr. Speaker, before voters catch on to flim-flam, and then you'll see a change in this province.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with the number of bankruptcies, both personal and business, that have been going on in this province over the past couple of years. I don't think we can really talk about this unless we examine some of the reasons for those bankruptcies. There are many, and the one major reason that we have business bankruptcies, according to all of the people that I've read who have a great deal of knowledge in terms of business bankruptcies, is a point that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard mentioned in his speech. That is being under-capitalized by either not having the cash to carry them through those low periods or by not having the borrowing power to carry that business through the low periods.

In the Speech from the Throne the government promised to make $20 million more available to the British Columbia Development Corporation to aid small business people, but they put a provision in there to ensure that the $20 million wouldn't be spent. The provision they put in there is that the $20 million has to be spent for expansion. What could be more ridiculous to the small business community, Mr. Speaker, than to have the business community out there with high inventories and no sales and the government offering them money to expand? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) today touched on some of the same problems, and I agree with him. There is not going to be any help for the small business that's worth a tinker's darn unless they get the help in the areas that they need it, and that's in working capital. The member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) , never having been in business - a little land speculation, a little law, but never in business, as I understand it - should maybe listen.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, what kind of business have you been in? Monkey business? Stand up on a point of order and show us your legal background, Mr. Member.

A great many small businesses in this province today have high inventories and no sales, or they've dwindled away their inventories just trying to keep their heads above water to meet the ongoing bills that they have to meet at the middle of the month and the end of the month. They have a dwindling stock, and what they need is money to put that stock back in when hopefully the good times come in the summertime, beginning hopefully this month, April, the good season for retail trade, usually - and let's hope it is again this year, or at least better than it's been this past winter.

But where is the money going to come from? I went to the Federal Business Development Bank and said to them: "What do you require from a business person before you'll lend him some money to get him through the bad times?" And they said: "What you have to have is to be turned down by banks three times." You have to be turned down by the bank three times before you can get money from the Federal Business Development Bank for anything, and then, only for capital expenditures, for new buildings or new machinery. Nothing for stock and nothing for working capital, the two areas that the small business people need some aid in in this province.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) knows that that's true, and yet he stands up in the House and talks about $20 million going into the British Columbia Development Corporation to aid small business, tied to expansions of businesses where there's no business to go. How in the world ... ?

Now what's happening? The savings accounts in this province and in this country are going higher all the time. The people who have some money to spend are not spending it. They're putting it in savings accounts because they're afraid of the future. They're afraid that they may be next to be laid off. If they're a civil servant of this province, they're afraid they may be next to get the axe, like the employees of the Ministry of Highways and Public Works. People are afraid to spend their money because they are not sure what the future is going to bring them. The other people have no money to spend, so there sits the retailer with stock and no sales. And this government says that they're going to lend them some money to expand. What could be more ridiculous? The Minister of Economic Development knows it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against the programme, are you?

MR. LEA: Yes, I'm against the programme. The minister says: "You're against the programme?" Yes, I'm against the programme because there is no programme. As a matter of fact, I took a bit of time in the last week to check your ministry to see what is available, and you

[ Page 145 ]

know what's available? Nothing. When you take your place you tell us what is available to small business, because there is nothing available to the small-business community in this province from the federal department or from your ministry. There is nothing available. You can get something if you can prove to them you don't need it. That's what you can get. Prove to them that you don't need it as a small business, and you can get some money. It's kind of nice. I think that the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) would agree with me.

MR. KERSTER: I've never applied for a bootlegger's loan.

MR. LEA: He says that he's never applied for a bootlegger's loan. Business must be good. The member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) comes in the House, admits that he's a bootlegger, and then says that he can't get a loan to carry on his business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to the amendment.

MR. LEA: Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the small business community going to do? Not only are they under the gun from not having the availability of low-interest loans for working capital, but they're also faced by other problems in this country. They're faced with central Canada. They're faced with the freight rate structure that is designed to take every job that is created in secondary industry and shove it into Ontario. They're faced with that. They're faced with a tariff system that will do exactly the same thing, again bringing about bankruptcy in this province.

They're also faced with not having any warehousing in western Canada. There isn't one company that I know of in western Canada that warehouses anything that can be mentioned with more than a breath. When you want something as a small businessman, or a small businesswoman, in western Canada you have to order it, and it goes down to Ontario, where you know something? Most of the companies down there don't warehouse it either. They wait until they get your order before they even start to manufacture it.

Then they're faced with the freight rates, freight rates designed and brought in and maintained by the federal Liberal party to make sure they get votes in Ontario. The minute they relax those freight rate structures, and the minute they relax the tariffs, there's going to be a little bit of economic equality in this country and the people in Ontario, the federal Liberal party feels, will be mad at them. They don't even have the faith in the Ontario people to realize that maybe somebody in Ontario wants a little bit of equity and a little bit of fairness in this country also. That's a fact. That's right.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You'll agree with that? I better think it out. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of problem that are breaking small business people in this province. What is this government doing about it? Have they even told the small business community that they recognize the problem? Most of them are small business people. Have you gone out and told them that you see there's a problem, and that you're going to do something about it in real terms: like money; low interest loans for stock; low interest loans for working capital - that you're going to do something about the tariffs; that you're going to go to Ottawa and tell Ottawa: "If you don't change it, we're going to work against you in the next federal election, because we're going to get the beans out of the bag."?

AN HON. MEMBER: Grants?

MR. LEA: Grants? You're darned right some grants, because if we're talking about having faith in the small business community in this province, maybe we're going to have to look at some grants for the small business community. I guarantee you that if we keep going in the direction we're going there won't be a small business community in this provinces within 10 years. There won't be one.

You know, oddly enough, a great many small-business people in this province consider their customers their enemies and their competitors their friends. They think that working people who are getting good wages are their enemies - you know, their customers - and they think that Simpsons and Eaton's are their friends. Can you figure that out, Mr. Speaker? It's hard to figure out, but they actually do figure that. And I'm telling you that small business can't compete with revolving credit at Eaton's and they can't compete with revolving credit at the Hudson's Bay.

A neighbour of mine told me that he had a used television for sale in his store just before Christmas. A guy came in, looked at the television and said: "It's perfect; it's in perfect working order. I'd like to buy the

[ Page 146 ]

television set." After Christmas, the guy came back and said: "By the way, Vic, I'm sorry I couldn't buy the television set from you because I couldn't afford it. I had to go to Eaton's and get one for $600, because they've got revolving credit."

How can the small-business community compete with that revolving credit plan? It can't.

Now we can get into another conversation about whether people should take that kind of credit, but, you know, it's pushed at them every day on television: "Buy more. You're not as good as the Joneses unless you have a new TV. You're not as good as the Joneses unless you have a new car." And every day that government stands over there talking about restraint, and they don't do a darned thing about some of the phony advertising on TV not a darned thing.

MR. BARRETT: Have them buy a Chevrolet.

MR. LEA: That's right. Are you going to try and sell more cars, Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , or are you going to show restraint?

MR. BARRETT: Keep the Wolfe from the door.

MR. LEA: Are you going to let them charge those cars up and put themselves into debt they can never recover from, or are you going to show restraint? Where is the responsibility? It is not only with the consumer, it has to be with the retailer also. There has to be some responsibility there also.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never said: "Don't buy cars."

MR. LEA: The federal government, because it needs those Ontario votes, doesn't give a damn about western Canada. They've proven it for over 100 years. What's this government going to do about it? It's half Liberals anyway. What are they going to do about it? They took part, as the Liberal Party, in bringing western Canada down on its knees asking for freight rate changes and asking for tariff changes. And, by God, now we've got some economic clout we shouldn't get down on our knees to those people any longer. We should demand equality. If we don't get equality -social and economic - then we are going to have disunity. Because when we have inequality, economically and socially, that will lead to separation of western Canada and disunity. That's what it will lead to. There is still time to hold this country together, but it is going to take a provincial government in this province, a provincial government in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that say: "We've had enough! We want equality!"

We're going to have a lot more bankruptcies in this province unless that government recognizes what is bringing it about: inequality with central Canada; inequality in terms of loans to business. Big businesses have no problems in getting loans, either for working capital or for inventory, only small businesses. And this government, all political parties in this province, all western Canadians had better start thinking about which direction we are going and which direction we want to go if we are going to stave off more bankruptcies and more and more and more until there's no small-business community left in this province or in western Canada, because that is the direction we are going. I don't think that it is socially desirable to deal with only great, huge department stores, great, huge shopping centres where you are a number. I think it is kind of nice to go into a family business and say hello to the guy who owns it. He knows you and you know him and there's some trust, and you know you are going to get some service And you know if you don't that you can go back and you can complain. Those people are not going to make it until they have a fair shake out of this government. And they are not getting it because that $20 million will not go to those people. Everybody in this House of every party knows that that $20 million will not reach the small-business community that needs it. Everybody knows it. Who the heck is going to expand? You can't sell the goods you've got. And they are going to give them money to expand - into what economy?

It's great for the minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to run around talking about huge, gigantic projects that look politically good. The small-business community cannot wait. They can't wait for him to amuse himself. Mr. Speaker, they need help now. It's been a long, hard winter for the retailers and small manufacturers in this province.

You know, those of us who draw pay cheques -that includes everybody in here; it includes people working for corporations, whether they're unionized or staffed; everybody who draws a pay cheque; it includes the press gallery - sometimes forget that those people who are not drawing a pay cheque are going through a different kind of economic problem right now. I am surprised that the people from the small business community that formed the

[ Page 147 ]

ranks of that party over there and that government over there have forgotten so soon, that they would actually put $20 million dollars into the British Columbia Development Corporation for expansion of small businesses.

You know, I met an ex-Social Credit member of this House today and in general terms I told him what I'm telling you tonight, and he told me that the small business community doesn't need any aid with their inventory money; they don't need any aid for working capital. he says: "What they've had to do is get their butts in off the golf course and go to work." I've got news for him. They did that last November, last October, last September. The last two years they've been in from the golf course because they had to lay off the last person hired, they had to scale down their business, they had to withdraw and they had to get into the guts of the business themselves and work to keep their heads above water. They're not out on the golf course any longer but the ex-MLA Socred who told me that is drawing a pay cheque from the British Columbia Development Corporation. People who draw pay cheques sometimes tend to forget.

But everybody on that side of the House and on this side of the House knows that I've touched on the problem. They also know that that $20 million is not going to do one bit of good because it isn't going to reach the people who need the money. If you're talking about faith in this province, then you'd better have a little faith in the small business community because 1 don't think that any of us would want to live in this province if we didn't have the morale - not one of us. Yet we see a government that's bound and determined to help the big corporations and do nothing for the small ones. I guess it sounds better. The Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) looks over and scowls.

MR. KING: No, he's looking natural.

MR. LEA: When was the last time you didn't draw a pay cheque?

AN HON. MEMBER: Never.

MR. LEA: Never, never. He doesn't believe in it. That's right, he's never taken a risk in this system; he's always worked for someone else. Does he understand? Does he understand at $48,000 a year? No, I don't think it's too much for a cabinet minister to draw. As a matter of fact, 1 think it's too little for the responsibility that the cabinet has.

That's not the point. It's easy to forget what is going on in the real world. And what's going on in the real world is that business after business after business in this province is going bankrupt. You know what they need? A little cash, a little faith. They don't want the cash for nothing. They would gladly go out and borrow some working capital from the British Columbia Development Corporation, but they are not going to get any of the $20 million, none of it. The minister knows it, Mr. Speaker, and I know it and everybody in this House knows it. They are not going to get any of it. Those people on that side of the House, who know probably better than most in this province what it means, should hang their heads in shame because they have lost themselves in politics. They forget where they are from. But I'll tell you, if they keep on acting the way they have, they will be going back. Let's hope it isn't too late because, I am telling you, the small business community is in trouble and that $20 million isn't going to get to them and there's going to be more bankruptcies unless you show some faith and put up some cash. Or they're not going to make it through. Only the big ones and that's all we will have to deal with as consumers, Mr. Speaker, the big ones who don't even know you by name. Just a number on the credit card.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're so sincere.

MR. LEA: You know, Mr. Speaker, I listened to that minister when lie was on the air, and to have that remark come from him who after he ran for the Conservative Party said: "All the voters want is to be conned and lied to and they will be satisfied...." To come from that man, to come f rom him.... He doesn't deserve to be in this House, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't deserve to be in this House or any other House of honour.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I really hadn't intended to get up and speak against this amendment to the throne speech. However, that member over there and his lack of knowledge of what is going on in this province have prompted me to say just a few short words to put the record straight.

I believe I heard him correctly when he said he went to my department and he found there was nothing available for the small businessman. All he could talk about was the $20 million ASEP programme which is available to help the manufacturing industry in this province. He said there was nothing happening in the manufacturing sector. He said that those who did manufacture something couldn't sell their goods.

Well, evidently, Mr. Speaker, the member for

[ Page 148 ]

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) - or is he from Victoria now? - who is now a small businessman.... I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if business is so bad, why did he go into a small business?

Mr. Speaker, for the record again - it's in the throne speech - but for the members of the House, I want to make a quote.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Just one moment please, hon. member, and we'll see whether we can get some order. Would the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Ron. Mr. Mair) , together with his sparring partners across the room, please come to order?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to make a quote from the throne speech which is a fact -statistics which do not lie, not political rhetoric and gloom-and-doom which we hear from the other side of the House. You know, Mr. Speaker, they realize that they've only got one chance left. They were thrown out in Manitoba; they were thrown out in B.C. They're hanging on by the skin of their teeth in Saskatchewan. This is their last-ditch effort and we have to put up with it.

But the fact: "It is further encouraging to report that investment in manufacturing during 1977 rose by 21 per cent in real terms." Now maybe the member doesn't agree with that. Well, I'll give him another fact. Manufacturing: provincial manufacturing industry shipments in November of 1977 were worth $881.1 million, up 17.3 per cent or $129.9 million over November of 1976. Now those are facts. Every sector except electrical products recorded value gains, with wood products, paper products, transportation equipment registering significant advances, and on and on. And he said they couldn't sell what they produced.

Let me throw another figure at you. Consumer spending accelerated in the final months in 1977. November retail sales at $674.7 million were 9.5 per cent above the prior month, and 16.2 per cent greater than November of 1976.

Now the ironic part of it, Mr. Speaker, is this. During their three short years of office.... After trying to become government for 20 years, they stayed in for three years and the people heaved them out because while they were there they did nothing. But during their three years of office, did they go to Ottawa? Did they sign an agreement to give help to the small businessman? No, they did absolutely nothing.

If the member went to my department, I don't know, he must have been talking to the wall, because we have in the department a little programme which we call ASEP - Assistance to Small Enterprise. This is part of the industrial development subsidiary agreement which we signed with Ottawa. They were in for three years and did absolutely nothing but go down to Ottawa and act the buffoon, all of them.

I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in the House that we've had 1,721 inquiries. This isn't the latest report. It's more than that; it's over 1,800 now.

Let's just take a look at some of the small businesses in this province that are taking advantage of this great, progressive programme. We have one in the knock-down furniture business, we have one in sealed-unit windows; one in sailing craft; one in tool and die making; one in custom cabinets and wood-working; one in the wholesale bakery business; one in printing plates; one in oil dispensing; one in steel and aluminium custom manufacturing and fabricating; one in weed-control equipment; boats; precast concrete manhole bases; abattoirs; doll houses and furniture; wooden giftware; small sawmills; aluminium gutters; cedar shakes and shingles; heavy-duty bolts; precast concrete steps and sidewalks; gravel processing; sealed window units; and on and on and on.

So, Mr. Speaker, it grieves my heart to have to sit here in this Legislature and listen to the gobbledegook garbage that emanates from the other side of the House, particularly from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he should know better. To think that that man was the Minister of Potholes! Yes, my friend, we're making loans every day and another $20 million was okayed today. And that's assistance to small business people, up to $35,000; people who need to put a little cash together, the small people you were talking about. It's a good programme, a programme that's working, and I want to tell you the record will speak for itself. We'll be here when you're long gone, my friend, because you tried for 20 years to get in, you blew it, and the people chucked you out because your policies were alien to the great province of British Columbia, and you'll never be back, my friend.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask that in the tradition of the Legislature the document the hon. minister was referring to be tabled with the Clerk.

HON. W. PHILLIPS: I'll table them and I'll table the results of these great economic

[ Page 149 ]

policies and all of the people of British Columbia will know about them.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has given us assurance that he will table the document in due course.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when any minister refers to a document in his remarks to this Legislature he's required to table it so that the other members can see whether the minister is telling the truth or not - and that means table it forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Ron. members, in order to determine how extensively the minister referred to the document, because the rule provides that if tie reads from the document.... We will determine it from the Blues, and if it can be determined that that rule applies, we'll ask the hon. minister to table. Is that satisfactory?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to take my place in this debate on the amendment, after the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , to possibly bring back some quiet dignity and a little veracity to what's being dealt with in the House here. They say that statistics don't lie but liars figure, or figures don't lie but liars figure, and it seems that that's what's been happening in a few of the statements.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. member: are you impugning any member by that statement?

MR. SKELLY: Obviously not. I would not do that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Because if you are, I must ask you to withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: I'm just quoting an old saw that's been commonly used in the House, so I expect it's acceptable.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. SKELLY: But some of the things that the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry, for example, has said tonight, Mr. Speaker, about the travel industry expanding this year greater in British Columbia than in any other province.... In fact, that may apply to this year over last year, or 1977 over 1976. But on Vancouver Island, Mr. Speaker, travel and people traveling to Vancouver Island still hasn't reached the same level as it reached in 1975 under the New Democratic Party government when it reached the highest peak in the history of this province and has not reached that level since. The reason is an increase in ferry rates. These people talk about incentives to small business, about encouragement to small business.

Rather than overrunning the minister's department by $900,000, Mr. Speaker, promoting the minister as much as travel industry and probably more than travel industry in this province, if the minister spent an equal amount lowering ferry rates to Vancouver Island then we wouldn't see the rate of bankruptcies that we see in travel industry on Vancouver Island right now.

When those ferry rates went up, the minister said: "Oh, it's a problem with the weather in 1976. We're having some difficulty with the weather; that's the reason why travel industry has gone flat on Vancouver Island." And she said: "People in the industry weren't polite; they weren't going that extra mile." She said that right in this House, which was an insult to people involved in that industry, on this Island. As a result of her policies and policies of this government, the travel industry on Vancouver Island has suffered, and motel and restaurant enterprises have gone bankrupt in central Vancouver Island as a direct result of their policies.

Talk about availability of money for people in the travel industry, availability of loans from the government - there is nothing available. Talk about expansion of that industry when the government is unwilling to provide incentives to the travel industry by lowering the ferry rates. Why borrow money to expand when you are just going deeper into the hole?

They talk about employment creation in this throne speech that they presented this session, Mr. Speaker, with nothing in it for the tourist industry on Vancouver Island. People have been laid off in that industry; people have lost their jobs in motels and restaurants and are unable to work on central Vancouver Island. It's a direct cause of loss of jobs on central Vancouver Island.

This government is directly responsible for the collapse of numerous small businesses. I receive letter after letter - and these are f rom people who haven't traditionally supported the New Democratic Party, but many of them do now - showing that occupancy days in the motels that they own have declined, and started to decline not because of the weather, but in April, 1976, when that minister - and we were grateful when he was sacked as minister responsible for the ferries - made the announcement that ferry rates were going

[ Page 150 ]

to go up.

Immediately occupancy nights in motels on central Vancouver Island dropped off. People didn't know when the rates were going to up. They didn't know whether they'd be able to get back and forth from the mainland. When the rates did go up, the motel industry collapsed on central Vancouver Island - and you know it - and that was the reason for the small business collapse in that area. So this government can take the responsibility more than any other government, more than any other reason for that loss of business and for the loss of jobs in that industry. It affected numerous ridings on Vancouver Island.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: And on the Sunshine Coast.

MR. SKELLY: And on the Sunshine Coast.

The minister talks about $20 million being made available for manufacturing industries and he talks about money being made available for small business. But, Mr. Speaker, the red tape attached to getting those loans and to getting that money is so fantastic that people cannot get involved in those programmes. I've had people in my riding come to me to attempt to get assistance from the minister's department in raising money for some pretty worthwhile enterprises, enterprises involved in alternate energy development, in home insulation programmes, thermal glass, cutting down on energy consumption.

Industry is based on valid technology and expanding technology all over Canada but not here in British Columbia. We talk about spending $400 million to build a single 500 kilovolt transmission line across the Strait of Georgia. We're willing to borrow that money in New York or overseas to help B.C. Hydro build a transmission line that will result in no jobs on Vancouver Island. How many jobs are to be created by that project?

AN RON. MEMBER: Zero.

MR. SKELLY: Zero, if the project goes ahead. But they're willing to spend $400 million on that. How much do they spend on manufacturing industry, if they can ever get it spent on expansion of manufacturing industry in British Columbia? Twenty million dollars. Four hundred million for B.C. hydro, a billion on the Revelstoke Dam for B.C. Hydro, $20 million -if that - for small business, if they can possibly take advantage of it because of decreasing markets and because of the amount of red tape they have to go through in that minister's department.

Mr. Speaker, that minister more than anyone else in this province and that government more than anything else in this province is responsible for the number of bankruptcies we've experienced over the last few Years. And there are headlines like this: "Bankrupt B.C. Firms Top Losers in Canada." We have a third of all the bankruptcies in Canada right here in British Columbia and the top money losers right here in British Columbia because we don't have a government that is supportive of small business and we don't have a minister that's capable of understanding what , small business is all about. I strongly support this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 17

NAYS - 32

MR. LAUK: On a point of order pursuant to my original point of order, Mr. Speaker, I refer the Speaker to page 431, 19th edition of May. Briefly, it just states:

"Another rule or principle of debate may be added. A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table. This' restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it

[ Page 151 ]

has been generally acquiesced in...." and I add my own words - by honourable ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: If you can follow through to the end of the paragraph, it also says: "It has also been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interests.

The next section says: "A minister who summarizes a correspondence but does not actually quote from it is not bound to lay it upon the table." 1 cite the rest of the paragraph not to take issue with the member on his point of order, but rather to give the full explanation of the rule as we see it, and to suggest again that it will require some review to determine to what extent the quotation took place.

MR LAUK: 1 only raise the point to point out to Mr. Speaker that there is no question in this chamber, at least by honest members, that the minister was reading from the document. That's not in question, and I don't quite understand the street-gang mentality when they thumb at the reading of the rules of the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not part of the point of order.

Hon. Mr. Phillips moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.