1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

133 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Misrepresentation by newspaper report. Mr. Macdonald — 133

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

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

Efficient use of computer. Mr. Wallace — 134

Ferry service to Ocean Falls. Mr. Lockstead — 134

UBCM housing committee hearings. Mr. Skelly — 135

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

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

Use of November grape purchase. Mr. Nicolson — 136

Throne speech debate

On the amendment

Mr. Cocke — 137

Mr. Levi — 138

Mrs. Dailly — 144

Mr. Macdonald — 147

Mr. Nicolson — 149

Mr. D'Arcy — 151

Mr. Barrett — 153

Mr. Lockstead — 156

Mr. King — 157

Mr. Wallace — 167

Hon. Mr. Williams — 165

Division on the amendment — 168

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are 17 students from Oak Bay

Senior Secondary School accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Dave Reimer,

and I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have in

the gallery today a delegation from my constituency of Omineca,

comprising members of the Stellako and Stony Creek Indian bands. These

are students of the band development training programme, who are in

their spokesman, Mr. Clifford Louie, I would like to make special

mention of Lillian Louie, who is the chief of the Stellako band. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask this House to make them welcome.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. In the Vancouver Province

of today's date there is a headline on the second page and a story on

the first page. The headline says, and this is the purport of the

story: "Letter" — referring to a letter I wrote — "Evaded Proposals."

The headline and the

article in its implication are incorrect and

misleading. The purpose of my letter was not to terminate negotiations.

In fact, it offered M.E.L. Paving access to documents and information

in the hands of the government or the B.C. Railway, and expressed a

preliminary opinion only on liability. Any negotiations were in the

hands of B.C. Railway, its solicitor, Mr. Hanrahan, and Charles

Maclean, shortly appointed.

My letter was not intended to prevent, nor did it, meetings between

the B.C. Railway and M.E.L. Paving. The purpose of the letter was to

deal with grave accusations of fraud detailed by Derril Warren at a

meeting between himself, the Premier (Mr. Barrett) and myself in

August, 1974. These accusations were that the Social Credit government

of that day had deliberately altered quantity estimates received from

B.C. Railway engineers. I was not at the meeting as a negotiator or

economic adviser, but because of the legal implications of these

allegations.

As Attorney-General, I had to determine whether the allegations amounted to

charges of criminal fraud. Such allegations brought to the attention of the

chief law officer of the Crown would call for investigation by criminal fraud

personnel at the RCMP. Derril Warren said he was alleging civil fraud only,

but I had to assure myself, after study, that in fact they should not be directed

for criminal investigation based upon information then available.

I concluded that the allegations were of civil fraud and did not

then warrant, based upon the information at hand, criminal

investigation; and therefore I advised him by letter accordingly, but

at the same time offered him access to records under government

control. It was my opinion then, and is today, that these grave

allegations of fraud should have been adjudicated upon in open court.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have listened to a statement by

the hon. first member for Vancouver East, and I have failed, in

listening to this statement, to determine your point of privilege, hon.

member. That was what you rose and sought the floor on.

MR. MACDONALD ; Well, Mr. Speaker, under the parliamentary rules, if

a member has been misrepresented in the press, then that is a matter of privilege.

There are numerous precedents to that effect. That was my point of privilege.

It's standard in all of the parliaments of the world, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's customary, hon. members, to

follow a statement, when it's a statement given as part of a point of

privilege, with some request for action on the part of the member, or a

motion to that effect. If it's not to be, then I take it that you are

not asking the Speaker, on behalf of the members, to further

investigate the matter; it was a matter of making a statement.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think the member in these

circumstances has a choice. You can, of course, put down a substantive

motion and call people to the bar of the House, but that is the option

of the member. I simply correct the press report.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

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

Oral Questions.

STATUS OF FARM

INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

wish to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. The

Minister of Agriculture is quoted in this morning's paper as hinting

that the Farm Income Assurance Act may be terminated. Is that an

incorrect report, through you, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 134 ]

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

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in

reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I guess I could make a

statement, or ask for a point of privilege to make the same comments

that the hon. first member for Vancouver East made, but I would say

that it is a headline....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The third member.

I would make the comment that the contracts are five-year contracts.

As any good operation should be carried out by any business or any

government, they will be reviewed, and at the time they come due we

will have something to present to agriculture.

EFFICIENT USE OF COMPUTER

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Minister of Finance whether he can confirm that the government has

a Honeywell computer which is sitting almost idle at a lease rate of

about a million dollars a year. If that is the case, what measures are

being taken to put the computer to efficient use?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, through

you to the member: I think in the nature of the question the answer to

it would actually be no, but we are investigating trying to make

further uses of this computer, which is not adaptable to present

confirmations and present programmes of the government. It is under

study by the computer expert we have on tap. I might say that this

computer was ordered by the previous administration…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE: …and is involved in a three-year contract of

upgrading. The serious point in view is that it does not conform to

present adaptations of most government programmes.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question is prompted by the

minister's statement that the answer is actually no: I am wondering

what the difference is between a straight "no" and an "actually no."

But is it correct, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we do

have an arm of government entitled the B.C. Systems Corporation which

is advertising nation-wide for computer personnel to be employed by a

Crown corporation which does not exist and that Mr. McMinn is the

senior advisor in this respect and is being financed in this regard? I

would like to know, if that is the case, from which item of last year's

or the 1976-77 budget all these expenditures are being financed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Member, the present project being

initiated, or under the charge of Mr. McMinn, will be a matter before

the House in the near future in the form of a bill which will give all

members an opportunity to understand the intentions which the

government has in this regard, and which were announced last fall.

MR. WALLACE: If I might have a final supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to address the supplementary to the Premier in

this regard. Can he confirm, then, the contents of his press release of

October 7 that he will be the chairman of the board of the new Crown

corporation, and does this not conflict with his publicly stated

commitment that Crown corporations should be free of political

influence?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The press release, as we placed

it, was an in-House committee allocating time. The chairman of the

board and the board would be independent, but in the House the

government must allocate the time or adjudicate the time between

different departments. That's where it would be an in-House cabinet

meeting.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary — or a final final, if I

may put it that way. Am I to understand then, Mr. Speaker, that the

Premier is making it quite clear that the new Crown corporation will

have no Premier or cabinet ministers involved in the administration of

that Crown corporation?

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

FERRY SERVICE TO OCEAN FALLS

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. In view of the

minister's statement that he will not immediately resume passenger and

a proper freight service to Ocean Falls and the central coast, how can

the minister justify the fact that the Queen of Prince Rupert presently sits idle, fully crewed, two days a week at Topaze Bay?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications):

Mr. Speaker, when the federal subsidy was cut off from Northland

Navigation, B.C. Ferries immediately commenced to stop at the middle

coast at Bella Bella to take on passengers both ways and continues to

do so. On an interim basis, the

[ Page 135 ]

province also arranged, through B.C. Ferries, to

operate a launch nominated by the federal government for a period. It

did so for of the order of a month. The launch broke down; it may

continue to operate shortly.

It's our intention, of course, to look after the people of Ocean

Falls and those other points on the middle coast — their interests and

ours are identical. But we do have under negotiation an arrangement

with the federal government whereby they will reimburse us for part, at

least, of our costs in providing a much better service than they have

had in the past.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While we are all

aware that the present arrangement is completely unsatisfactory and not

even being used by the people on that part of the coast, what I am

asking is: now that the Queen of Prince Rupert is presently

sitting idle at Kelsey Bay or Topaze Bay for two days a week, fully

crewed, and has called at Ocean Falls — and the vessel can handle that

port — why can that vessel not call into Ocean Falls to alleviate the

very grave situation in that community today?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says the vessel

is fully crewed. The vessel is without crew on the days when it is

resting at either end of its trip up and down the coast.

The vessel in question is a ship. It is capable of carrying some 300

people. On the average the traffic in and out of Ocean Falls is of the

order…

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

UBCM

HOUSING COMMITTEE HEARINGS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, a question for the

Minister of Housing relating to the UBCM Joint Committee on Housing

which was set up by the minister earlier last year. In what centres of

the province were hearings held? Were briefs solicited publicly or by

private invitation, and were hearings open to the public or the press?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and take it as notice.

I'll check with respect to the centres. I could name two of them but I

would like to confirm the centres in which the hearings were held.

GRIZZLY VALLEY FIELD GAS RESERVES

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yesterday I was asked by the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) about the gas reserves on which the

pipeline in the Grizzly Valley was predicated. The information that was

researched and provided us by the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, of which

that member used to be a director, said that production tests

demonstrated that there were deliverable reserves in excess of 500

billion cubic feet of gas, with a potential exceeding one trillion

cubic feet.

Now all of this information was made public on December 10 in a very

detailed press release from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. If that

former director is listed, I would like to table it now.

Leave granted.

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

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

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, certainly the former director

of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation would know that the corporation

directs companies active in the field to do tests under supervision of

the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: Does the Premier confirm that these tests were

made by the private companies who had an interest in getting that gas

out at any cost to the public?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Economic

Development, the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources and the

B.C. Petroleum Corporation all had a hand in supervising these tests, I

would hope that the former director of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation,

and now the member for Vancouver East, is not casting any aspersion on

the competency of the staff of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation to carry

out a public function.

[ Page 136 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, again, does the Premier not agree

that the staff of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation did not make these

tests, but they were made by the private companies with an interest in

the result?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: No! No way.

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

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I resent this slur on the B.C.

Petroleum Corporation personnel by someone who should know better, who

is a former director and in this House. I ask the first member for

Vancouver East to apologize to people who have worked for the province.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

DENIAL OF FERRY DATA TO MEMBER

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this question is to the

Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. In December I phoned

the Ferry Authority in order to get information about the number of

passengers and cars which were using the North Island Princess ,

the ferry that runs between Beaver Cove and Kelsey Bay. Your staff

prepared that information and subsequently informed me that I would not

be able to receive it because you had denied permission for them to

release those figures. I wonder if the minister could advise the House

why an elected member of this parliament should be refused information

with respect to passenger and car usage on that particular ferry.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, if the information requested was

of the character of number of passengers carried, number of vehicles

carried and so on, I really don't understand why it wasn't made

available to the member. If it was financial data, I gather this is

customarily released on an annual rather than a monthly basis. But I'll

certainly make inquiries and make sure that the hon. member gets all

the information to which all members are entitled.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister would, at the same

time, inquire who in his staff, then, would have informed this member

that permission had been denied directly by the minister? Would you do

that? Thank you.

USE OF NOVEMBER GRAPE PURCHASE

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister

of Agriculture: can the minister tell the House what has happened to the $227,000

worth of grapes purchased in November?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The grapes that were purchased with the

$227,000, funds that went to the Grape Marketing Board, were converted

into grape concentrate, and we are endeavouring to find a market for

that concentrate in order to recover some of the cost of processing.

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

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

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

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

[ Page 137 ]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I don't have too much more

to say. However, I'm pleased to have that kind of reply to that

statement because, obviously, many of those sitting across the floor

were just a little bit unhappy about hearing some of their past

speeches read back to them.

Mr. Speaker, that unlikely alliance called Social Credit by some, that coalition

of the right — the far right — has really brought this province to a sorry pass.

The prophetic statements of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when,

in 1974, looking back at the old Social Credit history, he said that if you

don't have the broadness of mind and the largeness of heart, the ability

to repent and rethink — and all those statements, which I have here but which

I won't go over.... But after having joined that group which has

shown no repentance, after having joined the group which has carried this province

back into the same kind of state it was in prior, where people are the lowest

priority, obviously where people have to be the lowest priority under the circumstances,

because the last year's effort has provided a reduction in the number of

jobs, an increase in the amount of employment — the employment situation is

intolerable at the present time. We have been shown a business recession due

to this government's incompetence.

Let me just dwell on one aspect of why we are in such a state. The

$500 million robbed from the economy has had a monstrous effect. The

multiplying factor is thought by most economists to be about five

times, so that means that really, in effect, $2.5 billion has been

taken out of this economy, and who suffers? We all suffer, but

particularly, Mr. Speaker, small business people, particularly those

out of work, and when we moved this motion of non-confidence we are

directing blame, because it was this government's policy that robbed

the economy. Therefore, how can anyone, particularly those backbenchers

who sit there plagued, I am sure, as I am, day after day after day,

with letters from their constituents saying: "What am I to do? There

are no opportunities in my area...." There are no opportunities in

Atlin in mining; there are no opportunities in Omineca; in any of the

areas that the back bench represents and, for that matter, Mr. Speaker,

in the areas that the cabinet represents.

I think we're seeing a situation in B.C. that is relatively unique. College

graduates, university graduates, men with degrees — doctorates, Master's

degrees — are out of work, but the ones hardest hit are the ones that were ignored

by this government in the past year, and they were the young. Between the ages

of 19 and 25 we have a situation that's almost unbearable. When we were

government, Mr. Speaker, we had a programme for students. They didn't even

put on a proper programme for students, so how can we think anything but they

have adopted the old philosophy that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

used to scream about and condemn? The Minister of Education gave us a speech

on cabinet solidarity back in 1975. He said at that time: "When one minister

walks a picket line, all ministers walk a picket line." I say now that

when the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) fumbles, Mr. Minister

of Education, all ministers in that government fumble. When that minister's

under a cloud, all ministers are under a cloud. I agree with you, Mr. Minister

of Education, that ministers walk hand in hand and there is such a thing as

cabinet solidarity, and I would respectfully suggest to that cabinet that they

remember this well.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) probably

understands something about the removal of sore spots. I can remember

that Minister of Health so well when he pointed his finger at at least

two senior ICBC employees. You remember those speeches? Oh, yes. He

wanted Gordon Root fired for calling him a two-bit politician. Now I

suggest to you that the sin may be there, but certainly that is not a

kind of a sin like wrecking an economy, or like fumbling, or like

placing the government under a cloud.

I can also remember Mr. Scrivener being fired from ICBC because he

was under attack from the now Minister of Health, charging conflict of

interest.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member….

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that relates.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. It's not a wide-open debate

which can be covered at many other times in many other debates. It's a

matter of the critical state of unemployment in the province affecting

many thousands of our citizens and their families, and the failing to

deal with the impact of widespread unemployment upon the social and

economic life of the province. All I'm suggesting to you is that your

remarks must be strictly pertinent to the amendment and relate to them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the Premier,

the key position in the government is the Minister of Economic

Development if, in fact, he is to put this economy back together again.

Mr. Speaker, let's see a determined effort on the part of this

government to put their house in order so that they may do that: so

that they may put people back to work in the province; so that we can

have some kind of faith in the government of this province to do

[ Page 138 ]

something; and so that the business community can

have faith in the government with whom they deal and the ministers with

whom they deal, in order to put this economy back on the rails. It's on

the rocks, and I suggest to you it must be put back on the rails.

There are people suffering because of their actions. This

government's friends in business, Mr. Speaker, are losing their faith.

If nothing else, I would suggest to them that they better show a better

sense of leadership. I suggest one way of doing it is to remove the

Minister of Economic Development, along with his cloud, for the moment.

The attitude that is best shown by the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf)...and remember this yesterday. The member for Omineca showed the

attitude that seems to be permeating that government today, and I would

hope they can shake this kind of effort. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when

the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked a question of the member for

Omineca, "How many people are unemployed in your riding?", you know his

answer, Mr. Speaker. It's clear in Hansard . He said: "If you're unemployed, you're on unemployment insurance."

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again! Wrong again!

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

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

MR. COCKE: Talk about a hard-hearted, witless lack of

understanding of the people's problems in his own riding. Now, if that

kind of attitude permeates the cabinet benches, Mr. Speaker, we're in

worse shape in this province than I thought we were, and I thought we

were in pretty tough shape.

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

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

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, we're hearing it from the cabinet benches,

too — totally lacking concern; totally lacking thought. What an

attitude, Mr. Speaker; what representatives, if that's their attitude.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they live up to their fine words. Break

with the past arrogant attitude of Social Credit. Maybe this new

coalition can do that. It certainly has shown no signs to date, and

that's why we're suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that we're not confident.

Erase the blot from your present record — and I'm not suggesting that

past record. Let's see you perform. Let's see you perform in this area,

and you know why I ask you to? Because you said you could, and you

haven't. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. I thought the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) was going to get up. Do you want me to sit down?

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

MR. LEVI: Ça ne fait rien ? Mr. Speaker, speaking to the

amendment, and just to clarify for our colleague from Omineca, because

he became very upset when my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

suggested that he had said something which he claims he didn't say,

Hansard records that the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said: "The

figures for up there are 12.61 above the provincial average, in

north-central B.C." — which is where that member comes from — "What's

the unemployment in your riding, Mr. Member for Omineca?" The member is

recorded as saying in Hansard : "If you're unemployed, you're on unemployment insurance."

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

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

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

MS. SANFORD: They get out of the area.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, we have not had one speaker from the

government side who has got up to talk about unemployment. One of the

reasons they haven't been able to talk about it in the throne speech is

because it simply isn't there, except for mention of the students. I

would have hoped that the Premier — the oracle of Kelowna, son of the

Wizard of Oz that used to be here — would be able to tell us how he is

able to make all these projections that he makes in respect to the

economy.

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

"Premier Bill Bennett said Thursday he's more

optimistic about the economy than ever before. He told more than 200

people at a luncheon that the province had shown its best monthly

performance in the past two years in respect to the economy. He said

unemployment of 7.1 per cent is the lowest since the Social Credit

government took office last December."

[ Page 139 ]

Then, some five weeks later, we have an announcement from Statistics

Canada that the province of British Columbia had the highest increase

in unemployment in the whole country — one of the highest increases in

unemployment in the history of this province. But what perplexes me is:

where does the Premier get his information? Where is he able to make

these fantastic predictions about an upturn in the economy?

I can understand that it can be confusing because in the last six

months the Conference Board of Canada — that august body back east —

has indicated on three separate occasions that the economy is going

up...no, it's going down...no, it's going up, and now we are waiting

for a fourth statement to see where we are going in the next several

months.

But surely the Premier is able to understand the comments from

people in the various industries who have made observations. Recently,

in The Vancouver Sun of December 29, they devoted a whole page

to remarks by various leaders in forestry, in transportation, in

mining, in construction, who expressed their views about the state of

the economy for the next several months. Interestingly enough the

headlines say: "A Shaky Economy, Higher Prices in View of Business and

Consumers."

In the forest industry there is extreme anxiety. In November and

early December we had announcements from the head of MacMillan Bloedel

Ltd. that they were going to lay off 4,000 people. But they finished up

laying off 9,000 people. Just prior to the beginning of this session

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was quoted as saying that

the 9,000 layoff was not the fault of the Social Credit government.

Layoffs are always the fault of somebody else. I can recall, under the

previous government, if one person got laid off it became a political

problem for that particular government. We're not interested in the

Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, telling us that it's not the fault of

the Social Credit. What we are looking for is for them to tell us what

kind of solutions do they have.

We have a statement by the president of the stock exchange who

stated that the trading volumes on the Vancouver Stock Exchange this

year are expected to run about $450 million. They're down from 1975. He

was asked if things can get worse. This was supposed to be a turnaround

year in 1976 for the British Columbia mineral exploration. But the

thing is, it just didn't happen. The claim staking was down, there was

very little activity. We simply were not able to attract the kind of

investment that we needed in order to generate employment.

But can one wonder why it is that you can't generate that kind of interest

from investors when you have the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland),

when he was the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources speaking in Kamloops,

saying that unless the investment industry can be assured that this government

is going to get back, they're not going to invest, and if they don't

invest there's not going to be any employment?

So that's the situation. In less than 12 months, they've been able

to turn around from the vicious kinds of attacks that they made in this

Legislature this time last year, or 11 months ago, in which every

possible blame was placed on the previous government, not because there

was an economic problem because there was not in terms of the economy,

but they were going to make the people pay. And the result, Mr.

Speaker, of making people pay, has been an increased amount of

unemployment, hat unemployment brought about by the tax policies of

this government, the half-billion dollars that they sucked out of the

economy.

I would hope that before the debate on this amendment is finished,

Mr. Speaker, we will hear from some of the opposition members about

what is going to happen to the economy over the next several months,

what suggestions they have about providing employment. Everyone — every

trade unionist and every person in this province — has anxieties about

what the future is going to be. We have had no economic direction

whatsoever from this government, and that's what we badly need.

We have brought in this amendment because it's necessary to

highlight for the people in this province that unemployment is a

serious matter; that the official count of 98,000 people who are listed

as unemployed perhaps represents only 50 per cent of the number of

people that are actually unemployed. We know that many people give up

registering. Therefore, there are not the accurate statistics that we

would think should be, in terms of the actual unemployment picture. I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the unemployment picture in this

province is closer to 150,000 to 175,000, — not 98,000 as reported by

the statistics.

The future looks bleak. But yesterday we were told by the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) that we mustn't speak

like that. We mustn't talk about bleakness, we mustn't tell the facts,

because it upsets investors. Has he forgotten how upset the business

people in this community were last spring and last summer? Have they

all forgotten over there how difficult it has been for people on this

island, in the tourist industry and in the other industries that depend

on the tourist industry to make a living?

What about the members for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf, Mr. Barber)?

Are they concerned at all about the 10,000 unemployed in this city?

Interjection.

[ Page 140 ]

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

The Canadian Machinist ,

which is a journal of the machinists union, of which every member in

this House receives a copy, in December devoted a whole page to the

unemployment problem. It dealt with all of the country, but in one

section, when they dealt with the regional aspects of unemployment,

they said this:

"Regionally, in Canada, the machinist membership

declined in five provinces and increased in five others. The biggest

loss occurred in British Columbia, where membership declined over the

year from 8,244 to 7,666. The major reasons, apparently, are a slump in

the two key industries — construction, and automotive repairs. Again,

despite the fairly good organized record in Quebec over the year, the

membership declined there."

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

We can look all over this province and find a number of examples of

where jobs have been lost. Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of

Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) introduced a bill

which was going to provide some safeguards for the gas station

operators. That bill was not completed. There is some hint in the

throne speech that it's coming back. But I would just like to point out

to the House the kind of problems that have existed in that industry,

and the kind of loss of employment that has taken place.

Imperial Oil sent to every member of the Legislature a copy of a

statement by Mr. C.L. Goddard, the corporate manager, called: "Gasoline

Retailing in British 'Columbia." He goes into advancing some arguments

which are really directed against the kind of legislation that was

planned last year.

He goes on to say that some years ago they decided that they were

going to have to go into being more practical about their operations.

Therefore, they moved towards a policy of having 50 per cent

self-operated gas stations, and 50 per cent owner-operated. Then he

tells us in his statement:

"Turning back to the marketplace, Imperial is

continuing to divest itself of uneconomic and inefficient outlets, and

to improve the efficiency of the remainder. This my company is doing at

a rate that takes into account the unavoidable dislocation, and

sometimes hardship, that such consolidation must inevitably bring to

some dealers."

In 1974, Imperial owned or was associated with a total of 714 outlets. I am

informed by the automobile association and the association that deals with the

gas station operators that you can usually have two to three jobs per station.

They usually use an average of three. So in 1974 they were associating with

a total of 714 outlets, which were providing approximately 2,100 jobs.

By the end of last year, which was 1975, this number had been

reduced to 682, so we already had a loss of almost 400 jobs. By the end

of the year 1976, the outlets will have been reduced to 569, which is

some 140 stations, which is something like almost 520 to 540 jobs.

That is the kind of thing that has taken place in this province over

the past two years, but specifically this year, when the legislation

which should have been brought in to protect these people was not. As a

consequence, another 113 stations closed down, with a loss of

approximately 350 jobs.

That's just in Imperial Oil. Then we have Gulf of Canada, which is

also looking. to "rationalize" its operation. In their rationalization

they had some 700 people who were laid off.

We go around and look at what is happening in terms of the business

sector in this province: 350 jobs here; 700 jobs through another

company; 860 jobs in the B.C. Ferries. We were told by the minister in

charge of ferries last year that 450 people would be laid off, but we

are now informed that it's 860. Very quickly, you can total up several

thousands of jobs that have been lost as a result of the policies of

this government.

There are no attempts on their part at all to tell us what they are

going to do about the question of jobs. We are not told specifically

what kind of jobs we can expect from the development in the coal

fields; we have no indication of that at all. In any case, we are

looking at a long-range process. But what is there for the immediate

future? In February are we going to be told that the unemployment rate,

which is not 8.8 per cent, but is probably 9 per cent…?

But again, we mustn't be bleak about these things because it upsets

the investors and nobody wants to come to the province. If we mustn't

be bleak, then the members on that side must get up, show a great deal

of enthusiasm and give us some solutions to what's going to happen.

Then perhaps the word will get back to the investment community back

east, or even in British Columbia, and they'll say: "There's a

government with confidence in itself. The members are speaking; they're

optimistic. It's a place to invest." But we haven't heard anything from

anybody — from nobody.

Last October the cabinet whistled in to Terrace — three of them —

had some meetings and then left. A few days later I was in, with a

group of colleagues, and we were told then that the unemployment rate

in Terrace was 30 per cent. We were told that nearly 4,000 people had

left that community. We were told in terms of housing, for instance,

that there were over 400 houses up for sale because people were

leaving. Then I had an argument with one of the local people who said

that it's not 400 houses up for sale, it's only

[ Page

141 ]

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

But we don't hear from the great freedom fighter from Skeena (Mr.

Shelford) ; he's not in the House now. The spokesman for the gas

station operators hasn't said anything about the tremendous loss of

jobs. He wasn't able to convince anybody on that back bench that it was

necessary to pass that piece of legislation last year. He knows what

the game is. He's been here long enough to know that when the oil

companies want to put their foot down, they can put their foot down and

the government will just say yes and follow on. But that kind of policy

resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs in that industry, has resulted

in the loss of thousands of jobs in that member's riding, and we

haven't heard a word from him. Not a word. We haven't heard a word from

anyone, Mr. Speaker, and it's a great tragedy.

Then we have the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Chabot). He was the great spokesman for unemployment. He's the only

individual I know who was able to use the word "unemployment" four

times in a sentence because he wanted to stress the importance of what

he was saying.

The other day he was speaking to the annual meeting of the B.C. and

Yukon Chamber of Mines. He said that the mining industry could wait for

three years until the next election and see who wins, but the result

would be no expansion, no jobs and the economy would be in a slump.

That was his message to them. The voter, he said, would conclude that

there must be something wrong with free enterprise. Now we have the

member of the government shifting the responsibility to the

free-enterprise system: it's not the government that's at fault, it's

the free-enterprise system. When they were in opposition it wasn't the

free-enterprise system, it was the then government. But there's no

attempt or no commitment on their part to take any kind of

responsibility.

"The mining industry in this province," he went on to say, "has the

responsibility to show faith and trust in the intelligence of our

people by developing our ore bodies and by creating employment for the

unemployed, who will respond by giving an indication of faith in our

political system. Failure to accept this approach will bring on

reversal." Now there's a very straightforward, practical, enthusiastic

statement by the Minister of Mines on how to get things moving. But we

also heard at that time at the meeting from William Dunn, the elected

president of the chamber. He said that the chamber must police the

industry, and cited overzealous prospectors who operate without

sufficient regard for the environment and greedy speculators who

manipulate the stock market for their own gain.

Now, it seems to me that on the one hand we have a minister who goes to the

mining industry, rakes them over the coals, indicates to them that they have

no confidence in the government, no confidence in the economy, and then criticizes

them but offers them no solutions other than to say: "Believe us. Be positive;

invest in British Columbia. We're a good government."

A good government! In the space of one year they have driven the

unemployment rate up so high that they have created the largest number

of bankruptcies in the history of this province. They have resulted in

the loss of more jobs than any other government in the history of this

province, and then they go out and ask that the free-enterprise system

have confidence in them.

It is interesting again that in this session the two major issues

which the government appears to be twitchy about have nothing to do

with unemployment. They have to do with M.E.L. Paving and with what's

going on up in the Grizzly Valley. But it would seem to me if they had

any sense — if they were going to be forthright — that they would

pursue the issues that people are concerned about in this province. The

basic issue that people are concerned about in this province is how

they are going to be able to make a living. What kind of guarantees

have they got that they can be employed?

There are no guarantees offered by this government. There are no

policies which have been enunciated. Sure, we have the coal policy,

which is still not clear; we still do not have any clarification on

exactly what we're going to do. So we ask, before this debate is over,

that somebody from that side gets up and talks about the unemployment

situation. That's not too much to ask from those people who a year ago

were so critical of what they saw as being a difficult situation.

We now know from the business industry, from the investment

industry, that things are far worse under this government than they

ever were under the previous government, but they don't want to talk

about it.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources has just entered the

House. I should really take the opportunity while he's here to

congratulate him on his appointment as Minister of Mines. I think that

he was down in Siberia long enough and has now moved up. I congratulate

him.

I would hope that before this debate is over, Mr. Speaker, that

Minister of Mines will get up — now that I've just read two of his

press releases — and tell us what employment plans he sees in terms of

the mining industry, what he sees in terms of the general economy,

because he's the kind of minister who can range over a wide variety of

subjects. After all, he was once the Minister of Labour in this

province. He could get up and tell us about the possible development of

the Kootenay and Elk Railway. That's a pet project of that minister's,

but that one

[ Page 142 ]

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

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

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

On the mining industry, while you were out of the House, Mr.

Minister, I said that what you did when you spoke at the B.C. and Yukon

Chamber of Mines was attack the free enterprise system for not....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you did. They didn't have any faith in this

government. "Don't wait three years till the next election before

you'll say to us: 'Yes, we have faith in you.' Re-elect us. Do it now.

Have faith in the economy; have faith in the government."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Intelligence of the people.

MR. LEVI: Intelligence of the people.

But the facts are different, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

The facts are that unemployment is at an all-time high and that

minister did not take the opportunity when he was there meeting with

those leaders in the mining industry to say to them what the plans of

the government are about making sure that there's full employment.

Of course, he was practising the typical kind of economics that they

like to practise: we'll leave it to the marketplace. He just goes in

there and lashes them a few cuts across the back to remind them that

the government is here, and then he says: "Go to it. Have faith in us."

Then, as a little bit of icing on the cake, he says: "Now what do you

think? We know that some of you people with plant equity worth millions

and millions.... We're going to bring back the subsidies. Sure, we'll

subsidize you." Under the

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: Welfare.

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

But he went to that meeting, Mr. Speaker. He talked about

unemployment and then, in the same breath as that government says there

are no free rides in this province, he says to them: "We'll probably

bring back subsidies. Yes, we'll bring back the subsidies."

MR. KING: Give them a shovel.

MR. LEVI: We have a problem; we do have a problem. After all,

we have one subsidy that was given out last August. We don't really

know what for, but we would hope that sometime during the course of

this session we'll find out why Quasar got $2 million in there.

Presumably they got $2 million to help them do something that would

develop employment.

Mr. Speaker, I'm rather doubtful that that was why they got the

money, because if that's why they got the money, we would have heard

from that government. If they had anything to say that was good about

the prospects of future employment in this province they would have

said it, because all of us who have been in government know that if

you've got anything good to say you say it.

We can only conclude from the deafening silence over there from that

group that they have nothing good to say, they have no good prospects

for the future of the economy of this province. That, one year after

they've been in power, is a very sad comment on the way that they have

managed the economy in this province.

We should be hearing from the backbenchers; we should be hearing

from the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) . He doesn't say too much,

but we should hear from him. He should tell us how things are in

Cranbrook. We know they're cold; we also know that some people are very

poor.

We will hear, no doubt, from the giant of Omineca. He will tell us

of the great economic strides that that area has made under his

government. Of course, the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) is too close

to Victoria — he can't say too much.

But when are we going to hear from these people? What about that

member, Mr. Speaker, who had so much to say last year, the member for

Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree)? He knows all about economics and employment.

The great freedom fighters — We're going to hear from them. They're

all going to get up and tell us what kind of plans they're going to

insist that that government develop. That's our expectation, because

we're the opposition. They're the government, so we have to know what

they've got in mind.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page

143 ]

you to the minister: the one thing is never, never,

while we were government did we ever promise people anything that we

didn't give them, and then take it away. We never took it away, but you

took it away.

We've had, in the last few days in this House, Mr. Speaker, lectures. We

had a lecture yesterday from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Mair) about being positive. Let's not knock the government; let's

be happy. Yesterday he danced around the word. I thought maybe if he said

it, he might collapse. He didn't want to say the word "fraud,"

so he didn't say it. He avoided it.

We have the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who last year

came in and said: we're going to introduce a GAIN programme. Well, we now

know that for GAIN you have to read "loss."

We've had nobody stand up there yet and say what a wonderful

programme GAIN is because, presumably, they've all received the same

kind of letters that we've received — about people being cut back.

There are people being cut off.

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

MR. LEVI: Nobody talks about that.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No?

MR. LEVI: No? We'll have to check. There you are, Mr.

Speaker; tonight we will phone the newspaper in Cranbrook and I will

say to the editor of the newspaper: your member of the Legislature said

there is no unemployment in Cranbrook.

Interjection.

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

But I do want to talk about an unemployment programme that was offered to this

House last year, through which the Minister of Human Resources was going to

solve most of our problems. He had an undertaking to find some 12,000 jobs before

Christmas. And so far, again, no good news has been announced. As I said earlier,

if you've got some good news to announce as a government, you announce it.

So we haven't heard anything. We've heard a great deal about the kind of

problems that they've had getting the programme going.

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

MR. LEVI: Well, that's the trouble, you see. You have the

jobfinders. You know, we are into the interesting situation where, in

the Jobfinders programme, you're going to set out to hire 30 people to

find jobs for the unemployed. And you know what? When they advertised

the first 20, 4,500 people in this province made application for those

20 jobs — 4,500 people applying for 20 jobs. That's the state of

unemployment in this province — 4,500 people! Remember, Mr. Speaker, he

shakes his head, that sceptical member from Cranbrook, who says: there

is no unemployment in Cranbrook. Well, we may have to have you stand up

and apologize to us on that, Mr. Member. No unemployment in Cranbrook!

I am telling you that when, Mr. Speaker, 20 jobs were made available by

Jobfinders, 4,500 people applied for them. Can you imagine that kind of

bureaucratic crush that must have gone on over there — 4,500 people

looking for jobs?

But that's now new. My colleague from New Westminster pointed out

the kinds of problems that exist among men and women who are graduating

from university, the kind of problems that exist with people who are

coming out of high school. Forty per cent of the unemployment is with

our young people who have no prospects whatsoever, who have been

advised by Canada Manpower counsellors and by social workers on the

line: Go to Alberta, go to Saskatchewan, go to Manitoba. There are jobs

there, but there's no work here. And you know, here in this province,

if you are a young person, it's almost a crime to be unemployed. You

get the most difficult time if you need assistance. You are immediately

suspect if you go in and ask for some help. Because out there in the

community, the minister of welfare has a community of rednecks who just

love to see people get beaten down. But that's the kind of atmosphere

that exists. There are no employment possibilities at all for young

people in this province.

Last year, the government, finally, was able to make up its mind

about how much employment it was going to create for students. First of

all we had a figure of 16,000. Then we had a figure of 12,000. Then we

have a figure of 9,000. And finally, 7,000 jobs were created. That's

what they created for 12 weeks.

Thus, we will probably hear from the Minister that there were

problems with the computer, that there was the kind of internecine

warfare that goes on in departments, and nobody could decide what it

was they really wanted. We've got to have proposals, hard proposals,

from that government about what they are going to do in terms of the

unemployment situation.

We've had a further setback, in terms of the possibility of

employment in the province. Under the previous government there was an

extensive day-care

[ Page 144 ]

programme that made it possible for women to get

out of the home, to go to work and to pay their own way. That is

becoming less and less possible every day, because the ceiling is off

the rates the day-care centres can charge. Now with the more rigid kind

of means test that exists in terms of the subsidy programme, there you

have another added burden in terms of creating unemployment — again,

more jobs, hundreds of more jobs that were lost to people because they

were not able to get the kind of assistance that they needed from the

government.

I would have thought that there would have been suggestions in the

speech about unemployment, particularly in terms of the tourist

industry. After all, that industry suffered one of its severest

setbacks. Of course, the government will very quickly say: "It wasn't

our fault; it was the weather. John Paschold, the meteorologist,

couldn't deliver the kind of weather we wanted; therefore people didn't

come to see us and we had a very bad year."

I would have thought that they would have had a plan for the

creation of employment in terms of the travel industry, some incentives.

MR. WALLACE: Like lower ferry fares.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's an incentive. That's an incredible

incentive. You know, you get on the ferry and you know that if you're

doing a round trip and you're by yourself and you have a car, it's $28.

Then you go into the splendiferous restaurants that are there now and

you get yourself some eggs and some coffee and, before you know it,

you've blown $35. Now who can afford $35 to go on the ferry?

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

MR. LEVI: My, my, look at all the millionaires laughing at

the people here. That's what's happening — all the millionaires are

laughing at the people. And these high-paid cabinet ministers.... No

problem any more for the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — he can

go on and he can actually buy two doughnuts instead of one because he's

in a different pay bracket now. But they have no real understanding of

the kind of problems that exist in terms of the people who want to be

able to work in this province, to be able to travel around, to be able

to make a contribution; no programme whatsoever.

Again, I would hope that after I sit down one of the members over

there will get up. I'm sure that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr.

Veitch) will be able to get up; and the member for Vancouver South, the

businessman from Vancouver South, should be able to tell us some of the

prescriptions he has for the creation of employment. I hope that member

will do that. I hope he'll colour our world a little bit and tell us

exactly what it is that this government — his government — will do to

assist people, because we have nothing from the other side, down in the

far corners over there, the opposite end from where the cabinet benches

are. But I'm sure that we'll hear from the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) and the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad). Why, we might even

hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Curtis), because he has some ideas about employment. After all, he's

planning to develop some free-enterprise housing programmes.

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

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Time.

MR. LEVI: Time?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to support this amendment because it

highlights, for the House and for the people of this province, the

failure of that government to address itself to the basic, real problem

in this province of what is going to happen to the community and to the

economy in the future. We have no indications whatsoever. But what we

want to be able to do — and we will do this, because we not only

operate in this House, we operate outside this House — is continue the

practice of going around this province on a regular basis and

delivering the message to the people that this government has created

more damage to the economy of this province in 12 months than any other

government in North America; that they are not capable of getting the

province out of the mess that they're in; that they are led by a leader

who is not prepared to speak out in frank terms, to address himself to

the issues in this House, but much sooner would rely on the PR,

Nixon-type presentation of the plastic man.

We're going to go around and we're going to point out that this is

not a government for the people, and we are being told by the business

community that it is not a government for them either. That's the

message that we're going to take, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm rather disappointed, actually, Mr. Speaker,

to be up in my place at this moment because we had signs, just prior to

the last speaker, that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was

[ Page

145 ]

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

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

MRS. DAILLY: But it's very understandable that it would be

very difficult for any member of the government to be able to get up

and speak in anything but support of this amendment, and so therefore

we can understand why they are all remaining silent.

The member for Omineca, who has been referred to already, of course,

I want to reiterate, made one of the most shocking statements I've

heard in this House. If he symbolizes the programme to alleviate

unemployment by his government, it is a very, very sad day. I want to

remind the House again that the only answer he has to the situation for

people who are unemployed in this province is go on unemployment

insurance, and that is something that the people of this province, I'm

sure, are going to read about, think about, and I do not think they

will forget.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of our amendment, of course, is a lack of

confidence in this government's no programme to alleviate unemployment.

That is the main purpose of the opposition producing and placing this

amendment before the House, because no matter where you go in this

province at this time, this is what stands out in all MLAs movements

around the province.

In my own riding in Burnaby North, where I have a constituency

office and where I spend a considerable amount of time listening to

people and meeting with them, that has been the prime problem people

have come in to talk to me about — the fact that they cannot find work.

As has been mentioned before, the tragedy is, particularly in the ages

of between 19 and 25, that young people who want to work, have the

ability to work and have the skills, still cannot find work. I have

seen this day by day in my office.

I came here to this Legislature for the opening of this new session

hoping, for the sake of these people, that this government would have

something positive, some positive programme so they could inspire some

hope, some confidence in these people who have been approaching me and,

I'm sure, also the government backbenchers. But what do we have, Mr.

Speaker? All we have to do is look at the throne speech. We can take it

page by page, and we can start off on page 3. On page 3 the first

statement made by the government in relation to the economy is simply

this, and I want to repeat it: "The strong, positive action taken by my

government in the year just passed to restrain demands upon the economy

and encourage initiative and enterprise by our citizens has provided a

broad base on which to build."

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government has certainly provided a broad

base — provided one of the broadest bases of unemployment this province

has seen since the great Depression. That is the base they have left in

this province. Yet we read in the throne speech that they have provided

a base upon which our citizen ' s can see encouragement. What base?

This is the whole thrust of our amendment: we are asking and looking

toward a government that can provide some hope and future, and we don't

see it.

It was interesting to read in the Province

this morning, one of the morning papers, an analysis of the present

unemployment situation and economic growth factor in the provinces

across Canada, which I know the former speaker did refer to. But I

would like to just quote briefly from it to point out, first of all,

that I do hope the people who opened their Province

this morning did not stop at the headlines, because 1, frankly, was

shocked when I looked at the headlines. The first headline was: "B.C.

Will Outshine Most." Second headline: "B.C. Better Off."

Then you go past the headline and you look to see — "B.C. Will

Outshine Most" — now what are they talking about? Then we find out: oh,

in comparison with Newfoundland. When it comes to unemployment, yes, we

will outshine Newfoundland. The projections of unemployment for British

Columbia for the coming year are 8.5 per cent; Newfoundland, 13 and

going to 14 per cent; Alberta, 4 per cent.

You know, there was a time that we used to hear the saying "Go west,

young man." I don't say that in any disrespect to the other provinces,

but it is a tragedy that in this once great province, where people came

because they felt they could bring up their children and lead

productive lives, people are fleeing from this province because there

is no work. So it's an 8.5 per cent projection of unemployment in

British Columbia; 4 per cent in Alberta; Ontario, 7 per cent. Yet we

have the headline in this paper saying: "B.C. Will Outshine Most" and

"B.C. Better Off."

Mr. Speaker, I just hope — and I'm sure — that the average citizen

reads the paper carefully and doesn't just read the headlines because

this is one of the most misleading headlines I have seen in the paper

for a great number of months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Since this morning.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, since this morning — quite true. But in

dealing with this particular amendment, you're quite correct, Mr.

Member from our side, who happens to be across there at the moment.

As we carry on and look at these projections and this report that

just came out, despite these vague statements of optimism in the throne

speech, these

[ Page 146 ]

statistics certainly point out that the optimism is

not here in British Columbia. It does point out that there is a slight

increase in the economic growth, but t if you compare the economic

growth in B.C., what t does it say? It says that it will increase to

5.6 per cent from 4.1 per cent last year. Well, then compare the 4.1

per cent and the 5.6 per cent with the economic growth in the prairie

provinces, and we're still far below many other provinces in Canada.

So I just thought I should perhaps educate the headline-writers of the Vancouver Province

because, obviously, they have picked out a story and then put on a

headline which I consider completely misleading, and I'd like to get

this on the record.

The throne speech goes on again, to talk about.... On page 4, and

this is really interesting, it says: "My First Minister, " read by His

Honour, "advises that the need for restraint and the lowering of

expectations in all sectors...must continue." This province believes

that B.C.'s restraints should even extend more than the present federal

guidelines.

What a hope for the people of British Columbia! They've just gone

through one of the harshest years in the history of this province in

taxation, in increased Hydro costs, gas, fuel — everything. Yet here in

the throne speech for 1977 they're told to expect even more harsh and

stringent measures. This is what we read into the speech, and it is

stated here. Then I find what would inspire, of course, lack of

confidence by any person who read such a speech. It says: "Building a

strong and productive economy," and I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, from the

speech, "that will pay significant social dividends is slow, steady,

but painstaking work — and all the citizens of the province will be

challenged in this endeavour."

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

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

Now here is this Social Credit government telling the people of

British Columbia in the throne speech that all of the citizens will be

challenged to produce a strong economy. Mr. Speaker, when this

government campaigned, before they were elected, they campaigned on a

strong leadership restore-the-economy-of-B.C. programme. Now that they

are in, after one year, they have given no programme for economic

recovery: Unemployment rates are higher than ever, and what are they

saying? They are saying to the people of British Columbia: "We

challenge you to get us out of this mess." I thought governments were

there to accept challenges and to give leadership. This is all this

government seem to be able to do, to the people of British Columbia:

"We challenge you."

Oh, it's a beautiful line and it sounds very nice, and it seems to

fit in with what they think is the mood of the people of British

Columbia. But I will tell the mood of the people of British Columbia

today is becoming increasingly cynical with this government — this

do-nothing government, this government that does not seem to care about

the things that really matter to the lives of the average citizens of

this province.

Mr. Speaker, we can carry on into the throne speech, and I've never

before been up on an amendment that I can see ties in so directly, so

directly and consistently, with the actual speech we are amending.

On page 8 we see again that it says what I consider just a lot of

gobbledegook. It talks about intending, though the Ministry of Economic

Development, to develop a flexible economic strategy. Then it goes on

to say that he will have the continuing responsibility for channelling

this participation into a united effort to benefit all. And so it goes

on. You know, you sit here, or you stand here, and you read it — I

wonder how many citizens out there feel tremendously confident that the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is going to

improve this economy with those kind of broad, generalized, vague

statements. And that's all we had last year from that minister and from

the government; and we're still getting it.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we go on on page 8 and we come to tourism. Here is this

beautiful statement about tourism: "One new programme is aimed at British

Columbians...." Again, you see, it's up to the people of B.C., not this government.

It is to create in the people of B.C. "a greater awareness of the benefits

of tourism...." Now that is your policy for increasing tourism in British Columbia.

And we've heard talk about promoting year-round convention centres, which

of course we will have an opportunity to discuss when the minister responsible

can give us some details on this.

Well, let's look at tourism in B.C. What happened? How many

businesses went bankrupt in Victoria alone during the last summer

because of this government's restrictive fiscal policies? How many?

What happened to tourism in Victoria? It was the worst year they have

ever experienced, and the blame rests with the policies of this

government.

Therefore we have not only the opposition making these statements

that there is not too much hope in that area, we even have them from

the Employers' Council of British Columbia, their January '77 bulletin:

"The tourist industry in British Columbia is not expected to show any

substantial growth in 1977." It goes on to say: "It might benefit

somewhat by not having to compete with the American Bicentennial and

the Olympic Games." That is the only argument that this government

could possibly use for the decrease in tourism. Here again, even in

[ Page 147 ]

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

Then it goes on to say: "However, changes in U.S. tax laws

concerning convention expenses will have a negative impact in

Vancouver." Well, I'm not blaming the present Social Credit government

for that, but when they're faced with these negative impacts and

policies from other areas, what are their alternatives? We find none,

none at all.

We look at the comments made by the restaurant association, in which

it points out.... After all, if you don't maintain good restaurants,

you're not going to have much enticement for tourists. What do they

say? They say that although the rate of new restaurants opening in

Vancouver has picked up in the last few years, more of them are also

going broke and closing down.

The managing director of the B.C. region of the Canadian Restaurant

Association stated two reasons for this: more people are entering the

industry; and lately, the B.C. economy has not been strong enough to

support all of them. There we are. Yet this government just has one

glib line in here: "We want to make the citizens of B.C. aware of the

benefits of tourism."

What are their plans in this area? None at all. How can anyone have

confidence in a throne speech that has obviously no plans in an area

where we should be bringing increased revenues into this province?

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

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

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

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

In dealing again with the amendment, which is based on the failure

of this government to do anything positive in the very tragic area of

the high unemployment rates, I would like to point out that we have a

very serious problem in seeing the economy of this province increase.

To quote from an

article in The Vancouver Sun , from the business editor: "One of the most serious problems we face is the Premier himself." In this article, it states:

"The truth of the matter is that quite a few

businessmen in British Columbia suspect that the Premier" — here it's

quoted "Bennett" — "doesn't understand the world of big business."

The Premier does not understand the world of big

business as much as he should. They even feel that perhaps he is even

suspicious of big business.

If you don't have the confidence of business — where have we heard

those words before, over and over again? — if a government doesn't have

the confidence of big business, and business period, how is the economy

going to be improved? We heard that shouted across this floor at the

NDP government for three years.

Now we have business very concerned about their confidence in the

present Premier's whole understanding of business and economy in this

province. We only have to look over last year's history of the fiscal

policies brought in by this Premier which have created almost entirely

the mess we're in, in the status of unemployment in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take up any more time of the House.

There are other members in the opposition who wish to speak on what we

consider to be one of the most vital amendments that has been put

before this House, of course, to date. We haven't been here that long,

but no matter how many are put forward, this is one of the most vital.

We certainly hope that the government backbenchers will give

consideration to ensure that when they go back to their own ridings

they can look at their constituents in the face and they will stand up

and support this amendment.

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

I'm glad to see that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr.

Rogers) is present. He can make very useful information available to

the public in this House with respect to the state of uncertainty that

the province is in surrounding the central ministry in terms of

unemployment, and, as the minister says, economic sensitivity to

everything he does. I'm referring to the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

He has a very clear responsibility if this government is sincere in

doing anything about the alarming figures and projections which have

just been retailed by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). That

member says that he has a cloud over his head — it's certainly not a

halo. That cloud, and what has happened in his office, has engendered

in the province of British Columbia in the important area of economic

development an aura of incompetence, uncertainty and want of trust.

Mr. Speaker, in the British parliamentary system there are ways of

dealing with that in accordance with the usages of parliament and

democratic government that have been handed down through the centuries.

Oh, it's just, you say, a little thing — no effect on jobs? — that two

sensitive personal assistants to the Minister of Economic Development

resigned within a few days for trading on inside information of a

confidential nature on the stock market.

[ Page 148 ]

Then another assistant came in — I don't know that story. A Michael

Ellis came in, presumably from the Premier's office. Well, the member

shakes his head but I wonder.

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I certainly am. Because there is the

central minister in terms of economic expansion and jobs in the

province of British Columbia.

That little cloud that he talks about hanging over his head is

creating a cloud, and darkness, and lights out, and hunger, in many

homes of the unemployed throughout the province of British Columbia. It

is not just light talk that two confidential assistants to that

minister had to resign under those circumstances in a short space of

time; it is at the very least incompetence and, as I say with the third

one, why should he be fired from Standard Oil-Chevron for a personal

divorce case and then be terminated after two days in the minister's

office? Why should a man be fired twice for one divorce? The Minister

of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) fired his deputy twice instead of

himself once, but why should this... ?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, the public of the province of British

Columbia is entitled to an explanation, because the explanation we have

had is something that offends against every concept of human rights,

and something that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) should be

concerned about.

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think there should be an explanation,

Mr. Minister, because on the surface there has been a gross violation

of human rights if that is the story: that a man should be discharged

by Chevron for a personal divorce case and terminated by this

government for what he says was the same reason, after two days. If

that isn't a matter of human rights and something demanding

explanation, and something which does not stand up with the

explanations given by the government....

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think you've got a valid point,

but the incompetence, the want of trust, and the uncertainty in the

office of the Minister of Economic Development has a lot to do with

unemployment in the province of British Columbia in the year 1977.

I'd like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, because you're following my

remarks very closely, to some of the parliamentary traditions I

referred to. What does a democracy do in these circumstances? I refer

to Birch on Representative Government , at page 139, where it says:

"The positive aspect of this is that members of

parliament wishing to query any action of department know there is one

man to whom they may address their questions who cannot evade the duty

of answering them" — and that member is silent, which is unusual for

him. "The negative aspect of it is that civil servants are not

answerable to parliament for their actions and are protected from

political controversy by the minister."

As Gladstone said: "In every free state, for every public act,

someone must be responsible." The question is: who shall it be? The

British Constitution answers: the minister and the minister

exclusively. It's all very well to fire two people in the office, Mr.

Speaker, and say that's nothing to do with the minister. That is not

the British parliamentary tradition.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, I make, in terms of how the

unemployment is being increased in this province as a result of the

inaction and the actions of the government, is to be found in the Parliamentary Ombudsman at page 43:

"More realistically, what the doctrine seems to

require as regards vicarious responsibility is that a minister should

resign if important errors made by civil servants under his control are

such as to indicate that he has failed to establish and maintain an

adequate system of delegation and supervision."

Now, at the very least, Mr. Speaker, that Minister of Economic

Development, central to the question of unemployment, has failed to

establish an adequate system of delegation or supervision. There has

been incomprehensible incompetency in the office of that minister, and

if any member in this House is going to laugh about it — the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) — and say that's got nothing to do with

the unemployment that we're going to experience in

[ Page 149 ]

1977, he is mistaken.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

In terms of this uncertainty, want of confidence, and incompetence

that has been engendered around that minister, I would like to say that

there is one hon. member sitting in this House who is a mine of

information, and so far he volunteered it very nicely on this subject,

Mr. Speaker: the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers). When

the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was speaking, the member

for Vancouver South volunteered that his meeting with people who were

trying to bring wrongdoing to the attention of the government did not

occur outside of a liquor store, it occurred outside of a butcher

store, and we accept that correction. The hon. member is beginning to

provide this House with information which it is his obligation as a

member to give to the public.

I say that the silence of that member to date has been deafening. He

knows who approached him. He knows when they approached him. He knows

who the ministers of the cabinet were, Mr. Speaker, whom citizens tried

to reach with information of wrongdoing on the stock market. He knows

when they made those attempts. He knows which ministers were attempted

to be contacted and why the rebuff took, place, when at the slightest

suggestion of wrongdoing brought forward by a citizen, that minister

and his assistants in office should be open at once to the sensitivity

and importance of the information being conveyed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, matters that deal with the

trading of shares on the stock market are now before a royal

commission, and I would ask that you not discuss this.

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: But I do say that the responsibility of this

minister is before this House. I do say that it is obligatory in terms

of his oath of office and his membership as a Member of the Legislative

Assembly for the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers), who has

either said too much or said too little, to rise in his place and give

to the public and the Legislature the information he has at his

disposal and so far has not divulged. After he made the kind of

humorous remark about the butcher shop last night, he took off out of

this House like a buckshot rabbit. But he is here today and I am saying

— I am speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, but I am looking right at

that member — that member has information of importance in terms of the

Minister of Economic Development and in terms of other ministers to

whom that information of wrongdoing attempted to be conveyed. He has an

obligation to stand up in this House without delay, in terms of his

oath of office.

He's silent.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate in which members

of the government side of the House, who had all the answers between

1972 and 1975, are suddenly very silent. Now we have the greatest

unemployment, probably in numbers, that this province has ever seen. We

have headlines such as, "Jobless Figures Up 1.5 per cent In British

Columbia." We have nothing in prospect but more restraint, more

belt-tightening and more excuses coming from the cabinet benches of

this government.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

is in his seat. When he was asked about the Farm Income Assurance

Programme at the B.C. Fruitgrowers' Association annual meeting in

Vernon just recently, he wouldn't give any reassurance that the fruit

industry had a future in this province. Probably those 2,000 members of

that association will add to the already 90-some-odd thousand people

who are presently unemployed. Perhaps they, their families and the

other industries they support indirectly, such as agricultural

machinery supply companies, fertilizer and farm products suppliers, can

also be added to the rolls of the unemployed if this minister continues

to be an apologist for his government rather than a champion of

agriculture.

We see that the agriculture industry was quite optimistic about this

minister because his immediate predecessor was an absolute disaster as

an Agriculture minister, as he is today as a Minister of Economic

Development.

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

Something else that the provincial government doesn't seem to

realize, and which is just lying on the horizon, is that the present

high level of housing starts, which was first generated during the NDP

administration, starting in September of 1975, and the crest they have

ridden — because these things take

[ Page 150 ]

years of planning, years before the approvals take

place and years before the starts are actually initiated — this is

again something that is going to be turning around.

If one looks at some of the recent statistics from Central Mortgage

and Housing you get an idea of some of the vacancies, the vacant new

dwellings which are on the market, and we see that as of September

things have become steadily greater — vacancies of 1,700 apartment

units in greater Vancouver.

There are also similar figures for single-family units, leading to

predictions about future employment by HUDAC, the Housing and Urban

Development Association of Canada, in their economic research committee

newsletter. It says that there will be a large carry-over of completed

and unsold units going into 1977 and this evidence of overbuilding in

1976 will probably result in a slow beginning in the first quarter of

the new year. At the end of the newsletter it cautions people:

"Builders should assess their markets very carefully at this time,

taking these factors into account. Heavy demands for advance mortgage

commitments reported by the lenders do not indicate that this advice is

being followed, but caution is advocated." In other words, what HUDAC

is telling us is that there is going to be a turn-down in one area that

has been providing employment for the last 18 months and will add to

the problems of this government. They have not anticipated this. In

fact, they had no sooner taken office, Mr. Speaker, than they made one

of the most calamitous decisions. The calamitous decision was to take

housing which was destined for the one area in which there is not a

surplus — that is, affordable rental housing for low-income families —

and to change it into market housing, which put it into competition and

created part of this over-supply problem which HUDAC is now indicating

creates reason for using caution before embarking in any new market.

So we're going to see thousands more unemployed. The unemployment

figures are going to go over 10 per cent in British Columbia if this

administration continues upon its present course, particularly if the

present Minister of Economic Development remains in his present

position.

It's rather interesting that the Premier has used some of his

opportunity to speak in this House to lecture us on the great injustice

being perpetrated on British Columbia because we don't have enough

members in the Senate. The Premier, who is now leaving the House and

who hasn't been in here very much this afternoon because, I'm sure, he

doesn't have any answers to the serious problem of unemployment, has

other priorities.

He goes back to Ottawa and he fights for the people of British

Columbia. He wants more senators in British Columbia: give us another

Ed Lawson; give us another Nancy Hodges; give us another Ray Perrault.

That is his answer to fighting the serious problems which we have here

in British Columbia. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are more

important problems in this province today than the lack of senators. In

fact, if you wanted to make any point back there at all, he should ask

for the abolition of the Senate.

What he could have been talking about among some of his arguments

concerning balance of payments between federal and provincial

governments is the shafting which British Columbia is getting in terms

of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I don't know if these members

take the odd time out from their trips down to Hawaii — I notice most

of them have good tans — but if they would do as I do and have open

office hours, and have people come into the office.... Advertise it;

let them know you're around in the riding; have them come in to your

office and tell you about some of their problems.

I have seen people who have been working steadily. One lady had

worked steadily for 16 years as a retail clerk. She quit that

employment because she felt, after 16 years, that she should try to

better herself and that she could only find employment by quitting and

devoting her full time to looking for employment.

What happened? Of course, she had to serve the mandatory two-week

waiting time, and because she voluntarily left her employment, she had

to serve a further six weeks without any income, and with a daughter to

support in high school. She accepted that as fair and as being the

rules. But what else happened? She was called in by an investigator,

who asked her some questions.

The investigators ask people in Nelson questions such as.... They

suggest to them that there's a job in Castlegar at the High Arrow Arms.

They suggest: "Would you be willing to take that job?" The person says:

"Well, I have a daughter in school. I don't have a car." Then they are

limiting themselves as to location of employment.

Why didn't the Premier go back east and tell the federal government

about this? Why didn't he tell them that they are forcing people and

taking away their right to unemployment insurance? "You're tricking

them, entrapping them, forcing them onto the welfare rolls of British

Columbia when you should be providing jobs in the first place, helping

us to provide jobs and working together to provide jobs, rather than

entrapping people at the time of highest unemployment." That's the

programme of the federal government.

Of course, we have some similar programmes here in the provincial

government with the welfare agency. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are

trained police officers

[ Page 151 ]

leaving the police of British Columbia every day —

that is part of the problem that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

has — and they are going to work for the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . They don't have to face the danger of being

shot at, high-speed chases and insults about being pigs and various

other things.

These are some of the things that are going on. We are spending so

much money to investigate, entrap and disallow people their right. A

person who has worked for 16 years has a right, at least once, to

collect her unemployment insurance.

The Premier shouldn't be going back east talking about senators. He

should be talking about the ripoff of the federal government on this

government and what we're doing to the unemployed in this province.

Since the crackdown by UIC, which coincides with the crackdown by

the Department of Human Resources, there has been a correlated increase

in the amount of shoplifting. This information can be supplied from the

report, the annual monthly report….

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

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you might fail to see it. That doesn't

surprise me, Mr. Speaker, but I'll certainly try to relate it to my

remarks. It's related to unemployment. People are being denied their

right to work and they have to steal, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. NICOLSON: I hope you see the point. This government is

criminalizing people. This government is not giving our young people a

chance to work. This government has only one out of five young people,

in the age bracket around 20 years of age, working; four out of five

unemployed. What are those people doing? I am in no way condoning what

these people are resorting to, Mr. Speaker. I am not condoning it. I am

saying that this is what would be told if the Premier were not to

smirk, but if he were to go and talk to the police chief of the

Vancouver police force; if he were to talk to the police chief of the

New Westminster police force, or the Nelson police force, or the RCMP.

There is a coincidence. And if the Premier would like to check the

criminal justice monthly report, and check it with the unemployment

rates, and check with the incidence and the instigation of the

crackdown on unemployment insurance, then I think he would see that my

point is valid, and I hope that he would start to fight for the people

of British Columbia. Senators are not the issue; unemployment is the

issue, and I say that high unemployment is criminalizing our young

people, where four out of five people are unemployed, and I say it's

serious, and I say that members of the back bench and I say that the

members of the government should get up and they should express their

concern.

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

I don't get too much opportunity to address the mass gathering of

MLAs. There seem to be more people in the galleries on their own time

than we've got down here. Anyway, welcome to you in the chair, Mr.

Speaker. You're an easygoing, nice guy — a real sleeper. Something like

the last member for Burnaby-Willingdon. I heard that he was a sleeper,

too. We know you'll come on strong, though.

Interjection.

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

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

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

I would like to add a few words to express my concern over the

present state of economic inactivity in British Columbia. I deplore the

apparent lack of concern by this government. I say "apparent." I think

in their hearts they have a great deal more concern and they may have

some plans that they haven't told us about, but they're not in evidence

to us as yet, and they're certainly not in evidence to the business and

investment community. Maybe that's more important than whether it's

evident to us or not. Not only do we see in British Columbia a

distressing vacuum in planning for new primary or secondary industry,

but the present administration will not move to show concern for

existing industries.

You know, we've heard of plans, very recently, to scrap or

emasculate the Farm Income Assurance Act. Now this has been in spite of

some rather — at least to me — unexpected federal help to supplement

the provincial funds which were earmarked for this programme. Now what

would be the economic effects of a collapse of the tree-fruit industry

in the southern interior, just to take one example? Who would pay the

unemployment insurance cost, the social assistance, and the general

costs of people being driven off their land and out of their jobs?

Well, we know who will make these payments — the same people who always

make payments for these things, and that is the rest of everyone else

who is still employed or who is still fortunate enough to find

themselves in business.

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

[ Page 152 ]

statute, to educate and protect the health of all

people, at public expense, whether or not those people are employed.

Yet the government doesn't seem to care that the tax base shrinks, that

there is less money available from land taxation for schools and for

hospitals at the local level. It may be rather elementary to point out,

Mr. Speaker, but when people are unemployed or go bankrupt through no

fault of their own, the general economy not only loses the value of the

productivity of their labour or business skills, but the remainder of

the public, who are fortunate enough to be still carrying on, must work

harder and have a greater proportion of their income taxed by all

levels of government, just to maintain the status quo — sometimes not

even to maintain the status quo, just to maintain minimal standards of

health and social services.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder there are so few British Columbians with

money these days to invest in job-creating enterprises. For those who

do, why should they have any confidence in our economic future? Why, if

it takes more and more money and harder and harder work just to stand

still, to stay in one spot, to maintain a business or support a family,

should people put money aside to invest in B.C.? I hope they do. I

really hope they do, but, frankly, there's very little incentive there.

I believe that there is less incentive to invest in British Columbia

today than at any time since the Dirty Thirties. That may be an extreme

statement but, in fact, I believe it is true.

Very little is being put aside for new buildings and for industrial

plants. I emphasize very little for new things because it is quite

true. I think the government has said this, and I quite agree — that

large sums are being spent, and have been spent privately, in repair

and maintenance of existing facilities. But these massive expenditures,

Mr. Speaker, do not create new jobs and business opportunities. In

fact, I think as everyone knows, they are necessary if B.C. primary and

secondary industry is to survive at all. In fact, some major repair

projects, by adding needed efficiency, actually eliminate jobs. I don't

blame industries here; they have to do this to stay competitive

internationally.

What does the government do? Nothing of significance, especially in

the matter of attracting capital for job-intensive industries. Oh,

we've heard of more billions for Hydro projects, which are not

job-intensive in comparison. In construction they leave no permanent

jobs and are sometimes — nowadays, at least — not even popular in the

communities in which they are built. That's a change from a few years

ago when everybody jumped on the bandwagon when a billion dollars was

going to be spent on a dam. There's just been too much publicity and

too many complaints from too many city councils and environmental

groups, and I'm no longer convinced that massive public works

expenditures are popular in British Columbia.

Indeed, we are told that last year energy consumption actually went

down in Canada, and yet we are told that we need a $1 billion-plus

project at Revelstoke Canyon. You know, north of Revelstoke Canyon

there's a massive dam, the Mica project. It's not fully operational as

yet. The Seven-Mile project in my riding is not complete; Site 1 on the

Peace is not complete. No generators — nor are there plans for any

generators, to my knowledge, at least — have been installed in the

Keenleyside Dam, and yet more billions are going into more grandiose

projects whose need at this time is somewhat suspect.

I have some personal interest, and political interest as well, in

where the borrowed money is coming from for these projects. It could

come from Canadian sources, I suppose, but apparently the present

government has no faith in money borrowed in our country. They borrow

it on the U.S. market and the funds are repayable, Mr. Speaker, in U.S.

dollars at 10 per cent, plus interest; U.S. dollars, Mr. Speaker, which

are now worth 5 per cent more than they were when they were borrowed.

We are told that the Canadian dollar may eventually settle down in a

few months at 92 cents U.S., plus 10 per cent interest — a built-in 13

per cent surcharge, Mr. Speaker, plus 10 per cent interest to build a

dam which is not needed, is unpopular, and is not job-intensive in the

construction stage, let alone in operation.

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of millions that could be expended on

job-intensive health and educational programmes or, alternatively,

passed on directly to our economy through tax cuts, savings to the

consumer, are wasted. You can build a lot of bulk-water systems, pave a

lot of streets, save a lot of farmland, fill libraries with books, buy

a lot of dialysis machines — you name it — for $1 billion. No jobs, no

investment — no wonder.

There is widespread fear in B.C. that major sectors of our

resource-base economy could collapse or go into a serious decline, and

the statements regarding the Farm Income Assurance Programme don't help

those fears. Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that those fears have not

been created by the business community; they've not been created by the

opposition; they've not even been created by government statements.

They've been created by government actions — government actions only. I

ask: is it good business for an investor to sink money into secondary

and service industries in British Columbia in that kind of an

apprehension?

The hotels association estimated that the hotel vacancy rate in the

tourist season in B.C. may have been as high as 25 to 30 per cent. What

is it now in the winter — 50, 75 per cent? Why would anyone invest in

hotels and in restaurants? Prime retail space is vacant in many of our

major cities and has been so

[ Page 153 ]

for months on end. How much of our existing

secondary industry is running at less than capacity because of soft

markets right here in British Columbia? Indeed, I suspect, and some of

my information indicates, that the only firm markets much of our

secondary industry has are international or interprovincial. Why would

an investor invest for a new plant here, or to expand a plant, when

there is a continuing soft local market and they have to sell their

products across the line, or in other countries, or in other provinces?

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have soft markets here because the

consumer has no money and because there are too few business and job

opportunities available. Those who are active find their taxes are too

darned high to put anything aside for investment.

Last year, more families left British Columbia, according to

Statistics Canada, than moved in. This rather dismal statistic has

recently been reconfirmed after the preliminary figures disclosed it,

and I don't think this has ever before happened in British Columbia,

even in the depths of the Depression.

Many of these people who are leaving, I believe, possess precisely

the kind of skills, qualifications and professional expertise we so

desperately need. When they go, Mr. Speaker, they take their ability,

their productivity and their entrepreneurial drive. In some cases they

even take their capital if they can get it out.

Now we may often, whatever side of the House we sit on, deplore the

under use and misuse of natural resources, but I submit that our most

important resource is our human resource, and that imaginative

productivity that enriches us all. The government, in my opinion, is

squandering that resource, and all of us are the poorer for it. For

that reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in this very short debate on the

question of unemployment — in which I had not originally intended to

participate, and my participation will be brief because I presented

most of my opinions and comments on unemployment during my longer

speech on Monday — what I find most revealing is that not one single

government member has spoken on this subject; not one cabinet minister,

not one backbencher has seen fit to stand up and defend the

government's record on unemployment.

This is a government that spent many aggressive hours throughout

this province and in this Legislature attacking the former

administration on its economic policies, attacking individual ministers

and making rather wild promises during an election campaign about

providing jobs for British Columbians. One clear year after having full

and complete power in this province, with an overwhelming majority,

with no obstruction politically, not only have they not produced jobs

in this province, but they have not availed themselves of an

opportunity to stand up in this Legislature and state why. The silence,

Mr. Speaker, is deafening.

An issue that was of paramount importance to that group when they

were in opposition, an issue which they spoke on with passion and

seeming conviction, an issue upon which they presented themselves to

television studios, to newspaper reporters, to constituency meetings,

saying: "Vote Social Credit and we'll get British Columbia moving

again" — not a word. Not a statement, not a sound in participating in

debate that has now been on this amendment for some number of hours.

Not even a rallying cry.

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

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

MR. BARRETT: I'm suggesting that you don't even get a break

to make your own announcements; the minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) makes the new hospital announcements. Even that is robbed in

terms of your opportunity to say anything about unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, where are they now that they won the election? They

convinced the people of this province that they were going to create

boom times, that there would be jobs, that there would be investment,

there would be confidence. They said last fall, through the mouth of

the Premier, that the economy had turned the corner, that they had

solved all the problems they had inherited — real or imaginary — that

they had turned the corner.

There are 10,000 more unemployed people in this province this month

than there were a year ago, and not a single word in this debate from

the government defending its policy. It just sits there numbly, waiting

till the debate is over so they can get on with the vote that they know

they can win. Is there no unemployment in those constituencies that

those members represent? Is there no concern, no commitment over the

fact that you told the people of this province that you had the

economic answers necessary to provide jobs? You appealed to the private

sector — you believe in that — yet the major part of capital investment

in this province in the past year has been through massive borrowings

to support the public sector.

In the forest industry the major commitment in the production sector

has been through the publicly owned Crown corporation Can-Cel. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that after one year of a

so-called private-enterprise government, the only areas of the economy

that are functioning well and creating jobs, or maintaining the

existing jobs and making a profit, are the Crown corporations.

[ Page 154 ]

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker — I don't think you would, but you

might recall or ask some of your colleagues to recall to you — the

vituperative statements made about Panco Poultry? Yet that's provided

and maintained those jobs in Surrey. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the

attacks on the Princess Marguerite

and the attempt to shut that off? Do you remember the statements on

Can-Cel and Kootenay Forest Products that are publicly owned?

Mr. Speaker, don't you find it somewhat ironic that just a matter of

months ago the only ribbon-cutting done by the Premier on a new job

situation was at Plateau Mills in Vanderhoof, which was publicly owned,

which we bought and which was attacked by Social Credit? The only

sector that has maintained some semblance of balance in the economy of

this province has been in the public sector of the Crown corporations

or those industries bought by the previous administration. Don't you

find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that Can-Cel, Plateau, Kootenay Forest

Products, Panco Poultry, Ocean Falls, Princess Marguerite ,

the B.C. Petroleum Corporation — all of the major economic thrust made

by the former administration have become, in essence, the backbone of

what's left of the continuing economy of this province?

Social Credit has been in power 14 months, and not one significant

capital investment by the private sector has been made — not one!

Afton, the copper smelter outside of Kamloops, was started and

initiated by the NDP, and that is a matter of record, Mr. Speaker. That

Afton commitment was made while we were in government. Not one member,

not one cabinet minister, has stood up in the debate on unemployment

and catalogued any single action taken by this new government to bring

in one private dollar to stimulate a brand new job — only a pathetic

reference, Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech to Crown Zellerbach's $125

million investment that even Mr. Bill Hamilton of the Employers'

Council shot down as a committed five-year project anyway.

What about these vaunted connections, these praised connections,

these quiet tones of businesslike government that said: Vote for us and

we'll bring private investment into British Columbia. There is not one,

major, single project on the drawing boards of any engineering firm in

British Columbia for a major project in this province in the private

sector. Not one!

Our shipyards are idle, while our coastal communities are awaiting

the opportunity of having some transportation services. Our young

people are idle, waiting to go to work while this government sells off

its ferries, only to buy them back from Toronto.

Our older people, who do have the skills of plumbing and

carpentering and other journeyman efforts in the labouring field and

vocational fields, are lining up, waiting for jobs, and Social Credit

has produced absolutely nothing! And oh, how they used to howl; oh, how

they used to cry about jobs when they were in opposition! The private

sector has been a complete failure under a private enterprise

government. The private sector has convinced this government that the

major economic developments should come in the northeast sector by

coal. What is the private sector asking for before the project will go

ahead? It's asking for welfare. How ironic! The nerve of this

government, to go to Ottawa and say: we need $500 million in handouts

for infrastructure to allow private industry to develop a coal project.

If there's to be $500 million spent on this province for

infrastructure, then the infrastructure of that industry should remain

in the hands of the people who provided that money in the first place.

It was a charlatan's election, Mr. Speaker: say anything, do

anything and promise jobs. Do you remember the slogan: "Let's get

British Columbia moving again!"? Young, married people are leaving this

province every single day because they cannot find employment here in

British Columbia next to the bosoms of their families or their friends.

MR. LEA: "Work with Bill!"

MR. BARRETT: "Work with Bill!" The only work with Bill is

lining up, waiting, as my friend from Omineca said, for their

unemployment insurance cheques or welfare cheques.

MR. LEA: Just another bill to pay.

MR. BARRETT: It's a disgraceful, dismal performance by a

government that deliberately went out to the people and campaigned on

the argument that they were going to revive the economy. Not one major

capital investment by the private sector will be available in the next

year, not one!

Even the announcement of the pipeline is public funds to back up

that pipeline, and that's a fact. I'd like to acquaint the Premier with

the small print on the contract that, if the pipeline is not able to

carry its full capacity load to return the basic cost on a capital to

those private investors, then the B.C. Petroleum Corporation has to pay

the money. That's a fact. And the member who sits over there, who was

on the board — if you weren't aware of that by shaking your head, I

suggest you go back and read the initial contract. As a matter of fact

I ask you to challenge.... If you're shaking your head, table the

agreement here in the House. Table the agreement you signed,, and if my

statement is incorrect, you prove it in writing. But I tell you this:

unless that pipeline carries the full capacity, the people of this

province will have to pay.

There are no jobs, but what is even more hypocritical is that there

are not even words — not a peep; not a murmur; not a squeak out of that

smug

[ Page 155 ]

group over there who knew very well that they had

it in the bag. Just say: "Stop socialism. We'll create jobs." You

haven't done a thing.

You have taken money out of working people's pockets — ferry rates,

income tax. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) made a speech

to teachers recently saying: "Well, our taxation policies have not had

the economic stimulation that we anticipated." Does that mean that you

even over-estimated the amount of revenues you had?

The unemployment figures in this province are now 8.8 per cent.

Stand up and defend it! Stand up and tell us why, after your bleating

blandishments to the people of this province — "Work with Bill! Let's

get B.C. moving again!" — you've caused us a depression.

Not a word; not a sound; not a murmur! The timid backbenchers sit

there and the cabinet waits for the debate to be over. Oh, perhaps my

words will stir a little twinge of conscience in some of them and

they'll stand up and say: "Well, we're hoping for the private sector to

come back. We do hope the chappies in New York or Montreal will help us

out. But if the private sector won't invest, oh, golly, gee whiz, we'll

just have to wait."

Where's government action? Where's leadership? Where's investment?

Where's direction?' Where's commitment on behalf of the people of this

province? Certainly the world conditions are not perfect. But do you

have the ability, or the desire, or the commitment to do things for

ourselves, as we can, as we should be doing, as we did with Can-Cel,

Ocean Falls, the Princess Marguerite , Plateau Mills and Kootenay Forest Products?

You said you were against public ownership. Have you sold off

Can-Cel? Have you sold off Plateau Mills? Have you sold off Ocean

Falls? Not on your life. You even opened a new sawmill which is

publicly owned and which had been planned and built by our public

administration. I hope the Premier had the decency not to cut it with a

blue ribbon.

Silence, silence, silence, when you had so much to say on this

issue. Every one of those backbenchers who campaigned with that motto,

"Let's get B.C. moving again," sit condemned over the fact that they

haven't had the ability or the desire or the commitment to stand up in

this House and justify why we have 8.8 per cent unemployment under

Social Credit and its economic policies, which have not brought in one

major bit of capital investment.

We will have to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars more to feed

into those project-conscious areas like the Crown corporation of B.C.

Hydro, as my colleague from Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), has said. Hydro is

being used now as a whipping boy to continue massive borrowings to give

some appearance that the economy is being stimulated, while in actual

fact there is no rational reason why we should rely entirely on that

kind of borrowing.

What is the plan? What is the development? Is it something more than

the kind of blandishments we receive in the handouts and press releases

that say world economic conditions have sadly affected us? If we had

sat on our arguments about world economic conditions, we would have

allowed Ocean Falls to close as you would have. We would have allowed

Kootenay Forest Products to close as you would have. Can-Cel would have

gone; Panco Poultry. Yes, make fun about that, but there are tens of

people working there making a living there.

MR. COCKE: Four hundred and fifty jobs.

MR. BARRETT: Four hundred and fifty people. You may be smug

and smiling about that, but those people have the decency and the

dignity of bringing home a pay cheque that is their own.

But the crowning irony of everything else, Mr. Speaker, is this

amendment in itself. The crowning irony is that while they have not

said one word after those appeals by their leader of, "Work with Bill!

— "Confidence in British Columbia!" — the crowning irony after all of

those lines about, "Let's get British Columbia moving again!" — is that

the wording of this amendment has been debated in this House before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is an exact

duplicate of one initiated in this House four years ago in the throne

debate in rancour, in bitterness, in hostility and with vicious debate

against the New Democratic Party government that at that time had just

saved Ocean Falls, had moved on Can-Cel, and was planning the Petroleum

Corporation. This motion that has been presented by us and that has not

heard one single word from Social Credit is a duplicate of a Social

Credit motion placed in this House on January 29, 1973.

Yes, the mover now has found an exalted position in black. The mover

is now the Speaker of this House, and those speeches are on record of

what Social Credit would do when there were 10,000 less unemployed in

this province at that time. Unemployment was 8 per cent when Social

Credit brought that amendment into the throne speech. When they made

vicious, vituperative attacks against the government, they had all

answers, they had all the speeches. They knew what they were going to

do and they brought in this motion and debated it. Irony: four years

later unemployment is even worse, the economy has seen no stimulation

from the private sector, and we have dumb silence from the government,

its government benches and the backbench.

[ Page 156 ]

Oh, well, I've got to tell you about this, Mr. Speaker: we're two

years away from an election; let us all hope that the private sector

will come and rescue us from New York. You are laissez-faire; you have

no plans, no initiative other than the one stated — that you want

public welfare for that one corporation development in the northeast

sector of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the embarrassment on the vote of this particular

motion does not include you now in your non-partisan, exalted position. It would

be worthy of us, though, to check and see who was the seconder of this motion

so we could see how the seconder will vote now that the shoe is on the other

foot — when you said, when you were in opposition, that you knew all the answers

and that you knew how to solve every problem: just let private enterprise do

it. Not even a peep! Not a murmur! Not a whimper! Not a sound — just a well-disciplined

silence that in the armed services is called dumb insolence. "Get British

Columbia moving again!" "Work with Bill!" Mr. Sp