1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th 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)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page 41 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Point of order Mr. Speaker's statement in Votes and Proceedings not

complete.

Mr. Bennett — 41

Mr. Speaker — 41

Statement Report on Columbia River Development Cost Reallocation Study Committee.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 42

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Industrial Development Act (Bill

15).

Mr. Kelly. Introduction and first reading — 42

Affirmative Action Plan Act (Bill 16). Ms.

Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 42

Tenants Collective Bargaining Rights Act (Bill

17).

Ms. Brown. Introduction and first reading — 42

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 18).

Ms. Sanford. Introduction and first reading — 42

Throne speech debate Mr. Bennett — 42

Mr. Bennett (amendment to motion in reply to Speech from the Throne) —

Mr. Chabot — 52

Hon. Mr. King — 60

Mr. Wallace — 63

Mr. Smith — 64

Appendix — 68

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

rise on a point of order concerning the privileges of this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state them?

MR. BENNETT: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had a statement from

the Speaker, and it's purported to be recorded in the Votes

and Proceedings of this House. Yet I notice a very serious

omission of part of that statement. It's contained in the Blues

but is not recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of this

House.

Last year in this session we had a question of someone

attempting to change one word in Hansard — one word as

it would relate to the proceedings of this House — and there

was a very, very serious discussion about the recording and

accuracy of Hansard and the accuracy of the proceedings

of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is perhaps making an

error, because a statement of reasons on the question of

privilege made in the Votes and Proceedings is not

intended to be a Hansard . So if you're working on the

assumption that it is....

MR. BENNETT: No, I'm not, but it is my contention, Mr.

Speaker, that the Votes and Proceedings are an extension

of the full statement that would be made as recorded by

Hansard and that Votes and Proceedings would be

the complete statement and not an edited statement. A very

significant part of the statement that was made in this House

has been left off the Votes and Proceedings .

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the

question of parliamentary procedure that was discussed was

prepared by me and sent to the Clerk's office, and what I said

in the House was read by me with additions that were made by me

in comments or explanations beyond the written statement of the

parliamentary procedure involved?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He's not finished;

let's hear what he's got to say.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I make no changes in the speeches,

either as I prepare them, or that they may be delivered, but

the statement that was prepared in this House, in total, is not

the statement as recorded in Votes and Proceedings .

MR. SPEAKER: Nor does it have to be. In some cases a speaker

may merely say that he referred to a question of procedure. He

doesn't have to give the full statement or explanation he gave

in the House. He can merely give a short record of it in

Votes and Proceedings if he wishes, This is part of the

rules of parliament. If you want further consideration of the

issue, I'll be glad to expand on the subject.

MR. BENNETT: Well, yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish you would expand

on the subject, because are we to believe then that you have

the right of editorship over what is recorded in Votes and

Proceedings ?

MR. SPEAKER: I decide — or often the Clerks do — how much of

a matter discussed in the House in the way of procedure shall

be recorded, because on many occasions there are statements

made in the House, interchanges take place, and that is all

kept in Hansard quite accurately, so if you are

complaining that Hansard is in any way being altered,

you are not correct.

MR. BENNETT: I'm not complaining about Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: And so far as Votes and Proceedings is

concerned, it only is a statement of the particular

parliamentary law and it does not thereby add to it all the

comments or the editorial asides that you may make in the

House.

I would appreciate your giving me your authorities for this

statement. If you are complaining on a point of privilege, then

I suggest that you give me the authorities by which you are

being guided.

MR. BENNETT: I rose on a point of order to ask for

clarification, and your clarification is that you are prepared

to edit all statements, including your own, as they appear in

the Votes and Proceedings .

MR. SPEAKER: I'm prepared to give a

summary of the

parliamentary law, as I understand it from the authorities, in

Votes and Proceedings because it is there for

consideration of the House; it is there for the consideration

of those who come after us. Whether it is right or wrong, it is

a statement of the parliamentary procedure and it is not

intended to be a Hansard of the debates of the House.

Those are contained in a separate document which is quite

accurate, I hope.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order, please?

[ Page 42 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Speaker would

assure the, House that the tapes of Hansard concerning

this statement will be saved in case there is a final editing

of the Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. They are always saved and they

are then turned over to the aural records

section of the

archives. There are two sets of Hansard tapes: one is a

permanent all-day tape that is kept as a backguard-safeguard,

as it were, for anything that is said in this chamber. This is

kept in the archives, and I hope will be preserved for a long

time so that you can all some day write your memoirs.

AN HON. MEMBER: So do I.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I ask leave of the House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report

further with respect to the committee that was questioned by

the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams).

I should like to advise the House that the name of the

committee referred to was the Columbia River Development Cost

Reallocation Study Committee. The committee was appointed by

Dr. H.L. Keenleyside on September 26, 1967. The members of the

committee were, at the time of appointment: R.C. McMordie,

chairman; T. Chambers; R.W. Gross; J.W. Milligan, secretary;

and W.D. Kennedy — senior official of B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority. Others who participated in the committee were Mr.

L.E. Beard and Mr. E.G. Tallman.

The committee reported to Dr. H.L. Keenleyside, and we must

assume that in turn the reports and recommendations went to the

government of the day.

I ask leave to table with the House copies of some of the

related memoranda, data and minutes in relation to that

committee — all of them that were on file, when we became

government, that we were aware of, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. King presented a report on the Special Employment

Programmes Act, Careers '74, which was taken as read and received.

Hon. Mr. Lea presented the annual report for the Department

of Highways for the year 1973-74, which was taken as read and

received.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. Kelly, Bill 15,

An Act to Amend the

Industrial Development Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 16, Affirmative Action Plan

Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

TENANTS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

RIGHTS ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 17, Tenants Collective

Bargaining Rights Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

On a motion by Ms. Sanford, Bill 18,

An Act to Amend the

Land Registry Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

it's a pleasure to rise once again after being so rudely

interrupted by the mechanical system yesterday, which is a

change.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate some of

the points I made yesterday and point out to the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), who is finally with us

in the House a few days late, that my speech wasn't

pre-released, that I had a briefing session as I do with the

press ahead of time, but it isn't prepared, as his were, in

absentia many times — we feel that the report should come

directly from the Legislature.

Interjections.

[ Page 43 ]

MR. BENNETT: Yesterday we were concerned, Mr. Speaker, with

that part of the Speech from the Throne that offered no hope of

leadership for the people of the province regarding the

economic condition of this province as it relates to creating

unemployment within British Columbia, and the fact that

unemployment is now at its most unacceptable level ever in the

history of this province.

When you have over 100,000 people unemployed, and over

100,000 people on the welfare rolls, including those areas that

have been diverted to Mincome payments, it's a very serious

question that in British Columbia those that produce real

results from their labour are becoming a declining few and

those who are unable to find work and who must live off the

public treasury are becoming more and more. The balance is

getting out of all reason and it's unacceptable to us on this

side of the House, as it should be to all British Columbians

who want the opportunity of work in this province, the

opportunity to participate in and create the growth in this

province that will result in more taxation for government to

provide services to people.

It's very easy for a government to spend the money; it's

more difficult to take the responsibility of managing an

economy and creating the balance between growth and an economy,

both for employment and as a producer of taxes. That is the

difficult part of government. That is the difficult part. It's

easy to be a spender. It's difficult to be a producer and a

creator and a saver.

It's of small satisfaction to the 100,000 unemployed in our

province that this government and some of its Ministers laugh

off the problem and make light of their plight in

unemployment.

You know, they had a man-on-the-street interview in the

paper and these people were asked. The first Member said: "What

unemployment? I'm eating better than ever." The second one

said: "I've packed my bag. Under the NDP government I've never

had a better job and I have the opportunity to travel." The

third one says: "Since the election of the NDP I get to play

sporting events in far off lands."

They don't suffer from unemployment, Mr. Speaker.

Unemployment means nothing to them. They've solved their own

unemployment and the unemployment for their friends....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Right on.

MR. BENNETT: Take a look at how they've solved the

unemployment for their friends. There were 29,000 people in the

civil service April 30, 1972; 43,000 in the civil service June

30, 1974. That's 14,000 people. It's significant where the

increases are, Mr. Speaker....

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Their diets are working well.

They're only gaining three pounds a day.

MR. BENNETT: It's significant where the increases are. I see

the Finance department has increased from 775 to 1010. I can

give them the answer: they don't need more people on the

bottom, they need to change the man at the top, the Finance

Minister and the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who doesn't even

know the correct unemployment rate in this province.

He comes into this House and says the rate is 7.5 per cent,

doesn't understand that the latest DBS is 7.1, makes no attempt

to be aware of the amount unemployed. Sweep it under the rug;

hide your head like an ostrich from the problem and pretend,

and maybe it'll go away. Just maybe the Americans will do

something about their economy to bail out this government, this

government that was willing to take credit for the economy they

inherited. Yet now that they are in serious difficulty, they

blame every other part of society for their problems.

If it's not the problem of the former government, it's the

problem of governments before that. If it's not their problem,

it's the problem of the Liberals in Ottawa, or whoever's in

Ottawa. If it's not their problem, it's the multinational

corporations, or it's the problem of the United States or the

Japanese — everyone's problem but their own. What a cry-baby

government! What a cry-baby government!

Didn't you know that this party over there, 30 years in

opposition to the coalition government, the Liberal government

and the Socred government...? You had all the answers. You

have been two and a half years as the government of this

province, and everyone knows that the answers you had then were

not answers, just phrases. You have no answers for British

Columbia. You're showing no leadership; you're a failure, a

failure as government.

Look at the buildup of employment in the service, and yet no

employment is being created from this vast bureaucracy for the

people who want to produce in this province. Significantly,

where's the big buildup? Well, here, from 85 in Travel Industry

to 328. Well, we know it takes that many people just to buy the

tickets and handle the arrangements for the cabinet. They go on

their steady stream of vacations out of the country. They're

living well, and that's an easy way to escape from facing the

problems of the poor and the people who are suffering from

inflation and the people who can't find work in the Province of

British Columbia.

It's very significant, with all the increases in all the

departments, that one department shows a drop. What's this?

Industrial Development drops from 171 down to 61, and it's very

easy to see by their own figures that that has happened because

there has been no creation of jobs in this province.

[ Page 44 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Where are the jobs?

MR. BENNETT: It's so significant how little importance they

place on the creation of jobs in this province that the

Minister wasn't even taken on the last travel trip to China.

There are serious problems to be discussed in British Columbia,

Mr. Speaker, serious problems affecting not only our economy

but how we relate to the federal government.

At a time last November when this House was sitting, and

when Ottawa was bringing in serious proposals that would affect

provincial revenues in resource taxation, the two Members of

this government that apparently have the authority to deal with

gas exploration and natural gas were out of the Legislature,

out of the province, out of the country. While Alberta was

meeting with the federal government in an attempt to maintain

gas exploration in their province, nobody from British Columbia

was guaranteeing that gas exploration would continue here.

While they were resolving their problem, as much as they

disagreed with the proposals made by Ottawa on resource-revenue

sharing, in this province no action was taken until that famous

public relations exercise was dramatically announced over all

radio networks in British Columbia in January.

Exploration can only take place in the north during the

winter months, and the winter months were mostly gone — a

little late to crank up the exploration to save the economies

of Fort St. John and others, to search for the gas, which is

evidently short in this province, for use by our citizens and

for consumption.

MRS. JORDAN: Where was the Premier when he was needed?

MR. BENNETT: Here we have the responsible Members of

government — not just on a pretence trip to China — lolling on

the sands of Hawaii, while other governments in other parts of

Canada wrestle with their problem of guaranteeing the search

for gas, realizing that the timetable was short and if we were

to have exploration in the winter months of 1974-75, action

must be taken then — not a much-ballyhooed trip to Ottawa that,

as much as they would like to pretend is a success, the

newspaper articles from other provinces, particularly those

dealing with this very important resource — such as The

Albertan in Calgary — put into perspective as a public

relations exercise.

It said that on Tuesday the fiery B.C. Premier journeyed to Ottawa to inform

the federal government of his plan. Following a three-hour meeting with a government

group headed by Donald Macdonald, federal Energy Minister, a chastened Mr. Barrett

emerged from the conference room to announce that the deal was off. There would

be no increase in gas export prices in B.C. He said he came like a tiger and

left like a pussycat.

MR. PHILLIPS: He had his feet firmly planted in hot air.

MR. BENNETT: While it's very enlightening and humorous for

the people of B.C. to be entertained by their leader, their

Premier, and to have a steady stream of jokes, it doesn't fill

their belly or provide work opportunities for them or build the

province.

In 1972 the people of this province went looking for a

leader and they hired the court jester. They hired the court

jester, and it's of small satisfaction to them — the funny

lines and the quips are doing nothing about the serious

problems in British Columbia today.

Our economy has never ever been in a more precarious

position than it is right now. Our economy in British Columbia,

which has been taken for granted for so many years, is now

threatened in its ability to provide both jobs and taxation to

provide benefits for people. We must come to that conclusion

when we see the mounting unemployment and the decline of

industry as both a base for employment and a base for

taxation.

We must fear for government budgeting in the future. I know

that the economy has generated sufficient funds for this year

and probably for next year, but what of down the line? What

about these escalating costs in government, a buildup of

bureaucracy and a de-escalation of the impetus of the economy

outside in the private sector that provides the funds for

bureaucracy to function? Government has never ever created

wealth. Wealth is created outside in the private sector. It's

created by people. It's created out there by people's labour

developing the resources of this province, utilizing their

skills and initiative. Only after these people have contributed

their labour and their effort, then government can participate

both in a tax way and in a way of directing the economy. But

government itself has never ever created the wealth of a

province or a nation.

We've heard that this government, as I say, blames all their

problems on other areas, and as opposition they used to have

all the answers.

As opposition they took trips to Washington state. I wonder

if they'd go to Washington state today, where they're worried

about whether this province is going to take action that will

harm their economy.

I wonder if. the people of this province are prepared to

accept the statements of the mover of the motion on the throne

debate when he talks about this government doing something

about the forest industry and moving in. He quotes the one

company that isn't a Crown corporation as the government's

[ Page 45 ]

great success — Can-Cel, the one corporation the government

said they would leave in the hands to be managed independent of

government, and they quote that as their success story. That is

their success story. Mr. Speaker, they talk about that as their

success story, where all along they've been saying: "We're not

responsible for the management. We've left it out in the

private sector. We're not interfering. We're not giving it aid.

Lands and Forests aren't giving it special privileges — we're

treating it just like any other company." Any other company

until they get to the position of wanting to take some credit

and saying that Can-Cel didn't lay off people. Well, of course — they didn't have a chance to interfere with it. But how about

Kootenay Forest Products, which is 100 per cent owned by this

government? What about Kootenay Forest Products?

The second area of concern is that Kootenay Forest Products,

main employer in the Nelson area. This is from the Nelson Daily

News ....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: ...that has a Member who is not concerned

about their problems:

"Main employer in the area has been virtually shut down at

its Meadow Creek camp since early December. This has had a

drastic effect on the whole economy of the area. Instead of

approximately 125 people employed either directly or

indirectly, there are only 12 people employed."

Very important in an area of this size.

"As Kootenay Forest's actions was recently purchased by the

provincial government, Bob Williams, Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources, the Premier and Bill King, Minister of

Labour and MLA for this area, are being contacted and being

asked for an explanation as to why the government will take

over a company and then within a few months allow the company

to shut down."

This is the company the government should be talking about.

This is the wholly-owned company. This is the one where they

direct the affairs. This is the company that this government

should be taking credit for, not the company they say they

don't interfere with, not the company they say is operating

separately in the private sector and still is a private

company, even though they own 79 per cent of the shares.

Apparently their financial knowledge is just as sketchy there

as it is in the difference between a grant and a loan, which

the Premier is still trying to puzzle over since he made the

mistake in answer to the House the other day.

This is the difficulty we have in our economy. They blame the private sector.

Yet here we have one of the few government-owned corporations in the forest

industry, which they direct, laying off people in the Nelson area — 125 should

be employed — down to 12. That's the type of thing that's hurting the economy

all through the interior, the north and now spreading into the metropolitan

area of British Columbia. That over 10 per cent unemployment rate that's in

the interior and the north will eventually reach the urban area of Vancouver.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're consulting up there. They're

consulting the people into unemployment.

MR. BENNETT: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics, for January,

announced that the unemployment rate in B.C. was 9.1; that,

seasonally adjusted to make it look better, was over 7.5. But,

Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), they said in the same

report that in the north and the interior the unemployment was

over 10 per cent.

Yesterday your Premier and leader said he was willing to

accept DBS and the federal government. He didn't agree with

them anywhere else. Perhaps you could have a private discussion

with him and find out whom to believe from your side. He had

the wrong figure, and you've got the wrong story and your

government has the wrong action to lead this province.

We've seen a lot of changes by this party as government from

when they were in opposition. I can remember when they were

concerned about unemployment. I can remember, reading back in

Speeches from the Throne, that the then Leader of the

Opposition (Hon. Mr. Barrett) was concerned when he said, as

Leader of the Opposition, that he could solve the problems,

even if he wasn't Premier. He had a Datsun plant and a Toyota

plant; then a copper smelter and a steel industry and a

shipbuilding industry.

Well, British Columbia waited for them while he was in

opposition and they are waiting now that he is the Premier of

the province. Where is the Datsun plant? Where is the Toyota

plant? Where is the copper smelter? Where is the steel

industry? Where is the shipbuilding industry? All of these

specific items were promised then and are promised still, while

unemployment is rising.

If they have these industries available that they had all

the answers for and were going to bring on stream then, why

aren't they here now? Why aren't they creating industry to

employ British Columbians now? Why not? Because now, as then,

they have no answers. Talk, talk, talk.

Their answers then are the same as the solutions that they

developed. They can be taken in the same context as the

promises that the present Premier wouldn't serve as his own

Finance Minister, that he was going to take all the taxes off

education on a five-year programme, that we were going to have

[ Page 46 ]

per cent assessments immediately. We can take those promises

of a Toyota plant and a Datsun plant and place them side by

side with those statements from a bygone year. Put together,

they spell "deception" — deception to the people of this

province.

People want leadership; people want government that will lead them out of the

problems of unemployment and economic difficulties. Yet we have no problems.

Even those things that were promised in bygone days are not being delivered.

It's a government, Mr. Speaker, of waste and welfare and excuses, and it's good

at all three. That's what characterizes this government, a government that now

seems to assume that they have royal prerogative. They almost talk as if they

were using the royal "we." I remember when the speaker from Alberni (Mr.

Skelly), who moved the throne speech, talked about how we've had 21/2 years

of NDP rule. "Not-serving-the-people-as-government" NDP rule. There seems to

be confusion enough in this House and in this province between the Legislature

and the Crown and the people, and it seems to me that certain Members on the

government side have delusions of grandeur of ruling and not of serving the

people in this province.

This government with its attitude has alienated local

government; it has alienated the federal government. For the

first time we've had a Member stand up in this House and say

that relations are the worst they have ever been with the

MR. PHILLIPS: They were going to have a love affair with

them. They were going to have a love affair with Ottawa.

MR. BENNETT: That is a statement of the mover of the Speech

from the Throne. It comes along and develops upon a theme

that's right in the Speech from the Throne: relations are the

governments who now cannot finance within the framework of

their tax revenues. They've alienated the school trustees and

the teachers. But most of all they've alienated the people

themselves. They're not a government of the people; they're a

government for selected people.

I find it amusing to listen to the statements of the Premier

as he goes around the province and talks about why there were

overruns in government. He had to catch up on the school

construction and the hospital construction, and that's where

the money went. But now they're going to cut their cloth to

suit the budget.

But what about those massive new capital constructions for

schools? In the report filed in this Legislature, answers to questions — questions that were

phrased and answered the same right from the year of 1968 on —

we see dollars spent on school construction in 1970 — $45

million; 1971 — $51 million; 1972 — $55,300,000; 1973, the last

reported amount — $39,800,000. An increase? Is that the type of

an increase they talked about when they raised their salaries?

Not likely. Down in one area. That's not where the money went.

Where has the money gone?

Hospital construction? Let's take a look. 1971 — $19,862,000;

1972 — $17,724,000; 1973 — $20 million; 1974 — $23 million. But

in that period of inflation, Mr. Speaker, a lift of $2.5

million doesn't even meet the inflationary rise to meet capital

construction costs. It reflects in the number of beds that were

created. We can only express the dollar amount in what it

creates in services.

Here we have 1971: 551 acute care beds, 221 extended care.

That's 772 beds.

In 1972: 364 acute care, 586 extended care. That's 960

beds.

In 1973: 335 acute care, 569 extended care. That's down to

just over 900.

In 1974, they give a total of just 773 beds. They don't even

break them down.

That's not progress; that's not where over expenditure has

gone. It's another excuse developed and presented to the public

that doesn't actually sum up the situation. It doesn't tell us

where the money has gone or where it's going. We certainly know

it isn't going where they said it's going. There are the

figures as they have been presented to the people of the

province, and those figures are the government's own

figures.

We of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, Mr. Speaker,

propose for this province a series of initiatives that will get

this problem through, that will create housing, that will

create employment, that will get out people working again, and

offer them the opportunity to own their own homes.

We propose a B.C. housing corporation, not a Dunhill

Development that buys projects at inflated prices, not a

Dunhill Development that pays millions to developers who have

already started projects and have them already under

construction, and then take their money down to California and

start new housing projects. They don't even keep their money in

B.C. because they see how inefficient this government is. Who

wants to invest in a province with leadership like that? They

laugh all the way to the bank. But it's not funny to the people

of British Columbia to have a Housing department and a Housing

Minister who allows this to happen, and a government that

appointed the Housing Minister in the first place.

We propose a B.C. housing corporation that will effectively

deal and direct the development of

[ Page 47 ]

housing, both in rental accommodation and in ownership, in

this province.

That housing corporation will be able to effectively control

or subsidize interest rates to those sectors of the economy

that need help. It will administer those funds such as the

second mortgage fund which has always had an effective interest

rate lower even than the first mortgages of the Central

Mortgage and Housing Corp. It will be able to distribute the

home buyer's grant. It will be able to direct and deal in other

areas of housing from co-op to government-sponsored housing to

the creation of individual housing where people are allowed

individual ownership.

It will not be used as its own contractor or be able to use

up social capital and waste it in buying existing projects. It

will be able to direct housing in all areas of this province,

to direct housing to the municipalities, to those areas where

it's needed. If we need an inventory of 40,000 or 50,000 new

units, it will be able to direct those areas in advance.

It will need the cooperation of municipalities. I will

mention further in this speech how we propose to get their

cooperation by helping them in their financial problems, which

is one of the reasons why they are discouraging housing within

their boundaries.

We would take the B.C. housing corporation and we would make

it work for the people. We would allow them the opportunity of

home ownership that the people came to this province and this

country to get. Many of them left countries like England and

other countries to get away from being tenants, either of the

state or of the large landowners. If in British Columbia you

had lived and travelled in the interior, as I have, and seen

the early homesteads, nobody would have gone through the

hardship of carving them out of the wilderness to have them

owned by the state, to be tenants of those homesteads and of

those areas, to be tenants of someone else. It's not in the

interest of the individual to work and put in those hours to be

a tenant of the government, no matter who is the government of

the day. Only a person owning his own home has the freedom and

feels the freedom of being a free citizen and not a tenant, and

who can truly make a democratic judgment and be part of the

democratic process and truly a free citizen.

And let's take those areas, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Brown-out Barrett! Brown-out Barrett!

MR. BENNETT: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that nobody will ever

accuse the present Premier of knowing anything about secret

reports in any of the Crown corporations after the incredible performance he put

on just the other day in the House and lack of knowledge of the

B.C. Rail of which he's president. He doesn't know about a

shortage of cars for the lumber industry; he doesn't know the

unemployment rate. He doesn't even know how they're going to

get cars to solve the problem or what the production

schedule

of the proposed car plant is. Nobody will ever accuse him of

having special knowledge, or even any knowledge, of the problem

for the Crown corporations. An incredible performance in this

House!

MR. PHILLIPS: He knows how to deal with the Arabs,

though.

MRS. JORDAN: No, they know how to deal with him.

MR. BENNETT: Housing is a very real problem for our people,

and they are expecting leadership from government in the

creation of that housing, Mr. Speaker. They are looking for

help. They are looking for opportunity to own their own home,

as I've said. We believe that this can be done with the

creation of a B.C. housing corporation, as I suggested — one

that will make available the opportunity of home ownership to

everyone in British Columbia. Then those who choose to be

tenants by choice and not by direction.... The only way they

can get land in this province — that owns 95 per cent of the

land — the only way they can get their own small piece, is to

lease it. That's not acceptable to us, and I think that recent

results of the land-lease auctions in Prince George and in the

north would indicate that the people of this province don't

wish to pursue that course. They want to own their own land. We

believe that, cooperating with the municipalities, the B.C.

housing corporation will be able to take what steps are

necessary to guarantee that this opportunity for home ownership

can exist in British Columbia again.

To make this possible, Mr. Speaker, we also propose a new

financial arrangement with municipalities, one that we proposed

last fall in this House and one that we reiterate. It is the

principle of revenue-sharing, coupled with pre-budgetary

conferences with municipal governments in this province. It's

not new. It's been advocated for years by municipal

governments. The government in Ontario has gone part way and

done some study on the subject. But what we could do is to take

those steps on a provincial basis, and in any future conference

with the federal government that involves the sharing of the

revenues of this country, I believe it would be the

responsibility of this province to bring leadership, along with

Ontario, in asking that the federal government itself, when

they reallocate revenues, be made aware of the plight of

[ Page 48 ]

municipalities.

When the BNA Act was drawn up and Canada was created, nobody

anticipated the growth of this third level of government.

Nobody anticipated that today, as in 1975, it would be the

largest form of government, one touching more people, faced

with more costs, dealing with people, and also, Mr. Speaker,

ending up being the most democratic of all levels of

government. Municipal government is the one level of government

where people can appear before their council, question their

representatives. It is the one level of government where they

can expect answers, and it's right there in their local

community to serve them. They don't have to travel to Victoria

or Ottawa. They can get immediate response; and while many

people think that the discussion and, at times, the shouting

that breaks out on the municipal level is wrong, I say it is

healthy for democracy.

We say that the costs facing these municipalities can no

longer be met — as they haven't for some years — off the

property tax, which is a regressive tax. We believe that, while

leaving the property tax, the municipalities must participate

in those growth revenues that reflect the economy of both their

province and their country.

Here is the level of government faced with all the costs of

handling inflation, the increased costs of providing services

to people, increased costs now that society is more aware of

pollution and the controls needed and the costs of

waste-disposal systems and other controls that can only be put

on at a municipal level. This level of government must have

those additional funds, not funds tossed out in an airy-fairy

scheme on your way to Ottawa, but funds specifically from more

than one resource area, and specifically from more than one tax

area.

We think, specifically, that a portion of the provincial and

the federal share of the income tax should go to

revenue-sharing and be designated to the municipalities. We

believe that a portion of the revenue from resources should be

allocated to municipalities.

This, Mr. Speaker, was a point we made and developed at our recent convention

and is a commitment not only of myself, but of the party as part of the policy

that we are committed to: revenue-sharing for municipal governments in this

province. This will help the housing problem, as I suggested earlier. It will

help the problem of housing, as I suggested earlier, because municipalities

have been prone to discourage development of housing within their boundaries

because they have looked upon it as a cost factor. They have looked on housing

on a balance-sheet basis. Yet government is only there to serve people, and

municipalities have been forced to think this way because of the limitation

of the source of their funds. This will allow them to encourage housing, to

provide space for housing, and, with the B.C. housing corporation, would, indeed,

go a long way to solving the immediate problem for making available serviced

lots which are in short supply and fictitiously high-priced in this province

because of the actions of this government. That is a commitment of our party.

Of course, in other areas, we would like to have seen a

commitment in education in the throne speech, not only that we

recognize that education can best be directed on the regional

level by the school trustees, but also in cooperation with the

classroom teachers, and also the opportunity for equality for

all students in this province, and that the government would

work together with the school districts to provide an education

system that could incorporate within it all of the independent

schools which now are precluded from participating in

government financing. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this

government of today, but certainly our government of tomorrow,

would make this a prime requirement in the field of education

and offer this opportunity for all children in British

Columbia.

In the area of pensions and income maintenance, I read the

report of the Premier's speech to Simon Fraser where he said

the other parties would do away with Mincome and do away with

Pharmacare. That's not true. I want to say that....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Oh, you like something we've

done, eh?

MR. CHABOT: You've expanded our programme. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier

makes light of it now, but....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not me. I take it very seriously.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, the unemployed know how serious you are.

You're really funny to them, really funny. Giggle, giggle.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: In talking about Mincome, I congratulate this

government on those extensions they made of the supplement to

old age pensions that has historically been available in this

province. I congratulate them on the extension they made in

including other people. But I wouldn't want them to continue to

fool the public, such as the misstatement the Premier made. I

mean the continuing part of the misstatements he made that we

would do away with Mincome because, Mr. Speaker, this....

Interjections.

[ Page 49 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a lie, and you know it. You're

misleading the people.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you for rent control or against rent

control?

MRS. JORDAN: You're interrupting the speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's another lie?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you for rent control or against

it?

MRS. JORDAN: Have you asked Rosemary lately?

MR. PHILLIPS: We're for housing for people. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Leader of the Opposition

wants the interjections or would he like the Speaker to

intervene?

MR. CHABOT: You do anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Whenever I get a chance. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: If I understood the Speaker's formula for

intervention it would be easier for me to interpret when I want

....

MR. SPEAKER: All you have to do is signal with your right

eyebrow when you want any help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: I'm not looking for help. I believe the Speaker

is here to serve the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Absolutely. That's what I try to do.

MR. BENNETT: Now, in the area of pensions, this province, through coalition

governments, and I guess Liberal governments, and other governments, has always

had supplements to the old age pension. Those supplements have taken that pension

that's always been the highest in Canada. Those supplements have been separate

provincial supplements, initially, up to 1960, and after 1960 the supplements

were part of a new federal-provincial formula. But I want it made perfectly

clear that since 1942 this province — and it isn't just the government of the

day — on behalf of all the people has been able to supplement the old age pension

for our senior citizens and, while it's never enough, this province through

other parties, meaning other governments, has, on behalf of the people, always

made a commitment to solving the pensions of the elderly.

This is a record of the province and not necessarily the

private preserve of those people who select what answers they

are going to give on any particular day. We would like to see...because Mincome today, if we take the purchasing power of

the pension in 1972, today, at its level, there is less

purchasing power for our senior citizens because of the

escalation of food costs in this province than they had in

We believe that Mincome, or whatever you want to call the

programme, should be tied to the cost of living and it should

have a new, higher base representative of the change in the

cost of living since that time. It's indicative that with the

jump in Mincome there was a $17 increase in the federal

participation right after that was never passed along. Much of

the work that the federal government has done has not been

recorded in benefits to our elderly, and we would suggest that

the basic minimum now should be $260. But we should also

recognize those benefits for senior citizens who have been able

to provide for their own old age and they, too, should not be

neglected by government or by society in the provision of

benefits to help them who are just above the minimums of

Mincome.

We've got to take a long look that people will be

discouraged from looking after their own old age and their own

retirement time of life. They should be rewarded and not

penalized for having done this. Then again, in Pharmacare,

there has been a good extension of a programme, but remember we

had the drug supplemental programme that in 1972 had given over

nearly a million prescriptions and had $3.3 million in drug

supplements alone, plus $2 million for dental care and optical

care. Again, we would agree that this is a good programme and

it's one that has been brought in with the minimum of

bureaucracy. We agree that it should be extended, though, to

those families with chronically ill children who require

medication. If drugs and the cost of drugs are a problem for

our senior citizens, certainly the young families, if they're

fortunate enough to be employed in this province right now,

struggling to make ends meet, with chronically ill children,

have a similar problem. We believe that those benefits should

be extended in that area also.

In the area of industrial development, of course, Mr.

Speaker, it goes without saying that this province has

suffered. It's my understanding that full cooperation and the

full use of the DREE programme has not been made and that we

need to decentralize industry in this province and decentralize

population into those areas which need a balance, where they're

served only by resource industries now, and we need a

development of secondary industry. The B.C. Development Corp.,

as it has been set up, has been a disaster. What we need in

this province is some direction for secondary industry, some

[ Page 50 ]

both in feasibility studies and some aid, Mr. Speaker, in

providing not free grants, but low-interest loans to help them

over their early years — a revolving fund that will aid small

secondary industries. We certainly don't need to give financing

to the big firms.

Those citizens don't want the government to have equity

ownership. They want the opportunity to own their own business

and direct it, and they're looking for the one thing that's

difficult for them, and that's the availability of low-cost

capital. I think the province can do that very, very easily.

It's money well invested in the future of our province, and it

would develop into a revolving fund.

We've got to understand that we have a problem with the

economy in this province, particularly as it relates to the

resource industries and particularly as it relates — to mining

and to forestry. It's not very reassuring to have the statement

from the government that the mining companies are ripping off

when we see what's happened to this province and the lack of

jobs and the extension to the loss of that economy to other

areas of service and employment that are dependent upon them.

It's been part of the gradual deterioration of the interior

economy, an economy that helps to feed the whole provincial

economy, and eventually is what is causing and what has caused

the problems we're faced with now.

One only has to take a look at what has happened to mining

claims in this province to realize that the actions of this

government, along with the inaction I've talked about, have

actually discouraged the development of our economy. We see

mining claims in British Columbia, that in 1972 were 53,000,

down to 24,000 in 1973 and down to 10,000 in 1974.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

MR. BENNETT: By contrast, the Yukon, which was 3,000 in

1972, is 7,889 in 1973 and up to 12,450 in 1974.

AN HON. MEMBER: You see where they all went.

MR. BENNETT: It's interesting to see where they all went.

Bill 31 has often been titled "The Yukon Development Act." It

may be funny to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). To

those people who lost employment, either directly or

indirectly, it's not funny, Mr. Speaker, and it shouldn't be

funny to the MLAs that claim to represent them.

You can't blame it just on mineral prices, because in 1973, when they were

at record highs, there were 15 projects ready to be developed in this province

at a cost of $2 billion. They would have employed 6,000 people directly and

40,000 indirectly. Yet that Member says that it's because of mineral prices

now. Not at all. We have letters of complaint from responsible people in northern

communities who have complained directly to the government. I have a copy of

a letter from the mayor of the District of Stewart, who wrote to the Hon. Minister.

He sent me a copy, and he says:

"Thank you for your recent letter in which you state that

the mineral land tax Act could not be the reason that Granduc

has cut back production and laid off 500 employees, resulting

in the loss of a $6 million annual payroll to my community and

to our province.

"It seems to me that you and your experts are guilty either

of not realizing what havoc your mineral royalties legislation has wrought on

our mining communities or of not caring."

Mayor McLeod goes on further to say:

"Certainly it seems reasonable to conclude that the Granduc

cutback could not be blamed on just your 2.5 and 5 per cent

royalties, but let us not forget the super-royalties. Are you

not of the opinion that a mining company would be more inclined

to take a loss, or alternately to stockpile concentrates,

during times of low metal prices if it was known that a fair

profit could be made when the metal prices were high?

"What I fail to understand is why your people went ahead

with the super-royalty in spite of overwhelming opposition from

your many friends and supporters. Surely the telegram of June

3, 1974, from Frank Howard to the Premier opposing the

super-royalty, and moreover predicting the dire results of such

legislation, would have made your people aware of the mistakes

you were making."

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: I wonder if he's being muzzled by getting a

job. And he says:

"More than anything else, however, what I as a lifelong

supporter of your party find hardest to explain to the citizens

of this community, which has lost two-thirds of its workforce,

is why a supposed 'people's government' in Victoria would not

make one telephone call or send one senior official to the area

to see if help is needed.

"The Stewart municipal council unanimously supports my

views on this subject. We all trust that you will now realize

that your royalty legislation must be modified forthwith.

"Yours very truly, I. McLeod, Mayor."

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that

this government has no answers for the economy of this province. It's

obvious that they've authored many of the problems of unemployment that

are prevalent in this province. Certainly we know that we're also

suffering as part of a global economic situation. Certainly we must all

[ Page 51 ]

aware that B.C. can never divorce itself from both the

Canadian economy and the global economy. But we also must

accept that the government of the day has the responsibility to

control and direct those parts of their economy internally so

that they do not aggravate a situation.

British Columbia at one point in time was able better than

any other province to withstand a world economic collapse or a

world economic situation such as we face today. But because of

the actions of this government, specific work that would have

picked up unemployment during this period — capital

construction costs of mines....

I know the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

has taken a strong interest in this part of our economy and has

led the fight against this government, and he should be

interested in this. He's concerned for this province, as we all

should be, that this employment base and this capital

construction, which would provide employment now and employment

in the future, is lost during a time when we must have it, when

we need it, when we need that expansion and development of the

economy that will save us from this particular situation, to

guarantee government revenues to continue programmes to people.

We must have them. We must have them.

Yet this government seems unaware and is plunged on this

course, not out of study and not out of any particular set of

statistics or knowledge of the industry, but out of a blind

commitment of hatred against a particular segment of society

and against private ownership in general. Their preoccupation

and their commitment to this political belief is hurting this

province of British Columbia and her people.

I would suggest that in this year 1975 we take this area out

of political discussion where it cannot be resolved now, and

that we appoint a royal commission to deal adequately with

resource revenue as it shall be distributed both to government

and companies, as it needs to provide employment and profits to

continue the expansion and to attract the investment capital

that is needed, and that a royal commission would come up with

a formula that would guarantee a formula that is fair and will

provide for the division of capital, or of moneys, or of

revenues that will guarantee the continued expansion and

employment, and yet make sure that the people, through royalty

revenue and through the other taxation revenues that are

available to governments, at their disposal, the income tax and

others...that it will make available to government those

revenues also, can guarantee that this province will be able,

in all areas through industry, to provide employment for our

people.

I think that this royal commission should look also at all areas of resource

revenue, and in the forest industry as well. I think it's long past the time

from the last Sloan commission that we had an independent inquiry — not an in-House

inquiry, not a sweetheart report, but an independent royal commission — in which

the public and all are allowed to make presentations. Hearings should be conducted

in public available to the people of the province — able to discuss in concert

with not just provincial government and management and labour, but also the

fourth hand at the table, that of the federal government in their search to

divide the spoils of resources.

We must be able to come up with a formula that can be

developed in consultation, not confrontation, and be solved at

the bargaining table, not through a flurry of press releases

hastily conceived on a trip to the east. This is the only way

in 1975 that British Columbia can solve this important

situation dealing with our economy and guarantee to our people

employment, and to those investors a climate of stability that

allows them some opportunity of return.

We don't need to give guarantees because the right to make a

profit also should contain the right to go broke, but we do

need to have guaranteed stability within the rules, and to know

that the rules won't change to suit the referee and some of the

players.

I was pleased to see in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker,

mention of electoral reform. There again, it's another

important part of our system that is being brought in without

any opportunity for the public to participate by way of input

or discussion. If something as important as this can be

directed by partisanship, when we're opening up the whole area

of electoral reform, I would feel that it's in the public

interest to guarantee to them that any government with its

majority will not be playing with the rules or making the rules

to suit their particular situation.

I know that Ontario recently, in this regard, called a

public commission, the Camp commission. They had on it

representations that would have reflected other party views:

Douglas Fisher, Farquhar Oliver, Mr. Camp. They held public

meetings and hearings in the Province of Ontario in all areas

of electoral reform as it related to election expenses and the

financing of campaigns.

I think, when we talk electoral reform in this province,

that any such commission should go further and that the

electoral reform should also cover redistribution, and it

should cover what seems to be on everyone's mind: whether there

are alternative methods of voting in this province. It should

be prepared to receive from the public submissions and

suggestions that they can present to this Legislature, not on a

partisan basis but on a basis that these are the suggestions

and ideas of the public who we are here to serve, and that only

in such a non-political report could the basis of any

forthcoming legislation be drafted with the guarantees to our

citizens, that we have indeed arrived at a solution that was

not

[ Page 52 ]

partisan but equitable for all.

I would also advocate that in this year our party — further

in our commitment to more involvement from our citizens — would

be prepared to advocate several bills and Acts that would allow

for more possibility for the public to participate in

government. There are very few parts of the American system of

government that I would ever advocate or defend, but one part,

Mr. Speaker, is that they have an opportunity for citizens to

advocate an initiative or a proposition that could be discussed

or dealt with by their legislature. On a petition of 10 per

cent of the population, such an initiative could be introduced

by the people when they get a government that's unresponsive to

their wishes, and it would guarantee that no one-time election

mistake would mean that the people are precluded from having

themselves heard for three, four or five years, whatever

decision that government may make.

MR. PHILLIPS: Like we've got here in British Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: We would believe that we would introduce a

citizen's initiative Act and bring this new opportunity to the

citizens of the province to participate in the public

discussion and the discussion of public affairs.

Our party, Mr. Speaker, also believes that a subject much in

discussion is transit. While the discussion seems to revolve

around who has the authority for transit and whether

consultation is being allowed or going on between regional or

municipal authorities and the government, we'll never be able

to develop a transit system until the authority and the

financing guidelines are clearly defined.

We would intend to introduce to this House an urban transit

authority Act which would indeed, Mr. Speaker, spell out such a

formula both as to capital costs, after the federal proposal —

a capital cost, such as a 75-25 provincial-regional — and

continuing grants for operating deficits, which everyone knows

such a transit authority would incur. We would call further for

the amalgamation in those areas or the taking in of the transit

facilities away from Hydro and into any such authority where

such authority was set up on a regional basis. We intend to

introduce a bill in this House covering that.

We also intend to introduce a bill called "The Truth in

Autoplan Act" which would guarantee that the public would know

the true cost of the premium and that for any subsidies, either

hidden or real, but undisclosed to the public, the public would

have the full opportunity to know the costs of Autoplan and

their auto insurance. We will introduce that Act in this

Legislature. I think it's a question that's on the public's

mind. It would serve the public interest.

We also intent to introduce the franchise dealer protection Act, because today

the complaints in this province, Mr. Speaker, from people who either have gas

station franchises or fast-food franchises or other, many of them, are at the

mercy of an unreasonable contract — a contract, Mr. Speaker, that does not allow

them the opportunity of showing the initiative that an individual operator must

have. Rather than reflecting the competitive or initiative system or any enterprise

system, they really are the extension in some form, in some areas, of a monopoly,

and we don't agree with that.

We would introduce a bill called the "Restraint on

Speculation Act" to restrain the Minister of Finance from using

all the powers of the Revenue Act to speculate with the

public's money, Mr. Speaker, because we've seen a decline in

many of the investments, and we know that there's been a loss

of social capital for the people of British Columbia and will

be lost from benefits.

We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, with

unemployment in this House. We are concerned that the people of

this province are suffering because of the economy. We are

concerned because of the unemployment rates that we've

discussed. We are concerned that because of the economy the

public will not be allowed to or have the economic opportunity

to buy a house. We feel that this government hasn't shown

leadership or direction in this throne speech to solve those

problems.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I propose an amendment, moved

by myself and seconded by the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), that the motion in reply to the opening speech of His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the

words:

"This House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to

provide adequate proposals for strengthening the economy of the

province so as to provide work opportunity for our people to

alleviate the highest unemployment rate in our history."

Mr. Speaker, in introducing such an amendment we must be

aware that even this government, even the Premier when he was

opposition leader, was concerned about unemployment in this

province at a much lower level than we have now. I can remember

from January 24, 1972, from the Journals of the House, where he

was concerned about an unemployment level of 64,000 people. He

was concerned about a welfare roll of over 100,000 people.

Well, now when we have over 100,000 people unemployed in the

province and 100,000 on welfare, certainly that concern must be

even greater today at the worst period in our history for

employment for our people.

Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I certainly

[ Page 53 ]

wish that it wasn't necessary for me to second this

amendment to the Speech from the Throne but after having

examined the speech, Mr. Speaker, I find that the speech is

shallow indeed. It is shallow in its content, shallow because

that government is unwilling to face up to the realities and

the concerns that the people of British Columbia are

experiencing at this time.

Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, is there a reference to unemployment

in the Speech from the Throne.

That government over there, when they were in opposition,

constantly castigated the former government for its lack of

content in the Speech from the Throne. But there was never any

exception; there were never any deletions on the concern with

unemployment by the former government, Mr. Speaker, because

they referred constantly in every Speech from the Throne to

their concern for jobs in British Columbia. The last speech

delivered by the former government makes reference to

unemployment, the plight of people and the action which the

government proposed to take to alleviate the problem of the

day.

On Thursday, January 20, 1972 — that session opened a little

earlier than this one — they were ready, Mr. Speaker. They said

in that speech delivered by the Lieutenant-Governor that:

"In October, 1971, there were 53,000 persons unemployed in

British Columbia, or 5.7 per cent of the labour force.

Nevertheless, this is a significant improvement over the 1970

figures, when 69,000 persons or 7.9 per cent of the labour

force were unemployed. The continued expansion of the economy

in the province is an encouraging sign and the rate of job

creation has been adequate under normal circumstances. However,

I beg to report that the continued high level of migration into

the province affects this delicate balance and creates

additional problems for which solutions are being sought. In

order to help reduce the unemployment rate with which we are

faced, you will be asked to consider job-creating measures

involving British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, the

Pacific Great Eastern Railway Co., housing, forest and park

development and protection of the ecology."

It was clearly spelled our, Mr. Speaker, at a time when

unemployment was substantially less than what it is at this

time. There was concern expressed. The figures were related in

the Speech from the Throne; yet this shallow document, for

which we have an amendment on the floor, is unconcerned about

those people who are unemployed in British Columbia.

The latest figures I have, Mr. Speaker, were issued by the

Unemployment Insurance Commission in Vancouver, and they have

this to say in relationship to the numbers of people

unemployed:

"Unemployment in British Colombia is about 100,000 and the

economy is at its lowest level in 15 years. These figures are

given today by economist Dr. Roslyn Kunin of the UIC in

Vancouver. She based her figures on the number of claims for

insurance benefits being made by jobless people.

"Dr. Kunin said in her interview that the number of people

on claim who are connected with the forest industry is 40 per

cent higher than a year ago. 'There are 11,000 people related

to woods operation on claim right now,' she said. 'There has

been 1,000 layoffs recently in the mining industry.' She said:

'Employees in many small firms from Squamish to Fort Nelson,

along the route of the strike-bound B.C. Railway, have swollen

the number of unemployed.'

"'The most recently available figure for UIC claimants,'

she said, 'was 84,726 in September.' But she estimated that the

total now has increased to more than 100,000.

"Statistics Canada figures show that 'B.C. had an actual

unemployment rate of 7.3 per cent. Those were the latest

figures; more recent figures have been issued which show the

effective unadjusted rate of unemployment in British Columbia

to be 9.1 per cent of our labour force."

Yet there is no mention whatsoever in the Speech from the

Throne relative to the serious problem that 100,000 British

Columbians are facing today.

I was surprised, as well, that the mover and the seconder of

the Speech from the Throne failed to make any reference to the

plight being faced by the people of this province. One talked

about Bomarc missiles. Certainly it is of concern, but I would

think that unemployment would be of far more real concern to

the individual in this province than the storing of missiles in

the United States.

The Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) talked about the

strained relationship that exists between western Canada and

the federal government. He said that it was more strained now

than it has been since the time of the Louis Riel rebellion.

That's going back a long way — that's going back to 1885, Mr.

Speaker. What kind of political nonsense is that?

We have a government who has suggested that it is going to

be on a good relationship with the national government. Is this

some kind of a plot, some kind of a political plot, that is

being instigated by that government against Ottawa, first

initiated by the Premier and the Speech from the Throne, then

also by the mover and the seconder? There appears to be some

kind of conspiracy developing on that relationship between

Ottawa and the Province of British Columbia — a real vendetta,

Mr. Speaker. But lo and behold, that mover and seconder,

great

[ Page 54 ]

servants of the people, showed little concern about those

who are seeking employment in this province. No concern at

all.

Oh, I remember the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) when he was in opposition. Oh, he was

concerned about the unemployed, but what is he doing now, Mr.

Speaker? He's emasculating jobs in this province, that's what

he's doing. In 1972 when unemployment was nowhere near the

numbers and the percentages that exist today, this is what that

Minister of Mines, the Minister against jobs, had to say in

January of 1972:

MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment was referred to in the Speech from

the Throne.

Well, it meant that it was referred to. I can't even do that

about that Speech from the Throne that was delivered not too

long ago, Mr. Speaker, just on Tuesday of this week. There was

no reference to unemployment in that speech.

He says:

I rather smiled at the Hon. Attorney-General and the Premier

when they were suggesting that our expansion is going to take care of the unemployment

problem of the country. Our expansion is going to take care of it. Do they realize

that our gross national product is increasing by leaps and bounds? And our unemployment

is increasing at the same time. At the same time our unemployment is increasing.

The reason is of course that automation has crept into a lot of this. And we're

producing so fast that the people are being unemployed.

The Hon. Minister has got a good example in the mining industry.

In 1951, it took 8,000 men to produce $193 million of values. In 1969, 4,000.

One half the number of men produced $394 million of values. Twice the amount,

with half the men.

Now, how do you figure out that by expanding the mining industry

you're going to catch up on employment? You just can't do it. You've got a lot

of other ways that you've got to do it.

Now, there is a statement on the question of mining by the

Member for Kootenay who is now the Minister of Mines, the

Minister who's destroyed hundreds of jobs and tens of thousands

of future jobs in the mining industry of British Columbia, who

was concerned when he was in opposition.

I received some figures from the mining industry just a

couple of days ago that are very revealing and I think they are

worth quoting at this time.

I'm not going to read the entire manual they sent but it

indicates very clearly the opinions and the concerns of the

mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. It goes on

to say:

"In spite of record production values the mining industry

in British Columbia is on a disaster course and unless prompt steps are taken

by government to correct it, serious damage to the overall economy and the well-being

of the people of the province will occur. The economic well-being of this province

is directly tied to the development of natural resources: lumber, minerals —

including oil and gas — fish, water and agriculture. Secondary industry attracted

to British Columbia is largely dependent for its existence on sales to natural

resource industries."

It goes on to talk about the mining royalty — the 5 per cent

royalty levy — but its greatest concern, as expressed in this

document, is with that of super-royalty, that killer of mining

in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. They go on:

"The formerly thriving mineral industry has almost been

brought to a standstill."

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Copper prices!

MR. CHABOT: ,

"Most producing mines continue to operate but no new mines

have proceeded to production during the past two years."

We've just heard from the Member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead), Mr. Speaker, who says "copper prices" — and that's

the first word he's uttered in this House since he's been a

Member. No, I apologize, Mr. Speaker, he did introduce some

Girl Guides once. I apologize.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Vicious attack.

MR. CHABOT: But it goes on to say no new mines in two years.

There must be a message there. Can't those Ministers over there

read, Mr. Speaker? Can't they see?

"Exploration expenditures, estimated from the budgets of

large exploration companies in underwritings on the Vancouver

stock exchange up to May, have dropped to $19.4 million in 1974

as compared to $27.7 million in 1973 and an estimated $38

million in 1972. This is a drop of 49 per cent during the past

two years, despite increased costs due to inflation.

"Claim staking in British Columbia is at the lowest level in

more than a decade, dropping 76 per cent in the first nine

months of 1974 as compared to the average for the same period

in 1971-72. This shocking drop in claim staking reveals that

there is very little grassroot prospecting in the province. The

following table shows the decrease in claim staking."

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) read these

figures out but they are worth repeating, Mr. Speaker. In 1971,

36,973 claims were staked in British Columbia; in 1972, 53,309

claims; in 1973, 24,627 claims; and in 1974 we are down to

10,643 claims. The total number of claims in good standing is

down by more than 50 per cent in the province. That

[ Page 55 ]

must give some message to that government over there, Mr.

Speaker. These are very revealing figures. I wish the Minister

of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) was in the assembly today to listen

to these figures and maybe take some action on behalf of the

people of this province.

"Capital is moving out of British Columbia to many different parts of the world. British Columbia is

losing some of its most highly experienced mining personnel to

other countries. This loss of expertise is the most serious

problem as, once gone, it will be difficult to attract back.

British Columbia's prospectors report increased difficulty in

interesting mining capital in their properties. There are

currently some 15 important mineral deposits in British

Columbia that could be placed into production if conditions

were favourable. To place these mines in production would

entail a capital investment of at least $2 billion and generate

6,000 direct jobs and 40,000 indirect jobs."

If the government was concerned with unemployment, they'd do

something about the mining industry in this province, which

could solve half of the unemployment that British Columbians

are facing today. There are 6,000 direct jobs by the

development of those 15 major ore bodies that are sitting

because of the punitive tax rate in this province, are not

being developed, denying 6,000 direct jobs in British Columbia

and 40,000 indirect jobs in the service industries that service

the mining industry. Isn't that government going to listen?

Can't the government read? Can't that government see, Mr.

Speaker, that they're killing job opportunities in British

Columbia by their actions and by their constant threats against

investment capital in this province?

Oh, yes, that group over there — when they were in

opposition, I remember the great consternation and concern they

expressed about unemployment. But it appears strange things

happen when they sit in those comfortable offices in this

building, Mr. Speaker. They get salaries, such as the Premier's

$60,000 a year, and those cabinet Ministers get $50,000 a year.

Strange things happen. It appears that that group, once they

move into these lavish offices, seem to lose sight of reality.

They seem to lose sight of the plight of the working people in

this province. It appears that they're too comfortable in

office. It's about time they showed concern for people in this

province.

Just the other night, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the mayor of Stewart express

his concern with the economy in the northwestern part of British Columbia. He

stated that it is customary to have between 20 and 100 exploration firms in

the Stewart area on an annual basis, exploring for minerals, creating jobs in

the exploration field, attempting to create jobs in the construction of future

mines, attempting to create jobs in mining in the northwestern part of British

Columbia. But he stated on that television programme that last year, 1974, there

was only one exploration firm in the Stewart area.

That must give some kind of message to that government over

there. People are no longer interested in exploring for

minerals in British Columbia. And that government sits over

there. It is unwilling to allow the normal flow of jobs in

British Columbia to take place because of its punitive and

irresponsible tax measures, Mr. Speaker.

We see the tragic cutoffs. I hope that Member for Atlin (Mr.

Calder) who comes from the Stewart area will stand up and speak

for himself and for his constituents, and say whether he's

concerned about the plight of the people in his constituency,

that great mining district of Stewart. Is he happy with what

this government has been doing to his constituents and to the

mining industry in his constituency? He has been given an

opportunity now to stand up and express his concern or forever

keep his silence and live with the consequences as well.

We see the tragic cutoff and the hundreds of jobs lost in

Granduc, Bethlehem Copper, Western Mines. What about all the

mines that have been closed down and the hundreds of jobs lost

there, Mr. Speaker? That government makes no mention in the

Speech from the Throne that they are going to take some kind of

action to alleviate the problem that has developed to a serious

proportion in this province. All we see is the little programme

suggesting that they're going to create employment in the

forest industry. They don't tell us how much is going to be

allocated as far as dollars are concerned. They don't say how

many people will be employed. They don't say when the programme

will start, either.

Yet that government was told time and again by a great

variety of economic forecasts during the last year of the

serious situation which would face British Columbians in 1975.

It certainly hasn't heeded the advice that has been given to

it.

I have the "1975 Economic Outlook" issued by the Employers

Council of British Colombia about the Canadian economy in which they speak about the economy in

British Columbia as well. They express their concern with what

is taking place in this province. But does that government

listen? No, Mr. Speaker, that government is unconcerned about

the plight of workers in this province. I'm going to quote from

this economic forecast in case they haven't read it, in case

they don't open their mail in those cabinet offices which they

have. It says: "The outlook for British Columbia is somewhat

more negative than that for Canada." There is a more serious

problem in British Colombia than there is in Canada.

I think the unemployment statistics bear that out,

[ Page 56 ]

Mr. Speaker. Unemployment in British Columbia is reaching

the same proportion as those "have-not" provinces, the Atlantic

provinces. Nowhere else in the "have" provinces of Canada is

there such a high rate of unemployment as we're experiencing

here in British Columbia.

"In 1975 the B.C. economy will be, at best, relatively flat.

It may well be negative during the greater part of the

year.

"B.C. at present has a steadily worsening rate of

unemployment. The seasonally adjusted figure for November was

6.9 per cent, up from 5.5 per cent in January. Canada, on the

other hand, had a 5.5 per cent unemployment rate in November,

comparable to earlier in the year. We can see few new jobs in

our primary industries or in residential construction, retail,

transportation and service industries.

"Utilities and utility construction may create some new

employment, but government and government institutions are

expected to do much of the hiring in the province over the next

year. The opportunities for alternative employment in the

Alberta tar sands development would seem to be rapidly

vanishing."

Apparently that has been corrected. So British Columbians

now, Mr. Speaker, according to this, will be able to find jobs

in Alberta.

"Thus, seasonally-adjusted unemployment rates approaching 8

per cent... " Seasonally adjusted 8 per cent; over 10 per

cent actual. Unbelievable! This is a projection after lengthy

survey of the various industries in this province. "...approaching 8 per cent can well be expected unless the

structure of the work-force changes abruptly." Changes

abruptly. Unless that Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick), that Premier and all those Ministers over

there change their attitude and their policies abruptly as

well, we're going to have more and worsening unemployment this

month.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should

tolerate this kind of facetious statement from that Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) over there — that I am praying for

unemployment. I don't think that's called for, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Do you think I am praying for unemployment?

That's a bunch of nonsense, and you know it, Mr. Minister. I

think you should withdraw that kind of nonsense.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): You think I should but

I won't.

MR. CHABOT: Oh! Mr. Speaker, I wish you would have that

Member withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement that you're praying for

unemployment?

MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the rule is that if a Member misstates

the position of another Member on any question or misstates his

remarks or interprets them wrongly, the Member concerned has

the right to stand up and correct that misstatement to the

House. I believe that is what you're doing.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm already standing up. What

are you talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, it has saved you from sitting

down.

MR. CHABOT: Is this a new ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe it is the law of parliament, but if

you don't....

MR. CHABOT: I thought it was customary, Mr. Speaker, in the

chamber to ask a Member to withdraw. What kind of nonsense is

this? Are you defending that Minister over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Would you mind waiting...?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, have that Minister withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Hon. Member to cite the authority

that is different from what I've given. I believe the rule is....

MR. CHABOT: No. Send me your book.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Just ask him to withdraw.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...I agree completely. There was nothing

unparliamentary with what I said. If you don't like it, just

argue back.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member....

[ Page 57 ]

MR. CHABOT: Don't take your directions from that Minister,

please. Just be fair for a change, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Don't impute motives to the

Speaker, please. I think I've stated the proposition correctly:

if anyone says anything unparliamentary about you or insults

you in some way personally, then he must withdraw it. But if he

misstates your position or misinterprets your position or

alleges that you have said certain things you have not said,

the proper course is to rise in your place, if you are seated,

and correct that Hon. Member.

That is the rule, is it not? Would the Hon. Member agree

that is the rule?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister implied improper

motives that I pray at night or sometime in the daytime —

sometime within the 24-hour period (laughter) — for more

unemployment out in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member takes that....

MR. CHABOT: I take that as an offence.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member takes that as an offensive

and unparliamentary remark, would the Hon. Minister withdraw

any intention of an offence?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I will change it to "hoping

for," if "praying" offends him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if that's imputing a motive, I think the

Hon. Member should withdraw anything that would impute a motive

to the Hon. Member who has the floor.

MRS. JORDAN: Withdraw. Don't be so arrogant.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the Hon. Member imply any motive?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, by the

Member's actions over the past two or three years, that I'm not

too far out. But if it makes everybody more comfortable in this

House, I'll withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the question is a difficult one because it deals

with a statement made by the Hon. Member, which is taken one way by the opposite

Member. All I can do is suggest that honour should be satisfied on both sides.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you're not about to have

one of your Ministers or one of your friends withdraw, that's

fine with me. I'll remember that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: I'll remember that, I'll tell you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you threatening...?

MR. CHABOT: You'll have to live with that, Mr. Speaker. I'll

tell you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you threatening the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, you know full well I'd never

threaten the Chair. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, may I ask the Hon. Member, if he

isn't threatening the Chair...?

MR. CHABOT: Oh! Mr. Speaker, stop playing games. Stop

playing games.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: Stop playing games.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Why is there such a jealous regard for your rights but

not the rights of the Chair? I tried to be fair to you. I tried to ask the Hon.

Minister to clear up what his imputation, if any, was. I thought that he had

done so, and yet you attack the Chair.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's all right. I'll carry on

and consider the source of the nonsense from the Minister of

Health who suggests that I pray at night for unemployment.

Well, I'll just have to accept it because the Speaker is

unwilling to have the Minister withdraw it. The record will

clearly show that it hasn't been withdrawn.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: I hope that the interruption and the delay

caused by the Member is not going to

[ Page 58 ]

jeopardize my right to speak for the full length of time. As

for the interjections by the Speaker and the Members, I hope

that they will be taken into consideration.

But it's no wonder, Mr. Speaker, with attitudes as expressed

by that Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), and attitudes

expressed by other Ministers on unemployment, that in British

Columbia we have a serious overrun in welfare of $103 million;

and they are unconcerned about that clerical error. Mr.

Speaker, they are unconcerned about a $103 million overrun in

one department, just a slight clerical error — attempted to be

justified by that Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston). That Member

for Dewdney attempted to justify that $103 million overrun.

I'll tell you that you are going to have a lot more overruns on

welfare unless you do something about unemployment in this

province.

Those irresponsible statements by the Premier over the last

two and a half years certainly haven't contributed to the

attraction of investment capital in this province that creates

jobs, Mr. Speaker. Do you think that investment capital is

going to flow freely to British Columbia with the constant

threats by the Premier and those cabinet Ministers over there?

Certainly not. Investment capital, in case you don't know it,

Mr. Speaker, creates employment in British Columbia. No wonder

we have problems in our economy with those kinds of

irresponsible statements.

You know, the expansion of the forest industry in British

Columbia over the next three years, 1974, 1975 and 1976, is

negligible. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the

provinces of Ontario and Quebec...? Certainly they have

timber, but they are not considered forestry-oriented such as

we are in British Columbia. Not half of their revenue, not half

of their income, not half of the gross product of their

province comes from forestry as it does in this province. Their

expansion is going to be 10 times that of British Columbia.

Doesn't that give some story to that government over there that

there is something wrong with their actions and their

irresponsible statements?

Capital investment is fleeing British Columbia. It is not

flowing as it should to create jobs in this province.

You know, yesterday we had the spectacle of the B.C.

Federation of Labour presenting a brief to the cabinet — a love

feast, Mr. Speaker. Those great representatives of the workers,

the B.C. Federation of Labour, came and presented their

concerns to the government.

I listened to the president, that socialist lackey, that

government lackey, George Johnston, on television last night...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: ...express his concern, his humane concern, about.... He made public statements about his humane concerns. One

was that they have a continuing adoration and devotion to the

government. Continuing adoration and devotion to the

government! No. 2, there was concern about the bureaucratic

mess of the Labour Relations Board. I don't know whether they

were talking about the interference by the Deputy Minister of

Labour, Mr. Matkin, or the Labour Relations Board, but those

were the two expressed concerns of the B.C. Federation of

Labour.

Did they talk about unemployment? Certainly not. It was not

of concern to them when 100,000 people are unemployed in

British Columbia. No, those socialist lackeys were here.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, when unemployment was substantially

lower than it is today. In 1970 the great demonstration took

place outside and inside this House, when the B.C. Federation

of Labour spent over $25,000 to fight the government of the

day. It wasn't concern for the unemployed; it was political

concern. I remember the rabble-rousing that took place in this

assembly — the people fighting up in the gallery, windows being

broken in the gallery — and they expressed concern when

unemployment was about 50 per cent of what it is today. I'll

tell you the concern they were expressing: those lackeys of the

socialist government were expressing political concern, that's

all. And George Johnston is just nothing but a lackey of that

government over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: How many jobs has the Minister of Housing (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson) created, Mr. Speaker? How many jobs has he

created? He's created none.

This government and the taxpayers of British Columbia have

been ripped off by millions of dollars by the developers of

this province. They've done well, Mr. Speaker, while the

taxpayers have been bilked by the developers of British

Columbia.

You know when the Premier talked about secondary industry

when he was in opposition. Oh, I remember the letters he used

to write to Toronto, Datsun and Toyota — brought up by the

Leader of the Opposition. Oh, yes, he brought them out. In fact

he had a great meeting here.

He was going to create secondary industry here in British Columbia. Oh, yes!

But we haven't heard since he's been government for two and a half years of

any further consultation with Datsun or Toyota for that great assembly plant

that was going to come on stream back in 1971 or 1972. He says: "I'll tell

you how we're going to create jobs. I'll attract these people. Then we'll put

the jobs in place." I'll tell you, rugby trips to Japan don't create jobs for

British Columbians, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page

59 ]

Mr. Speaker, we used to have a Minister of Industrial

Development for whom a phrase was coined by the former Member

for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Herbert Capozzi. He told the Minister

of Industrial Development to "get off his fat stats." Well, I'm

not going to tell that to that Minister, because he's not

sitting on any statistics, but he hasn't created one job since

he's been in office, Mr. Speaker. Not one!

You know, he's been preoccupied with the accumulation of

industrial land. That's all he's done. He's got two parcels of

land he's attempting to accumulate for industrial development

that won't come as long as they have a philosophy such as is

espoused from that party over there. They won't create jobs,

secondary jobs, in British Columbia. All that Minister over

there has done is to accumulate industrial land. He has not

created one job for British Columbians. Not one!

It appears, Mr. Speaker, that some messages don't get back

to the Speaker of British Columbia. Here is a letter written —

I don't know if it was to create jobs in the

furniture-manufacturing business or not — to the Leader of the

Opposition by the Speaker. He says: "Will you kindly indicate

the kind and style of furniture that you might require for

your group's office, particularly with relation to your

preference as to colour and design?" Which do you want? Do you

want mahogany or Japanese teak?

So the Leader of the Opposition wrote him back a very

appropriate letter in which he said:

"With respect to your letter of February 13, 1975,

suggesting that my office might be refurbished, I would like to

reply as follows:

"At this time, when there are thousands of residents of

British Columbia unemployed; further, when the government

itself, the Treasury Board, has indicated the necessity for

restricting expenditure, I would consider it improper for me to

accept any refurbishing to the office of the Leader of the

Opposition.

"I think you can appreciate that with the situation of

British Columbia referred to by the Treasury Board directive

which went to every government department, it would set a poor

example for this office to be refurbished."

Can you imagine? They want to refurbish. There must be

something there.

But I can't understand why the Speaker reads some newspaper

articles and misses others. I read the

article where the

Premier says we're even cutting down the paper clips, Mr.

Speaker. Obviously the Speaker didn't read that statement, Mr.

Speaker, but he read another one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't believe you're permitted by the

rules to introduce the Speaker into the debate. But I will table all correspondence,

including the request from the opposition with regard to furnishings.

MR. CHABOT: At a time when we should be showing restraint,

the example set by the government is being extremely lavish.

Apparently he didn't read the newspaper article. He reads other

newspaper articles, but not that one.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the waste and extravagance displayed

by that government in the last two and a half years certainly

haven't created jobs for British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, we

have a heavy cabinet that is comfortable in office.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the place is terribly noisy. I'm

having difficulty being heard.

That government over there, when they were opposition, was a

government of vision in many areas. They were going to set the

economic climate to create employment for British Columbians.

They expressed concern about unemployment. In fact, I'll never

forget the 1971 amendment to the throne speech, moved by one

Mr. Hartley and seconded by Mr. Calder, when unemployment was

substantially lower than it is today. They expressed concern.

That's why I expect that Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) to stand

on his feet and condemn that government for its lack of

action on behalf of the working people in this province.

If he doesn't, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't fully fulfilled his

responsibilities to the people he represents in his riding. He

has a responsibility to speak out. We will be watching for him,

Mr. Speaker, to see whether he takes his place or not. We'll be

watching.

This government, in its attitudes toward the private sector,

helps diminish the kind of flow of capital that is necessary to

create jobs in British Columbia. That government looks on the

private sector as the enemy, as enemy No. 1. How can they

expect jobs to flow from the private sector when they treat the

private sector as enemy No. 1? Certainly capital investment

will not materialize in British Columbia with that kind of an

attitude from that government over there.

They used to pay lip service to the plight of the working

men in this province. Oh, they were concerned when they were in

opposition. But I'll tell you that their concerns today are

shallow indeed in that shallow document that was delivered in

this House a few days ago. There was no concern expressed in

the Speech from the Throne. None whatsoever. Oh, but they were

concerned when they were over here. Oh, yes, they were

concerned. They've lost sight of the plight of the working

people of this province.

There is a genuine need for action, for programmes

[ Page 60 ]

— temporary programmes, in fact — to alleviate the serious

plight that is facing the working people of this province. Yet

all that government can do is tell us that they're going to

have a forestry programme. They don't say when, how much or how

many. That's not good enough from a government that professes

to represent the working people of this province.

Unemployment to the unemployed is real. Unemployment to that

government might not be real, but there are out there in

British Columbia 100,000 real people who want work. This throne

speech makes no provision for the kind of employment that is

necessary for those 100,000 people seeking employment in

British Columbia.

I strongly support this amendment to the Speech from the

Throne. I'm sure that after my talk — the very few minutes that

I've occupied in this chamber — the cabinet will take to heart

those words of concern that I've expressed on behalf of those

100,000 unemployed people in British Columbia and will take

some appropriate, immediate remedial action.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I rise to speak to this

amendment because I think it's a rather curious amendment

coming from the official opposition, an opposition that is

expressing grave concern at this particular point over the rate

of unemployment in the Province of British Columbia, a rate

that is much lower than the average for the rest of this

nation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Defending unemployment.

HON. MR. KING: I would point to the Statistics Canada report

for February, this current month of 1975.

I would point out that the growth in our labour force in the

Province of British Columbia has far exceeded the national

average. We have for the first time exceeded the one million

mark in terms of the workforce of British Columbia. We saw an

expansion in the work force of 5.8 per cent, or 58,000 workers,

in 1974.

Does that sound like the kind of doom-and-gloomy economy

that is being forecast by the Members of the opposition, Mr.

Speaker? I hardly think so. That is a growth in our workforce

that exceeds the national average in Canada in an appreciable

way.

Further, and very significantly, I would point out that the

increase in our women workforce has certainly exceeded anything witnessed in this nation within

recent years. We had a very spectacular increase in women in

the workforce — over 30,000 last year. These are factors that

certainly do not portray a weak and slowing-down economy such

as the opposition likes to outline.

I rather enjoyed the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

I must admit that he's a much more entertaining performer than

the leader of his party (Mr. Bennett). If he pays little

attention to fact and to any statistical basis, at least we

could forgive him on the basis that he is an amusing

performer.

I must admit that I'm frankly amused at times because he

never bothers to confuse any issue with facts. He gets up and

talks about the alarming slowdown in our economy, about the

harsh unemployment — he quotes figures such as 100,000 workers

looking for employment in this province. Well, you know, he's

only approximately 30,000 out, so that's a reasonable

performance for the Member for Columbia River. I suppose one

might say that's about as close as he ever gets to the truth.

But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there are some

66,000 workers unemployed on a seasonally adjusted basis in

this province. The basis for that report is Statistics Canada

and the research branch of the Department of Labour, and they

coincide.

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense! The latest figures show 78,000.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize to the

Member. He was only 22,000 out. I beg your pardon, I said

30,000. He's only 22,000 out. But the significant thing is that

he seemed to have those facts at hand, even when he was making

his speech. (Laughter.) That's the kind of weight that should

be attached to the rather hysterical comments and performance

of the opposition. That's about the weight that should be

attached to it.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're proud of 100,000 unemployed. The

Premier seems to be proud of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell them to go to Alberta.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Let the workers out and bring the welfare

in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, when the two gentlemen

decide between them whose figures are correct, we can get back

to a reasonable debate on this issue, because unemployment is

an important issue. It is an issue that the government views

very, very seriously.

I would like to point out what the Journal of

[ Page 61 ]

Commerce had to say at the year end, December 30,

about the state of the British Columbia economy, which seems to

be the basis of grave concern to some of the opposition

Members.

Their report on the year-end performance of B.C.'s economy

provided some rather revealing figures. It showed that primary

industries and construction reached $70.2 million, an increase

of 20.1 per cent in 1973-4. It showed a very spectacular

increase in the manufacturing sector, an increase of 29.2 per

cent in 1974 — hardly a figure that reveals any lack of

confidence in the stability and the future of this

province.

On along we go: utilities, an increase of 16.6 per cent;

trade finance, commercial services, increases of 17.7 and 14.1

per cent; institutional services and government, an increase of

17.6 per cent. A total of $3.9 billion dollars in this province

over the past year, and this is the annual report submitted by

the BCCA president, Frank Reder, just on December 30 of 1974.

Hardly a bleak, dismal picture portraying doom and gloom and

lack of confidence in the economy of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're proud of 100,000 unemployed.

HON. MR. KING: Now, I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we at

times have differences of opinion with some of the people in

industry in this province. We were elected to set social and

economic priorities for the Province of British Columbia with

due concern to employment considerations, environmental and

ecological considerations, as well as the sound husbanding of

resources in this province. We are not satisfied as a

government to rely solely on the extractive, exploration types

of activities in this province to provide the base for our

employment needs. We believe that we have to try to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm shocked that that remark was thrown to

the Minister, and I ask the Member to withdraw it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A personal remark about the Minister and

his wife.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I think this is another example of

how the Premier is awake only half the time. I said that he was

a wife-beater in relation to his husbanding of resources,

following his statement that they were charged with husbanding

their resources. Maybe if the Premier would stay awake and

listen to the debate, perhaps we wouldn't have some of these problems in British Columbia.

HON. MR. KING: I've never had any inclination to beat my own

wife, but there are those in this House who might....

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the picture I am attempting to draw is one of

this government's concern for developing a stable and sound

economy, one which will provide jobs — not the temporary

"chobs," as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

says, related to an extractive and export-related,

multinational corporation type of tenure, but rather based on

sound industrial ties within the province which provides not

only jobs now but job security in the future for our

workforce.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, this government acted decisively

in the case of Ocean Falls when an international company was

quite prepared to close the doors on a town and all of its

residents and walk away from any social or economic

responsibilities and leave the pieces to the taxpayers of this

province to pick up.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, this government was prepared to

act, and act decisively, to ensure that there was security of

employment, that the way of life of a whole town was

preserved.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, we moved to acquire Can-Cel, to

ensure that two pulp mills would provide a stable source of

employment in significant areas of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that why you're buying Panco Poultry? Is

that why you're buying everything else?

HON. MR. KING: This, Mr. Speaker, is undoubtedly a departure

from the position that would have been taken by....

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into a

shouting match with the Member across the way. When he runs

down I'm prepared to continue.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You may never start.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: You know, I'm amused by the position the

opposition takes. They say to us: "Well, you're hiring too many

civil servants. Government spending is going out of control."

On the other hand, they come charging in here criticizing us

because there is not enough work in the province. We have the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) running around saying

that the first move he would make on the return of a Social

Credit government would be to fire all the civil servants.

[ Page 62 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. KING: Is that your concern for unemployment? Is

that your concern for the workers of this province? And I must

add, Mr. Speaker....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Withdraw your leader. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that they may well

occur within the not too distant future. I understand there are

some ambitious people on the back benches watching very closely

the statements and performance of the Leader of the Opposition.

He may well be withdrawn; I don't know.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where did he go now?

Interjections.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. KING: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it a very

curious thing to hear particularly the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

expressing his strident concern about unemployment in the debate here today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He didn't even stay for the debate.

HON. MR. KING: No, he walks out because perhaps he was aware

that I would be moved to remind him of the position he took in

1969, 1970 and 1972...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no. Don't do that.

HON. MR. KING: ...when a proposal that affected his own industry, an

industry in which he is an official, a company official — namely the railway

industry — was threatened by the export of gigantic volumes of British Columbia

coal through the United States on a foreign railway. This was a move that threatened

and jeopardized the jobs of hundreds of people in his own constituency, in the

Member for Kootenay's (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) constituency, and in my own — Kamloops

— and Vancouver. Here we found the government of that day, of which that Member

was a cabinet member, not only supporting the export of that coal on the Kootenay

and Elk Railway, not only extending their charter 11 times to accommodate the

construction of the rail link to the U.S. border, but we found them funding

the legal costs through the Attorney-General's department of that foreign rail

line to jeopardize and diminish the jobs of Canadian workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. KING: There a member of the railway industry, an

executive council member of that government, sat silently and,

in fact, refused to speak to groups of workers who attempted to

gain his ear when he visited Revelstoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. KING: I wonder about his concern today, Mr.

Speaker. I wonder just how genuine it is. I certainly am not

imputing motives when I question that sincerity; not at all.

But it's the kind of attitude that I just have a little

difficulty understanding.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They move the motion and then they leave

for the debate.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, well, after a performance like the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) put on, I don't blame them for

leaving because people are up in the galleries listening to

them, watching them. I'd slink away too, I think, if I put on a

performance like that.

MRS. JORDAN: They left when you got up.

HON. MR. KING: Now, the only other point I wanted to make,

other than to introduce these few facts on the employment

statistics in the province, which are not good — we're not

satisfied with them — is that certainly by comparison to the

rest of the nation, by comparison to our friends south of the

border, we are in a very, very enviable position in terms of

our employment and in terms of the economy of the province.

In conclusion, I must comment on the absolutely unforgivable

statements that were made by the Member for Columbia River when

he commented on certain executive members of the British

Columbia Federation of Labour.

I have debates and disagreements with members of the B.C.

Federation of Labour and with various people in industry. But I

think it ill behoves any Member of this Legislature to stand and

accuse people in the public realm of this province of being

lackeys and pork choppers, and whatever else the Member may

have referred to. I think that's the kind of language and the

kind of performance that detracts not only from the dignity of

this House but certainly from the credibility of any Member who

would indulge in that kind of language. We may disagree with

certain labour groups; we may disagree with

[ Page 63 ]

certain industrial groups. But surely the essence of a

democratic society is that we at least recognize their right to

take that position which they hold and to treat them with some

respect.

When Members of the Legislature indulge in this kind of

language, I can't help but question, since that remark came

from a former Minister of Labour, just how he would hope to

develop a relationship with people in that position in the

unlikely event that he ever came to a position of

responsibility again. I just wonder how he could hope to set a

climate conducive to good labour relations in the province when

he is attacking members of the trade union movement as being

lackeys. I think that's a shocking performance; I think it's a

performance that should not be repeated in the House. I think

the members of his own constituency would be ashamed had they

heard those kind of comments today.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's all I'm prepared to say in this

debate. I would point out that I will be certainly making a

more exhaustive and a more detailed presentation at the

appropriate time when my departmental estimates are up and when

the various reports of my department branches are debated in

this House.

I think the picture that is drawn in terms of the total

labour-force increase in the province, in terms of a rather

stable employment picture when contrasted against a major

recession throughout the world, is an encouraging sign for

British Columbia. I think it will be borne out by the

statistical documentation which I will introduce at the

appropriate time.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this

motion be defeated and we get back to the important business of

giving effect to what is a very, very exciting government

programme to be introduced and dealt with at this session of

the Legislature.

MR. BENNETT: To correct statements made by the previous

speaker: at no time have I ever said or did I say that my

answer to unemployment was to fire civil servants. I would wish

that corrected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is not a matter of privilege, but the

Hon. Member is entitled to stand and make the correction.

MR. BENNETT: Correction, yes.

MR. CHABOT: On the statements made by the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King), I think my position on the movement of coal

from Sparwood to Roberts Bank is clearly on record — public

statements are on record in Hansard and other places as

well. It differs widely from the statement attributed to me by

the Minister of Labour.

He suggested as well that I had refused to meet and discuss the problems with

workers in Revelstoke, and that certainly isn't the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has made a correction on the

record.

Interjection.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I don't think anyone in this

province could have anything but real concern at the very

substantial rate of unemployment in the province at the present

time.

I think we also have to recognize that unemployment is

something which has to be dealt with because of its

relationship to world conditions. Since this province depends

for its economic stability to a very large measure on its

capacity to sell abroad, it is all too easy, in my view, to

play politics with the subject of unemployment.

It's the position of this party that I'm not here in this

House to play politics; I'm here in this House to try and

present a positive, constructive position as an opposition

party in the hope that the government will listen to some of

the positive and constructive ideas that I would like to put

forward in the course of this current session.

When we dispense with the politic playing and get back to

the main motion and the discussion on the throne speech, we

have what we consider to be some very useful, positive ideas as

to how this government and any succeeding government should

take a longer good look at the whole question of unemployment

and the stability of our economy.

We know very well that the current problem in unemployment

is largely related to the forest industry. Since we export 70

per cent of our lumber to the United States, where housing

starts are down by 50 per cent, it is very obvious that there

are conditions relating to the present unemployment in this

province which cannot be solved by stopgap measures. I would

have to criticize this government for not taking a longer look

at the whole problem of our economy, in terms of the forestry

and mining industries in particular.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) — to revert for a

moment to a specific and short-term situation, however — did

quite rightly refer to the action in regard to Ocean Falls and

Can-Cel, which this party supported for the same reasons: that

we are interested in the social well-being of people as well as

their purely economic well-being. I would just ask, if this

kind of philosophy pervades the government benches: why did

they not take some sympathy on the employees and subcontractors

of Twin Valley Contracting Co., where some 70 people in the

province are out of work?

I'm not here to debate the validity or the wisdom or

otherwise of the contract between Twin Valley

[ Page 64 ]

and Can-Cel, or at least a subsidiary of Can-Cel, but I do

feel that one specific example where the government's espousing

of sympathy for human beings who cannot find work or who have

had economic difficulties is one where the Minister of

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has flatly refused to give any

kind of help at all.

But, in general terms, it is our opinion that the government

is taking a very short-term look at the unemployment situation

in the province, when, in point of fact, the cyclical nature of

the mining and forest industries should make it absolutely

mandatory for this government or any other government to come

forward with far-sighted proposals to stabilize the employment

situation in these two industries. As I said earlier, when we

discuss the throne speech in detail after this amendment has

been voted upon, the Conservative Party has some private

Member's bills which we will introduce to point out the

position which we feel should be taken by any government in

trying to level out....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Could we have a little

quieter House, please?

MR. WALLACE: ...the peaks and the troughs which are all too

typical of the history of both these industries which provide

so much employment in this province.

So while I believe that as far as the official opposition is

concerned this is a particularly political play which is being

taken, at the same time it is fair, in my view, to ask this

government why there is not evidence of some longer-term

planning, at least with the hope and assurance that in years to

come people in this province, particularly those whose

livelihood depends on these two main industries, can look

forward with a greater degree of confidence, knowing that there

will not be the periodic up-and-down situation, where for a

year or two they are employed and earning well and then for a

long period of time they are out of work.

So in that respect I feel that this government has fallen

short in its efforts. But I do feel that the most important

thing for this House today is to vote on this amendment and get

on with the main debate.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I, too,

wish to say a few things concerning this amendment, because

regardless of how the Minister of Labour wishes to treat it, or

with what frivolity he likes to issue his remarks about the

debate — the frivolous approach that he has taken — it is a

serious matter in the Province of British Columbia, and I

intend in the next little while to suggest to the government

some of the ways that they might have overcome some of the

unemployment problems we experience today.

You know, there's little solace for the people in the

province to look, as the Minister of Labour did with some

pride, I suppose, on the fact that the figures for industrial

expansion and production show an increase in 1974 as compared

to 1973, because those figures quoted do little better than

cover off the inflation factor that we have experienced during

1974. All of us must realize that the net result of that in

terms of actual increase in employment opportunities has just

not happened, that we have done little more than stand still in

most areas of the province, and in many areas, Mr. Speaker,

we've done far worse because we have lost ground with respect

to the labour force that is available and which requires

employment and jobs today.

What has the government of this day done about employment

opportunities in northern British Columbia? Very little. They

appointed a Minister in charge of northern affairs who skips

around over the province, the northern half of it at least,

holding conferences, talking to people, but that's all that's

happened. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think you might be well aware

of that fact because I am sure you will agree with me that very

little has happened in northwestern British Columbia, a part of

the country with which you are very familiar, in terms of

concrete programme, of development or increased job

opportunities.

So it's fine if you want to pay lip service, or the

government wishes to pay lip service to the northern part of

the province, to go on junkets around in the Citation jets here

and there, pop in for a few hours, tell everybody that they're

well off, pat them on the back and say: "I'll see you again

some of these days,