1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4189 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Unauthorized payments to MLAs. Mr. King –– 4189

Hog producers' problems. Mrs. Wallace –– 4190

Food service on B.C. ferries. Mr. Wallace –– 4191

Hiring of deputy ministers. Mr. Gibson –– 4191

Benefits to children of war veterans, Mr. Nicolson –– 4191

Revelstoke Dam highway contracts. Mr. King –– 4192

Four litre milk cartons. Mr. Levi –– 4192

Cost of hotel study. Mr. Barrett –– 4192

Plans for Wilkinson Road jail. Mr. Wallace –– 4192

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates.

On vote 203.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4193

Mr. Barrett –– 4193

Mr. Wallace –– 4198

Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act (Bill 82) Hon. Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading –– 4200

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates.

On vote 203.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4201

Mr. Wallace –– 4205

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4205

Mr. Shelford –– 4206

Mr. Lea –– 4208

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4209

Mr. King –– 4209

Mr. Barber –– 4210

Mr. Gibson –– 4216

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4220

Apprenticeship and Training Development Act (Bill 76) Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 4221

Metric Conversion Act, 1977 (Bill 78) Hon. Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading –– 4222

Privilege

Committee of selection meeting. Guidelines by Mr. Speaker –– 4222

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition) : I have two guests. First of all, I'd like the House to welcome young Peter Stankovic from Vancouver East. He's 13 years old and to celebrate his birthday today, he rode his bicycle all the way to Victoria. We hope that his trip is a success and that it's not marred by too much friction here in the House. I'd say happy birthday to Pete.

Mr. Speaker, every year a certain guest comes over and causes me to be anxious about our behaviour. My mother is with us again today. Along with my mother is my favourite aunt, Mrs. Hyatt from Los Angeles, and a friend of theirs, Mrs. Kaplan. I'd ask everybody in the House to give them a welcome.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education) : Mr. Speaker, there are a number of distinguished guests in the gallery today from the field of education. If I may, I'd just like to read quickly through the list, and perhaps the members may conclude from this that there may be an event later on today.

There are: Mr. Fred Smith, who's president of the College Faculties Federation; Mr. Eric Green, who's the director of research for that organization; Mr. R.H. Buckley, who's the president of the B.C. Association of Colleges; Mrs. Beryl Bennett, who's the vice-president of that organization; and Mr. Frank Beander, who's the executive director.

Then we have today in the galleries some principals of the colleges: Mr. Rubridge, who's the acting principal of East Kootenay; Dr. C.M. Opgaard, who's the principal of Malaspina; Dr. L. Blake, who's the principal of Fraser Valley; Dr. Paul Gallagher, who's the principal of Capilano; Dr. J. Denholm, who's the principal's representative of the Vancouver City College; Dr. Don Porter, who's the principal's representative of Douglas College; Dr. F.J. Speckeen, of the College of New Caledonia; and Mr. Gordon Thom, the principal of BCIT.

More than that, Mr. Speaker, we've got some representatives of the councils

of these colleges: Mrs. Lavinia Greenwood, who's the chairman of Camosun

College; Mr. Doug Hamilton, who's chairman of the Fraser Valley College;

Mrs. Avis Mitchell, who's the chairman of Malaspina College; Mrs. Ruth Rushant,

who's the chairman of the College of New Caledonia; Mr. John Sutherland,

chairman of Douglas College; Mr. William Brown, who's the chairman's

representative of the Vancouver City College; Mrs. Eileen Madson, who's

the chairman's representative of East Kootenay College; Mr. Ron Isaak, chairman

of the board of governors of BCIT. I'd ask you to bid them all welcome.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca) : Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery this afternoon is an old and cherished friend of mine, Mr. John Blunt, and with him are his sons, Charlie and Dan. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George) : I'd like to join the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in welcoming to the House today Mrs. Ruth Rushant and Mr. Fred Speckeen from the College of New Caledonia in Prince George.

I also have some other guests in the Speaker's gallery: Mrs. Marguerite Fox of Prince George with her mother, Mrs. Gladys Fox of Vancouver-Point Grey, and her daughters, Jennifer and Pamela Fox. Pamela was the provincial winner last year of the B.C. schools debating competition. I'd like to ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment) : Mr. Speaker, there are two guests from the constituency of Richmond today in the House, on vacation in Victoria: Bob and Donna Ferguson from Richmond. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston) : Joining us later in the gallery this afternoon will be my oldest son, Sean, and his friend, John linytzky. I hope the House will bid them welcome.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay) : The Minister of Education only named one of the representatives from the East Kootenay, Mrs. Eileen Madson, but there are two others. First of all, I think I should introduce Mrs. Eileen Madson. She's from Invermere and she is the district representative of the college council for the East Kootenay Community College. Then we have Mr. Nick Rubridge, director of programmes for East Kootenay Community College, living in Cranbrook. Last but not least, we have Mr. Norm MacEvoy, bursar. As I understand it, he's the fellow that pays them all when the minister sends over the paycheques.

He lives in Cranbrook. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming these people here today.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster) : Just on the remote possibility that somebody is in the gallery who hasn't been introduced, I'd like to introduce those anonymous people and have them welcomed into the House today.

Oral questions.

UNAUTHORIZED PAYMENTS TO MLAS

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan) : I have a

[ Page 4190 ]

question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. It's been revealed to the House that three members of the House, namely the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) , the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) and the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) have received unauthorized payments for certain activities. My question to the Premier is: has the Premier taken any steps to investigate whether any other member of the House has received similar payments, either directly or indirectly, for expenses or other activities?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier) : First of all, I would take issue with the statement made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan as to the position and the circumstances surrounding these three members; that is to be determined. Unfortunately, he stated it as a fact.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) : They've admitted it!

HON. MR. BENNETT : Now, Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that the determination of whether other MLAs may be in contravention would be subject to each minister and the comptrollers in each of the ministries making such a check in light of recent events.

MR. KING : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry if the Premier takes exception to my question. It was my understanding that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who paid the expenses, had apologized for so doing. I took it that it was therefore unauthorized. My question to the Premier was whether or not he personally, as the First Minister of this government, had taken any steps subsequent to that information being revealed in the House which would prevent similar payments to any other member of this House, and if, in fact, any other payments have taken place.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Revelstoke, I don't take exception to his questions, I take exception to his statements when they are not correct.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken no steps, but I would have expected that the comptrollers in each of the ministries, in light of events, would make such investigation because the responsibility for payments must pass through their hands.

MR. KING : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier asked the departmental comptrollers for any report with respect to such payments?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Revelstoke, I would expect the comptrollers to pass such information through the ministers. I have specifically not sent a memo to a minister, but I would expect, should such information be delivered, it would come from the comptrollers.

MR. KING : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : A final supplementary, hon. member.

MR. KING : Why final, Mr. Speaker? That's interesting.

Mr. Speaker, has the Premier received any such report from a departmental comptroller or any other minister of the Crown?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, I have received no report from any departmental comptroller and no report from any minister of the Crown.

HOG PRODUCERS' PROBLEMS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat) : Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport and Communications. I'm sure that the minister is aware that in recent weeks there has been a very serious problem with the hog producers in British Columbia. This has resulted, in the main, from the ceasing of the only federally inspected plant to slaughter hogs in British Columbia. Now there is really very little difference between provincially and federally slaughtered pork.

MR. SPEAKER : Would the hon. member please state her question?

MRS. WALLACE : Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm leading into this. There's little difference between federally and provincially inspected pork. Yet, while some provincial organizations take provincially inspected pork, B.C. Ferries is one which does not accept provincially inspected pork. My question to the minister is: is he prepared to issue an instruction to B.C. Ferries, asking them to purchase B.C.-inspected pork, rather than only federally inspected pork?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications) : Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly make inquiries. It's a matter I would refer to the directors of the board of B.C. Ferries, if any action seems desirable.

MRS. WALLACE : A supplemental to the Minister of Health. Is he prepared to undertake similar action on the part of the hospitals of British Columbia?

[ Page 4191 ]

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, are you directing a similar question?

MRS. WALLACE : Yes, the same question. Is he prepared to issue instructions to the hospitals to purchase provincially inspected pork?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health) : I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD SERVICE ON B.C. FERRIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay) : Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, with regard to the new food service available on the Queen of Vancouver and the Queen of Saanich, which is available on sailings from I I a.m. to 9 p.m., offering the same menu at $6.50 per person. Can the minister tell the House whether he has decided against the suggestion by the assistant traffic manager, Mr. Bouchard, that the lunch menu would be considerably less than the dinner menu, especially in view of the fact that restaurants are three-quarters empty at lunchtime?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, this is an experiment. The directors of the Ferry Corporation are watching it closely and after we've had some experience, further decisions will be made,

MR. WALLACE : During the experimental period, Mr. Speaker, it's quite obvious.... For example, in the 9 o'clock sailing last Sunday evening, there were exactly three people in the dining room. Can the minister tell the House what is done with the food that is not consumed, in view of the fact'that health regulations prevent re-freezing or re-serving of many foods.

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice,

MR. WALLACE : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, the supplementary question that you have just posed was taken as notice.

MR. WALLACE : But I have two supplementaries on the same subject from the first question.

MR. SPEAKER : If it is in any way related to your previous supplementary, it would be out of order.

MR. WALLACE : No, it's related to the first question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House whether the B.C. Ferry Corporation is still in the process of negotiation with private catering firms which have expressed an interest in providing food service on the ferries? And what is the state of these negotiations?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, some inquiries are being made, but I wouldn't characterize them as negotiations.

HIRING OF DEPUTY MINISTERS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano) : Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. I wonder if the Premier could advise the House of the procedure which is followed in the hiring of new deputy ministers, and who in the government makes the final decision on that.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, it is a question for the minister involved and the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON : On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the position of the deputy minister, and the necessity that the individual be non-partisan, provide continuity and have respect of all parties in the House, would the Premier give consideration to referring any future vacancies in deputy-ministerial positions to an all-party committee for discussion? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT : No.

BENEFITS TO CHILDREN

OF WAR VETERANS

MR. NICOLSON : This question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Serial letter 521425 of July 19 announces school start-up fees for 1977 for school children of families in receipt of income assistance. As this is silent on grants to children of war veterans on social assistance, I ask the minister if he has reversed his undertaking given to me during estimates that the benefits of the former Education for Soldiers' Dependant Children Act would be continued through the auspices of his ministry.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources) : Mr. Speaker, that particular legislation or regulation was rescinded during the last administration. However, I will take it as notice and provide further information to the hon. member.

Also, if I might table while I am on my feet the answer to a question asked by the hon. member from North Vancouver-Capilano on July 21, 1 think it would save the House a lot of time, because it is very lengthy.

[ Page 4192 ]

MR. SPEAKER : Could the hon. member table the answer following the question period?

REVELSTOKE DAM HIGHWAY CONTRACTS

MR. KING : A question to the Minister of Highways and Public Works, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the House whether or not any highway contracts or any day-labour work was undertaken on the relocation of the highway incident to construction of the Revelstoke Dam, and if so, when?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works) : Mr. Speaker, to the member for Revelstoke, I am not aware of it, but I will look into it.

FOUR-LITRE MILK CARTONS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard) : I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the four-litre milk carton. Last Thursday the minister said that it was up to the industry to resolve the problem. In Friday's Colonist in the editorial, they quote the minister as saying: "We consumers have the right not to buy the product if we don't like it." My question to the minister is: how is the consumer who wants to use the four-litre carton going to be able to buy it if the minister won't allow it to be sold?

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture) : Mr. Speaker, to the member, the conversion to metric was set out in August, 1976, showing the one-litre and two-litre quantities of milk to be sold in a carton and the four litres to be sold in the pouch pack. It was the unanimous decision of the dairy council for that type of packaging. The conversion costs to bring a four-litre carton on stream now would be a decision to be made by the industry, and they may well do that.

MR. LEVI : Has the minister had any discussions with the dairy industry, the dairy council or the Milk Board recently in view of the feelings by consumers that they are not happy with the pouch?

HON. MR. HEWITT : The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI : On a further supplementary, is the minister prepared to initiate any discussions on behalf of the consumers in respect to this matter?

HON. MR. HEWITT : No, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER : Well, why not?

Interjections.

COST OF HOTEL STUDY

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the hon. Provincial Secretary a question. Last week, the hon. Provincial Secretary informed the House that she would bring to the House a report on the cost of the hotel study that has been repudiated - or at least confused in repudiation - by a number of sources. I would like to know if the minister has that information now.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary) : Yes, Mr. Speaker, the information provided by the firm is provided at no charge to the Ministry of Travel Industry.

MR. BARRETT : On a supplementary, is the firm on the subscription list or were they designated by the government to do this study?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Leader of the Opposition, several consultant firms who get statistics for the hospitality industry - be it the restaurant association, the hotel industry, or service industries of any kind - usually make, and very often make, their studies known to the Ministry of Travel Industry, and we use their statistics along with those which we have also gathered on our own.

PLANS FOR WILKINSON ROAD JAIL

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Attorney-General with regard to the subject of jail escapes. Last week we had another escape - this time three prisoners from Wilkinson Road, including one who had escaped before and been recaptured a month ago. Since these recent escapes usually involve sawing through bars or breaking down old walls, does the Attorney-General have any plans either to upgrade the existing facilities or to expedite the replacement of Wilkinson Road jail?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General) : Mr. Speaker, insofar as The specifics are concerned, I'll have to take the question as notice. I'll be reporting to you shortly.

Orders of the day.

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

[ Page 4193 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 203: minister's office, $131,284 -

continued.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour) : Mr. Chairman, reviewing the questions that were posed to me last week, I find there are two unanswered. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) posed a question which dealt with the matter of elevator safety and the relationship to the elevating devices branches of this ministry and Chief Koenig of the Vancouver fire department. Since my correspondence with the member, Mr. Moser, who is the director of the branch, has had a number of meetings with Chief Koenig.

The problems do not appear to be those related to inspection or safety of the elevators themselves, but principally to the abuse, if that's the proper word, by people who seek elevating devices during periods of fire.

What has happened, Mr. Chairman, is that we are developing with Chief Koenig an expanded educational programme because one of the serious problems involved with elevator use generally is lack of understanding of the limitations of that particular method of conveyance. Now this has just begun but the officials of the ministry have been requested to pursue this. Chief Koenig has some very particular ideas about the subject. Of course he is discussing it with the city of Vancouver in connection with the inclusion in their bylaws. In that regard he will be supported by the elevating devices branch and in any way that is necessary.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) raised a question about the administrative processes related to the employment opportunities programme this year. Yes, there have been some administrative problems, but not as many as a year ago. We hope that we are gradually establishing an administrative programme which will have the least number of administrative problems. I might say - and this is not by way of excuse - that the number of problems with which we are confronted each year is significantly less than is found in the federal programme. That's probably by reason of the nature of their programme.

Also on the question of expenditure, it is not anticipated that there will be any over-expenditure. To date, $22,288, 000 has been committed, which is just under the total budget. But 99 per cent has been committed and no over-commitment is expected.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to participate in the minister's estimates. I just have a few comments and then some questions.

First of all, I want to echo the concerns expressed by members of all sides of the House about the severe unemployment situation that exists in this province. I am deeply concerned that the figures that have been given to us latterly indicate that we are in for a very severe unemployment problem over the next few months.

The minister has talked briefly about the job creation programme of the summer months. I'm sorry that the former minister is not here because it was the former minister who pioneered this effort of returning some of the funds of the citizens of this province back to them through work projects that assisted especially students and marginal wage earners an opportunity to do two things: one, to return to university and otherwise, to at least supplement their income beyond unemployment insurance.

Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that essentially what draws the line down the middle of this floor between the two groups that really represent political polarization in this province is a commitment by that group over there to what I describe as laissez-faire capitalism. For in actual fact, it is obvious that this government has no philosophical commitment whatsoever in attempting to create employment opportunities beyond licking their finger, holding it up to the wind, turning in that direction and hoping for the best.

This is perhaps the most conservative government that has been elected in the history of this province. In terms of economic leadership to provide employment, there is nothing but a vacuum, and we have had less than adequate statements or direction by the government. It appears that the government has embarked upon a committee-style approach to solving problems of unemployment. Put it to a committee, whether it's a cabinet committee, a deputies' committee, a civil servant's committee, a citizens' committee - anything, but put it away, put it aside and don't act on it.

Some months ago I spoke in a general debate about the concerns I had and I made the historical analogy between the Weimar Republic, the unemployment situation and the Canadian economy, and similar social structures related to that unemployment. In the spring of this year, I predicted that there would be semblances of violence or near-violence around the competition for jobs in a ruthless capitalist society that is based, by this government's philosophy, on nothing more and nothing less than laissez-faire.

When I made the prediction, I did it on the basis of an accumulation of readings of history, the understanding that human behaviour has altered very little over the last 300 or 400 years, that the veneer of society that we view

[ Page 4194 ]

as civilization is thin indeed. When a social structure, in terms of employment, appeals to people on a one-to-one ruthless basis, there are bound to be problems.

The first manifest demonstration of the problems that I'm concerned about in terms of competition for limited employment, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately took place, as I predicted, in this province some weeks ago when young people lined up to get jobs for two or three weeks at the Pacific National Exhibition. The citizens of this province were treated to a demonstration of young people who were responding in terms of employment to everything that is held out to them in a successful society if you only work hard.

Those of you who have avoided the work-hard syndrome have been fortunate enough to inherit wealthy parents. But the great majority of people and young people of this province are looking for work. They want a chance. They want to survive. They don't want welfare; they don't want unemployment insurance. They want a job, a job that means something.

So when the PNE put an ad in the paper, despite the efforts of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) through PREP, they found that over 1,500 to 2,000 young people appeared at the gates to apply for 200 jobs. It was not an amicable crowd. It was not a crowd based on sharing, or loving, or co-operation. They were there to compete out of the labour market for a handful of jobs that they hoped they would be able to acquire for themselves because they are driven by a laissez-faire capitalist society that says: "All those good things out there , -an be yours if you only work, " and that's what they wanted to do. They wanted to work.

So what happened when all these young people showed up in line with the competitive, ruthless, dog-eat-dog attitude fostered by the kind of capitalism that is really a hundred years old by any normal standard, but still believed in in simplistic terms by this government? Young people started shoving each other, pushing and fights even broke out at the line waiting for a chance to compete for jobs. Minimum-pay jobs - an opportunity to make 2- or 3 or 4-weeks' payroll, and that's all - and they were prepared to fight each other for those minimal jobs that were available.

In a so-called Christian society, it becomes a question of wonderment as to whether or not we have been focusing on the wrong things with our young people. Certainly those who are doing well in our society would be relieved to see that kind of aggressive competition taking place for a handful of jobs amongst the young people of this province.

Those young people said that they wanted to work. They showed up and put in an application for the job and they were ready to punch their way through the lineup to get there to the right to put their application in. It doesn't augur well for the future of this province. It is a warning-signal flag to this government and other administrations in this country that we have severe social unrest just below the surface, ready to be scratched, around the question of unemployment.

Now what's to be done? We have a government that says we have to restore investor confidence to the province of British Columbia and to Canada. That's a cliche that is absolutely meaningless, Mr. Chairman, because unemployment is not going to be resolved by mythical appeals to investor confidence. It is a known fact that investment now is not geared by individuals or largely by multinational corporations. My colleague, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, pointed out that the private corporations in North America are in hock to the pension plan schemes close to $700 billion. The private corporate investor, as such, really no longer exists.

Within a short period of time, every major capital investment will be directed by governments throughout the whole world. Any idea that government stay out of the economy and hope for the best is absolute nonsense. The policies of the present administration, or the non-policies, are going to lead to severe unemployment problems that will be chronic, that will breed social problems and that will give a headache to the Minister of Labour unlike any he's had in the last 18 months.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a myth in terms of surviving. Even our greatest neighbour next door, the United States, which is the bastion of free enterprise, abandoned laissez-faire capitalism in 1936 with the Roosevelt move to social security.

Had it not been for social security and the funds generated through that to provide unemployment for the American people, the same kind of violence that was exhibited in a regional basis, especially in the Appalachian area and spreading to the west coast, and as was evidenced in this country during the Depression, would have spread right across North America as a general trend.

I believe that our society has fostered through philosophies such as this government's false aspirations and hopes to young people of this country without providing them the opportunity by government policy for meeting those aspirations or hopes.

At last count we had over 95 PhDs unemployed in Vancouver. Hundreds of university graduates with Master's degrees and perhaps thousands with Bachelor's degrees across this country are looking for work: These are good young people who have followed their parent's admonition to "stay in school, don't use drugs, cut your hair, be decent, be nice, work hard and you'll get a job." The whole emphasis on that kind of middle-class education was to get a good education and get a good job and become a good citizen. All of that fabric is beginning to rip

[ Page 4195 ]

away and there are no simple short-term answers. I'm not suggesting that government has all the answers, but patchwork programmes, unless there is some method of direction to investment to long-term development of jobs, will only delay the social explosion that will take place eventually amongst the unemployed.

We had a small view of that kind of tension with the young people lined up at the PNE. But it will go beyond that, Mr. Chairman, when you reach into unemployment figures of 20 or 30 per cent in the construction field, where you reach unemployment figures of 40 or 50 per cent in the shipbuilding field, and you find established middle-class working people unemployed for a long period of time, no longer able to provide for their families.

I know that this problem besets the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to the point that he's in deep meditation over the problem. Some would say it was sleep, but I know better than that. Meditation is what he evidences in front of us, so if anyone's reading Hansard, let it not be said that the minister fell asleep; he was meditating.

He will reap through his ministry the consequences of the lack of action by this government regarding the unemployment problem, and the fostering of the conditions of unequal distribution of wealth will be continued by the government rather than have a redirection of capital funds from duly collected taxes, such as succession duty. The rich have become richer under this government, and the poor have been told, in effect, in terms of unemployment, to root, hog or die. Harsh words - as a prediction in the spring, a guess; as a result of the last few months, a reality.

I warn this House, and I warn this minister, Mr. Chairman, that anyone who is a serious student of history can see the same signs of social unrest and violence around the insecurity of unemployment that plagued West Germany existing in this nation today. The Canadian dollar has now dropped to 72 cents. It gives temporary relief to employment in the forest industry of this province because it falsely makes our timber and lumber economically viable for the American market.

However, that 7 per cent and 8 per cent drop on the Canadian dollar is, in effect, a subsidy by every taxpayer in this country toward that one industry. It's luck; it's not by design. It's luck; it's temporary, but it will affect our balance of payments as a nation in the long run, and have more consequences that are negative in the long run, than the present temporary benefit.

Now we hear all kinds of speeches, especially by laissez-faire capitalists, who are really nothing more, in economic terms, than escapees from the pharaohs' tombs of Egypt. Who else believed in laissez-faire capitalism other than the pharaohs? They built monuments that are still being examined by archaeologists. But little did I think that in my lifetime the same kind of mentality would return to government in British Columbia.

While they attack the trade union movement, and while they attack labour as such in asking for fair wages, and while they attack the fact that the minimum wage, as they view it, may be too high, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, the unemployed pay the same for a loaf of bread. as the Premier does. There is no discount for the Premier and there is no discount for the unemployed. Rent, food, clothing - all of it, on a relative scale, costs the poor more than it costs the very wealthy of this province.

But when it comes to rewards, it's different, Mr. Chairman. The unemployed are limited by vicious competition to a limited number of jobs, while the rewards are diminished or used in cliches by a government that has not invested in the industry of this province as a reason why the economy is not going. There are more unemployed we're told, Mr. Chairman, by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who has difficulty sometimes remembering what he said. That happens sometimes. That minister was saying that we have to be more competitive, and labour costs are one of the things that are more competitive.

I want to present to you, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why there are unemployed in this province. While hotliners are talking about huge pension funds, let us understand that every working person - every working woman, every working man - contributing through a pension scheme is doing more to solve the unemployment problem than any millionaire who saves taxes on his estate inherited. There will be $35 million drawn out of the economy that could go to providing jobs in this province if this government had not lifted the burden of paying that $35 million in taxes off the backs of the millionaires.

That's right, Mr. Chairman. It is a fact that $35 million of employment is not taking place in this province simply because that government, with the stroke of a pen and the force of its majority, said that we will no longer tax the millionaires that amount of money through succession duties. Thirty-five million dollars could provide a lot of jobs.

Then we hear the cliches about the working people and the contribution that they make through unemployment insurance and through pension plans. Well, let's just examine what an employee is striving towards so we understand exactly what the Minister of Labour is faced with, both with working people and with unemployed people. The federal old age security plus supplement maximum total is $250 per month. The provincial supplement brings the maximum to $289 per month - $289 per month for the over 50 per cent of the working people of this country who do not belong to a pension plan of any kind that is held either by the job that they work at in terms of the labour union that represents them, or

[ Page 4196 ]

by the unorganized area.

The last statistics we have, Mr. Chairman, show us that of the working people of this country covered by labour agreements, only 40 per cent of the work force has any kind of pension plan at all. Those are the latest figures, from 1970. Many of those people move on an itinerant basis, even within the industry, and they do not have the portability of those pension plans. Now who is it who says the workers are getting too much money or the unemployed are asking for too much? The industrial leaders of this province, who essentially back this laissez-faire capitalist coalition over there.

Let us examine what a trade union worker or a waitress or a handicapped person looks at when they go and look for a job, and they understand that they have to bargain for their income. How would you like a job that lasts from 1971 to 1974, as the president of a company, and for three years' service you get $120,454 a year?

AN HON. MEMBER : I'll take it!

MR. BARRETT : You take that?

AN HON. MEMBER : I'll take one!

MR. BARRETT : There are two. Any other takers?

AN HON. MEMBER : Here's one.

MR. BARRETT : Number three. And after three years of service, my friend.... You might as well hear the rest, because if you were a trade unionist asking for this condition, you would be called a Bolshevik, a radical, a disturber. But this is a free-enterprise capitalist, who is essentially responding to the economy created by ordinary people, not by any effort of his or hers.

That person was none other than Robert Bonner, the head of MacMillan Bloedel, who was given this job because he's not unemployed. For three years he earned $120,000 a year. I don't blame him for that; I didn't want to see him unemployed. But for $120,000 a year, and after three years' work, he is guaranteed for life a pension of $62,000 a year. A $62,000-a-year pension! And those kind of people have the nerve to go out and make speeches saying that the working people and the unemployed must restrain themselves because they will get fat at the trough.

Well, at $62,000 a year on pension, he is now serving on Hydro. That's some trough. The slops are licking right over.

MR. GIBSON : Is that a federal or provincial pork inspection?

MR. BARRETT : I want to tell you, that's provincial pork inspection. Even 1, who am more confined to corned beef, understand that kind of pork.

So they talk about working people and they say: "Oh, ordinary citizens or people on welfare or the unemployed are asking for too much." So I give you another example, the gentleman who preceded Mr. Bonner, Mr. J.B. Clyne. When he retired he received a pension of $90,000 a year, plus a $100,000 lump sum. How many times have we heard that esteemed citizen of British Columbia extol the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and say: "Oh, mixed economy and socialists are dangerous." They certainly are. They want to share some of this money around with the unemployed who are waiting in line looking for jobs.

My friend, Mr. Timmis, the former president of MacMillan Bloedel, his salary was $220,000 a year. That's not greed, my friends, that's hard bargaining. You see, if a trade unionist asked for that kind of money that would be vicious greed demanding what is far beyond the capabilities of the economy to provide - this kind of money for ordinary working people. But when it comes to the heads of industry, it's $220,000 and a pension - hold your seats, gang -of $62,000 a year for the rest of his life.

MR. KING : Poor Dennis!

MR. BARRETT : This money should be directed to providing employment under the Labour estimates of this province. The last two examples I want to give of this most generous company are none other than Mr. Currie - his salary was $150,000, his pension is $62,000 a year - and Mr. Cal Knudsen, an American who comes up because us Canadians obviously don't know how to fill these jobs. He's an American who comes up and takes away this kind of plush job from my friends who put up their hands in this very chamber, who wanted a chance at that job.

The Liberal leader, the Tory leader, and the first member for Vancouver East were in line as Canadians to be given consideration. They were not even asked to submit their - circum vitae, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER : Curricula.

MR. BARRETT : Curricula? No, no. That's when you go to school and don't get a job! (Laughter.) Mr. Cal Knudsen, that famous American who drove 154 miles up from Seattle, receives a salary of $250,000 a year. My dear friends, if he falls on the wayside as the former presidents did, tripping on their way down from the 19th storey of the MacMillan Bloedel building, he knows when he falls that his pension for life will be $125,000 per year.

So let's hear it for the poor rich. Let's hear it for the rich poor. While these people and this government, which protects that kind of investment

[ Page 4197 ]

in terms of individual rewards based on who you know and what you know, have the nerve to go around saying that the unemployment problem will solve itself if we can only return investor confidence.... Bunk, Mr. Chairman! It's bunk! We're going to have severe unemployment in this province. It is doubletalk when it comes from this government, when they protect a vested interest of the extremely wealthy people of this province. There'll be $35 million in taxes that will never be collected off these people when they go on to their other reward beyond this earth.

I know of no one who has taken any money to the grave with them other than the pharaohs, and when we open those tombs we find the gold around the pharaohs, if robbers haven't found it first.

Even our own major religions tell us that when the day of reckoning comes, we're all going to be naked in the eyes of God, the same way we were when we came into this world. But the judgment is going to be made on the basis of what you did for mankind while you were here. And that is what I am talking about in terms of employment, Mr. Chairman. You know better than most members of this House about that kind of judgment and I pass it through you, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister of Labour is not providing the leadership necessary to create jobs in this province.

Now I want to deal very briefly with the argument that this is laissez-faire capitalist government. It is. Why, even the United States is socialist! Oh, I know it's a shock to hear that word for my friend the Premier. He just about dropped his pen. It went dry with the shock of the word "socialism." In the United States democratic socialism was pioneered first through the 1936 Roosevelt administration as a plan to help save capitalism.

Had it not been for the democratic socialist movement of Harry Hopkins, an adviser to Roosevelt, the serious unemployment problem in that country would never have been resolved, and I think, knowing the American nature, there would have been revolution in that country.

Now what has been the consequence of government intervention in the economy? It is absolutely essential, absolutely necessary. It has staved off the kind of violence that will eventually lead to the breakdown of our society unless we are prepared to move too.

Just to make the analogy quickly, the lights went out in New York just a few weeks ago. During the time the lights went out, did we have a civilized community representing the greatest nation in the world demonstrating its ability to cope with the fact that the lights went out, and was there love and co-operation and understanding and sharing until the lights went back on? Not at all. As soon as the lights went out, everything goes, and everything went -looting, stealing, violence and mayhem in that major

American city. When people were interviewed on television, many of them were unemployed and they were asked: "Why did you do this?" They said: "Because it was there for the taking." The thin veneer between social responsibility, individual conscience's place in acts, was eliminated by turning out the lights, I submit to YOU, MT. Chairman, that laissez-faire capitalism only has that same veneer right across this country too.

We saw the example at the PNE of people waiting in line for jobs ready to fight each other in broad daylight. They didn't wait for the lights to go out. It's a time bomb ticking away, not only in the consciousness of theorists in this country, Mr. Chairman, but a real time bomb ticking away at the very social structure of this country we live in called Canada. I might say that the lack of action by this provincial government is matched by the federal government in terms of dealing with unemployment. The federal government has found Rene Levesque to kick around rather than the unemployment statistics.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, we must keep our debate close to vote 203.

MR. BARRETT : Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what you say and I thank you for your direction. Unemployment is directly related to that minister, and I want to make a couple of positive comments related to actions made by governments with a mixed economy. Although this government is deathly afraid of the word socialism, just the other day the Premier had lunch with a socialist.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Two minutes.

MR. BARRETT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He had lunch with a socialist. West German Chancellor Schmidt broke bread with the Premier and I don't think the Premier even wore a red tie. He enjoyed Chancellor Schmidt's company and marveled at the economic recovery of West Germany but failed to recognize that West Germany's economy is based on democratic socialism with direct government intervention and involvement. The United States through the Jones Act has a mixed economy and is directly involved in the field of shipping.

There has to be a direct leadership role by a government to provide jobs for the young people of any nation if you want to keep some semblance of sanity and commitment to the social and democratic structures we have.

I believe that the laissez-faire capitalism is more danger to our fabric of democracy than any other approach to the economy, and unless governments led by this Minister of Labour and the Premier begin to demonstrate that they are concerned about the unemployed we are in for deep trouble.

Mr. Chairman, I have some more remarks to make

[ Page 4198 ]

later on. I want it to be clear that this will not be the major debate reported in the newspapers tomorrow, but I want to repeat my warning of this spring. Unemployment is a time bomb that demands aggressive government action including a mixed economy, direct government investment and direct participation in the economy. I find it ironic that after three and a half years when we were in power the major capital investments we made in the forest industry are the ones that are sustaining the economy of this province. Had it not been for us in Can-Cel, Plateau Mills, and yes, the little Princess Marguerite out here, and Ocean Falls, you would have had thousands more unemployed.

Mr. Chairman, I will now take my seat by saying to this government that regardless of all the debates we may have in the ebb and flow of daily debate in this House, the one measure that this government is being held up to is the argument it used about solving unemployment. It hasn't solved any. It has created more, and that will be the death knell of this government more than anything else.

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Chairman, if the Minister wishes to respond now I mean to move on to a different subject. If the minister cares to respond I am quite willing to defer.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I recognize the member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to return very briefly to the area of human rights, which I made some comments about last week.

I wonder if the minister would take into consideration the question that there seems to be no time limit in regard to actions that are taken after a complaint has been investigated, particularly where it has gone all the way to a board of inquiry. The legislation specifies time limits within which the individual has to register a complaint once it is alleged to have occurred. It would seem to be only fair that there should be some time limit in regard to the handling down of decisions.

The kind of case I could cite, Mr. Chairman, is the case of one person.... I was personally involved and gave evidence during the hearings on February 13,1976, and it was well into March, 1977, until a decision was handed down. Now I know the minister cannot be responsible for the individual performance of members of a board of inquiry, but it does seem an unreasonably long time for a complainant to wait to hear the outcome of what the individual may believe to be a justifiable complaint. If it helps the minister, the case I am referring to is the Anne Bremer case.

I am not here to pass judgment or interfere with the decision that was handed down, but simply to make the point that there should surely be some attempt to impose the same kind of time limits on handing down a decision as there is imposed on the individual who must register the complaint within a certain time.

I also wonder if the minister has any concern or wishes to comment on the need for a wider definition of reasons which constitute discrimination. I am particularly thinking of the handicapped. Again, I have no wish to transgress on a case that is now under appeal, but it seems to me that a handicap is being used to deny a person employment when it's quite obvious that the handicap itself does not impair the person's capacity to do the job.

If we are going to prevent discrimination on the basis where you're born or what the colour of your skin is, it would seem to me that you should not be discriminated against simply because you're handicapped if you can do the job for which you are employed or seeking employment.

The same applies in the area of medical conditions or situations where a person has applied for a job and received a job, and then it's discovered that he or she has a medical condition, which again in no way relates to the capacity of the individual to do the job. The employer tells that individual that the job is no longer available or that the person is being laid off from that job. It seems to me that these are not reasonable causes for which to discriminate against a person, and I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that.

The other issue I raised, interestingly enough, earlier on in the debate was the fact that industrial relations officers have been doing approximately 50 per cent of the inquiries of complaints. I just want to bring to the minister's attention that I was made aware as recently as this morning of a case where an industrial relations officer was allocated to investigate a complaint by an individual.

This woman discovered that she ended up answering all kinds of questions as to whether she suffered from a neurosis, or if she had ever been considered by her friends to be paranoid, and questions of this nature, which seem to me to be ranging far away and beyond the preliminary kind of discussion that should take place when a man or a woman wants a complaint investigated by the human rights branch.

Because of lack of time, I don't have all the details on this particular case but I understand that the lady concerned feels that she has been most unfairly dealt with, and is getting in touch with me to see if we can straighten that one out. Now I don't know whether that's because of the fact that an IRO is investigating, or a human rights officer, but it does seem to give emphasis to the point I raised last week that this is a very sensitive area, as the minister himself acknowledged the other day, and the fact that a great deal of education is required.

It seems to me that education is required both of the staff and the

L) public. I know the public's need to

[ Page 4199 ]

be educated as to what the human rights legislation provides and how it should best be utilized, but it would seem to me that there are some flaws on the other side as well. When a person lays a complaint within the terms of the Act, there should be strict care taken to ensure that the very investigator doesn't invade the individual rights of the complainant by inquiring about such matters as their mental health and whether their neighbours think they're paranoid. This seems to me to be a very out-of-order kind of investigation to be undertaken.

Now I want to move on quickly, Mr. Chairman, to the matter of Indian affairs because this minister is responsible for Indian affairs, and I presume this is the only vote under which we can ask a few questions. The minister met in March with federal representatives and with representatives of the Indian people. I just wonder if the minister could give us some update on what is going on in these discussions with regard to one or two specifics.

Chief Philip Joe said that the discussions would get into high gear on May 11, and that meetings so far had centred on laying out general terms by which possible settlements will be discussed in May. I take it from that that there was to have been a meeting held in May, and I would like to know if that meeting did take place and what progress was made. The minister, Mr. Chairman, is on record as saying that the meeting with the federal representatives established some basic principles for settlement.

In making these comments I an really repeating what appeared in the press mainly, but it was my understanding from press reports that the minister's basic principles of settlement were to the effect that cut-off lands which have not been developed could be returned to the Indian people, and that the other approximately 8,000 acres - and I'm using approximate figures since I don't think anyone knows the figures precisely -would be paid in cash. Now I also understand that the minister met privately with the federal minister, the Hon. Warren Allmand.

My second question is whether in these discussions any kind of approximate figure was reached as to the total cost of compensation for the land which has been developed and cannot be returned to the Indian people.

I'm not asking specifics, Mr. Chairman, but I think this whole matter has dragged on for such a long time that the optimistic note which came out of the minister's meeting with the federal representatives in March entitles us to ask in this House: have the negotiations at least reached the point of knowing approximately the number of dollars involved in compensating the Indian people for the cut-off land which cannot be returned per se to their ownership?

Secondly, can I ask the minister if in his discussion with the Hon. Warren Allmand any tentative agreement was reached on which government should pay what percentage of that total estimated cost? In other words, if the cost would be $100 million, how would the federal and provincial levels of government... ? I shouldn't throw out a figure. Let's say that if the cost is to be X millions of dollars, is that amount to be split 50-50 or by some other agreed formula? Or could I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether in fact any such formula has yet been reached? It may well be that further meetings are to take place.

I would be very interested to know just what amount of progress has been made and with what degree of definition. Has the government decided on the total figure that may well have to be paid, and how will that figure be split?

Now my last question on Indian affair's, Mr. Chairman, relates to a matter which has been brought to my attention by a concerned citizen. It concerns the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative. First of all, let me say that the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative was set up in October, 1973, and was intended to provide employment for Indian fishermen as a self-help type of project. The initial sum of money allocated by the NDP government at that time was $3 million. Since then, the co-operative has had several grants and loans by special warrant, and I'll just read them quickly into the record.

After the original $3 million in October '73, half a million was allocated in December '73, $1 million in January '74, and $3 million in August, 1974. In February, 1976, the new Social Credit government entered into discussions on this matter and allocated another $2.5 million, plus an agreement that a government-appointed committee would manage the co-operative. I have order-in-council 783, dated March 4,1976, and that order-in-council spells out the fact that the $2.5 million will be provided by the government in return for this agreement. The agreement is dated February 27,1976.

That agreement was between the Ministry of Economic Development and the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative. Paragraph 8 of that agreement designates the Minister of Labour responsible for the administration of that agreement. Paragraph I appointed a management committee to oversee and implement the agreement with the Ministry of Economic Development.

Now the point that I am trying to get to as quickly as I can, Mr. Chairman, is the whole question of the financial state of the co-operative. It is my information that. . . . I tried to explore the questioning in question period when I asked the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , and I did have the page from Hansard to pin down the date. But I can't find it at the moment. Any rate, Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago I did ask the Minister of Finance if he was in the process of exploring the financial status of the co-operative. It was my information that the Minister of Labour, in his responsibilities as the minister designated under the

[ Page 4200 ]

agreement to be responsible for administration, had asked the Minister of Finance for a financial report. As I recall - and I apologize that I've mislaid the question I asked the Minister of Finance but at any rate - I think the Minister of Finance acknowledged that such a status report was being prepared.

Mr. Chairman, the issue which an individual has brought to my attention implies - in fact, it goes beyond implying - that there are some serious conflicts of interest involved in this whole situation of the co-operative and various persons who are involved in it. The allegation, Mr. Chairman, is to the effect.... I hope I haven't distracted the minister, because this is a very important statement I am about to make.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that it has been brought to my attention that various ships have been purchased and/or refitted by a co-operative and resold at a price far below the original purchase price. Now I just would like to know, since the minister has asked the Minister of Finance for a report, if the minister can tell me if he is aware of the number of vessels, where, in fact, they have been sold to or refitted by the co-operative and then resold at prices much below the original purchase price.

Now I have had one vessel mentioned in my communications with this citizen, which was bought by the co-operative for something in excess of $60,000, and resold a year later for $30,000. Now I just would like to know if the minister's inquiry into the financial status of the co-operative has gone beyond simply the figures as such. Has there been any inquiry into why it would appear that such transactions took place or, first of all, to confirm if they took place?

I am certainly not making any accusations against individuals; I am simply trying to inquire further into some information which has been submitted to me in writing and signed by the person concerned, but who wishes to avoid his name being used publicly. But he is greatly concerned that some very unusual business decisions have been taken. Since, as I pointed out earlier, Mr.

Chairman, the total amount of money which has been made available to the co-operative adds up to $9.5 million, and since it would appear that the Minister of Finance has been asked to conduct a financial inquiry into the status of this co-operative, it would naturally be of concern if part of the financial difficulties of the co-operative relate to the fact that they buy a ship for $60,000 and, within a year or so, resell it for $30,000.

1 just feel, without going into any more specifics at this time, that I would be interested to know from the minister what scope of inquiry is he now conducting. Is it simply a matter of determining the red or black ink on the balance sheet? Or is it a matter of determining the findings of the management committee, which was set up under the agreement I just mentioned, and of seeing if the management committee has explored the kind of bad business practices that I have suggested? If so, could the minister report on their findings?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to delay my response to the member for Oak Bay. I am ready to respond on those questions, but I would like, for just a few moments, Mr. Chairman, to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

COLLEGES AND

PROVINCIAL INSTITUTES ACT

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Govern or:

a bill intituled Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act.

Bill 82, 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.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Committee of Supply, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Speaker, the opposition are naturally as gracious as can be but we would like the minister to ask leave for this kind of situation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : I don't need leave.

MR. COCKE : Leave is important. We don't want any precedents set.

MR. SPEAKER : In responding to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , it is not clear in my mind that leave is even required. On occasion we have had bills come in during the course of the afternoon by leave and at other times just by general agreement among the parties. However, I will check into it closer and see if I can find an authority.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 203: minister's office, $131,284 -

continued.

[ Page 4201 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal with the questions posed by the member for Oak Bay, perhaps in reverse order. The Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative was a venture in the nature of an enterprise designed to assist the native people on the north coast of this province by the government providing certain sums of money for the construction of a cannery, core fleet vessels to be used by fishermen who would take their catch to the cannery, and certain associated buildings, equipment and supplies.

First of all, let me say that the moneys were first made available with the authority of legislation. I think that if the member will refer to that legislation he will understand the distinction between my role in the enterprise at this moment on behalf of the government, and that of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . The Minister of Finance is the minister charged with the responsibility under the legislation, while my responsibility arises only out of the agreement, to which the member referred. I was given that responsibility because of my general responsibility for matters relating to Indian affairs in this province.

I think the member's list of figures is short by $2.5 million. I think that the people of the province of British Columbia have given, by way of loans and grants to this enterprise, $12.5 million, but the actual specifics I don't have before me at the moment.

The establishment of this cannery was one which had been under consideration for a number of years. The national government had been asked to give its assistance in the establishment of a cannery, but for various reasons the national government declined; they believed that the cannery was located in the wrong place, among other significant factors. I am not certain that the events which have transpired have not proven the view of the national government in that regard to be correct. At any rate, it was established and successive management groups were given the responsibility of constructing the cannery and bringing it into operation.

When we became government in December, 1975, 1 was given the responsibility for Indian matters. One of the first major tasks that confronted me was a request from the co-operative for about $2 million in financial assistance. With my staff we then began an intensive and necessarily accelerated inquiry into the background of the need for this kind of money, because we were at the same time told that if the cannery wasn't to miss the opportunity of the herring season for 1976, and all of the revenue potential that that had for that co-operative, a decision would have to be made very quickly.

In the time that we had to make the decision, a significant amount of information became clear, the principle of which was the fact that while the government in the establishment of the cannery had made large numbers of dollars available very generously, they had not taken the care to ensure that the co-operative was equipped with the management advice so essential to handle large sums of money and to bring such an enterprise as this into fruition.

In effect the government had decided that there should be a co-operative structure used for this enterprise without concerning themselves as to whether the natives who were directly involved could make that co-operative structure work and whether they had the necessary skills of management and accounting ability required to ensure that the moneys were adequately expended and, indeed, without even taking enough time to concern themselves as to whether the Indians who had been involved understood the concepts of co-operativism so essential for this enterprise to have even the slightest chance to succeed, given all of the other problems which confronted them in the early days of the venture.

It would have been possible at that stage for the government to have said this was another Indian enterprise which had failed, washed our hands of the whole matter and advanced no further funds. However, the examination that we made disclosed that in the management of the co-op's affairs, the then directors of the co-op had incurred very significant expenditures which had not been paid for. A lot of people had supplied services and materials on the strength of the co-op being an ongoing operation and one which obviously had the support of the government.

Cheques had been issued and were bouncing all over the coast, the amount of which we could only guess at because the accounts were in a chaotic state, to say the least. It was estimated that the total mount required to discharge the outstanding obligations would be in the neighbourhood of $2 million to $2.5 million.

The government then moved to make this sum of money available, and at the same time the government moved to give to the co-operative management assistance which we believed they should have had in the first place. I announced in the spring of 1976 the appointment of the management committee, consisting of people who are knowledgeable in the fishing industry: Mr. Leif Nordahl, who had been and is still connected with the Central Co-op; Mr. Frank Millerd, from the private sector of the fishing industry and a man of long years of experience; Mr.

Frederick Graham, who for years had been associated with the Prince Rupert Co-op; Senator Guy Williams of the Native Indian Brotherhood; and subsequently Mr. Wylie Brillon, who is a fisherman, a member of the co-op itself and a person highly experienced in fishing in the north coast of the province. That group went to work, put staff into the Port Simpson operation and gradually were able to meet all of the outstanding obligations

[ Page 4202 ]

of the co-op. During the same period, 1976, they carried on a successful herring roe operation, which produced a contribution to operating expense for 1976.

I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, that in the fishing business it is difficult to speak of profits and losses because of the periods which are covered by the fishing seasons, the uncertainties that are so often met in determining what the fish catch will be, what the prices will be, and what the expenses will be. But certainly in 1976, with regard to the herring operation, a contribution to working capital was made by that operation. It also enabled the fishermen who fish for the co-operative to engage in the salmon season during 1976.

It is questionable whether or not that was an economically sound move, but the only other alternative was to allow the cannery operation to lapse. Now during this time, it was possible to assess the cannery itself and some of the attendant facilities. I can say that the cannery is a very modern plant, well equipped, and well able to handle far more fish product than is presently made available to it.

With regard to the attendant facilities, the camp at Port Simpson, it was found that while the original intention was to bring natives from several areas to Port Simpson to take

part in the cannery operation and therefore it was necessary to provide accommodation and victualing services, this did not work out. Therefore certain of these facilities became redundant to need.

The most serious concern, however, Mr. Chairman, was that of the core fleet - the fishing vessels that were employed in this operation. I think it was a blunder on the part of the previous administration to get themselves involved in a core fleet. That means the co-op owns the vessels. The fishermen, by some method of selection, are given a vessel to fish.

They go out and fish, they bring the fish back, and when the season is over the vessels are tied up at the dock and the fishermen walks away and says: "Fine, it's the co-op's responsibility." So the refitting, the repair, the maintenance, the insurance - all of those matters normally taken care of by the fisherman himself -were left to the co-op. Well, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the co-op couldn't have cared less. We had vessels sinking at the dock and falling into bad repair because no one had the interest in the individual vessel to make sure it was kept repaired.

Therefore, in discussion with fishermen who were members of the co-op, anxious to fish for the co-op, the plea was: "Sell the vessels to co-op members and tie those members to the co-op for a period of how many years may be required in order to pay off the purchase price of the vessel to ensure that their fish will always be delivered to the co-op." In this way, you do two things: you attract the fishermen and therefore you get the produce from the sea that they have garnered; and you get rid of the expense of looking after the vessel.

The fisherman gradually improves, maintains, and cares for his vessel because it is his own. I suppose if there, is any one clear instance when private initiative, private ownership, and I suppose private enterprise, is shown to function, it's with regard to fishermen.

Anyway, this is what was done. All the vessels were appraised and they were offered to the members of the co-op to purchase at the appraised price - or more, if such offers would be produced. The first opportunity was given to members of the co-op. In the event of there being more than one offer for the same vessel, a selection would be made based upon the fishing record of the proposed purchaser. In this way, virtually all of the core fleet was disposed of.

Terms were offered of at least 20 per cent down, the balance financed by a mortgage on the vessel itself -the mortgage period was five years - plus a commitment from the fishermen, by fishing agreement, to fish for the co-op for the period of five years. In the event that there was any breach of that fishing contract, then the mortgage would automatically be callable. Insurance was provided for each vessel. That insurance, in turn, was assigned in order to provide security for the repayment of the indebtedness. In that way, the vessels were placed in the hands of co-op members.

It's too soon to tell whether the initial gamble -and it was a gamble - taken by the government, or by this government in 1976, will be justified. The management committee, at the urgings of the government, has started on what we consider to be the second, and probably the most important, phase of what will hopefully be the road to viability for this operation. The first was essentially a clean-up operation - seeing whether we couldn't get the cannery in a situation where it could be viable. Now the second phase is underway.

An arrangement has been made with B.C. Central Credit Union through the facilities that they offer to work with the members of the co-op in instilling in them the concept of co-operativism and in trying to bring them into a position whereby they can fully undertake the management of this total cannery operation. How long that process, which is an educational one, will require, it's too soon to say. But it is a necessary exercise, or else the operation of the cannery will continue as it has since early 1976 -ostensibly owned by the co-op but really run by somebody else.

The government and the management committee are as anxious as anyone, Mr. Chairman, to be able to turn over. the management of the co-op to members of the co-op for their own destiny. But we will not undertake that step until we're satisfied that the members of the co-op, or a significant number of them, are skilled enough to handle the management of the affairs of the total co-op, because to do

[ Page 4203 ]

otherwise would only set us back on the road that was experienced in 1975, a road downhill to the eventual economic disaster which surely confronted the co-op at the end of 1975.

I'd say that I have had given to me today a report on the current situation of the cannery. The cannery this year will have its best operating year ever. At present, 21,000 cases of salmon have been canned; last year, 15,000 cases was the total. Already this year, we're 6,000 cases over. In addition, 150,000 pounds of frozen product have been sold. The cannery is presently employing 180 persons on two shifts. Of the total number of employees, 168 are native Indians.

During the herring season this year, the cannery processed 1,200 tons of herring, yielding 240,000 pounds of roe. Negotiations are taking place with regard to a demand in Europe for 1,200 tons of food herring this fall, and that's a new operation for this cannery. As well, the cannery is moving into the crab business, having this year processed 100,000 pounds, and we may enter into the clam market as well. So under the management committee's guidance, with the active support of the workers in the co-op and with the renewed incentive made available to the fishermen, this year is looking very favourable.

Now one of the problems, Mr. Chairman, as you may well know, about the fishing industry is that if the fish runs are good, then the possibility of catches being returned to the cannery are good. If it's a bad year for fishing, it's a bad year for everybody. It's impossible to assess with any degree of accuracy what the future may hold in subsequent years, but we do know that the cannery itself is efficient, that the Indian workers and members of the co-op can do the job efficiently. Whether we can overcome all the other difficulties that I have described, I am not sure.

The cannery is situated very far north, with the result that if the fish are running in the southern waters on the coast, it's a long pack from the fishing grounds to the cannery itself. Whether this can be overcome by co-ordinated efforts with other operations is something which has yet to be explored.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I make my remarks in this regard, Mr. Member, without casting criticism which would be so easy to cast upon other decisions which have been made. But I see no future in that. I could castigate some of the people who had a role in the development of this enterprise, in government and outside of government, but the purpose of that would not contribute to the future or to the success of this venture and, after all, that's what's important. It is one of the major initiatives for Indian enterprise in this province and, quite frankly, this government wants to see it succeed.

Now the member talked about meetings that have been taking place between this government and the federal government concerning the settlement of the cut-off land situation. He started with the meeting here in Victoria in March with the Hon. Warren Allmand and representatives of the 22 bands which are involved in the cut-off land problem. That was, as the member well knows, not the first of the meetings; the meetings have gone on since the spring of 1976, first with Mr. Buchanan, who was then the federal minister, and subsequently Mr. Allmand. But this was the first meeting in which the Indians were involved with the two governments.

Subsequent to that meeting, three meetings were held between a committee of the Indian bands and officials of the Ministry of Labour and of the officials of the federal department. The purpose of that was to achieve agreement, if at all possible, on the basic principles to be adopted with regard to the resolution of this long outstanding problem - some 65 years now, I guess. The meetings at the officials' level were, I think, successful but not conclusive. A number of principles were settled, but some of the more difficult ones were not.

As a consequence - and this was not a breakdown in discussions, I wish the committee to understand; there was no breakdown of discussions at all - of an impasse in propositions that were being put forward by the representatives of the federal department on the subject of compensation, the Indians indicated that they wished to meet with me to discuss this government's point of view. 1, with my officials, met with them and I told them what I was prepared to recommend to the government of British Columbia. I made it quite clear that the decision was not mine but I made it quite clear what my recommendation would be.

My recommendation, and this is currently under consideration by the government, is as follows: first of all, having achieved a basis for settlement involving the national government, British Columbia would immediately return just over 30,000 acres of cut-off lands presently held by the Crown provincial which have never been alienated in any way. These are lands that are in exactly the same position as they were back in 1912-1916, when the cut-offs were first visualized.

Secondly, with respect, to any moneys that the government of British Columbia had received before the disposition to cut-off lands - those will be returned to the bands with interest at the average rate over the period from the time the dispositions were made. I am advised that rate is something between 8 and 10 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER : Phew!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : We would give back every cent that we have achieved, because under the

[ Page 4204 ]

arrangements, as land sold, half of the money went to the national government for the Indians and half of it was retained by the province. We say, "We'll give you the money back, with interest."

Lastly, for any of the lands which may have been used by the government - and this would involve the establishment of matters such as rights-of-way across some lands or, in some cases, there have been some gravel-removal operations conducted by the Department of Highways - the provincial government would compensate the Indians for that use.

We would also wish to discuss with the Indians the retention by the government of those cut-off lands which, by reason of their use over the years, have become a recognizable part of the public domain. I'm thinking of those cut-off lands which have been used as provincial parks; in one case, a municipal park; a sewage treatment plant; a Department of Highways works yard; and other matters of that nature. I notice the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) taking an interest; he will certainly be aware of some of the areas which I'm speaking about.

If the Indian bands involved are prepared to allow those properties to remain in what I refer to as the public domain, then the government of British Columbia would negotiate with them for their purchase at current market value, either in dollars or in making available other lands which the bands might be prepared to accept in exchange.

I don't comment upon the Indians' reaction to what I considered would be recommendations; I think that they were favourably disposed towards them.

But they advised me that they were arranging to meet with the federal minister to discuss with him their views on the state of the negotiations, and how they believed they should progress. That meeting was held in Edmonton last Friday. I have not had a report. I didn't have a representative at the meeting. It was between the Indian bands and the federal minister and his staff.

Between the time I met with the Indian bands and last Friday, I traveled to Ottawa to discuss with the federal minister a number of subjects. The question of cut-off lands was raised briefly, but I deferred any questions on the subject until after he had his opportunity to talk to the Indians.

MR. WALLACE : Has the cabinet discussed your recommendations?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : The member for Oak Bay has asked me if the cabinet has discussed my recommendation. It has been discussed by me with a senior committee of cabinet and I expect in the next 10 days to have a full cabinet discussion on the matter, depending on the availability of the reports that we are preparing and a time on the agenda.

Now that will leave, of course, the balance of the lands that were cut off and which have been alienated. There are something less than 3,000 acres. It is my view that the responsibility for whatever compensation may be due to the Indians in respect with those lands rests with the national government.

MR. CHAIRMAN : You've been 30 minutes in your answer, hon. minister.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : I am sorry to be so long, but it's a subject which involves an awful lot and I only hope that I will have the opportunity some time.... I would be prepared to meet with the members once we make our decision, and go fully into the basis for the recommendations which I've made.

The member in raising the question of human rights said that he was concerned that there was no time limit within which certain action should be taken. I have considered this prospect, but in view of the mediative attitudes which I think are so essential to the success of the human rights complaint resolution and the necessary educational aspect that goes with it, to set arbitrary time limits is not a good idea.

So far as handling the complaints themselves to boards of inquiry and the eventual decision from the board of inquiry, we face the same problems that are faced by the courts of this land. First of all there has to be investigations. In some cases it's very short; other cases take a long while. Sometimes there's only a couple of people to talk to, sometimes maybe dozens. So you can't limit the period of investigation.

Once you get to the settlement aspect, it sometimes takes a longer time to convince some people of the rightness of the position that's being put forward than it does others, and that is therefore aiding flexibility. Once you have a board of inquiry recommended by the staff and a decision made by the minister to empanel a board of inquiry, there is a process there which is unfortunately time-consuming. We have a list of panel members from which we can choose but the availability of those members varies.

Some person you may want for a particular board or board of inquiry because of his experience or knowledge and you can't have him this week, but maybe two weeks from now. Holidays, sickness and other job demands make it difficult. So sometimes it's better to delay the board of inquiry by two weeks and have the board that you want, rather than a board that you think perhaps wouldn't do as good a job.

Then once you embark on a board of inquiry, you give everybody notice and they have to get their

[ Page 4205 ]

witnesses together. Some want to be represented by a lawyer and you run into all the problems that that produces - getting the witnesses to the hearing, suiting their convenience, suiting the convenience of counsel. Then when that's all over you hold the hearing. Then comes the period for deliberation and decision and we certainly wouldn't want to hasten that. I think all things being equal, while I'm as distressed about the time it takes as the member is, the quality of the process would be diminished if we were to place arbitrary time limits.

As for a particular case in which a member was involved, I know one of the reasons it was delayed. Counsel for the school board was engaged for many weeks in a most difficult yet important labour relations problem involving Nanaimo and he had to absent himself from that board of inquiry. So the resolution of the problem in Nanaimo delayed resolution of the problem to which the member refers. And that's a problem that no one has yet found how to overcome.

Handicapped persons - reasonable cause. We are considering this whole aspect of reasonable cause. As I said last week, I don't anticipate opening the Human Rights Code in 1977, but we will be in 1978, 1 trust. This question of reasonable cause - and the value there may be in defining it more than is presently the case - may be before the House for consideration. There are two points of view. One is that by being more specific in definition you tend to limit, and perhaps it is better to leave the breadth of reasonable cause so that it can be more encompassing.

On the other hand, if you leave the possibility of it being more encompassing but because the words aren't there people won't read into it what should be read in, then we simply leave someone out. But as I indicated, the legislation of the federal government is being studied, as well as the recent report in Ontario. Some recent decisions in Ontario and in Manitoba are under consideration, and they'll be taken into account in producing, I believe, some worthwhile amendments to the Code.

MR. WALLACE : I'll be very brief, but I just wanted to get back to the question of the Pacific North Coast Native Co-op, Mr. Chairman. I want success for that co-operative, as we all do. I realize that there have been troubled times that relate to some of the management shortcomings that the minister has referred to.

I'm trying to be very responsible in raising this issue because the kind of information that has been put before me is disturbing but by no means proven - namely, that some of the vessels which the minister referred to were purchased at a substantial price and resold to individuals at a very much lesser price, sometimes of the order of 100 per cent. The minister mentioned that some of them deteriorated and were refitted and so on, and part of the evidence that's been before me relates.... As I again caution, Mr.

Chairman, I have made inquiries and cannot confirm or deny these costs, but I'm disturbed enough that somebody would write to me, make these statements, sign their name, ask for my confidence and quote figures such as one ship which was purchased for $320,000 and sold for what the writer agrees he doesn't know the exact price, but around $110,000.

I want the native co-operative to get on the right rails and establish itself successfully. As the minister suggested, there's no point in looking back to 1973, when wrong decisions were made which have brought us to this point. I just wondered if the minister is to receive a report either from the Minister of Finance or elsewhere, itemizing those kinds of costs that I'm asking about. How many vessels were purchased by the co-operative, how many of them were resold, and what were the respective prices?

If this suggestion that's been made to me is inaccurate, it would be very helpful if the minister could provide the figures to show just how many vessels were involved in these transactions and what the dollar figures were.

Maybe the minister might consider tabling some of the information in the House. I think it is an MLA's responsibility to explore this kind of information, which may have a very valid explanation but which on the surface seems somewhat unusual. Would the minister just mention whether or not there is a report being prepared by the Minister of Finance, when he expects to receive it, and whether he would consider tabling that report from the Minister of Finance with the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Chairman, I don't expect to receive any report from the Minister of Finance. The report that he has received, or is about to receive, is a copy of the financial statements of the co-operative. I would remind the member that this is co-op business, not ours. Under the statute, the Minister of Finance is entitled to have the information, but we haven't taken over the co-op; it still belongs to its members.

We have, in our wisdom or otherwise - and you may criticize the position taken by the government -made certain moneys available to it. We were faced with one of two propositions: either we as a government receive representations from those to whom money was owed - "you've allowed this enterprise to go down the drain, therefore you better pay us" - or we make the moneys available to the co-op and try to get it to float. But remember, it's the co-op's business. My role and the management committee's role is only to assist the co-op and its directors in the discharge of their responsibilities.

So far as me receiving any reports from the Minister of Finance about these bills, I've had those reports for months. When the management

[ Page 4206 ]

committee decided in their wisdom to dispose of the vessel, there were continuing discussions between them and my office as to the advisability of making the dispositions - how it should be done, how we should test values and so on. As a result, every one of the vessels was appraised and then it was offered once the appraisal figures were known. No vessels were refitted; they were sold on an as-is basis.

I was as shocked as the member, but you mentioned one vessel which was purchased for $325,000 and I think it was eventually sold for $50,000. That was the famous or infamous Mary Lou, a former tuna vessel acquired for purposes of conversion into a packer. I understand it was very unsuited to that purpose. So maybe the co-op made a bad buy in the first instance and maybe it spent far too much money converting it into a packer, but all of that is of little consequence when you recognize that it was sunk and virtually all of its engine and equipment rendered useless.

When it was eventually sold, it was sold for the value of the hull. That's according to my information. So that's the kind of thing that happened.

Yes, it was disastrous - I'm well aware of it. There were many vessels that were allowed to deteriorate, some of them to be half sunk at the dock. When they were appraised, the appraisal figures were extremely low. That's one of the reasons we made the decision, because with a further year of deterioration there'd be no fleet at all. They had to be saved for whatever could be resurrected from them.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena) : I appreciate the minister's remarks with regard to Indian cutoff lands. I think he helped the members of the Legislature quite a bit this afternoon in understanding this issue.

I also hope that the Indian land claims themselves, which are far more important to us up in the north country than the cutoff lands, will be settled soon because an awful lot of development in the north country at the present time is being held up due to the Indian land claims. Companies simply refuse to take a risk and go in until these claims have been settled. I hope the government will be able to save the Port Simpson cannery and I know the minister will do his very best to do this.

He was certainly correct in saying that the core fleet really is the key to the success of any cannery. I might point out to the members that I worked for over two, years on this Port Simpson cannery, back in 1971 and 1972. I'd just like to quote from a letter I wrote on April 10,1972, which outlined my position to Frank Howard and the federal government at that time:

"With regard to the final paragraph of your letter in which

you suggest the provincial government underwrite the complete cost of the project,

you must surely be aware of the complications that would ensue.

"In the first instance, the project could not be financed by the British Columbia Department of Agriculture, as my department is responsible only for joint projects such as ARDA agreements. Secondly, the project could not be successful unless it receives the co-operation from the federal fisheries department. The matter of boat licensing and their general control of the fisheries resource could, without their co-operation and support, doom the project to collapse and failure."

Of course, this is exactly what happened, and it's unfortunate that this point was lost in the change of government in 1972. 1 think all of us want to see this cannery stay in operation, because, as the minister pointed out, it does employ quite a number of people and it's far better having them work there than be unemployed. So I don't think we should especially fault anyone, but we should try and make the whole thing work so that it will keep these people employed.

We've heard a great deal in the last few days about unemployment, but I would say generally there has been very little said about the cause of unemployment. In studying inflation during the last few months, it's interesting to see how all western countries have wrestled with this situation, but none so far have found solutions. This is true no matter what type of government happens to be in control. However, a few things become very clear. I recommend that all members read this book on how to halt inflation and still keep our jobs.

I don't say I agree with it altogether, like lots of other books I read, but there is quite a lot in there that I think is worth reading. One thing that becomes clear in all reports is that if wages and salaries go up more than productivity, the nation finally ends up in trouble. I think that's something we all know.

For instance, if productivity goes up 2 per cent, then the country can properly afford a 2 per cent increase in wages and salaries. In Canada, of course, we're arguing about 8 and 10 per cent increases in wages and salaries with productivity only up 1 or 2 per cent. Of course, the country simply can't live with that. The only place where productivity is up to what I'd call satisfactorily is in agriculture, where it's up more than 6.5 per cent over the last number of years.

With increases such as this and productivity so low, it's no wonder we're in trouble competing, and it's the main reason that we have high unemployment. If wages and salaries go up without productivity, then you might say it's robbed from some other group. In fact, they are subsidizing the subsidize d-by -some one-else. All efforts so far to help those on low incomes, either by governments or by unions, I would say, generally speaking, have failed.

[ Page 4207 ]

In study of the minimum wage increases over the years in various countries all efforts to narrow the gap between low incomes and high incomes have failed. I say this is general in all western countries.

As far back as the turn of the century, and today, the relationship between the low income and the high income have remained approximately the same. All of us can find good reasons why the minimum wage should be increased. We hear it every day in this House, because there's no question people on a minimum wage do suffer. But so far, all it's done is to start a chain reaction, because all others above the minimum wage tend to go up, including right up to the level of top management. They all strive and finally succeed in maintaining the same relationship they started off with in the first place.

With a percentage increase, of course, it is quite common that those at the low end of the scale can be even worse off. Another interesting point put forward in various books is ... they point out that you can go back as far as 1870 - this is something that surprised me a great deal - and you'll find that prices have always, in the long run, followed wages. The relationship, again, has remained constant all during that time.

There are examples of short-term changes, naturally, which we can all point to, where powerful groups - the Teamsters as an example - can get an increase and get ahead of others. During that time, of course, they pass the increase on to all those in society who still haven't got their increase. So those others, are, in fact, worse off.

Again, I must point out that this does not carry to the long term. Others get their increases and the relative position is restored to the way it was before the increase. Again, I must point out that prices go up following the increases to maintain their traditional position - or, you might say, the end of a complete cycle - once all have received their increase up the line.

Some people will say that this sounds as if no one really gets hurt. Well, of course, the answer is totally wrong. Everyone gets hurt - and the country itself is a loser. Marginal companies no longer can compete in the world markets and unemployment increases. Enough companies this year have already left Canada for lower-cost areas, companies which would, in fact, hire 120,000 people. The reason they left was simply that our costs got higher than our competitors.

I think the one thing that comes clear in the various books also is that we certainly shouldn't blame the unions alone for this problem. As we have seen this year, management salaries have been even more inflationary-, the unions are mainly trying to maintain their traditional position.

As I said before, democratic governments right across the western world so far appear to be powerless to really bring a change from the low income to those in the high income class. Now the main cause of inflation is that free enterprise is not allowed to function. In other words, it's not left free any longer. We have pressures up and up but we don't have any pressures down on either side. With the closed-shop union contracts and professional groups, the movement is always up, never down.

Again, on the other side, you have monopoly-controlled industries o r oligopoly-controlled industries. Again the pressure is always up and up and not down. In fact, they actually hold production down to maintain prices. So in fact, you have a whipsaw action up and up, when a proper system should be working up and down to be what we consider free.

The only place where this happens is in non-monopoly independent groups. Of course, quite often it does actually work but they've become quite small nowadays as most major industries are controlled by large monopoly groups. Most employers in industries such as the building trade, with industry-wide unions, have no incentive whatsoever to resist high union demands. Why should a manager, for instance, of a Safeway store, resist an increase and get into a lengthy shutdown when he knows that his competitors will finally be saddled with the same cost, and he will retain his traditional position?

There is no incentive at all to resist increases to the people of any province of the country because the cost is only passed on to the consumer, and he is finally the one who has to pay. Again, it starts another spiral up.

Again, I mentioned that this sounds okay as house prices or food prices, like all other prices, have followed wage increases ever since 1970. However, the problem comes home to roost when the wages in the wealth-creating industries such as forestry and mining [illegible] the export industries follow the pass-on industries like the building trades, or the wealth-spending industries, which naturally is the government. I would say the government over the years has been guilty of excessive spending more than any other, but certainly the pass-on industries have set a very, very bad trend.

Countries like Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Germany and others have all tried price control, as mentioned in this book, some since as far back as 1960 and 1970.

They have all made vigorous efforts to protect their wealth-creating sectors by attempting to keep wages in other sectors in line without excessive increases. They, like us, have not been completely successful and have lost sales to low-wage areas of the world. Unemployment has gone up for them the same as for us. It is interesting to note all efforts have failed in all countries mentioned without the co-operation of labour. Marginal success with labour co-operation has been achieved in some countries. All

[ Page 4208 ]

agree in our society to restraint, but restraint for someone else.

It is interesting to note in all of these countries both management and labour can and do scuttle the actions of government, which in fact is trying to save the groups that are scuttling. Both would rather die than lose their traditional position in society. It appears in most countries governments and pass-on industries as I mentioned earlier are the worst offenders for lack of restraint.

Another interesting fact seems to be that industries with well-organized unions, normally with above-average pay, tend to automate a lot more than other industries. Of course, they automate more but fire less people. Now industries with either weak unions or non-unions tend to automate less and of course hire more. But what this really does in all countries is that the population has less high-paid workers and more lower-paid workers, which is not a satisfactory direction to go on.

From these studies in various countries it appears to me that there is a need for a council of export development made up of unions, management and government to help protect the wealth-producing export industries. If nothing else, it would expose the all-too-harsh economic realities of international trade. I again want to stress that we shouldn't blame any one group, because I think everyone in society is a certain amount guilty for getting our costs higher than what we can sell on the international market.

We simply have to face the facts of life on programmes such as DREE and various other projects - ARDA and quite a number of other projects. Even though they are needed a great deal and even more today than ever, they are nothing more than subsidies to industries where we have let our costs get out of line with the realities of foreign trade. None of these projects will actually cut unemployment a great deal. I think we have to face up to that.

We have to go a lot further and plan a lot further ahead if we are ever going to really lower unemployment. Only a healthy, competitive industry with costs and productivity, with co-operation of labour and management which can keep in line with foreign competitors, can raise the actual standards of living and lower the unemployment rate. I hope that during the coming year there will be a great deal of discussion on this whole question, because we simply can't continue to subsidize our industries and hope to compete in the foreign markets, because there won't be anyone left to pay the subsidy.

MR. LEA : I have just one brief reference to the speech by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) . He read from a letter that he wrote when he was a cabinet minister, prior to 1912. 1 wonder if he got that from Gary Lauk's basement or his own. It seems that all cabinet ministers keep their files.

Mr. Chairman, a little earlier the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) replied to a question that I had asked about the summer employment programme and whether all was going well administratively within that programme. He mentioned that yes, indeed, there is a report - or one or two reports - on the summer employment programme, but he said it was an internal report and therefore he wouldn't table it in the House. I was hoping that he would either table it or explain it a little more. Maybe he has explained it in detail and fully, but I have information that not all is going well in the summer employment programme, and that's for sure.

I would just like to share with the committee some of the information that I have been told is contained in a report the minister has. The summer employment programme isn't just administratively not running well; it's run amuck. There are reports that there are moneys going to firms that it should not be going to; that one restaurant chain is getting money it shouldn't have gotten; that a railway is getting money that it shouldn't have gotten, I would imagine this is on the sharing of payment of wages through a subsidy from the government for summer employment.

I was told that if that report was made public, it would be rather embarrassing to the government. That's why I asked the minister if there was anything not going that well administratively within the summer employment programme. That was when the minister said that it was an internal report and therefore wouldn't be made public.

My information is that it is a report that was only placed on the minister's desk within the last two or three weeks, or less, and that the information in that report would be embarrassing to the government, I heard that about 25 per cent of the money had gone to the wrong people. I guess that would be a report that would say that all wasn't going that well administratively. I can't prove it, Mr. Chairman. All I know is that someone told me a person who I believe was in a position to know the minister has that report and the report would be devastating to government if made public.

So I asked the minister if there was a report and, if so, could he make it public? He said, yes, there was a report but he couldn't make it public because it was an internal report.

Mr. Chairman, what has that got to do with it -whether it is an internal report or not? Surely internal reports that show that administration is not going well should be made public to this House. After all, it was taxpayers' money that paid for the report to be done, which was dealing with money that was being spent that was also taxpayers' money. My question is: is there a report that can be made public? Has 25 per cent of the money gone astray? Has McDonald's hamburgers been getting money it shouldn't have been getting? Has the BCR been getting money it

[ Page 4209 ]

shouldn't have been getting?

AN HON. MEMBER : Stay turned for next week's episode.

MR. LEA : Is there a report? Has the minister got a report on his desk that was done? Is it going to be made public? The minister said sit down and he'll tell us all about it. Okay.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Chairman, I know of no such report. I just spoke with my assistant deputy minister and he knows of no such report. We're going out to make a few phone calls to see if such a report exists. No report has come across my desk with regard to the youth employment programme, either of a general nature or of as specific a nature as the member referred to a few moments ago. If I misled the member last week, I'm sorry. We do an internal ministry evaluation of the programme every year. It was done by the former government; it was done by this ministry in 1976; it will be done again in 1977.

They have already started. It is an assessment of the total programme. But that's ongoing and nowhere near ready to produce even an interim report. I have seen no report, Mr. Chairman, but I'm having the matter looked into right this very moment.

If there is such a report, I'm as interested in it as the member. I want to know who did it, who authorized it, who delivered it and, if such a report exists, I'm happy to let you see it. If you tell me that 25 per cent of $22.5 million is being frittered away, I want to know. If that is the case, there may be some changes in the administration, staff-wise or otherwise. There may be some heads that will roll if we have wasted, in this short period of time, 25 per cent of $22.5 million.

MR. LEA : I appreciate the minister's remarks and I didn't say that the minister tried to, or did, mislead the Committee. If the minister is checking into it -the minister says it hasn't come across his desk and he hasn't seen it - I believe him. If he does come across the report, I would like to be informed of that report.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : I would just add, Mr. Chairman, if the member comes across it before I do, I wish he would give me a copy.

MR. LEA : I might!

MR. KING : Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few brief remarks. I have difficulty letting the member for Skeena's (Mr. Shelford) comments and analysis go by without at least some comments from this side of the House.

I was intrigued, Mr. Chairman, to hear the member for Skeena state as a matter of fact that the inflation problem and the price-increase syndrome that has plagued the western world, indeed, since 1870 - at least this nation since 1870 - has been the result of a cost-push rather than a price-pull inflation. The member also said he was surprised to find out that was the case. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to get in touch with John Kenneth Galbraith and Samuelson and many of the other notorious economists in North America who have debated this question, certainly for the last hundred years.

AN HON. MEMBER : I didn't know Galbraith was that old.

MR. SHELFORD : Read that!

MR. KING : I find it absolutely intriguing that the member for Skeena reads a book and comes to a solution that economists have been unable to arrive at for the last century. So perhaps, Mr. Chairman, he will see if he can find another book on the same subject and then temper his views with respect to this very imprecise and imperfect discipline of economic theory.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the member that everyone is concerned about productivity. Everyone is concerned about this province's ability to compete on world markets. But I want to suggest to the House, Mr. Chairman, that there are a variety of other considerations that go into the competitive position of industry and our whole economy. There are a variety of other considerations that go into the making of a climate where inflation runs rampant and productivity may be impaired.

I want to say to'the member that it is riot only the salary demands of 40 per cent of the work force in this province - a little over 40 per cent, about 43 per cent. Of that 43 per cent, many of those workers are not in the primary productive areas of the province. Many are in the service industry, where I certainly don't think the member would suggest there is a cost-push in terms of prices. I would estimate. that of the productive work force in the province of British Columbia, there is about 25 per cent of the total involved in the primary product area.

Is the member seriously suggesting to this House that 25 per cent of the work force is the prime and central culprit in the problem of inflation and the problem of price acceleration? Yet, Mr. Chairman, I find a preoccupation - almost a phobia - on that side of the House with that suggestion. Now, certainly it's a factor. I find a preoccupation, and I find that as the central core of presentations made in this House, not only by the member for Skeena but by others also.

I want to suggest to the member that that's one dimension. But certainly the current retooling of

[ Page 4210 ]

plants is extremely important, in addition to automation. I agree with the member that where there is an organized labour force, productivity tends to increase commensurate with the organization and the demands for the workers. In many ways, it is held by economists that that is a healthy and a productive thing. I'm surprised that an adherent of Social Credit, coming from the old roots of Aberhart and Major Douglas, would have neglected to mention the money supply in terms of the inflation problem.

I'm appalled that he didn't even mention the supply of money, because all it is is a medium of exchange, a measurement of the productive wealth of the nation. I think anyone who seriously looks at what has happened over the last 1 0-year period, when we have almost averaged a 20 per cent annual increase in the money supply, would be looking elsewhere for a culprit in terms of a scapegoat in this inflationary problem that we face today.

Mr. Chairman, these are some of the things the member should be looking at. What about those firms right here in British Columbia, those foreign corporations ...

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : What about my estimates?

MR. KING : ... which have been granted vast tracts of our resource wealth? Instead of pouring the profits back into production in British Columbia, they have directed those profits to the development of plants in almost slave-labour conditions in other undeveloped countries. Is that the kind of corporate citizenship the member is prepared to live with? Instead, the finger....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member....

MR. KING : We're talking about unemployment, Mr. Chairman, and I think the view....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : You're not talking about unemployment at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I would like you to get back to vote 203, if you would. It's a very interesting speech, but we could....

MR. CHAIRMAN : I promise to be quiet.

MR. KING : Thank you so much. I have accomplished something today, Mr. Chairman. I've accomplished something worthwhile. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to draw to the members' attention that certainly a rational policy for the development of industrial growth and employment in any modern state requires some control in terms of the dollars generated from any corporation, be it foreign or be it domestic, in terms of where that profit should flow and to what purposes. Any modern state, most modern states, require that there be money poured back for the further development, further fabrication if possible, of resources in their own country.

That is modern; it is a customary tool of government, be they democratic socialist or be they the most reactionary capitalist government in the world. I don't know where I would place the current coalition in British Columbia in terms of that spectrum. But that's not the question. Many of these tools are used and recognized.

It distresses me when I hear too heavy an accent placed upon the effect of wage demands. Where did the trade union movement come from? It is an outgrowth of the abuses of unchecked capitalism -complete outgrowth - and the trade union movement in some cases have learned to be better capitalists than the corporations are, to extract the last pound of flesh regardless of the social consequences; and that's a problem. That's a problem.

What is very intriguing and interesting to me is to hear a government, who say they stand for free enterprise, get up with tacit suggestions that we should interfere with the free market flow when it comes to making wage demands but completely back away and pay tribute to, in fact, the right of corporations to earn their billions out of our resources and our workers' sweat and then channel the profits into development in Brazil. They are the kind of policies that the government should be talking about in terms of securing employment opportunity for the workers in British Columbia.

And until they start coming to grips with those basic principles, we are going to have a boom-and-bust economy foundering on the rocks of unemployment and inflation for generations to come.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria) : I would like to address my remarks to the general subject of industrial democracy and worker participation. I'd like to examine the proposition that strikes and lockouts have become obsolete. I'd like to talk about the possibility that those instruments called strikes and lockouts have become as obsolete and crude as the Zeppelin and the crossbow. I'd like to talk about some of the examples we have presently and successfully available in our sight in the world, where nations have tried forms of labour management

[ Page 4211 ]

relations quite different from our own and apparently with a great deal more success than our own -certainly at least in the case of this country.

I'd Re to preface all of those remarks by saying, Mr. Chairman, that I speak for myself. I do not stand here as a representative of my caucus or of my party in regard to this specific policy. This policy, like a number of others, is very much under discussion in my own party and my own caucus. We have reached no agreement on it at the moment, nor indeed to my knowledge has any other political party.

The idea of industrial democracy or worker participation is new to this continent, but it is old and established and obviously successful in western Europe. It is an idea to which I have been devoting a great deal of personal time in the last couple of years and which I would like to discuss if I may now, Mr. Chairman, in particular regard to the role of leadership and initiative that should be taken by this Minister of Labour in order to create the new spheres and forms and procedures of a very different kind of labour-management relationship than the one that we have seen so far.

I think it is useful to start out by pointing out to the House the discussions that many members of this House have no doubt had privately with business and labour leaders. In my own case, since elected in December, 1975, I've heard repeatedly from business and labour leaders, at least in private conversation, who have had the courage to say that the adversary system that we now employ is a dead end. It has no future. The adversary system based on confrontation and hostility and conflict hurts both sides and hurts the whole people. It is a system that reflects the economic system in which we live, certainly, Mr.

Chairman. It's very much a statement of the economic system that governs this country. That statement itself is obviously that you have the right to get from the other guy as much as you possibly can. We call it free enterprise and everyone adores it. So reasonably enough, the system of confrontation that exists within the labour-management field derives properly but not necessarily from the economic system of private enterprise where it is also considered profitable and reasonable to choke the other guy until he can't speak any more and then tell him that you've reached an agreement.

In my view, Mr. Chairman, the system we have has been enormously improved by the previous Minister of Labour. I think the creation of a uniform Labour Code which is even-handed and just and fair in this province was a tremendous step forward. It's no secret within my own party that the previous Minister of Labour is the subject of my very considerable personal admiration. I think he had guts and courage, and he especially had guts and courage when willing to take on the trade union movement in this province. I think we have seen, Mr.

Chairman, in my view, that the trade union movement in some quarters has become at least as conservative and defensive and self-protective as business has in many other quarters.

I'd like, if I may , to read a very brief statement into the record. It was made by a former prime minister of the United Kingdom and I think it talks very subtly and very sensitively to one of the principal interests in this debate we call industrial democracy. He said a number of years ago:

"No progress in labour relations is possible while the worker is treated as an inconsidered cog, a depersonalized number in a vast industrial machine which he has no power to control, to influence, or even to understand.'

I think the remarks of that former Prime Minister are absolutely accurate. The case for industrial democracy or worker pa