1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th 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)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 385 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Industrial Development.

HON. W.M. SKILLINGS (Minister of Industrial Development): Mr.

Speaker we have in your gallery today a very distinguished Canadian

industrialist in the name of Mr. Alex Hart, senior vice president of

the Canadian National Railway. I would ask you to welcome him.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate it if the Members

would give a cordial welcome to 29 young high school students from

Nanaimo Senior High School who are with their teacher Mr. Ted Little

today. The trip is sponsored by Crown Zellerbach, and George

Willsoughby and Bob Porter are accompanying the group.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker I have the honour

to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a

bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act and recommends the

same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House February 9,

House in committee on Bill No. 26,

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act .

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 26 introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Labour.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it is

indeed a pleasure for me to rise in my place and speak as the Minister

of Labour for the Province of British Columbia for the first time. I

would hope in view of the fact that it is my maiden speech that there

will be great restraint (Laughter), that there will be compassion,

understanding and tolerance by the Members of this House because that's

historical about the British parliamentary system.

However, there are many things, Mr. Speaker, that I could speak

about in view of some of the wild and erroneous statements that I've

heard in this House. However my seat mate, the Minister of Trade and

Commerce, has threatened me that unless I sit down by 2.55 he's liable

to take my notes from me and I would certainly be at a loss so I will

try and contain myself to that particular time.

One of the things that has disturbed me most of all recently was

when I saw the former Minister of Labour, Mr. Bryce Mackasey before the

television cameras trying to justify the hiring of one Pierre

Vallieres. A very shocking thing, because Pierre Vallieres is one of

the founders of the Front de Liberation de Quebec. He's one of the

leaders of the F.L.Q. to you. (Laughter).

He's the man who had jumped bail and had been away for about five

months underground. Then all of a sudden he makes a reappearance and

secures bail which restricts him to the Montreal area then all of a

sudden the federal government has come to the conclusion he's the right

man to hire. He met the criteria as far as they're concerned.

He's been given a position of responsibility in charge of 21 men on

this local incentive programme. I want to remind the House this man is

charged with very serious offences, and those offences are counselling

to kidnap and murder — those are the charges against him at this time.

And Mr. Mackasey while he was on television tried to say that the

man had not been convicted but I assure you he stands accused of

jumping bail. There's no denying that charge that he went underground

for five months. I finished reading….

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm concerned for the well-being of the

unemployed in this country my friend. I just finished reading a book

called "Les Negres Blancs d'Amerique" — "The White Niggers of America,"

written by Pierre Vallieres. And my description of the book is that is

is a harangue of revolution. There are three passages that are worthy

of note in this book.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pierre Vallieres — same guy, "White Niggers

of America." He had statements to make about these two Ministers of the

national government. He said: "My friends, and I've always considered

them my friends Pierre Trudeau and Gerard Pelletier. These people I

have tremendous admiration for. However, since they became Ministers,

and one is the Prime Minister of this nation, he's changed his attitude

relative to his former friends."

And I won't repeat, Mr. Speaker, because it's not the type of

language that should be used in this House in his description of Pierre

Trudeau and Gerard Pelletier. But I'll tell you it's certainly not

flattering.

But there are two other passages that are worthy of note in here

because there's one in which he speaks about the N.D.P. or the C.C.F.

There isn't too much difference they tell me.

He talks about the childhood or the early days of his father working in a factory. He says:

I do not know what my father was like at the factory. From the

conversations I had with him I gathered that he and his comrades often discussed

the common problems. They had not forgotten the teachings of Communists. Since

the end of the war nothing had been heard of them but their ideas remained in

the air. Everyone at the factory agreed to those ideas, and was desperately

seeking a party to put them into practice immediately. There was talk of the

reforms that had been brought about by the C.C.F. In Saskatchewan. But the C.C.F.

did not know that

[ Page 386 ]

there were thousands of Quebec workers who would have liked to

hear its leaders tell them in French that their party was ready to give them

a hand too.

And this is the passage he has to say about the C.C.F. He says there

isn't too much difference between Communism and the C.C.F. — that's

exactly what he said. Just to give you the type of book this man has

written I will read you one more short paragraph to indicate to you the

type of man that has been hired by the federal government. He said:

When the present system is destroyed we shall build peace together

and at the same time fraternity and justice. But in order to attain

this objective we must first build a revolutionary movement and a

people's army together. We must first organise together a violence, a

force capable of liberating us all from the multiple forms of slavery,

domination and alienation that subjugate us collectively and

individually from the time we are in the cradle. We shall become free,

to the extent that together we have the courage to take up the weapons

of our liberation and to fight to conquer. We shall be able to build

peace, equality, fraternity and justice to the extent that together we

find the way to win the war imposed on us by our conditions as white

niggers. We must win the war, not just a battle here and there every 50

years.

A straight harangue of revolution. Not too long ago a judge from the

Province of Quebec — and I'm not going to say that there was any

collusion between the national government and this particular judge —

but nevertheless in granting bail to Pierre Vallieres there was a

stipulation that he should stay within the vicinity of the City of

Montreal.

However, that was revoked because of a job he was going to in charge of 21 people in Mont Laurier in the Laurentian Mountains.

All I want to say is that there are 665,000 unemployed in Canada

today — certainly there are some people that meet that criteria in

those 665,000 people. Certainly we should have more respect for law

abiding people — number one.

This parallels pretty closely the case which the federal Liberals

were involved in, this brings it to my mind, anyway — the Rivard case,

back when a man had been convicted of smuggling heroin and was charged

and jailed on the charge and he was allowed to go out and water the

skating rink when it was 43 above and escaped.

Some form of collusion. You know, all I can say is that this is

politics at its lowest form — Liberal politics. This is the action of a

desperate government. I want to assure them they might attract a few

separatist votes in the Province of Quebec….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I know they applauded. But I want to assure

them that there will be a back lash across this nation because of this

action, by the unemployed people of this country — 665,000 of them.

That they hire known criminals, bail jumpers, rather than law-abiding

people. When people are looking for jobs.

Not too long ago the Liberal Party indicated that they're going to

dump 20 of the Members of Parliament from the Province of Quebec. Some

will be forced into retirement and those that aren't forced into

retirement will be given lucrative civil service jobs, and that's a

fact. The only conclusion that I can come to in this respect is that

there is a possibility of making an opening for Pierre Vallieres to run

for the Liberal Party. All I want to say that I would hope that that

the national government does not reward terrorism and revolutionary

people such as Pierre Vallieres and show a little more compassion to

the unemployed of this country.

Not too long ago, the last time the first Member for Vancouver

Centre was speaking, he brought up a case dealing with a

decertification attempt. He was quite critical of the actions of the

labour relations board. That didn't necessarily disturb me, but what

did disturb me is the interjections brought into the discussions of the

Member by the Leader of the Liberal Party. Two things come to mind. He

lacks knowledge, he lacks understanding of the Labour Relations Act of

this province or else he was suggesting by his remarks that a Minister

should bring political influence to bear on the decisions of the labour

relations board.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know any better.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want to know, is that the policy of the

Liberal Party? I don't think they have a policy, period. Would they

politically tinker with people who have been appointed to the labour

relations board? I would suggest to the Hon. Leader, that he reads the

Labour Relations Act . Did he read that

section that depicts the oath of

office that must be taken by members of that board?

You know, sometimes he tries to lead us to believe he knows

something about labour relations. It wasn't too long ago, in 1970, when

he offered himself as a mediator in a dispute. Great white saviour of

the working man. Just for the sake of a few votes he thought he could

attract. He didn't know the situation he was putting himself into, in

this dispute.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are many, many of the more knowledgeable people

in the field of labour relations who wouldn't have offered their services in

that dispute, my friend. Because that was an indirect jurisdictional dispute

between two unions which he didn't understand. He's about as knowledgeable on

labour relations as he is on other subjects.

Not too long ago he suggested that the government should spend

$100,000 on a political safari to better understand the problems that

exist between trade unions and management and the industry and so

forth. I want to assure him that there'll be no political safari of

that type as long as I'm Minister of Labour.

You know, I want to say that he doesn't only lack knowledge in the

field of labour but recently there was an

article that appeared in the

Press that indicates his understanding of a great variety of problems.

It was by a noted, well respected columnist, and had this to say:

Patrick Lucey McGeer is the leader of the provincial Liberal Party,

which might come as somewhat of a shock to some staunch grits in

out-of-the-way places in our province. I mean, he hasn't exactly

distinguished himself in or out of the House and word of his ascension

to the leadership of the Liberals might not have filtered through to

the boondocks. There has been much muttering within the party about

McGeer's lack of forceful leadership. Muttering which has undoubtedly

reached his own ears. In short, his performance has been pedestrian,

dull, and leaves the faithful with precious little hope for the future.

And then he goes on to say about his great safari, Mr. Speaker. They

talk about his great safari into the boondocks

[ Page 387 ]

of Oak Bay, I mean into the constituency of Oak Bay. This is the

reaction from the people of Oak Bay. They say that if the citizens of

Oak Bay are in search of technical information on the sex lives of

whales, Dr. Pat might be an excellent choice to enlighten them.

I rather doubt that too. On Liberal policies however, they might be

just as well off getting their information from the local dailies. Dr.

Pat has shown little ability in explaining those policies, if indeed he

has any.

Also, I get a little disturbed sometimes, Mr. Speaker, at some of

the statements made by my Socialist friends. Interjections by Hon.

Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Coming from you, what can one expect coming

from a fat cat like you? Nothing but a fat cat. I listened to the

Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) stand in this chamber during

the throne debate and distort the facts, dragging a prominent and

highly respected citizen of this province through the mud, using the

immunity of this House to make accusations against Mr. McGavin and his

enterprise.

Just yesterday, I listened to him waffle all around the issues — he

was waffling, he owes an apology as far as I'm concerned to the McGavin

interests.

This is what he had to say when he spoke to the throne debate. He

says: "For many years McGavin Toastmaster Company put bread in our

mouths, we paid them well for their product, in return they took bread

out of the mouths of their employees." He said it is a dubious honour

for an employer to be able to see his pension plans designed in his

favour but that in this case the plan provided no vesting or paid-up

benefits for persons terminated under the age of 55.

He said that when the plant closed down about 48 men were left

without pension benefits. Their chance of building a pension elsewhere

is either reduced or wiped out on account of their age.

He charged that the employer is now using the money paid in by the

former employees — they didn't pay 5 cents, they didn't pay into the

pension fund — to pay its present share of pensions for employees of

other bakeries in the McGavin empire.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a complete distortion — no, I believe

in respecting a collective agreement. I think a collective agreement is

a very legitimate document. Don't you have any respect for collective

agreements? That Member doesn't over there, Mr. Speaker, that Member

doesn't.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Recently there was a letter written. The

Leader of the Opposition is very disturbed at this time because he

received a letter from a Senator Lawson, the head of the Teamsters,

regarding this issue.

He'll say the facts as they are. He'll call the shots as they are

and he says this: "I regret that we have to correct Mr. Cocke's

mis-statements." Why didn't you talk about them yesterday my friend?

Why didn't you tell the facts yesterday? Never mind waving anything at

me. Why don't you tell the truth? Why won't you tell the truth?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mis-statements in the newspaper. There was no alternative.

You may rest assured that if McGavin Toastmaster were guilty of stealing 5 cents

from the pension fund we would have dealt with the matter.

"The local union had five or six opportunities each

time the contract expired to correct any inequities or shortcomings in

the pension plan, and in addition our joint council made available

pension experts to assist the local union."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR CHABOT: The pension is a part of the collective

agreement. The pension was introduced as a joint trade union-management

programme in the collective agreement of 1960. They had an opportunity

— they've had pension experts offered to them to renegotiate the

pension plan if it was not satisfactory. They renegotiated their

collective agreements in 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, at no time

did the Teamsters ask for a change in the pension plan.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They're satisfactory in the eyes of the

union. Yes, it was. The shutdown of the plant occurred when the

president and his fellow officers decided to support an illegal strike

being conducted by the inside bakery workers. Notwithstanding that the

company did everything required of them under the terms of the

collective agreement and in addition paid severance pay to another

union that did not have a severance provision in its contract. Isn't

that fair? Did that take bread out of the mouths of the workers? Paying

severance pay when it's not being called for in the collective

agreement.

The president and other members who suffered — and these are the

words of Senator Lawson, the head of the Teamsters, and he's talking

about the president of one of his locals. He said: "The president and

other members who suffered as a result of the shut down were victims of

their own bad advice. They did not receive a refund of their

contributions because they made no contributions." They went on to say

that the present wage rate of bakery salesmen is $250 a week, $13,000 a

year, plus fringe benefits. It has no parallel, it's one of the

top-ranking labour contracts in British Columbia. He says the company

and its president, Alan McGavin, has been as fair in their dealing "as

any employer we've had business with. I have always found Mr. McGavin

to be a man of honour and integrity with a genuine concern for his

employees. Mr. Cocke's untrue allegations" — or the Member from New

Westminster's untrue allegations — "against this company and its

president, not only injures them but our members who are employed

selling their products. We would expect the Member from New

Westminster, (Mr. Cocke), to correct his mis-statements in the

Legislature, so that no further injury will be caused this company and

its employees, our members." Senator Lawson said these words.

After having this letter in his hand, the Member wouldn't stand up

in this House yesterday and tell the true facts. He had an opportunity,

he's had the letter for several days — why didn't he stand up and tell

the true facts? Why didn't he do that? I'll tell you about those

people, the 48 people that he talked about, the 48 people who were

"thrown out of their jobs," they were "denied pension benefits," they

could "never get another job anywhere else." These are the facts in

[ Page 388 ]

that respect.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Twenty of the 48 employees who were laid off

at the time of the plant shut-down did qualify under the 15-year,

age-55 provision, and are currently receiving pensions under the plan.

further 28 — this is part of the collective agreement — I'm talking

about a duly signed collective agreement. Are you against unions that

sign collective agreements?

AN HON. MEMBER: You play politics with the agreement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A further 28 — you want to tinker with the agreement?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the House please come to order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, a further 28, and this is the

balance of the 48 that were stated were thrown out of their jobs, the

further 28 of the driver employees were employed by Mother Hubbard

bakeries, a division of McGavin. They were also covered by the plan and

have been given credit under the plan for all years of service put in

as employees of McGavin's bakeries. Is that mistreatment my friend?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just finished telling you; 20 were pensioned off and the other 28 were absorbed. It was fair treatment.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: By his statements the Hon. Member challenged the integrity of the Teamster organisation is this province.

I never thought I'd see the day when a Member of a Socialist party

would stand in his place and challenge the integrity or the sanctity of

a collective agreement and that's exactly what my friend has done.

That's exactly what he's done.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The next time he stands in his place and if

he doesn't, the letter was addressed to the Leader of the Opposition

and I think he should stand up too, he should give us a copy of his

reply to Senator Lawson and tell us what the facts are.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, that's what they think of Senator

Lawson. Oh! Shocking statement! I never thought I'd see a Socialist, a

Member of this House, stand up and attack labour leaders like Senator

Lawson like the leader of the Opposition did just now. Calling him

Senator Joe McCarthy is most disgraceful, most disgraceful.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think either the Member from New

Westminster, (Mr. Cocke), or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett)

has a responsibility during this budget debate or at a later time or

have one of their other Members get up and make a retraction and stop

the harangue against the integrity of a highly-respected individual of

this province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, since assuming the office of

Minister of Labour, I have had the opportunity of meeting with many

trade unions and management officials, both at formal and informal

meetings and the reason for this….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will this House please come to order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: In order to learn their viewpoints first

hand and I want to assure the House that there has been cooperation,

excellent cooperation, by both sides.

During the early months of last year, our centennial year, the

working people and the businesses operating in British Columbia were

jointly faced with the task of contributing to an improved rate of

growth in our province. Every group, the working people, business and

government, obviously has a vital and immediate interest in the state

of our economy.

From the standpoint of the wage earner the health of the economy

largely determines the number and types of job opportunities available

to them. Business establishments are equally concerned, because the

general state of the economy shapes their price, cost and profit

picture as well as determines their growth and employment prospects.

The interest of government is very apparent since we are concerned and

responsible for both the economic and social progress of the entire

population.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in this place.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The government has a key role to play in the

job creation process, for through its policies it must ensure that the

province achieves optimum and yet orderly economic growth. Government

shapes the growth process by developing an overall economic base, a

complex of primary, secondary and facilities and services needed by the

private and public sector to ensure a constant growth in the number of

job opportunities.

At the same time, government must ensure that this growth is

compatible with the social and cultural goals of its citizens. There

can be very little doubt, after a review of the statistics which show

several decades of unparalleled economic expansion, that this

government has followed the right policy course for the working people

of British Columbia.

Because unemployment was the major economic problem in Canada at the

outset of 1971, British Columbia as well as other provinces was faced

with a difficult task of priming the economy to increase its rate of

growth. To effectively combat this problem requires the full

cooperation of labour and management and full confidence in the

underlying economic expense of the province.

[ Page 389 ]

Little could be expected in terms of dynamic expansionary policies

from the federal government in view of its past inadequate stop-go

policies. In 1971 British Columbia recorded a significant improvement

in the overall rate in the economic growth as compared to 1970. Despite

a relatively slow start occasioned in part by price and market

difficulties in some forestry sectors, by year end continued

improvement in these industries and increased output in manufacturing

in mineral industries all contributed to an improved economic picture.

Increased strength in these sectors of the economy in concert with

gains in labour force and employment produced more buoyant levels of

activity throughout the provincial economy.

Particularly strong gains were recorded in consumer spending and

construction which were reflected in employment gains in these sectors.

Despite the steady progress apparent in the provincial economy in

1971 it must be realised that the economy did not advance to the

capabilities of its potential. Given more stable price and market

conditions in their export markets, and with more expansionary fiscal

and monetary policies in our country we could undoubtedly have shown

higher levels of industrial production in employment in British

Columbia during 1971.

Of considerable interest and concern to us in British Columbia were

the economic policies issued by the United States in August and in

October of last year. Although the imposition of 10 per cent surtax and

subsequent proposals for export subsidy were initially viewed as the

most dramatic and far reaching of these policies several other aspects

of these actions are worthy of note.

To review, the basic thrust of the American action is essentially

two fold: Number one was to shore up the industrial economy of their

country and number two of course was to contain the price pressures by

adoption of an incomes policy.

The second aspect of the programme, the use of an incomes policy,

has some significance for us. For we in Canada are faced possibly to a

lesser degree with somewhat similar economic problems. That is, we

would like to accelerate our rate of growth and reduce unemployment

while at the same time avoiding recurrence of inflationary pressures.

The important lessons the Americans have demonstrated is that any

government, no matter how strong, cannot effectively control the

economy to the maximum benefit of all without the full cooperation of

labour and management.

The U.S. authorities obviously felt that voluntary support would not

be forthcoming from either group, and hence imposed wage and price

board controls. The economic power wielded by organised labour and

management has in recent years grown to such magnitude that economic

problem-solving on a national level must have the support of all groups.

This was clearly underlined in the U.S. with the formation of a

tripartite pay board with labour, management and government represented

in equal numbers.

Accordingly, in our country and province, labour and management must

temper their economic powers with an increasing awareness of their

social responsibilities. Future collective agreements must reflect, in

more equal terms, fair and just treatment for both parties, as well as

for the general public.

The improved rate of economic growth in the province in 1971 was accompanied

by high rates of population and labour force growth. Again in 1971 British Columbia

led the nation in these two important areas. The provincial population reached

2,196,000 halfway through the year, representing an increase of 2.8 per cent

over 1970. This rate of population growth was double the national average and

the province remained the fastest-growing region in the country.

Over the past decade our population has increased at an average

annual rate of 3 per cent, well in excess of the national growth rate

of 1.7 per cent, the growth rate of Ontario of 2.3 per cent, the

Province of Quebec 1.4 per cent. At our present rate of population

growth, based on the record of the past decade, the number of people in

British Columbia by 1975 should reach 2.5 million, and by 1980, should

reach 2.9 million.

The continued high rate of economic expansion in British Columbia

has contributed to an exceptional rate of growth in the provincial

labour force. In 1961, British Columbia's labour force stood at 575,000

persons, while by 1971 it is estimated to have averaged 911,000, a 58.4

per cent increase, or an average annual rate of growth of 4.7 per cent.

Not too long ago the Economic Council of Canada came out with a

study in which they outlined their projections of the type of growth

necessary in the employment field to meet the needs of the growing

population in order to bring unemployment back to a more satisfactory

level. They indicated that with a labour force growth of 2.8 per cent

to 1975, and then it tapers down to 2.6 from '75 to '80, that we need a

growth in the labour force of 3.3 per cent across the nation in order

to achieve a more satisfactory unemployment level.

In other words what they put down as a satisfactory unemployment

level was between 3.6 and 4 per cent, and they indicated that if we

could achieve that 3.3 per cent growth in jobs that we would have a

satisfactory unemployment rate.

But what we really need is satisfactory fiscal and monetary policies

at the national level. We need a government that predicts confidence in

the business community, that brings about policies that are known to

industry so that there is no uncertainty, so they don't drag out their

white papers on taxation, and the Competition Act and so forth.

We need a government that is forceful, and is cognisant of the

problem. However the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada

have been cast aside by the Trudeau government because he says that the

recommendations were too lavish, that there is no way that we could

reach that type of labour force in British Columbia.

I personally maintain that with the proper economic policy in this

nation there would be no problem in meeting that type of growth in the

labour force. Because in British Columbia our labour force has grown by

4.7 per cent on an average, over the last 10 years, and certainly if it

can be done in British Columbia it can be done in the rest of Canada as

well.

As far as our rate of growth in this province is concerned there are

few other industrialised nations that have this rate of growth. There

are others that can meet the growth in numbers — such as Florida and

California — but in the creation of jobs I would say there's no

parallel on the North American continent.

A review of 1971 labour force statistics reveals a significant

improvement over 1970. As of October 16, British Columbia's labour

force stood at 930,000, an increase of 57,000 or 6.5 per cent over the

preceding 12-month period.

[ Page 390 ]

Over the same period, employment in the province advanced strongly, increasing by 9.1 per cent, or 73,000 persons, to 877,000.

It is of some interest to note that over this period the employment

increase in all other provinces totalled only 185,000, while British

Columbia alone added 73,000.

With regard to unemployment, October data indicate 53,000 persons

unemployed in British Columbia, or 5.7 per cent of the labour force, a

substantial reduction of 16,000 persons from the previous years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We'll talk about them, certainly. There has

been a tremendous increase in the unemployment rate and I'll tell you

the national government has been hoodwinking the people over the last

two years, Mr. Speaker. Because over the last 20 months the facts and

figures on unemployment across this nation indicate that on average

over the last 20 months they have been over 6 per cent, very

consistently. There's no month in the last 20 months that unemployment

in this nation has been less than 6 per cent, and yet we hear the

national government telling us it's a turn around situation next month,

next month, and next month.

It's not good enough. The fiscal policy of that federal government

is the cause of the severe unemployment we have in this nation today.

The lack of confidence the investment world has in that federal

government. They have no….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not only must we provide new jobs for the

young people entering the labour force for the first time, but we must

also make provision for the ever increasing proportions of the total

population that wants to work.

We live in a consumer-oriented society where it is not uncommon for

several members of a single family unit to be gainfully employed. This

is particularly true in families where children have reached self

sufficiency, allowing mothers to return to work.

Many families encourage this return to the labour force for given

superior wage levels and working conditions in British Columbia, many

families with more than one wage earner are enjoying exceptionally

higher standards of living.

Another factor which has a significant impact on our labour force

relates to our high rate of population growth. Over the period 1961-71,

British Columbia's population increased by 567,000 persons. Of this

total, approximately 377,000 persons, or 66 per cent, was due to net

immigration to the province.

However, the impact on our labour force of net immigration has been

most pronounced in most recent years. Over the five-year period from

1966 to 1971 net immigration in British Columbia was consistently high.

Using the same basis for estimation it can be assumed that in this

five-year period over 130,000 migrants were seeking employment in the

province.

This amounts to an average yearly requirement of 26,000 jobs for

migrants coming to British Columbia. Despite a slight drop in the level

of net migration to British Columbia during the one-year period ending

June 1971, it can be estimated that job seeking migrants entering the

province this year totalled around 23,000.

In 1971, this government pledged to create 25,000 new jobs in the

province with an expansionary budget aimed directly at stimulating

employment. In fact, there was a gain of approximately 36,000 jobs, and

by reference to my previous figure on migration it is quite clear that

of these, over 63 per cent would be required to assimilate migrants

into the job market.

The pressure placed by migrants on the labour market in British

Columbia has been considerable in recent years. However, because of the

exceptional economic growth we have witnessed in the province, the

public and private sectors have been able to meet this demand in most

instances.

However, when the province, or for that matter the nation,

encounters unemployment difficulties due to a slowdown in the rate of

economic growth, the pressure of migration on the job market is acute

and raises questions as to the need for effective policies in this

area. While there is little that we can, or more correctly little that

we would want to do, to inhibit the movement of other Canadians to our

province there is strong evidence to suggest that our foreign

immigration policy should be reviewed.

While we continue to have virtually unimpaired immigration to our

country, even in times of high unemployment, we will continue to

over-burden the capability of our economy to create sufficient new job

opportunities.

How severe is the pressure of foreign migration on our labour

market? Over the period of 1961-1971 foreign immigrants stating British

Columbia as their destination in Canada have been estimated at

approximately 192,000 persons and of this total close to 95,000 are

assumed to have been job seekers.

When these statistics are analysed, especially at the present time

when all provinces in Canada are faced with the problem of

unemployment, there appears to be cause for considering an immigration

policy tied in some way to our domestic employment scene. Such a policy

might also encourage more concerted efforts in our country to increase

training programmes, such as training-in-industry, to continually

upgrade the quality of labour available in Canada.

In another important area affecting the labour force it is

gratifying to note an improvement in labour relations in the province

throughout the year. As mentioned previously, labour and management

groups continue to grow in terms of their economic strength and it is

gratifying to observe a significant improvement in 1971 in the labour

relations field. During the year approximately 275,000 man-days were

lost as a result of labour disputes. This is the lowest figure recorded

in the province in the last five years, and represents only 0.16 per

cent of total working time recorded by wage and salary earners in the

province.

A major factor contributing to the improved labour relations

recorded in the province was the notable absence of any major prolonged

work stoppages.

In 1971 only eight disputes involved more than 1,000 workers and

only one of these had a duration exceeding 20 days. This improved

record is reflected in that over the first three quarters of the year

British Columbia experienced an average of 5.3 man-days lost per worker

as compared to the national average of 11.6 man-days idled per striking

worker.

While these statistics obviously portray a much improved labour

climate in the province they nevertheless point to a record which

leaves considerable room for improvement. In 1972 negotiations in

British Columbia involve a significant number of large and important

unions and employers, and it hoped that both groups will respond to

negotiations in a positive and constructive manner.

During 1971, the labour relations branch was called on in

[ Page 391 ]

numerous instances to assist employees to recover wages which

employers had failed to pay. Investigation resulted in over 9,000

employees being paid over $788,000 by 4,427 employers. A considerable

portion of this amount was obtained following the issuance of

certificates by the Board of Industrial Relations under the provisions

of the Payment of Wages Act.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just gave you the figure on how much was

collected — $788,000. Is the Hon. Member against that? But much

negotiation was carried on by the I.R.O.'s in this province to ensure

the certificates…. I.R.O.'s are not anxious to issue certificates.

They are anxious to collect the money on behalf of the workmen — that's

their job.

The effectiveness of this Act was greatly enhanced in 1970 when it

was amended to give priority to certificates issued under its

provisions. Two outstanding examples come to mind where money would not

have been collected had there not been a priority. In one instance over

$63,000 was obtained on behalf of 55 employees and in the other case

over $10,000 was collected for 47,000 employees.

Last year was the first full year of administration of the amended

Act and it compares very favourably with collections in 1969 which is

the last full year before the amendment. In 1971, over $621,000 was

collected, while in 1969, $487,000 was obtained, which is an increase

of over 27 per cent.

The year 1971 was a year of re-entrenchment and adjustment insofar

as apprenticeship and industrial training was concerned. The labour

disputes of 1970 started a downward trend in the number of registered

apprentices, particularly in the construction trades. Apprenticeship in

the industrial and service sectors remained, however, at a relatively

high level.

General unemployment of any kind, such as that which is caused by

economic conditions or by labour-management disputes, always affects

the registration of apprentices, and it is often a year or more before

registrations start to rise.

We are naturally concerned about the short fall of the number of

apprentices in the construction trades, and while it is recognised that

economic conditions and labour management disputes have a serious

effect on apprenticeship numbers, joint apprenticeship committees which

have been established by union-management agreement may also be

partially responsible for the drop in the number of registered

apprentices in the construction trades.

In many instances, the apprentices are indentured to a joint

apprenticeship committee and the co-ordinator who is employed by the

committee is responsible for placing the apprentice in employment with

an employer. It has been noted that many employers no longer employ

apprentices because they apparently do not subscribe to the idea that

an apprentice should be indentured to a committee.

On the other hand, the employers who do accept apprentices from the

joint committee do not tend to feel a personal responsibility to the

apprentice because he is not indentured to him personally. They do not

hesitate to lay the apprentice off when there is no work available and

send him back to the joint committee for placement. They may never see

the apprentice again. They are using the joint committee and in many

instances abusing the apprentice.

Most of the joint committees insist that an employer cannot have an

apprentice unless the apprentice is inter viewed by the co-ordinator

and approved by him as a suitable apprentice. This makes the joint

committee a closed shop. In order to obtain work, the apprentice must

be approved by the joint committee.

Some of the committees functioning in this regard not only exercise

some control over the quality of the candidate for apprenticeship,

which is probably desirable, but are also controlling the quantity by

restricting entry of apprentices into the various trades.

It is my intention to have the department work towards the

elimination of any restrictive practices affecting apprentices, and I'm

sure that with the cooperation of labour and management, this can be

accomplished.

British Columbia has a fine apprenticeship programme, one they can

be proud of, and we all have an obligation to see that it continues to

function in its usual efficient manner. I am confident that labour and

management will make every effort to employ more apprentices.

The future progress, prosperity and security of British Columbia is

dependent, as perhaps never before, on the technical knowledge of its

people. Our natural resources are the envy of other nations, but to

fully develop them we will have to continue to increase the quality and

capabilities of our human resources.

Since wages, like other costs, including profits, must be borne

directly by the products we produce, the answer to this problem must

lie in greater productivity accompanied by a more highly-skilled and

efficient labour force.

One of the ways to increase these necessary skills and raise the

productivity of the work force is through greater participation in the

apprenticeship training programme. The tremendous annual increase in

the youth population of the province demands that we have access to

apprenticeship and industrial training. I want to assure you that this

is high on my priority list as the Minister of Labour and I think if

you will check the estimates — figures speak louder than words — you'll

see that this is an additional $1 million for apprenticeship training.

The answer is yes, it will be spent.

The labour force in British Columbia is about 900,000 persons,

therefore our 8,000 registered apprentices represent less than I per

cent of the labour force. As we progress further into the technological

age we will require more and more highly-trained men and women and less

and less of the semi- and unskilled workers. We are now in a period

where we can no longer afford the luxuries of indifferent preparation

and use of our human resources. Industry must become a full partner

with government in the development of a highly-skilled work force.

Government is prepared to share in this responsibility by creating

more public awareness of the importance of apprenticeship training and

endeavouring to convince young people of the importance of planning

their career to ensure future employment security.

However, employers are really the only ones who can provide

employment and therefore provide the proof of the true value of

apprenticeship training.

The total number of registered apprentices for 1971 was 7,500 which

is about the same as 1970. Under normal circumstances, the annual

increase should be in the area of 6 per cent. It is hoped that in 1972

the figure will rise again.

Competitions are sponsored by two international unions, the United

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and the United Association of

Plumbers and Pipefitters, to establish the best apprentice in Canada

and the United States.

In the competition held by the carpenters in Detroit,

[ Page 392 ]

Michigan, a young British Columbia apprentice, in the trade of

carpentry, from Victoria, Christopher Cottier, was chosen as the best

carpenter apprentice in all North America.

The United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters contest is held

at Purdue University each year in August. This past year, David Heaps,

who is a sprinkler fitting apprentice from Vancouver, placed second in

the sprinkler fitting competition.

In sheet metal, the sheet metal unions in the four western provinces

conduct a competition to determine the best apprentice. In 1971, Micky

Katasonoff, also of Vancouver, placed third in the competition.

British Columbia apprentices have always been in the running for

prizes in the various competitions. 1971 was the first year that our

apprentices were able to place as prize winners in all three

competitions in the same year.

The Department of Manpower and Immigration, which administers the

Adult Occupational Training Act for the federal government, continues

to be a disturbing element in our work.

In spite of repeated requests by the province for a standard

training allowance for all apprentices, Canada Manpower is still not

prepared to pay training allowances to those apprentices who do not

have a three year attachment to the labour force. In other words "stay

on welfare or do nothing for three years, until you've been unemployed

for three years, then come and see us and then we'll give you some

consideration."

Meetings are held twice yearly with the provincial directors of

apprenticeship, under the sponsorship of Canada Manpower, to discuss

procedure and to plan programmes that fall within the area of the

interprovincial standards programme. These meetings seem to be an

extension of Manpower's planning department and lead one to believe

that Manpower might eventually attempt to control how much training

each province will do for apprentices in order by regulating the flow

of funds.

One excellent feature of the part played by Manpower in

apprenticeship training is the mobility they have been able to provide,

which has enabled apprentices in one province to take technical

training in another province, providing of course that that province is

unable to provide the technical training.

British Columbia has accepted apprentices from the Yukon, the

Northwest Territories and from Saskatchewan for training. This mutual

aid programme has been working very effectively.

Mr. Speaker, time is running out, my notes haven't disappeared so

I'm going to close before my colleague here takes the balance of my

notes away from me. But I do want to announce at this time that the

session of 1972 will see major changes — are you listening Leo? The

session of 1972 will see major changes to the Workmen's Compensation

Act . These will be the first changes since the introduction of the new

Act in 1968 and I want….

Interjections by Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You make your own speech. I want to say that

the results of the introduction of the legislation will be a tremendous

upgrading of the benefits for widows and dependents, additional aid for

the injured workmen of this province. This must certainly indicate to

everyone in British Columbia that this is a government that cares.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this is a budget debate. The

budget that we are discussing at this time is a budget that is directed

to the needs and the aspirations of all British Columbians. It's a

budget that is the envy of all jurisdictions in this nation. It has

been possible only through sound Social Credit fiscal policies and

management as well. Most of the credit must go to the great financial

genius, the Minister of Finance of British Columbia.

I want to say that it is a job maker budget because it is a budget

that is concerned about unemployment, it is a budget that allocates

$115 million to create jobs for people within this province. This

budget indicates to the people of this province that the government

recognises the priorities of the day and has made provisions to ensure

that British Columbia will continue to be a pace-setter in all fields,

on all fronts in this nation.

AN HON. MEMBER: This budget makes anyone cry.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This is a budget that the people of British

Columbia will have an opportunity to endorse in the very near future.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, it's

certainly an unusual session. I can't understand what can only be

interpreted as panic in the ranks of the government and the private

members.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: You'll find that the old…oh, that big pip-squeak over there! (Laughter).

But they're tuning up the machine. Why, I don't know. They've got

their majority. They're panicking. Their rural red-necked members are

reaching for the tar brush. They see a naked hippie behind every bush.

(Laughter). They're donning the cloak of righteousness and reeling back

at the mention of any possibility of sin like a Plymouth brother.

They're renewing the charges that we're Communists over here. Why, you

know that was tried in the last election.

AN HON. MEMBER: It worked all right.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it didn't work for me, Mr. Speaker. I

was called, along with some of my colleagues, a Marxist-Leninist and

yet when Kosygin came to Vancouver — the high priest — I didn't get an

invitation to his dinner. I was turned down as a security risk.

(Laughter). I don't know whether they believe you any more, when you

call "communist" and all the rest of it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: Now they say they're going to cut the

Opposition down — what is it, to seven? Cut the poor Liberals down to

two, cut the Conservatives down by 100 per cent, and they're tooling up

this big machine and trying to frighten people and trying desperately

to find some kind of an issue that will give them an excuse to go to an

election.

[ Page 393 ]

Well let me tell those Members that the big Socred machine isn't

frightening anybody, and it's not fooling anybody and Goliath over

there, big Goliath, ought to remember a little history, because wee

David is not frightened and is perfectly able to look after himself.

I'm going to send them this sling-shot. Take that down to read David

Barrett.

Come on big Goliath! Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Labour, who I do not see in

the House, Mr. Speaker, but he said this, and I just want to set this

straight about these pension funds.

You know, when they are contributed in the form of trust funds, a

pension fund — whether it's contributory or not — it is trust moneys

earned by the labour of the people in that plant or factory and what

should happen to it? Is it right that when a plant closes down for any

reason that those moneys should not be distributed back to the people

whose labour helped in their formation? Now, my friend from Dewdney,

the Honourable Member (Mr. Mussallem) agrees with this, yet we have in

the Province of British Columbia, many, many private pension plans

without any vesting rights to that in this event or that, a closure or

something else, the pension money which was intended for the protection

of the workers in their later years, goes where? Back to the employer.

We call on that Minister of Labour, who sounded so much today like

the Minister of Industry, we call upon him to reconvene the labour

committee which began to study private pension plans five or six years

ago and to enact pension legislation at this session of the Legislature

to protect the built-up funds which are intended for the benefit of the

working people of this province.

Now I want to take the opportunity to draw to Hon. Members'

attention in the corner of the House Mr. Bill Knight, M.P., who I think

is the youngest Member in the House of Commons at the present time, and

we welcome him to this chamber.

I don't intend to discuss the budget Mr. Speaker. This is the budget

debate, but that has been done very adequately in terms of the kind of

budget it was by my friend from Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) the

other day. He called it a "fudge budget", and it was a great speech.

And he showed how much adding, how much public relations, rather than

benefit for the people of British Columbia was in that budget. All

these funds and how little of them will be spent. It is a

"puffed-wheat" budget. A budget of great expectations but I think the

people of British Columbia are a little wiser to that, by that time.

They're a little bit like the farmer who was asked: "Did you get as

much as you expected for your chickens?" And he said: "Nope, but I

didn't expect to." And I don't (Laughter). That's what the people of

British Columbia think about this great budget — they don't really

expect that these benefits will shower down upon them the way the

government has been predicting. They know them too well, Mr. Speaker. A

red-necked government shaking in its boots because of election rumours,

panicking.

What do they do for the cities, the urban areas of particularly the

lower mainland? The old $2 million transit subsidy — vote 85, $2

million, still $2 million. That's real money they'd have to spend to

increase that. But they're not going to do that, they're not going to

help the strap-hangers of Vancouver, Burnaby and the lower mainland and

Victoria in that essential public matter. No, they promised a grand

thing — pick up half the deficit. They'll never have to do it,

certainly not in the next fiscal year. They're absolutely safe, that is

just folderall.

Instead of that they give us a great towering 55 — or whatever

number of storeys it's to be — building in the most congested part of

Vancouver. I fully agree with other things that have been said about

this. That area should be reserved for an open park space in the centre

of the City of Vancouver. The government gives us this monstrosity in

that place, a great white elephant. Why in the world, I ask the

Minister, through the Speaker, does he not move it a block south onto

the city land that is there? For heaven's sakes do that and leave us a

little bit of breathing space in the centre of the City of Vancouver so

the generation to come may be able to say that this is a beautiful

city, that it has a heart, that it is a city like Copenhagen or Paris

with some broad open spaces and some green growing things.

That's what they're doing for the city. Take their crossing money — that's another one. Are they going to spend it? I doubt it.

But I want to discuss two matters, Mr. Speaker, and not take too

much of your time. I want to talk again about the natural gas pipeline

to Vancouver Island. You know that's a story that as Alice in

Wonderland said, "grows curiouser, and curiouser".

I want to tell you about a hush-hush meeting, a hush-hush meeting in

a Vancouver hotel just after the Legislature rose at the beginning of

last April — because you know Mr. Speaker, the saying is true and to

the detriment of the people of British Columbia that when the

Legislature's away the mice will play.

So this pipeline thing, it is to be put off until the Legislature is

not here and the grand scenario that has been worked out behind the

scenes will become a fait accompli.

But before I tell you about that meeting, because I don't want to

spoil a story by beginning at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, let me tell

you a little bit about one of the great companies that do business in

British Columbia — Bechtel Corporation.

Because, that is a company which has operations in maybe 35 or 36

countries of the world, great divisions it has. And I want to trace a

little bit about this because it is so important at this time, because

the pipeline if left in private hands is going to be built by Bechtel.

If it isn't Hydro it's Bechtel, and Bechtel probably does very

quietly about $100 million a year of business out of the Province of

British Columbia. Now that sounds a lot but they built the West Coast

Transmission Line, Pacific Crude Line — Western Pacific I think it's

called — Transmountain — compressor stations that they put in on a

pipeline, and there are 15 or 20 going in most years, alone they're $1

million or $2 million. So this is a very gigantic operation.

At the present time at Princeton they're working on the copper

concentrator, their mining division. They have a number of divisions

that do business and very profitable business in British Columbia — the

mining division, chemical division, and the pipeline and production

service division.

If the pipeline goes privately, as I said, it will be simply a

turnkey operation. Bechtel will build it, Bechtel will employ the

people, Bechtel will order the material and the equipment for the

businessmen, and in a turnkey operation it will be turned over. And I

say this work should be saved for the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 394 ]

Now we're talking about jobs and we're talking about businessmen

too. Because Bechtel, as I say, doing this great volume of work in the

Province of British Columbia, does not even have its bidders' lists in

the Province of British Columbia. So that a B.C. businessman has to

fight on bended knee to get on the bidders' list of the Bechtel

corporation. To do that he has to go to San Francisco. He has to go to

San Francisco to first try and get on that list if he possibly can,

just to get on the list to bid — to bid to supply B.C. material or B.C.

equipment for a B.C. project.

These businessmen are being treated as colonials, second-class

citizens, by this great multi-national corporation. I recognise that

when the job starts — whatever it may be — local materials are used

like gravel and cement. But the engineering and designing, all the

major items of equipment, the orders are placed in San Francisco.

You take the big job they did recently at the F.M.C. Chemicals at

Squamish. To bid for a little contract to supply materials in your own

province you had to go to San Francisco, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that

that will be the picture.

There's a triumvirate — and we might as well name them. There is no

doubt about who is orchestrating the scenario with respect to the

natural gas pipeline — it's West Coast Transmission, Bechtel

Corporation and this government. Siamese triplets. The real government

of British Columbia.

What sort of work was done, what sort of labour work was let out

when Malaspina had its estimate made up for its route — $105 million?

About the only B.C. work involved in the Bechtel estimate, the only

B.C. work that was involved was probably the helicopter pilot who flew

the aerial survey from Williams Lake down to the coast.

Canadian Bechtel, that's right, the company is merely a letterhead,

a figure head — about 20 employees. It could fit and disappear into one

of the great divisions of the Bechtel corporation and never be found

again.

It's no more than a letterhead, and yet on one of the great projects

of the Province of British Columbia the government is bent upon having

the construction by this company to the detriment of B.C. business,

B.C. labour, and B.C. planners and designers.

Now what happened on April 29? Well, before I get to that, let me

tell you…. . I just want to say a word or two on the subject of

conservation and environment and how that relates to this subject

matter.

At the present time, and I believe this must be known to the federal

government because Arthur Laing has made a speech about an energy

corridor from the Arctic down through B.C. and Alberta.

At the present time the Bechtel Corporation are engaged in preparing

the plans for a natural gas pipeline from the newly-found natural gas

in the Arctic regions of Canada and partly in the States down through

the North West Territories and Yukon, through B.C. to Huntington and

down to California.

A big line — 48 inch. Mountain Pacific Gas they call the project.

From the Arctic circle. A $2 billion job. Every foot according to the

estimates I have of the pipeline costs $15 to $20. It's a gigantic job,

it's going ahead right now.

The significance of it is, of course, that we're reaching high noon.

In the United States oil reserves may last for nine years. Natural gas

reserves for 13. Canada and Canada's Arctic is the treasure house and

the plans are speedily going ahead.

As we build up to high noon the pressure is on Canada, the pressure

is on B.C. as we build up to high noon to bring that gas down to

California.

Without adequate scrutiny and no scrutiny at all by this government

by the kind of reserves we need for our own province, never once has

this government concerned itself with this subject. Never once have

they, even as Alberta has, required an export permit.

This clean, cheap safe fuel can be brought to Vancouver Island and

other parts of the province as early as 1974. It will only come in two

ways, first, if Hydro gets the contract because it has to be a low cost

thing. And secondly, if there are adequate pollution standards

established on Vancouver Island so that the burning of bunker fuel and

hog fuel to pollute the air will be a forbidden thing. Then the market

will be there and that should be done.

Those pollution standards should be enforced. The gas should flow

for the benefit of the people of British Columbia and not some other

country. Every Member is familiar with this, Mr. Speaker. When you

consider the tanker route down the West Coast of British Columbia — not

the danger of spills, but the certainty of spills, the inevitability of

spills from Prudeaux Bay down past Dallas Road, right out here, down

our beautiful coastline — when you consider the certainty of that then

this projected pipeline and the energy corridor should be considered.

Because there's no question that's a safer route. There's no

question that the tie-in could be made to the American Alaskan crude

and natural gas and that an energy corridor would be for the benefit of

the people of British Columbia.

I rather object to the fact that the work on this thing is going on

in such a quiet way that nobody knows about it — by a great

multi-national corporation. I should have thought this would be a

were actively safeguarding the interests of the people of the province

and the people of the country.

So, we come back, Mr. Speaker, to April 29. Everything seemed to be

so above board there, the Premier came out of his office. He invited

bids — you were to be a B.C. Company. Had to be owned in B.C. at that

time — not it's B.C.registered. That's all been changed.

Now there were a few odd things about it. Danny Ekman, the

seldom-seen kid, happened to be in the Premier's anteroom and he

happened to be there when the award was made, and he had happened to

have left West Coast Transmission two or three weeks before.

These were all odd coincidences. But he had an explanation for that. He said, as reported in the Vancouver Province

on October 14, he said he heard on the car radio while on the way to

Vancouver Airport to catch a plane to Victoria on entirely separate

business that the government bids were to be issued from the Premier's

office. Now he's saying, of course, that there would be no tip off, no

discussions by the Siamese triplets about this thing beforehand, that

it was all above board.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Absolutely right, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not telling the truth.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): How are you involved? Are you involved?

[ Page 395 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Member was discussing someone who is not a member of this House.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm saying this, Mr. Speaker, that if my

friend, the Minister of Trade and Industry, is correct, why on a

Saturday morning in a Vancouver hotel, in April, before the bids were

called on April 29, were seen to meet — love those chamber maids! — at

a hush-hush meeting, with an air of "we mustn't be seen together", Mr.

Dan Ekman, Mr. Doug Owen — the former president of West Coast

Transmission company, Frank McMann's right hand man still, and let me

put it this way, a high ranking official of the pipeline and production

service division of Bechtel.

Now there is only one inference that can be drawn, Mr. Speaker, by

reasonable people and that is that a dumb show was being put on to fool

the poor rubes of voters of the Province of British Columbia. That we

are watching something that has been carefully orchestrated by Maestro

Ekman, from the opening warble to the grand finale.

The company may change, I think it will change, but the plan will

not change and I call upon this Legislature, and I say to the

Legislature: "This is your last chance, this session." Unless this

Legislature makes a decision that B.C. Hydro builds that pipeline, or

unless the people change the government, then this orchestration will

be carried right through to the infinite loss of the people of British

Columbia.

It's a matter affecting the costs of natural gas to the homes of the

people of British Columbia. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the letter

from Chairman Shrum to the Honourable Leader in which Chairman Shrum

himself agrees that the Hydro project would reduce the price of natural

gas in the lower mainland, let alone Vancouver Island.

The time is important, because that's the kind of a project that

could be built now. It could be a-building now to be completed in time

for about 1973-74. It should be going ahead making jobs for the people

of this province right now.

Instead of that we have a floodlit stage and appearances. Premier

Bennett appears, pulls what seems to be a rabbit from the hat while all

the time his political friends are out in the alley cooking a real

rabbit.

What I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that when we have the instrument —

and I quote from Governor William Egan of Alaska: "The state is

pursuing plans to purchase control of the proposed Trans-Alaskan

pipeline from North Slope fields to the Port of Valdez." I summarise.

He said state ownership would yield $100 million more a year to the

state than if the pipeline remained in private ownership. He's not

antiAmerican. That's Governor Egan, he is an American, Mr. Speaker.

We already have the instrument, we have the skilled people in the gas division of Hydro. Why not let them go to work?

Meanwhile back on the ranch, with the brood mares and the colts and

the fillies and an occasional stallion…. I'd like to begin this

little

section by reminding the Honourable Members of how the Attorney

General last August, led the big parade, the big P.N.E. parade, riding

tall in the saddle, through Vancouver Centre, through Vancouver East.

But a mysterious thing happened. On the way to the exhibition gardens

he was pulled out of the parade.

There was a strike. The jockeys were on strike. The jockeys were on

strike because they were not going to get as big a riding fee

themselves because of the cut in purses that had been decreed by the

Minister of Finance.

But the Attorney General settled that strike in short order. He said

that the edict of the Minister of Finance which was made — and I have

the order-in-council here but I didn't bring it out on my desk — was

made under the order in-council of 1956, would not be enforced but

would be withdrawn. That the I per cent of purses as in the past for 22

years would go to all of the horses competing, be distributed fairly

among them all. The Attorney General stood up and he said the Premier's

letter will be withdrawn and the jockeys were happy and the horse

players were happy, even Hothorse Herby was happy. The strike was

settled but the trouble continued.

Since 1949, Mr. Speaker, I per cent of the betting take under the

Pari Mutuel Act , has gone back to the horsemen to be distributed as

purses. I per cent, that's a lot of scratch because the total take last

year was $330,000 so we're talking about $3.3 million.

In 1956 the order-in-council was passed which said that the Premier

of the province, the Minister of Finance, could direct the consumer

taxation branch as to how these funds would be distributed so that all

the Minister of Finance has to do is write a letter to the consumer

taxation branch. He wrote such a letter last year and that was the

letter that caused the strike and the letter that was promised to be

withdrawn by the Attorney General but that was the letter than on

December 21 last, the Premier wrote again.

There was to be no doubt who was running the Government of the Province of British Columbia.

Now the horsemen had met and in a meeting which was stacked by the

big breeders they put through a request to the B.C. government that the

I per cent should be paid to B.C. breeds only.

That resolution in a crowded meeting packed by the big breeders

passed by a dirty nose and was sent to the government and the horsemen

are going to meet again hopefully to rescind that motion.

In the meantime why did the letter go out again that the Attorney

General had said had been withdrawn? Why did the letter go out again

from the Premier on December 21, instructing that the I per cent — this

is what we are talking about — should go to the B.C. breed only? It's

obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the big breeders had got the ear of the

great breeder himself in Victoria and he wrote his letter.

Now it is a fact that there is in British Columbia a ranch known as

the Flying Horse Farm at Kelowna, run by one of our finest citizens and

owned by one of our finest citizens — and I don't dispute that. Russell

J. Bennett. He has on that farm much more than ever appeared on

MacDonald's farm, I'll tell you that. He's got 18 brood mares, about 40

head of horses, and a great stallion. Magic Morn, I think is the name

of the stallion.

Pretty fair hides, Mr. Speaker, no buzzard meat among them. The

Premier won out and the directive was issued and the big breeders have

got what they wanted.

Here's another of the big breeders. There aren't all that many in

the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Reg Ellet. He said in the paper

of December 22, after they had got their way with the Premier, he said:

The B.C. Thoroughbred Breeders' Society believes that the amount of

1per cent of the pari mutuel handle given to the owners of B.C. bred

horses who have shared in the purses will be a tremendous boon to the

breeders of thoroughbreds in B.C.

It certainly will be a tremendous boon, Mr. Speaker, but

[ Page 396 ]

it is not at all in the interest of the racing public and the public

and the treasury of the Province of British Columbia. It's not in the

interest either, for that matter of Jack Diamond, who has his B.C.

Jockey Club. All he's got there is a lease until 1993, I think it is;

he's got a little land at Cloverdale; he's got the horse manure

concession and he's got the liquor concession.

The lamentations are so loud from the B.C. Jockey Club that they're

prepared to sell out for $5 million, what they have, including that

lease. The idea, Mr. Speaker, that the horsemen should in a non-profit

way take over the operations at exhibition park and the other things is

a perfectly good idea.

I think that price is very steep. But the idea that you should not

give the I per cent in purses fairly to all horses in the race is

against the best interests, as I've said, of the people of this

province.

Already because of that, because of poorer competition, because of

fewer horses, because of less public interest, the racing days for 1972

are going to be cut back at exhibition park from 108 to 71. There will

not be coming into this province as there has been in the past,

competitive horses from Calgary, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Texas, Kentucky

and the loss to the treasury — and we're talking about the budget — the

loss to the treasury of the Province of British Columbia in cutting

back the racing days which flows from this, is estimated at $800,000

and the loss of employment in Vancouver East at exhibition gardens —

some 2,000 employees there in the racing season at the present time.

How many of them will lose their jobs?

The purses should go fairly to all the horses. You talk about B.C.

bred and it sounds fine, but really the owner can be an American. The

owner of the B.C. bred, he gets the purse — he can be an American, he

can be an Albertan, he can be a Calgarian; we're not protecting B.C.

business in this way. It doesn't go to the breeder, it goes to the

owner.

What will happen with B.C. bred, which means in effect that the foal

must be born in B.C., what will happen is that the brood mares will be

taken over across the line, covered in Texas or some other part of the

world where the breed is good because there is sun and calcium —

covered in Texas, brought back in a covered wagon across the B.C.

border, dropping her foal in B.C.

Is this part of the Attorney General's idea of a sin-free B.C.? Are

some of the breeders going to be picked up under the Mann Act in

hustling their foals back just so they will be born in the Province of

British Columbia? That can happen. So I say that this things involves

an awful lot of scratch in terms of the big breeders of the province.

I am not charging the Premier of this province, whose son happens to

be one of the big breeders, with any wrongdoing or corruption. I'm not,

but I am saying that with a scratch of his pen he can throw a lot of

scratch in the direction of the big breeders who are asking for this

change and I don't think a decision like that should be made by the

Premier.

I think the Attorney General was right and I'm just sorry that with

so much trouble in the wigwam the Attorney General seems to lose these

decisions.

That decision should be made by the Attorney General. We should not

let the Bennett colts write the betting laws of the Province of British

Columbia and the Premier's answer to the big horsemen should be neigh.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it's

very interesting, the remarks of the last Member and in particular to

know that he stopped not on a whinny but on a neigh.

Mr. Speaker, you know, this is really the first time I've had an

opportunity to make an address in two of the great debates in this

House and I can assure you that once again it's a pleasure to be able

to speak to all of those over there in wonderland and I do wish that

Mr. Wonderful was still in here.

Nice to see the wonderous ones and it looks as though the wee

wandering wonder has wandered again, but I don't wish to catch any of

the Members by surprise or to hold anyone in suspense. So in order to

alleviate any questions that anyone may have in mind I wish to state

this categorically and make it abundantly clear that I shall be voting

against this budget.

Perhaps the only significant tribute to the budget I think must be

for its production and I'd say a dozen roses to Mr. K.M. MacDonald, the

Queen's Printer who once again has remarkably illustrated that form is

heads and shoulders over substance.

The budget, Mr. Speaker, in my view, is the last lookout, it's the

last stand budget, and the fadeout is on its way. Quite frankly, I'm

very much afraid that all of the combined efforts of Ronnie, and

Billie, and Danny, and Crammy will never get this thing off the ground.

So what is the voter going to be offered in the coming election by

the Social Credit? He's going to be offered the same old tired faces,

the same singular pitch as before based on one word, fear.

For the fear merchant, Mr. Speaker, is following his same old

programme for power. I've told you about that before and I am going to

tell you about it again because the show's on the road. It always works

in a three session basis — the first session he tests the new boys, he

brings in a little bit of innocuous legislation, a little bit of money,

tighten the belts, build up the reserves for next year and he harasses

the vicious Liberals and he ignores the Socialists.

Then the second session is a little bit of a changeover, all the

contentious legislation comes in. Get it off the trays, get it off the

trays so the people aren't aroused at the polls, loosen up the money

belt but not too much, just enough to whet an appetite. He continues to

harass the Liberals but he starts to stuff a little bit of straw into

the Socialists.

The third session — this is where we are now and it's the same

pattern since 1952 — all of the motherhood stuff, the cornucopia

spilleth everywhere. He starts to cool it a little with the Liberals,

and he builds the Socialists into the biggest menace since the days of

Genghis Khan (Laughter). Then he calls himself St. George and he tears

around the province with his little lance trying to spear that poor

little straw man that he tried to create himself. "N.D.P. or me," he

says. "N.D.P. or me." I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this show's

well on the road and he starting to pump all of the godless Marxian

straw into this little troop over here.

It started, as a matter of fact, in November of last year and he

became a little bit annoyed at a statement that the Leader of the

Opposition made and he called him of all things a red Marxist, a red

Marxist. (Laughter). Now we've had him called a pinko in the middle of

this session and a socialistic waffler, but Mr. Speaker, the

transparency of the Premier's argument is now becoming very, very

obvious and I want to tell you why. In order to tell you why, you've

got to look at the voting structure in any democratic society.

Essentially there are three voting groups. You have a hard,

[ Page 397 ]

hard right which is the minority. You have a hard, hard left which

is also the minority and then you have got the majority middle which is

certainly the area of numerical superiority and who I shall call the

moderates.

Now in the past, there's no question of a doubt that the Social

Credit have owned the hard, hard right. And they have also encroached

on the middle where the Liberal strength is and the N.D.P. have owned

the hard, hard left with I say little or no inroad on the majority

moderate side of the middle.

But the Premier this time — if I may use the word, Mr. Speaker — has

exposed himself too early and once too often. I say no longer will he

be able to peddle this pitch of fear, "It's the N.D.P. or me," and I am

going to tell you why.

The socialistic vote in this province is, has been, and will

continue to be a static vote. I say it's going to be about 30 per cent

or so — it's not going to be any more unless the whole western world

and all of the technologically developed areas plunged into a total and

irretrievable depression and only then would the Socialists make any

appreciable inroad into the Province of British Columbia.

Because quite frankly and with every respect to these people whose

sentiments I appreciate but whose political philosophy and whose

economic philosophy leave me completely cold, B.C., gentlemen, does not

want Socialism, it's just that plain.

Our land is too large, our resources are too great and you know

there is still too much of a pioneering and adventuring spirit in B.C.

people and a little bit too much snap in their garters to ever want to

run the gauntlet of ever more government, more boards, more tribunals,

more civil servants, more bureaucracy, more control, more taxes, less

freedom, less pay in their pockets, less to spend, and less individual

freedom.

So the Socialistic vote won't budge up one inch. But there's no

need, Mr. Speaker, for B.C.'s silent majority — the shopkeeper, the

housewife, the workers, the businessman or the fixed income people — to

get all uptight about that. No way, because I'll say this, even though

the fear-merchant will go to the province with his same old issue, his

same old bit, "It's the N.D.P. or me," it's not going to be bought this

time.

It's nothing more than political transparence. It's carnival talk

and this time the B.C. people and the B.C. voters are going to see

through that dodge because you know you can fool some of the people

some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time

and 20 years is time for a change.

What B.C. wants are policies, not fear talk. They want programmes

for prosperity not abdication from responsibility. They want a change

of government — yes they do, but they don't want a change of system.

They want better government but not more government. They want social

reform but not Socialism. And they can have it if and if the majority

middle vote, the moderate vote, which is the Liberal vote — and if that

vote as I projected will stand fast and will vote as it has in

Vancouver — Point Grey, as it has in West Vancouver — Howe Sound, as it

has in North Vancouver–Capilano, as it has in North Vancouver–Seymour,

then Mr. Speaker, the next government of the Province of British

Columbia will be a Liberal government and I say thank God for that,

thank God for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go, go, go! (Laughter).

MR GARDOM: You know there is a lot of talk over in these

ranks, over there too, about leadership, of where they're going to go.

What is happening? Well, you know there's five people, Mr. Speaker, who

have a great degree of prominence in this race which is starting to be

run. I'd like to say the first declared and the early obvious was the

Honourable the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Peterson). But there is

nowhere for him, I'm afraid he peaked before he was picked (Laughter).

He's been treating his portfolio as nothing more than something to trip

over.

Secondly, is the Honourable the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Loffmark). Ahhhh, a dark horse indeed (Laughter). And one book, Mr.

Speaker, says he's got all the credentials. But he's not only the

author, he is the publisher too, and I'm afraid he's going to be left

right at the clubhouse turn.

The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Capozzi)…as someone said today, Hot-horse Herbie (Laughter). But

he's being cut from the herd.

The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) —

well, now I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if desire is the credential,

he's some streetcar (Laughter). Because he has been establishing bases

left, right and centre in the regional districts like the pharoahs that

built pyramids, and he been trying as hard as he can to sound more like

an echo of the Premier every day. Little Dan Echo, let's call him.

And the fifth, and it's too bad he is not here. He is the Honourable

the Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) because this will

make you folks over there quake in your very little booties. Because

this is the rub, spelt r-u-b. He will control the convention, so if and

when the Social Credit Party democratises itself to the point that they

elect their leadership from their convention, who will control that

convention but the Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation.

Because you won't find at that convention the huge donors who

support these people over here, you won't find at that convention the

middle majority people who have fear-voted you in year after year after

year. No, sir, you'll find at that convention the faithfully unique, or

vice versa if you prefer (Laughter) — the flying circus folk and

they'll be coming in on brooms from everywhere, Mr. Speaker, the

anti-everything bunch and all of the I.O.U.'s of the Minister of

Rehabilitation will come home to roost.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs

may have the support of the cabinet but the support of the convention

if and when it democratises itself will fall to that Minister of

Rehabilitation.

Disaster, someone may say. Yes indeed. A disaster but inevitable.

You know, this is one of the four reasons that the former Attorney

General of this province, Mr. Bonner, left the government. One of the

four reasons.

One of the reasons was his portfolio became a mess because the

Premier sloughed Commonwealth Trust onto his lap. Secondly, he had

performed a long haul and I think a very dedicated haul of public

service and he wanted a change. Thirdly, he had a job offer that was

not only mighty tempting but pretty challenging. And fourthly, he knew

that even though he perhaps had the best intellectual credentials to

take on the job a Social Credit convention would never accept him and

so he left.

So I can assure you people that you are going to have some fun in

store for you. As I've said, Mr. Speaker, this is a fadeaway budget,

it's a last lookout budget, and if I may be permitted the extravagance

of a little poem perhaps not too timely in February however, it goes

this way:

"Good King Cecil last looked out,

[ Page 398 ]

On the Feast of Worley,

When the dough lay round about,

Deep and crisp and pearly"

And that's exactly where this government is sitting today because

they've got the money, but they've lost the capacity to plan, they've

lost the capacity to administer, they've lost the capacity to care for

or forecast needs of the people of this province and I want to talk

about some of these things in depth right now.

Election reform. Let's talk about election reform because one can't

talk about the elective process without considering our B.C. Elections

Act and the amount of money that the general public are going to be put

to to have this unnecessary exercise. I'd say it's going to cost about

$2 million of public money, and any consideration of this statute will

result in the same inevitable conclusion which is best summarised by

one word and that one word it tilt, t-i-1-t. We have here a government

representing a minority of British Columbians, not a majority and they

have continued to use this tilt just as another means of trying to

perpetuate themselves.

First point, Mr. Speaker, this silly stipulation of order in the

ballot. The government candidates, whoever they may be, are listed

first. Surely to goodness, fairness would dictate choice by lot and I

call for that amendment.

Secondly and worse of all the government paid absolutely no heed,

absolutely no need whatsoever, to the fundamental principle of

democracy that one man is equal to one vote. No way, not here in B.C.

There is no such thing as fair electoral distribution within the

province. It takes seven more votes per individual to elect one member

in Vancouver–Point Grey or Vancouver East than it does in Columbia

River (the Minister of Labour spoke a little while ago) and about three

times more than in Nelson-Creston (the Minister of Highways). You know,

Mr. Speaker, I would very seriously question as to whether this denial

of voting justice — and that's what it is, it is a denial of voting

justice — is not indeed a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Canadian Bill of Rights gives and I quote the Canadian Bill of

Rights, it gives the individual "the right to equality before the law."

And the Election Act is a law. And there's sure no right to equality in

it but quite the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, this government should change its name from the

Election Act to the Tilt Act so the people would really know how they

are being hosed, and I call for its amendment, in B.C., so we can have

one man — or one woman for you Lib-ers over there — vote.

Three, for a better in depth response and even better public choice,

let there be a system of preferential voting. Fourthly, let's have

fixed election dates and not really and truly leave it to the caprice

or whim of one man. How does it come about, how does the date come

about? He opens the window one morning, he looks up at the sky, he

says: "Mother, there's an E in the clouds, today's the day." What

hypocrisy, what nonsense! No cabinet decisions, no governmental

decisions for an election — the choice and whim of one individual.

We have a time stipulated in our statutes when elections are

supposed to be and that's when they should be unless the government

happens to be defeated in office.

In the new Elections Act , Mr. Speaker, the fifth point. There should

be restrictions against public money being squandered by ambitious

cabinet Ministers for their own political purpose.

I say it should be made illegal by statute, as I feel it is now

immoral, unethical, and illegal by practice. Violators should face

claims, personal claims by the public for restitution. I say once the

election writ is out, there is no way that these glorious pictures —

some with eyes open, some with eyes closed — of Cabinet Ministers

should appear all over the Press of the province of B.C. with their

names underneath them, with the marvelous things they happened to do

15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 years ago.

We've got to make war, not love with those kind of political

transgressors, Mr. Speaker. They have got to be held to public account.

It's really and truly just that simple.

Public money should not be appropriated for the perpetuation of political office

and that's what's happened in B.C.

Hydro, Hydro, Hydro. Who can ever, Mr. Speaker, consider a Bennett budgety-wudget

without considering Hydro? It's a real high-amperage mish-mash. We pay the highest

rates in B.C. In the Pacific Northwest. Our service is a question mark. The

performance of Hydro and its prospects are beyond public scrutiny and it carries

the lion's share of public debt and our per capita public debt 1969, $1,067;

1970, $1,011; 1971, $1,250. Every year, deeper and deeper we plunge our citizens

into debt.

And in this budget, I'd say it was the most consummate gall of all,

once again this government is trying to slough off the buses onto the

municipalities.

You know, maybe Mr. Speaker, in reflection under B.C. Electric

perhaps the province never had it so good. Rates were cheaper, service

was better, and less impersonal than it is today and the public had at

least some control then and the P.U.C. was totally separate and apart

from the company. Not the situation of one autonomous arm of government

attempting to tell another autonomous arm of government what the ground

rules are, and both of these organisations could legally probably

ignore each other.

Under the B.C. Electric there was some measure of accountability. It

had directors, and the Honourable the Minister of Health knows

something about the responsibilities of directors. He wrote a pretty

good book on company law.

It had directors and their responsibilities were laid down by law.

They have to account to their shareholders or they'd be voted out of

office and the company had to account to the P.U.C.

Now the situation that we have in B.C. with these appointed

directors, these political Jack Horners, the pals of the government,

pretty juicy plums, no accountability to anyone.

They do what they want, when they want and how they want to do it

and they can act with all the stealth and the silence they choose,

safely secure and safely in retreat behind the silent curtain, behind

the corporate veil and even worse than that, behind the Crown

corporation veil, which in this province has become more impenetrable

than Fort Knox.

Hydro has the carriage of the highest single asset in B.C. and the

largest single liability. Yet the people who own this behemoth are

without the capacity to question, without the right to receive any

answers. The directors of Hydro do what they want, how they want, when

they want it. They can load the debt onto the province if they choose.

They can make behind-the-door construction decisions, supply decisions,

energy decisions and all of these things which affect the lives and the

well-being and the future both economic and ecological of all of our

citizens.

You know, over the last two or three weeks, lines were down. Towers were twisted like pretsels, the electricity was

[ Page 399 ]

off, there were brown-outs, there was importation of U.S. power by

the North West Power Pool. Knocked-out towers, damaged lines, the

expensive repairs, cost of business interference, into the hundreds of

thousands, no doubt into the millions and why?

Slides, silver thaws, winds, ice. But, Mr. Speaker, we've got to

remember that B.C. Is not in Acapulco and we have snow and we have ice

and we have strong winds and we have slides and we have mountains.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, these lines and towers had to be engineered and

had to be constructed with those things properly in mind. I want to ask

these questions. Will we ever get any answers? I don't know, but surely

the public are entitled to ask the questions and let's hope we will

have some of the answers.

Were these routes properly surveyed? Were the proper materials used?

Were the correct tolerances utilised? Were the safety factors properly

estimated? Were the correct sites chosen? Were they in short properly

built?

Certainly, had Hydro been the old B.C. Electric, apart from the

costly and disrupting public inconvenience and maybe claims or law

suits for the same, the answers to these questions would be its

problem. But no, this electrical jumble is owned by the people and

they've been mortgaged to the eye-balls on it and the people are not

permitted to have any say in its operation. They're not permitted to

question its procedures and they're prevented from exercising any

choice at all as to its direction or policies, past, present or future

and they have that right.

I say it's no privilege, it's an absolute right.

No way, they can ask until they're blue in the face and so can the

elected representatives in the assembly because answers just don't come

forth. The directors of B.C. Hydro are not held to public account and

errors are not revealed. If there are any they are never revealed,

nothing is told — just "click" down goes the corporate veil. About the

only ray of light that ever comes across today is when the president,

Colonel Shrum finds that he himself cannot intellectually swallow the

Premier's policies and then he hits them dead on, as he did recently

with the overwhelming weight of evidence that the major future power

needs will be best served by nuclear means.

It's not Colonel Shrum who should be most held to account, it's the

two big brothers that this government stands to keep an eye on. The two

cabinet ministers, the secret keepers, K and W, Kilo and Watt, see no

evil, hear no evil, speak no evil — but also see no good, hear no good

and speak nothing about Hydro.

These two great separatists by this government's direction and with

their very ready acquiescence have separated themselves and have placed

this electrical jumble beyond public question, beyond public scrutiny

and beyond public account.

Once more I ask that not only Hydro, but all of the Crown

Corporations be compelled to present themselves to the public accounts

committee of this House for public examination of their revenues and

expenditures.

Secondly, I ask that there be established a special standing

committee of the Legislature for each Crown corporation with powers and

responsibilities to examine fully into their modus operandi, their

plans for the future, their cut-backs, their expansions and what,

indeed if any, policies they may operate under.

I say no longer, Mr. Speaker, should B.C. have to tolerate these

corporate behemoths with most, if not all of, our public debt on their

backs, to be treated as spur-line ventures beyond the public eye.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I call for an immediate and full report which

will be subject to public questioning, if necessary. If the questions

are raised and the answers are not adequately forthcoming, then I think

there should be an independent public investigation and inquiry into

the causes and the costs of the power-line disasters we've recently

experienced and for recommendations as to how to prevent their

recurrence in the future.

To me it's incredible that the general public of B.C. have not

insisted and their only opportunity of insistence is at the polls

because for all practical purposes on this kind of a point democracy in

the province dies in the polling booth. It's incredible to me why they

have not insisted that they should be entitled to a full report of that

which they own.

They own Hydro, they own the electricity lines, it's their money

which has built these things. It's they who have suffered the personal

inconvenience and the cost. It's their money that has got to be used to

repair. They should be entitled to know why and they should be entitled

to be assured that this kind of thing will not happen again and they

should be entitled to the whole story. You know, quite frankly, Hydro

should be put on the witness stand and should be told to tell the

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Before leaving Hydro, I'd like to say a couple of words about the

preposterous suggestion of the slough-off of these transit systems on

to the municipalities. I say to the municipalities and fortunately they

saw the light the very day the suggestion was made, don't buy it or

touch it with a 10-foot pole.

Hydro made a $16 million profit as of March 31 of last year and the

fact that it has to supply bus service is its historical commitment and

whether it's a loss leader or not it is Hydro's job — which it has not

done — to come up with an imaginative programme to try to cut some of

these losses and make the service more efficient and more attractive

instead of once again trying to fast-shuffle them on to the

municipalities.

Now I say to Hydro, do something, clean up your buses, perk up their

interiors. Let's improve the bus stops, polish up your public

relations, indeed even have a few transit hostesses along the lines of

airline stewardesses who can hand out schedules and help the aged and

mothers aboard the buses when they are laden with babies and packages

and so forth. Distribute a few magazines and papers. Have some better

scheduling, better routing, more express runs to central areas. A

programme for more one-way, no-parking streets.

I read in the paper recently that Winnipeg has started a rather

innovative programme of door-to-door pickups in the high density areas.

Pay a little bit more for the service, you phone at a particular period

of time and the bus will come down the street. They always have full

buses and they take people from one high-density area to one

dumping-off proposition.

You know, all you need is a little bit of innovation and a little

imagination and a genuine effort to make the system work, because I

quite frankly think it can work. But I think what Hydro is trying to do

is something to the contrary. It's just as delighted if this thing

could die on the vine as it appears to be happening right now. I do

wish the Minister of Labour was in here. Oh, I do wish the Minister of

Labour was in here.

I listened with interest to the Honourable the Minister of

[ Page 400 ]

Labour and I hazard the guess that his career is going to be as

short as it has been unspectacular. One of the worst calamities this

province has faced has been this government's patent inability to

effectively deal with labour-management problems and I'd say, let alone

ineffectively dealing with them, it has compounded them by its policies

of division of polarisation and of confrontation.

There is certainly nothing in the Minister's remarks today that will

indicate any improvement at all. Let's just take a quick look at the

record. Industrial turmoil in the province has grown year by year and

here are some of the figures. In 1961 there were 34,659 man-days lost;

'62, the number was 32,987; in 1963, it was 24,956; in '64, it

increased seven-fold up to 181,784; '65, 104,430; '66, 272,922; '67,

jumped again to 327,272; '68, 406,729 man-days lost; '69, held a

little, 406,645; 1970 it soared to 1,684,463 man-days lost and for 1972

Lord knows how much worse it's going to become, because unless

something is done — unless reason is going to be the mandate for all

concerned — B.C. Is pointing to an awful summer and the possibilities

of a very, very, sick, sick, sick economy.

Are the 5,000 teamsters going to go out? The 38,000 wood workers,

the 4,500 hotel employees, the thousands in the allied construction

trades, the longshoremen, the tug-boat operators — are any of them

going to go out? Just how bleak this is going to be, nobody knows. But

we do know, what we do know, what very little this government has done

to avoid confrontation and to establish a proper climate.

They've seen the signs, they're everywhere, they're around them.

Companies are on the wane, secondary industry is in the doldrums. Three

timber companies are down for the count or at least badly on the ropes

— Eurocan, Columbia Cellulose, Bulkley Valley. Laing Construction has

pulled out of B.C. MacMillan Bloedel and other B.C. timber concerns are

expanding, not here in our province, but in South-east Asia and the

vice-chairman of Laing Construction, Mr. Piemonte said this: "The

labour situation here is very difficult to say the least." I think

perhaps he could have used the word labour "policy" or the Social

Credit government as opposed to labour or Labour Minister for that

matter.

It's not a problem just created by labour alone and make no mistake

of that. Not only, Mr. Speaker, will management be hurt, labour be

hurt, industry be hurt and pretty well all the general public be hurt

but so will government and all levels of government because without the

revenues from labour and from industry, the government revenues will

drop and there will be obviously some cut-backs in service.

The climate here today in B.C. Is really bad. In my view the forecast for the future is even worse.

You know, it's just like the leader of the Liberal Party said. It's

like a time bomb ticking and it's ready to go off this spring or this

summer. Little wonder, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is talking quick

election. I'll tell you why — because he's scared stiff. He's scared

stiff of facing this onslaught and he knows his government has not done

its homework to deal with this situation. So what's he want to do? He

wants to duck. He'd rather duck and advocate his government's

responsibility and try to obscure the issue with a smoke screen of an

election.

No, Mr. Speaker, he knows that if he had to wait out his

constitutional term, which he can do, his present management-labour

policies would be put to the test and he'd be defeated right smack in

this House and he'd also lose nearly every seat in the province. That's

why he's running scared and that's why he's using the election

duck-out, the election duck-out.

Take a look at his "mediation commission." Take a look at that.

Discredited in every sector. It's been rejected by labour, rejected by

management and I say, Mr. Speaker, it has been rejected by far the

majority of all sides of all Members of this House. It has become

irrevocably ineffective and quite frankly in one, two, three, four

words — it's got to go. It's got to go.

But from this unproductive and highly expensive lesson, fortunately,

B.C. can salvage something. I say let's pull out of the ruins, the

research and statistical data that has been compiled by this

commission. Let's use that as a nucleus for an independent, industrial

relations research and information service. This would be financed

one-third by government, one-third by labour and one-third by

management. In short it would become the public's, the public's very

own microscope, and it would be free from government intervention or

control, it would be free from management intervention or control and

it would be free from labour intervention or control and its job would

be to fact-find and to make public information that is objective and

that is neutral and that is independent.

With this we could have a means of some sophisticated economic

survey and a set of impartial statistics so the public would better

know what the score really was rather than be subjected to a bunch of

wildly-conflicting subjectively oriented data as management and labour

try to feed them now.

I think it would be a very effective check and balance, Mr. Speaker,

and one method of trying to bring to the everrepeating tribal dance

between management and labour all the power of mass public opinion

which would be correctly and hopefully independently formed.

Secondly, I reiterate the call of the leader of the Liberal Party

that the labour committee of this House be put instantly on the job and

have it meet and work and tour the province from end to end, from now

and until all of these new contracts have been signed and import the

message to management and labour that they have got to come to

agreement because the economy and the public of B.C. are neither able

nor willing to accept, to tolerate, industry-wide shutdowns or

stoppages — be they strikes or lockouts — in 1972. I think we've got to

try to eliminate this evil and pipe-visional policy of brinkmanship

that too long, and too often has been practised in our province.

Thirdly, I'd call for a complete clinical in-depth and far-reaching

examination of all labour management difficulties in B.C., I'd say from

an eight pronged point of view.

From the point of view of costs, prices, production, markets, standard of living wages, profits and the public interests.

I'd call for the establishment of a five-man fullyrepresentative

Royal commission to do just that. And I say it should start now. It

would be comprised of Mr. Justice Nathan Nemetz, if he would accept it,

as chairman with one appointee from labour, one appointee from

industry, one appointee from government and one appointee representing

the consumers and the fixed income groups in our province. Because we

need cures in B.C., we need direction, we need a new approach because

what the government has been doing over there, Mr. Speaker, has not

worked and they are quite frankly pointing us to one direction only and

that's spelt R-U-I-N — ruin.

Mr. Speaker, if this government's momentum had not been spent and if it wasn't too late to resuscitate it, let alone

[ Page 401 ]

revive it, and if it had the courage and the vision and the

administrative executive capacity to incorporate the policies and the

programmes and the priorities for betterment and reform that have been

advanced by the leader of the Liberal Party and by my colleagues, in

the Liberal throne speech and in the Liberal budget speech, this

province and the public force that serves it instead of continuously

being on the defence, of continuously reacting, of just having stale

response — instead of just an ad hoc, hodge-podge decision making

process — it would be on the attack against the problems that beset us.

We would try and settle the divisions that divide us, and improvement

and reform and a quality life for all B.C. people would become the

order of the day.

Mr. Speaker, without any question the most singularly dramatic

progressive and truly concerned measure that has been suggested in this

session was the leader of the Liberal Party and his party's six-point

charter of rights for our senior citizens.

For they are the pioneers of our way of life, they are the builders

of our standard of living which we have inherited from them. It is they

who were responsible for what we are today, but now they are mostly

forgotten. They're the lonely, they're the abandoned, the cold and

often hungry. Many of them are barely at sustenance level and now, Mr.

Speaker, they're economically dead-ended in B.C. They're spokesmanless,

and dispirited, and they have been so shallowly considered and so

miserably dealt with, and so shabbily forsaken in this huge budget over

there of plenty.

Now the six points that were raised by the leader of the Liberal

Party were these. The right to freedom from all property taxes. The

right to a rental supplement of $30 per month, to all those whose

monthly income falls below $200. The right to free drugs and medical

appliances, the right to unrestricted passes and public transportation.

The right to chronic hospital care, the right to an abatement of the

provincial personal income tax for those in need over 65.

You know, there's been a lot of talk in the paper these days about

plebiscites, and I would challenge the government but they won't do it.

So I would suggest to the Press that they do it.

Hold a plebiscite on these six points in the Province of B.C. And

you know, the return would come in close to 100 per cent in favour.

Before moving to my motion I want to speak of a few other and

complementary measures that can be taken at a cost of peanuts. All that

is needed here is the adoption and acceptance of an appropriate

philosophy.

Why not install an ombudsman so these old people can have a bit of

assistance through the mountains of red-tape that they run into?

Why not have legal aid for those who are in need? Give them the right to get into the courts.

What about insurance? Why not extend the no-fault benefits to those

over 65 instead of penalising them because they can't receive that at

all?

Why not have a programme for aid for victims of crime? You know what

happens Mr. Speaker, when a pensioner gets mugged and ends up with a

broken hip? He goes to the hospital, gets taken care of. What happens

to the person who does it if he's caught? Shipped away to Oakalla where

he's fed and he's clothed and he's housed. But once the pensioner can

get up he's pushed out of the hospital back on his own, gets the

occasional visit from the V.O.N. But he's still crippled, and he's done

in. His savings are squandered and he's no right to redress. And

there's precedent all over the world for a plan for aid to victims of

crime — in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, and in the United States

and Canada. As you all remember I introduced a bill of my own on two

occasions right here in this House, and of course you wouldn't have

anything to do with that. You just come up for the same cruel no. The

same cruel no. And it wouldn't cost anything to help these poor people.

In the field of public structures, Mr. Speaker, why not go ahead

when these things are built and take into account some of the needs of

the handicapped?

I don't suppose there are many Members in the House who have not

received correspondence from that exceptionally well spirited and

delightful person Alex Clark who is a handicapped individual. Mr. Clark

has informed us that here there is no way that any of the suites are

constructed whereby a handicapped person can receive assistance. The

stoves are too high, the facilities are too high. Quite frankly every

time they put a pot on the stove they can run the risk of death by

being burned. Why didn't you go ahead and have some programme in your

public structure buildings so the needs of people can be kept in mind?

What about farmers' markets? Why not let some of these senior

citizens be able to buy B.C. apples and fresh fruits and vegetables at

farmers' prices? Give the producers a break instead of the distributor

who is always getting all the gravy. I'm delighted to hear that the

Honourable Member over there agrees with me.

Before moving my motion, Mr. Speaker, which is to be seconded by the

Honourable Member from North Vancouver–Seymour, I want to say a couple

of words about the debate that we'll hear from the government side, and

particularly the lady Minister who's already started to clarion across

the floor. And it's going to go this way — "This is a vote of

no-confidence in this government." And I say yes it is. Yes it is. It's

a vote of no-confidence in this government, and the reasons for it are

more clearly demonstrated than anything has ever been demonstrated in

this Legislature before. The needs of these people are desperate, and

the need of these people is now. And this government is going to say:

"What about Ottawa? Why doesn't it do more?"

The "blame Ottawa boys." The B.O. Boys, the "blame Ottawa boys," the

constitutional side steppers, trying to slither here and slither there

and not do anything.

But Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is not the issue. This Government is the

issue. This is B.C. This is our home, these are our old people, and I'd

say, Mr. Speaker, whatever the imperfections of Ottawa or Afghanistan,

or New Caledonia or Timbuctoo doesn't matter a whit to me when we can

do the job herein B.C.

It doesn't matter a whit to any Members of the Opposition when a job

can be done here. And nor does it mean anything to these elderly people

who are silently suffering in this province. Theirs is the need, theirs

is the need and it is our solemn responsibility to do something of

significance for them, so they can spend their final days — not the way

you will my wealthy friend — so they can spend their final days not in

fear, and not in misery, but with dignity and in respect. So I move Mr.

Speaker, and seconded by my honourable colleague the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour motion No. 13 in orders of the day which states:

"That the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House

to go into committee of supply be amended by adding the following

words: 'But this House regrets that the budget speech of the Honourable

the Minister of Finance fails to make adequate provision for the needs

[ Page 402 ]

the senior citizens of the province."'

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, it is

a parliamentary tradition in the British Commonwealth to use this

method to illustrate where those who are not in government feel that

those in government are failing the most, and this is the parliamentary

tradition that I think all of us in this House should honour.

It is an opportunity for those who feel they are disenchanted, or

for those who feel they are not being treated fairly, to have their

say. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in seconding this

amendment. Because it has disturbed me as the debates have proceeded

during this session to see over and over again how Ministers of the

Crown have been breaking their arms in attempt to pat their own backs.

The Member from Richmond (Mr. LeCours) who is a Member of the

government party referred to it the other night as a tinkling cymbal or

sounding brass. Mr. Speaker, I would refer to it as cynicism.

The tone was set by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Shelford),

the man who for so long has had the admiration of this House, when he

discussed his administration of the agricultural aid and world disaster

fund. He quoted letters from the Unitarian Service Committee, he quoted

letters from World Vision of Canada. He made no attempt to mask the

fact that the inclusion of these letters in this speech was for self

praise.

And what was he praising himself for Mr. Speaker? He told us and I quote: "The

total expenditure since the establishment of the fund has been $489,591, of

which $371,637 was spent during 1971." The impression the Minister was

clearly trying to leave with the House, Mr. Speaker, and with the people of

British Columbia was that we should be proud of our contribution to the international

aid fund, and by his own admission our contribution in 1971 was $371,637.

Work it out for yourself, Mr. Speaker. He wants us to be proud of

our contribution of less than 17 cents per person. Is this the

contribution the Minister wishes the people of British Columbia to have

pride in? But he set the tone for the budget.

The Minister went even further. In his printed speech there are the

words: "On a per-capita basis British Columbians contribute more than

any place in the world." That's what he said. Not only are those words

cynical, they're not factual. A simple check into the public accounts

behalf of the people made contributions during the same year of over

$10 per person.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aren't you still in Canada?

MR. CLARK: Yes we are, but that statement was worded in that

way to pat yourself on the back. And that's why I refer to it. And when

you start patting yourself on the back over contributions to people who

are so unfortunate in the world then in my opinion you've sunk to a new

low.

Now, we have the Minister of Finance following the same path,

announcing grandiose economic expansion, and imaginative programmes for

the future. The sadness of the budget, Mr. Speaker, is the cynicism it

displays. The tragedy of the budget is the effect of this cynicism on

the elderly.

For what did the budget contain for the elderly? The Minister of

Finance provides an additional $50 home-owner grant for the elderly.

Here's a half-way measure if there ever was one. And remember, Mr.

Speaker, that by putting this measure in the budget the Minister of

Finance is saying "that's the best we can do this year. That's the best

we can do for the elderly of British Columbia this year."

In my earlier address during the throne speech debate I acquainted

the House with just one piece of property owned by an 85-year-old woman

and how its assessment has increased over the years. In five years her

assessment has increased by $8,848. Let's take a look at how this

magnificent budget helps this 85-year-old woman, who is quite typical.

In 1971 in the district of North Vancouver this woman paid taxes

totalling $336 after her home-owner grant had been deducted, I'm even

giving you the credit for that. In 1972 her taxes after the home-owner

grant, after the additional old age grant, will be $560.13.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big help!

MR. CLARK: That's the big help for the home-owning elderly Mr. Speaker. An increase in taxes of $223.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose fault's that?

MR. CLARK: I'm glad the Hon. Member asked the question. I'm

glad he raised the point. Is this the best the economy of British

Columbia can provide? Because here is how the elderly could be assisted.

Inter