British Columbia Hansard — Monday, January 29, 1973 (30th Parliament, 2nd Session)
30p 02s 730129p
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1973
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 17 ]
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the
Islands.
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, may
I ask the House to welcome a student group today from the heart
of the Saanich Peninsula. Students from Mount Newton Junior
Secondary School are in the gallery — 31 of them I believe,
unless we perhaps lost one or two through the noon hour — accompanied by Mr. Tom Brown and Mrs. Smith, teachers, and also
accompanied by a very interested member of School District No.
63, trustee Mrs. Anne Forrester.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.
HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,
it's not very often I get a chance to announce anybody in the galleries, but
I'd like to say that my son, his mother-in-law, his wife and my grandson are
in the galleries along with Mr. and Mrs. Dempsey from Fort Steele.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.
HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to His
Worship Mayor Ernest Harding from the Village of Nakusp who is
here today in company with Mr. Ted MaKar, and Mr. Hugh
Spoor.
MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Clerk, I would also like to welcome to the
gallery Dr. Gunter of the University of Puget Sound, and 17 of
his students who are here to study parliamentary procedure in
British Columbia.
Introduction of bills.
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
GUARANTEE BY THE PROVINCE OF LOANS
FOR FEEDING CATTLE FOR MARKET
Mr. Schroeder moves introduction and first reading of Bill
No. 3 intituled
An Act to Provide for the Guarantee by the
Province of Loans for Feeding Cattle for Market .
Motion approved.
Bill No. 3 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
AN ACT RESPECTING MOBILE HOMES
Mr. Smith moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 4
intituled
An Act Respecting Mobile Homes .
Motion approved.
Bill No. 4 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT
Mr. Fraser moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.
5 intituled
An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid
Act .
Motion approved.
Bill No. 5 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
BRITISH COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Phillips moves introduction and first reading of Bill
No. 6 intituled British Columbia Development Corporation
Act .
Motion approved.
Bill No. 6 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
THE FARM CREDITORS ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Phillips moves introduction and first reading of Bill
No. 7 intituled The Farm Creditors Assistance Act .
Motion approved.
Bill No. 7 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
TRAINING ON THE JOB ACT
Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.
8 intituled Training on the Job Act .
[ Page 18 ]
Motion approved.
Bill No. 8 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE
AUTHORITY ACT
Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.
9 intituled
An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority
of British Columbia Act .
Motion approved.
Bill No. 9 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL HISTORIC SITE
GRANT ACT
Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.
10 intituled Christ Church Cathedral Historic Site Grant
Act .
Motion approved.
Bill No. 10 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
AN ACT TO REPEAL THE GIFT TAX ACT
Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill No
11 intituled
An Act to Repeal the Gift Tax A ct.
Motion approved.
Bill No. I read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
AN ACT TO REPEAL THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT
Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill
No. 12 intituled
An Act to Repeal the Succession Duty
Act .
Motion approved.
Bill No. 12 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
AN ACT TO REPEAL THE PROBATE FEES ACT
Mr. Morrison moves introduction and first reading of Bill
No. 13 intituled
An Act to Repeal the Probate Fees
Act .
Motion approved.
Bill No. 13 read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after
today.
Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued)
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to be back in the House again at this session
of the Legislature and it is a pleasure to see you in such good
form. I hope you enjoyed your trip to visit other parliaments
on faraway shores and perhaps you had an opportunity to even
see the Taj Mahal while you were down there, and to learn
something of the parliamentary traditions of India. I also want
to say a word to those people who travelled throughout Canada
and as far as the United Nations investigating parliamentary
processes and procedures there.
We hope that the information that they picked up will be
enshrined in some of the amendments which we hope will come
before us at some time during this session. I'd like to say at
this time that I would hope the House would join with me in
welcoming members of my family to the gallery today. My wife
has suffered through a number of my speeches in the past. Today
for the first time since I was elected we have the pleasure of
having my daughter and son-in-law with me and they're holding
her hand in the gallery so I hope you will all welcome
them.
I also want to welcome the group of university students from
across the border. I think it's nice that they take enough
interest in the Canadian parliamentary process to be with us
from the State of Washington. Certainly I have some fond
recollections of the State of Washington since my mother was
born in that state before immigrating to Canada as a young
girl. So I have a number of relatives in and around the State
of Washington and it is certainly nice to see a number of
students here from that State in the Union of the United
States.
Now might I deal briefly with some of the points that were
raised in the Speech from the Throne. While it's a little hard
to find a lot of meat in the speech there are a number of
points that immediately come to our attention. One of course is
the suggestion that there will be a bill introduced called
the
[ Page 19 ]
British Columbia Bill of Rights. I think this will be a good
piece of legislation. At least we in the Opposition hope that
it will be. I think the speaker who seconded the throne speech
yesterday spoke very eloquently about human rights, and I
appreciated the things that the good lady Member said.
But I would just like to say that the enshrinement of
high-sounding ideals within the framework of a bill of rights
will not and will never correct any of the human problems of
this world. It won't stop wars. It won't eradicate jealousy or
malice or racial prejudice. It won't improve the economic
situation of people living at the poverty level. It won't
eliminate ghettos or slums and it won't rehabilitate any
alcoholic or anyone addicted to drugs. It will never blot out
hypocrisy in all its forms wherever and whenever it exists.
Because the things that I have mentioned are the result of our
own individual inadequacies — collectively, and as a responsible
citizen within our community.
It's the result of our own inadequacies as human beings.
It's the result of the shortcomings of mankind and they will
never be corrected by legislative enactment regardless of how
eloquent or how idealistic the wording might be and I would
hope that when we think of human rights — each and every one of
us — we remember that the way to correct these problems is not
by legislative process, although it may be high-sounding and
idealistic.
The way to correct these problems is the manner in which we
deal day to day with each other and the things that we say and
the ideals that we stand for. So while the bill is to be
welcomed into the House I just want to say that the bill itself
will not do anything that we ourselves cannot do if we took it
into our minds to do it even without the bill.
There's a mention of government-operated car insurance. It's
a well known fact that this is a programme that the NDP
Government is dedicated to bring in. They campaigned on it
throughout the province and I am sure that a bill will be
forthcoming indicating their position. Until they do indicate
their position by the bill that is introduced into this House,
insurance and your plan, because it's a little hard to be
critical of a plan that we don't know the details of.
But I would say this, that in every general insurance agency
that I have talked to in recent months, they look at the
introduction of this bill with trepidation and fear because
most of them tell me that between 50 and 75 per cent of the
total insurance underwritten in their offices is on
automobiles. And they see that they will probably lose that
business to a Crown corporation.
This means that most of them will be cutting back at least
half of the staff that they presently employ. While some of
those people may be absorbed into a department of the civil service which will be responsible
for the administration of an auto insurance plan or auto pact
or whatever you wish to call it in the Province of British
Columbia, certainly it is not going to employ all of them.
You talk in the throne speech of a thousand new jobs. We
question what you meant by that statement of a thousand new
jobs. Is it new jobs exclusive of the average increase that has
taken place in the civil service in the province over the past
several years? We all know that that increase is twice a
thousand on the average, so if that is what you are thinking
about you haven't created any new jobs in the Province of
British Columbia.
If we're thinking about the jobs that will be created within
this new department that will handle auto pact for the
province, all you've done is probably employ less than half of
the people, if they're prepared to go to work for the civil
service, who are presently looking at a very bleak and dismal
future for themselves. It's going to create major financial
upheavals in their lives and I think a number of people are
aware of this. It would be different if the plan was going to
provide a large degree of savings to the average person who
drives a car.
But I would predict this, Mr. Speaker — that the average
reduction in premium for the average driver who is not addicted
to alcohol, who has a better than average driving record, will
be very minimal, that the people who will really benefit by the
introduction of an auto pact plan in the Province of British
Columbia will be those people who presently are in the assigned
risk category. The people who seem to be accident-prone. The
ones who continually prang up vehicles as if they were going
out of style. They're the ones who will benefit the most, and
perhaps some of the younger drivers whose driving record is not
too good, and they'll do it at the expense of the rest of the
people who will get either no reduction or very little
reduction in their rates regardless of what you may say about
the nasty profit picture that is involved in the general
insurance business at the present time.
You talk about amendments and improvements to the pension
plans in the province. It will be interesting to see what kind
of amendments you have in mind. Is it your position to improve
the benefits and provide larger pensions for all the employed
people within the civil service and within the pension plans
that come under the control of the provincial government?
Or is it your position to merely transfer the accumulated
funds from one type of an investment to another? Will it be
your position to use the accumulated reserves in those pension
plans to create new Crown corporations? Will it be your
position perhaps to set up a shoe factory, or a strawboard
factory, or a brick factory or a number of co-op processing
plants with the accumulated funds that are
[ Page 20 ]
presently available to you to invest?
I think that if this happens it will be a sad, sad day for
the civil servants of this province. Because I will tell you
this — the experience of a number of these Crown corporations
administered by other NDP governments in the Provinces of
Saskatchewan and Manitoba have been financial disaster. If this
is where you are going to put the accumulated pension funds
that are available to you, your stewardship of that money,
which is there to provide pensions for people when they reach
retirement age, is very, very shallow. Because those funds
should be invested in guaranteed ventures, not in risk ventures
that you as an NDP government might decide to set up, just
because this is one of the policies of the NDP government.
It does not take much thinking to set up and suggest that
you will make certain amendments to the Liquor Act. Certainly
this has been a matter of discussion, both by the Hon. Premier
and the Attorney General of this province, that they intend to
introduce some legislation which will result in changes in the
B.C. Liquor Act.
Really, there will probably be a number of this type of bill
introduced into the House this year — amendments to existing
Acts. But before they start opening up the Liquor Act in the
Province of British Columbia, I think the Premier and the
Attorney General should look very closely at a wire they
received recently from an individual in New Westminster. I know
the Premier and the Attorney General are aware of it, and we
are aware of the wire because we happen to have a copy of it. I
am going to read parts of it. This man is concerned about the
effect of alcoholism in the Province of British Columbia. He is
concerned about people who should be rehabilitated. He is
concerned about people who have a problem trying to put
together a livelihood for themselves and their families. He has
this to say:
It certainly doesn't take very much to pass amendments, but
to introduce new covering legislation is a job and a duty. You
appear to be playing the part of a Monday-morning quarterback.
Any amendments that open up the area of liberalized drinking
any more than it presently is, in my view, is no way to solve
the enormous growing problem of alcoholism. I would recommend
an increase in liquor prices at the retail level providing this
money is earmarked for the preventive education and
rehabilitation of alcoholism. I fear that it appears you have a
debt to pay to the voters. Your attitude is to give them what
they want, not what they need. "Keep them drunk and happy"
appears to be the Government's attitude.
Is that your attitude, Mr. Premier?
AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking.
MR. SMITH: Is that the attitude of the Government?
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Staggering!
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. SMITH: …that you are going to open up these Acts to
the extent that they will not provide anything in the way of
benefits to these people who do have a problem? Certainly, if
that is your intention, then you will find that the official
Opposition will not be supporting it.
There has been a great deal said about the….
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. SMITH: Repeat it, would you mind? I didn't hear you.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. SMITH: You know, Mr. Member, in the years that our party
was in Government, we solved more problems…(Laughter)…than you will be able to create in the time that you are in
office. (Laughter). Because I will tell you this — the positive
steps that were taken by the Social Credit administration — and
laugh all you like, Mr. Premier. Laugh it up and ham it up — because this has been the attitude of the NDP when they were in
Opposition. But I will tell you this — that you are now in a
position of responsibility and act responsibly to the people of
British Columbia. Just act responsibly to the people of this
province, you and the rest of your cabinet back there, who
think they know all the answers, who have done nothing. Just
act responsibly.
AN HON. MEMBER: They made only one decision, only one
decision — that's to gain some points.
MR. SMITH: You know, the Premier would like to suggest that
only through his efforts have we been able to establish
friendly relations with the State of Washington Is that right?.
Let me recall to your attention…
AN HON. MEMBER: Publicity stunt.
MR. SMITH: …the fact that in 1967 a standing committee of
this House, the forestry committee, made a trip, to the State
of Washington to investigate the programme of the Weyerhaeuser
corporation with regard to reforestation. We were interested
because we knew that the Province of British Columbia could do
better, I think. There was a general consensus of opinion of
the forestry committee that we could do better in this province
than we were doing and we wanted to pick up new ideas and new
information
[ Page 21 ]
from a state that we had heard was doing a great deal in the
matter of reforesting some of the areas that had been logged
off.
It might be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to know the Opposition
Members on the forestry committee in 1967. It is interesting to
note that we see the names of Mr. Berger, Mr. Calder, Mr.
Harding, Mr. Stupich and Mr. McGeer. It is also interesting to
note that the chairman of that committee at that time was Mr.
Cyril Shelford and he invited not only the Government Members
of the forestry committee, but all the Opposition Members to
accompany us on this trip to Washington. All it meant was that
you had to take off one weekend because they picked us up here
and flew us down into the State of Washington and returned us
on Sunday evening — picked us up on a Saturday morning.
Now, how many of the official Opposition at that time — or
of any of the Opposition — went on that trip? Not Mr. Berger.
Not Mr. Calder. Not Mr. Harding. Not Mr. McGeer.
MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. You can refer to former
Members of the House by name, but you know our rule that we
only refer to Members of the present House by their
constituency.
MR. SMITH: Former Members of the Opposition?
MR. SPEAKER: I still say present Members of the House are
referred to by their constituency or by their ministerial post,
if they are a Minister. Would you abide by that rule,
please?
MR. SMITH: Certainly.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.
MR. SMITH: It is interesting to note that the only Member of
the then Opposition that attended or went to the State of
Washington on that trip is the present Minister of Agriculture.
Where were the rest of you people at that time, those of you
who still sit in this House? If forestry was a big problem then
and you were concerned about the reforestation of our areas in
British Columbia, why wouldn't you take the time to go to
Washington State and see what they have done?
MR. PHILLIPS: They called it a "junket".
MR. SMITH: I would like to comment just briefly, Mr.
Speaker, on a matter that came to our attention — and I am sure
it came to the attention of everyone — in the first part of
December last year. And that is the write-ups in all the
papers, probably right across Canada, commemorating the 100th
anniversary of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force in this
country — 1972 was the year that the RCMP celebrated their
centennial. I think if we have anything to be proud of as
Canadians, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the part
that they have played in the development of Canada as a humane
law-enforcement agency over a period of the last hundred
years.
Certainly these have been dedicated individuals who in early
years risked their lives to open up and pioneer areas of the
west and bring law and order to these communities. I think it's
also great that they still retain the scarlet coat that is the
identification mark of an RCMP officer throughout the whole
world.
These are dedicated people and today, in my opinion, too
many people take cheap shots at the police force. They have
become a whipping boy for all the moral wrongs of this nation.
It's not fair, Mr. Speaker, because they have been dedicated
individuals and sometimes under very trying circumstances they
have performed a very creditable job for all of us. We are
indebted to them for that.
I'd like now to refer briefly to the fall session — the mini
session, if you want to call it that — we participated in
earlier, a few months ago. It was late in the year
1972. It was called by the new Government to homologate some of the promises that the NDP had seen fit to
make during the election campaign. It seemed to me little more
than window dressing and an opportunity for the new Premier and
the newly sworn-in cabinet Members, to create a favourable
impression in the minds of the public without running into very
much enemy flak.
At that time everyone said, "Well, they've only been in
office a few weeks, give them time. You can't expect miracles.
The other party was in power for 20 years. Give us
some time."
And I think in the main the Opposition at the fall session
cooperated with that point of view.
But I want it to be known now as clearly and concisely as I
can say it, that the honeymoon is over. It's over as far as our
position in this House is concerned. It's over in the minds of
the general public and, if it isn't over with the members of
the Fourth Estate, it's only because they may be a little slow
in grasping some of the current trends in thinking.
Now let's take a look at what the real record shows, in
retrospect. One of the bills introduced at the fall session,
which you were most proud of and I think that we all felt pride
in, was the bill introduced to increase the old age pension to
$200 per month. A bill that would provide all the old age
pensioners with an income of $200 a month.
Now as the details of your plan unfolded, you even coined a
new name for the plan — you called it "Mincome." The day the
bill was given royal assent was a proud day for the Premier,
I'm sure. He spoke as if he was proud of that day. It was a
proud day for his Minister of Rehabilitation and Social
Improve-
[ Page 22 ]
ment — and in fact for all the Members of this
Legislature.
But my question to you, Mr. Premier, through Mr. Speaker, is
this: Why did you tarnish what was basically a good idea? Why
did you tarnish it by using an advertising campaign that
deliberately created an impression in the minds of every senior
citizen that they would receive $200 per month income? You
advertised in newspapers and you turned out a pamphlet
explaining the plan.
You recall the pamphlet. It was circulated throughout the
Province of British Columbia — a little leaflet like this and
another one like this. The pamphlets even have what I would
describe as a blushingly pink cover. I think that was designed
after some of your campaign material from previous elections to
create an impression in the minds of the public.
But I say to you it is blushingly pink, and so it should
have been. Because the impressions, Mr. Speaker, deliberately
created in the minds of our senior citizens, and what is really
provided by the Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Plan, are
not one and the same.
Initially every old age pensioner in the province thought
that he would automatically receive $200 a month. After all,
this is what some the literature said…"$200 a month. To
make things easier, there is no means test nor any special
application forms. The amount of your new additional cheque
will depend on the income you receive from the federal
government"…and then, at the end, "and other sources."
But did you really expect, in preparing that advertising
material, that the average old age pension was going to read
completely, line for line, word for word what you said in that
advertising material? I think you owed the people who were on
old age pension a little more than that. Because many of them,
if they presently do not receive the guaranteed income
supplement, got nothing in the way of an increase in their old
age pension. They got a big fat goose egg. Many of you, when
you were in Opposition stood in your place in this House and
castigated the general business public for misleading
advertising. In my opinion, if there was ever misleading
advertising published, it was the type of advertising that came
out in those leaflets and in the papers concerning the
introduction of the $200 a month old age pension.
Surely many of you must have received the same type of phone
call that I did right after the introduction of the plan — and
the cheques were supposed to be in the mail. The conversations
went something like this: "When will I receive my cheque? Will
the difference come from the province in a separate cheque? The
advertising said that it will be automatic, that we didn't have
to apply. Do we have to apply? My neighbour got her cheque, but
I didn't get one. Why not?"
All of us in the official Opposition received those types of
phone calls, and I'm sure that Members on the Government side
of the House must have received phone calls of a similar
nature.
You know, it took a lot of explaining to elderly people that
contacted me to tell them that "well, perhaps you won't receive
an increase in old age pension. Do you presently receive the
guaranteed income supplement? And if you don't receive that"… then I had to go into great detail as to why they wouldn't
receive $200 a month old age pension. And to me that was a
fault of the type of advertising that you deliberately used to
promote that plan. It was cheap and shoddy advertising that
gave an indication and left an impression in the minds of old
age pensioners that they would, in fact, receive an increase in
their pension benefits. And you know that many of them did not
receive it, and many of them will never receive it.
I'm sure that some of you must have realized the problem
that you were creating in the minds of old age pensioners.
Because after the plan was in effect and after the flak began
to fly and after, I'm sure, many of you received the phone
calls in the same manner that I did, the Department of
Rehabilitation and Social Improvement sent a letter to every
MLA in the Province of British Columbia. It was under the
signature of the executive assistant, Mr. Raymond Wargill — this must be a new position. I hadn't heard of it before.
In any event, the letter reads,:
"The Minister requested that I provide you and all other
MLA's with copies of the attached field directives outlining
procedures and regulations with respect to the recently
proclaimed Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act and
the Handicapped Persons Income Assistance Act . I have
also enclosed a copy of the Mincome brochure available for
public distribution from the Department.
"It is hoped that this information will assist you in
answering your constituents' questions with regard to these new
programmes."
We did receive questions, all of us, concerning the
programme.
I don't wish to dwell on the matter except to say, Mr.
Speaker, that how much better it would have been had whoever
was responsible for that advertising programme been completely
fair and forthright in the advertising, so that there was no
mis-impression in the minds of senior citizens; that they would
have known that some of them would receive the $200 a month — or
the difference between what they presently receive and $200 a
month — and some of them would not.
May I turn now to a matter under the administration of the
Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).
You know, it seems that the Minister of Municipal
[ Page 23 ]
Affairs is so busy spending his time and energy amalgamating
municipalities unilaterally, without consulting the residents
of those municipalities and without allowing them or their
councils to take the matter to the residents in the form of a
plebiscite or a referendum, that he has little time to turn his
attentions in the directions that would be beneficial and
productive to all levels of local government in this
province.
This direction, in my opinion, is to financially assist — to
underwrite — the establishment of a provincial institute and
faculty for the purposes of training personnel in municipal
administration. Look around this province. Look at the growth
that has taken place and growth that we hope will continue.
Relate this in terms of the number of people employed in the
field of local government — as clerks and treasurers, as
engineers, as municipal managers, as assessors — in fact, in
all municipal administrative categories.
I think when you relate to that you will note that the
growth of British Columbia has certainly been way above the
national average and that many of the people employed in these
professions and jobs today are not far from retirement age,
that there'll be a large number, say within 5 years, retiring.
We don't even have the trained personnel to replace those
individuals let alone provide for the increased numbers that
will be needed in the field of municipal administration in the
next few years.
Let's take a look at the record as prepared by the
Department of Industrial Development in 1972, in a report they
called "Growth in B.C." During the Forties our growth rate was
3.5 per cent per year, Canada's 1.9. We get up to the Fifties
and Sixties — our growth rate in the Sixties — 3 per cent a year
compared to 1.8 per cent on the average in Canada.
It's interesting to note also, that migration to this
province is not a myth, it is a fact. That from 1950 to 1970 we
had 586,000 people come from other parts of Canada to the
Province of British Columbia. Pardon me, we had an increase in
population of 586,000 people. We also had an increase in
population of 414,000 as a result of birth, and natural
increases in the province. So roughly a million people in total
or, yes, a million people in total during that period.
Now, where did they go? Well, statistics show that a lot of
them went to the central interior and the northern parts of
British Columbia. Particularly from the period 1965 to 1970 the
trend accelerated with 74.6 per cent going into these
respective areas. The projection on a graph by migration to the
province is on an upward curve. So that from 1975 to 1979, it
will increase by 55,000 and from 1980 to 1984, by 60,000. It is
estimated that the population by 1980 will be 2,895,000 in the
province. If these projections hold true, and just an aside to
the Department of Municipal Affairs — if these projections hold true, Mr.
Speaker, it's interesting to note that if the consumption of
electricity goes up, as indicated by B.C. Hydro, at 9.5 per
cent a year. In the field of capital alone for that particular
corporation at 9.5 per cent a year, in a field of capital alone
for that particular corporation in the Province of British
Columbia.
But what I wanted to point out more than anything else is
that the migration of people to British Columbia and the mix of
population is heavily concentrated towards areas other than the
urban centres. That areas like the Kamloops area will increase
from 94,000 to 150,000 in 1980. In the Peace River, from 44,000
to 115,000. In northwest B.C., from 54,000 to 130,000. In
central B.C., from 116,000 to 300,000.
Now these are facts, and they're the type of fact that will
require a large number of additional trained personnel. That is
why I would like to suggest that the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) create a training programme for
people interested in municipal administration. I have in mind a
programme someth ing similar to what is available in the
Province of Alberta at the Banff School of Fine Arts.
Now, I realize that is not possible overnight, but that
institution should be duplicated somewhere in the Province of
British Columbia, and preferably not too far from the
metropolitan areas. It is an institution dedicated to advanced
training in a very concentrated seminar form — generally the
courses take no more than two or three weeks, a month at the
maximum. Highly intensified programmes are designed to acquaint
people with changing trends, changing ideas, and new techniques
in many, many fields.
It would be appropriate if the Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) directed his attention to just one segment
of that, and that is the training of new personnel to fill the
offices that will be needed to be filled in this province in
the next few years. Certainly that type of training programme
could be introduced, It should be financed by the Province — of
British Columbia. It would be very productive not only for the
Department of Municipal Affairs, but also for many other
endeavours, and many other branches of service — both within
and without the civil service, Because these are the type of
programmes that can benefit a large number of people very
quickly, and adapt them better than they would be adapted if
they had no training, into the field of municipal
administration or many other allied fields.
There's another point that I would like to refer to, before
leaving the Department of Municipal Affairs, it has been
reported that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.
Lorimer) is to be the official cabinet contact for future
consultation between governments and the Northern Development
Council.
[ Page 24 ]
And Mr. Minister, I have to take what the newspapers
reported at the meeting between yourself, Members of the
cabinet, some MLA's for the Peace River ridings of North Peace
and South Peace — even though they're vitally interested in
northern development, to sit in on the consultation….
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): They know something
about it too, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SMITH: However, if it is still NDP policy to create a northern affairs
department, an idea which incidentally was originated by members of the Social
Credit Party sometime ago, would you first then, in fairness to the people who
live north of the 52nd parallel, spell out in concise, definitive terms, your
policies and the policies of your government. Particularly with regard to the
future of the north and northern development, The fact of the matter is this,
that those of us in the Opposition would be most interested as this session
progresses in hearing your policies period, on development in the Province of
British Columbia. Because if we form our opinions from some of the quotes that
have appeared in newspapers particularly in the last few months, then the creation
of a northern development department is not compatible with the policies of
your government. For instance, I would like to refer specifically to a number
of quotations taken from newspapers in recent weeks.
From the Vancouver Province September 17, 1972. The
Hon. Premier is reported as saying, "The day of growth and
incentive has gone in British Columbia. And as long as we are
in power, it will not return. I am not a boomer, there will be
no growth for growth's sake."
The Victoria Colonist October 22, 1972. "If there are
jobs lost by not developing a mine, let them be lost. The
resources can stay in the ground for 50 years."
The Vancouver Province January 13, 1973. "Consumers
should curb their use of electricity so as to reduce the growth
of demand."
Just as recently the Hon. Premier, who applauds that
statement, suggested that it would be a good idea if the
consumers of the Province of British Columbia boycotted the
purchase of beef.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He wouldn't do that.
MR. SMITH: He did. But he retracted the statement after he'd
had a little friendly consultation with the Minister of
Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), you don't retract that
statement?
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. SMITH: Just shake your head or nod your head. Do you
retract that statement? Which way did you shake your head, Mr.
Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker? Obviously he doesn't retract
the statement. I think the people that are in the farming
industry in the Province of British Columbia should realize,
and it should be on the record that apparently by the attitude
of the Premier, he supports the idea of boycotting the
purchase of beef within this province.
There's only been one time in the last 20 years that a
person engaged in raising cattle for market in the Province of
British Columbia has got anything near a fair return on his
investment. And that's today, at the prices that beef is
selling for on the hoof into the market place. And you would
suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the price of beef is so
high that it should be boycotted? It should be boycotted by
people who consistently received 6 and 8 and 10 per cent
increases in salary every year through negotiations and labour
contracts? The only person within the Province of British
Columbia who has not received an increase on his investment,
who has not received an increase in salary for the last 20
years, is the person who is in the farming sector of this
economy. Now, today when one part of that sector looks like
they may receive a fair return on the cattle that they put in
the market, the Premier says, "boycott the purchase of beef."
Is this the policy of the NDP Party? Your party has talked of
nothing but slowdowns, of cutbacks, of higher taxes, of Crown
corporations to take over existing businesses. If anyone in the
Government side would question those statements, let me refer
them to some of the points that have been raised in their
conventions concerning takeovers.
Let's see what the shopping list included at the last
provincial convention of the NDP. Well, it included the
take-over of MacMillan-Bloedel; the take-over of the production
and distribution of natural gas; the take-over and the
distribution of petroleum products, including retail gas
stations; the take-over and nationalization of all prime area
resource industries — and that is being applauded by a Member in
the Government side of the House; the take-over of the car
manufacturing business in British Columbia; the take-over of
airlines operated by a public corporation; the take-over of all
main industries involved with manufacturing, transportation,
communications and finance; the take-over and operation of
casualty, fire and life insurance companies — and that was
referred to yesterday; the take-over and operation of autobody
repair shops; the take-over, operation and control of all cable
television stations in the Province of British Columbia.
Tell me, Mr. Premier, when you finish with this shopping
list — when you finish with the take-over of all these
particular segments of business outlined by
[ Page 25 ]
resolution and suggested by the members of your party in
your convention — what is going to be left? Are you saying now
that you are going to take over all of those types of
businesses? That you are going to create within the province an
even larger bureaucratic set-up than we presently have? That in
order to be gainfully employed you will have to work for the
Province of British Columbia or there will be no job for you?
Is that what you are saying? That only the friends of the NDP
will receive jobs — is that what you are saying? Because if you
are, that is jackboot treatment…
AN HON. MEMBER: You've got the list.
MR. SMITH: …of the people of the Province of British
Columbia. I will tell you one thing. The people who pioneered
this great province — the farmers who went out and developed
the province and the fishermen — didn't develop it to have it
taken over in that manner. They didn't develop it to see a
government come in and take away all their individual
rights.
We have a crop disaster in the Peace River country at the
present time. 1972 was a disaster — almost a complete
write-off. Seventy-five per cent at least of all the crop is
still in the field under three feet of snow and it is very,
very doubtful if they will ever harvest a bushel of it. The
Minister of Agriculture, in consultation with the farm
organizations, has suggested that the Government would do
something about it. Well, we know that over 1,200 claims have
been filed by individual farmers concerning their crop losses.
We know that the average loss, as closely as can be estimated,
is over $15 million. We know that the average claim that is
eligible under the programme is on 224 acres of crop.
Now, if the financial contribution by the Province of
British Columbia is $2.50 an acre on eligible crops and the
contribution by the federal government is $1.25 an acre, for
a total of $3.75 per acre on eligible crops — and I underline
the word "eligible" because there is a discussion and a dispute
there as to what will be eligible and what will not be — on the
basis of your definition of eligible crops, the average claim
will be on 224 acres, which amounts to a grand sum of $840
payment to farmers in the Province of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, $840 won't even pay for the fertilizer that was
used in 1972 by the farmers who planted crops that year. It
will not in any way make any payment to those who are vegetable
farmers and who produce those types of crops. It is shamefully
inadequate. It is a pittance, a token payment, and it is the
first time in the history of that part of the Province of
British Columbia when they have had to come to the Government
for financial assistance.
Mr. Speaker, there is no seed grain available in the northern part of British Columbia in the Peace River area.
These farmers are going to have to have help and they are going
to need far more than a measly, miserly $840 to bail them out
of the predicament that they are in right now. $840 is
equivalent to two months' unemployment insurance benefits paid
to someone who is working in a job where they contribute to
unemployment insurance, where their employer contributes to
unemployment insurance, and they are eligible, if unemployed,
to collect $100 a week.
You know, that was bad enough — that the crop up there was
almost a complete write-off, that it was a disaster. But
perhaps the unkindest cut of all is the fact that you saw fit,
as a government, to slap a land freeze on all farmland by
order-in-council. That you gave no indication to the farmers of
this province what you were going to do, other than the fact
that you were going to freeze their lands. You gave no
indication to them whether it was your position to buy out
older farmers who had been looking at their land as a potential
pension plan for themselves. Remember this — that the majority
of farmers presently occupied in that particular field of
endeavour in the Province of British Columbia are presently
over 50 years of age. They are not far from retirement age, Mr.
Speaker. They need some assurance from this Government, not by
order-in-council. They need some assurance of a definitive
nature as to what the position of the Government is going to be
now that they have frozen the farmland.
It seems to me that if you want to retain farmland for
green-belt purposes and for farming, then you have an
obligation to tell the individual farmers in the Province of
British Columbia how you plan to deal with them. What are you
going to do — are you going to buy them out at fair market
value so that you can retain that land? And the side effect
that apparently you did not even consider — the side effect
that is already showing up — is the fact that the day after you
put that freeze into operation, all subdivided property,
particularly within the lower mainland and the Vancouver Island
parts of this province — the subdivided property which is
presently available, the unoccupied lots — the re-sale price
was inflated by about an average of $1,000 per lot. Because you
immediately created a freeze where people began to realize that
if they wanted to buy, they had better buy now — otherwise
there would be no opportunity to do it in the future.
So you contributed to inflation by one order-in-council. A
method, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that we heard the official
Opposition of prior years say time and again they would never
use — only in an emergency situation. No more legislation by
orders-in-council. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that if it
is the intent of the Government of this province to wipe the
farmers out in the Province of British
[ Page 26 ]
Columbia, they could not have approached the matter in a
better way. Because the apparent direction the Government is
travelling right now will force the farmers out of
business.
AN HON. MEMBER: They're travelling, all right.
MR SMITH: They will zone the land without regard to the
individual farmer's rights. You will tax it and increase
assessments out of relation to what it can actually return as
farmland. Thus, when the land comes up for tax sale, the
recipient of the benefits will be the Crown of the Province of
British Columbia. You will regulate it so that farmers can no
longer operate viably and economically on the farm units that
they have taken a lifetime to build up. In other words, you
will grab it back in the name of the Crown. This has even been
suggested.
The unfortunate part of it is this — that less than 10 per
cent of the total land mass in the Province of British Columbia
is in the hands of private owners. Do you want to leave
nothing, nothing at all, to private ownership in the Province
of British Columbia?
AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. That's their policy.
MR. SMITH: If that is your policy, state it clearly and
concisely that you intend to wipe out private ownership in the
Province of British Columbia.
AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do it all at once.
MR. SMITH: I know, it's going to be a step-by-step
proposition. But if this is the direction that the Government
is taking, then they owe it to the farmers to tell them
that.
Don't you think it would have been a great deal fairer in
approaching this problem if you had first talked to the people
who represent the farming economy of this province — to the
Federation of Agriculture, to the B.C. Farmers' Institute, to
the Farmers' Union in the Province of British Columbia? Because
the B.C. Federation of Agriculture did approach the
Government of this province. They said the provincial
Government must lift the farmland freeze order of December 21,
1972, and replace it with legislation decreeing that future
sales of farmland will take place unencumbered by government
regulation, unless the land is to be converted to non-farm
use.
In instances where farm land would otherwise be sold for
non-farm use, the provincial government would have the first
right of refusal to be the purchaser at fair market value at
the time of sale. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with
telling the people who are in the farming industry in this province, who have stuck to their job through many
questionable years of financial return in the hope that the
appreciation in value of their farm land would eventually put
them in a position that they could sell and retire comfortably
for the rest of their lives — aren't they entitled to the same
benefits as everyone else in the economy of the Province of
British Columbia?
This is all that they're asking for. They're asking for a
right to remain farmers as long as they wish to farm. They're
asking for the Government to take into consideration that, in
their senior years when they wish to retire, they'll pay them
fair market value for the land, take them out of farming and
lease it back to someone else of a younger age who wants to develop and operate that farm as farm land — or retain it as
park land, if that happens to be the situation at that
particular time.
Certainly there's nothing wrong with that. It's a worthwhile
objective and one that could have been very easily worked out
by the Government of this province had they made up their minds
to do something besides pass an order-in-council.
A short time ago a controversy arose between the Hon.
Premier and the federal environmental Minister, the Hon. Jack
Davis, concerning a port development in British Columbia. Of
course that controversy has not yet been completed, because
there's still much talk about the port of Prince Rupert and a
proposed port at Squamish. But the information that I gathered
from the papers seemed to go something like this: "What price
would we pay if there was ecological damage — or was it
possible to develop both sites with a minimum of interference
to marine life in the harbour area? Which port would provide
the best route to transport mineral, coal and forest products
to market, particularly with reference to those products coming
from the north and north-central part of the Province of
British Columbia? What should be the total transportation
concept for the north and western
section of British
Columbia?"
From the start, the proposed coal development by coalition
mining on the Sukunka River became a focal point. Should the
coal from that particular development be hauled to Prince
Rupert by B.C. Railway to Prince George and then by the CN to
Rupert, or should it be hauled by B.C. Railway all the way to
the Port of Squamish?
From the start, the verbal battle raged and the two main
contestants became so busy throwing up smoke screens for one
reason or another, — and for reasons best known to themselves — that I think the most important consideration of all was
bypassed. The most important question is not which port the
coal should be delivered to because, if you analyse the markets
presently being investigated by coalition mining, it becomes
obvious that the final destination for the greatest percentage
of their intended produc-
[ Page 27 ]
tion is Europe.
If you take into consideration the millions of dollars of
capital the taxpayers of this province have invested in a
provincially owned and operated railway; if you realize that
the distance from the source of the coal to tidewater is almost
identical in mileage whether it goes to Prince Rupert or
Squamish as a final destination within this province; if you
consider that the secondary market for Sukunka coal is Japan;
then it must be obvious that the practical solution will be to
deliver that coal destined for Europe by B.C. Railway to
Squamish — although the Premier today has said that there will
be no development at Squamish. The economics involved indicate
to me that the balance of the production destined for Japanese
markets will, in all likelihood, be delivered to the Prince
Rupert port.
Now if it is your intention to stand firm on the suggestion
that there will be no port development at Squamish, at least
give consideration to a like development somewhere in the Howe
Sound area, because this is where the coal should go.
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. SMITH: I understand it's Britannia.
AN HON. MEMBER: Over my dead body you will. (Laughter).
MR. SMITH: There seems to be some discussion as to whether
that is even a good idea.
But in my opinion, really, when you're talking about this
whole matter of delivery of coal from the Peace River country,
the $64 question does not involve port facilities at all. The
$64 question is this: will coalition mining, or for that matter
any other mining company interested in a potential new
development in the Province of British Columbia, proceed with
their plans in view of the NDP policy to extract ever larger
royalties from the mining industry and to tax them heavier than
they have ever been taxed before?
If this is the intent, as has been suggested by the Hon.
Premier and Members of the cabinet, then instead of creating
jobs in the Province of British Columbia, instead of new mines
opening up, instead of those that are presently borderline
operations being able to continue and employ people gainfully,
we'll have a position where the unemployment rate — that we know
today is alarming — will be far greater in a month's time or
two months' time than even presently.
The last report we had showed the unemployment rate in
British Columbia to be over 8 per cent. It's very likely to
approach 10 percent before very many days are out and another
report is delivered to us. It's interesting to note that two
years ago, at a time when unemployment was not nearly as critical as it is now, the
B.C. Federation of Labour chose the opening day of the session
to invade the parliament buildings to bring forcefully to the
attention of the Government the plight of those people that are
unemployed.
What is the B.C. Federation of Labour saying today — and
more important, what is the Government of the Province of
British Columbia saying today — about the unemployment in this
province?
If we look at reports — and I refer specifically to the
report recently published by the Economic Council — we will
find that they suggest, instead of increasing taxes in the
economy at the present time, we should be decreasing them. The
council makes three important points: first, that contrary to
popular belief, tax increases are actually a cause of inflation — and this is taken from the Vancouver Sun , January 22, 1973;
second, that even with the present rates of taxation, because
of the progressive nature of our tax system and rising incomes,
a share of all levels of government in Canada's gross national
product will rise to nearly 40 per cent by 1980; finally, that
in my opinion — and this is the opinion of the writer — the
government sector should reduce both direct and indirect taxes
or, if this is not possible, at least maintain them at the
present level.
If you refer to the 1971 economic study on mining, produced
by Price, Waterhouse, a study that contains hard facts
objectively presented by competent accountants, you will get a
summary of what is happening in just one of the basic resource
industries of our province — and that is the mining
industry.
The report indicates that between the period of 1962 and
1971 we attracted almost $2 billion in investment capital into
this province in the mining industry; that the net inflow in
1962 was $40 million; in 1971 it had increased to $465
million.
Of the $2 billion of capital that was introduced, it is
interesting to note that $435 million came from equity capital
raised within the province on shares that were sold by the
stock exchanges, that $863 million came from loan capital, and
that $697 million came from capital internally generated by
plowing profits back into the businesses.
Now of that somebody may say, "Aha! Loan capital. It all
came from the United States. The Americans are buying out our
own country again." But let me tell you the facts. Fifty per
cent of the loan capital came from B.C. and the rest of Canada.
Forty per cent did come from the United States and 10 per cent
from other countries, particularly Japan. But it is estimated,
Mr. Speaker, that the net investment in 1973 will go down from
$465 million in 1971 to an estimated $50 million in 1973. What
will B.C. do to replace this lost investment? I think this is a
question that the government of this province should be
occupying themselves with right now. Because if there was ever
a time when you need to
[ Page 28 ]
give the public confidence, it is now.
AN HON. MEMBER: Put it to a committee.
MR. SMITH: Put it to a committee? This is a good way of not
making a decision, of allowing things to go along and perhaps
have a worse unemployment situation than we have today. That
was never the Socred way, and you know it, Mr. Member.
AN HON. MEMBER: What of the Glenshiel Hotel?
MR. SMITH: It is interesting to note that in 1971, through
the purchases of material, supplies, machinery, services, and
transportation, the mining industry invested $551 million in
the Province of British Columbia. In the same year, 1971, they
paid out $163 million in wages, with an average wage of $11,000
per employee. Then in 1970 they paid $79 million in provincial,
municipal and federal tax. Then in 1971 they paid $76 million
to provincial, municipal and federal tax authorities. It is
also interesting to note that of the 22 major mining companies
operating in the province in 1971, 50 percent, Mr. Speaker, and
that is a point worth reiterating — 50 per cent failed to make
a profit and if you take the across the board situation, the
return on net assets employed in 1971 was minus 1.1 per cent.
Here we have the Government of the day suggesting that the
mining industry is to be subjected to increased taxes, to
higher royalties, to impairment of their titles to mining
lands. No wonder there is a great feeling of insecurity within
the industry. No wonder the people are retrenching instead of
broadening their operations in the Province of British
Columbia.
In
summary, Mr. Speaker, it's very apparent that if we go on
the record of the NDP Government, there are many things that
disturb people of this province — that they have not enhanced
the investment climate in this province — that you are scaring
investment away — that instead of creating a better employment
situation within the province the situation is degenerating and
the employment opportunities will become less each day that you
are in office. So far it has been your decision to amalgamate
property without consent of the property owners. You set up a
land freeze by order-in-council without consultation. It would
seem that you are determined to eliminate private ownership;
that you have used patronage in placing orders for B.C. Hydro
buses without calling tenders — something you said that you
would never do. That even in property deals some of the private
Members have a free wheeling attitude towards property deals,
particularly in the Vancouver, area. You. want it named? We all
know who made a rip-off profit in the Vancouver area on the
sale….
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. SMITH: Not a rip-off? The very man who sat on this side
of the House and accused everyone that he could think of
rip-offs, was a man that at this time last year — at about the
time that we are presently in this session — was negotiating a
handsome profit for himself on the sale of property in the
Vancouver area. And if that's not a rip-off, Mr. Speaker, then
I don't know what is.
You have done your best to destroy the confidence of the
public. You've done your best to scare investment capital
away. You've done nothing to promote confidence, to promote
growth and prosperity in the province. In the words of the
mover of the throne speech for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — Friday afternoon. He said that you came into office in an
economically sound province and he was correct. Why then have
you done everything that you could to suppress the very things
that have made this province successful over a period of 20
years? Why then is your attitude the way it is toward creating
opportunities for people to earn a gainful living in the
Province of British Columbia? Why do you suppress the very
things that will create prosperity in the province and increase
the jobs that are available to people when they badly need
jobs? The only thing I can see is that your whole attitude is
to suppress these things so that these people will not have the
opportunity that they would have had in prior years.
It would seem to me that the whole attitude of the NDP
Government, as we have seen it expressed by releases from the
offices of the Ministers, is negative towards growth in the
Province of British Columbia. It is not concerned with
producing jobs. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation
in moving the following amendment to the message from His
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor; that the motion in reply to the
opening speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended
by adding the words: "But this House regrets that the speech of
His Honour fails to provide any adequate proposals to meet the
critical state of unemployment in the province affecting many
thousands of our citizens and their families. And it fails to
deal with the impact of widespread unemployment upon the social
and economic life of the province." Moved by myself and
seconded by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan. (Mrs.
Jordan).
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member await the examination of
the motion. Yes, would the Hon. Member who seconded proceed?
The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, as I rise to
second this motion, I would like
[ Page 29 ]
first to also extend my welcome, and it looks as if a
farewell to the students from Puget Sound. We are very pleased
to have you in British Columbia. Our family, as you know, Mr.
Speaker, had the privilege and pleasure of living in the United
States and gaining some of our training there for five years,
and we feel a very warm feeling towards the American
people.
In speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker, I think that it
would be very proper to recall that a similar motion was made
in this House in 1971. It was made by the then Leader of the
Opposition, who is the Premier of this province today. After
the Speaker then ruled the motion out of order, and we thank
you for accepting this motion, the Speaker then advised the
then Leader of the Opposition and the now Premier of this
province that he would have an opportunity to bring up the
subject at the earliest possible date, and told him when it
would be. Did that man who is now Premier of this province
follow through with his concern? He did not, Mr. Speaker. He
did not follow through in 1971, the earliest time for
introducing his amendment he chose in January, on the 26th day,
four days later. That was his concern for the unemployed in
British Columbia. Those were then considered political tactics
and we have moved this motion because we feel that he is using
political tactics today. It was not a dedicated motion of
non-confidence. It was merely a plaything. At that time, Mr.
Speaker, the employment was under 6.5 percent and it was rank
hypocrisy on the part of the now Premier of this province.
The unemployment picture today….
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that is going beyond the
parliamentary usage to accuse any other member of rank
hypocrisy and I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that
statement, please.
MRS. JORDAN: I'll withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, at your wish and
suggest that it could almost be interpreted as rank
hypocrisy.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you can't say it indirectly if you
can't say it directly and May is very clear on that point. It
is ruled out of order.
MRS. JORDAN: The semantics don't matter. It is that Premier
that uses the semantics. We're concerned with facts. The facts
are that unemployment in December of 1971 was 6.7 per cent and
in December 1973, and the latest figure up to today is 8.3 per
cent.
We consider that it is a matter of urgent consideration,
There is every indication to suggest that these figures will
rise to an all time high in the Province of British Columbia in
the next month. Yet, Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne
which we are moving to amend, there was not one word of
concern, not one word of reference to this crisis that is mounting in British Columbia.
We listened to some very eloquent and very fine speeches in
this House on Friday but there was no word of this crisis. It's
as if they have been stifled and the Premier has his head in
the sand and thinks it's going away.
If another Government was in office in British Columbia and
the unemployment figures were at 8.3, the militant union
leaders who instigated riots and sit-ins when the figure was
considerably less would be encouraging their workers to riot
outside this Legislature. We can only assume that they had
other things to do last Thursday, perhaps even having tea with
the new Government.
But we assure you, Mr. Speaker, if they have been bought off
by inside information or promises from this NDP government of
stronger positions for themselves, then I assure you, Mr.
Speaker, the working people of this province have not been
bought off, and this Social Credit Opposition has not been
bought off.
We want jobs for these people, and we want them now. Not
next week when the budget comes down, not next year, not when
the Premier decides that he's going to recognize this crisis.
But we and the working people of this province want jobs now.
And I assure you, the working people of this province want the
healthy, able worker off the welfare bandwagon, off the
Unemployment Insurance Commission boondoggle and out of the
worker's pocket. Welfare and the Unemployment Insurance
Commission are fine programmes for those who need it and when
it's properly administered. But the working people of this
province and Social Credit object to them becoming what the
Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr.
Levi) is making them in British Columbia — people on a
guaranteed holiday.
On August 31 of this year, the new NDP Government was
literally armed to the teeth with active Social Credit
programmes which had been built up over the years — programmes
creating jobs, ongoing work projects that created lasting jobs
in industry and within the government that put people to work,
doing work which was of lasting value not only to the people
themselves but to the province and, therefore, a good
investment for the taxpayer's dollar.
You were armed to the teeth with money in the treasury, by
your own admission, with which you could create new jobs, and
you were armed with active programmes and drafted legislation
to stimulate the private sector of the economy of this province
to help create jobs, and you were armed with people to put
those, who one can only kindly describe as being "shy of work," onto a job.
You had 40 years of your own socialist job-creating ideas.
But in four months you proved completely passive in any
job-creating programmes. Mr. Speaker, 40 years of NDP jobs
barren in four
[ Page 30 ]
months. The Premier of this province and all his party
members have stated that they have a no-growth policy for
British Columbia and you have proved that your Government is a
no-job Government.
At the first session which you billed as an emergency
session, you repealed vital legislation that protected the
public interest against this sort of problem and you repealed
vital legislation that controlled the inflation in the
government sector and gave you a wider use of dollars, a wider
amount of dollars through which you could create jobs for more
people, and a wider range of jobs. In so doing, you unleashed
spiraling inflation in British Columbia as well as a lack of
job creation potential.
In these four months the power the NDP have, by their own
admission and through the document that we are amending in
order to bring the attention to jobs — which could literally be
described as a sneeze from the throne — turned an open,
exciting, free, economically attractive, confident and
respected province into an uncertain, fear-ridden, economically
questionable shadow of its former self with a major job
crisis.
It can only be described — as I mentioned in the last
session — as Barrett's Blunderland, and I add this time, with a
jokester Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the use of personal insults against any other
Member is forbidden in this House and I wish we could retain that rule in this
new House. Would the Hon. Member please remember that? I will try to make both
sides of the House adhere to that rule.
MRS. JORDAN: The Premier with an exaggerated sense of
humour, Mr. Speaker, entertaining in the corridors, issuing
more in the corridors than there is to amend in this Speech
from the Throne, frightening small investors, frightening
farmers, generally frightening the people of this province who
put their confidence in his hands, and in whose hands lies the
future direction of their lives.
Since you took power, your positive legislation and
order-in-council legislation put more money in the hands of a
few and literally picked the pockets of the many. The low
income people, the pensioners, the unorganized — such as the
farmers. You picked the pockets of the untrained and you picked
the pockets of the young people of this province before they
even had an opportunity to work and put some money in them.
It is because the NDP "no-work" philosophy has denied the youth of British
Columbia the opportunity to get good, interesting, and a wide variety of jobs
in an expanding economy. Your policy or your lack of policy has really fired
more people than it has hired and your land freeze has created a job freeze
in agriculture and in secondary manufacturing of agricultural products.
Tell me, Mr. Speaker, what farmer is going to dig down into
his small cash reserve or his credit and hire workers when his
assets have been frozen, when his pension has been frozen, when
his land has been frozen, and when his very ability to make a
living has been frozen. Mr. Speaker, that Minister who holds
one of the most important portfolios in this province spelled
out the philosophy of this Government when he said: "We look
upon running a Government like running a popcorn stand," when
he said: "We look upon running a Government like running a
popcorn stand," Government like popcorn stands and you
think the unemployed of this province are nothing but popcorn.
We will not stand for this, Mr. Minister.
I ask you again, Mr. Speaker, what young person will go into
agriculture when the actions of the NDP government at this
moment offer him or her, at best, a less than welfare income
and virtually make him a serf of the land? It shouldn't be
surprising because if you read through Hansard the Hon.
Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young) did describe
the NDP philosophy in the last session when she said, "We are
going to teach people to work for the love of working. We think
people ought to learn that to give through work is better than
to receive," and on and on. It is interesting that she
happens to lie very close to one of the groups in British
Columbia that through pressure have gained a good deal higher — in fact, about 100 times higher — than the farmers of this
province who work the land.
The Premier and the NDP Government have constantly shown
themselves to be financially immature. Two of your
orders-in-council have confiscated property rights, your
boundary extension policy has crushed the rights of the
individual people in our communities and your loose attitude
toward the sanctity of contracts between government and
investor has cut at the core of the free, individual society
and literally stifled the opportunity for job-creation in the
private sector.
This ham-handed approach, through you, Mr. Speaker, of the
Premier — this ham-handed and steel-heeled approach to
individual rights and the sanctity of contract is alarming. It
has spread a cloud of concern over the investment markets and
all other areas where jobs are created in this province. It
exemplifies the emotional hang-up that we stated before that
the Premier has — that all profit is evil, that all profit is
dirty, that all profit is something that should be done away
with. In fact, we've even had one of his Ministers, the Hon.
Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr.
Levi) who came to this province because the systems that he is
now damning provided him with the opportunity to gain an
education and to earn a good living.
Its democratic approach in fact provided him with the
opportunity to sit in this House, and he has
[ Page 31 ]
turned around and said we will destroy this system, we will
obliterate any traces of free enterprise and capitalism.
The Premier lets these statements stand unanswered. The
Premier not only unaware of the problem of jobs for people in
this province seems to be unaware that while capital is fleeing
from British Columbia, other capital is sitting frozen by this
murky and uncertain business future that the NDP has created.
And these aren't big lumps of capital, Mr. Premier, these are
small businesses, small farmers, small people in service
industries, families — 12, 15, 20 jobs, some go up to 50 and
100. In the North Okanagan alone 47 developments, from
apartment buildings to small industries and the expansion of
present small industries, all good clean industries, all good
employment creating industries, are either cancelled
permanently or are in the deep freeze.
Mr. Premier, if you won't listen to us, and you won't listen
to the people of British Columbia, just go over to Vancouver
and look at the burnpers on some of the cars. They say: "When
you take your capital and your possessions to Alberta, don't
forget to turn out the lights." Everybody seems to be aware of
this crisis and this problem but you, Mr. Premier, through you,
Mr. Speaker. I personally know of at least 100 larger projects
around the Province of British Columbia this is just myself, I
am just one member out of 55 that have been permanently
cancelled. The capital has gone, or they're very much in the
deep freeze because of the uncertainty that this Government has
created. And all of these undertakings would have created jobs
at this time when we need them desperately.
HON. MR. BARRETT : Will you table the list of 100?
MRS. JORDAN: No, but I'll ask you something, Mr. Premier,
through you, Mr. Speaker. When you said last Fall, "We are not
interested in little jobs," did you imply we're not
interested in little people? We're not interested in 15 or 20
jobs, and little businesses, little service industries, we're
interested in big projects that create hundreds of jobs. And
that's all right, Mr. Speaker, if that's the philosophy of the
Premier and his cabinet Members. I'm sure it's not the
philosophy of all the private Members that sit there. But if
that is your philosophy and you do not want small businesses in
British Columbia, small businesses that are solely owned by
British Columbians — that's what the people bought in the last
election. But we ask you where are the big jobs?
Where in the Speech from the Throne — this supposed document
of philosophy and thrust for British Columbia — is there one
word about where you are really going to create jobs? Where are
the statements which would calm down the fears of the private sector, and encourage them to get on with their work
creating plans and interests, and to start these service
industries, start new production, expand production, build
houses — houses for people to live in, building of houses that
create local jobs for local people? Where are your efforts to
restore confidence in the future economy of British Columbia?
Where are your efforts to assure markets for the products of
the farmers whose land livelihood and assets and pension you
have frozen? Where are the statements of philosophy which would
stimulate new ideas from a very exciting and talented
people?
Mr. Speaker, before going on, I'd like to talk a little bit
more about this dreadful situation with regard to the freezing
of land and the freezing of job opportunities on the land.
The methods that this Government has used to destroy the job
creating potential of agriculture and private ownership of land
are clear. I would like to read you one person's opinion:
"Rezone the land — residential sub-divisions become farms, farms become
parks, industrial land becomes low rental housing zones. In all cases the land
loses value and the owner must unload it at a loss. These are the methods that
the NDP Government use. Raise the assessments artificially and force the owners
to sell when they cannot afford to pay their taxes. With lots of land on the
market at once, all prices must be reduced. Be sure to blame the rising assessments
on 'land speculators', especially foreigners. That way the public will believe
for awhile that it is somebody else's land."
Talk grandiosely about the need
for planning, Mr. Premier. Regulation and control through your innocent Minister
of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), who admitted that he didn't know the
difference between zoning and planning. I hope you've caught up with it now,
Mr. Minister. It's amazing how many people will fall for the idea that by some
mysterious process, people who are individually incapable of the right decisions
can collectively overcome their mental and moral handicaps. Most people will
think that they are somehow involved in the decision making and will not realize
in time that it is an elite of backroom government. These are the methods used
by this government to create jobs, through land. But they all spell out one
thing, Mr. Speaker — the obliteration of jobs through the land, the obliteration
of private ownership and fair return for one's efforts and one's holdings. Because
they spell out expropriation without compensation.
Another thing that they don't wish to discuss is the fact — although we may well see it in the bill of rights, but
certainly they have not spelled it out now — of life, liberty
and property. And the fact that property is the guarantor of
the first two — they don't acknowledge common law. Life, for
health and
[ Page 32 ]
care, to cater to the family, to provide for the family, and
to provide jobs. Liberty and equality, through their ability to
be independent and work for themselves, and receive a fair
remuneration. And property, which is their pension, and their
asset. This government doesn't recognize a very simple little
homily that a man's home is his castle.
What do we see from other Members of this NDP Government as
to what their philosophy is? I would suggest that the Premier
didn't put this philosophy in the Speech from the Throne, which
we are amending, because he is afraid to. They suggest that
they will abolish all private land holdings in British Columbia
and I ask you, Mr. Premier, who is next? You've picked on the
disorganized, unorganized, down to earth farmer; you know that
he's a mere 11 per cent of the population.
You've picked a motherhood issue and the story is not
getting through to the people in the cities and the
metropolitan area. Everyone is for green belts and the
preservation of green lands and jobs created through this,
because it is motherhood. But I certainly don't notice in the
area of motherhood that 1 per cent of the women of British
Columbia are offering to produce all the babies. And neither
should 11 per cent of the population who are in agriculture be
asked to make the sacrifice that this Government has asked of
them. Or be asked to undergo fear — fear in British Columbia!
For the first time in out history, families are afraid and they
are afraid of their government.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MRS. JORDAN: Would you care to put that comment on the
Hansard Madam Member, pardon me, Ms. Member? And if that
private Member, and other Members of that Government think this
is what that Member said, which is a good down to earth farm
comment, then get out of your Vancouver offices, and get out of
this Legislature, and go out and talk to the people.
I'd like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, what the B.C.
Federation of Agriculture said in speaking for all the farmers
of this province — and if the Minister thinks that they don't
represent the farmers of this province, then he'd better get
out too: "The general public's desire to prevent the industrial
and residential development of our farmland has made clear to
all of us…." Pardon me, I've got the wrong statement. I was
so disturbed by the callous, inhumane, attitude of Ms. Member
in relation to the rights of the farming community. Anyone who
is concerned would be upset.
AN HON. MEMBER: The Member from where? Which one?
MRS. JORDAN: The Hon. lady Member for Vancouver-Little
Mountain. (Ms. P.F. Young) Secretary of a well known
organization. Anyway, I won't quote, I'll tell you, because
I've been to all the meetings. That Minister of Agriculture
(Hon. Mr. Stupich) should be able to tell you. There isn't one
farmer, one farm family, in British Columbia who does not want
to see agricultural lands preserved — who does not want to see
green belts, green areas, natural areas. But what they object
to is that they are being asked to do it all.
As early as January 10, 1973 the B.C. Federation of
Agriculture went to the cabinet. I will quote what they said.
"The federation welcomes the announcement by the Hon. Minister
of Agriculture that he is going to preserve green belts and
agricultural land and that we would be called in to review the
draft legislation with him. Farmers expect this consideration,
keeping in mind that they own the land that the Minister is
talking about. Farmers expect to have a meaningful role in
negotiating with the Government for a settlement on this issue
on a basis that adequate compensation for agriculture will
further the general public's interest."
This is how they feel. That was on December 18, the very day
a devastating order-in-council came out. Their reaction and
concern was that the Ministers in that cabinet meeting didn't
listen and many of them, as has been said publicly, walked out
of that meeting. They didn't even excuse themselves….
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Order-in-council
Government.
MRS. JORDAN: Not only an order-in-council Government, but a
Government that will not listen.
Following the disturbing order-in-council of December 18,
these people made representation to the Hon. Minister of
Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), again without any fanfare — no
riots. They were concerned. And he asked them again to meet his
commitment to discuss the moves that the Government was going
to make with them before he made it. They tried to explain to
this Government that not only was there a great job-loss area
here, but the complexities of what the Government was trying to
do were unbelievable.
From his own statements and the statements of those of the Premier, it became
evident that they did not understand what they were doing, the complexities
involved, nor the incredible financial commitment that these individual farmers
have made — not only in their land and their machinery and their homes and the
years that they haven't received a sufficient income, but in water systems…
millions and millions of dollars. The area I represent has a water system for
which they are responsible, in cooperation with the provincial and federal
govern-
[ Page 33 ]
ments. Their responsibility is $3.5 million amongst our farming community.
If you think, Madam Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain
(Ms. P.F. Young), that they are not worried, you'd better sit
up and take another think. How would you like to be one of
about 50 people responsible for $3 million for a water system
to irrigate your land — and a sub-welfare income — and then
have your land frozen, your pension frozen, your assets
frozen?
You're closely aligned with the union, a very powerful union
in this province, and I assure you that union would not accept
those terms. No negotiation? — freezing of your pension assets? —
freezing of your capital assets? — freezing of your
income-earning ability? The orders-in-council passed by this
Government make Bill 33 look like child's play, or popcorn, as
that Minister would say.
But even then, after they went to the Minister to explain
their problems, to ask him to listen, he assured them that he
would listen — that there would be discussion.
And what happened? On January 18 an order-in-council came out
from this Government that could do nothing but literally shock
any lawyer, any thinking citizen, and certainly any farmer. It
is unbelievable. It completely disregarded anything that these
people had said to the Minister and to the cabinet committee.
It literally tied them into an intolerable situation. And it
has some other very serious implications. I might add that they
used a
section of
an Act which, two sessions ago when they were
in the Opposition, they said had no teeth in it.
When we used
section 6 of the Environmental Act, we had
public hearings before it was used, and the public was invited
to make the decision. This order was done without public
hearings. Where are the public hearings today, Mr. Speaker?
Where is the involvement of the public? Where is the farmer's
voice in this?
And the Press at this time should consider itself with great
embarrassment because it hasn't even registered, with the
exception of one member of the Press or media, exactly what is
going on in this province. And they have made no effort to put
the other side of the story.
Along with this order-in-council the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) sent out a letter to all
municipalities. He said, "I am enclosing a copy of
order-in-council No. 157-73, approved by the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-council under the Environment and
Land Use Act ."
And he says — and I would underline this — "I think that you
will find the meaning clear." And the meaning is very clear,
Mr. Speaker, because it literally destroys all local government
in British Columbia — water districts, sewer districts,
municipal councils and regional districts. It can be described
as nothing less than an insulting approach by order-in-council. There was no
discussion. The only discussion that the people had was a
discussion with a Minister and a cabinet that would not listen,
and says, "No."
Mr. Speaker, another
section of that order-incouncil has put
all the lands in British Columbia in deepfreeze. The only reply
that we get from the Government and the only thing that we get
from the media out of the agricultural meeting is, "These
people are all land speculators." A member of the NDP said, "A
farmer is a farmer until he wants to sell his land and then he
becomes a swashbuckling land speculator."
How naive can you be? There are cases all over British
Columbia — and certainly I have them in the area that I have
the honour to represent — of people who are very elderly. There
are over 50 per cent of the people in agriculture today who own
the land, who have worked the land, over 50 years of age.
I'll give you one example in our area of a family that came
over after the war. There are all the traditional very sad
features of their life, which I won't go into, including the
baby son dying in the mother's arms in a bombing raid. They
came to British Columbia with nothing. They rented a little
house in Vernon, and there was a patch of ground at the back.
He worked at anything he could get and she cleaned homes, and
they grew beans in that back garden, Mr. Speaker. And they
would harvest those beans — it was just a small amount — and
take them to the local cannery.
This is the story of their life. Slowly they worked and
worked and worked, and they now own 30 acres of agricultural
land. And you would call it, Mr. Speaker, — the Premier would
call it — prime agricultural land. But it wasn't prime when
they bought it. They made it prime by working it, by
understanding what they were doing with the land.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MRS. JORDAN: You know, Mr. Minister of Public Works (Hon.
Mr. Hartley), if your mind kept up to your lips you'd be a
genius.
These people are in their later years and they want to
retire. He has kidney problems and she doesn't want to work.
Their land was up for sale. And you know, somebody was going to
buy it, Mr. Speaker, and it wasn't a speculator. And the lips
over there — it wasn't going to be subdivided. Another farmer
was going to buy it. And their sale is frozen. The option is
now dropped.
Interjection by some Hon. Members.
MRS. JORDAN: Oh yes it is. If you say no, you go and tell
them it isn't. Because that's one of the other things that's
concerning the farmers. There have
[ Page 34 ]
been some exceptions made and they want to know why, who and
when.
But the point is, the option is dropped. They want to
retire. They have ill health. And the people that were going
to buy it have gone to Alberta. He now has no chance to sell
his land until this whole area is cleared up — this cloud is
removed.
I'm just amazed, Mr. Speaker. All the city slicker,
black-top farmers and the lawyers over there know everything
that's going on. Boy, that lawyer over there is a fine example
of why there shouldn't be many lawyers in a Legislature. It's
not the legal technicalities, Mr. Speaker. It is the
job-creating potential of this land, and the fact that these
human beings are being threatened and having their possessions
and their freedom steel-heeled, confiscated by this
Government.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and give you any number of
examples but I hope your Minister will bring it up in your
caucus. I hope that your Minister will cause that Government to
take a long, hard, second look at what they've done.
Mr. Speaker, a
section of this order that I would like to
read.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, if you did more speaking through
the Speech from the Throne and less in the corridors and
claptrap across this House, we wouldn't be having to debate
this amendment right now.
MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure you're not referring to me, Hon.
Member.
Interruption.
MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. Members in the gallery
are not permitted to debate in this House. Order!
The House took recess.
The House resumed at 4:20 p.m.; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Member proceed.
MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think we
have all been very distressed by what happened in the House and
I would just say for those who think that that I am not trying
to tell this House how concerned the people of British Columbia
are — that man is a farmer and I've never seen him in my life
before and I doubt that I'll ever see him again.
HON. MEMBERS: Get off it! Get off it!
MRS. JORDAN: I would just like to make one more reference to
order-in-council….
MR. CHABOT: The truth hurts.
MR. SPEAKER: Order.
MRS. JORDAN: Yes, this is not a court room, Mr. Speaker,
this is a Legislature. A people's forum where the people's
concerns and problems must be aired no matter how painful it is
to those who clang and cling for power.
I would like to mention one more point in this
order-in-council which was shocking and of great concern to the
farmers of this province. It is on the last page and it says:
"Where a person having any interest in farmland is aggrieved by
any action taken under authority of this order he may appeal to
the Environment and Land Use Committee who may hear the appeal
and vary, amend, rescind or confirm the action." It is very
interesting that the same court that made the order hears the
appeal. This literally denies the rights under British justice
and I'm sure the Member across the way is aware of that — it
leaves the avenue open and it's of great concern because of
the actions of this Government since it's been in office, for
patronage and special favours. It is hypocritical because it
offends all fair competition, all fair reward and all fair and
reasonable use of one's lands and assets. It is expropriation
by order-in-council and it is a fear-inducing document to the
people who are the victims.
Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, in this Speech from
the Throne there were loud, loud noises made about the creation
of 100 jobs in the civil service as the big thrust. The Premier
in this province has stated that the NDP has a no-growth policy
and as I said before, he has proved that he has a no-job
policy. The NDP seems to think that migration to British
Columbia is a political myth. Mr. Speaker, you can talk about a
no-growth policy, you can talk about all these great ideas, but
as I say, you've got to produce them. To suggest with no growth
that there is not going to be migration to British Columbia is
utterly ridiculous and I would like to just review a few of the
facts over the last three decades. In the last three decades
British Columbia has had a growth increase in population above
the national average.
In the 1940's B.C. was 3.5 per cent, Canada 1.9. In the
Fifties British Columbia was 3.5, Canada 2.7. And in the 1960's
British Columbia 3, Canada 1.8. Mr. Speaker, migration to
British Columbia is not a political myth. It is a fact. From
1950 to 1970, 59 per cent of the increased population of
British Columbia — 586,000 people — came to British Columbia
from elsewhere. Of the 100 per cent, 41 per cent or 414,000 new
population between the years of 1950 and 1970 were born in British
[ Page 35 ]
Columbia.
In practical terms of governing a province and making a
policy, you must recognize that this course of events has taken
place and will take place. If you review the figures, Mr.
Speaker — which I won't go into now because of time — you'll
find that this migration was not necessarily concentrated in
the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island areas. It was
largely scattered around the province. In the interior, the
Kootenays, the northern central area and the northern part of
the province. These people, Mr. Speaker, are not going to go
away. They've got to have jobs. They have to have power. They
have to have services and this all requires thrust,
stimulation, encouragement, confidence or whatever you want to
call it from this Government.
I would predict when one looks at these figures, when one
looks at these figures, when the Minister of Payout — as one
must now call the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social
Improvement — raises the benefits to able non-workers, that not
only will the migration to British Columbia rise above the
projection, but it will attract a greater share of the people
who have no intention of working and who will get to know where
the gravy train in Canada is. The only way the Premier of this
province can adopt a no-growth policy is to literally put up
gates on the Rocky Mountains. I would suggest that that hardly
makes us strong members of Confederation or is the type of
Canadianism we want. I would suggest also in all fairness to
him that that is not the Premier's intention.
But the Premier does know that British Columbia has had an
accelerated migration of people because during the Social
Credit government British Columbia became an exciting and
lively climate in which to live. It has stimulating people with
initiative and it had a government….
AN HON. MEMBER: And high unemployment.
MRS. JORDAN: 6.3 is not bad compared to 8.3.
MR. CHABOT: What've you got now?
MRS. JORDAN: Because people knew that in British Columbia
they could be and have an opportunity to be free. To expand
their thinking, to be individuals and to have a selection of
jobs in remunerative areas.
Mr. Speaker, that Speech from the Throne, that took 40 years
for the NDP to write and took seven minutes for His Honour to
read, shows no awareness of the natural migration. Where it
will grow. No plans for growth. No plans for power and no plans
for jobs. The Premier also knows that the federal Liberal
Government has failed miserably to recognize that with positive
people will always come some non-workers. No one denies this. This does create social
problems. Our government was aware of it. The Premier knows it
and he knows that the Social Credit Government constantly
battled with Ottawa to recognize this. We would suggest and we
know he will that the Premier will continue this battle.
But, Mr. Speaker, he cannot introduce a no-growth, socialist
philosophy that discourages capital and productive people, that
discourages job creation, that drives away people with
initiative, and then cry to Ottawa that the problem is getting
worse and that Ottawa must solve this problem. I would suggest
with all due respect that the Liberals may not be very bright
but they're brighter than to buy that. If the Premier does not
want jobs and wants to introduce a "lazy-faire" attitude and
ethic in British Columbia, then that is his business. But he
must, Mr. Speaker — the Premier must show how it can be done.
And he must lead this province. He cannot become a hero to a
non-work ethic and weep because someone else won't pay for
it.
We move this motion because the Speech from the Throne was
barren of any statements to the high unemployment in British
Columbia and the resulting burden on welfare and unemployment
insurance which comes from the workers' pocket.
There can only be two startling reasons for this startling
omission. Either the Premier and his cabinet really don't know
what a serious problem there is, and they really don't have a
plan to combat that problem, and they really don't know how to
bring confidence back to the economic climate or, heaven
forbid, they are guilty of the most odorous and cynical form of
politics. In canceling the previous job creating programmes. In
canceling the jobs of people who co-ordinated those who don't
know how to look for a job or have problems in finding a job
with private industry. In canceling many of the other
programmes that were a partnership between private industry and
government to create jobs for people. And in not introducing
new policies and up until now allowing thousands to lose their
jobs, they have ignored the problem. They have ignored and are
ignoring the uncertainty, hardship and confusion for one of the
two reasons mentioned. If it is the latter and they say, "Wait
until the budget, and the budget will burst forth with all the
answers," then I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that neither
reason has any semblance to great honour.
Those Ministers across the way who increased their own
profits, should be hiding their faces in shame in light of that
unemployment figure today.
We on this side of the House and the working people in this
province demand that the Premier and his cabinet act on this
problem now. Stop playing politics with the jobless and the
resulting burden on the B.C. taxpayer. Or, if you don't know,
be honest about it and come out and say so. We will help you —
[ Page 36 ]
all the people in British Columbia will help you, you will
just make clear which it is you are doing.
We want to see you restore today the confidence of small
business to get on with job-creating projects and investments.
We want to see you dip into that bulging treasury and provide
cost-sharing programmes to create jobs for the semi-employable. We want you to legislate, to insist that those who are
able to work and do not want to work are put to work before
they receive the taxpayer's money. We want you to legislate to
insist that those who are able to work and want to work get a
fair return for their efforts, and that includes the farmers.
We want you to reactivate or bring in new job co-ordinating
programmes and reactivate the people who are now sitting in the
civil service waiting, waiting, waiting for that word to go
ahead. We want you to reactivate and to instigate programmes in
highways, in parks and recreation, in the health department — to provide legislation as Social Credit has provided for such
things as on-the job training — pay half the salary for those
and see that the employer guarantees a long period of income in
return for the assistance.
The Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon.
Mr. Levi) has, I know — because I have seen many of them — hundreds of proposals on his desk outlining joint job
opportunities. And you know it, through you, Mr. Speaker. These
opportunities are put forth by some of your own very able
people and they combine efforts of the Government and private
industry. The employees are sitting on their hands waiting for
you to pass the word — to say, "Go ahead, boys. Put people to
work."
In many areas — and we will dig out figures to show it — the
unemployment roll was way down and the demands on welfare were
down. They are now up because these people are spending their
time revolving and recycling people through welfare, rather
than being able to continue with their job-creating
programmes.
Answer their letters, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.
Speaker. You know what they are. If you promise me today that
you will answer those letters and let them get these programmes
in forestry and in the lumber industry going with these
unemployed people on work, I will say no more about it. Will
you give us that commitment, through you, Mr. Speaker, to sign
those letters today and get these people to work — get your own
employees in a position where they can do their job and do
their best? Is there no answer from the Minister? Well, then we
say, Mr. Minister, get up off your comfortable chair and stop
spending your time preoccupied with neighbourhood pubs and get
on with this business of creating jobs for people who want to
work. Get on with rehabilitating people. Pubs are not the best
place to rehabilitate them. Sign those documents.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, we demand of the Premier that you stop laughing and shrugging your shoulders
and that the Premier of this province start being a prudent and
responsible manager of this province. That you stop destroying
the fiscal integrity of this province and that you stop the
gravy-training for the few that your Government has
started.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has proven that he does not
understand the fiscal policy of government itself and that it
is a prime factor producing the kind of economy that will
produce jobs. The Premier has proven that he is either unaware
of the current job crisis or that he is being what can be
described as less than charitable and playing politics. It is
with this in mind, Mr. Speaker, that we ask that you private
Members on that side of the House, to demonstrate their concern
and to demonstrate their awareness of the needs of the people
who elected them by supporting this amendment.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to them — take your
traditional roles as legislators seriously and inform the
Executive Council that you cannot accept an address from His
Honour that does not provide for an expansion of jobs in this
province — that does not even acknowledge that there is an
unemployment crisis in British Columbia. Take your courage in
hand and let the Premier know, because you must be concerned,
as we are concerned. Let the Premier know in no unmistakable
terms that you intend to carry out your duties as guardians of
the public interest and as watchdogs of this cabinet, which has
given no direction, no thrust to the people of British
Columbia. Come and join the concerned Members of this side of
the House and the public, who want to see in British Columbia
not a bankrupt, lethargic welfare state but a vital, confident
economy that will provide jobs for every able worker. Tell the
Premier that if he doesn't understand the need for jobs, you
do. And, through you, Mr. Speaker, tell him that you know how
to produce them. Let the Premier and his Ministers know that if
they are confused and tired after four months in office, to go
back to their jet-set holidays and vacations and to let you
people into the cabinet so that you can meet the needs of the
people of this province.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Attorney General weeps out and says,
"I didn't even get to Mexico." (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, I
wonder how many of the working people of this province could
afford to go to Vancouver for a holiday from the north, or
could afford to go to the State of Washington. I wonder how
many of the unemployed in this province could afford to go
anywhere.
If you think it has been pleasant complaining because you
couldn't go to Mexico for a winter vacation when the employed
people of this province
[ Page 37 ]
couldn't go to Mexico, then I suggest that we have a very
different idea of pleasantness.
But, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Members of the NDP
Party on the floor of this House and in speaking to this
amendment, I would say to you in all seriousness, let your
conscience be your guide. Let your constituents who speak to
you be your guide. When that division bell rings, stand in your
places and correct this incredible omission from the Speech
from the Throne. Then I say to the Hon. Members, through you,
Mr. Speaker, you will then show the people of British Columbia
that the Premier's arm-waving philosophy and jokes are not
enough. And that even if he doesn't, you do intend to produce
jobs and to earn your salary and your position in this
House.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia
will thank you for it as I thank you for this time.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria and I would
remind the Hon. Members we are speaking solely to the amendment
henceforward.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for
that caution. I wondered whether it had been forgotten.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I must point out to the Hon. Member that
the seconder is permitted to deal at large as well as upon the
amendment.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right, Mr. Speaker. I am fully
aware of that. Thank you very much, though, for reminding me of
it. I will restrict myself to this amendment of the motion and
I will not, therefore, be giving the speech which I had
prepared for this. Except perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could beg the
indulgence of the House as it is the first time I am speaking,
simply to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address
and reply for their fine speeches. I thought they did a good
job and I trust that we will be hearing much more from them in
future debates. I am sure they have a great deal to contribute,
as shown by their speeches yesterday.
Having said that, I will return to the amendment to the
motion, which we in this party feel we have no option but to
support, Mr. Speaker. The amendment reads, "This House regrets
that the speech of His Honour fails to provide any adequate
proposals to meet the critical state of unemployment in the
province affecting many thousands of our citizens and their
families and fails to deal with the impact of widespread
unemployment upon the social and economic life of the
province." We feel that it has been a great disappointment to
us that since this Government took power, despite the rather
brave talk in some of their election material, some of which I
have here — "Dave Barrett, A Message to the People; new development needed; too many jobs are being lost" — I am
quoting, Sir, from the NDP campaign material. Despite that,
despite a mini-session of the Legislature which we had last
October when we heard time after time from Government Ministers
and Government Members, "Give us time, we need more time to do
these things. You can't rush us. We've only just taken
office."
Despite all that, we have waited and we have waited and we
have waited and we have not yet seen any positive programmes to
deal with the problem of unemployment in this province.
First, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should outline what is the
problem.
I have here a great headline, "B.C. unemployment reaches 8.3
per cent." By contrast in other provinces we have unemployment
remaining the same in the Province of Quebec, not going up in
the period immediately prior to this. We have unemployment
going down from 5.2 to 5 per cent in the Province of Ontario.
And we have a slight reduction in the 4.9 to 5.2. And we have a
slight reduction in the Maritimes. British Columbia is the one
area of all of Canada which has had this substantial increase
and I think that for us in this Legislature not to deal with
this matter, would be very grave indeed. And it is with that
reason that I, Mr. Speaker, noted with surprise bordering on
incredulity the fact that the Speech From the Throne had
virtually no references to this.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention a statement made
by a former Leader of the Opposition sitting in this House now
as the Premier. He was speaking at 100 Mile House and I believe
this was in May of last year. I'm sorry I don't have the exact
date of the quote but I can certainly get it for you if
necessary. He said, "The B.C. Government is creating the best
trained pool of unemployed anywhere in the western world.
Provincial NDP leader David Barrett said here Tuesday night."
Correction, Dave Barrett, not David Barrett. He said, "A
Government with ideas and imagination could draw world
attention by putting young trained people to work on such
problems as rapid transit methods, electric powered
automobiles, to help solve the pollution crisis and reclamation
projects to boost tourism." Well, we've had a change of
government, we've had a number of months with this government
at the helm, and unemployment despite those brave words of
approximately 6 months ago has continued to soar.
I think we should start, Mr. Speaker, by looking at the
intentions of the Government again. I'm quoting again from the
then Leader of the Opposition, on January 26, 1971. I quote
from our own Hansard . It's an interesting quote, on page
70, and he says, "We have found the executive group that has
recently enjoyed a sunny vacation in southern climes" — How
times change, eh? — "has come to a serious unemployment
situation in the Province of British
[ Page 38 ]
Columbia and refused to participate in a debate as to what
this provincial government can do to alleviate unemployment."
It goes on to say, "it's all very well for the Members to get
up and blame Ottawa."
We have at that time a clear indication of his desire to
alleviate unemployment problems, a clear criticism of the
situation as it was then. But nothing since then has come out
from him, or his Ministers, which has done very much to
increase employment except of course his statement regarding
1,000 civil service jobs. Mr. Barrett went on to say at that
time, I quote his name, Mr. Speaker, because it's written down
here in front of me in Hansard . The now Premier went on
to say, "certainly an aggressive campaign should be waged
seeking industry, and I know that the competent, aggressive
Minister of Trade and Industrial Development with his fantastic
travelling expenses has been very busy producing jobs." That
was of course the previous Minister. The present Minister of
Trade and Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has only
had one trip to California, unlike his predecessor. He at that
time succeeded in closing up the office we had there which was
designed evidently to do precisely what the now Premier was
talking about two years ago. A very curious situation indeed — a difference perhaps which overcomes our Hon. friend from
Coquitlam when he moved from this side of the House to the
other. But he was talking about the need for an aggressive
campaign seeking industry. He said that this should be done by
the Minister of Industrial Development and we have the
performance so far by his own minister which is simply to close
down the one office there — the other is the tourist office — which is trying to do precisely what the Hon. Member was
talking about two years ago.
A curious reversal which has overcome the leader of the NDP
when he moved from this side of the House, to the other.
My Hon. friend to my left says that all he does is blame
Ottawa. Which again is reference to the earlier speech where he
says, Ottawa should not always be blamed.
What are the causes for this? There is no question we have a
problem. What are the causes, and what can we do about them?
There is, as I've mentioned earlier, the question of people
moving to this province. My ancestors moved to this province
years back, one at least well over a century ago. This is not a
new problem. This is not something which has suddenly descended
upon this province. It's been going on for over a century. It's
a problem we've had to live with in this province, year in and
year out and to use that excuse again simply doesn't wash. It
just cannot be accepted. It's not something that can justify an
unemployment rate of 8.3 per cent.
Other areas, we have civil service hiring. The Premier has
indicated in the throne speech that we will be hiring another 1,000 civil servants. We again, do
not object to this if these people are justified and there is
useful work for them to do. But we might point out that the
average annual increase in the civil service is approximately a
thousand jobs a year in any event. Indeed it went well higher
than that under the administration of the Hon. Member for South
Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) when he was Premier. And therefore
it really is no new thing or something which will deal with our
problem of 78,000 people unemployed. Hiring 1,000 civil
servants only reduces it to 77,000 unemployed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: In 20 years it is up 15,000.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In 20 years it went up to 15,000? Up by
15,000. It may, but I fail to find relevance of that figure for
here and now, for the people who are looking for work here and
now.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, no I'm sorry I said, "the average
was." It was approximately 1,000 and on one occasion at least,
in one year I believe it went up almost 2,000. I apologize to
the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) if I
didn't explain myself correctly. But the average has been
approximately 1,000 a year; it has been substantially larger
than that in at least one year. In actual fact the Speech from
the Throne is only an acceptance, if you like, of the
inevitable. It is not a new job creating policy of any
sort.
We had the figures and they came out, and instantly of
course the headline here again is, "Ottawa to blame — Barrett."
I don't think that's good enough in this province — just as
it was not good enough when the Hon. Member was Leader of the
Opposition (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and when he was criticizing the
former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) for doing precisely that. It
isn't good enough simply to say that it's another
jurisdiction's fault. That doesn't find jobs for people. It
doesn't explain why in this area, in this jurisdiction on the
West Coast of Canada the increase in jobless has been so
substantial while in another area it has been minor, it has
been declining, or it has stayed still as I indicated earlier
in my speech.
There are other quotes of his that I think are instructive
to look at this time. On August 3, 1971, "The Government must
lay out its plans to deal with unemployment, Opposition Leader
Dave Barrett stated…" et cetera, et cetera. Another quote,
from September 24, 1971. "NDP Leader David Barrett called
Wednesday for the Provincial Government to put $75 million into
a winter works programme in B.C. municipalities." And then it
goes on, during the
[ Page 39 ]
last election campaign Opposition Leader Dave Barrett, "Jobs
will be the most important election issue." Well, if it was the
most important election issue, Mr. Speaker, I'm amazed it
didn't come up in the fall session, the special session. But we
were charitable at that time because we realized that the
Government was new as they said, and they did need time. But if
it was the most important election issue in the Summer of 1972,
then why is it of such little importance that it's not even
mentioned in the throne speech here today.
The argument's been put forward by the Premier, that he's
reverting to traditional form of throne speech. Well I checked
all the recent Canadian throne speeches of the federal House. I
checked the British throne speech given by Her Majesty the
Queen at the last session and I have yet to find any support
for the curious statement that one does not put forward the
general thrust of one's economic policy in a throne speech
simply because a budget will be following. This is not a
tradition of British Parliamentary system. I suggest instead,
it has been used as an excuse because of the failure of the
Government to do anything in this area.
Why have we this problem? Why is this problem so acute on
the west coast and in British Columbia? First we have the
difficulty facing this province because of uncertainty. Now I
went into this once before in the mini session, in the fall
session, but obviously the problem still remains and I'm going
to have to deal with it again, at least briefly. We have
uncertainty in this province because the people who might
invest in this province, be they British Columbians or others,
do not know what the government's intentions are. Now it's true
that efforts have been made to downplay the damage done by the
Premier's statement to the financial writers of British
Columbia. But there is no question that now people are still
delaying investments in British Columbia. Or if they have an
option of putting investments in other provinces such as
Alberta they will choose Alberta.
It is not often that I quote, and I certainly don't quote
him approvingly; but it's not often I quote the Conservative
Leader, not unfortunately my friend to my left, but a gentleman
who is not in the gallery today. But I'm quoting from the
Toronto Daily Star of December 17, 1972.
AN HON. MEMBER: The president is here.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: By golly so he is. I would like to
welcome the President of the Conservative Association of
British Columbia. Peter Hyndman is. an excellent fellow and
only his politics are wrong. Nevertheless, the paper Toronto
Daily Star says "Conservative Leader, Derril Warren says there
is a danger"…. et cetera, et cetera, "of the socialist
menace being upon us." It goes on to say that he had warned clients — executives of five companies recently asked
for his advice about expanding or opening new operations in
British Columbia and he said, Mr. Warren said, "I sent them off
to Alberta."
AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Shame is right. Shame is right for a man….
Interjections by some Hon. Members.