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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1067 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Mortgage Brokers Act (Bill No. 109)

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 1067

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority Act (Bill No. 119) Mr. McGeer. Introduction and first reading

— 1067

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act (Bill

No. 111) Hon. Mr. Levi. Introduction and first reading — 1067

Oral Questions

Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Mr. Morrison — 1067

Flooding of Skagit Valley. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1067

Release of information. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1068

Labour-Management conference. Mr. Chabot — 1068

Report on B.C. Hydro finances. Mr. McGeer — 1069

Purchase of apples from China. Mr. Wallace — 1069

Amalgamation of Kamloops. Mr. Fraser — 1069

Government purchase of Ocean Falls. Mr. McClelland — 1069

Employment in B.C. Insurance industry. Mr. Gardom — 1070

Diphtheria toxoid for school children. Mr. McGeer — 1070

Annacis Island sewage treatment plant. Mr. McGeer — 1070

Special ceremony

Mr. E.K. DeBeck called to the Bar — 1070

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1070

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1070

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1071

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1072

Mr. Wallace — 1072

Committee of supply: Department of Industrial

Development,

Trade and Commerce estimates.

Mrs. Jordan — 1072 Mr. McGeer — 1081

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1073 Hon.

Mr. Macdonald — 1082

Mr. Radford — 1074 Mr. Nunweiler

— 1082

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1074 Mrs. Jordan — 1083

Mr. Fraser — 1074

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1084

Mr. Brousson — 1074

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1084

Mr. McClelland — 1075 Hon. Mr.

Barrett — 1086

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1076 Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 1087

Mr. McGeer — 1076

Mrs. Jordan — 1087

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1077 Hon.

Mr. Macdonald — 1088

Mr. McGeer — 1078 Mr. McClelland

— 1088

Mr. Lea — 1078

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1089

Mr. McGeer — 1079 Hon. Mr.

Macdonald — 1089

Hon, Mr. Macdonald — 1080 Mr.

McGeer — 1089

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1081

Department of Education estimates Mr. Schroeder — 1090

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1092

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1091

Mr. Nicolson — 1093

Mr. Curtis — 1092

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MORTGAGE BROKERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves

introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 109 intituled

An Act to

Amend the Mortgage Brokers

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 109 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

119 intituled

An Act to Amend the

British Columbia Hydro and

Power Authority Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 119 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT

Hon. Mr. Levi moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 111 intituled

An Act to Amend

the Protection of Children

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 111 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I

think I missed my chance a bit earlier to make a couple of

introductions and I wonder if I might do that at this

point.

Leave granted.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today — and I

would like the House to make both groups feel welcome — are a

group of students from the Argyle Secondary School in North

Vancouver and a group of Girl Guides together with their

leaders from North Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I am afraid I

missed the opportunity myself. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

House would join me in welcoming a group from the Grace

Maclnnis NDP Club in Victoria.

Oral questions.

VANCOUVER ISLAND

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

direct my question to the Premier and President of the Council.

Has the Public Utilities Commission written any correspondence

to the government requesting instructions concerning the

proposed natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the

Public Utilities Commission is waiting for a government policy

decision on whether or not natural gas will be used for the

generation of electricity. That policy decision has not been

made by the Government at this time.

FLOODING OF

SKAGIT VALLEY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a question

for the Premier. In his discussions in Washington Wednesday

next with Rufus Smith of the State Department, may I ask him

whether he will be formally presenting the province's objection

to the flooding of Skagit Valley?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will not be meeting with

Rufus Smith on Wednesday; it's on Tuesday. The meetings are

scheduled to discuss the problem of potential oil tankers

travelling down the coast. At the present time the matter of

Skagit Valley is in the hands of the federal government who

have agreed with the provincial government's position and we

have an understanding that they are taking our position as a

federal government on this matter to Washington.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask

whether the Premier will indicate to this House early in the

future whether or not the province will make a clear statement

regarding

[ Page 1068 ]

liability for previous undertakings entered into by

the

provincial government of B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is a matter under discussion between

the Province of British Columbia and the federal

government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask one further question, Mr.

Speaker? Will there be some definitive statement on this in

this House prior to any trip to Washington of the Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, in terms of a trip to Washington, as

I made clear, the trip to Washington is based on the oil

tankers and the opposition the provincial government has taken

to that oil tanker route and the submission to the United

States of an alternative proposal.

The alternative proposal will be made available to all of

the MLAs on Tuesday afternoon. There will be a Press conference

at 8:00 Tuesday morning here in Victoria, a simultaneous Press

conference in Ottawa along with the Press conference in

Washington after we have made a formal presentation of our

alternative proposals.

We will be notifying the Prime Minister, he official Leader

of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party and

the leader of the Ralliement des Creditistes of our position on

Monday next, one full day before we have our public Press

conferences with our position.

The matter of Skagit Valley. Again, the Skagit is not a

presentation we will be making to Washington. Negotiations are

continuing with our federal government and when we arrive at a

mutually satisfactory position between the federal government

and the Province of B.C. In terms of the possibility — and I

use that word advisedly — the possibility of compensation,

there will be a public statement.

RELEASE

OF INFORMATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the severe

criticism that has taken place regarding the Columbia River treaty and

the alleged failure of adequate discussion beforehand, may I ask why

the information will be provided to federal politicians and not to

Members of this House prior to the Premier's trip to Washington so it

can be discussed and, if there is the possibility of improvements to be

suggested either from my friends on my right or on my left or

ourselves, this could perhaps be incorporated into the presentation in

Washington,

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think the matter is one of protocol. We

have an obligation, we feel, to deal through our federal government. No

contact was made with the United States government without prior

approval of the federal government. I have had phone conversations with

Mr. Sharp and his departmental staff. I made our position clear at that

time through telephone conversation. If Mr. Sharp wishes to make the

content of the conversation public, I am prepared to do the same.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the question was perhaps

misunderstood. I understood the earlier reply of the Premier to

indicate that leaders of the federal House — not the federal

government, but leaders of other parties in the federal House — were

being informed prior to the information being presented to

Members of this House.

It is that point that I would like cleared up. Why is it we

have the leaders of the Ralliement des Creditistes informed

before leaders of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia?

It is this thing which the Premier could comment upon and clear

up as to why it is necessary to inform federal politicians

prior to provincial politicians.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no objection to make my office

available at the same time that the federal Prime Minister

receives the material in advance. It will be on the same

condition that I have advanced the throne speech and the budget

speech. That is, no statement until the official Government

policy is announced. If the leaders agree to that, I have no

objection to them having a pre-release, none whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

LABOUR-MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question of the Minister

of Labour. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise whether all

parties invited to participate in the joint labour-management

conference to be held in Harrison Hot Springs early in April

have accepted?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): No, Mr. Speaker, we

haven't had confirmation from all the parties as yet. They're

still coming in and we have received quite a number.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: Can the Minister

advise the names of the parties that have failed to acknowledge

or have indicated that they will not attend?

HON. MR. KING: Well, I can make that information available

to you, if you wish to place a question

[ Page 1069 ]

on the order paper. Certainly you'd have that

information

then. At this point, though, I might add, Mr. Speaker, that

I've had no indication that any party has refused to

attend.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

REPORT ON B.C.

HYDRO FINANCES

MR, P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question for the

Premier, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier received any report from

the Comptroller General regarding the financial operations of

the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority?

HON. MR. BARRETT: …to immediately move into B.C. Hydro

and B.C. Rail as to the internal operations and the accounting

procedures. The first draft report has been received on Hydro;

no report yet on B.C. Rail.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've never been there before?

MR. BARRETT: Was that a question for me, or for the Leader

of the Opposition?

MR. McGEER: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Would the

Premier table that initial report?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think I can table it at this

point. I haven't even had a chance to share it with my

colleagues. But I certainly take your request, under

advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

PURCHASE OF

APPLES FROM CHINA

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I direct a question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture apropos the "buy B.C."

policy. Could he tell us if government-run institutions are

actually buying solid pack apples imported from the People's

Republic of China.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): It was brought

to my attention that one government institution was buying

solid-pack apples packed in Formosa. When this was brought to

my attention, I did take it up with the Minister and was

assured that this would be looked into and changed. If the

Member or any other Member has some more recent information,

I'd certainly be pleased to take it up again with the Minister

concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

AMALGAMATION

OF KAMLOOPS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct

a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Has the

Minister now had an opportunity to review the ruling of the

Supreme Court judge that the residents of Kamloops are to be

given a democratic vote on the amalgamation question?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, I

haven't seen the report from the court. I expect to have it

this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Incidentally, Members will recall that you can't

ask what a Minister is going to advise the Crown to do about it.

The Hon. Member for Langley.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE

OF OCEAN FALLS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My

question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. I have at hand a telegram from the president

of Local 312 of the United Paperworkers International Union of

Ocean Falls, British Columbia, which reads as follows: "Could

you please confirm or deny television reports that the

provincial government has purchased Ocean Falls. Those rumours

are creating confusion in our community." Mr. Minister, can you

now give to the House either confirmation or denial of this

question about the purchase of Ocean Falls?

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

Resources): Well, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly deny the statement

that the Government has acquired Ocean Falls. That is not the case. I

would like to say, however, that we are generally concerned about the

northern coast of British Columbia, various communities of northwestern

British Columbia, and the future economic viability of that area and

employment in that region.

It's an area that has not been shown the concern that was

needed by the previous administration. We are carrying on

active discussions yet with Crown Zellerbach regarding Ocean

Falls, and with others with respect to all of northwestern

British Columbia.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, after

that fine speech from the Minister. Do those acts of

negotiation include the possibility of purchase?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's always a wide

[ Page 1070 ]

range of possibilities. There's a considerable

amount of

social capital in Ocean Falls that the former administration

agreed to. We have $2.5 million invested by the previous

administration in a new high school — an administration that

apparently didn't confer with Crown Zellerbach Corporation at

the time the investments were made. We're looking at all of the

possibilities with respect to the northern coast of British

Columbia, unlike the previous administration.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was pretty sharp, Bob.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same question? Proceed.

MR. McGEER: The supplementary to the Minister, Mr. Speaker,

is would he confirm reports in the newspaper that under no

circumstances will the Government be buying all or part of the

Columbia Cellulose operation in the Prince Rupert area?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. You cannot, as you know — you've been

circulated with this matter — you can't ask questions of that

sort, as to whether you confirm or deny something somebody read

in a newspaper. It's just not done.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

EMPLOYMENT IN B.C.

INSURANCE INDUSTRY

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), Mr. Speaker. Will the

Minister of Highways give assurance to the House that he has

plans to find employment for individuals in the B.C. Insurance

industry who face loss of their jobs as a result of the

provisions of Bill 35?

MR. SPEAKER: There again, we're not in the speculation

business in this House in that form under question period. Nor

are we to refer to, or debate in effect, some bill that's on

the order paper that's appointed for a different time to be

debated in full Therefore, I must rule that out of order

too.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey rising on another question?

DIPHTHERIA TOXOID

FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN

MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. This one is a question

to the Minister of Health. Will the Minister of Health be

recommending booster doses of diphtheria toxoid be given to

school children throughout the province?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance): Mr. Speaker, in those areas that were affected — and

they've been isolated now. The carrier, as you probably are aware, was

in the United States and there was a small concentration in the upper

island area. In that area we've already administered those dosages.

Certainly, the health department will be checking out whether or not

the children in the province are well protected. Unfortunately, I can't

give you the dosages that are necessary, but my department is looking

at it very carefully.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member again.

ANNACIS ISLAND

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

MR. McGEER: I have a question for the Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister

tell us when the Annacis Island sewage plant will be opened?

Will it be delayed beyond the 1975 plans as a result of his

order that there be secondary treatment included?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To an extent, that's up to the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, Mr. Speaker. We have advised them

through the Pollution Control Board that further treatment is

necessary at Annacis because of our concern with respect to the

fishery resource and others, a concern unfortunately not shared

by the federal authorities. It's entirely up to the regional

district. We have set our conditions and I think they

understand them.

MR. SPEAKER: The question period is over. The Hon.

Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a request of the House

to move that the rules be suspended to pass the following

motion.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House

acknowledge the auspicious occasion of the ninetieth birthday

of the Clerk of the House, Mr. E.K. DeBeck, and tender to him

our affection and esteem for his many years of service to the

assembly and its Members; that we wish to mark the historic

anniversary with suitable symbols and indications of that

respect. For that purpose we hereby call upon him to be

escorted from the chamber and returned to

[ Page 1071 ]

face the assembly at the bar of the House without

the

embellishment of his robes of office. Seconded by the Hon.

Official Leader of the Opposition.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to make a presentation to Mr. DeBeck who, if I may say in

just a brief word, is a friend of us all. His family is well

known to me — five children, some of them present here today,

four of them, I think; 22 grandchildren and only five

great-grandchildren.

I want to present this charter to Mr. DeBeck, and it reads

as follows — it's under the hand and seal of His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor:

"Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, of the United

Kingdom, Canada and her other Realms and Territories,

Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all

to who these presents shall come or to whom they may concern,

Greeting:

"Know ye that reposing trust and confidence in the

loyalty, integrity and ability of Edwin Keary DeBeck we of our especial

grace, certain knowledge and mere motion do constitute and appoint the

said Edwin Keary DeBeck to be one of our learned Counsel in the Law

during our pleasure, with all and every the rights, fees, authority,

profits, privileges, emoluments and advantages unto the said office of

right and by law appertaining;

"And we do hereby confer upon the said Edwin Keary

Debeck rank and precedence from the day of the date of

these presents in all our Courts."

This may be the only "Q.C." granted this year. (Laughter).

It's not really a precedent. We're being consistent. It's a

ninetieth birthday celebration and if there are any questions,

they may have to wait longer, that's all. It's not a precedent

but it's a gesture.

I want to thank the Law Society who helped to expedite this

very nice presentation to our friend Mr. DeBeck.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Hon. Attorney General and the Hon.

Premier present it to Mr. DeBeck, are there any statements that

the different party leaders wish to make?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government — on behalf of myself — Ned has been a "father" to this House

ever since he came. I feel that as one of his parliamentary

"grandchildren" I have a very special honour in being able to

make this presentation to him today.

I want to make a public confession. Ned felt that I would

always be a failure when it came to the rules of this House and

I'm afraid he was consistent, as he was in all other things,

and was correct again. Although I have been studying very hard,

and the rules book that they gave me will remain with me for

the rest of my life, that rules book was referred to one other

time in this House, and I'd like to remind the House of it.

On one particular occasion — it was a rare instance when I

was in trouble in the House and I was moved out of trouble by

the Clerk's adroit manoeuvering. I received the next day a copy

of the rules of the House. Written in the copy of the rules was

a note &h. from Mr. DeBeck, and it goes, as I recall,

almost word for word:

"Given to the young Member from Dewdney on the first

occasion in his years in this House when he showed any desire to learn

about the rules."

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, this is indeed a very happy occasion. It's been my

pleasure in over 30 years as a Member of this Legislature to

know Mr. DeBeck extremely well. When we weren't so busy in the

early days, before being called to lead a Government, many an

evening I spent with him playing bridge. He is as good a bridge

player as he is a good Clerk.

In a serious vein I want to say this, that Mr. DeBeck is 90

years old today. His life is an example to all British

Columbians, especially to the youth of our province; a man who

has had in his lifetime many careers and who has been

successful in each and every one.

He is a good family man. He is a great friend of those

people who work with him and for him. He is a great person to

cooperate with people that work with him in this Legislature.

He is, I say again, a great example for all of us in this House

and outside this House for a life well invested.

Mr. DeBeck, I want to congratulate you on reaching this

ninetieth birthday. It has been my pleasure to rise in the

House, as the Leader of the Government did today, each year to

make some remarks. I hope that some of the Members in this

House will be here 10 years from now when they will again give

you some presentation and a new decoration from Her Majesty the

Queen on your hundredth birthday. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. leader of the Liberal Party.

M R. D. A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it

[ Page 1072 ]

is with great pleasure that I too join with the

other party leaders in the House and all Members of the House in

congratulating Mr. DeBeck on his ninetieth birthday and on receiving

this very unique honour — or what may become a very unique honour — of

the province.

Mr. DeBeck is a man who is totally non-partisan. We're all

aware of that and we all admire him for that, in spite of the

fierceness of debate that sometimes goes on around him and over

his head.

It was not always this way. At one stage he did take

part in

partisan politics, but managing the campaign of the uncle of my

Hon. friend immediately on my right, the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) persuaded him that partisan

politics was to be put aside. Thereafter he, of course, has

become a paragon of non-partisan behavior in this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We all have skeletons in our closets.

(Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am sure the Premier and I, when we are

90 years of age, will have as many perhaps as there are

now.

I checked the horoscope, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's

instructive to read the horoscope of our Hon. Clerk:

"If today is your birthday, you are introspective,

selective, capable of perceiving when something of importance is about

to occur."

Well, we've all seen his ability to do that.

"You are able also to gather and delineate information

which is hidden from others."

That no doubt was the talent to which the Hon. Premier

referred to earlier when he said that he could never see how he

was out of order, but Mr. DeBeck always did.

Sir, it's a great pleasure to join with the other party

leaders and all Members of this House in wishing you a most

successful ninetieth birthday and many more to come.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. House Leader of the Progressive

Conservative Party.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it gives us a great

deal of pleasure to offer our congratulations and very best

wishes to Mr. DeBeck Mr. DeBeck is not only distinguished as a Clerk in

this

House but I think a well known and distinguished citizen of

British Columbia. In fact, he is part of the history of British

Columbia.

If there is one outstanding quality which Mr. DeBeck conveys to me,

this is his constant sense of dignity And decorum in this chamber. It

seems to me that he brings an atmosphere of dignity in his personal

poise and in the manner in which he conducts himself. Sometimes I think

if there's anything that's really needed around here, it's dignity and

decorum.

One might even say that he sometimes brings an atmosphere of

reverence to his role. With his famous quill pen he reminds us

of a more elegant era.

I wouldn't want to leave the thought that I regard him as

being necessarily old-fashioned in his attitudes and in his

performance. I think one of the really outstanding features of

Mr. DeBeck is that he has an alert and active mind and is very

interested in a wide scope of the affairs of this province,

including the youth, as he has done in his past life.

Mr. DeBeck, we wish you the very best of health for many

years to come.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move that because of this occasion that

this House on rising stand adjourned until 3:30 p.m. this

afternoon. I wish to advise members of the public that they are

welcome to visit the Douglas Building cafeteria until 3:30

p.m.

The Members will attend the ceremony in the new Ned DeBeck

lounge.

The House adjourned at 2:42 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Ms. Young in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND COMMERCE

(continued)

On vote 119: Minister's office, $19,406.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you very much,

Madam Chairman. I'd like to refer back to last evening's debate

for a moment, in relation to the give-away gimmicks that are

practised in British Columbia. I ask the Minister's position on

this.

I would like to make one more point in suggestion, because I

don't want you to use a sledge hammer where a tack hammer will

do the job. In considering the banning of these in British

Columbia, would you please look in depth to the situation where

some service station operators have installed equipment at

their own expense?

I would like to cite an example of a service station

operator who has just put in a car wash. He's put in $40,000 of

his own money. He uses this as an

[ Page 1073 ]

in-service attraction for his customers. He gives them a

free car wash. I think it would be a shame in drafting any new

legislation to not leave the option open for the operator

himself to offer some type of in-service benefit to his

customers.

In doing so, I think one must recognize that this could

leave a loop-hole. I'm sure it wouldn't happen, but a company

might wish to exert pressure on an operator to provide this

in-service benefit, regardless of whether he wanted to or not.

I would hope that in taking these steps you would provide an

avenue for appeal for an operator, with the proviso that the

appellant would not necessarily be identified, so that there

would be no repercussions on him for appealing this pressure

that might possibly be applied to him. I would invite the

Minister's comments on that.

I would ask for the Minister's comments on another

situation. That's in relation to an

article that appeared in

the Vancouver Province on February 10, 1973, I believe

it was, about a wharfage hike hitting port cargo. My

understanding is that the National Harbours Board, through

various means, is imposing or undertaking action that will

impose an increase on wharfage charges in British Columbia,

particularly in the Vancouver harbour. Tankers coming in here

will face an increase of 30 per cent berthage charge and 75 per

cent wharfage charge, which adds up to an increase in cargo of

approximately $ 1.05 a ton.

We can't help but be concerned about what this will do to

the competitive position of the Vancouver harbour, in relation

to the eastern harbours, which are under the Harbours Board's

jurisdiction. I understand that the same facilities will be

offered in the east in the ports that are under the National

Harbours Board's jurisdiction at 86 cents a ton there, on the

average. So we have $1.05 per ton average in British Columbia

and 86 cents per ton there.

It's recognized that there has been some difficulty, even

now with a competitive rate, of attracting cargo to Vancouver

because it can be as cheap to ship your cargo from the Pacific

Rim countries via the Panama Canal up to the eastern ports.

This would put Vancouver in a very unfavourable situation, as

well as helping to overbalance the problem we already have, or

enhance the overbalance of freight shipping by railways. In

other words, it may prove less expensive to ship from the

Pacific Rim countries to eastern Canada, and freight back by

rail or truck to British Columbia, again upsetting the balance

or the inequities that we're trying to correct. The inequities

of the freight charges by the railways are based on the fact

that we don't ship as much east as they do west.

I would invite the Minister's comments on that, and ask him if he

has looked into the situation in detail and what he is prepared to do

about it. I do recognize that the National Harbours Board doesn't come

under your jurisdiction, but I don't know who else in British Columbia

would have the authority to present a case to stop this.

It also has a great effect, I think, in relation to

Seattle's ports which, as you are aware, are offering very

severe competition to the British Columbia port. A number of

items which are sold in British Columbia, both imported and

exported, are going to the Seattle port. This increase in

tonnage there, as I understand it, will enhance that now less

than competitive situation.

I would also ask if it can come under your purview for

comment as to whether this type of increase in tonnage charge

will be considered for Roberts Bank, for the bulk tank

carriers. If so, what is this going to do for Roberts Bank's

competitive position, both in relation to Seattle and in

relation to eastern ports?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce): In answer to the Hon. Member, in the first place I

can't regard a car wash as one of the three G's — games, gimmicks or

giveaways. I think a person in that kind of an enterprise should be

protected.

In answer to that second question, you'll notice that in

vote 122 we're voting $35,000 to a new organization called

P.T.A.C., Pacific Transportation Advisory Council, in

cooperation with Alberta and Saskatchewan. The office will be

in the city of Vancouver. It will be of the three governments

and some transportation companies involved to a minor extent in

sharing the expense. It will be our eyes and ears and our

advisory source with respect to all of our transportation

problems. It will also be our instrumentality as a western unit

to make representations to the federal government in regard to

things like wharfage and freight rates.

MRS. JORDAN: I have a supplementary question to ask, Mr.

Minister. I appreciate your comments on this; I think this is

an excellent programme. Have you done anything in relation to

this increased charge to date? Is it in effect and is it

hurting our position in the interim time?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll just have to say that we're looking

into that. I appreciate your bringing it up.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you feel with confidence that the prairie

provinces, our neighbouring provinces, are sympathetic to the

use of Vancouver ports, as opposed — to eastern ports, if there

is no price difference? In other words, have they a slight

tendency to be for the development for western ports, as

opposed to eastern ports'.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I would ask the Hon. Members to address the

Chair.

[ Page 1074 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Ms. Chairperson, may I reply again

by saying that I think that in terms of western transportation

we have a lot of common interests with the prairie provinces. I

think they want to use our outlets; they want to eliminate the

bottlenecks that have occurred from time to time in British

Columbia. They are as interested as we are in decent wharfage

charges and low freight rates. I think we'll be able to make

representations to the federal government in their sphere of

jurisdiction in a unified way, including the problem that

you've raised.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver

South.

MR. J. RADFORD: (Vancouver South): Ms. Chairwoman, I would

like to ask the Minister a question.

Has the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce given any consideration to the increasing of or

inducement of the industry of building and constructing of more

pleasure boats in B.C.? The reason for asking this question is

that pleasure boats and boating in B.C. are big business It's a

fact that boating is one of the largest recreational industries

going. I suppose that this is because we have a year-round

climate and we can boat year-round. We have all the sea that

lends itself to this sport.

In a survey in May, 1971, Statistics Canada showed that 25

per cent of the families in B.C. own a boat. It's also

startling to find that 90 per cent of pleasure crafts in B.C.

are imported. Also, a survey in 1971 shows that B.C. produced

3,000 pleasure craft — this also includes home-built craft.

Also in the year 1971, 27,583 pleasure craft costing many

millions of dollars were imported into B.C. This includes

imports from all countries. Approximately 93 per cent of these

imports were from the United States.

Now this industry, Ms. Chairman and Mr. Minister, is a

fairly high labour-intensive industry. It's a clean industry,

the demand is here and the increase is expanding every year.

The labour rates in this industry are comparable to that of

most of the countries that we import from.

I think our Attorney General opened the last Boat Show. I

think he has a little knowledge of what went on in that area.

At the last Boat Show we had a display valued somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $4 million.

Also, most of the industry type vessels that are produced in B.C. — tugs, fishing vessels, barges — most of these types of vessels are

produced in B.C. contrary to what I've said about the pleasure craft. I

think, Ms. Chairman, that this department, the Department of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce, should do some research and some

feasibility studies on building more pleasure craft in B.C., because I

think it's a terrible situation where we have 90 per cent of the

pleasure craft being built outside of B.C. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think the Hon. Member has raised a

very good point. We've surveyed the fishing tackle industry,

we've not really thoroughly surveyed what you are suggesting.

We should.

May I add to that that Captain Bob Masters and Audrey

Masters, his wife, are going to, as you know, circumnavigate

the northwest passage and the world in a ferro-concrete boat,

under sail, built solely of B.C. materials. We're supporting

that programme because all of the components except the engine

- I think there'll be an auxiliary engine — have been

manufactured in British Columbia. It's just a very modest

beginning in terms of what the Hon. Member suggested.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Ms. Chairperson, thank you.

I have a question that I want to ask the Minister of

Industrial Development, in whose area of responsibility both

major and secondary industry fall.

I would like to refer to a document which lists the

resolutions presented to the NDP convention last fall at the

Bayshore Inn in the City of Vancouver. I'll only refer to two

of the resolutions. They're called "priority points". 1) That

the NDP nationalize the leading forest industries in the

province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's another portfolio.

MR. FRASER: 2) That the NDP nationalize MacMillan

Bloedel.

My first question is: Is the takeover of the forest industry

top priority with the Department of Industrial Development?

Secondly, how soon do you plan to negotiate for the

takeover?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer to the first question, Ms.

Chairman, is no, and the answer to the second question is

ditto.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver Capilano): Madam Chairman,

addressing some comments to the Minister in this department, I really

[ Page 1075 ]

think that the estimates of the former minister in this department

were really more fun.

I'm sorry to say that, Mr. Minister, but this has been

rather dull, last evening and this afternoon. But I really

think also that in the past many of us used to despair, as a

result of those estimates of that former Minister, that

anything very much was going to be accomplished. I hope very

much that this will be different now.

I think it's very clear, Madam Chairman, that the Minister

is concerned, and his department is concerned. The important

thing here is that this department is the one that, regardless

of policies in finance, and policies in resources, and policies

in mining and many other departments, has the opportunity to

develop wide diversity, a wide range of jobs. This is an

important thing to recognize. Unfortunately, I don't think the

previous Minister did recognize this. There are so many ideas

and there is so much material in this field.

I recall that a year ago I spent 30 or 40 minutes listing

available ideas in this field, and really, as far as I can

determine, very few of those ideas, or any others that were

suggested by many Members of the House were implemented.

I haven't seen a copy of the chart that the Minister held up

last night. He didn't seem too familiar with it. He had to look

at it pretty closely to find the little boxes. But he did

indicate that he had something going on in his department. I

hope those things will begin to happen.

Let me give the Minister just one example of the kind of

thing that's being done by his counterpart in Ontario. The

Ontario Ministry of Industry and Tourism has recently announced

the opening of an industry, trade and travel centre located at

King Street West and University Avenue in Toronto:

"The object of the centre is to provide product

displays, a

catalogue centre and audio visual facilities to promote Ontario

made products. You're cordially invited to visit the centre any

time you're in Toronto. If you have products made in Toronto

which you wish to either list or display, will you please

contact …" so and so.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

Now there's a simple example of something that this

department, Mr. Minister, could be doing now in aid of British

Columbia made products. We've listed in the debates in this

department, over the recent years that I've been in the House,

dozens of suggestions of that kind and we've heard nothing

happening. I hope that this Minister will see that some of

those things happen for British Columbia.

I hope that this Government will have a Minister that gets out and

sells B.C. products around the world. We've never had that before. The

Premier used to go out and do the selling job for British Columbia. He

used to go to Europe once a year and things of that kind. I think we

need a Minister of Trade and Industry to do that selling. That's his

job.

Mr. Chairman, if we have this concern, and if the Government

really wants to demonstrate the concern it has in this area, to

recognize the importance of it, will the Minister please answer

one question? When will this Government honour the importance

of this job by giving it a full time Minister?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yes or no?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's under the

jurisdiction of the Hon. Premier. You already passed his salary

without putting that question to him. Your timing was wrong,

it's too late. You can't ask me.

MR. CHABOT: Cop out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Member for

Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two

questions to the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development. The

first has to do with a problem that appears to be emerging in

Canada with regard to community antenna television, CATV. Many

of the governments of the provinces of Canada are talking about

this particular problem and what kind of control they want for

their provinces. I wonder if the Minister of Industrial

Development has been considering the matter of CATV, and

whether or not the Minister of Industrial Development has any

plans for the provincial control of CATV in the future.

The other question I'd like to ask the Minister of

Industrial Development has to do with what I consider to be a

remarkable increase, Mr. Chairman, in the amount of money

needed this year for the data processing centre — a total of 86

new jobs in that department alone, and a budget that's almost

double, Mr. Chairman, in that department alone. Of the total

increase in the whole of the Industrial Minister's vote of

something less than $3 million, over $2 million of that

increase is in data processing, which seems rather

remarkable.

I heard from across the floor a comment about car insurance.

Is that total increase in that vote for the automobile

insurance or the insurance commission? And if it is for that

commission, Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Minister of

Industrial Development whether that increase will be shown as a

charge against the Automobile Insurance Act , or will it

be hidden in the data processing centre? And will we be told

what that money is going to be spent for?

[ Page 1076 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In answer to the Hon. Member's first

question, cablevision gives us a great deal of concern, because

we've seen really incredible profits made in what is

essentially a public service. I think that the greater Victoria

area is a prime example. I can't blame in any way the

initiators of the plan in this area, but the profits in

providing a simple service and using, I suppose, B.C. Tel

lines, or Hydro lines, has been a little bit out of

control.

Now, we haven't had provincial jurisdiction in that area.

But, on the other hand, the Minister in Ottawa, Mr. Pelletier,

has indicated that, as Saskatchewan has done, there could be

some relaxation of federal broadcasting control in order to

give local control in a field such as has been brought up by

the Hon. Member. So we're very actively studying and pursuing

that subject. We want to know just what our powers are in the

field of telecommunications, including cablevision. I think

it's a very important area, but I can't make any further

statement on the matter at the present time.

So far as the data centre is concerned, that is something

that will be in motion in the coming year. That is, it will be

floating out of this department, because it really serves a

number of departments of the government. It's not related

really to our work nearly to the extent that it is to the work

of other departments like Finance and, in this case, Highways

and auto insurance.

A lot of the increase in personnel will be attributed to the

development of the auto insurance plan. I have no doubt about

that. Whether or not that will be charged to the plan is a

question you should address in committee, I presume, to the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

AN HON. MEMBER: It's under your vote.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know. Of course we're paying for

it. But whether something will be charged to the new plan which

hasn't come into effect yet, is a question I ask you to address

to the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: We realize that the Minister of Highways has

responsibility for the insurance but, as was pointed out, it is

under the vote of the Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce Minister. It is part of the wide question that we

tried to bring up earlier, and that is that we don't want

charges for the cost of automobile insurance hidden in a

department like this one. Will we be able to tell?

The other question, of course, is how much of that increase is

attributable directly to automobile insurance? Is it 80 of those 86

jobs or 70 of those 86 jobs, or how many?

With further regard, Mr. Chairman, to the CATV, I wonder if

the Minister is giving any thought, as some people appear to

be, to harassing, perhaps, the CATV people by refusing them the

use of Hydro lines. Has this ever entered into the minds of the

Attorney General or the Industrial Development Commission? It

is happening in other jurisdictions.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, we don't proceed by harassment of

anybody, any company, any person, in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw the Land Commission Act .

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No heavy hand so far as this Government

is concerned. Just good social policies acceptable to the

community.

In terms of the data centre, my best estimate is that about

80 per cent of those jobs are from the expansion of the very

capable services that have been under Mr. Hatfield in terms of

driver licences, drivers' records and car records and they are

attributable, I think, to the new auto insurance plan. Probably

about 80 per cent.

Put a question on the order paper. If there is a way of

breaking it down, we will try and break it down for you. You

have got to address the questions about the other bill to that

Hon. Minister who I am sure will have a very good answer for

you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

would like to direct a few questions at the Minister of

Industrial Development — do I have the name of the department

correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That is what it is now but it is

changing every day.

MR. McGEER: I know he is having difficulty. I feel a little

like the admiring boy that said to shoeless Joe Jackson when it

was found that he had been throwing a ball game: "Say it isn't

so." I thought the last person in the House that I would have

to stand and criticize and draw attention to his actions,

regarding a slur on somebody in British Columbia, would be the

Attorney General and Minister of Industrial Development.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Be my guest. Go right ahead.

MR. McGEER: "Go right ahead," says the Attorney

General. With great respect and honest

[ Page 1077 ]

regret, Mr. Chairman, I am going to do that. The Attorney

General, or rather the Minister of Industrial Development, in

December of last year, closed down the industrial development

offices in San Francisco. He sacked a total of four people in a

decisive economy move.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Two people.

MR. McGEER: Two people.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: One was re-employed and the other has

not applied.

MR. McGEER: "I have examined these operations very

carefully," said the Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Which I had.

MR. McGEER: "I can tell you quite frankly that since 1969,

we have had practically nothing in the way of a report out of

San Francisco."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: True.

MR. McGEER: "No echo as to any sign of life down there." Mr.

Chairman, I have visited that office in San Francisco upon two

occasions under the former administration. I couldn't believe

what I read. So I wrote and asked exactly what had been sent to

the department.

Mr. Chairman, this is one year's worth of "life" from down

there. It is two inches thick. It is a file of reports — a

description of opportunities for industrial development for

firms in British Columbia. It is a plea for the department to

show some "life", some echo of activity up here.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

MR. McGEER: May I quote just one plaintive memo from the

civil servant who was sacked summarily because he had no sign

of life.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Come on. He has a job in the United

States. There is no problem there.

MR. McGEER:

"I believe that at this time, if you are concerned

about expenses, you should limit them, but in the form that I and any

other officer can interpret. By this I mean that if I knew I was

allowed only 1,000 miles per month, $300 per month entertaining

expenses, et cetera, then I could plan my months ahead of time. The way

it is now, I'm getting my expense accounts returned for adjustment

after I have made the expense. If I do make an adjustment it comes out

of my pocket. However, this is secondary."

Now, I illustrate this for two reasons, Mr. Chairman. One is

that this civil servant, who was sacked for no sign of life,

was quite prepared to pay out of his own pocket the expenses

that were necessary to do his job effectively for the people of

British Columbia. This memo merely draws attention to the fact

that he cannot possibly make the appropriate contacts with

leading industrialists in California if he isn't even allowed

to take them to lunch. What is he supposed to do? Take them to

the hot dog stand on the corner?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): How many did he take to

lunch when he had an expense account?

MR. McGEER: Well, I would be very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to

make the file available to the Second Member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk). I don't intend to take the time of the House

reading it from one end to the other.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I should hope not.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I have studied this file, and it

is very clear that the Minister was not aware at the time he

sacked these two civil servants …

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't say that. He wasn't sacked. You're

running the man down. The office was closed.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. That's not sacking. He has

a job in the United States and he is quite happy with it. The

girl is re-settled with the Canadian commission.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, he wasn't sacked — he was

laid off, at a time when we were making hundreds of thousands

of dollars available as bonuses to welfare recipients. I have

no complaint with that. I think generosity near Christmas is a

very Christian virtue and that we should have done that for

these people. But to choose as an economy the firing of people

who are trying to find jobs for British Columbians, to accuse

them of having no sign of life when they have been more than

doing their job — when the lack of life has been in the home

office, specifically the office of the Minister — is not only

unfair, but is a disgraceful slur on people who have given more

than their all for the development of this

[ Page 1078 ]

province.

Every person is entitled to his day in court. We have fired

civil servants in British Columbia summarily and not given them

this opportunity. If my information is correct, Mr. Chairman — and the

Minister can correct me on this, if I have been

misinformed — when he went down to San Francisco, after

studying this situation so carefully and informing himself of

how much life there was down there, he got down right in the

offices of the trade commissioner and didn't even know that

those same offices were being used by the department of

tourism. He thought they were in a different location.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's not true.

MR. McGEER: I said you would have an opportunity to correct

the situation if my information is wrong, but I say this, Mr.

Chairman: at least the Minister left the impression down there,

when he appeared and closed the office on the same day — his

first and last visit, as the Minister of Industrial Development

- that he was not aware of what the department of tourism was

doing in that same region, in co-ordination with Industrial

Development, to see there were opportunities in this California

market which alone has more people than all of Canada, and

which has a purchasing power at least 40 per cent greater than

our whole nation.

Mr. Chairman, whether you consider this kind of evidence a

sign of life or not, the closure of those offices was

an act of

ignorance and mischief. I say mischief, Mr. Chairman, because I

heard the Members that now sit in the Treasury benches when

they were in Opposition standing up and attacking San Francisco

House because they thought it was a….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

withdraw the two words, "an act of mischief". I would point out to the

Hon. Member that you cannot impute an improper motive to a Member of

this House,

MR. McGEER: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I misinterpreted

those speeches. But they were made. Mr. Chairman, you weren't here but

I listened to those speeches. I didn't take them terribly seriously at

the time. But of course it all came home when one of the first acts of

the new Government was to close down those industrial development

offices in San Francisco.

It may have been. I wouldn't dispute that the former

Government thought that a defeated cabinet Minister was the man

most able to represent us in California.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair, please.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No, that defeated cabinet Minister. After all he

opened the office. I can't pass any judgment on his

contribution. He passed away.

But it was after that that I had the opportunity to visit

San Francisco House on two occasions. I must say, Mr. Chairman,

that I had been alert to these accusations of political

patronage. But having visited that office on two occasions I

was most impressed with the work that they were doing; and I

was quite frankly shocked when the Minister chose, as one of

his first acts in office, to undertake that punitive measure,

which has set industrial development back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated. Would you

state your point of order, please?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, it seems to me

that after the Chair has directed the Hon. Member to follow a

direct order from the Chair that he should do it. I'd like to

see that order followed out.

MR. McGEER: If you'll recall I did acknowledge that I may

have misinterpreted those speeches. But, Mr. Chairman, since

neither you nor the Member for Prince Rupert were present on

the occasions when they were given, I felt it only fair to

describe the content of those speeches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In responding to your point of

order, I'm sure that the Hon. Member did not mean to impute any

improper motive to the Minister. Would the Hon. Member please

carry on.

MR. McGEER: Perhaps the Minister will have occasion to give

a more appropriate explanation to this House. I would certainly

like to hear from the Minister, Mr. Chairman, what offers were

made to these two dedicated civil servants in California of

alternative positions in the civil service? I'm pleased that

one has had an offer to go to work for the United States. I am

not sure whether that's an advance for Canada or not. I would

view it with some regret, but that's a personal opinion.

What choices, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister, did the

civil servant in question have?

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I really have regrets in raising

that particular subject because it involves human rights.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 1079 ]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this isn't gossip. This is …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the

Chair.

MR. McGEER: … a file which I would make available to any

Members of the House.

MR. LAUK: Have you read it?

MR. McGEER: Certainly I've read it. And I would …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair

or be seated.

MR. McGEER: May I say that I have read the file very

carefully and my regret is that the Minister obviously did

not.

I want to shift the subject, Mr. Chairman, to …

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Shall I answer on that now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: No, I'd like to carry on for a minute or

two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue please.

MR. McGEER: I just have one other general subject to raise.

I'd like to hear the Minister's opinions on that too.

Mr. Chairman, the most important direction that we could

take in industrial development in British Columbia is to shift

our base away from the resource development field which we've

depended upon almost entirely up to this stage in history.

I've spoken many times in the House before about the need

for the Government to stimulate a breakthrough into the

high-wage, rapid-growth technological industries which have

really formed the base of development for those most rapidly

advancing countries in the world.

The estimates of the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade, and Commerce for some years now have almost been a joke.

It's been a matter of profound regret to me that a subject

which is so fundamental to the future of British Columbia

should be dealt with year after year in this way.

The former Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Bonner) was the last

one really who offered any real enlightenment to this particular

portfolio, but he was more of a world economist and an expert on

resource exploitation than he was an exponent of the modern industrial

course in the world. So we never have had in our history, Mr. Chairman,

a Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce who was alert

to the third phase of the industrial revolution in the world and the

proper part that British Columbia might play.

Of course the nerve centre or the brain of this kind of

development must be technological innovation. It's in this

particular respect that we have been so conspicuously lacking

in our province.

I am reminded, Mr. Chairman, of the development a long time

ago in evolution of the great dinosaurs and mastodons who

achieved enormous physical stature. As specimens of size and

strength of course they would have demolished homo sapiens. But

their brains were very small and indeed as they grew in size

their brains failed to keep pace.

They even developed enlargements of the spinal cord near

their posterior that was larger than the brain itself. Because

they lacked intelligence and could not adapt to their

environment, of course they became extinct.

So it seems to be with our approach to industrial

development. We've depended on strength of physical assets and

ignored the nerve centre — the brain. Yet those nations which

have placed a premium on this particular aspect have been the

ones that have experienced the most rapid growth since the

second World War. These are selected nations in Europe and

Japan in Asia.

I had reason to quote in an earlier speech in the House this

year the experience of the Philips Corporation, which was

experiencing growth in employment of between 15 and 20 per cent

per year in the number of jobs as a result of their constant

flow of new innovation — products in demand in Canada and other

countries in the world.

While this kind of growth has taken place in the

sophisticated electronics industries, in computers, in

plastics, in pharmaceuticals, the basic industries like

forestry and mining are actually decreasing in the numbers of

people who are employed. Of all the major industries that exist

today, one of the slowest growing in terms of jobs is the

forest industry.

In Canada the number of employees per unit of production is

substantially decreasing. So nothing could be greater folly,

Mr. Chairman, that for us to stake our future, in terms of

provision of jobs or development of opportunity, than to bank

entirely on resource industries, particularly the forest

industry and the mining industry. Therefore we must turn

elsewhere.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

has to be the catalyst for all of this. He has to understand

it; provide the directions, the stimulus, the interest, the

inspiration. That's why it's heartbreaking, Mr. Chairman, year

after year to go through these estimates, to scan them in

detail,

[ Page 1080 ]

looking for that little flicker of light that would indicate

a change of direction and to find it every year totally

absent.

One way that we could gain some indication that there is a

change of direction would be the allocation to the B.C.

Research Council. This is the repository, if you like, of

technological innovation in British Columbia, sponsored by

government initiative. Yet the appropriation for the B.C.

Research Council has failed to grow for many years now. It's

stuck right on dead centre. If we can't even see the advantages

for enlarging activities in that sphere, how can we hope to

tackle the much larger and more complicated job of spurring a

whole new field of industry?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask of the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce why is it that we're

making no effort at all in the technological area? Why is it

that the B.C. Research Council is left to shrivel on the vine

year after year with no effort to improve it on the part of the

provincial government? Why is it that we continue to put all

our eggs in the natural resource basket and leave ourselves

open to complete domination by the newer industrial species

that are coming along?

We're the Brontosaurus, if you like, of the industrial

world. The newer species that have far more brains, though

smaller physical stature, are coming to command our resources

and leave our working people at their mercy — whether they want

to have the coal or whether they want to have the copper or

whether they want to have the raw pulp, to make the more

sophisticated goods the world's consumers are beginning to

demand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I should deal with the

first matter first — the matter of the San Francisco office.

I'm astonished at the lack of research of the Hon. Member. He

starts out talking about four people sacked. In fact, it was

two people. The tourist side moved to a different location. He

hinted about Christmas time. The fact of the matter was that

the lease was expiring on December 31 on Market Street and the

premises had to go anyway.

I acted upon a report from an industrial consultant with the

highest credentials. I can give the credentials at some time if

the Hon. Member wants them — Murray Bryce, who has acted in this

kind of field for 10 to 12 different governments in various

parts of the world — the United Nations and so forth. He

reported to me on these offices on November 15. I didn't want

to have to go into this letter in detail but perhaps I

should.

"I strongly advise that both of these operations…."

that's the Los Angeles one too,

"…. . close, as they are doing almost nothing of

value to

the department or B.C. There are many reasons why the

operations are not more successful."

And I'm going to leave out any comments about personnel in

this respect. If my friend wants me to read that portion of it — the suitability of personnel — I will, but I'd rather

not.

"They're going through the motions of maintaining

contacts

with banks and chambers of commerce but can point to

practically no examples of even moderately successful dealings

in several years."

We had no productive thing. When I went down to San

Francisco approximately a month later, I went down with two

things in mind: to check this out by personally speaking to the

young man in charge, who is Mr. Steve Turbis — who was,

incidentally, taking his M.A. I'm not criticizing that.

He was partially helped at the expense of the B.C. taxpayer

during these years. That doesn't mean he couldn't also do this

job, but don't talk about hardship too much. Think about the

taxpayer too and think about the fact that we can't be in a

straightjacket in these things. We have to take action

sometimes.

In respect of the personnel, let me say this. Mr. Turbis was

offered three months' pay on the closing of the office. He was

also offered the opportunity to reintegrate into the civil

service here in Victoria if he chose to make that application.

As I gathered from him and as, in fact, has happened, he wanted

to stay in the United States of America. He has done so and I'm

informed that he is employed down there.

His secretary seemed like a very capable young lady to me — and a

very attractive young lady, Trudy Friedli, I think her

name was. Following this matter, I spoke with Jim Nutt, the

Canadian consul in San Francisco. He asked me what I thought

about the services of this person and said she would like to be

absorbed in their organization.

I gave her a high recommendation and she is now working

there — in the Canadian service, not the B.C. So the personnel

hardship, I think, can be written quite off. The office thing

remains.

"A large part of the time of the representatives of

the

department, especially in the San Francisco office, is taken up

answering inquiries from people thinking of moving to B.C. and

helping them in such matters as information on employment and

jobs, land purchases and similar business.

"While these are courtesy services to those who

inquire, it

is hardly a part of the department's responsibilities and, in

any event, the people could get the information elsewhere."

So the tourist branch continued in a different location.

They had to re-establish, and that kind of courtesy work is

being carried on.

[ Page 1081 ]

"An example of the ineffectiveness of the operation is

shown by the experience of the San Francisco office, who over the past

three years have mailed over 100 copies of industrial studies pointing

out opportunities for manufacturing in B.C. These were sent to selected

California firms in the same business. This operation failed to produce

one single acknowledgment."

I have the file here too that my friend has.

"Another example of the ineffectiveness of the

programme: The San Francisco office sent 500 letters to B.C.

manufacturers offering to help them develop contacts in the

California market. Only three of the firms replied and not one

of them started exporting to California.

"In closing these offices, B.C. development will not

be significantly affected. If, at some time in the

future, B.C. does have an active, outgoing industrial

development and trade promotion programme, it might be

desirable to have one office in California, probably Los

Angeles. But even this is problematical as it might be even

more effective to send travelling representatives from Victoria

to keep and to make alive the B.C. contacts, in not only

California but the other western states."

I might also add that when I went down to check things out — I don't

think I said this — I spoke to Mr. Steve Turbis for

about three-quarters of an hour. We kicked the thing around as

to whether the department could really show an example of how

it was helping B.C. In the industrial aspect.

I put it squarely to him. I said, "I've got this report. It

doesn't show that the department is getting a useful,

productive return at all from this office in the industrial

sense. Have you got any comment?"

My impression of the conversation was "no" — that he didn't

really disagree with the report that I had in my hands. So I

think it's partly our reorganization because, as that report

indicates, we have to try a totally new approach. But it's

partly that as a Minister in charge of a department, I've got

to make sure that the taxpayer's dollar is being productively

spent. And it simply was not productively spent in that San

Francisco office in terms of department of industry

activity.

My duty was to act upon it, particularly as the lease was

coming to an end and if it was going to be re-established

somewhere else in any case. I took what care I could of the two

people who would be affected by that. I don't like my friend to

say that they were sacked.

I know you may say it's a nice distinction between the two, but that

is a derogatory reference to them. I wouldn't like it applied to

somebody like Trudy Fredli, who is now profitably re-engaged. I don't

think "sacked" is the appropriate word at all. They're now happily

re-engaged — one in private industry in the States; one in the Canadian

trade commissioner's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon, First I Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Really, Mr. Chairman, I think that it's all very

well for the Minister to try and smooth over the damage that

he's done with that glib two-page letter that he quoted from.

Really, that could hardly be construed as an in-depth report. I

think for the Minister …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated

please, while I make a point? The point is that this subject

has been exhausted. The Minister has responded …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is the wish of the Minister to continue

the discussion, then the Member may proceed. I recognize the

Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I

think we're going to have to get one or two things straightened

away. It's not up to the Minister to announce to the House

whether or not he's willing to continue. It's up to the Members

of the House. As a point of order it may be, through no fault

of any Ministers or any Members, that an answer does not

satisfy …

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've made your point and I'll respond to it

if you'll be seated.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point is, Mr. Chairman, that

reasonable debate does not simply depend on a reply from a

Minister which may or not be satisfactory.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

be seated while I respond to the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria?

It is my responsibility to act in accordance with the rules

of the House. I am acting in accordance with standing order 43,

which I feel is important in this particular instance. When a

matter has been sufficiently canvassed, then it's important to

proceed on to a new subject.

However, it appears to be the wish of the Minister to

continue the discussion. Therefore, you may do so.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the

attitude of the Minister in this, more so than yourself. The

Minister has indicated his willingness to. continue canvassing

a subject which

[ Page 1082 ]

involves civil rights. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect,

standing order 43 refers to "tedious repetition." So far I've

repeated nothing. What I said the first time around is laid at

rest.

The Minister has indicated a report and I think it only fair

to comment on the adequacy of that report. Because the things

that are said in the letter which the Minister quoted from

hardly coincide with the volume of information that I have.

I think it would be tedious, though not necessarily

repetitious, for me to read memos while he reads pages from his

report. But I think it only fair for me to tell the Attorney

General that since he closed that office down I have had

correspondence from firms in California which had previously

been in touch with our industrial development commissioner

regarding a desire to establish in south-eastern British

Columbia. One such firm was McClary Plastics, and their

interest was in locating in the area of the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). This is an area

that does have high unemployment and where we're terribly

anxious to establish new jobs and new industries of a secondary

manufacturing kind.

This kind of information I think is indicative …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Would you expect yourself or any other private

Member of the House to receive inquiries from an industry in

California? When the thing comes down to a private Member, it's

an act of desperation. I presume it was sent to me as former

leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Chairman, the point that I am trying to make really is

not to say, "Well, I've been asked to assist because they've

closed that office in San Francisco down and they can't get

anything out of the Minister." It's to point out that the

justification of an industrial development office does not

depend on his being able to say at the end of each year," I

founded five industries in British Columbia." If we look for

that kind of evidence, which obviously is the kind of thing

implied in the report that the Minister read, we simply are

never going to get anywhere in establishing the kind of

manufacturing in this province that we have to have to bite

into the 100,000 unemployed, which seems to be a way of life in

this province — massive unemployment due to lack of

manufacturing industry.

What we should be doing, Mr. Chairman, is everything we can

to encourage this sort of thing. Because one or two industries,

even in 10 years, would pay for themselves again and again and

again.

Our industrial development commissioner should be a catalyst to

establishment of contact between producer and consumer. I know the new

philosophy of the Government is that they should run it themselves;

they should be into that industry. But that can't be the criterion for

success. The new Government can't take over the whole of the private

sector. It still has to see its role as catalyst and initiator.

What we've really done is to see the establishment of those

California offices as the bathwater of a previous election, and

they've thrown the babies out with it. I think the Minister has

made a dreadful mistake, industrially speaking, not just in

impugning — no matter how he slides over it, the statements

that appeared on the front page of the Vancouver Sun on

December 12 were unfair and unjustified, and they deserve

comment in this House. For a man like the Attorney General to

have done this sort of thing — Mr. Chairman, once more I just

have that feeling, "Say it isn't so."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Did my friend send that letter that he

received to the department? It came to the department? That's

fine.

I just want to say that the Ontario offices should be

studied in this connection because, contrary to what the Hon.

Member says, they're given goals, they have definite programmes

laid out in terms of attracting new industries or selling

products, and their justifiability depends upon their achieving

those goals. They do report as to whether or not they've

achieved the goals that have been set for them and whether or

not in fact the office is justified. I think my friend has got

a pile of correspondence there but he hasn't really indicated

anything productive that really came from that office in terms

of actual results.

Consequently, I think the decision taken was in the public

interest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Fort

George.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I

would like to touch on labour-intensive secondary industries

which to me appear to be directly related to the United States

tariff charges against Canadian manufactured products. I'm

thinking of manufactured products in general, including

manufactured forest products.

The records show that Canadian exports to the U.S. on such

things as plywood, which is a high intensive labour product,

run around 15 to 20 per cent. In effect that means that just

because it's highly labour intensive they encourage the

production of that product in the U.S.

We go to the production of logs. There is no duty charged against

any Canadian logs that go to the United States, nor is there any duty

against lumber — just the labour-intensive products.

[ Page 1083 ]

We also have examples of other manufactured products, such

as furniture, which goes up to around 17.5 per cent and

appliances go up to about 10 per cent. When we look at tires,

Michelin recently was tagged with a 10 per cent surcharge on

Michelin tires going to the United States.

In thinking about this, I notice at the same time that we do

export one product which does assist them in manufacturing the

products across the border, and that is our hydro. We sell our

hydro at a very low cost. It reaches them, they process our

logs and products and in order to maintain their own market

down there naturally they defend it with a tariff cost against

us.

When we talk about Canadian plywood going to the United

States, it is frustrated because of the 15 or 20 per cent

tariff charged against it. We do have various parts of the

province throughout the north — I can think of one in particular

- that are suffering from the shortage of hydro to manufacture

plywood where there is a great deal of good, round log,

veneer-type timber available, but it cannot be processed into

plywood because the hydro does not exist. I am talking about

the east-central part of the province, namely Valemount and

McBride.

There is a veneer plant in the area. It should be expanded,

but it can't expand because our hydro is being exported to the

United States where they want to produce our plywood in many

cases with our logs.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister if he has had his

department or is in a position himself to look at these types

of situations. Because when we talk about industry I think we

should talk about labor-intensive industries.

We should also look, I believe, at another product in that

area, namely cedar, which apparently has a low demand at this

time. There's a large area there that has over-mature cedar

that is just literally going to waste. Thousands of acres have

a high percentage of cedar and it's just literally going to

waste. Is there any action being taken to find a market for

that product or some type of product that would emanate from

cedar?

I'd like also to make mention of the large railway industry

in British Columbia. Is there any action being taken to see

whether the manufacture of rail cars can be accomplished in

British Columbia? I think high labour-intensive industry is

something that we should give our devoted attention to. I would

like to have an answer from the Minister if I may.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think that all three suggestions are

valuable and particularly perhaps the last, in terms of the

amount of employment, and they're all being looked at carefully

and I appreciate the suggestions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I listened with great interest to the first Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I often find him an

interesting speaker. But I must say that I'm sure the Minister

was beginning to feel like the sweet young thing who'd been

courted for six years by the same man and wondered when he was

going to pop the question. I also would caution the Minister

that when we have hard-core businessmen writing to neuro

researchers for economic advice we're in trouble and maybe you

better listen to some of the suggestions he makes.

I'd like to ask two questions with relation to that report.

When was it commissioned, and who commissioned the

consultants?

One or two other things that I would like to bring up in

relation to the Minister's comments in answer to my question

regarding a western province transportation authority. I

recognize this subject is very delicate in relation to

labour-management interrelationships. But would you undertake

to examine very closely some type of protection for the

producers of agricultural products when their products get to

the various wharves in British Columbia.

We have a most thorny situation in British Columbia now, and

they have had their problems on the prairies with the wheat.

What happens is that the agricultural product gets to the docks

and it's not shipped. It's not the dock people, it's not the

National Harbours Board, it's not the Department of Trade and

Commerce or anyone else who suffers. It's the producer.

If the policy of your government is to lock-in agricultural

land and lock-in farmers, then I feel you must, you absolutely

must guarantee the producer a return for his crop when it

arrives on that dock.

If you can't do it through some understanding with labour,

either yourself, or the Minister, or through this authority,

then you must set up some type of an insurance programme.

Because it's one group in society, and I don't necessarily deny

their right to strike, but it's one group in society making

just too much of a demand on the fellow who's already got his

problems in order to satisfy their own needs.

I would ask that the Minister look into this and come back to this

House next year with a report on this and some type of a programme that

will guarantee the producer the shipment of his crop

[ Page 1083A ]

regardless of the provincial situation, the labour management

situation.

The next thing that I would like to ask the Minister, or point out

to him, is again in response to one of the statements he made and this

is what brought it up. I don't have my file on it, but you mentioned

cablevision.

The CRTC, as you know, made a ruling where there could be no

importation of American stations to expand any present system of

cablevision in any province. One can certainly well respect the desire

of the CRTC to develop Canadian talent, to encourage a viable

television industry in Canada, and perhaps to provide alternates

through CTV and CBC and any other station. But what it's done in actual

fact is created poor cousins in all parts of Canada, and certainly in

British Columbia.

I wouldn't bring this up, Mr. Minister, except that we know that

current cablevision service areas have been expanded since this ruling

came in. I think in Victoria, if you build a new apartment, you can

apply for cablevision. You can bring in all sorts of American stations.

This is where you sit right on the border and you don't even need a

cable. You can switch around and get most of the stations anyway.

Now, in the interior of the province, not only are we poor cousins

in this area by geographic definition, but we don't think that we're

any more susceptible to the immorality or corruption of Perry Mason

than you are in Vancouver, or the people are in Toronto.

Where it comes under your jurisdiction is that you're responsible

for the economic development of all communities in British Columbia. As

you know, the Okanagan for example, even the north, can prove to be

very desirable places for retired people to live. But retired people

like to watch television. I'm sure the Minister's been known to sneak

the odd viewing of a programme. Retired people are interested in

Canada, they're interested in the Canadian culture, but you know, their

days of fighting are over. They can enjoy an American programme just as

much as a Canadian programme. They want variety. So the problem is one

that discriminates against this group of people. It also makes it more

difficult for interior communities to develop a good viable retirement

community.

Really the same applies for handicapped people, where television is

a very important part of their life. There's no other word for it, they

are discriminated against.

The tourist industry — tourists have been known to have a lovely day

outdoors and want to have a picnic supper in front of the television in

their motel. While they may be very interested in a Canadian programme

or a current affairs programme, at other times they're relaxing and

they're on holiday. They really just want to use television for

entertainment or possibly to put them to sleep.

But as long as these cablevision companies are operating in certain

parts of the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman, then the people outside that area feel they have a right

to enjoy this.

I think that you could suggest, recognizing the intent of the CRTC

ruling, that American stations pay a levy to CBC, perhaps a percentage

to CTV, to help stimulate Canadian television. But we're never going to

develop a national culture and Canadian television and Canadian talent

by force. People have died for the freedom of the airwaves. You know

that as well as I do. It'll develop if it's good. It'll develop if the

people select it. But it sure will get a setback if it's rammed down

their throats.

In light of the fact that the Minister brought up this subject, I

would urge you to make representation to the CRTC to allow expansion of

imported programmes into other parts of the province. Again, perhaps

bring back a report to us.

One other question I would like to ask briefly. That is again, your

department and your relationship with Mr. Kierans.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: My relationship? We're not related.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, you're a pretty humorous

fellow in this legislature, but you're ruddy scared of the business

community of British Columbia. And they may enjoy your humour, but

they're not enjoying your actions. They are very concerned and we are

very concerned about who you utilize in an advisory capacity for the

development of industrial management and industrial programmes and

trade in British Columbia. We have nothing against Mr. Kierans

personally. But we would like to see you use advisors who have been

successful in their own field, who have been successful in their own

country. We don't feel British Columbia should …

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's a millionaire.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce, if you judge a man's character by how much money

he's made, we're in even greater trouble than I thought we were.

He was a member of the stock exchange board of directors, and I must

say he didn't do very much to protect the interests of the little

people in that capacity. He was director of the post office for Canada,

and if anybody can ever clean up that mess, I'll take my hat off to him

and you can hire him as an advisor.

We want successful people advising you. We feel that you have some

very competent people in your department, and we don't want you

bringing some airy-fairy theoreticians into British Columbia. We feel

[ Page 1083B ]

that the solving of British Columbia's employment problem and

secondary industrial development problem is not going to rest solely on

theory. It's going to rest on the ability to make practical

applications and tough decisions.

When competent business people in British Columbia suggest that that

man's statements sound like Uganda, and when they say that Mr. Kierans

— yes, this was a prominent businessman in Canada saying that Mr.

Kierans' statements made one of the provinces sound like Uganda.

Another businessman said that Mr. Kierans' statements sounded, and I

quote, "It sounds as if he wants to confiscate everything." This is not

the type of man that's going to increase the confidence of the business

climate and investment climate in British Columbia.

We feel you should stay away from him. We feel that you should use

the people you have in your department. We feel that there are many

competent, successful business people in British Columbia whom you

could consult with if you had some specific problems. We feel that

there are other well trained, competent, theoretical, practical people

who could give you good advice.

I would ask the Minister; will you drop this hot potato and will you

get some much more sound advice?

You've already, I'm quite sure unintentionally, created a very shaky

investment climate in British Columbia. Let's not have a headline

attributed to you six months from now, chastising investors in Canada

and British Columbia for their temerity to invest in British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Minister, I don't think it's any news to you, but if

it is, it takes approximately $66,000 to $70,000 of capital to create

one job in the initial stages.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Bonner says it does and I happen to

think he's more successful as a businessman than you are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: I said as a businessman.

It's going to take …

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, really!

MRS. JORDAN: …a lot of capital …

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I had my own law office.

MRS. JORDAN: …to meet the current unemployment rolls in

British Columbia today, through you, Mr. Chairman. Let's face it. Let's

stop kidding about it.

You mentioned yourself that British Columbia has a higher

immigration rate than other provinces. In a previous presentation I

pointed out these figures to you and I cautioned you at that time that

the way you're going, you're going to upset the balance in immigration.

You get a natural immigration and some people are drones, some people

are doers and some people are entrepreneurs and some are retired.

If you upset that balance, if there is no capital, if there are no

entrepreneurs, if there are no people willing to work coming to British

Columbia, the drones are going to upset our economy.

Again, Mr. Minister, I caution you on those whom you seek advice

from. I ask you to be very realistic in your statements and to assure

this House that you will use respected advisers; that you won't do

anything further to upset the confidence of the small investor and the

large investor in the economy of British Columbia, and in the knowledge

that British Columbia has been and should be and certainly has no

reason not to continue to be a fine place to live and a fine place to

make a fair investment with a fair profit for fair input.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, the report

that was commissioned was early in October, the Murray Bryce report. If

you'll put a question on the order paper, I'll give you the details. It

was a three-month study, including this one subject I referred to.

MRS. JORDAN: What year was it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, last year — well, since we became

Government. I couldn't do it earlier because I didn't have the privy

seal.

As for Mr. Kierans, I accept your caution. I'll be a little careful

with former Liberal cabinet Ministers in receiving their advice. I've

consulted many people but you've made a point about former privy

councillors from the Ottawa area. I'll watch it. I'll try to very

careful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One or two quick

questions.

I had a look at the British Columbia Business Outlook a publication

printed under the authority of the Minister. In it I found interesting

comments regarding growth and in particular employment. I was wondering

whether or not we would have some point of view of the Minister as to

whether or not the department itself, instead of simply listing the

comments of the business survey in their so-called

[ Page 1083C ]

Business Outlook of 1973, is in agreement, for example, with the

statement on the top of page 2: that many firms attribute their

difficulties in hiring and retaining workers to the present

unemployment insurance programme. I just wonder whether or not the

department itself has an opinion on this or whether …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll list one or two things, Mr. Attorney

General, through you, Mr. Chairman. Then perhaps the Attorney General

may comment.

So that's one point I'd like checked out.

I noted with some concern in that publication that in a reference to

the federal government's survey on investment intention — this was for

October last — of the 200 large Canadian companies, it was revealed

that there would be a capital investment growth in the country as a

whole of 9.9 per cent on plant and equipment for 1973.

Although this was for the country as a whole, it would appear that

British Columbia, and I'm quoting here, "it would appear that British

Columbia will not share fully in this expected gain in the business

sector."

I ask this question specifically, because earlier this week I was

speaking to a conference on industrial development. While the subject

of B.C. industrial development was not the one that I was talking about

— I was more concerned with developments elsewhere in the country — this question came up frequently in discussions.

The point was often mentioned to me by people employed or running

very large corporations, that they were a little concerned about how

things were going. It appeared to me, as a result of these discussions,

that their investment intentions in British Columbia were not going to

result in much gain in terms of employment in B.C.

Another aspect I'd like commented upon by the Government, or by the

Minister on behalf of the Government, is the reference to the strength

of the Canadian dollar, which of course has become really very much

more important now that the American dollar, despite a 10 per cent

devaluation a very short time ago, is once more under severe pressure.

Indeed, a short time ago, it was selling at 9 per cent off what it was

meant to be listed at.

The forest industry in this province has consistently said, and I've

heard them frequently state, that they do not want the Canadian dollar

to get much out of line with the American dollar. It makes sense, as

was pointed out by the Hon. former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) on many

occasions, that for every percentage point there's a $19 million loss.

I believe those are figures which are indicative of the general area.

I would like to know whether or not the provincial Department of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is making any

representations along this line. I say this knowing it's a very complex

problem. The obvious difficulty is that if the Canadian dollar is

devalued as much as the American dollar, we will undoubtedly face some

other method of attempting to reduce Canadian exports to the United

States. Bearing that in mind, I wonder whether or not the Minister

might like to comment upon this.

The most critical area in this business survey that I found most

alarming was that dealing with employment. Only 27 per cent of the

firms surveyed in 1971 indicated that they would be hiring more people.

In actual fact in 1972, the year following that 1971 survey, 42 per

cent actually did so. But apparently the survey that took place

indicated that employment increases would not be as great in 1973 as in

These are comments which are particularly critical. We've had

debates on unemployment before and I wouldn't like to repeat them. But

in the light of the refusal of the government side at that time, in my

opinion, to discuss seriously the question of unemployment in the

province and what is being done to combat it, I would trust that the

Minister would give a fairly detailed statement of employment

expectations in the Province of British Columbia in 1973.

It's been said often enough and I trust it's been heard often enough

that unemployment is up substantially and that, indeed in absolute

terms, it's never been worse since the Depression. Yet we haven't

really heard much to date from the Minister responsible — apart from

the Premier perhaps the most important Minister responsible, the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce — as to what he

thinks could be done to increase employment in the province in the

coming months.

Those questions I have, Mr. Chairman, are as I said directly from a

publication of the B.C. government, and I trust it will be possible for

us to get some information on it.

On another point, while I'm on my feet, I had a look at the British

Columbia Chamber of Commerce recommendations on the question of trade

pro motion. I notice that they do indicate that there should be an

industrial development office in eastern Canada.

We've had earlier debate on the merits or otherwise of the

industrial development office in California. The Minister urged us to

consider the experience of Ontario and the practices of the Province of

Ontario, which I quite agree is a good model to look at.

I believe he was quoting an Ontario report when he said that the

"justifiability of such an office depends upon the goals set by the

government which the office has to achieve." Well, without going over

the ground already covered on whether or not this Government indicated

to the California office what goals they felt it should achieve, I

wonder whether or not he could indicate to us the possibility of

implementing the recommendation of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce

concerning an industrial develop-

[ Page 1083D ]

ment office in eastern Canada and whether he can indicate to us in

terms of goals, as lie suggested himself, that would be laid down for

such an office.

The success that the Province of Ontario has had with industrial

development officers working in conjunction with the Canadian

government office overseas, does indicate that this is not an area

which should be lightly abandoned. Indeed the comments made about B.C.

House in London indicate that this government feels there is some

virtue in having a B.C. government office at least in London.

I wondered whether we could have a more general statement of policy

as to what the Government's thinking is in this area; whether it

intends to follow the Ontario model; whether it does at the moment have

no doubt high-priced consultants, such as the ones who closed down the

California office looking at the possibility of opening up offices

elsewhere, or whether or not the experience in California is such that

the Government is moving out of the business altogether.

I see the Minister has the publication before him. The

recommendation of the Chamber of Commerce is found on page 23 of their

brief, recommendation No. 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In answer to the Hon. Member, and without

repeating last night's debate to any great extent, the statement on

page 2 of The Outlook for 1973 that many firms attribute their

difficulties in hiring and retaining workers to the present UIC

programme, is merely the opinion of those firms and not the opinion of

the department or mine.

Secondly in the case of the Canadian dollar we can only, more

through the Minister of Finance than this department, view that

situation with alarm, to coin a phrase. We're very anxious that we

retain parity with the American dollar; otherwise our exports could be

in a very serious …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, in terms of our exports, even

over-parity. That over-priced dollar has hurt us pretty badly, I agree.

That was what John Diefenbaker suggested a long time ago. I think the

Hon. Member is quite right, that we should keep an interest in these

things and keep our influence as a province and make sure that's felt

in Ottawa. I am sure the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) will do

that.

In terms of the unemployment figures, I ask my friend not to be

pessimistic. it's true that the return of the surveys was 27 per cent

last year but bear in mind that today that's the expectation. Bear in

mind that today the expectation has risen to 32 per cent and that all

cases actual performance exceeds these expected figures. So the fact that we have a better expectancy

figure in terms of employment in 1973 than we had in 1972, gives me the

right to think that in fact employment will have a better aspect and

there'll be more employment in 1973 than in 1972. I hope so. I hope

that the actual — performance greatly exceeds that figure of 32 per

cent.

In terms of the recommendation for an office in eastern Canada, I

think it's a very good one and it should be very seriously considered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Minister's remarks. I

assume then that there is no opinion of this Government on the effects

or otherwise of the unemployment insurance programme; that this

statement here is entirely the result of a survey and that the

Government itself has made no studies or has no opinion on the effects

of UIC on employment levels or a desire to take work.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No opinions have been expressed by the

Government that I know of.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister says no opinions have been

expressed. But at some stage or another I would expect some comment

from the Minister and I wonder whether or not it is possible to get it

at this time.

One question which I am sure he left out through inadvertence is

capital spending and the effects in B.C. Perhaps he left this out

because there is the figure in here of $3.7 billion which is expected

in the capital spending in the province. Has he had any reason, as a

result of the development since October last, which is when this survey

was done, of any revised estimates of that figure of capital spending?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're expecting further figures from the

Dominion Bureau of Statistics in terms of that forecast, but I may say

that capital expenditure in the Province of B.C. is now running per

capita at about 20 per cent over the Canadian average.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This of course has been a tradition of

this province, Mr. Chairman, that we generally do run over the average.

The 20 per cent figure uncompared to previous years, is perhaps not all

that valuable. Perhaps the Minister would like to compare it to

previous years instead of just mentioning it off the top of his head.

The other question was on employment. We appreciate the fact that

the Minister "hopes so", I think I quote him correctly, he said he

"hopes so",

[ Page 1084 ]

when he talked about having employment improve in this year. But

perhaps we can have more than hopes in this area. It is for the people

unemployed an extremely difficult problem. We have attempted to have it

discussed rationally in debate in this House previous to this day and

we've never succeeded. We've had red herrings drawn across the debate

and the Government has simply never come out with reasonable statements

analyzing the unemployment problem of the province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the fisheries department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Whatever the Minister thinks it is — fisheries, agriculture or any other, the problem is that it is no joke

to the people unemployed.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I realize that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think that being in charge of industrial

development, trade and commerce is perhaps the closest we'll ever get

to the Minister responsible. I wonder whether or not we are going,

either by way of a straight Government motion, to discuss this thing

adequately in this House so all sides can hear what is the situation.

I must say on this side of the House, and I know I speak for the

Members on my right as well as those on my left, we are getting a

little bit tired of being told that the answer lies in shipbuilding

subsidies or the problem is simply the result of poor-mouthing on this

side.

We've had the Peace River problem and we were suddenly told by the

Premier that in actual fact everything was getting better and better

and all those letters we got from the area were fictitious or at least

false.

We would like at some time to have the Government face up to the

issues that are raised by unemployment and try and deal with them

intelligently. Because there is little point in our sitting in this

House debating, either across the floor when the Speaker is in the

Chair or when the Chairman is presiding, as he does at present. There's

little point in discussing this unless the Government will take these

things seriously and come up with some detailed information which can

be used as the basis for an intelligent discussion in the House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We did go through that last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister should have stopped while he was

ahead. I thoroughly agree with the Hon. leader of the Liberal Party,

Mr. Minister. To sit here and have this issue come up and ask what

you're doing, as we have for the last 8 hours now, and have you raise

your voice now in indignation and say, "I have the right to think." We

don't deny you the right to think but we think the people of British

Columbia have a right to jobs, and they have a right to eat, they have

a right to pay for that food through good, solid work and the

opportunity of a job.

Mr. Minister, we have been listening to your programme since you got

into office and we haven't seen one bit of concrete evidence that

you're doing something. The unemployment figures in British Columbia in

December were higher than they had ever been since the Depression. We

have asked you consistently what you are doing. January we asked you.

No programme, no answers, from your department or any other department.

February we asked you what you were doing. No programmes, no answers

from your department or any other department. March we are asking you

what you are doing and we're still getting no answers. We see no

programmes and we don't see any increase in the opportunity for jobs in

this province.

Mr. Minister, if you think there's going to be an increase in

employment opportunities in British Columbia in 1973, let me caution

you. Three months of 1973 have almost passed and your Government and

you as Minister have done nothing. We asked you in this House last

night for large capital projects to replace the pulp mill projects that

are now nearing completion. The only answer we got was a facetious

Sukunka coal. While this may be a good project, which you wouldn't

allow us to debate, Mr. Chairman, I ask you what Sukunka coal projects

have you got in the northern part of this province? What Sukunka coal

projects have you got in the Peace River area? What have you got in the

Prince George area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're wrong on two counts. Look at your

own Members denying your position.

MRS. JORDAN: We want to know where the major capital projects

are going to be in this province, what jobs they're going to create,

what tax revenues they're going to create, and we also want to know

what small capital projects you have on tap. Then, when you have those,

Mr. Minister, we'll agree that you have the right to stand up in this

House and say, "I have the right to think."

Figures are great; but eating is better. The people

[ Page 1085 ]

of British Columbia want to eat.

Now, Mr. Minister, we'll ask you again what small capital

projects have you got on line in the six regions of this

province? What large capital projects have you got on line in

the six regions of this province? How many actual jobs do you

anticipate that you're going to stimulate this month, Match;

next month, April; in May and June until the agricultural

industry comes into play? What provisions are you going to make

in the agricultural industry so that that industry can afford

to hire people?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't mind a debate when

people know what they're talking about. But it becomes a little

bit nonsensical when one Member says, "What are we doing for

the north?" and the other Member is waving right back behind

you knowing full well what you don't know. You said, "What

about the Peace River?" Where do you think Chetwynd is? It's in

his riding. Where do you think the Sukunka coal is? It's in his

riding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Premier be seated

while you state your point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: If Chetwynd is on the line, if you consider

that a capital …

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not a point of order. That's a

matter of debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for North Okanagan be

seated?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm pointing out to the Member that when

she gets up in this House and says, "Well, the Sukunka deal in

the north and Peace River at Chetwynd," Chetwynd is in

that Member's riding.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're just talking about things you don't

even know about. That Member knows what 1,600 jobs are. $85

million was voted in this budget for jobs. You are delaying,

stalling, you have not made one positive contribution to this

debate. 'Mr. Chairman, it becomes a little bit galling to hear

that Member stand up — you'll have your turn. I've got the

floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't intend to be insulted by this "boy"

Premier, who can't produce and can only play-act …

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: If there's no point of order would the Member

be seated.

lnterjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: At no time have I ever accused that Member

of innocence.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let's deal with the reality of the

Sukunka coal and 1,600 jobs. The proposition we have, through

the Department of Trade and Industry …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can't you keep that Member in order, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated. I am ordering

you to sit down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do I have the floor, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will respond to the point of order, and that

is to the effect that the Premier may refer to Sukunka coal as

it is relevant to the estimates of this department, but he is

not to deal with details or substance of this issue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Department of Trade and Industry has

regional plans for this province. I thought you were interested

in this debate.

MRS. JORDAN: Any debate should involve both sides of the

House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I see that when attempts are

made to discuss with the Opposition points that they raise,

they are not really interested in the answers. I find that an

incredible performance after all the stalling and delaying that

has gone on in this House.

Now, what is the situation? We have had a regional request

from the north, from the Mayor of Fort Nelson and the region of

Fort St. John, from the Mayor of Fort St. John and the region

of that area. He phoned the Government and said he was

concerned. This Member's department said all right, you have a

concern about jobs, come on down and we'll

[ Page 1086 ]

talk about it. And they did. They were in the Premier's

office within a matter of hours, an experience they have never

had before.

After that they made a request for some help in terms of

secondary industry and we said "yes", and from that department

we sent up, within three days, Mr. Jack McEwan to do an

economic research study. That Member knows it, and he was happy

with it, and his colleague next to him was happy with it, and

that Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, has the nerve to come

in here with a basis of ignorance, making accusations that have

no basis in fact, when her colleague who sits next to her stood

up in the House and thanked me and thanked the Attorney General

for sending Mr. McEwan into the Peace River country. Now, if

you want to get on with the business, let's get on with it, but

let's not deal with the fabrications and imaginary things. You

don't even know the location, Mr. Chairman, where the action is

taking place. It's the first time that a regional officer has

been sent into that area after 20 years of absence of any

planning for the economy of that area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 119 pass? I recognize the Hon.

Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: With due respect, the questions were not

completely answered by the Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They were answered last night but you

weren't here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well I have here the record of what was

said last night. I have been reading through it and I haven't

come across them. I am quite willing to read them again.

The question of unemployment interests me and I will comment

upon the $85 million which we keep having thrown at us as a

figure. This works out to $850 per person for each of the

unemployed. I don't necessarily think that will do much more

than keep them in bread for the winter. I don't think they are

doing very well on that level. It certainly won't do much in

terms of creating new jobs under the emergency situation which

I think we face.

I would like to see more and hear more, instead of the

tirade and arm waving and loud voices of the Premier and

cabinet Ministers. I would like to hear more as to what's going

on and what's been done.

Vote 119 approved.

Vote 120: general administration, $179,868 — approved.

On vote 121: promotion and development of industry and

markets, $954,619.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We notice a

large increase in this vote. I would ask the Minister a number

of questions. Where are you recruiting this personnel from? Is

it private industry in British Columbia? Is it from other

government services in British Columbia? Are you recruiting

some of these people from the training programmes in British

Columbia and if so which ones?

How many of these people are in fact British Columbians of

the total new employed? How many are women? Did you make

available the opportunity for employment in these areas for

women?

We notice also in the second half of the vote that there is

$42,000 for travel expenses, presumably for the staff in this

vote. Then we see another amount of $98,000 for industrial and

trade promotion missions. We would like to know what the

$42,000 will be used for and whose expenses. Is that

interprovincial travel or is it international travel, and which

countries do you anticipate it will be?

You have a number of research officers, you have a number of

administrative officers and you have a number of directors, all

seeming, by the look of the vote, to be working very much in

the same area. Which people of these groups will be travelling,

and under what circumstances? Will they be travelling? We hope

you are not hiring a lot of competent people to sit around in

Victoria and push pens, because it takes personal contact. We

would also make one other observation and ask a question.

In relation to printing and publications, there seems to be

no major increase there. Will you be continuing the current

publications? I assume that's for the various research studies

that are done in various areas. Do you not intend to increase

these or are you intending to decrease them? Because even the

cost of printing alone is up, so I would assume you are

intending to decrease them and I would like to know your

reasons.

In relationship to vote 1007, advertising and displays, this

is a decrease from last year's $118,000 — it's now $108,000. In

the general debate on your salary, pointed out various Members

the desirability of having a display centre and information

centre perhaps in Vancouver or in other parts of the world. It

would certainly seem there is no provision in this small vote

for that. If that is not what this vote is intended for, what

is it?

I will ask any supplementary questions in relation to

them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce.

[ Page 1087 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The new positions will be through the

civil service. A lot of them are advertised at the present

time. Women will be welcome as applicants, of course, or

welcome in the jobs.

In connection with the travel thing, the Hon. Member is

quite right — we should increase our contacts with other areas,

particularly of Canada, such as Ontario and Ottawa. Therefore,

there is about a $30,000 increase in the travel forecast so

that we will break out of our provincialism in our industry

programme.

What was the other question about the advertising? The

advertising budget is about the same. I think it is about

$10,000 less but it is going to be totally different in nature.

We want to evolve effective advertising. We are quite sure that

just the good will kind of institutional advertising that has

gone on has not sold B.C. products or promoted B.C.

industries.

In connection with the final thing about the printing, we

think we can live with that budget. If we can't we will have to

come back to the Legislature. We will know next year.

MRS. JORDAN: In relation to your statement about your travel

forecast expenses and breaking out of our provincialism, in a

previous debate you stated that there was necessity to prove

the value of these contacts. In light of that statement and

your statement now, we hope you will be prepared next year to

prove to this House, on the basis of your own policy, not

necessarily ours, that this travel is justified and has in fact

produced some results.

Vote 121 approved.

On vote 122: share programmes and grants; $1,015,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: In this vote we notice that the British

Columbia Research Council grant has not been increased. It is

the feeling of many of us that the B.C. Research Council has

done some excellent work, not only in a very imaginative

research area, but in a practical application. Certainly it

helps some businesses. I think the Lacer business. I think they

got started through the B.C. Research Council efforts. Are you

anticipating a slacking