1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 69 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Government Computer Privacy Act (Bill 21). Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 69

Oral Questions

Purchase of Casa Loma Apartments. Mr. Bennett — 69

Problems related to Casa Loma building. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 69

Financial dealings of Casa Loma principal. Mr. Wallace

— 70

Coquitlam land-use contract. Mr. Phillips — 70

Statement

Answers to BCR questions. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 72

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate (amendment)

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 73

Mr. Fraser — 76

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 79

Mrs. Jordan — 81

Mr. Dent — 84

Mr. Gibson — 85

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 90

Mr. Phillips — 92

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 95

Division on amendment — 97

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 97

Mr. D.A. Anderson (amendment) — 102

Mr. McGeer — 106

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I would ask the other Members of the

House to join me in welcoming 35 political science students

from the Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, together

with their professor, Mr. Donald G. Balmer.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, may

I ask the House to welcome a group of students from Claremont

Senior Secondary School in School District 63 on the Saanich

peninsula, accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Fukushima.

Introduction of bills.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER PRIVACY ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 21, Government Computer

Privacy Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

PURCHASE OF

CASA LOMA APARTMENTS

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

the Minister of Housing. This question relates to the purchase

of Casa Loma apartments by the Crown corporation, Dunhill

Development. Have all or any of the purchase moneys yet been

paid to the vendors?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I'll be

making a complete statement on this tomorrow, and I'll take the

question as notice.

MR. BENNETT: I would just like a further question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister. Can the Minister please outline to

the House the steps he has taken to ensure a protective

hold-back of the purchase moneys so as to protect workers and

suppliers on the project and any other parties having a claim

against it, especially in view of the Supreme Court action

launched this morning, alleging fraud and fraudulent

representation in connection with the project?

MR. SPEAKER: I imagine you are carrying that as a

supplementary you'd like him to look into when he makes his

statement. Is that right?

MR. BENNETT: No, it's a separate question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that is not taken as supplementary, in

your view. What does the Minister of Housing propose to do

about the second question?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

PROBLEMS RELATED TO

CASA LOMA BUILDING

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Attorney-General, Mr.

Speaker. Did the Attorney-General receive a letter dated

September 9, 1974, from Mr. Neville Barnard of Enby Electric

outlining some of the problems related to the building of the

Casa Loma apartment motel and seeking an investigation?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The answer is yes.

Do you want me to save time just to say what followed from

that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I replied saying that I couldn't

intervene in that case, — and this is a

summary of the reply — that I

was looking into the whole question of the mechanics'

lien and law generally which, I might tell the House, is in a

very bad state...

AN HON. MEMBER: And has been for some time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...and has been. We've had a report

in 1972, which really wasn't satisfactory, so we sent it back

to look at the Australia experience.

When people ask me to intervene — and they often do — in a

civil case, even though it's very complicated, I have to, in

view of the office I hold, advise them, in effect, that I am

not a law office for private parties in a situation that really

has to be resolved, if it proceeds that far, in court. And I

can't intervene. I can't even give advice to private people. I

can't suggest that the sub-trades, owners or main contractors

may or may not follow this or that course of action. So in this

case I can't, where the resolution is in court, introduce what

would be a political solution. The solution is a court

solution. If anyone wants to proceed through there.... These

people had the benefit of a meeting with a Mr. Bruce MacDonald

of Buell Ellis, who is a very capable man in this field, and I

didn't feel that I should or could intervene.

[ Page 70 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Without going

into the aspects that are obviously irrelevant to the

Attorney-General, did he advise any other Minister of the Crown

of this request for an inquiry, in particular the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who received a copy of the letter that

went to him, or the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson)?

And did any other official of his department contact any

official of Dunhill Developments regarding this request for an

inquiry into the practices of the Casa Loma Motels Ltd.?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. Of course, one other Minister

received the letter. There was no suggestion to me that the

government was in any way involved. There was a suggestion that

the Casa Loma, at that time in the letter that came from this

gentleman, might be sold to Block Bros. for a big profit to the

owners, but I was not aware of any involvement by any other

department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary to the Minister of Housing,

Mr. Speaker. May I ask him whether his department or Dunhill

has purchased any other land, specifically land on Burke

Mountain, from any of the Casa Loma principals?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The answer is no.

FINANCIAL DEALINGS OF

CASA LOMA PRINCIPAL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Attorney-General with regard to a lawyer by the name of Mr.

Virani and his wife, who own Mahal West Resorts Ltd., a health

spa which went out of business after two months and left many

creditors, and who happens to be a principal in Casa Loma...?

Could I ask the Attorney-General whether he has received

complaints from the public in regard to the financial dealings

of this particular person? In light of the various questions

being asked, will he order his department to carry out an

inquiry?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know of any at the moment.

COQUITLAM LAND-USE CONTRACT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to address my question to the Minister of Housing. I would

like to ask the Minister whether the Department of Housing at

any time exercised any pressure whatsoever on the mayor or

aldermen in the District of Coquitlam in an effort to have the

original land-use contract, which was given to North Road

Housing Company Limited, changed in order that the government's

Dunhill Development Corporation, could effect the purchase from North Road at

greatly increased cost to the government?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No undue pressure was put on to any

municipality of which I am aware.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have waited

patiently for the inquiry by the opposition on the railcars.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if we could allow the Member for South

Peace River to ask a supplementary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can't I answer the questions which they

thought were an emergency two days ago?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier today is exercising...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...more of his great performance as a

performer. I said before that he should be in Hollywood. He's

trying to interrupt the Member for South Peace.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's not allowing me to ask my supplementary

question, on the premise that I don't want the answers, Mr.

Speaker. I don't buy that from the Premier. Now a supplementary

question on the same subject to the Minister of Housing.

I would like to know why Dunhill Development Corp. asked the

mayor and the deputy planning director of the District of

Coquitlam, in a letter to them on September 23, 1974, to keep

the information regarding the increased cost of the project in

confidence, with a specific request that the details of the

cost information not be circulated to the aldermen of the

District of Coquitlam.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In the first place, you were asking me

about whatever pressure might have come from the Department of

Housing; now you're talking about Dunhill Development. I don't

know

[ Page 71 ]

why they would ask that it be confidential, because that's

rather naive to expect anything to remain confidential if you

send it to a municipality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: But I would point out....

AN HON. MEMBER: What an attack!

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, when you grow up, you know, you'll

find out the facts of life.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the acquisition from North

Road Development — I believe that's the name — of the

Meadowbrook property....

MR. PHILLIPS: North Road Housing Corp.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Housing corporation — okay.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Don't you know the name

of it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That acquisition, the original land-use

contract, was set up under very stringent price controls. It

would have meant that it would have stopped after the first

phase, that the project would not have gone ahead. But the

purchase price that we have paid can be certainly defended by

any quantity survey or any other yardstick that one wishes to

measure by. It could not have gone ahead at the cost that had

originally been written into the land-use contract. I think

I've been questioned about that by The Columbian before.

This is not any new information.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not The Columbian .

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Pardon?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am not The Columbian .

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Okay. Well, this has been public. It

hasn't been greatly secret.

MR. PHILLIPS: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker,

since the first two weren't answered. There was not undue

pressure, which leads me to believe that there was

pressure.

The letter from Dunhill to the mayor and the deputy planning

commissioner in the District of Coquitlam specifically points out that

this information was to be kept a secret and not circulated....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your question?

MR. PHILLIPS: My final question is: why did Dunhill

Development assume the role of justifying the increased cost in

the project when the terms of the original land-use contract

clearly stated in black and white, unequivocally stated, that

North Road Housing Ltd. was basically responsible to deal with

the District of Coquitlam in substantiating any revised values

or costs for the Meadowbrook project? Clearly stated.

Now why did Dunhill intercede? Why did Dunhill ask that the

whole matter be kept quiet? Why did this little people's

government exercise pressure on the mayor and the aldermen in

the District of Coquitlam? I'd like to know. I think we're

dealing with $7 million of the public's money here — the

taxpayers' money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Seven million dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you have a secret meeting on this?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's not a hard one to answer, really.

You have said "pressure." I'd like to know what form of

pressure has been exerted.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the one who said "pressure"; I

didn't.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You said pressure. What did we do? Did we

threaten? What did we threaten to do? What kind of

pressure?

MR. PHILLIPS: You said undue pressure.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't know of any pressure.

MR. PHILLIPS: What was it you just said a minute ago?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Since you've tried to confuse this as

much as possible, Mr. Speaker, I should clarify this for the

House: the original land-use contract was signed between the

North Road Housing Ltd. and the Corporation of the District of

Coquitlam.

[ Page 72 ]

It was under construction. The first phase was well toward

completion, and it was at that time that they encountered

financial difficulties, which meant that this project, which

had been subjected to the most rigorous land-use contract, I

would dare say, in the province — and I don't say that there

was anything wrong with that, but it was the subject of a very

thorough use of the land-use concept — it stipulated fixed

prices, which could only be released by mutual agreement or by

the municipality.

It was at this time that it was in financial difficulty. It

had had all of the approvals, was into construction, but would

have been stopped and the majority of the units would not have

been built until that financial situation, which was really an

impossible situation, could have been rectified. It would never

have been rectified unless there was some adjustment made to

the land-use contract.

Coquitlam went along with allowing some increase in price.

And they always held the trump card because they held the trump

card in that land-use contract — if you wish to read it. I

don't know if you have a copy of the land-use contract. I'll

make that available to you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I have.

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Premier, who has also been

waiting, to answer a question that was asked the other day?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Table it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no! They've got a right to

question now.

MR. CURTIS: Table it! Table it!

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no! You can't come in this House

and ask for answers, and then say "Table them." You'd be

accused of playing politics if you did that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've been asked a number of

questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I must draw one set of questions to

an end sooner or later to get on to other Members'

questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For two days he asked me for the

answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly make one supplemental so we

can get on with the subject?

MR. CURTIS: It will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, on the same

subject.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I had

the floor until the point of order was called.

MR. SPEAKER: Quite right. You did have the floor. Would you

kindly proceed?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I was recognized!

MR. CURTIS: You didn't have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Supplementary questions.

MR. SPEAKER: I think there has to come an end to these

additional supplementals. It's getting to a stage in which no

one else can ask a question of any other Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to give the

House information that was requested?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, last week I was asked some

emergency questions on the operation of the B.C. Railway. I got

the answers on the emergency, and I know that the opposition

wanted them in an emergency.

Question 1. A general question by the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) re the shortage of lumber cars.

Answer from the B.C. Railway: British Columbia Railway has adequate

boxcars on line to satisfy all lumber shippers. However, there is a

shortage of open cars, log flats, and/or bulkhead flats. Orders for

open cars have been placed with our connecting carriers, and we are

receiving cars every day — however, not sufficient to meet our everyday

needs. We have had our initial off-line surge of British Columbia Rail

line cars after the strike, which has resulted in a slow cycle of

returning cars.

Question 2: Mr. Bennett, the Leader of the Opposition, asked re John Ernst Lumber Co.

Answer: Since February 10, the maximum order

[ Page 73 ]

from John Ernst Lumber Co. was a request for four flatcars

per day. With the exception of two days, this order was at

least partially filled.

Question 3: When will the car shortage be alleviated?

Answer: The shortage of flatcars will be remedied within the next

two weeks.

Question 4: By Mr. Curtis, present Member for Saanich and

the Islands, who formerly sat over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you know the rules of the House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I identified him. Do you want the

answer or don't you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: British Columbia Railway has 1,940

bulkhead flatcars under lease, of which 70 are still to be

delivered. British Columbia Railway owns 1,335 boxcars, leasing

650 boxcars for lumber loading. British Columbia Railway also

has 500 more boxcars which they supplied under leasing

arrangements during the last quarter of 1975. Also, the lumber

shippers of British Columbia Railway have 1,450 closed and open

cars under individual lease to handle lumber off line.

MR. PHILLIPS: You spend money in a hurry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This amounts to 5,375 cars available now,

and a balance of 500 to come at the end of the year.

Question 6: The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

questioned re status of cars from Hawker-Siddeley.

Answer: The railway leases and subleases 1,822 bulkheaded flatcars

which have been supplied by Hawker-Siddeley of Trenton, Nova Scotia. No

principal changes have been made in the original terms of the lease of

purchase. British Columbia Railway acquired 1,000 freight cars from

Hawker-Siddeley of Trenton, Nova Scotia, under leverage leases financed

in the United States. Of the total purchase price, 36.3 per cent was

provided by way of equity, and 63.5 per cent by way of interim

financing on a floating rate of U.S. prime rate plus 1.5 percentage

points.

Question 7: From the Member for Saanich and the Islands: How

many cars and locomotives are out of service?

Answer: Three locomotives are out of service for scheduled major

overhauls. The only other units out of service are undergoing normal

monthly inspections. From time to time, however, units are temporarily

out of service with minor running repairs.

Question 8: From the Member for South Peace River: Peace

Wood Products' shortage of chip cars.

Answer: Availability of chip cars is dependent upon unloading by the

B.C. Forest Products pulp mill at Mackenzie. Daily production of chips

from mills serviced by B.C. Forest Products is 17.5 cars. B.C. Forest

Products' unloading record from February 10 to February 25, 1975,

averaged 14 cars. Therefore, shippers were short 3.5 cars per day on

daily production.

Question 9: From the Member for Cariboo, P&T Williams

Lake order for 22 cars. P&T have ordered as high as seven

flatcars per day. The order was partially filled each day,

except for two days. We hope to clear that up within two

weeks.

Mr. Speaker, those are, in detail, the answers to all the

questions which I noted.

MR. D.F. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order. May I

suggest to the Hon. Premier that the question regarding Peace

Wood Products was asked by the Member for North Peace River?

I'm sure you wouldn't want to mislead the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member. I was writing the

questions down so quickly I couldn't tell the difference in the

voices.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, when we were

discussing this on Friday, we were discussing the problem of

unemployment in the province and the rise in the unemployment

figures in just about every category but, in particular, the

rise in the 14- to 19- and 20- to 24-year-old group, the worst

group being affected being, of course, the unskilled in those

areas.

I've been looking through some of the previous speeches and

some of the previous statements by the Premier, even before he

was Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition. He has made

some very fine statements about employment and unemployment

over the last little while. He talked in January of '73 about

the great changes that were going to be made in industrial

development, trade and commerce and what great improvements

there were going to be there. Yet we see in the Speech from the

Throne only a reference to some $5 million of new, allegedly

new sales as a result of the efforts of that department.

Nothing in terms of the future. Nothing, as was mentioned

earlier, in terms of new industry coming into the province,

which the Premier talked about time after time in past

years.

The fact is, as has been outlined a number of

[ Page 74 ]

times, the unemployment in the province is up substantially.

The Premier has constantly used the argument to date: "Give

us time, give us time; trust us; it's not our fault yet; it's

previous policies." Yet the one area on which the NDP put

tremendous emphasis, which was industrial development,

secondary industry, we see virtually not a word in the throne

speech.

Mr. Barrett said — and I'm quoting the press clipping — the

Premier said back in '72:

"The B.C. government is creating the best training

pool of

unemployed of anywhere in the western world."

To continue with the quote:

"Provincial NDP leader, Mr. Barrett, said here (which

Williams Lake) Tuesday night, 'A government with ideas and

imagination could draw world attention by putting young,

trained people to work on such problems as rapid transit

methods, electric-powered automobiles to help solve the

pollution crisis and reclamation projects to boost tourism.'

Well, we have been waiting for three years now. We have

waited, as the Premier indicated to us. We have waited for

these bold programmes that he's bringing forward; we're waiting

for improvements in the electric car field, rapid transit

field, and others, and we are getting absolutely nothing.

The NDP made much in the campaign literature, which is

entitled: "Dave Barrett, a Message to People." It talked about

the need for new development and the new jobs which are being

lost. It is curious now that they have been in power getting on

for little over two and a half years, getting on for three

years, that we have seen so little in terms of new job

creation.

Much was made of the need for a new, aggressive Minister of

trade and industrial development. We have seen, indeed, two

Ministers: one the former Attorney-General, now a new Minister

with nothing else on his plate but this. Yet even the throne

speech could boast very little indeed about what had been

done.

AN HON. MEMBER: We need a new one.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps we need a new one, as has been

suggested. But whatever we need, we need some effort put into

this department, either by a new one or by the present

Minister, because, clearly, very little has been done and no

jobs have been developed to any degree, except, of course,

in-house, within his own civil service.

The argument has been put forward that, well, the budget follows and

the throne speech is not really the thing which will indicate where the

jobs will come from. Well, that may not be, but the fact of the matter

is that in most throne speeches in most parts of the world, certainly

in the British Commonwealth jurisdictions, you do get some indication

of economic thrust and development from the throne speech, and we are

certainly not getting it from this government here.

The programmes that we have seen or that we have heard about

have essentially been stop-gap. It has been suggested that we

are going to get some employment opportunity or

employment-increasing programme in the forest industry, our

major industry. Indeed, it strikes me as being curious that a

government which talked in opposition, and after taking

government in '72, time after time about the need to develop

jobs and secondary industry, finally when faced with the

problem, comes right back and says: "Well, we are going to go

to our primary industry, our forest industry, the one that

already produces more than 50 cents in every dollar in British

Columbia, because that's the only place we can think of to

raise employment."

It is curious that the new programmes that were talked about — not only the electric car plants, not only the Japanese

automobile manufacturing plant, not only the steel mills,

copper smelters, and all those other great new things in the

secondary industrial field — instead of all that, we see the

throne speech going right back to square one. It appears that

the government does not have any policies for secondary

industry; no policies whatsoever for developing employment in

some of the areas which they have talked about so often as

being the ones which require effort and energy.

Perhaps, as has been suggested, it's just a question of

having a Ministerial change. I don't think so. I can't see much

in the way of improvement of any prospective Ministers to the

present one. It's not just a change of Minister which I think

will do something. It's an opportunity, perhaps, for the

government to go out and change its whole direction and start

dealing with the problem instead of simply, as it has done for

three years, talking about it.

The Premier waxed very angry back in '72 about the welfare

programmes and unemployment. He talked of the working poor in

British Columbia. He talked about the deplorable record of

housing in British Columbia at that time. It is worse now,

under this new Minister. He talked about a large number of

programmes which could be used for expanding employment. Yet,

given two and a half years to do something, very little appears

to have been done at all. The only suggestion we get in the

throne speech is an employment programme through the forest

industry.

What about the opportunities for housing? The Minister

responsible, despite much boasting, discovered that the actual

number of housing starts is declining and has gone down since

he took office.

[ Page 75 ]

He's discovered that despite much boasting; indeed, in terms

of financing, we discover that most of the financing is not

from his department at all. It is funnelled through it, but

most, indeed, still comes from CMHC. His own contribution and

the government's contribution are minimal.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to quote from the Pacific Region

Labour Market Bulletin of the Department of Manpower and

Immigration, and indicate to you some of the problems we're

facing at the present time. The total number in the labour

force at the present time is 1,064,000, of whom only 962,000

are employed. In other words, according to the figures here for

January of '75, we have 102,000 unemployed in the Province of

British Columbia. Compare that to the previous month, and you

will discover that in that period there were 79,000

unemployed.

I have no wish to question the figures put forward by the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), the former Minister of

Labour....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Those are November

figures, though, from the Department of Labour — they're that

far behind.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: 76,000 in November. We're in February.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're in February, and the most recent

figures, as my hon. friend from Columbia River is, I think,

trying to point out...are you trying to point that out?

MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Good. (Laughter.) What he's trying hard

to point out without a great deal of success is, of course,

this little two-page document I have in my hand, the Pacific

Region Labour Market Bulletin issued in February, 1975. There

you get the actual figures for January of this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: But not for August.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I can go back and give you figures

for November, December, January of last year, December of last

year, December of '73.... Anyway, let me just give you the

January figures for this last month — January 1975: 1,064,000

in the labour force, only 962,000 employed. That's 102,000

people unemployed, looking for work, unable to get it. That, of

course, works out to an effective rate of approximately 10 per

cent.

We're not dealing with minimal figures of 5, 6 or 7; we're talking of double-digit unemployment, and it's

something which I think the government certainly should pay

some attention to, and should not try and evade, as did the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), by quoting out-of-date

figures indicating elsewhere.

Let me carry on, Mr. Speaker. In those figures we have

372,000 women in the labour force, and 345,000 with work. So

you're getting down there where you have approximately 27,000

women unemployed, the rest, of course, being men.

But let's look at the age breakdown, because that's the most

critical thing. In December of '74 we had 102,000 young people

between the ages of 14 and 19 in the labour force. Today we

have 88,000. There's been a 14,000 drop in employment in that

particular age group, and that's a direct drop, regardless of

the number unemployed previously.

In terms of your 20- to 24-year-olds, you have 128,000

currently employed, as opposed to 139,000 only one month

before. So as you can see, the trend is steadily downward. As

you get a little older, it evens out a bit more, but in terms of

the young people in the province, the picture is absolutely

disastrous.

There was a decline, as has been mentioned, in the total

number of people in the labour force in the period: 16,000

dropped out. The female labour force declined by 2.4 per cent,

the male by 2.8, but there has been a total of 11,000 out of

that 16,000 who withdrew from the labour force in the 14-to-19

age group. So we've had a tremendous loss of jobs for the

unskilled and youngest people in the labour market. And in

terms of what this means in social consequences, to have these

people unemployed, to have them doing nothing in those

particular ages, I think this government, indeed, should start

checking very closely into what they're doing and into their

record. We simply do not have employment possibilities for

young people who don't have specialized skill or specialized

training.

The result is, of course, that the seasonally adjusted

unemployment rate rose again from 7.1 in December to 7.5 in

January, which is consistent with a seven-month trend that

we've had, and the actual unemployment level has reached a

record high. As I've mentioned, it's 102,000, which is a record

high.

There are 50 per cent more males unemployed than a year ago,

and 35 per cent more women.

Mr. Speaker, I give these figures to point out that we do

have at the present time a crisis of severe proportions in

British Columbia. It doesn't do much good to try and pass the

buck to any other level of government or to pass the buck to

previous programmes. But I think it is really necessary for

this government to realize that the problem is with us and with

us now. Rhetoric from the Minister of Labour, quoting

out-of-date statistics, is not going to make the problem go

away.

The problem, as indicated, needs some long-term

[ Page 76 ]

and consistent thought and planning from the government,

which we haven't seen and of which there is no indication in

the throne speech. I just trust that in the near future,

perhaps in the budget and certainly in the estimates of the

Ministers concerned, we're going to see something in the nature

of concrete programmes.

When this was discussed a couple of years ago, we had the

Premier coming in here, waving his arms and saying that we were

going to have a merchant marine. It was going to create

shipbuilding; it was going to create enormous numbers of jobs.

That was going to be that, and that would solve it.

We then heard stories about a copper smelter; we then heard

stories about a steel mill. We have heard stories of industry

after industry, and all of them have come to nothing. The only

suggestion, as I mentioned, is to go back, as put forward in

the throne speech, to the tried-and-true woods industry to try

to find some employment there. I'm not knocking it; I think

that at least there is some virtue in trying that. But

certainly, in terms of new policies and programmes,

particularly in the secondary industry area, we have had

virtually nothing at all from this government.

Mr. Speaker, the programmes that the government has put

before us, in particular the programmes of the Department of

Economic Development, have been extremely weak. We have seen

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) attempt to

increase employment in the agricultural industry. We welcome

that. We have seen increases elsewhere by specific Ministers,

and I mention the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). We welcome that. But as far as

an overall and consistent policy or strategy of industrial

development and job creation goes, we have nothing at all.

It makes sad reading to go back and look at the speeches of 1972 by

the present Premier. At that time he was full of ideas. At that time he

could pull out of a hat a Japanese automobile plant, a steel plant —

whatever. Now that he's in power, now that he has put a Minister

responsible for nothing else but industrial development, it seems that

all the ideas have come to an end. The amendment to the motion we are

debating is a very serious one. It's not something which lends itself

to putting forward detailed policy proposals; those will come forward,

of course, in the estimates debate. But it is one which I urge every

Member of the House, in particular the government backbenchers, to look

at particularly closely. How can they take any pride whatsoever in this

government which talks so often about its ability to create jobs and

the fact that it is people-oriented? How can the Members of the

government look with any satisfaction at having the worst rate of all

time — 102,000 unemployed? How can they look with any satisfaction at

all upon the increase between this year and last: up 50 per cent for

males in the work force and up 35 per cent for women?

The resolution we are voting on regrets that the speech did

not deal with these subjects. Any Member of this House who

votes in favour of the government on this particular issue

would be blind indeed.

The problem is there, and the Speech from the Throne makes

no effort whatsoever to deal with it. We know why. We know that

this has been coming up. I mentioned that this is the seventh

month in a row that the rate has gone up. We know why: there

has been a general slowdown in world markets. But, in addition,

the actions of this government have slowed down both the mining

and the forest sectors. We know that it takes time for this to

hit all the secondary and subordinate industries which support

our primary resource industries — and that's pretty well what

has happened. The problems of last summer, the problems of last

spring and the problems of the fall are catching up with us now

as, month by month, we discover the chain reaction taking

place, and more and more and more people become unemployed.

About the only positive proposal was that of the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), who is in the chamber now. I

commend him for at least trying to find work, for those who

wanted it, in Alberta. It at least indicated his recognition of

the fact that there was not work available for people in B.C.

and that government policies made it unlikely that there would

be work in the immediate future. I commend him for at least

trying to find work for the people concerned. The Government of

Alberta has apparently terminated the programme, and I'm sorry

for that. We're all sorry that we would have to send British

Columbians elsewhere to find work. Nevertheless, at least an

effort was made by the Minister of Human Resources to find them

work in another province.

Unless we can get away from the general business decline — much of

which is tied in with construction and with capital

investment — and reverse things, this trend in likely to

continue.

The motion, as I mentioned, is a fairly modest one. It

simply regrets that the government in its Speech from the

Throne does so little and says so little about the problem of

unemployment. In those terms, I think it is worthy of support

from every Member of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I am pleased to join in this

debate on the amendment here today and to say that I certainly

support the amendment, because of the inadequacy of this

government's programmes to provide jobs for, as the last

speaker

[ Page 77 ]

said,100,000 unemployed people.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments to point out to

you that this government has not only not created opportunities

to reduce employment and increase employment but they are,

through their policies, causing unemployment. I refer, of

course, to the mineral legislation that was passed last year,

and we now have the mining industry in its difficult

circumstances. Where we should have new mines coming on stream,

I believe at least, we haven't any. The existing mines that we

have are cutting back. I refer there to Gibraltar mines in the

Cariboo who have cut back 100 employees since January, 1975.

Just this weekend we have Lornex Mines out of Ashcroft and

Kamloops cutting back — 100-odd. This really has a bad influence

on the smaller communities that are close to these existing

mines.

Apart from this, we have had figures here that show that

exploration has practically come to a stop, and this is

indicative of the mining legislation that has passed here. I'm

aware of the fact that world copper prices have declined, but I

am of the opinion that that would not have reduced the existing

work forces if it hadn't been also for the overriding

provincial legislation that was made law here in this

Legislature last year. I refer to Bill 31, the mineral

royalties legislation. Certainly the one level of royalty at

2.5 per cent and 5 per cent — probably there's nothing wrong

with it.

When you get into the super-royalty, what is the point of

large mining companies continuing on at the low prices — waiting for

the prices to advance — and have it all taken away

by the super-royalty provisions that are in that bill? I would

say that not only are world metal prices part of the cause, but

the mining industry in the province is also afflicted with an

affliction that I'd like to name "Nimsickitis." I think that

the sooner we have a change at the head of the mining portfolio

in the province, the better it will be for jobs and everybody

else in that industry.

As far as the forest industry is concerned, they have had

their difficulties for quite some time now. It is my

observation, Mr. Speaker, that we will not see any advancement

in the forest industry in this province, because of the

insecurity that anybody investing in large forest enterprises

has under the atmosphere that exists with this government. They

want to hammer everybody that's in business, whether big or

small, and it certainly applies to the forest industry.

'Mere has been no major investment in the forest industry

since 1972, other than that done by the government themselves.

It's certainly standing still and, if anything, going

backwards, apart from all the marketing problems they have.

The main thing that I would like to point out in this short

debate, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of causing unemployment, is

again getting back to the British Columbia Railway and what has happened to that very

vital link to the economy and job creation in this province,

referring to the central and northern part and lower

mainland.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we had a work stoppage on this

line late last fall that culminated in a work stoppage of seven

weeks. In my opinion, this work stoppage should never have

lasted seven weeks, and I want to relate to this House why it

shouldn't have lasted seven weeks, causing all the hardship

that it did cause, not only on the employees of the railroad

that were locked out from the work stoppage, but also with the

indirect result to the main industry in the interior forestry

and, secondly, the mining industry. It had a direct effect on

them. They had to lay off employees because of no adequate link

to get their products to market.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, this work stoppage could have been

settled in a lot shorter period than seven weeks. I want to

reiterate this to the House today to show that, in my opinion,

the work stoppage shouldn't have lasted any more than, say,

three and a half weeks, half the period of time that it

took.

I want to relate to you why this is. Under

section 122 of

the Labour Code that we passed in the fall of 1973 in this

Legislature, it provides that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King) can set up an industrial inquiry commission. I think the

main point in

section 122 is this: the Minister may either,

upon application or on his own motion, set up an industrial

inquiry commission.

The facts of this work stoppage on the railroad, which

commenced in the latter part of November, are this: the

Minister of Labour refused to appoint an industrial inquiry

commission and took the stand that he would not do so unless

asked to by both disputing parties.

I might say that this party recommended early in the dispute

that the Minister take this action without asking the two

disputing parties. He consistently refused to do so and

continued to procrastinate. Finally, of course, he got the

request from the two disputing parties. Shortly after, this

dispute ended.

For that reason he caused no end of economic hardship on

innocent people in the central and northern parts of the

province and, I might say, right during the holiday season.

People were even afraid to buy their Christmas turkeys as they

had no idea when they were going back to work. I don't think

any of that was necessary at all because the strike could have

been settled prior to the Christmas holidays instead of at the

last day of the first week in January 1975.

We are still paying for that strike, Mr. Speaker. I will

just give you one example: the timber bill that we passed here

last fall that gave the government authority to raise the price

of wood chips. What good is that when they have no

transportation link to get

[ Page 78 ]

this commodity to a market to take advantage of that price?

It is, of course, still continuing.

I might point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that maybe there was

a conflict of interest here, because this Minister is also the

vice-president of the British Columbia Railway. Maybe he felt

that he was protecting the railroad to the degree that he

didn't want to cooperate. I am sure that it is showing a

substantial loss, and less operations and less of a payroll to

be made could reduce that deficit.

So I repeat that the Minister of Labour, whether he did it

intentionally or not, certainly created unemployment when it

was not necessary to have this at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Railroaded the whole thing.

MR. FRASER: Correct. Railroaded the whole thing.

It is still having drastic effects on the interior in this

dispute. We have on the board of directors three elected

persons: the Premier is the president of the railroad; the

Minister of Labour is the vice-president; and the Minister

Without Portfolio, the Member for Fort George (Hon. A.A.

Nunweiler), the Minister in charge of northern affairs. I think

they should take a more serious look than they have in the past

on the operation of this public railroad.

We have always looked at this transportation link with the

interior and the central part of the north as a reliable form

of transportation. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we no longer

look at it that way because you can never tell when it is going

to operate and when it is not going to operate.

So I say to the elected Members that I would like them to

show a lot more interest in this line than they have in the

past. Get these problems ironed out because there are

definitely a lot of problems there, and they are still

there.

The morale of that railroad is at an all-time low with the

employees. If that is not resolved, we certainly haven't seen

the end of disruptions of rail service to the interior, and

they just can't afford much more.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's an action by hotheads.

MR. FRASER: I don't really think the board of directors

realized that when you can't get cars because of a work

stoppage or for other reasons, merchandise in the sawmill

industry has to be stockpiled. To stockpile it means that

industry has to borrow large sums of money to finance the

stockpiling. And at interest rates today of 10 and 11 per cent,

they just cannot afford to go on this way much longer.

They have had difficulty in the central interior and in the north

with this railroad for about a year. It has been going on now a whole

year with intermittent service on this railroad. A year ago now we had

a railcar shortage that was certainly the blame of the BCR and other

lines. At that time the market was excellent and they couldn't get

their products out. It seems the only time that this railroad does

operate efficiently is when there is no market for the product that

they manufacture. I'm referring to the forest industry in the interior.

Then the railcars come from all directions.

I was pleased with the report the Premier, as president,

gave us today about the current situation, but I would like to

just expand on that for a minute, that we have unemployment

going on in the central interior right today. Employees of

sawmills and plywood plants in the interior are being advised

not to come to work this very day because there are no railcars

to load the product into. So again, this is creating

unemployment, right on this very day, all along this line. Here

we have these companies struggling with this situation for a

year, and I am afraid of some bankruptcies happening in the

sawmill complexes and plywood plants that exist, because no

business can stand paying the cost of this stockpiling and see

no end to it in sight.

As far as chips are concerned, I don't believe the Premier,

as president of the railroad, said much about chip cars in his

report, but there is a dire shortage of chip cars right on this

present day. Again, we go back to the legislation passed last

fall, which appeared to be helpful to the industry, but how can

it be helpful when there are no cars to rail the chips to the

various pulp mills?

I would just like to conclude by mentioning the northwest

development. When it was originally announced, I believe in

1973, it would appear that if anything has been done along that

line, which has been going on for two years now, we might see

some new jobs being created. But I really feel that all that

was was a major press release, and I'm sure that the people who

live in the northwest feel the same way. All they have seen is

no end of task forces, committees and then committees to

investigate the task forces, but very few, if any, new

jobs.

Certainly the northwest development is just a bunch of talk,

and I believe up there, again, they feel that they have "task

force-itis" up in the northwest interior.

Among all the things that were to happen under the northwest

development, rail expansion and industry expansion, there was

one part that I would like to hear from the government — where

they think they are going, and get something done on this. But

we have a major rail link which was included in this — I refer

to the rail link of the BCR to link up between a point south of

Clinton over to the mainline railroads somewhere down the

Thompson Valley. Everybody in that part of the country is

waiting to

[ Page 79 ]

see some construction. I don't think any agreement is even

signed.

I think it's time this government told these people that

they had better not exist and stay there waiting on employment

from the construction of this rail link or the jobs that will

follow with industries following when it happens, because

absolutely nothing has happened.

I just say again, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly support this

amendment because of the lack in the throne speech of the

creation of any new jobs or planning employment for — I believe

the figure used by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) — the figure of 102,000 people who are presently

unemployed, and I am afraid that's going to get higher before

it gets lower.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker...

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Pray for

unemployment.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...it's been interesting, particularly

interesting, these stories that have come forward from the

Social Credit Party in this House.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the Liberal position,

from a person who's just come out from Ottawa, citing all the

great things that he would do. We work a great deal with some

of his old colleagues down east, however, and have had some

difficulty in conferring and making his old colleagues

understand some of the difficulties in B.C.

You know, he says that there are more unemployed in B.C.

than there were a year ago. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that

something new? Across the entire world there are more

unemployed than there were a year ago — and this little island

with its 7.6 per cent unemployed.

I'm going to deal with just what it was like before, when we

had a recession nothing like this one now. Mr. Speaker, this

province isn't suffering today like it did then, by virtue of

the fact that there are some bold programmes. There is rapid

transit growing. Young people for the first time have had

consideration — two in a row — $30 million programmes from a

government that, for the first time, cares. I didn't see any

$30 million programmes coming from your daddy, since you're the

one that wants to respond.

The fact of the matter is, this government has a

responsibility to young people, to the old people, and the

middle-aged folk in this province, and for the first time

something is being done about it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: We still have that same old problem that the

former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) used to talk about — the problem of a

far higher increase in immigration. It's still 3.3 per cent — they're

moving in here. And there was criticism of the fact that if Alberta has

jobs, then that's where they should go. The fact of the matter is....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that

that's precisely what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi) did — indicate where there are jobs, identifiable jobs.

That's where the people would go if, in fact, they have a sense

of responsibility, and many have done that.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are more jobs in this province on a

percentage basis than there have ever been before in a tough,

recessive situation like we have now. And, Mr. Speaker, the old

carry-the-can on the copper prices — why do they point their

finger at my colleague, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick), when every time there has been a decrease in copper

prices, identically the same thing has happened in this

province to right now — every time, Mr. Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot)? I remember, in 1966 when the price of

copper went down, that the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), at that time the Leader of

the Opposition, had to put the heat on the Jordan River Mine

people for the back wages that were never paid.

This government — at that time Socred government — didn't

even care. It had to be the Leader of the Opposition. They

close down every time, or they reduce their staff, every time

there's a reduction in price. And what are we supposed to do — build

world prices, Mr. Speaker?

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. COCKE: Since we've been....

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to know if there is a recession in

copper prices in the Yukon where...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That is not the point of the order.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...has increased by 100 percent.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

The price has gone down all over the world. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

[ Page 80 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, since we've been government,

many of the opposition have demanded attention to unemployment.

It's strange, Mr. Speaker. It's strange to me, for those who

cared so little now care so much. But, worse, Mr. Speaker, they

can't see what's going on around them. This is the only

government this province has had in recent history — in the

last 20 or 30 years — that has paid attention to the need for

jobs. And every time.... (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. And every time, Mr. Speaker,

we move to assist in this area, however, the opposition screams

to high heaven.

Did they support Can-Cel, Mr. Speaker?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): No.

HON. MR. COCKE: Did they support those thousands of jobs

that were retained by virtue of the fact that this little

government cared enough? No, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, no, they

did not, despite the fact that it maintained all those jobs...

HON. MR. BARRETT: They supported Commonwealth Trust.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...in the plants, and all of the related

jobs in the area. No, they did not, Mr. Speaker. Likewise, did

they support Ocean Falls? In this House they spoke against it,

Mr. Speaker, in identically the same terms, because they saw

across the aisle in this House an enemy by virtue of the fact

we were doing things for the first time for the people who

matter in this province, Mr. Speaker — those people who are

working for the growth of B.C.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. And we all

know their voting records. Mr. Speaker, where did they stand on

ICBC? Where did they stand on ICBC? Most of those insurance

jobs were going on in Bay Street and New York and London. There

are 1,800 jobs right here, directly, in all of the related jobs

and all of the possible jobs because there are 1,800 people in

ICBC.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the turnover rate in those 1,800

jobs?

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: If they had wit they would be a real

opposition, but, Mr. Speaker, they're half an opposition.

MR. CHABOT: Stick with the mental health.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker; they're critical of an

adequate civil service. The Leader of the opposition says he

would cut off half their heads if he had an opportunity.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right — the pro tem leader, the pro

tem Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

MR, SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: He knows it's balderdash, a great deal of

it. There is an increase, and I'll deal with some of it. But

many of that number, Mr. Speaker, have, for the first time in

20 years working for the civil service, got a full-time

permanent status. They've been classified as temporary for 20

years, many of them — civil servants in this province. What an

absolutely shameful, disgraceful way to look after the people

about whom they so dearly love to talk.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): They were there 20

years temporarily.

HON. MR. COCKE: Twenty years of temporary, Mr. Speaker. How

many years do you have to be working? They were there 20 years

temporarily, and most people who have any knowledge of politics

hope that that's all they'll ever get.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, who is in favour of fair play?

There have been additions. I can give you a couple of hundred

in public health — a little more than that. And the

constituencies of each one of you are still asking for more

public health nurses. Yet the way you talk, you want us to lay

off the ones we added, who were badly needed. That's precisely

what you're saying: that we're loading the public service.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time a public servant in this

province can do a job, knowing full well that he's got a little

bit of help. There has been a cry for more health workers, and

I can remember it in opposition. We've tried as best we could

to respond to that cry, but we still haven't enough from the

standpoint of the union boards of health in each one of your

constituencies.

[ Page 81 ]

MR. CHABOT: What have you done in mine?

HON. MR. COCKE: We have added public health nurses, public

health inspectors and public health people across this province

to the tune of something in the order of close to 300. You all

know it. You're getting a better time now than you ever had

before.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, it's jobs they want, they say. But what

do our constructive friends do when we do something about jobs?

They tear their hair out. Is it any wonder that this group is

in favour of everything that's backwards? Turn the calendar

back; turn the clock back.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you how they used to operate.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in 1961....

MR. CHABOT: You weren't even here. You don't know what

you're talking about.

HON. MR. COCKE: In 1960 and 1961, there was a real recession

in this province, but not as bad as the one we have now. At

that time, what was the magnitude of unemployment? These are

the real figures, Mr. Speaker: December, 1960, 9.8 per cent.

There it is: B.C. Jobless rate the highest in Canada; a tenth of

the working force idle as of November. A tenth, Mr. Speaker.

What did they do about it, those magnanimous Members of the

Social Credit Party of that day? Did they add to the civil

service? No, they did not. As a matter of fact, it got worse

the next month, in January. In January it was 10.9.

So on January 20, 1961, the welfare Minister, Wesley Black,

took the jobless medical aid and cut it off. That was his

answer to unemployment. He cut off the jobless employable from

medical aid. We had to repair that damage a year and a half ago

by making available, on an instant's notice, medical care to

those who have a low income or no income. Mr. Speaker, that's

the way they responded. Cut them off medical aid. I'm sorry for

that group, and I know how they yen.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Haunted by the sins of

the past.

HON. MR. COCKE: But, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the people in

British Columbia understand that large corporate-based group,

who are manipulated every day of their lives by the millions of

dollars they are attracting from their friends.

Mr. Speaker, I was just in California, and don't you start

telling me about B.C. being in dire shape. Almost 12 per cent

of the people in that state are unemployed at the present time.

I was up in northern California. You think it's bad in the

Cariboo; you think that it's bad in the forests in British

Columbia. It's infinitely worse down there.

MR. PHILLIPS: What has that got to do with it?

HON. MR. COCKE: It's got to do with the fact that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) responded to the needs of the forest companies in

this province and stopped crying about it. A government that

responds is something those people don't understand.

Across the States it's over 8 per cent, higher than it is in

the Province of British Columbia. Yet in spite of the arguments

that you hear from over there, our economy is in a better state

now than what could ever have been hoped for in the past.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: You know, I'm sorry for your people in

Cariboo, because they have such negative thoughts now because

of their Member who daily sows the seed of doom and gloom and

utter.... You know, he's got everybody up there so depressed

they don't even bother going to work any more. And he doesn't

even stick around for any answers.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the whole question is

ridiculous, and it's more ridiculous because of the hypocrisy

of this kind of a resolution that's been put forward before

this House. I utterly reject it, and certainly I reject the

spirit in which it was put forward.

MR. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I guess if

anyone feels sorry for anyone in this chamber, it's the chamber

for the Minister of Health, who just spoke. I found it

extraordinary that the expansion and vision of his job-creating

abilities and thinking, as he was expressing it for the

government, went so far as to start and stop at the civil

service — the only alternative.

Then he backed this up by parading the problems of

California before us. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that Minister's

ideal for his administration is the State of California, then

we're in more dire shape than we though we were, and most of

British Columbia knows we're in great difficulties now.

California, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, didn't have

a cash surplus of $90 million when it came into office two and

a half years ago which could have been

[ Page 82 ]

properly invested and which could have been used in part to

meet the needs of today, to act as a buffer, to have had a

government that would show prudence and wisdom in creating jobs and in

putting investment in the proper places in the

economy, to stimulate jobs not in the civil service forever but

in the private sector, small businesses.

AN HON. MEMBER: They gambled it away.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, as I said, they gambled it away and threw

it around in gold filigree. That's great comfort to the jobless

people of this province today — over $ 100 million. Don't baby

me.

I found it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of

Health got up and said that he found the fact that there are

100,000 people in the Province of British Columbia unemployed

as "interesting" — not overly interesting, not concerning, just

interesting. I guess if you're sitting on your fat stats for

$40,000-odd a year and trips to China, you probably do glance

at these figures and find them mildly interesting.

Then he told us about depression, and the only truth that

comes out of that is that the Minister never admitted on behalf

of his government that he and his government have led this

province into a state of depression. He talks about a $30

million programme. That didn't indicate in any way the

long-term jobs that that $30 million is creating. All that it

indicated to this House and to the public is that the Minister,

like the rest of his colleagues, feels that the higher the

bill, the more you've spent, the better the job must be. Thirty

million dollars, Mr. Speaker, should be providing a lot of

jobs, and if you look at the figures, it isn't.

Where is the high unemployment rate, through you, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister? It's not in New Westminster; it's in

the non-metropolitan areas of this province. You know, he

talked about Jordan River, and cast comments about the past. I

find it extraordinary that he would use Jordan River as an

example of their government's policy because, Mr. Speaker, the

Jordan River mine today is not even operating. There is not one

job there, and those miners were forced, under this government,

just before Christmas when they were picketing this building,

to go on welfare; and that was the advice they got from the

government. It was just at that point the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young) looked up and said, "Who's the

ding-a-ling?" And she was right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Explain!

MRS. JORDAN: If the Minister wants to know about the mines

that could be developed and stimulated into production, there are some

potential coal mines in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a market for it?

MRS. JORDAN: There's a market. I don't pretend to know all

the details, but in case he doesn't know, I'll give him some

names. And instead of parading Jordan River before this House

as a market success in their job-creating abilities, I suggest

he gets together with the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

and looks at these potentials: Coalition Mining Co. in the

Peace River, Chetwynd, one of the areas where the unemployment

is at 10 per cent; Crows Nest Industries, Natal. That should

interest the Minister of Mines. You might be able to help the

people in your area, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

who are suffering from unemployment today as a result of your

legislation.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You come up to my office and I'll tell you

all about the coal mines.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I haven't time to go to your

office. I need to get out and help try and create some

confidence in this economy so that there can be jobs for

people. There's a whole list of them: Rio Algoma Mines Ltd.;

Flathead, Fernie; Utah Mines Ltd.; Crows Nest, Fernie; Denison

Mines Ltd. — all in the parts of the province where the need to

stimulate employment is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the whole reason for this amendment to the

Speech from the Throne is an effort, an attempt to try and wake

up this government, to try and make them understand and help

them to realize that the unemployment figures in British

Columbia that they find "interesting," that the Minister

of Labour says aren't too bad, are absolutely unacceptable. It

is to try and bring to their attention some of the problems

that this unemployment is creating for the people of this

province, the families of this province — whether they are men,

women or children, or students who want to take a semester off

at this time of the year and work, and can't get a job.

The amendment in our debate is trying to bring to the

attention of this government that the unemployment figures show

a geographic location of the highest unemployment, a problem

that is not easily rectified. It is to try and point out to

them that an unemployment figure this high, and for the reasons

we have it in British Columbia — the world situation as well as

the disastrous results of this government's legislation — demands that

there needs to be a response from the government,

and it is going to take a long time for a recovery to take

place.

We are trying to point out in this amendment the

responsibility the provincial government has in this area — not

just to find the figures and the

[ Page 83 ]

unemployed people — but they obviously consider unemployed

people as figures — interesting. We have outlined in earlier

debates on our part, suggestions, and we will do so in the

future.

But it has become quite evident, Mr. Speaker, in this debate — both from the attitude of the cabinet, the lack of attendance

of the NDP in the House during this most important debate, from

the Speech from the Throne itself and from the debate of the

two Ministers — that the concerns of the people of British

Columbia and the concerns of the opposition in this House are

certainly not the concerns of this government.

In fact, as we review the debate we find that they are so

unconcerned and that they have, or appear to have, in fact,

become so blasé in office that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King), once the amendment had been moved, could hardly wait to

get on his feet. Not only did he make it clear that the

government does not consider the rising unemployment figures,

which are accompanied by high unemployment insurance costs to

the taxpayers and high welfare costs for the employable

unemployed, not worthy of mention in the Speech from the

Throne, but they don't want to listen to any suggestions that

would emanate from this debate.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker: what conclusion can the people of

this province and the official opposition draw from this

attitude, both through the lack of the mention of this vital

subject in the throne speech and through the efforts of the

government to curtail as much as possible the debate on this

subject?

I suggest there can be one of three charges — perhaps all.

First, it could be charged that the cabinet have become so

comfortably entrenched in their new-found luxuries of office — the

goodies of the office, the high-flying trips, the so-called

fringe benefits — that in two and a half years they have become

so old and isolated from the people of this province, and as

reflected in this debate and in the Speech from the Throne,

simply don't care about the problems of British Columbia that

are being made worse by their own legislation, their own

actions and their own attitudes. And unemployment at this time

is one of those paramount results.

Or, is it to be charged, Mr. Speaker, that after two and a half

years the blinkers of socialism are still on? The government, with its

blinkers on, is blind to the fact that ideology does not put food on the

table and feed the baby, that blind ideology does not respond to the

people and their human needs — in this instance, jobs. Blind ideology

does not respond to human or economic times, and if it responds at all,

it responds solely to itself. Or, Mr. Speaker, should it be charged

that the government is deliberately trying to hide the facts from the

people of this province, to hide the fact that unemployment in British

Columbia is worse than it should be, because of this government's

mismanagement?

Are they trying to hide behind a smokescreen of recycled

backpatting that we saw in the Speech from the Throne, and

cooked-up arguments and battles with other jurisdictions,

whether it's the federal government or other provinces, or

clerks within offices or other departments? Are the Premier and

his cabinet trying to sweep under the carpet and hide from the

public the real problems of the day in British Columbia?

Unemployment. Mismanagement. Certainly the evidence suggests

that the cabinet, the Premier and the Members of this

government are guilty on all three counts.

If there is no guilt, why don't we hear from the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) in this

debate? His legislation has been one of the most devastating

and important factors in the rising unemployment in this

province.

Why don't we have words of wisdom from the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), who can't even answer a question in

question period, Mr. Speaker? He draws a high salary, goes on

television and doesn't even know anything about his own

department. He cannot give proof to this House whether millions

of dollars that he spent in this province in the last year

created jobs for people, jobs for British Columbians. Why don't

we hear from that Minister, whose own riding has one of the

higher unemployment figures in this province?

Why don't we hear from the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson)? He's not hearing, but, Mr. Speaker, I'm hearing.

This weekend I had a number of calls from Kamloops. His

constituents were asking if I knew why their Member wasn't up

in this House trying to point out to his own government how

their mismanagement and legislation was hurting his own

constituents: the closure of mines, the lack of jobs in the

allied service industry, the fact that Kamloops is an

industrial core in British Columbia. What did the Member for

Kamloops do? When you bring it to his attention, he doesn't

stand up and speak, and try and point out to the government,

and fight for his constituents. He walks across the floor. He

walks the other way.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) paraded

the figures of women in the workforce before this debate. But

nowhere did he indicate why these women were working, what type

of jobs they had, whether they had gone to work because their

husbands had been laid off. In this instance, they usually

settle for lower-paying jobs — jobs they should be better able

to pass up.

In the Speech from the Throne there is a whole

section on

International Women's Year. They say, "Policies will be

implemented to continue to improve employment opportunities for

women in the British Columbia public service Now, isn't that great?

Their philosophy is to change "home service" for

[ Page 84 ]

"civil service" for women. I suggest that any labour

policy

or any opportunity that the Minister of Labour outlines for

women in this province should not be among the first laid off

in this high unemployment period.

There was no policy for education of women in International

Women's Year so that women would have the opportunity, whether

they were 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60, to gain some training so

that they would have an opportunity for a good-paying job. Even

if they do train, there is no indication from the Minister of

Labour that those jobs would be available. That is another

reason for the amendment.

In fact, in the whole area of job opportunities for women,

it could be said that this government is a complete bust.

Mr. Speaker, other Members have pointed out the statistics,

and I don't have any intention of repeating them. But I would

like to suggest that there is an opportunity for job creation

that should have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne,

in the whole field of agriculture.

Consistently over the last two years this industry has

stated that the most serious problem they have is getting

labour. Their most serious competitors are the welfare rolls

and the high moneys that are paid to unemployed employables who

find it easier to get a sun tan on the beach than working in

the fields or the orchards. Even in your income assurance, the

allowable amount for labour of various ages still does not

allow them to compete against the industries in their

surrounding areas.

I feel that the government should have pointed out in the

Speech from the Throne a great interest in trying, through a

cooperative effort with the agriculture industry on a scale

not just of 100 jobs or 128 jobs but on a major scale, to help

the producers to help in the unemployment picture by creating a

programme which would encourage people to work in the

agricultural industry. And this also would be a help to

agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to appeal at this point to the

backbenchers, if not the cabinet, of this government to

recognize how the lack of responsibility, the lack of planning,

the lack of sensitivity, and the comfortable style in which

they are living has blinded their cabinet and the leaders of

their government to the growing problems of the people in this

province, and to show that they are, in fact, still very much

in touch with the people of this province in their own

constituents, and to stand up and vote in support of this

amendment so that they, together with us, as the official

opposition, and the public of this province can make clear to

the government what their errors are and how they can correct

them. If we all do this, the people who will benefit most will

be the people of the province, most particularly the

unemployed.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I'd like to, Mr. Speaker, in effect

give an account of two mills — you might say the tale of two

mills — in Terrace, which I think illustrates why I would vote

against this amendment.

The two sawmills in question are just across the road from

each other. One is Pohle Lumber, owned by Canadian Cellulose.

The other mill is Skeena Forest Products, which is now owned by — well, it was owned by Price Brothers of Quebec and is now

owned by Abitibi. These two mills, as I said, are roughly equal

in size. They are across the road from each other, each

employing approximately 200 to 400 employees.

Well, today Pohle Lumber is continuing to operate; there is

a payroll coming out of that mill. Skeena Forest Products

closed down early in December, and there is no indication at the

present time when that mill will reopen. Those men are mostly on

unemployment insurance, or else they have had to move out and

find employment elsewhere.

This illustrates, I think, very much the difference in the

way that we operate. Canadian Cellulose has been responsive to

the social responsibilities that all companies should be

responsive to — that is, they have a responsibility to the

community to try to avoid hardships and, wherever possible, try

to keep people employed. So the situation, obviously very

simple, is that these men are getting their pay cheques right

now. They are still drawing their money, they are at work,

because of the influence of this government in the way in which

they could exercise influence — similarly at Kitwinga Lumber,

near the Indian reserve at Kitwinga.

The other mill, Skeena Forest Products, now owned by

Abitibi, the biggest pulp and paper empire in the world, is

closed down, and the men are out on the street.

This is the difference, and as far as I'm concerned, that

illustrates it perfectly. I could give you other examples of

the way in which government expenditures are going forward.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was on his feet a

few minutes ago, and the opposition leader criticized the

Minister of Health and more or less suggested that they were

not going ahead with hospital construction. I couldn't believe

my ears — because Smithers just got a brand-new hospital built

at a cost of about $3 million; there was about a $1 million

addition built on the Kitimat hospital; there is the Hazelton

hospital, on which construction is to begin in April. A new

hospital in Terrace should begin as well this summer, and there

is also another major health facility that should be underway

fairly soon. I see nothing but progress and good news when it

comes to hospital construction in my constituency. So I am very

surprised at the comments made.

I think these two things, the difference between

[ Page 85 ]

Pohle and Skeena, and the fact that school and hospital

construction is proceeding as normal, shows the kind of policy

this government is following. They are attempting to keep

things moving, to keep the economy going, and to keep people

employed.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

following up the logic of the previous speaker in this debate,

it would seem to suggest that the economy of British Columbia

would be in good shape if the government owned everything.

I'm interested to see the positive response to that comment

from across the way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): They're working at it.

MR. GIBSON: They are indeed working at it, as the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay said.

But I would suggest to the Members of the government that if

the government did own everything in this province we would be

a great deal poorer than we are now, and it is only the rest of

the economy, an economy that was relatively healthy when they

took over, that allows them to go ahead with their spending

schemes, some of which are excellent — spending on all these

kinds of things is very good, but the point I want to make is

that that revenue must come from somewhere.

The New Democratic Party — though I disagree with many of

their policies — is very good at concentrating on the

distribution of wealth. But they are no good at all on the

subject of the creation of wealth, and it is the creation of

wealth that is exactly the subject of this part of the throne

debate.

I couldn't believe my ears when I heard the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) stand up and attempt to convince us that

9.6 per cent unemployment in British Columbia was really not

such a bad figure and that we should be relatively content with

it. Then I heard the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) tell

us that Bill 31 and the policies of the government had nothing

to do with the mining situation in this province, and that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) responded to the problem in the forest industry, and

that's why we're so fortunate in the forest industry now — only

16,000 men out of work. That was some response that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources had. He brought

down the stumpage far too late.

We apparently have some kind of vague employment programme coming up

in the forest industry that we suggested three or four months ago, and

should have been in place three or four months ago, for the building of

capital facilities, roads and that kind of thing that could use the men

and the equipment that are otherwise idle and should have been going on

over this winter instead of just coming along to dress up a throne

speech, and in vague detail at that.

What the government doesn't understand, Mr., Speaker, is, as

I say, this question of production. If we don't have it, none

of the things they want to do can be done. We aren't going to

have it, the way things are going along now. We have 9.6 per

cent unemployment, as I said, but worse than that, we have a

trend of falling capital expenditure that is not going to

develop new jobs in the future in British Columbia. The Premier

says that's not so, Mr. Speaker, but as a matter of fact, it is

so. I hope he talks in this debate, or I hope he says something

about it in the budget speech, but the fact of the matter is....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Up 18 per cent last year.

MR. GIBSON: Eighteen per cent up last year, says the

Premier, after inflation zero up last year, and you know it,

Mr. Premier. You know that costs in construction are going up

at least that fast.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Eighteen per cent per year.

MR. GIBSON: There hasn't been a mine put into production in

this province for over two years, and there are lots of good

prospects. You know it, and it's been exactly because of the

policies of your government. There hasn't been a new pulp mill

put on stream in this province for, what is it, more than two

years.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Be careful, or I'll get up and speak.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister of Mines has threatened to speak,

Mr. Speaker. I hope he does. I hope he tells us all he knows, and we'll

give him all the time he needs....

MR. PHILLIPS: That will be five minutes.

MR. GIBSON: ...because that policy of his needs a lot of

explanation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Take five minutes and tell us all you

know.

MR. GIBSON: When was the last pulp mill built in British

Columbia?

We heard at the truck loggers' association....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It was 1972, says the Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser).

[ Page 86 ]

At the truck loggers' association we heard the head of the

B.C. Chamber of Commerce say that there's enough timber for six

more mills in this province, There's certainly not one on the

drawing board, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

MR. GIBSON: The president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce

said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's where you get all your information,

I'll bet.

MR. GIBSON: Some of the government Members find that

amusing, Mr. Speaker, that among other things, Members of this

House should listen to the president of the chamber of

commerce. Isn't that a shocking thing? I listen to the

president of the B.C. Federation of Labour too. I listen to

anybody with good advice as to how the economy of this province

can be made better.

Getting back to the forest industry, I saw a study done by

the Pulp and Paper Association of Canada of 12 new paper

machines around the world installed in 1973 and 1974, and not

one in British Columbia. This was the original home of this

kind of investment, Mr. Speaker. So, as I say, it pains me a

little bit and it puzzles me to see Members of the government,

who should be wanting this kind of production to make possible

their programmes, claiming that things are all rosy in British

Columbia.

The difficulty, in large part, lies in the government's

philosophy about the way our economic system ought to work. The

government believes that the political system, rather than the

market system, is the right way to set prices and allocate

resources in a much broader area of our economy than is the

case at the moment. The government, and the party represented

in the government, believes that profits are too high, that

they tend to give inappropriate economic signals which

encourage people to rip off the consumer and rape resources and

that kind of thing, They think that profits are particularly

despicable in otherwise useful things like health care and

housing. They think that production in this province is

automatic and that they've inherited a kind of money

machine.

This government, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the area of resources,

believes that British Columbia is in the driver's seat in this world.

They think that we are so resource-rich that we can put any kind of

rules at all on the resource operations and they'll continue to crank

out money and jobs for British Columbia. It's just not true, Mr.

Speaker. Take our largest industry, the forest industry. We have good

wood, but it does not regenerate at anything like the cycle of other

parts of the world: around 80 years in British Columbia; around a

quarter of that in the southern United States and New Zealand; and

around a sixth of that in countries like Brazil. So we have to say,

well, perhaps our resources have been developed because we have good

technology and good workmen and we've had the capital investment at the

right time and good marketing programmes, and maybe we have to husband

that kind of thing along and encourage it rather than try and throttle

it and lose the jobs at the same time.

Look at our mining industry. We're sure not in the driver's

seat there.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): The biggest profits in history

last year.

MR. GIBSON: The grade of copper ore in our province that's

being exploited runs under 0.5 per cent in many of our big

mines. You go a couple of thousand miles down south into

Arizona and New Mexico, and it's up to 0.8 per cent. A little

further south you get into Peru and it's up to 1 per cent. A

little further south, down to Chile, it's up to 2 per cent — and so on,

around to the Philippines.

In that whole mining area of the world we're mining the

lowest-grade ore. The reason we are able to do that and provide

jobs out of doing that is because there has been a favourable

government environment which has made possible the development

of these resources, and which has cut off the development of

these resources in the last couple of years.

Another belief of this government is that state capitalism

gives economies of scale and economic yardsticks, so they

believe, to better manage the economy. That is why they get

into things like Can-Cel — not Columbia Cellulose as they

called it in the throne speech in that curious misprint — and

then run Can-Cel through the various economic levers available

to the government: the rates on the BCR, the stumpage payable,

the right to direct chips from other operators, tax incentives

of various kinds.

They run Can-Cel in a way which gives it a profit but

doesn't do very nice things for its suppliers, a couple of them

having gone bankrupt recently. And Can-Cel had the record up

until this fall, when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) got a little embarrassed, of

paying the lowest chip prices to any independent operator of

any pulp mill in this province.

I don't think the government's record with Can-Cel is

something to brag about that much.

This is a government that believes they have better answers

than the private sector and therefore ought to actively operate

and own industry in this province — everything in this province — rather than just

[ Page 87 ]

setting the rules. This is a government that believes that

so much that it puts its directors on the boards of Crown

corporations which ought to be at arm's length.

So who's really running Can-Cel? It's the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, and he's really running Ocean

Falls, and he's really running B.C. Hydro. He's probably really

running Dunhill Development and half the government too. That's

the man who seems to be in charge.

Government Ministers should be away from these things so

that they can honestly regulate the economy and keep it

healthy, rather than saying: "What is the narrow interest of

our Crown corporation, and how do we make it look profitable so

that we look like wise business managers and so we can say that

we beat the capitalists at their own game? Aren't we

smart?"

That's the whole effect of what the government is doing.

That's why we see the Minister of Labour as the executive

vice-president of the British Columbia Railway. Therefore, what

could he do about that strike when it came along? He had to

take the management position, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Labour: a tool of management. Can you believe that, Mr.

Speaker? But that's what happened in the British Columbia

Railway strike. That's why Ministers shouldn't be on the boards

of Crown corporations.

So what are the results of all these kinds of socialist

tenets about the economy? More and more economic decisions are

made by people who know less and less about them and were

chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with the ability to

make economic decisions. And that's certainly true of the

gentlemen and ladies opposite.

More and more economic decisions are made by people who are

removed from both economic information and the consequences of

their decisions. If a government manager makes a decision about

some sector of the economy and it goes sour, that's no problem — you just raise taxes, and you get another secretary and bring

in another electric typewriter, redecorate your office and the

world goes on fine. That's what happens if a government manager

makes a bad decision. That's not what happens in the private

sector.

You get more and more economic decisions made on the basis

of theories rather than facts. As you get more government power

in the economy, you get the inevitable corruption that that

power brings. You get a continuation of uncertainty....

MR. KELLY: You're not speaking to the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: I am speaking exactly to the amendment, Mr.

Member, because I'm talking now about uncertainty and what that has

done to the investment climate of this province. It has destroyed the

investment climate of this province, and it has slowed down greatly the

creation of jobs.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was trying to tell

this House that the problems in the mining industry come about

from the fact that world copper prices are down. Mr. Speaker,

world copper prices are down — let's start with that basis. No

question about it — very low.

So let's talk about gold. World gold prices aren't down;

they're at an all-time high.

Here's a little

article from the Bridge River-Lillooet

News of February 13, 1975, very appropriately titled: "Bill

31 Strikes Again."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've got two copies of that.

MR. GIBSON: You've got two copies of that, Mr. Minister? I

hope you read it twice and it really sinks in the second

time.

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker.

"Bralorne Resources will not be reopening the mine at

Bralorne this year. Mr. Norman C. Croome, who is

vice-president of mining for the company, explained that the

super-royalty imposed by Barrett's government makes it

impossible to operate the mine."

And that's gold at almost $200

an ounce.

"According to Mr. Croome, Bralorne Resources Ltd. has

already spent approximately $2 million on renovations at Bralorne, and

there would be a further $2 million to $2.5 million to finish the work."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, they're talking about walking

away from $2 million they just spent, even though Mr. Croome

believes that gold prices will remain high, even go higher. The

super-royalties see to it that the mine is simply not a viable

entity at this time and cannot reopen until some relief is

obtained from the royalties. Without the super-royalty,

Bralorne Resources would be making every effort to reopen the

mine on a scale of about 10,000 tons a month, or 120,000 tons

per year.

So where's the Minister of Health to listen to that little

story, Mr. Speaker? It has nothing to do with copper.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister says that he didn't say it would

definitely open. Mr. Minister, they just spent $2 million

renovating the thing. Don't you think they'd like to open it if

there were some way they could make a profit and your

legislation permitted it? Of course they would. What do you

know about the industry anyway? I can't believe a statement

like that.

[ Page 88 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the feasibility on the thing?

MR. GIBSON: Now the Member over here, who's interjecting

quite a bit.... The other day, during the debate, somebody

mentioned Granduc, and that particular Member said: "Tell the

whole Granduc story." I think the Granduc story should be told

a little bit, Mr. Speaker. Do you think it's a ripoff

operation, Mr. Member?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You tell us your version of the story.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member address

the Chair, please?

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes that Member

gets me a little exercised, that's all. We get along well.

(Laughter.)

Granduc has over $145 million invested in that particular

property. It is the mainstay....

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Where do

you get your facts?

MR. GIBSON: You stand up and contradict them, Mr. Minister,

if you don't like them; they're better than your facts,

generally. On these particular facts I had a study made. I made

a study myself, as a matter of fact. Yes, I got them from

several sources; I like to check them.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Now the situation at the moment is that Granduc

has a high operating cost. Granduc's operating cost is so high

that the profitability point is above the point where the

super-royalty cuts in. Now what does that mean in simple

language? What that means in simple language is that they never

have a chance to get any of that money back at all under

present legislation, period. Once the super-royalty cuts in, as

the Minister should know, for every extra dollar you take in,

as the Minister should know, for every extra dollar you take

in, you pay out $1.04 in taxes. Do you realize that, Mr.

Minister?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Don't you understand that, Mr. Minister?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Hart never told him that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if I can paraphrase the Minister,

he said: "You fell for that same line." Mr. Minister, that's

not a line — that's a fact. Don't you understand it? Would you

please go back to your officials and have them carefully, maybe

just in one page, go through a little mining operation of maybe

100 tons a day.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Gosh, Mr. Minister, if only you could

understand that, because it's true.

So, if you're paying out 104 cents in taxes for every 100

cents that is coming in, then obviously you have no chance of

ever getting anything back. Then they're surprised that there

is no mining investment in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it's bad enough that there are 1,500 men

already laid off in the mining industry in British Columbia.

Let's be completely charitable — let's say that's 100 per cent

due to the world copper market. But that's not the end of the

story by far. How about the several thousand people, 4,000 or

5,000 people probably, in the exploration field who aren't

exploring this year?

How about the fact that claim-staking in the first nine

months of 1974 was down over three-quarters from the equivalent

period in '71-'72?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They're all in the Yukon, the Member says, in

the Northwest Territories. The Yukon is now staking more claims

than British Columbia, which is an unbelievable thing, and

related clearly to provincial legislation. It can't be anything

else.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They pay a royalty of 10 per cent up

there.

MR. GIBSON: The copper prices are the same in the Yukon as

they are in British Columbia, but staking is going on there.

And what's going on up there is that there's a little bit more

certainty than there is down here. The complete, arbitrary

discretion of this Minister makes investment, perhaps, not

impossible but unwise.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I don't have the figures on how much copper they

produced in the Yukon last year, Mr. Member, but I do know that

the Yukon production grew a great deal more quickly than

[ Page 89 ]

British Columbia.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

to address the Chair, please.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but this Hon. Member was

addressing me, so I just wanted to try and be helpful to him.

Let's see. Here we are: Yukon Territory production was 145

million in '73 and went up to 185 million in '74. Let's see,

what's that? A little over a 30 per cent raise, which isn't

bad. Better than British Columbia, '74 over '73. That's in

production, and I'm talking about the staking of claims

specifically, and that's what's really escalating, and that's

the future in the mining industry, as that Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) would know, Mr. Speaker, if he

studied his subjects a little more closely.

The fact of the matter is that in British Columbia, even at

9.6 per cent, the only reason we've got an unemployment figures

less than 10 or 15 per cent is because we're living off

capital. We're living on the momentum of the past; we're living

on resources in secondary industry that were developed in the

past, and we're living on the escalation of services, which is

taking in each other's laundry — which is a good thing to do,

but it doesn't produce new wealth for this province.

I'd like that Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk), Mr. Speaker, to stand up and tell us how much increase

there has been in secondary manufacturing in this province in

the last year.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You do it after I conclude my remarks, thanks,

Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The only growth industry in this province, Mr.

Speaker, is government and retirement.

MR. CHABOT: Not one job!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a man who has the opportunity and

duty of travelling around the world quite a bit and talking to

financial people a couple of weeks ago said something to me

which quite alarmed me, but I fear it may be true. He said that

in the financial capitals of the world British Columbia is

red-circled. That was the word he used. There is a red circle

drawn around the province, which means: If you are thinking

about creating jobs, watch out for that place, because Lord

knows what's going to happen to you if you go in there.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: We've got to encourage our own companies. These

figures I cited before are such a disgrace — the new newsprint

machines going in all over the world and not in British

Columbia, the pulp mills going in all over the world but not in

British Columbia at the time of a very good pulp market and

with additional timber here available for it.

Now the oil and natural gas picture, of course, is perhaps

as discouraging as any.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says "Bull!" The Premier went to

Ottawa, and he came back with empty hands, Mr. Speaker. Empty

hands and a bag of wind. That's all he got in Ottawa, just a

bag of wind.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: A bag of gas, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's all I got from Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: Is that the way you fight the fight for British

Columbia, Mr. Premier?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier called a press conference. This is

the way you negotiate if you want to get somewhere. I want you

to listen to this. The Premier called a press conference on all

British Columbia radio networks, and he said: "This is what we

are going to get." He said that, not having any commitments, he

could, in fact, raise the price to the United States. So what

did he do?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'll answer that question in a moment, Mr.

Premier. You just let me make my point now.

What happened by the Premier doing that? He didn't get one

extra cent for British Columbia, not one out of the Americans,

but he did get us a lot of enemies — enemies among a group of

people we are trying to persuade not to raise the Skagit Dam

and whom we are trying to persuade not to bring tankers through

the channel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: What did you do? You alienated them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ Page 90 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member address

himself to the amendment, please?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier said the Government of

Oregon supports him. The people of British Columbia don't

support him, and the people of Washington who buy our gas we

have made enemies of for no reason.

Now if you want to say we'll get more money for our gas,

that's fine. We should get more money for our gas, Mr. Premier,

and it should be done as soon as is possible and fair. I would

like you to stand up and tell us when you think it is possible

and fair, and I would like you to be more straight ahead than

when you told the people of British Columbia that gas was being

sold in the United States for $1.93 per thousand, and you led

the people to believe that that was the usual price for gas in

the United States, when you should know that the price in

Washington State is 42 cents per thousand, and the maximum

permitted in interstate commerce is 51 cents. It was a straight

misleading statement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I said

$1.35 from Louisiana. It should be $1.93 right now. It is $1.63

for 50 million cubic feet daily from Alberta right now. Right

now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

for North Vancouver-Capilano to address himself to the

amendment.

MR. GIBSON: But Mr. Speaker, I am addressing myself to the

amendment, because this is the kind of thing which is

destroying employment in this province. As far as the $1.93

goes, that's what was reported in the newspaper, and I can't

take responsibility for that, but that was the quote.

So what's the situation? We got past the drilling time — there's

virtually no natural gas drilling this year in this

province. So we have the situation where the chairman of the

B.C. Petroleum Corp. tells us with great regret that it appears

that there is not enough gas in British Columbia right now for

the petrochemical industry that he's been talking about, and

which the government has been talking about, because the

drilling hasn't been going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good old Jimmy Rhodes.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think at that point that's

all I have to say on this particular motion.

I remind the government again that they should not be surprised when

investment goes down and when jobs which they had been hoping for do

not materialize, when their policies are such as to scare people. That

is indeed the case, and we have a case of the government seeking

desperately to maximize their revenue at the expense of jobs in this

province. Therefore, I reluctantly come to the conclusion that they

should be censured in this regard on this throne speech.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I

think we should make some comment on a philosophical basis and

on the basis of

interpretation of facts. I appreciate that as a

part of the debate, rather than a continuation of what I think

of a somewhat limited degree of personal insults from the

official opposition.

The Member wants to talk about the relationship between

private investment and public investment. I will be detailing

in the budget on Friday just how much investment has gone up in

this province, much to the disappointment of those who cry doom

and gloom because we do have a democratic socialist government

in this province.

It is a fact that we are different philosophically, and I am

proud of that fact. We have had an opportunity in the last two

years or more to demonstrate our approach to the economy,

different and distinct from the approaches of traditional free

enterprise governments in this province. And I must say that

history will prove, perhaps — if one wants to see it — that

aside from some more liberal approaches of people like Duff

Pattullo and a few others, there's really difference between

the Socreds, that he forgot all his speeches attacking them.

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I must say, Mr. Member, that we have to

have a review based on Liberal performance, and I want to make

a couple of comments about Duff Pattullo first. Duff Pattullo

was the Liberal premier of this province who had the guts to go

ahead and try with some exploration for oil and gas in this

province on his own.

Duff Pattullo should go down in the history of this province

as one of the most fighting premiers this province ever had

when it came to understanding the importance of natural

resources. He was 300 feet short from reaching the first oil

well in this province and, God willing, if he had reached it,

we would have had publicly owned oil and gas in this province

under the Liberals in 1936 — in 1936 Duff Pattullo had the

foresight.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, we'll come to your yapping in a

minute, because we'll deal with how you gave away natural gas

to Washington state....

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Get your

[ Page 91 ]

facts straight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, there is no way that I would

ever join the Liberal party based simply on their own record of

giveaways to private corporations and their own record of

public investment in failure after failure after failure.

Do I need some examples? This government is attacked because

it invested publicly. When we invest we've made money. Let us

talk about the ship that they brought from Scotland — the

Liberals bought. It was a submarine. It only had one flaw, a

terrible flaw, a fatal flaw for a submarine, nonetheless. It

only had one flaw. It leaked. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, that was a purchase by the Liberal government.

Now that's pretty wise going, to buy a leaky submarine. But

let's go further. They built a ship. They thought they would

develop a private industry on the east coast, the Liberal

government, and it was supposed to be hydrofoil. It had a

crack. Eleven million dollars for the leak, $55 million for the

crack. (Laughter).

Now to continue their record, they built a heavy water plant

in Nova Scotia — Truro, Nova Scotia. Just last night I saw on

television another outbreak of animosity among the workers at

Truro. They haven't got that heavy-water plant going yet. They

put in over $100 million in that one. Eleven million dollars

for a leak, $55 million for a crack and over $100 million for

heavy water. What a record! What a record!

Then they come into this House and say that the government

shouldn't get involved in industry. What is our record? What

would they have done for Ocean Falls and unemployment?

There is the Member for Mackenzie. You go up to Mackenzie

and tell them what Social Credit was ready to do. They were

ready to close Ocean Falls down. That's their approach to jobs.

We kept it open and they're working. I'll tell the people of

Ocean Falls what you intend to do — sell it out.

You talk about investment in pulp and paper mills. We had

the Can-Cel directors in my office wringing their hands and

crying because they lost $80 million. They couldn't make a go

of it in Prince Rupert and Castlegar. What the heck? Celanese

Corp. of America, from your blue book, my friend — that is "par

excellence." An MBA from Harvard knows that Columbia Cellulose

has got to be all right.

They were going down 80 million bucks, but an MBA would be

able to rationalize that. But an MSW says: "No, we'll keep the

jobs here in British Columbia" — and that's what they did.

I note that the Liberal Leader said that they have all the degrees.

Well, he was incorrect then, but the kind of degrees they got have

locked their heads in one direction, the academic Dodo birds that look

upon private enterprise as the be-all and the answer to all the needs

of unemployment. I tell you, if a free enterprise government was in

office in this province, considering world conditions today,

unemployment would be up another six points from where it is right now.

The length and breadth of this province have depended

entirely on the whims of corporate decisions made in New York

and London and on Bay Street. There was no opportunity for the

people of this province to have a direct say in the development

of their own economy until we were elected. We're elected and

that's what we've done with the resources, and I'm proud of it,

Mr. Speaker. Proud of it.

Now the Member talks about natural gas. When we came to

power, that dodo group bird over there, that bird group dodo,

or whatever you want to describe them as, had locked us into a

15-year stupid contract for the export of over 500 million

cubic feet a day of natural gas — up to 804 million cubic feet

a day.

What kind of thinking goes into the export of our raw

materials to that tune? It certainly doesn't take much of a

genius to figure out. You know that yourself, Mr. Member, that

that commitment of 800 million cubic feet a day is disastrous

to the long-term development of our own petrochemical industry

in this province. And what were they selling it for? Thirty-two

cents per 1,000 cubic feet. Less than that. You're absolutely

right.

Mr. Member, we have raised the price twice. We raised it to

57 cents. We wanted to go to 99 cents, but you talk about

alienating our friends and making enemies; when we were

negotiating for 99 cents, and all we wanted was 99 cents, the

federal Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) imposed $1.

That's what he did to the Americans — a penny more than we

wanted. I had to send a telegram down, saying: "A penny for

your thoughts." (Laughter.)

You know why it went up that penny? Because we applied to

the National Energy Board for $1.35. If we had gone to the

National Energy Board, there would have been public hearings.

If we had had public hearings, the people of this province, and

the people of this country, would have found out that Louisiana

gas is selling for $1.35 for 1,000 cubic feet.

I was amused at the editorials that were blowing their own

gas, Mr. Speaker, the day after I had the press conference and

I said that the price should go to $1.35, then up to $1.93. One

of the editorials was saying: "Oh, nasty, nasty! Asking for too

much." The day after that editorial appeared — the next day — the Idaho

court authorized the import of 50 million cubic feet

of Alberta gas, privately owned, for $1.63 per 1,000 cubic

feet. Ours is still $1.00 — and it's too cheap. There is not

one American politician, if he were standing here in my place

today, who would defend the $1 price, because

[ Page 92 ]

we have to fight for our own jurisdiction and our own

people. I will be damned politically if I will ever, ever, cave

in to pressure from private oil companies or a foreign country

saying that we sell our gas for less than what we should be

getting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you this: when I go to Ottawa in April, I will

ask that we go to $1.35 and then to $1.93. I will brook no interference

from the federal government. I will not have them force money down the

throats of the oil companies out of the pockets of the people of

British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: There it is. There it is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to tell you this. I want to tell

you that when you signed the Syncrude deal, the federal

Liberals gave away an opportunity for economic security in this

country that would have provided jobs for the next three

generations, guaranteed for Canadians right down the line.

I didn't mean to speak this long in this debate. I didn't

want to speak on this subamendment. But when I hear the

claptrap from the Liberal Party saying that public investments

can't make a profit, then I ask them: "What about the money

that the workers of this province created through our purchase

of Can-Cel — $50 million profit?" And who did it? The working

people of this Province — that's who did it.

Do you know what they're crying about?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There it is, Mr. Speaker. Now they're all

crying, saying: "Oh, what have you done? You dumbbells! You've

upset the pattern in Canada. Crown corporations are making

money in British Columbia. We have always lost money in the

federal government. You know that Crown corporations can't run

right. You know that publicly owned things can't make money.

What are you guys doing in British Columbia?" We're proving the

lie to the argument that government can't run things, and only

private industry can.

Columbia Cellulose lost $80 million before we bought it. We

bought it for $1 down and a $79 million mortgage. The first

year we made $12 million; the next year, $50 million. And we're

being attacked for that. Come on, Mr. Member, get off it. Every

single investment that's been made by this government has been

a step forward to better economy, better employment and better

return to the people of British Columbia.

You show me where they had any money coming back from natural gas.

All we got was a picture of Frank McMahon down there in Florida with

his horses. I'll never forget that article. It had: "How to have your

cake and eat it too: living in Florida off the profits of natural gas

signed by the former Premier. The doom and gloom announced by those

people over there when we brought in the petroleum corporation...go

back to Hansard and read their speeches. Oh, Chicken Little, the sky is

coming down!

Now you wait. When the budget comes down, they'll say: "Oh,

well, we didn't really mean it." You wait for Chicken Little

and their dance come Friday. I don't want to threaten the

Members with anything other than the facts, but that ought to

be enough to scare them, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Premier has given

us another tirade of his usual performance of trying to tell the people

of B.C. how the previous government gave away the resources of this

province, trying to mislead the people of this province. Then he goes

and does the sermon on the mount. He tells the students at Simon Fraser

University that we gave away the resources of this province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I am certainly

glad all of his backbenchers do not believe the Premier in that

regard. They realize that it was the development of the natural

resources in this province which has allowed that Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to go ahead and squander millions

and millions of dollars which were left in his Finance

department when he took over as Minister of Finance.

MR. CHABOT: Where is it now?

MR. PHILLIPS: But he continues to work on that myth. He

can't support his own policies; he can't tell about economic

development; he can't tell of his own policies to provide jobs

in this province. So he brings out the old smokescreen and

tries to mislead the taxpayers of this province and tag a

giveaway of natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in his little tirade a moment ago,

referred to Commotion Creek in the Peace River area. Commotion

Creek: a disaster in public ownership and public enterprise, a

complete disaster.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was proud of it.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the Premier says he was proud of it.

Commotion Creek should go down in history as the most infamous coverup

and squandering of public funds in the history of the Province of

British Columbia. If that Minister of Finance wants to associate his

ventures into public enterprise and public ownership and public use of

spending money with Commotion Creek, this province is in for utter

disaster.

[ Page 93 ]

Commotion Creek was a public scandal and a glaring example

of the misuse of millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers'

money in this province, a prime example when people who do not

know the ins and outs of the industry will not take the advice

of those who know the industry, their own experts, to stop

drilling. Commotion Creek was drilled.... The Premier is

leaving the room because he doesn't want to hear the facts on

Commotion Creek. He says he's proud of Commotion Creek. What is

the true story of Commotion Creek? What is the true story of

Commotion Creek, Mr. Speaker?

The experts told the government of the day under Pattullo

that drilling at Commotion Creek should stop months before it

actually did. They told the government of the day that there

was no gas at Commotion Creek, and there's no gas at Commotion

Creek today. I don't know where the Premier gets the idea that

there's gas flowing out of Commotion Creek.

The government of the day was told to stop drilling at

Commotion Creek. But because of an impending election, the

government and the Premier of the day did not want to advise

the taxpayers of the province of the millions of dollars that

had been wasted in this venture. So to cover up the fiasco and

the waste at Commotion Creek, drilling carried on until after

the election, wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money

when services were greatly in demand by the people of the

province of the day. That's why the government of the day went

down to defeat.

It was Premier John Hart who I have to give full credit to,

Mr. Speaker. He had the courage and the guts under the

coalition government to tell the people of the province what

had been going on at Commotion Creek and to demand that

drilling at Commotion Creek cease.

Now if our Premier and Minister of Finance and the strong

man of that government condones that type of operation, that

type of squandering of taxpayers' dollars.... Is it going on

today? I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker: is that same type of

squandering of taxpayers' money going on today? Is the

taxpayers' money being wasted in a lot of these ventures? And

are we not getting the facts because of an impending election?

Is the coverup going on today?

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier condones that and looks

on it as an example for public ownership of enterprise, then he

certainly must condone the same thing in his government today. He

certainly must condone it because he stood in this Legislature and said

it was one of the greatest examples of public ownership and public

enterprise that he had ever seen. So he certainly is condoning the

squandering of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in a time when

the budget was only approximately $4 million to $5 million.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

to relate his remarks to the....

MR. PHILLIPS: