1979 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 27 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Forest cutting permits. Mr. King — 27

BCRIC shares. Mr. Stephens — 28

Closing of Provincial Museum during spring school break. Mrs. Dailly —

B.C. government position on senate reform. Mr. Macdonald — 29

Presenting reports.

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture final report. Mr. Bawtree —

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Barrett — 30

On the amendment.

Ms. Sanford — 44

Mr. Levi — 50

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 53

Mr. King — 56

Mr. Stephens — 58

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 59

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have some friends here today in the

gallery from the fair city of Revelstoke: Mrs. Walter Larsen and her

son, Bernard, former neighbours of mine. I would ask the House to

extend a warm welcome to them.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce two

guests from the Parksville area of the Alberni constituency: Mrs. Grace

Head, who manages the NDP office in Parksville, and her friend, Mrs.

Olive Fraser. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I too have some friends in the

gallery today. I would ask the House to welcome a fine young teacher

and his family from Vernon. Mr. and Mrs. Dick Joba, with their two

daughters, Kristi and Shannon, are here to see the House in action.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, we have four visitors from the

municipality of Richmond in the gallery today. I'd like to introduce

Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ransford and their grandsons, Bobby and Kenneth,

who are on their first trip to the buildings.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, also from Richmond are four members

of the Richmond Alcohol and Drug Abuse Team: Ms. June Millson,

secretary; Mr. Bud Lerette, administrator; Mr. Dave McElroy, president;

and Mr. Jim Jorden, vice president.

I would also like to introduce two outstanding people from. the

great city of New Westminster, the Royal City, Mr. and Mrs. Peter

Andrusiak. I'm pleased to see them in the gallery.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, coming all

the way from the fair city of Duncan in order to hear the remarks of

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), are Allan and Norma Heyd,

and William Richter. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. BARBER: There are two people in the gallery whom I should

like the House to acknowledge. The first is Mr. Doug Berg, a

photographer in Victoria, and the second is Mrs. Carol Pickup, the

chairperson of the Greater Victoria School Board.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, from the great city of

Vancouver, I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Peggy Lee and Mrs.

Burke to the House today.

Oral questions.

FOREST CUTTING PERMITS

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Minister of Forests: what are the penalties to a company which

fails to comply with a cutting permit?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, is this a question that is public

knowledge? If it's public knowledge it's not a fair question. However,

I'm not aware....

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to share your

problem, but we have a new Forest Act and we have new regulations which

are not generally public knowledge as yet. I simply seek information

from the minister as to what the precise penalties are for a company

failing to live up to a cutting permit, with respect to the annual

allowable cut and any penalties that may be exercised in terms of the

removal of timber from the quota.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the member

is quite aware of the requirements, over five-year cut control periods,

of timber licensees in the province of British Columbia. I am sure he

knows that if, in any one year, the licensee's annual cut varies by

more than 50 percent of what is required to be cut, then he is subject

to a penalty to charges related to stumpage at the particular time.

And if, within a period of five years, a licensee's cut is not

within 10 percent of the requirement, he is also subject to penalties.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is: why did the

minister on March 5 or thereabouts issue a cutting permit to Q.C.

Timber on the Queen Charlotte Islands when he knew that compliance with

that cutting order would violate a federal fisheries branch order to

halt logging on CP144?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, as usual the member is

wrong. There was no cutting permit issued to Q.C. Timber in March. The

cutting permit under question, CP144, was issued some time last fall.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that his regional manager, Mr. J.A.

[ Page 28 ]

Biickert, issued a letter an or about March 5, reconfirming a

cutting order which had been suspended by agreement between the

provincial forest branch and the federal fisheries branch?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, once again the member is wrong. The cutting permit was never suspended.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it's strange that the regional manager

was moved to issue a letter to Q.C. Timber indicating that the

provisions of the cutting order issued in 1978 and suspended by

agreement between the provincial forest branch and the federal

fisheries branch were reinstated. If the minister is not aware of that,

he doesn't know what's going on in his ministry.

I ask a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: did the minister receive

at any point a communication or a representation from his colleague,

the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), responsible for fish and

wildlife in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll say once again that

since it was issued, cutting permit 144 on Rennell Sound in the Queen

Charlotte Islands has not been suspended by the Forest Service; and,

yes, I have within the last couple of days received a telegram from the

federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.

MR. KING: Well, the minister apparently didn't understand my

last supplementary. My question was: has he received any submission or

representation from his own colleague, the provincial minister

responsible for fisheries, the hon. Minister of Environment?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Ministry of Environment are in constant communication on many matters in provincial jurisdiction.

MR. KING: Another supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: A concluding supplementary? Please proceed.

MR. KING: No, I didn't say that...a supplementary. Will the

minister table any and all communications that have been transmitted

between his office and the Minister of Environment respecting Queen

Charlotte timber and cutting area CP144?

Unless they want to hide from the public a public matter with

respect to Crown resources, the minister should not refuse to table

this correspondence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the minister has the

question. Before we proceed let me just, for the guidance of the House,

give you some insight into the matter that I referred to earlier

regarding seeking information that is public knowledge. Beauchesne says

on page 148 in

section FF: "A question must not seek information set

forth in documents equally accessible to the questioner, such as

statutes, published reports, et cetera." I hope the House will use that

for its guidance.

BCRIC SHARES

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Premier, but in his

absence I will direct it to the Minister of Finance. On March 1 of this

year an order-in-council was issued over the hand of the Minister of

Finance authorizing a special warrant to spend $3 million. One of the

reasons for that expenditure, as quoted from the order-in-council, is

to "enable an offering to be made of additional shares to those members

of the public who apply for and receive free shares in the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation." I would like to ask the minister

whether or not he considers it proper for the government to be spending

tax dollars to assist a company operating in the private sector to sell

its shares.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't know if it's appropriate for me to

answer on behalf of the Premier since he's the designated minister

under this Act. As the person who signed the special warrant at the

request of the person who was responsible for it, who states that it is

of urgent need, I would respond in that respect. I think you asked

whether it's appropriate for the government to spend taxpayers' money

an behalf of this share distribution plan.

This money is not spent an behalf of the company. It is spent an

behalf of the government and the people of this province. In the

interest of distributing these shares free to all the citizens of this

province, I would answer yes.

MR. STEPHENS: The minister did not answer the question. I did

not ask him whether government money should be spent to distribute the

so-called free shares. I asked him whether or not the money should be

spent to enable an offering of additional shares, presumably to be sold

by the corporation at $6 each. You are spending some of this $3 million

specifically for that purpose. You have stated so in your

[ Page 29 ]

own order-in-council over your signature.

Direct your mind, please, to that question and answer it. Is that proper?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the entire matter of the

expenditures required for this plan will be set out in considerable

detail in due course during the budget speech. I think the member will

have full information.

Insofar as his question is concerned, I think it was incumbent on

the government to explain in full the details of the proposal. Anything

withheld from that explanation we could be justly criticized for.

MR. STEPHENS: In the same order-in-council, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Finance stated that the expenditure was not foreseen. I

would like to ask the minister at what date he did foresee this

expenditure.

HON. MR. WOLFE: For the benefit of the member, Mr. Speaker, I

don't remember the exact date, but it certainly was a considerable

period of time after the budget measures of a year ago. That's the

point.

MR. SPEAKER: On a final supplementary, the member for Oak Bay.

MR. STEPHENS: I have two final supplementaries, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will not require any

lecturing as to when questions will be final. The fact is that there

are other members wishing to ask questions. We have a shortage of time

in the period, and therefore the decision of the Chair will have to be

final in regard to final questions.

MR. STEPHENS: I will accept that, Mr. Speaker, but as the

leader of my party I should be entitled to the same number of questions

as the lead-off questioner of the official opposition.

Since the minister stated in this same order-in-council that the

expenditure is urgent and for the public good, can he explain why the

House is sitting so late? If it is so urgent, why was this House not

called back into session in January and February?

CLOSING OF PROVINCIAL MUSEUM

DURING SPRING SCHOOL BREAK

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Curtis). I know he is not here. Who is the acting Provincial

Secretary? The Deputy Premier? Who could I direct my question to? I

feel it is important to bring this up today. That's why I'd like to

know.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the House Leader could direct you in this matter. The Chair does not select the alternate minister.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Provincial

Secretary has to do with the Provincial Museum. The Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has decreed that this is the week for the

spring break and many students and young people — and adults — are

making trips across here to Victoria with the one purpose of visiting

the Provincial Museum, and yet the museum is closed. It's closed, Mr.

Speaker, in a week when we have hundreds — maybe thousands, according

to the figures over there — of students and adults coming to visit it.

I would like to ask the acting Provincial Secretary why the museum is

closed this week.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam member, the Provincial Secretary is

not here; the Deputy Provincial Secretary is not here today; but I am

here today and I can assure you that I will bring your question to the

attention of the Provincial Secretary when he is in his office tomorrow

morning, probably before 9 a.m.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you.

B.C. GOVERNMENT

POSITION ON SENATE REFORM

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Attorney-General —

in his capacity as Attorney-General. There is a very significant and

important constitutional reference going on now in the Supreme Court of

unilaterally change the structure of the Canadian Senate and amend

sections 21 to 36 of the BNA Act. My first question is: is the

government of British Columbia, which has such an interest in these

matters, represented before the Supreme Court of Canada in that

reference?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What's your second question?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll answer the first first; I have to

do these things. The answer is that the government of British Columbia

is not represented.

My second question to the Attorney-General is: why are you not

represented on a matter of great constitutional importance to the prov-

[ Page 30 ]

ince of British Columbia?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, it's a very technical question

and I would like to give you a precise answer. I therefore take it as

notice this afternoon.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Attorney-General

of British Columbia to tell me what the position of the province of

British Columbia is on the question of whether or not the Parliament of

Canada can unilaterally amend the BNA Act in respect to the Senate?

Does this government have a position and would the Attorney-General

tell me what it is, please?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. member, as I've indicated, I've taken the question as notice. I'll take your supplementary question as notice as well.

Presenting reports.

MR. BAWTREE: I have the honour to present the final report of

the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture; and I move that the

report be taken as read and received, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or privilege I

would seek your guidance. The report that has just been filed by the

member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) has been labelled as such, I would

take it, by all members of the Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture. My point of order is that while, in fact, we discussed the

draft, we have at no time seen the final report nor have we voted on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in speaking to

the point of order, I think the fact is that the committee was not only

empowered, but was commissioned to report to the House. Two members

were clearly designated to report at the earliest possible time. I

understand that this is the time. Please recall, hon. members, that

this is not a motion to adopt the report, but simply a motion to

receive it as read. It is the only way I'm aware of that the House can

come into possession of the report itself. Perhaps at a subsequent time

when a motion is proffered that would require its adoption, the report

could be debated. At that time, all of the debate considered in order

could be heard. I would caution, hon. members, that debate would be

proscribed to some degree. Let me give you an example. If matters

happened in committee which were not included in the report but this

House wished to be brought to the floor by virtue of debate, it could

not be allowed according to Beauchesne. I use this as an example.

Suffice it to say, the motion is to take the report that is before us

now, and to receive it as read. I think that motion is entirely in

order and, as far as I know, not debatable, but your point of order is

well taken.

Motion approved.

MRS. WALLACE: In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to file a minority report.

MR. SPEAKER: On the question of minority reports, I would

refer to Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition, at page 642: "A minority

report is the opinion of the committee as a committee, not that of

individual members which is required by the House, and, failing

unanimity, the conclusions agreed to by the majority are the

conclusions of the committee.

Sir Erskine May does not provide for the filing of minority reports.

Therefore, I would have to take the entire matter of filing of minority

reports under advisement to give it a little further study to see if

there is even a way I could suggest to the member it could be done. In

any instance, leave has been asked. I will do the House the favour.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. BARRETT: I welcome the opportunity of addressing this

session of the fourth meeting of the thirty-first parliament. I am

always amazed at how quickly time passes, particularly the long gap in

the period since we last met. I am pleased that all the members are in

good health, that our absence from each other has tempered our opinions

of each other, with, I'm sure, warmer feelings about our present

relationships and our future relationships, especially if an election

should happen to be called while we are sitting here.

Since obviously the members across the way have no

part in that

decision-making process, should the surprise announcement come down, we

will probably learn of it first and we will try to tell our colleagues

over there as quickly as we can what the decision is. We will let you

in on what is happening because we noticed that the Minister of Finance

has to

[ Page 31 ]

wait for the word from the crystal ball before the

orders-in-council are passed. I want to thank the Conservative leader

for bringing the Minister of Finance to task, and the Conservative

leader has a very interesting point.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Don't destroy him.

MR. BARRETT: I think he is doing a wonderful job of destroying you. He's the only true Conservative around here.

I want to say that, in terms of being back, we have lost five former

members of this House Among those members, some of whom I knew

personally, others I didn't, was the former Premier. I had the

opportunity of sitting across from him for over some 12 years. I want

to say that despite our many heavy and severe political differences,

this chamber has its own atmosphere and its own relationships. It is

only appropriate in that context that I say he will be very much missed

in terms of the very nature of the process of the parliament of British

Columbia.

As you know, by the carvings above your very head, we have only been

functioning in this chamber since 1897. So much has happened in this

province in such a short period of time that it is really remarkable

when we reflect upon that passage of time that a great deal of our

lives of those of us who were born in this province has taken place

over the official period of the life of this province. Certainly no

other politician in recent history left his mark in this province as

much as W.A.C. Bennett did. I want to say that I, for one, will miss

his presence in the province. I will never forget his presence in this

Legislature, whether we agreed with him or not. It was a magnificent

presence in terms of public service to the people of British Columbia.

I think all members should remember that.

I want to mention a predecessor of mine, Roderick Charles Macdonald,

who was the Conservative member from Dewdney. When I first was elected

in 1960 Mr. Macdonald had been absent from that seat for some eight

years. And yet one of the very first phone calls I got as an MLA was

from R.C. Macdonald, who offered to be of any assistance he could in

terms of service to the residents of that area, whom he knew

personally, when from Haney on it was a smaller population and people

were known an a first-name basis with their MLAs. I never forgot that

call from R.C. Macdonald. He did a tremendous job as a cabinet minister

and as an MLA. His passing will also be missed.

I didn't know the other two members, but I did know Dorothy Gretchen Steeves. If there ever was a dynamite character in British Columbia

politics, it was Dorothy Steeves. She came into this House during the

thirties, when tremendous debates took place in this province over

severe unemployment and severe and chronic economic problems. She was

present in this House when the first socialized medicine bill was

passed in the province of British Columbia. In 1936 a Liberal

administration passed a socialized medical care program. It was never

proclaimed, but from that day on in the province of British Columbia,

the role of socialized medicine was a primary factor in every debate

leading up to, finally, the winning of that battle and basic medicare

services being available in the province.

Dorothy Steeves was one of the original fighters for the old CCF,

and was a seatmate of the late E.E. Winch and Harold Winch. She will be

very much missed by many citizens in this province, who hold her memory

very, very close.

Mr. Speaker, this may be the last time that we're together,

depending upon the surveys. You see, we don't have polls by the

government of British Columbia; we have "surveys of opinion." If you

take a poll and you ask somebody, "How would you vote if there was an

election tomorrow?", that's known as polling; but if you take a survey

and ask people, "How would you vote if there was an election

tomorrow?", that's known as surveying. If you are confused by the

difference, so am I, but nonetheless, we don't have "polling," we have

"surveying."

We were going to have an election last fall. Yes, we were.

Everything was ready to go, except that the Premier took a survey and

discovered it was a bad poll. As a consequence, he backed off from

calling an election and said: "We have to do more study, and we have to

go out and reach the people more." So they went on with more Socred

mini-conventions, trying to reach their diminishing party.

Now we know that there is a certain Mr. Goldfarb who does the

polling, or the surveying, or the examination, for this government, and

we know that things aren't going too good for the government. I

understand they are blaming it on Goldfarb, and they may want to switch

surveyors. But nonetheless, we do know that the Premier is now testing

to see what the reaction is to the five free shares. It reminds me of

the Nixon administration — certain phrases are no longer operative.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when we were told there was no free

lunch? That's no longer operative. We're going to have five free

shares, and on the way to getting those shares we're going to give the

banks $5 every time you walk in to fill out the application.

[ Page 32 ]

That's why the former Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

was taken out of the job of being Minister of Human Resources. Even he wouldn't

allow the banks to have five bucks an application form for doing very little.

Even he would call that a welfare ripoff and shovelling money out of the back

of the bank or into a bank. So we have a different Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who will explain to the poor and the handicapped: "Don't

worry out there. You can go in and apply for your five free shares and the

five bucks will come off any grant we give you.

Mr. Speaker, I've watched this government shovel out $25 million in

a phony share scheme to try and get itself re-elected, using the

taxpayers' money to play a shell game with shares. And I know whose

idea it really was originally. It was not the Premier's idea; it was

the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) who

came up with that brainwave. Yes, it was that former Liberal member's

idea. He has done extensive research into the way the brain operates.

Considering how he handled ICBC and messed that up, you have to reflect

on him being the one who initiated the five free shares.

The Minister of Science and Technology made an announcement a week

ago that there was going to be a billion dollar investment in British

Columbia for a new fusion centre. I want to criticize the CBC for

having the nerve to phone down to the United States to the chairman of

the committee working on this project, and ask them if the minister was

correct. The CBC should not be allowed to make long-distance phone

calls checking up on the minister, using taxpayers' money to find out

that the minister was a little premature — not his birth, but his

actions.

The chairman of the United States committee said: "Oh, no, no, no,

no. It's too early to talk about whether or not we are even going to

have a fusion centre. We're four months into a one-year study, as a

committee, to decide whether or not we should recommend whether or not

we should even have such a centre, and it will take five years after

that, if the recommendation is to go ahead with the centre, to find a

location for that centre." And when the CBC reporter asked the American

spokesperson on that committee if Dr. McGeer's statement was correct,

he said: "Who's Dr. McGeer?" He explained to him that it was Dr. McGeer

who was a member of the cabinet of British Columbia, and he said:

"Well, the minister is obviously premature."

Now did the minister go to the press and say that he was flying a

kite, or letting up a balloon, or does he just make these statements

and run from them? I would like the minister to explain what knowledge

he has about the location of that centre, if the committee that's

meeting in Vienna is still eight months away from delivering its first

report, before it even gets an with the final report. But it's not

unusual, Mr. Speaker, to hear other comments from other ministers about

things that will never happen in British Columbia.

One of the first things I want to talk about is the sale of natural

gas. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, when we were elected to office, my

colleague, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), discovered

that the Social Credit Party preceding us had signed a 15-year contract

to sell gas to the United States at 32 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. Now

the Social Credit Party supported the sale of that gas for that price.

When we came to office we discovered that the gas price was far too

low, that the Canadian and British Columbian taxpayers were being

skinned on that deal, and as a consequence of that member's actions we

got the price of gas up to 64 cents for the United States. After we

doubled the price of gas to the United States, the opposition — then

Social Credit — screamed and hollered that we were charging too much to

our American friends. Because they screamed and hollered so much, my

colleague then upped the price to 99 cents. They screamed and hollered

some more, so my colleague put the price up to $1.45.

Every single time, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague fought Ottawa to

get the price of natural gas up, the Social Credit opposition in this

House fought tooth and nail against our efforts. They only began to

shut up about their opposition to my colleague when my colleague

pointed out to them while we were selling gas to the United States

under Social Credit at 32 cents, and then under us at 64 cents, Mexico

and Texas were selling their gas at that time for $1.25. The Canadian

producer and the Canadian taxpayers were subsidizing the natural gas

price to the United States.

In conjunction with the Premier of Alberta, my colleague managed

before we left office to get the price of gas up to $1.96 U.S. Three

years have passed, Mr. Speaker, under this so-called businesslike

administration. Last year, in 1978, we sold 159 billion cubic feet to

the United States, and we sold it for $2.16 U.S. During that period of

time, the United States has been buying gas from Mexico, and while

we've been selling it to the United States at $2.16, Mexico was selling

it for $3.20 U.S. I would ask that the government explain to all the

taxpayers of this province who are now forced to suffer cutbacks in

hospital care,

[ Page 33 ]

cutbacks in terms of school costs, and to have

increased burdens on property tax, why it allows its natural gas to be

sold into the United States market at today's price of $2.16 U.S.,

while Mexico gets $3.20.

Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, why this government has not said a

single word in opposition to the federal government keeping the price

of natural gas artificially low? Last year alone, because we did not

charge the same price as Mexico, the taxpayers of British Columbia

subsidized natural gas into the U.S. market to the tune of $159

million. We had the privilege here in British Columbia of subsidizing

American industry, American homeowners and all natural gas users from

British Columbia. We had the opportunity of handing over that gas at a

cost to us of $159 million in general revenue that should have returned

to the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why

Mexico gets a better price than British Columbia does? I ask you this

question, Mr. Speaker: if it's good enough for Mexico, why is not it

good enough for British Columbia?

In the Toronto Globe and Mail , page 1, March 22, 1979, we see

a front-page story: "Approval Is Expected for Gas-Price Increase." It

says: "The federal government is expected to approve this week an

increase in Canada's natural gas export price to about $2.30. A 14-cent

increase is going to be allowed by the federal government." I challenge

the minister responsible to produce one single document where he's made

the case to have our gas sold in the United States for the same price

that Mexico gets for theirs.

I believe, until it is proven otherwise, that this government has

never made a case to get the same price for gas as Mexico. I believe

that this government has never gone down to Ottawa and demanded that

the price of gas go up to the same level as Mexico's. If I was a

Mexican, I'd come up and contract to buy gas from British Columbia for

$2.16, ship it down to Mexico and sell it back it to the United States

at $3.20. As a matter of fact, when you think about it, the Mexicans

might be wise to come up and offer $2.50 more than what the Americans

are paying us for gas, change it into liquefied natural gas, take it

down to Mexico and ship it into the United States. They'd still make

money.

This government is part and parcel of an oil company domination of

natural resources sales policy in this country. They stand condemned

for not asking for the same price. This is a horror story.

You go out to your constituencies and tell them why your government

hasn't got the guts to collect this additional $150 million that would

be, coming in to municipalities, schools and hospitals if all we did

was ask the same price as Mexico. We're not asking for any favours.

We're not asking for a special deal. But there is absolutely no

justification for the taxpayers of British Columbia to be subsidizing

the U.S. market to the tune of $150 million a year out of this province.

If you want to give shares — if you want to really give the people

of British Columbia something to participate in — let British Columbia

set up a committee and decide publicly that we want to sell our gas to

the United States at the same price as Mexico. Let every taxpayer have

a direct rebate of every penny that this government hasn't got the guts

to collect from the U.S. customer.

This report in the Toronto Globe and Mail goes on to say that

an export price increase of 14 cents per thousand cubic feet would add

about $140 million to the annual bill to the U.S. purchaser. If 14

cents would add $140 million, one dollar — which would be necessary to

catch up to the Mexican price — would bring in $1 billion more per year

to the taxpayers of Canada.

We have astronomical federal deficits right now. It grieves me to

report that the last time British Columbia fought for equalization on

gas prices was when my friend, the member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), was the Attorney-General. Since the election of Social

Credit, there has not been a peep about those gas prices. The Social

Credit government has deliberately allowed them to fall behind Mexico's

prices.

This is very important. It means that not only are we selling our

gas cheap to the United States, but we are subsidizing industries which

use natural gas to finish B.C. products and which are competing for the

same markets.

When lumber is dried in Washington and Oregon, and that lumber is

dried because we supply them with cheap B.C. natural gas, the price of

their lumber products is kept down and we are forced to compete on a

differential basis on the exchange of the dollar rather than on the

natural marketplace. Why should we pay for this?

I notice that the government is totally silent and has not a single

explanation as to why this gas differential exists. I would suggest

that this government consider joining OPEC. At least the oil-producing

nations have had the guts to get together and demand a world price for

their product. But have we done that? Not at all. In terms of oil, the

case is also repeated. I want to say that,

[ Page 34 ]

obviously, giving them gas has had an effect.

So we find a situation that most taxpayers don't know anything

about. The Social Credit government of British Columbia is subsidizing

American customers to the tune of $150 million a year while saying that

it doesn't have enough money for hospitals or schools or roads. We'll

leave that, Mr. Speaker, for the time being; we'll come back to it

during the estimates of the minister concerned.

I want to go on to another topic and that is the topic of the

British Columbia Railway. I'm sorry that the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is not here today. Or does it make any

difference? We've been given this document, the report of the Royal

Commission on the British Columbia Railway — and it's worthwhile

remembering a few things about why there was a royal commission on the

railroad.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a certain MEL Paving Company came

to my office when we were in government and, in the presence of the

former Attorney-General, they said that they wanted their contract

renegotiated to upgrade the price that they were receiving. The

Attorney-General advised them that if they had any complaint about that

contract — and there were suggestions of fraud relating to the original

handout of that contract — they should go to court. We were not going

to settle in our office any contract where there was an allegation of

fraud by the previous administration.

They went to court, Mr. Speaker. What did we discover? In the

interim, while the case was being heard in court, an election ensued in

British Columbia. This government was defeated, the new government was

elected; and before the court could bring down its ruling, the new

government settled the MEL Paving case out of court.

There was a lot of heat in the first session over that and the heat

generated very little light. You will recall that first session, Mr.

Speaker, where, within months, we had 12 public inquiries or royal

commissions. Every day that we brought a problem to the government they

set up a royal commission or an inquiry to escape their responsibility.

Well, rather than deal with the MEL Paving case, the government

announced that they'd have a royal commission on B.C. Rail. You know

what happened during that royal commission, Mr. Speaker. The royal

commission took its job seriously, and the government was surprised.

One of its recommendations was that the government close down the Fort

Nelson extension. You remember, Mr. Speaker, we were told there would

be no political interference with the royal commission; whatever the

royal commission recommended would be all right; the government

wouldn't interfere. The government sat on that report for 3 1/2 months,

and then made a decision that they were not going to pay attention to

the royal commission and would keep the Fort Nelson extension open.

Political interference? The whole thing has been political interference

from day one. But let's read some of the things the royal commission

said.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to quote from page 14. I find this very interesting.

"For at least three years prior to our appointment it

had been known in Victoria that the railway's affairs were in a serious

mess. The election in the fall of 1972 of the NDP government under

Premier Barrett was soon followed by discovery that there had been

significant misstatements of BCR's financial affairs. Its accounts had

indicated modest profits for many years, when application of proper

accounting principles disclosed that it had lost money every year for

at least two decades and, by the end of 1973, had a cumulative deficit

of $66 million."

Mr. Speaker, the royal commission has accused the former Social

Credit government of lying. Now what do you think of that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie, Mr. Sydney Welsh, Mr. David Chapman —

chairman and commissioners of the royal commission set up by this

Social Credit administration — have charged the previous Social Credit

administration with lying. They deliberately lied to the people of

British Columbia. B.C. Rail had lost $66 million up to 1973. They had

not kept proper accounting of the railroad. The fact is that the very

people who crossed the floor to join Social Credit, and used to

criticize the accounting of the railroad, are now in a position to

defend that path. They go on to talk about a melancholy record — a

melancholy record, indeed. We were being told that the financial

affairs of this government were managed successfully by the previous

administration, yet we find that a royal commission tells everybody

that there is a mis-statement of accounts in B.C. Rail.

We go on to discover other things. This is how Social Credit built the railroad, according to the royal commission.

"The line had been inadequately engineered to Fort

Nelson. It was built an muskeg and unstable side hills, with frozen

fill material propped up in places with plywood, and laid unballasted

or subgrade in others. It suffered 270 derailments in two years of

operation. They had

[ Page 35 ]

used frozen soil as a base for the plywood on top of the muskeg

to build that railroad."

The taxpayers of this province were paying a massive subsidy to

operate that railroad. While we were in government, and took the

responsibility to upgrade that spur line, I recall the attacks made by

the present government when they were in opposition, saying that it was

terrible, we shouldn't have wasted that money, the line was perfectly

good.

Mr. Speaker, the basic truth about the railroad is exposed in page

after page of this royal commission report. What is the truth of the

railroad today? The truth of the railroad today is that more insidious

political interference is going an than ever before. This so-called

businesslike government has been playing politics with B.C. Rail,

simply because it has not had the nerve to deal with the role that the

railway plays, in terms of its basic responsibility to the people of

this province.

There was the decision to close Railwest. This decision involved

hundreds of jobs manufacturing our own railcars in this province and

was a significant factor in the economy of British Columbia. It had

been started under the New Democratic Party. While the railway was

under the scrutiny of the royal commission, the government arbitrarily

made a decision to close the Railwest car plant. It didn't wait for the

royal commission to give it any idea, because the car plant was started

by the NDP socialists, and, as they like to say, they decided to close

it rather than give it a chance. I read from the royal commission that

the plant had to deal with this "mystery decision." While the royal

commission was sitting, a mystery decision came in telling the railroad

to close Railwest. It was a political decision made by the government

and the Premier. It belies his very statements that there was to be no

political interference.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I quote from page 46 of the royal commission:

"After the appointment of the commission and prior to

our Squamish hearings, B.C. Rail decided to cease producing its cars at

this plant, although the plant had produced only 1,400 cars to meet the

railway's original projected potential of need of up to 7,250 cars."

Do you remember the debate in this House when we attacked the

government? We said you were closing down that plant in the face of

information that railcars would be needed by B.C. Rail, other railcars

would be needed nationally, and by a premature closing of that plant we

would be abandoning jobs that affect not just the hundreds of people

that work there, but thousands of others, in terms of supplying goods

and services to Railwest. The railway itself had told the government

that it needed 7,250 cars. The railway built 1,400 cars, then it was

ordered to close down. Since that time, the taxpayers of British

Columbia have been required to lease over 1,500 railcars manufactured

in the United States to serve British Columbia's needs.

Mr. Speaker, the royal commission had a file letter submitted to

them on June 14, 1976, signed by Mr. I.H. Nicholls, chairman of the car

committee, with a copy going to Mr. McPherson, the operations manager,

and Mr. Shannon, chief of transportation. What does this memo say?

"Attached for your consideration to Mr. Sturgeon, Hunt

and Karmazenuk is an offer to lease 40 wrap-around bulkhead flats by

Tiger Leasing Group. We have asked for some more detailed specification

and we will advise you further. R.J. Karmazenuk advises Railwest is

bidding on 150 wraparound bulkheads for an eastern customer who wants

delivery in January 1978. His proposal is that Railwest build the cars

as a tack-on to the 500-order they are currently running for us, and

the BCR lease cars through to December 1977, after which they would be

sold. Eastern rail lumber loadings indicate we should be ordering 1,000

bulkhead flats for construction through 1977."

Here is an internal memo by the car committee of BCR saying to

Railwest that we must, in 1976, put in an order for 1,000 new bulkhead

flatcars because we'll need them in 1977 and 1978 for the lumber

traffic. The government of the day had this knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and

this was in the projection of 7,000 cars. When the minister was sitting

in this House telling us that he couldn't get any more orders for

Railwest, Railwest was making itself available for 1,000 bulkhead flats

that should have been ordered by BCR.

MR. KING: Is that truthfulness?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to cast aspersions on

whether or not the minister told this House the truth or not, but going

back over the statements in the evidence it is obvious that BCR was

ready, willing, able and desirous of buying another 1,000 bulkhead

flats. Railwest knew it; the government knew it. They closed down

Railwest, those jobs are gone, people went bankrupt, and as a conse-

[ Page 36 ]

quence of that 1,500 railcars were leased that were

built in the United States and that should have been built here in

British Columbia.

Is that truthfulness? Is that good business? It was the pure hate

that the minister had for an NDP idea that led to the closure of that

plant. It was pure hate born out of spiteful politics that closed that

plant. The royal commission makes it very clear that the railroad was

operating on projections that were validated, and the royal commission

was told halfway through to close down Railwest. On page 47 of the

royal commission report it says:

"The plant had been in operation only 26 months and

made less than 20 percent of the maximum number of cars which BCR

predicted that it would need over an eight-year period. The skilled

workforce had been recruited with promises of long-term employment, and

many had purchased homes in Squamish on the strength of these

representations."

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. Royal commissions don't normally use

this kind of language, especially when they're talking about the people

who hired them. While the royal commission was sitting, the following

took place: the commission asked its financial adviser, David Sinclair,

to investigate the Railwest mystery and report its findings in a week's

time when the commission would be at Prince George. This he did. The

Railwest car plant was ordered to be closed by the government — direct

political interference. The royal commission, and Justice McKenzie,

said this was a mystery to them. They were in only one week to find out

the government's justification for their political interference in

closing down that plant.

Mr. Speaker, every citizen of this province should know — regardless

of being a Socred, NDP, Liberal, Conservative or non-political — that

this government was willing to go to any length to criticize the former

NDP administration. Its rush into that arena knew no bounds, and they

closed Railwest before the royal commission had a chance to give a

report.

The royal commission was given an explanation. It did not verify the

explanation; it is being discreet in handling the explanation. The

royal commission said:

"The explanation was that the railway's original

prediction of possible car requirements had been over-optimistic, that

it had been obtaining cars on long-term leases because it could not

wait for Railwest to fill its needs."

That in itself is contradictory. That railway was ordered to go out and lease

cars. The railway was ordered to go out and lease cars when within the railway's

possession was a recommendation that they get an with building cars. And then

once the railway was ordered to go and lease cars, an excuse was made to close

Railwest.

Haw can you look taxpayers of this province in the face and tell

them that this government has done everything it can to alleviate

unemployment? How can you tell the citizens of this province that

you're a businesslike administration? How can you justify this to

Social Credit members and supporters who live in many parts of this

province and expect something better of you? You deliberately killed

the Railwest plant, knowing very well that it would be an additional

cost to the taxpayers to go out and lease cars.

Then we come to the Fort Nelson extension. The royal commission

recommended that the Fort Nelson extension be abandoned. They're

entitled to their opinion. They discovered that the Fort Nelson

extension was built on plywood. We knew that, but we had spent a lot of

money to upgrade it because we had a commitment to the North Peace

River area to keep that railway open.

The government had the royal commission's report on the Fort Nelson

extension for 3 1/2 months without saying a peep publicly about it. It

kept it secret, and you have to ask yourself why the government kept

the royal commission report secret for 3 1/2 months. The answers are

obvious. The royal commission recommended that the Fort Nelson

extension be abandoned.

The government and the Premier knew politically that they couldn't

abandon it. The government did not have the courage of its conviction

in terms of backing up the royal commission. As a consequence, they hid

the report and, like a small child, put the report in a closet and

hoped it would go away, because they didn't want to deal with it. What

was the consequence of this? Investments that were waiting to be made

on the Fort Nelson extension were not made. Jobs and businesses

depending on the railroad were at a standstill. W.A.C. Bennett sent a

telegram to the people of the North Peace River area attacking this

government and, in effect, telling the people in that area: "Don't

despair. Someone with some common sense will do something." Do you

remember that headline in the Vancouver Province ? "W.A.C.

Bennett Sends Telegram to Peace River District." You'd think we were in

government. You'd think it was us that caused the problem. We find that

the Premier read his father's telegram and went into hiding again.

[ Page 37 ]

Then they decided to go up on a railroad tour. They spoke to gatherings of children that they got out of school for the day.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, the Premier's wife was kidnapped on another

trip. Let's get it straight. Oh, that trip cost thousands of dollars

for a PR man to travel with the Premier. I'm glad you reminded me of

that one.

MR. KING: What was his name?

MR. BARRETT: His name was Butler. He was the guy who was the

public relations man who thought up the belly-flop championship of the

world. Do you remember that? That was held in Richmond. The only regret

of the government is that Minister of Travel Industry at the time

didn't think up the idea. The belly-flop championship of the world was

such a success that the taxpayers hired this PR man to travel with the

Premier so that his wife could be kidnapped on the way up the railroad.

I'll leave that one to history.

That was the trip when he got the bad news from Goldfarb. That's

when the fun trip turned into a nightmare, when the survey said: "Don't

go, Bill. You're down the tube."

The report recommended the abandonment of the railroad. Three and a

half months later, by direct political interference, the government

said: "Ignore the royal commission. We're going to keep it open."

I ask this question: can you tell me why the government continued

the royal commission after having made a decision without the royal

commission's knowledge to close Railwest? After having ignored the

royal commission's recommendation to abandon Fort Nelson, they could

have at least had the decency to call off the royal commission and say:

"Look, we're going to ignore you anyway. Take your money and get out of

here." Instead of that they spent $3 million on a report and were

ignoring it all the way through. Some people had to go to court to get

some of that money.

What about the significance of the government's response to the

commission's two interim reports? This is where I like lawyer's

language. On page 50, there's a quote here, obviously written by a

lawyer. Now what has happened here is that the lawyer, who was a judge

on this royal commission, had just been kicked in the head. He had been

told that whatever he said in the royal commission the government was

going to act on. He had just been run over by a diesel freight car or

diesel engine. He had pulled himself together and said, in effect:

"Something has happened here. It appears that we're writing messages to

the government, but they are not paying attention to us, but we still

got to send the bill in anyway."

The significance of the government's response to the commission's

two interim reports and the consequences of the decision regarding the

Fort Nelson line are discussed in detail in the course of this report.

In other words, they shoved it way into the background of the report,

where they regret that the government had slapped them on the wrist and

told them: "Keep up the job, boys, but we're not going to pay any

attention to you at all." Well, a job's a job. I mean, if you're going

to do a royal commission job.... And I want to tell you Justice

McKenzie did a first-class job on this royal commission. Justice

McKenzie did the citizens of this province proud. He went on with the

job, knowing very well that he was going to be ignored by the

government.

This is a treasure. This document, I know, will be circulated to

every household in British Columbia as part of the Social Credit report

to the people. Page 76:

"The decision of the government to undertake

reconstruction of the Fort Nelson extension and continue its operation

will result in further capital costs and operating losses exceeding $90

million during the next five years."

What has gone on this year? I don't want any of this to get out of

the Legislature, but there's been a little more fibbing going on. We

were all told that the B.C. Rail made a profit this year. The Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) said it; the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said it. Forty-eight hours before we

came back to this chamber for this session a special warrant was

quietly passed, shoving $20 million into the B.C. Rail to cover the

losses on the B.C. Rail. While everybody was told out there that

they've got the railway under control again, a special warrant for $20

million taken out of the taxpayer's pocket and was shaved into B.C.

Rail to prop up the Fort Nelson extension.

I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will

give a detailed explanation of that when the the mayors and the

councils come asking him for more money. I bet you he didn't even know

it took place. Did you? Did you approve of that extra $20 million going

through on a special warrant 48 hours before the House sat? Were you

there at cabinet? Did you think it was okay? Is that how you run your

business? He nods in approval, or in desperation.

[ Page 38 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, you'd address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: The decision to do so, contrary to the

recommendation of the commission contained in this interim report of

December 30, appears to have been based essentially on political

considerations.

Here is a royal commission set up by this government deliberately to

announce a brand-new policy that there will be no more political

decisions on the B.C. Rail. They don't even get past page 76, where

they say that there are already political decisions being made while

they're sitting. The decision to do so, contrary to the recommendations

of the commission, appears to have been based essentially on political

considerations, a response to pressure from local interests of the type

which has characterized political direction of the railway's affairs

from its inception. You're playing politics with the railroad. Judge

McKenzie said so. Why didn't you fire the royal commission when you

knew then that the game was over? What an insult to the royal

commissioner. What an insult to the people of British Columbia.

Then it goes on to talk about what went on with the Dease Lake

extension: the political interference by Social Credit after the NDP

had signed an agreement with the federal government to continue the

Fort Nelson extension. It goes on and on and on, page after page after

page after page, criticizing the present administration for making

political decisions daily about the railroads, interfering every single

day in every single way while the taxpayers were subsidizing the royal

commission and the railroad.

There was one other prospect: the prospect of having the federal

government involved in the development of the railroad. The first

agreement ever signed between British Columbia and the federal

government was arrived at between the New Democratic Party, when we

were in power, and the federal government to arrange for a subsidy and

a cost-sharing of building the railroad right through to Alaska.

I'm not going to go through a great lengthy examination of the royal

commission. But I've got to make the case that the royal commission

made better for government policy in recovering this railroad, when the

New Democratic Party was in power, as it did under Social Credit.

Without taking any credit away from former Premier W.A.C. Bennett, it was a

fact that that railroad had been ill-planned, improperly engineered, and it

cost the taxpayers of British Columbia, according to the royal commission, $700

million to build a railroad to nowhere.

The royal commission says: "Close the railroad down." As a matter of

fact, it is a curious thing to examine the statements of the former

provincial Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Davis. Mr.

Davis, on examining the evidence given by the royal commission, went

into northern B.C. and made a speech saying that we should close the

railroad down and truck everything out of Fort Nelson and we'd save

money. That was the first time that Mr. Davis began to fall into bad

favour. He came back to the House and we asked for an explanation of

what he meant by "trucking." He didn't give us an explanation.

Mr. Speaker, when we came to office and found the horror story

discovered and confirmed by the royal commission — when the royal

commission said the government was lying, it's not the opposition that

said it; it's the royal commission that said it — we discovered what

had gone on with that railroad, and we decided we better make the best

of a very bad mess. We had extensive meetings with Mr. Jamieson, who

was in the federal cabinet at that time and still is, and Mr. Marchand,

who has since left the federal cabinet. Those were successful

negotiations with the Liberal administration. They were tough, but they

were fruitful.

The Liberal administration in Ottawa made a commitment for the first

time to have tax dollars come back to British Columbia to complete the

railroad to Dease Lake and beyond. Why? Everybody knew what a mess the

railroad was, but there was one saving possibility, one part of the

vision that has always been an ingredient in the history of that

railroad, going back some 70 years: that was that someday, somehow,

that railroad would pay if it could be taken through to Alaska on a

joint venture basis with the Canadian government, with the United

States government, with the Yukon, with Washington state, and with

British Columbia.

Very quickly I realized, Mr. Speaker, that that dream shared by Duff

Pattullo and by the Premiers who succeeded Duff Pattullo, Boss Johnson

and W.A.C. Bennett, that that germ of the idea of continuing the

railroad through to Alaska would be the only way that the British

Columbia taxpayer would be finally rewarded with the vision of getting

that railroad completed.

Mr. Speaker, time after time people lamented that there was not

extensive enough research done on the validation of that railroad.

Those complaints were correct. The former administration had not done

adequate research. Dur-

[ Page 39 ]

ing our years, we were stuck with that commitment

and the only course that we could follow.... Rather than play politics

and call a royal commission and dump all over the previous Socred

administration, we decided that the responsible course was to go ahead

and try to clean up that mess.

There is evidence now, Mr. Speaker, that the vision was not empty,

that the possibility of local traffic and indigenous traffic along this

rail route was indeed there. Even the royal commission reports an this

map a limited number of projects, as I point out to you — the mines and

forests possibilities on the existing line, plus the extension to Lower

Post.

Now why did they say Lower Post? During the time the royal

commission was sitting, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government and the

American government came to an agreement on a new natural gas pipeline,

and the Premier of this province announced that British Columbia would

bargain for its fair share. I have to remind the House of those

debates, because British Columbia hadn't even taken a written position

at the time the Prime Minister went to Washington. It was only after

the Prime Minister came back from Washington, D.C., with the proposed

agreement of where the location of that pipeline should be that the

present Premier and administration began to discover that there might

be something in it for British Columbia. Well, there was something in

it for British Columbia.

Have any of the cabinet ministers to do with trade and development

ever heard of the Reed report? Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who is now responsible for and

getting familiar with his department, aware of the Reed report? Just

nod your head. Is the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) aware of

the Reed report and the consequences of this study in terms of

providing new jobs in British Columbia? Just nod your head.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you that....

MR. BARRETT: Is the Speaker aware of this report? Just nod your head.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps you could bring this up during question period, which would be the more appropriate time.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, question period is very difficult without

the Premier around. They can't get their instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I won't hold the House in suspense any longer. There is a

copy of this Reed report in the library, one copy, and it says on it: "Not

for circulation."

At first I thought it was confidential. At first I thought: "Aha,

we've got a story. They're trying to hide this report." So what I did

is, I had a researcher go in and photostat the report thinking that I

had a gem here. Then after I made a copy I went back into the library

and I said: "Why is this marked 'Not for circulation'?" "Oh, " they

said, "there's a simple explanation." I said: "What's that?" They said:

"It's the only copy we've got." I then asked my research staff: "Do you

think the ministers have a copy?" They didn't think so. "Did any

cabinet minister ever ask for it?" They didn't think so. "Has it been a

matter of discussion, do you know, by research staff, or has anybody

pulled it out for the government?" They didn't think so.

Mr. Speaker, I then today had one of our research staff phone Reed and Associates

and say: "You gave this report to the royal commission over a year ago.

The import of this report is to indicate that if the railroad goes through to

Alaska, thousands of jobs will be created here in the province of British Columbia,

small businesses will flourish on the railroad route, and major

investments will be made in the mining and forest industry. You gave

this report to the railroad. Have you ever been asked to appear before

a cabinet committee? Have you ever been asked to meet a deputy minister

from any department of govern ment? Have you ever been asked by any

cabinet minister to sit down and discuss this report that involves the

creation of tens of thousands of jobs at the initial, secondary and

tertiary levels?" And the answer was, fromReed and Associates, that once they filed the report with B.C. Railway they were never called by the government.

Mr. Speaker, while the Premier and his cabinet colleagues have given

excuse after excuse after excuse for over a year and a half why there

are no new jobs in British Columbia, while they closed down the

Railwest plant, while they closed down the Dease Lake extension, they

have had in the government's possession a report saying that if the

government would lead and get that railroad through to Alaska,

thousands of jobs would be created here in British Columbia, and they

haven't done a single thing since they had this knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, we have been subject to the indignity of a former Minister of

Human Resources telling the unemployed: "Give them a shovel." We have

been subject to the indignity of backbenchers of that government accusing

[ Page 40 ]

people of being lazy and not finding jobs. We have

been subject to the indignities of the Premier of this province, as a

primary issue, spending all his time trying to find more Senate seats

for broken down politicians. And while all of this has gone on, this

report has been in the government's hands and there hasn't even been a

cabinet meeting on it, a cabinet ministers' meeting on it, or a deputy

ministers' meeting on it. Go and tell that to your Socred

mini-conventions. Go and tell that to the people of British Columbia.

You are disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing the Reed report addressed itself to was

the impact of the gas pipeline construction in one

section of British

Columbia. I remember very clearly my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), my colleague for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and my

colleague for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and others in this group, asking

the Premier to state his position clearly in this House and before the

people of British Columbia: what would British Columbia ask in turn for

allowing the pipeline to go through part of its territory? You will

recall that the official opposition said that it would require, as part

of its terms, that 90 per cent of all goods and services needed by that

pipeline going through British Columbia would be supplied, as a

condition, from British Columbia firms, well-established in British

Columbia, if they have those services, and that 90 percent of

employment on the pipeline should go to British Columbia taxpayers

first, as a condition. The Premier said: "Oh, well, we're looking into

that."

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to page 22 of the Reed and

Associates report given to this government. The title of this page is,

"The impact of the Alcan pipeline on B.C. Rail," and I read one

paragraph:

"The pipe will originate from points in Alberta,

Saskatchewan and Ontario and will be brought west by rail. Because of

the danger of pipe damage during the transfer between modes of

transportation, companies wish to minimize transformation points. Rail

movement directly to final storage is desired, even if more expensive

than alternative modes."

The alternative modes would have been to offload the pipe and put it on barges and take it up the west coast.

"Consequently" — and listen to this, Mr. Speaker — "if

B.C. Rail were completed at Dease Lake, much of the barge traffic might

be captured."

While the government was making a decision to close down the Dease Lake extension

it had information coming to it that major traffic could be built up on the

Dease Lake extension, if it carried the pipe to the pipeline.

"Similarly, if B.C. Rail were extended to Lower Post,

British Columbia Rail would capture still more of the Yukon

section

traffic. Even for the B.C. section, completion of the Dease Lake

extension or extension to Lower Post would have an impact on the

pipeline as the truck haul distances would be shortened considerably.

The annual tonnage involved under three rail construction assumptions

are shown in table 2."

Page 23, Mr. Speaker, goes on giving a table of the traffic and what

it would be carrying. Page 24 is a

summary. It says, that the B.C. Rail

share of that pipeline construction has to be evaluated on three

scenarios: case 1, the Dease Lake extension being abandoned; case 2,

the Dease Lake extension being completed; case 3, rail extension to

Lower Post.

Mr. Speaker, it says that the annual revenue from that pipeline for

the three years of construction alone would be $41 million just

carrying traffic for the pipeline — $41 million of guaranteed business

at a minimum, and the line was shut down. Forty percent of the cost of

building that line would be paid for by one project alone. The line

would be there ad infinitum. The line would be there to serve future

needs right through to Alaska and the Yukon. One project alone would

generate $41 million of the capital cost, 40 percent of the capital

cost to build that railroad. And what did this government do with the

information? Absolutely nothing.

You explain to the taxpayers of this province, the unemployed in

this province, the tradespeople of this province, why millions of

dollars worth of work has gone down the tube, when this government had

the information that keeping the railroad going would have provided $41

million worth of traffic on that line. Isn't that enough, Mr. Speaker?

And that's just one project.

It isn't bad enough, when you consider what's next in the report —

a detailed report on mineral traffic for British Columbia, on total traffic

for the Yukon and Alaska over B.C. Rail, projected to the year 2000, page after

page after page, documented. This report was done by a Mr. Halveson, subject

to the Reed and Associates total report, paid for by the Social Credit government.

This report states that if the railroad were built all the way through

to Alaska, the maximum amount of traffic needed to make it economically viable

would be two million tons of traffic a year.

The only other known report on that is done by

[ Page 41 ]

a Mr. Walt, a consultant to the Alaska government,

whose estimate is that it would take three million tons a year to make

the railroad economically viable. So we have a difference of opinion

between an Alaska economist who says three million tons a year, and an

economist whose report to the government of British Columbia says two

million tons a year. But they both agree that if the railroad were

built now, by the year 2000, based on known projects and projected

volumes, it would carry 11 million tons of traffic per annum.

There is not another railroad in all of North America — the CNR or

any of the great American railroads — that shows any of the traffic

potential close to what this railroad has in terms of the development

of British Columbia and Alaska.

We are talking about thousands of jobs. We are talking about a $2

billion investment, of which the United States would have to pick up

for their share almost 80 percent. We're talking about a project that

there is great interest in in the state of Alaska, in Washington state,

and in Washington, D.C., in the federal cabinet of the present

administration. On page 56 of this report, it says:

"Over the years there has been considerable interest in

a transcontinental railway connecting Alaska with the 48 states. In April 1976

a conference to discuss the issue was held in Juneau. The state Legislature

approved a $50,000 study for the department of commerce and economic development

to investigate the potential. This resulted in a report, a preliminary study

of Alaska-Canada transcontinental rail connection to contiguous United States."

This is the R.S. Wall report of January 1977. This study concluded

that the potential warranted the undertaking of a comprehensive cost

benefit analysis. Of the total inbound freight, the study estimated

that approximately 310,000 tons in 1975 originated east of the Rockies,

or 24 percent of the total. It was concluded that this, logically,

would travel by rail, if available. Projected as a 7 percent annual

increase, this tonnage reaches 610,000 tons in 1985.

Then he goes on to state exactly what the projections are for

existing tonnage, and makes the case that the railroad could be viable

within 20 years on inbound traffic alone. When you consider the

potential of outbound traffic you have to cut the time in half and

understand that if that railroad were completed today, within ten years

it would be the most profitable railroad in North America, generating

jobs and investment right across the continent.

Reed and Associates was instructed by this government at the end of

the report to prepare some scenarios. Do you know what a scenario is?

You lay out a plan in front of the economists and you say: "If we were

going to do this, this and this and this, what would be the impact?" Of

course, when you lay out a scenario, you give away your intentions in

terms of what you hope, or may do.

Here are the six scenarios given by the Social Credit government to

Reed and Associates. It's important for the people of British Columbia

to listen to these scenarios.

The major assumptions are: is northeast coal to be developed or not

developed? Now listen to that. The government asked Reed and Associates

to consider whether or not northeast coal is or is not going to be

developed. That's not what the Minister of Mines told us. He said it is

going ahead. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

said it was going ahead. But they told the consultants to consider a

scenario to see whether or not it would go ahead or not go ahead.

Somebody's fibbing.

The next assumption was given to Reed and Associates before the

royal commission finished its report. The assumption was that the Dease

Lake extension is or is not to be abandoned. The government was

considering that before the royal commission finished its report.

The third assumption: a connector is built from CN Rail at Smithers

or Hazelton to the Dease Lake extension so that the long haul to port

at Prince Rupert or Kitimat, now through Prince George, is appreciably

shortened. That was part of our projected plan with the federal

government. Spur lines are built in to Stikine Copper and Liard Copper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Way off.

MR. BARRETT: Who said "Way off"? This is the instruction from

Social Credit to Reed and Associates. I'm only reading your own

information back to you.

B.C. Rail is to be extended to Lower Post. The transcontinental link

is constructed. This government ordered Reed and Associates to examine

the scenario of the impact on British Columbia if the transcontinental

railroad was built through to Alaska a year and a half ago. They were

then given the following briefs in terms of what was to be included.

Number one, the Dease Lake extension is to be abandoned, northeast coal

development, hydro power supplied to Stikine Copper and Liard Copper.

What about that, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)? Does your

government have a pro-

[ Page 42 ]

posal to develop hydro, power for Stikine Copper

and Liard Copper? You're not the Minister of Mines anymore. Talk to

him. He doesn't know.

The next one was the Dease Lake extension, abandoned, and the

northeast coal, not developed. The government was telling Reed and

Associates to consider an economic blueprint if we didn't go ahead with

northeast coal, and the Dease Lake extension was abandoned. They

abandoned it anyway.

Three: Dease Lake abandoned; northeast coal development; northeast coal used at Stikine Copper and Liard Copper.

Four: Dease Lake extension completed; northeast coal not developed.

Do not leave now, Mr. Minister of Mines. This is your only chance to read this

copy.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's mining in parks.

MR. BARRETT: He's mining in parks? Oh, he's not in Mines anymore? I'm sorry, I forgot. I apologize, Mr. Minister. You can come back.

Dease Lake extension completed; CN Rail connector constructed; line

to Stikine Copper and Liard constructed; northeast coal developed, and

so on and so on. But listen to this last one, Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers'

money was spent to prepare this report. This is one of the scenarios

the report was asked to consider. Dease Lake extension completed — fair

enough; CNR connector constructed — fair enough; line to Stikine Copper

and Liard Copper constructed — fair enough; northeast coal developed —

fair enough; northeast coal used at Stikine Copper and Liard Copper —

fair enough; rail extended to Lower Post — fair enough; Alaska

transcontinental line constructed. Then it goes through a working study

of each one of those scenarios for page after page after page. This is

the most thorough report in existence anywhere dealing with a scenario

that the transportation link of B.C. Rail be completed right through to

Alaska. This report comes up with the conclusion that the only feasible

way to make the B.C. Rail viable, and serve the needs of British

Columbia, and provide jobs for all British Columbians, is to take the

railroad through to Alaska, and that means political leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the royal commission got the Reed report and had to

conclude in its recommendations to the government what to do with the

railroad. They said that the railroad was a disaster. They said that

the previous Social Credit administration had not told the truth about

the debt. They pointed out that $700 million in accumulated deficit had

been acquired by the railroads It said: "Close the railroad down;

forget the sorry mess, except, and unless, or until...." I quote page

chapter 4:

"It is always conceivable that completion to the Yukon

and Alaska might be undertaken by the federal or United States

governments in pursuance of some national or international policy

objective. BCR should not participate in such a scheme without

guarantees from the governments involved against operating losses on

the line, as well as payment by these government of capital cost to be

incurred."

Mr. Speaker, there was only one hope left for the railroad; it is

the same hope that has been the dream of the foundation of the railroad

all along, and that is to negotiate with the United States, with the

federal government, with the government of Alaska and with British

Columbia to build a joint publicly owned railroad from Washington state

right up to Alaska, on the same basis as the St. Lawrence seaway. It

would mean that the American taxpayer who is subsidizing transportation

through the Jones Act, the Canadian taxpayer who is subsidizing the

Fort Nelson extension and other services, would have their first chance

of making the railroad system viable. The Reed report gave the

government a direction; the royal commission confirmed it. These

documents have been in the government's hands for over one year.

Mr. Speaker, it is to the eternal shame of the Social Credit

administration that they have done not one single thing to improve the

lot of the taxpayers, long suffering on this railroad, or to go ahead

with that railroad to Alaska.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

"Oh," they said, "the Americans aren't interested." The Premier of

this province said he's done everything he could to get the railroad to

become viable; but he shut it down. The Minister of Economic

Development said he's done everything he could to keep the railroad

going. Goodness help us, no wonder it was shut down. Mr. Speaker, one

year has gone by. Has the Premier of this province made any effort to

contact the United States government and discuss the railroad proposal

with them? To my knowledge, the answer is no.

Has the Premier of this province made one effort to discuss with the

federal government the continuation of the railroad through to Alaska?

To my knowledge, the answer is no.

Eighteen months ago the Premier and the Minister of Economic

Development had a meeting with the Governor of Alaska to set up a task

[ Page 43 ]

force to look into the railroad, and not a single darn thing has been done since then.

As you know, we were defeated in 1975. We're now the opposition.

Bill Bennett said in the election campaign: "Vote for me, and I'll get

British Columbia moving again." There's a $2 billion investment waiting

to be made in the province of British Columbia up through the Yukon

into Alaska. There is a need for political leadership to initiate these

discussions.

In December a Washington state senator came to my home, and sat and

enjoyed a cup of tea with my wife and I, and said: "I have a message

for you."

I'm the Leader of the Opposition. I don't speak for the government.

He said: "I have a message for you."

I said: "What"s that?"

"Without going into any of the reasons," he said, "would you be

interested in going to Washington, D.C., and talking to Mr. Brock

Adams, the Secretary of Transportation in the United States

government's federal cabinet, about continuing the railroad through to

Alaska?"

And I said: "But we're not the government."

And he said: "But you might be again."

And I said: "Yes."

"Would you be willing to come to the United States and talk to Mr. Brock Adams and a few other people?"

I said: "I'll give it consideration."

I contacted him early this year and said: "Yes, I've discovered that

the provincial government and the Premier of this province have not

done one single thing to further that railroad in British Columbia to

provide thousands of jobs for British Columbians, and I will be willing

to go along." And I asked him if it would be useful, in his opinion, if

I brought a prominent British Columbia businessman who was not an NDPer

to accompany me in those talks: Captain Harry Terry, a friend and an

associate of the former Premier of the province; a self-proclaimed

financial helper to Social Credit. Aside from his political connection,

he is a prominent British Columbian and has had years of experience in

pioneering transportation needs in this province. This is

non-political; I thought it was.

They wanted to know whether or not somebody in British Columbia

would have enough guts to provide leadership to get this project going.

I went to Washington, D.C. I visited with Brock Adams. He is the United States

Secretary of Transportation. We visited with the Hon. Warren G. Magnuson, United

States senator from Washington state, third in line to the President of the

United States. I met with Senator Jackson's staff in Washington, D.C., and

I met with an old acquaintance and friend of mine, Senator Mike Gravel from

Alaska. Senator Gravel has been on public record as having met with me in Alaska

a year ago endorsing the proposal of taking a railroad to Alaska. So it was

a renewal of acquaintance between myself and Senator Mike Gravel.

I have said nothing publicly about my visit to Washington, D.C.

Captain Terry has been on two hotlines. He was asked questions about it

and answered them candidly. But I will say this now: it is evident to

me that the United States government is sincere in its desire to see

this project completed. In my opinion, speaking purely for myself, I

sense a total frustration by the United States government over the fact

that this government hasn't initiated one squeak of talks with them

about this project. Why else would the United States government ask the

Leader of the Opposition to discuss this project?

After we returned to British Columbia I received an inquiry from

Senator Lysen's office: was I aware of the fact that since my return

from Washington, D.C., that the Washington state Senate had passed a

resolution, endorsed by Senators Lysen, Ridder, Talmadge, Van

Hollebeke, Benitz, Hansen, Gaspard, Williams, Rasmussen, Woody, Talley,

Peterson, Donohue, Vagnild and Morrison, endorsing the proposal of

building a railroad through to Alaska? I'm informed that a copy of this

resolution went to the Premier's office. I do not know if it's been

read; I don't know if it's been acknowledged.

Mr. Speaker, I have no authority to sign any documents for British Columbia.

I have no legal status to say: "Yes, British Columbia will sign to allow

you to spend American dollars to provide jobs to complete that railroad on

a joint-ownership basis in the hands of the people of the United States and

Canada — British Columbia and Alaska — in a joint international venture when

international cooperation is essentially desired now more than ever."

I received a call and was asked if I would be interested in further meetings

on this project. I asked the people who called me: "Why?" They said:

"We do not intend to get mixed up in British Columbia politics or Canadian

politics, but in our opinion this project will be beneficial for the United

States, for British Columbia, for Canada and for Alaska. We are interested

in getting this project going any way, anyhow, by getting public awareness

of our desire to cooperate with Canada and with British Columbia."

As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday

[ Page 44 ]

this week I will be travelling to Seattle and

meeting at 2 p.m. with Mr. Aubry Davis, the regional representative to

the Secretary of Transport in Seattle. Another federal cabinet minister

in the United States government is to be directly involved; a Mr.

Leonard Sarrie, regional representative to the Secretary of Commerce,

will also be there.

Mr. Speaker, the minister finds all of this very amusing. I would

think that any normal person sitting through this experience would be

embarrassed that his own leader and his own government isn't out at

these kind of meetings trying to provide jobs for the people of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I then informed a press conference today that a most

unusual invitation arrived at my office last week from the state of

Alaska, and was to be announced simultaneously with my announcement

today. I have been asked by the Alaska state Senate and the Alaska

state Legislature to address them in joint session on April 3 on a

railroad proposal that they are in favour of: to complete this railroad

to Alaska in cooperation with the United States. The invitation comes

from Senator Clement Tillion, president of the Alaska state Senate;

Representative Terry Gardiner, Speaker of the Alaska state House of

colleague of yours, Mr. Speaker; Senator Michael Colletta, the majority

leader of the Alaska state Senate; and Senator Jalmar Kerttula, the

minority leader of the Alaska state Senate. All parties and both

Houses, in an unprecedented procedure, have asked the Leader of the

Opposition to speak to a joint session.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when we have 112,000 people unemployed in

British Columbia, at a time when we have bankruptcies at a higher rate

than at any time in the history in this province, at a time when this

province is crying for political leadership and decisiveness to get

British Columbia moving again, we have a throne speech that promises a

bit of denticare and tiddlywinks through the rest of it.

Mr. Speaker, an opportunity to build British Columbia on a solid

foundation of transportation cooperation between this country and the

United States and Alaska is waiting to be realized. The taxpayers of

this province have already paid $700 million of their share. It is

estimated that the project will take $2 billion to complete; British

Columbia's share of that completion would be approximately $200

million. Because of previous policies we have put this province in a

debt position of $700 million, and the only way to save that debt

position and provide jobs and security and proper growth in the second

half of this province is to continue the railroad, and the railroad

would be completed mainly with the expenditure of other jurisdictions'

money.

Why no leadership, Mr. Speaker? Why no imagination? Why no drive?

The Premier has been travelling around this province saying that

Dave Barrett is the best salesman in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I

acknowledge that very kindly given tribute. I said in response to the

Premier calling me the best salesman that it was easy for me to be the

best salesman; I had the best product to sell — and I always tell the

truth, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge this government to explain to the people of

British Columbia why they let this massive opportunity slip by. I

challenge the Premier of this province to tell the people and the

taxpayers of this province why he has not acted on this challenge. I

challenge the cabinet ministers to tell the world why they've ignored

the Reed report and not done their best to provide jobs for British

Columbians.

On June 31 will be going to Alaska, where I will be putting forward

the position of the New Democratic Party. I hope that my position will

be understood by all people in this province, regardless of their

political affiliations, regardless of their stations in life.

This one project could mean more to the future of every British

Columbian than any other single endeavour that is now on the table.

Because this government has not acted on this potential, because it has

ignored the Reed report and the royal commission report, because it has

been a failure in providing leadership and economic security, I regret

that I have to amend the Speech from the Throne with the following

words: "But this House regrets that the speech of His Honour fails to

show any economic planning directed to solving unemployment and fails

to indicate policies to reduce the ever-increasing cost of living and

municipal tax burden." Mr. Speaker, I urge every member to speak and

vote for this amendment, so we can truly get B.C. going again, rather

than just playing politics, as this government has done for three years

in office.

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second this

non-confidence motion which was presented by the Leader of the

Opposition. After waiting for nine months, and waiting until late in

March to call the House in session, you would think that the throne

speech presented last week to the members of this Legislative Assembly

would come to grips with some of the prob-

[ Page 45 ]

lems that have been outlined today by the Leader of

the Opposition. That seems pretty basic. Here we've gone all this time

without a session, here we see the economy of the province still

stagnating, unemployment still rising, the cost of living still rising,

and yet this document does not come to grips with any of those problems.

Do the members on the government side not buy food? Don't they buy

clothes? Don't they buy fuel oil? Don't they see the signs on the small

businesses throughout the province that say "closed?"

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's on Sundays.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the new minister makes light of the

economic problems facing the people of British Columbia today. He's the

minister who's supposed to be in charge of small businesses. Does he

not know of the bankruptcies? He has not been in office too long, but

surely by this time he should have the figures about the bankruptcies

in this province. He smiles.

I don't think they are aware, based on the comments made by the new

minister in charge of small business. If they are aware, they don't

seem to care.

Mr. Speaker, since the MLAs were called back last Wednesday to first

of all prorogue and then to hear the throne speech on Thursday, the

best news that the people of British Columbia have had has not come

from the Premier or any member on that government side. Certainly it

has not come through this throne speech that was presented. But it came

this afternoon from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . The

Leader of the Opposition is the only one who has given the people of

this province any hope and any optimism.

Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who are largely responsible for the

economic problems. Yet they've made no proposals to rectify the sagging

economy, the high levels of unemployment and the high cost of living.

But it's very interesting that it's the Leader of the Opposition that

the political leaders are looking to in order to get any kind of

development going in this province. It's very unusual for a leader of

the opposition to be asked to speak to a special joint session of the

Alaska state Legislative Assembly, to hear his proposals about what to

do about B.C.'s economy and what to do about B.C.'s high unemployment

rate. They don't look to the Premier; they look to the Leader of the

Opposition. That group over there has been making a mockery of any

proposals regarding the extension of the B.C. Rail. They've done

nothing to assist the people that are affected by the B.C. Rail and by

the high levels of unemployment in the northern part of the province.

The political leaders who are outside of this country have no

confidence in the Premier, just like the people of British Columbia no

longer have any confidence in the Premier of B.C. It's a good thing

that the province does have a political leader who has some initiative,

who has a vision, who has some leadership, and who is willing to try to

improve the situation for the people of the province. It's refreshing

to hear, Mr. Speaker, that instead of another shutdown like Railwest by

this government, or another sellout to an American firm, as in the case

of Panco Poultry, or in the case of the special services that were

provided under the Pacific Stage Lines, we can hear a positive

proposal. It's the first one that we have heard since this House was

called back into session, as far as the economy and unemployment and

the cost of living is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, early last week the Ministry of Economic Development

released its annual review of economic activity in British Columbia.

This report predicted that the province's gross domestic product will

rise by about 3.5 percent in 1979. Mr. Speaker, this is well below the

1978 figure of 4.2 percent. We had the mover and the seconder trying to

present a glowing picture of the economy of British Columbia the other

day. But the figures released by the Ministry of Economic Development

do not show that. They do not show that, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think

anyone on this side of the House was convinced by the attempts made by

the mover and seconder on Friday to paint a rosy picture about the

economy of B.C.

This same report predicted that the number of unemployed in British

Columbia will rise in 1979. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will rise in 1979. It

is unfortunate that this prediction was not included in the throne

speech. We didn't hear any mention of that whatsoever. But then maybe

the Premier doesn't listen to the predictions of his Minister of

Economic Development. Maybe the Premier cannot even hear the Minister

of Economic Development, because we were told the other day by the

member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that the Minister of Economic

Development is adopting a low profile. I'll say he's adopting a low

profile! And that's very unusual for him, Mr. Speaker, because you'll

remember when every member of this House could well hear what the

Minister of Economic Development had to say when he sat in opposition

as the MLA for South Peace River. In fact, everyone in the whole

buildings could

[ Page 46 ]

hear what he had to say whenever he was on his

feet. But now he's adopting a low profile, we're told by the MLA for

North Okanagan. We can't even hear him anymore. Mr. Speaker, he seems

to have faded into oblivion.

But the economic picture is bleak. We are told by the government

itself through the Ministry of Economic Development that the

unemployment picture is going to get worse. Unemployment in B.C. is

going to rise. Certainly, thus far in 1979 we have seen that happen. In

January the number of unemployed people in B.C. was 110,000. That's

according to Statistics Canada. This rose in February to 112,000. The

adjusted unemployment rate jumped to 8.5 percent in February from 8.2

percent in January. But the unadjusted unemployment rate, which is a

more accurate figure since it measures the number of people actually

unemployed, stood at 9.4 percent for February.

I think it is also worth noting that this trend toward higher

unemployment in B.C. is the opposite of the current national trend

towards slightly lower unemployment rates. For example, the national

unemployment rate declined slightly from January to February while our

provincial rate rose. We are going against the trend across the

country. In B.C. it's rising while, across Canada, the average is

coming down.

This means, of course, that things are getting worse in B.C., but we

didn't hear about that in the throne speech. The new Minister of Small

Business doesn't even seem to be aware of it. He laughs, Mr. Speaker.

In light of these pessimistic statistics and trends, the government's

attempt to paint a glowing picture in the throne speech must be

dismissed as a pre-election public relations attempt. That's all it is.

I think we're going to go to the polls soon and I think this throne

speech, which attempts to paint a picture of a good economic situation

in the province, is just an attempt at good public relations prior to

an election. We all remember that election slogan — "We will get B.C.

moving again" — that's what the Socreds said when they were

campaigning. But if you look at the unemployment statistics alone, you

can clearly see that the only movement has been in reverse since 1975,

when the Socreds came to power.

For the first three years of Social Credit government from January 1976 to

December 1978, the average unadjusted unemployment rate for British Columbia

was almost 8.5 percent and the average number of unemployed people for that

period of time was 97,000. When the Socreds were in office from January 1976

to 1978, 97,000 was the average number of people unemployed. This situation

has become worse in 1979.

Now what were those unemployed statistics when the NDP was in power?

This is important because the present government is always accusing the

former NDP government of mismanaging the economy. I'm sure you've heard

that, Mr. Speaker, coming from this government. In fact, looking at the

three complete years of NDP government from January 1973 to December

1975, we see that the average unadjusted unemployment rate, 7.1

percent, was significantly below the rate of the three years that they

have been in office. The average number of people unemployed during

that period of time was 74,000, not the 97,000 that it has been since

the Socreds first came into office. I think those figures are very

important when you compare the two governments with respect to

unemployment alone. It is a significant indicator of the whole economic

trend that has taken place since 1975. There is no doubt, when the two

governments are compared, that the government that was in office

between 1972 and 1975 gave a far superior performance to the one that

is now sitting on the government benches.

Who suffers most from this depressing trend towards higher and

higher rates of unemployment? Later on, I will examine this question in

light of figures which indicate that women and young people are

particularly susceptible to unemployment.

They are the ones who tend to be first to lose their jobs when the

economy slows down. For the moment, however, I think we should realize

that all of us are affected by unemployment. We who are privileged to

sit as members of this Legislature are only too aware of the pain and

the hardship inflicted upon our constituents by high levels of

unemployment. At least those MLAs who sit on this side of the House are

fully aware of it.

Because we are politicians, we are sensitive to the complaints of

our constituents. The lack of jobs in my constituency is a subject of

great concern to the citizens who live there, and certainly to me as

their representative in this Legislature.

How can people build their lives and raise families in a community

where there are so few opportunities for work, or when the fear that

their jobs may be lost dominates day-to-day life? Many of those who do

have jobs live in great fear that they too may become unemployed. The

unemployment problem affects them and introduces uncertainty into their

lives, although this does not show up in the unemployment statistics.

The lack of jobs in my constituency, and most of the constituencies in

this province, is a fact which leads many British Columbians to lose

hope. It depresses

[ Page 47 ]

the life of many of those communities. Those are the side effects, that cannot be measured in the monthly statistics produced.

I find it sad that the existence of some 112,000 officially

unemployed British Columbians seems to cause so little alarm in the

ranks of the Social Credit. The economic potential of 112,000 of our

fellow citizens is currently being wasted. It's tragic. In addition to

the very real human hardship caused by unemployment, it also represents

a huge loss to our economy. These unemployed people could be earning

incomes, paying taxes and stimulating the economy with expenditures.

Instead they are in effect pushed aside and given small sums to keep

them quiet and apparently forgotten. This attitude has a particularly

damaging effect on our young people. Denied the opportunity to earn a

living or to acquire all-important job experience, thousands of young

people are being left by the wayside because of the policies and lack

of initiative of the current government.

In 1978, fully 45 percent of the unemployed in British Columbia were

in the 15 to 24 age group. I think that, in many ways, this is the most

depressing aspect of our very depressing unemployment problem in this

province. Where is the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips)? Where is that man who used to make so much noise? Where is

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams)? It's his ministry that

produces these figures on a monthly basis, yet the Minister of Labour

does not seem to be involved or concerned about what is happening in

the field of unemployment in B.C. today. Maybe he is too busy writing

letters to Missouri these days and doesn't have time to concern himself

with the unemployment of the young people.

He has a youth unemployment program, which is mentioned in the

throne speech — it's there, but I'm sad to report that in spite of the

fact that the unemployment figures are going up on a monthly basis, the

throne speech makes no mention about any improvements made in that

youth employment program to try to put some of our young people to

work. I'm sad to report that the Ministry of Labour intends to create

jobs for about the same number of young people who were able to obtain

jobs last year through that program. Don't they realize that the

situation is worse, the need is greater? The youth employment program

should have many more millions of dollars in additional funds in order

to begin to meet the needs of young people looking for work. This

government is incredibly insensitive to the needs and the problems

people face. They have a surplus of $145 million in the treasury, maybe

even more, yet they are unable and unwilling to meet the needs of the

people.

Health care in this province is in shambles. I'd like to give you an

example about the shambles that we see in health care. I'm very pleased

that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is in here this

afternoon, because in Campbell River, after years of work, a society

has finally succeeded in completing a new intermediate care unit, the

first in Campbell River, which will accommodate 79 residents.

The Yuculta Lodge Society has spent innumerable hours and I don't

know how much effort and I don't know how much money. They've received

the support of virtually every organization in Campbell River in order

to complete Yuculta Lodge. The organizations have shown tremendous

support for the society. They've donated furniture; they've donated

money; they've donated paintings; they've done everything that they

possibly could to make sure that Yuculta Lodge was completed so that

the 79 beds could be filled and so that a need which has not been met

before in Campbell River could finally be met.

We had the official opening of Yuculta Lodge in Campbell River

nearly two weeks ago. Two weeks later there is still not one resident

in Yuculta Lodge. Not one person has taken up residence in there,

because of haggling over a budget, because the Minister of Health

refuses to budge from his position, refuses to consider the problems of

operating Yuculta Lodge under the kinds of terms that he wishes. It

sits empty.

Can you imagine? When all of those people are in dire need of

intermediate care; when the building, with the cooperation of every

organization in Campbell River, has finally been completed; when it is

finally opened, not one resident can move in. It's tragic, and it

relates to unemployment. I can assure you of that in case you were

considering that it did not relate. The staff is ready to go.

For a building like that to sit empty is absolutely inexcusable. This government must be condemned for it.

Yuculta Lodge is not the only problem. Campbell River Hospital is

facing a dire problem. I want you to read this headline which appeared

in the local paper just this week. This is from the Comox District Free

Press. It refers to St. Joseph's Hospital in Comox: "Hospital Must Cut

Staff and Ten Beds."

The Minister of Health, by applying that 5 percent limitation across

the board, has forced Comox Hospital, its administration and its board

of directors into a an absolutely impossible position. They're cutting

staff. Ten

[ Page 48 ]

staff are going to have to be laid off — or at

least the equivalent of ten staff — because what they are going to do

is cut back on the hours of some of the people who are working in order

to meet the requirements which have been applied by the Minister of

Health.

St. Joseph's Hospital and its administration have done everything

they possibly can to meet the requirements of the Minister of Health.

They are laying off staff, closing down beds, reducing the cafeteria

service, and cutting out what is called "extra nourishment" for the

patients in the hospital. They have done absolutely everything they

possibly can to meet the requirements of the minister, and are now in

an absolutely impossible position.

The only thing those administrators and the hospital board could do

was to close down ten beds and lay off staff. The Minister of Health

writes them back and says: "You are not permitted to close down ten

acute-care beds at Comox." He doesn't tell them that he's prepared to

give more money so that they can operate. He has put that hospital

board and its administration in an impossible position. I hope those

staff will not have to be laid off to add to the unemployed. I hope the

Minister of Health will see some reason and that he will relent and

that he will ensure that sufficient funds are supplied to St. Joseph's

Hospital at Comox so that they can continue to operate with the present

number of beds.

On top of the financial difficulties that they have already faced by

the 5 percent limitation, they have also been informed that because of

the shortage of extended-care beds, they have had 15 extended-care

patients in acute-care beds, and have been funded at the acute-care

level.

The Minister of Health has now informed them that instead of $110 a

day for the acute-care beds in which they have had to place

extended-care patients because there is no alternative, the hospital

will now be paid not $110, but $34 a day in order to try to supply the

needs of those people who require extended care. Mr. Speaker, that's

less than what he's paying them in the extended-care unit itself.

I don't know if the minister is even listening, but if he is not

aware of the predicament that he is putting the health care and the

hospitals in in this province, then it is time he soon learned.

The administration at St. Joseph's Hospital tells me they can no

longer ensure that they can provide a safe level of care for the

patients in that hospital, because of the position of the Minister of

Health and this government.

I am hoping that those ten people at Comox will not be added to the

list of officially unemployed in this province. But, Mr. Speaker, a few

moments ago I did use the term "officially unemployed, " and I really

think that that term needs some elaborating and some further

description. A great many of the economists feel that in actual fact

there are far more than the 112,000 officially unemployed in British

Columbia. These people are the so-called "hidden" unemployed, and it is

only recently that the province of British Columbia has recognized the

hidden unemployed and has done some studies on it.

Statistics Canada has looked at this question, and in the first

study of this kind that it did on the hidden unemployed, Statistics

Canada discovered that there were 263,000 people who were actually

unemployed in March of '78 but who were not officially counted as being

unemployed in the Statistics Canada national survey. The reason that

this large group of people were not officially counted was that they

had not actively looked for work in the previous four weeks. But these

people did want jobs. Let's be clear about that: they wanted jobs. But

they did not appear on the official statistics list because they did

not look for work during the previous four weeks, and it's probably

because they believed, with some accuracy, that there were no jobs

available. Perhaps they had already searched for jobs for months

without success. Perhaps the small number of job advertisements in the

newspapers or at Canada Manpower discouraged them.

In any case, the Statistics Canada study showed that there were

263,000 more people out of work than the official national figures.

This was for March, '78. This represents, Mr. Speaker, an increase of

25 percent over the official statistics for unemployment.

I am pleased that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams),

through the ministry's labour research bulletin in February of '79,

this year, has looked at this. According to the Ministry of Labour

reports on this, they found that in March of 1978 there were 18,000

hidden unemployed in B.C., in addition to the 108,000 who were already

declared officially unemployed at that time. Now this represents

roughly a 17 percent increase over the official figure. So you see, Mr.

Speaker, there are far more people who are unemployed than those

official figures reveal.

Now if we take a look at the statistics for February, '79, we see

that there were 112,000 officially unemployed. That's for last month.

According to both Statistics Canada and the B.C. Ministry of Labour, we

should increase

[ Page 49 ]

this figure by 17 percent to obtain a more accurate

estimate of unemployment in B.C. So if you take the 112,000 and add the

19,000 hidden unemployed which are now revealed through the Ministry of

Labour's own bulletin, we come up with a figure of 131,000 unemployed —

not 112,000, but 131,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not a political estimate by myself, but it

comes from accepting Statistics Canada's own admission that there are

many discouraged workers who want employment but are not included in

official surveys and statistics. The B.C. Ministry of Labour also

appears to accept this view, judging by that February research bulletin

which contains an

article relating to the hidden unemployed.

Now I think we should ask ourselves whether there might be an even

greater number of hidden unemployed than Statistics Canada is prepared

to admit. Statistics Canada admits there are official figures and there

are unofficial figures revealing the hidden unemployed. Even those

figures do not tell the whole story with respect to unemployment in

British Columbia. For instance, native people living on Indian reserves

are not included in Statistics Canada's calculations of the size of the

labour force and the number of unemployed.

There are currently some 33,000 native people living on reserves in

B.C. For some reason, it's very difficult to obtain recent. figures on

unemployment among reserve residents. Fortunately, after some

considerable effort, I was able to acquire some very interesting

statistics which come courtesy of the Minister of Economic Development.

According to these figures, some 1,600-odd people were officially

unemployed on reserves in B.C. at the time of the 1976 census. Now this

seems quite small, and the reason is that the native people tend to

have a very low participation rate in the labour force. So the figures

that the Economic Development ministry came up with, based on the '76

census, were some 1,600. That's very low. Because the labour force

participation rate for native people on reserves is only 58 percent —

some 20 percent below the B.C. average — we are justified in concluding

that there are a great number of people, who are discouraged workers,

who are living on Indian reserves but who should be added to the list

of unemployed in British Columbia. According to some of the Indian

spokesmen, unemployment on some reserves is as high as 90 percent.

That's shocking.

It's impossible to come up with an accurate estimate of the number

of native people who are in fact part of the hidden unemployed. I will

use a very conservative figure of, say, 3,500. Add that on to the 1,600

people found by the Economic Development ministry and we can assume we

have about 5,000 people who are unemployed, living on reserves, who are

not even included in either the official statistics or the so-called

"hidden unemployed." This figure probably errs on the conservative

side, I should add. This rough estimate of 5,000 native people in both

the official and hidden unemployed categories should be added to the

figure that we've already come up with of 131,000, making a figure of

136,000. So you can easily see that if you look into the real problems

of the unemployed, and look into the real figures with respect to the

rates of unemployment in this province, 112,000 is not nearly accurate.

If you look also at the figures with respect to those people who are

employable, and are currently in receipt of social assistance, we find

that at the end of December there were 23,968 people who could be

employed. But because there are no jobs, they are in receipt of social

assistance. They're not considered. They're not considered. Very few of

these people are likely to have been counted in those Statistics Canada

surveys. I should add that 23,968 employable people in receipt of

welfare as of December 1978 is 1,151 more than there were in December

of 1975. That certainly belies the story that many of the Social Credit

people have been trying to tell the people of this province.

Let's assume there were 10,000 people who are on social assistance

who have not given up hope at this stage and who are out actively

looking for work. They would not be counted. We now have the figure up

to 141,000 actually unemployed in B.C. We're not getting a clear

picture or an accurate picture as to what is happening in terms of

unemployment in B.C. We certainly are not getting it from the group

over there. They did not even mention in the throne speech the official

number of unemployed, let alone any of the hidden unemployed or those

people who are an reserves who are not counted.

Do I have only three minutes left?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I notice the green light is on. I believe that is right.

MS. SANFORD: It's on. Well, I'm going to have to cut my

remarks short in order to ensure that I don't violate the rules of the

House and go beyond the allotted 40 minutes.

I've not even mentioned the problem that women are facing in terms of unemployment. The government does not recognize that. The

[ Page 50 ]

government does not recognize that most women work because they have to, not because they want to.

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to deal with the problems of

the economy. They are doing virtually nothing about the unemployment

statistics; in fact we're told by the Ministry of Economic Development

that the situation is going to get worse. The Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) is contributing his part to make sure that those

unemployment statistics get worse.

But this throne speech, Mr. Speaker, is totally lacking in

addressing those serious problems which affect the people of the

province: taxation, the cost of living, the economy and unemployment.

The talents of all of those 141,000 people who are looking for work in

this province are wasted.

I have no confidence in this government, Mr. Speaker. No one on this

side of the House has any confidence in this government. I now second

the motion made by the leader of the official opposition.

MR. LEVI: I would like to join with my colleagues in

supporting the amendment, which says in part that "the speech of His

Honour fails to show any economic planning directed to solving

unemployment and fails to indicate policies to reduce the

ever-increasing cost of living and municipal taxation burden." What

we've seen from the government — from a government that is perhaps

unique in Canada — is that in fact it has an unemployment policy, not

an employment policy. It has an unemployment policy, because some weeks

ago the chief financial officer of the government, the Minister of

Finance, announced that there would be a 5 percent ceiling on

expenditures that would affect the municipalities and that would affect

the school boards. We've heard from the Minister of Health that the 5

percent ceiling will affect the hospitals.

All of this inevitably leads to two things: first of all, a

reduction in service; and certainly a reduction in employment. This is

part of the policy of unemployment that this government has had. They

were warned three years ago by no less an institute than the C.D. Howe

Institute at the time when they brought in very heavy taxation in the

form of increased ICBC rates and increased personal taxes. People had

less disposable income within a year of the life of this government

than they had previously.

They were told that now is not the time — this is three years ago

when we had an unemployment problem — to exact from people high

taxation, but rather to lower taxes and to use the money for job

development. They decided to go the other way of heavy taxation,

overtaxation, and now they actually brag about the fact that they have

a $300 million surplus that is sitting in the bank, $300 million which,

if put into the economy with a very serious attempt at some job

creation, would have a multiplier effect of about 1.6. That would take

it well over $400 million of money that could be invested in the

generation of employment.

But that's not the style of this government. The style of this

government is to simply deal with the questions of unemployment. It is

ironic that today the government is attempting to get a great deal of

political kudos out of the BCRIC share development, taking all of the

assets that were acquired by the previous government and then

convincing people that these are great assets, they are worth investing

in and that everybody should go out and buy more.

We can recall in this House the kind of bitter fights that we had

over the years when each bill was introduced that led to the

acquisition of those assets. Why was that done? Why did we acquire the

assets? We didn't acquire them immediately, because we particularly

wanted to get into the inside of the forest industry, but we had to

prevent a further erosion of the economic control of our own

industries. We had to prevent what was even more important at that time

— the possible loss of 1,500 jobs in the north in relation to Can-Cel.

That's why we originally got into those kinds of acquisitions. That is

important, because that was the business of projecting jobs and the

further development of jobs.

Now we have the government telling us that the way to go is to buy

the shares and then we will get into more development. The irony of it

is that particularly in relation to the oil and gas development,

they're going to give that out; they're going to give it away to other

people to develop. The BCRIC is not even going to get involved in that

kind of thing. Other people are going to benefit; other companies are

going to benefit from that kind of development. So we don't know yet.

We don't know yet at all what kind of generation of jobs is going to

come out of that. So what we have is a continuing of the policy of

unemployment.

Well, I can tell you this — we have