1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

1233 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 34.

Mr. Gibson — 1233

Mr. Phillips — 1234

Mr. Gardom — 1240

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1243

Mr. Gardom — 1245

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1246

Mr. Chabot — 1247

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1249

Mr. Fraser — 1249

Mr. Wallace — 1252

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1253

Mr. Gibson — 1254

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1254

Mr. Chabot — 1254

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1255

Mr. Chabot — 1255

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1255

Mr. Chabot — 1255

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 34: Minister's office, $85,129.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

just before the dinner adjournment I had occasion to ask the

Minister some questions — three simple questions, as I put it. I

think he perhaps didn't write them down completely, because the

replies just didn't cover the ground.

The first question that was asked was: in view of his pride

in the performance of the British Columbia economy at the

moment, how does he explain the fact that 100,000-plus British

Columbians are out of work? It's a very simple question, Mr.

Chairman — a very simple question. These aren't seasonally

adjusted figures. We had some dialogue on seasonal adjustment

the other day. These are just British Columbians out of work.

The Minister hasn't tackled that question, and I invite him to

do so, and he'll say something about world markets for resource

products.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: He may say that, but I admire his suit. I

wouldn't tackle the Minister on that kind of basis. He's an

elegant Minister, Mr. Member, from an elegant riding in

downtown Vancouver. And his running mate from that same great

riding (Mr. Barnes) is equally well known, Mr. Chairman, for

his elegance — especially tonight. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GIBSON: So there's question No. 1.

Now question No. 2 was related to investment in the mining

industry. I think perhaps this Minister doesn't understand the

numbers quite as clearly as he might.

I have some sympathy for this Minister, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that

on the government benches he wishes to bring jobs to British Columbia, and I

believe he is not quite as taken as some of his colleagues with the idea that

jobs grow out of the government coffers. I think he has some good perception

of the role of individual initiative as an engine to our economy and as a way

of giving people employment. But he's virtually alone, and the things he's doing,

the things he's mentioned to us earlier on today — good things, trade commission,

brochures and pamphlets, I have no doubt, distributed in most of the financial

capitals of the world — are being undermined (I use the word "undermined" advisedly)

by some of his colleagues. There's no mining left. How can you undermine a non-existent

mine? They're high-grading, and the government's undermining.

Investment in the development of mines. I want to qualify

what that is. The development of mines is the bringing of the

property from the stage where it is known to exist to the stage

where it is known to be economic. It's an indispensable step.

After the Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Nimsick'

s) prospect

or-assisted people have gone out and scratched the rock and

found an occurrence of ore somewhere, that's a prospect. It's

not yet ore; it doesn't become ore until it's developed. That's

an indispensable step between a prospect and an operating

mine.

Development expenditures in the Province of British

Columbia, according to the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, in

the last two years have declined by over 98 per cent. I'd

invite the Minister to address himself to that figure, to a

drop of 98 per cent in development expenditures on mining in

British Columbia, which is our No. 2 industry — our industry

that in the end is at the bottom 20 to 25 per cent of the wages

paid in this province. There's a 98 per cent drop in

development expenditure.

Then the third

section of the question related to forestry,

our largest industry. According to figures quoted here earlier

on this afternoon in debate, over the next three years we might

anticipate something like $168 million worth of

investment in our forest industry as compared to

$1.3 billion in Quebec and Ontario, when we

have here an equal amount of softwood as they have in those two

great provinces in central Canada. How can you explain that,

Mr. Chairman? You can't explain it the way the Minister does by

saying it's a question of corporate planning and

decision-making. Surely that Minister has some conception of

the fact that corporate planning is done in a political

climate. If those doing the planning can't have some feeling of

security about their investment, then their plans may be

adjusted. I invite that Minister to ask himself how he would

look at the following analogy:

Let us imagine that this Legislature set up a restaurant.

Let's call it Gary's Place. Let's say that members of the

public were coming day after day to Gary's Place.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what — doughnuts?

MR. GIBSON: To listen to the entertainment —

[ Page 1234 ]

and the food's not bad. Let's imagine that the management

has a new policy: every second customer coming in the door will

be hit over the head. Then the customers stop coming. Then one

day management — Gary — says: "I wonder why. It's a conspiracy

on the part of the customers. They're trying to force us out of

business." (Laughter.)

That's what they're doing to the mining industry of British

Columbia. Those big bad companies are trying to force us out of

business because we're hitting them over the head. What a

surprise!

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'd say that for the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Are you going to use

it on my portfolio too, for crying out loud?

MR. GIBSON: The Minister of Health asked if I'd use that on

his portfolio. No, I wouldn't do that, because I don't think he

knows even as much about mines as the Minister of Economic

Development.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: There's the Minister of Defence, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): He's talking about the health

of the mining industry.

MR. GIBSON: Talking about the health of the mining

industry.

So there are some simple facts. Mining development

investment is down 98 per cent. There are 100,000 people

unemployed in British Columbia. Investment in the British

Columbia forest industry budgeted over the next three years is

around 15 per cent that of the equally great softwood reserves

in the two central provinces of this country. Those are three

questions I'd ask the Minister...if he'll be good enough to

enlighten us as to how this can be made commensurate with an

adequate performance in his department.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I had the opportunity during

the afternoon debate to ask the Minister of Economic Development a few simple

questions about his policy regarding economic development in the Province of

British Columbia. What did I get in answer, Mr. Chairman? I got a bunch of personal

abuse. That was the answer to the questions I asked about the policy of this

government in setting out the economic future of the province — personal abuse,

and a few words about some trade missions to Japan, a few trade missions here

and there to sell the products of the industry that we presently have.

We're sick and tired, in the opposition, of listening to

that do-nothing Minister. I want to reiterate that he's done

absolutely nothing since he became Minister. Absolutely

nothing!

Not only is he a do-nothing Minister; he's the say-nothing

Minister. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Only in

this case it's hear no economic development, see no economic

development, and speak no policy about economic

development.

Now the Minister said this afternoon that when he and the

Premier went to Japan to talk about his steel industry.... The

Premier wanted to play volleyball or something, and he went

along to carry his bags.

He said that when they got to Japan they spoke to the

Japanese steel industry about the feasibility of a steel mill

for British Columbia. I want to tell you, about six months

before he went to Japan, in the fall of 1973, our Minister of

Economic Development said: "Oh, we're going to have a steel

mill in British Columbia," Yet when he got to Japan, he

asked about the feasibility of a steel mill. He wanted to know

if it was feasible.

I want to tell you, that's quite a picture. It shows the

Minister in front of a blast furnace. I'd like to quote from

this magazine. There are the Minister's quotes about a steel

industry.

I want to remind you once again that this was approximately

six months before he asked the Japanese steel industry if a

steel mill for British Columbia was feasible. But before that,

before asking the Japanese steel industry, he had all the

answers.

He says that we are going to build a steel mill before they

leave office.

" 'I hope to see a fully integrated blast furnace mill

producing 1.5 million tons of raw steel annually in ingot form

for export and domestic markets,' Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce, Gary V. Lauk, said."

How, Mr. Chairman, can we have any faith in a Minister who

has all the answers six months before he asks the questions?

Six months before he asks the questions he has all the answers.

There's another interesting quote here. He says: "I curse the

eastern financials before I go to bed every night."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: If he had gone on to say what he really

thought, he would have said: "I curse anybody who brings money

into British Columbia to develop jobs, and I'm going to put the

run on them."

"I curse the eastern financial institutions."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 1235 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, here is a man who now supposedly

has his arms wide open inviting risk capital into British

Columbia. You know, it's like the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) just said.

HON. MR. COCKE: You and he were twins.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, "I curse them and I hate them and

I'll do everything to keep them out, but I welcome them."

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope they get into bed with me.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want them to get into bed with me. Mr.

Chairman, I have to doubt....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have to doubt not the integrity but the

intelligence of the Minister.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Well, that's not nice.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have to doubt the intelligence. I think the

Minister thinks he's back in the courtroom, where whether he

wins the case or he loses the case he still gets paid.

MR. GIBSON: You've-gone too far. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd just like to inform the Minister....

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): I don't

lose cases; my clients do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: His clients? They lose the case and they lose

their money as well. You know, Mr. Chairman, I think that the

Minister of Economic Development thinks he's in the courtroom

and that somebody else is going to make the decision, because

he hasn't made any decisions. He's waiting for some judge up

somewhere to direct the jury.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): All he has to do is

yak.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that he has

to make the decisions now. He goes on to say: "How can we

repair the wrong of not diverting investment into Canada and

into industrial loans? I firmly believe we haven't made our

financial decision to become a country yet."

HON. MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, here is a man whose

Minister of Finance is not satisfied to allow Canadians to

invest in British Columbia. He has to go elsewhere for money

because he doesn't want to give British Columbians a chance to

invest in their own province. Here's a Minister of Industrial

Development who condemned — what did he say, again? — curses

the eastern financial institutions. He doesn't want them to

invest in British Columbia. Will he be going overseas? Will he

be going to the OPEC countries for money? Will he be going to

them with his arms open to invest in the industry and economic

climate of British Columbia?

I thought that we were all Canadians. I thought that he

wanted Canadians to invest in British Columbia. He and his

government condemn the rip-off artists supposedly in the United

States. He doesn't like them. But he goes down there and

borrows money. Mr. Chairman, I doubt sometimes if this Minister

of Economic Development is suited for the tremendous

responsibility he carries in this province.

The Minister says, and I'd like to make another quote which

his Premier, his Minister of Finance, has proven him wrong on

already: "The basis of the 20th century industrial state is

steel. Energy is a very distant second."

Energy is a very distant second! Now what do we find today,

Mr. Chairman? What is the most important commodity in the world

today?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not steel.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is it steel?

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course not.

MR. PHILLIPS: Proven wrong again! No, it's energy. It's

energy. Now I certainly would have hoped that in the two years

the Minister has had his portfolio — two and a half years —

that he would have learned something.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's two years old.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister's right on. Sure, it's two years

old and I'm merely saying.... I'm merely pointing these facts

out to say, Mr. Chairman, that I hope in those two years the

Minister has learned something. But I doubt it very much,

because again I say that this Minister has done absolutely

nothing with his portfolio.

You know, I don't agree with what the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has done with his portfolio, but at least

he's made some decisions. He made the decision to kill the

mining industry.

[ Page 1236 ]

MR. CHABOT: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't agree with it, but at least he's had

the intestinal fortitude to make a decision as to what he's

going to do with the mining industry.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources; I don't

agree with his policy, but at least he's made a decision. The

Minister in charge of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. has

made a decision — to take over the petroleum industry and to

build a refinery. But that Minister hasn't made a decision

since he became a Minister...

MR. CHABOT: He's done a lot of yakking, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and he hasn't delineated one clear policy

that the taxpayers of British Columbia can look at and say:

"This is where we're going."

I'd like to ask the Minister again: what is his policy?

We've heard a lot of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member

that in Committee of Supply the main thing is to question the

Minister on his administrative responsibilities rather than to

get into a discussion of policy.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I'll ask him what his plans are

then — what he feels his administrative responsibilities are.

Is he getting paid to kill industry in British Columbia, or is

he getting paid to encourage economic development and to

provide guidelines for the other Ministers?

Now the Minister of Economic Development is telling me how

much industry is coming to British Columbia and how his

Development Corp. of British Columbia has aided industry and

done such a great job. Mr. Chairman, there is the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), and she's trying to educate the

youth of this province so that they can go out and earn gainful

livings so they won't have to be on social welfare, so they

won't have to be unemployed. She's trying her best to educate

these people. She's trying to educate the growing population in

British Columbia with night schools, educate those unemployed

to take their places in new jobs. But what's the Minister of

Economic Development doing? He's driving industry out of the

province. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is saying: "Go

to Alberta. Go to Manitoba."

But the Minister of Education knows full well what is happening in British

Columbia — she knows full well — because in a press release issued on February

26, 1975, what does the Minister of Education have to say about the economic

climate in British Columbia? She knows that it's not as rosy as the Minister

of Economic Development would lead you to believe. She realizes that 103,000

on unemployment is not to be scoffed at. She realizes that without growth in

industry and without taxes coming in she can't spend more on education, that

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) can't spend more on health, that the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) can't spend more on social welfare.

Those Ministers realize because they spend money. They know that before they

can spend it, it has to come in. You have to have a tax base to work on. But

the Minister of Economic Development hasn't recognized that fact, Mr. Chairman.

What does the Minister of Education say about the economic

climate in British Columbia? She says:

" 'The government's commitment to reduce the pupil teacher

ratio in the province to 17 to one was made in good faith and

this programme will be continued when economic conditions

improve,' " — when economic conditions improve — "Education

Minister Eileen Dailly told delegates from the teachers'

organization in Victoria today."

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Today?

MR. CHABOT: She says things are bad.

MR. PHILLIPS:

" 'However, it is neither reasonable nor rational to expect

a continuation of the programme when rampant inflation is

coupled with the worst recession in years,' she said."

The Minister of Education recognizes the economic climate in

British Columbia today. She has more intelligence about the

economic climate and about what is happening to the tax base

than the Minister of Economic Development. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that the Minister of Education go and have a talk

with the Minister of Economic Development because he doesn't

realize what's going on in British Columbia today.

MR. CHABOT: Straighten him out.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister still has no policy. He's hanging

his hat on the decline of the economic conditions in the United

States of America. He's hanging his hat on a world recession.

He doesn't seem to realize that jobs are going wasting because

of the economic policies of the Minister of Mines. He doesn't

seem to realize that jobs are going wasting because of the

policies of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams). He doesn't seem to be able to grasp the

fact that what is happening today and what we see in

unemployment today is just the very tip of the iceberg. Unless

he changes his policies, unless he does some forward planning,

unless he talks to the

[ Page 1237 ]

Ministers of Mines, unless he talks to the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, unless he does some forward

planning and changes the economic climate in British Columbia

and invites that risk capital in, of which we haven't seen

anything yet....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would caution the Hon.

Member. I think we have allowed considerable latitude, but I

would ask him to relate his remarks and what he is reading

directly to the responsibilities of this Minister. Thank

you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Had we left the title of his particular

department as Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce,

industrial development might not include mining. But now that

Minister is the nerve centre of the cabinet, supposedly,

because economic development includes the economy of mining.

Mr. Chairman, would you not consider that mining has a lot to

do with the economic development of the province?

I would just like to continue for a moment. A year ago, when

Bill 31 was introduced, mining companies predicted that

exploration in British Columbia would decline, although mines

would continue to operate because of the enormous investment in

place. However, low world metal prices, principally for copper,

and rising costs of all kinds, combined with provincial

royalties which are applied without regard to earnings, have

changed the picture drastically. Operating mines are cutting

back and in a few cases closing. The latest development in this

situation is reflected in the annual report of Granduc Mines.

This company, which owns a copper mine in Stewart, lost

$101,000 in 1974 against earnings of $757,000 in 1973.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Health on

a point of order.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this

Member's record is now complete. He has managed to be off every

estimate that we have been on. He is dealing with the Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources' estimates and he is supposed

to be dealing with the Minister of Economic Development. I

would ask that he be brought back to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano on the same point of order.

MR. GIBSON: On the same point of order, I would suggest that

the question here is one of the investment climate in British

Columbia, which is clearly one related to the development of

jobs and as such falls squarely within the purview of this

Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the

Chair would rule that it is permissible to discuss the other

departments relating to the general concept of economic

development, but I would rule that he should not get into the

details and particulars. Rather, these should be addressed to

the appropriate Minister. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a question, Mr. Chairman, by way of

clarification: would you consider unemployment in British

Columbia to come under the Department of Economic Development?

Can the unemployment figures be discussed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair rules that the Hon.

Member may refer to any department or any activity related to

economic development providing that it relates directly to the

administrative responsibilities of this particular Minister.

However, the Hon. Member should not get into the details of

other departments, but rather wait until those Ministers are up

with their estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, had the Minister of Health not

gotten jumpy and jumped the gun, I would have related my

remarks directly to economic development. What I would like to

point out to the Minister of Health is that people who are

unemployed and people who are not gainfully employed become ill...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and have to enter a private hospital. Now

he knows that.

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

I had a false alarm from the lights at the back. Would the Hon.

Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know how that light can possibly be

on, because we didn't start until....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may

proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is there a plot against me here this evening, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. There is no plot. Would the Hon.

Member proceed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is a very short message: what I was

trying to point out is the degree of unemployment that is presently existing

in the mining industry. For instance, in late 1974 and early 1975, Granduc announced

it would cut back at the expense of 545 jobs. Similkameen Mining Co. at

[ Page 1238 ]

Princeton cut back 60 jobs. Gibraltar Mines at McLeese Lake

reduced its work force by 60 men. Lornex Mining in Highland

Valley cut back 100 jobs. Western Mines at Buttle Lake cut back

by 75 jobs. Since then Churchill Copper Mines at Fort Nelson,

with 115 employees, is closed.

I'm only relating these figures to point out that we must

have an economic policy clearly delineated by the Minister of

Economic Development. If we don't have a game plan laid out by

that Minister, if he won't tell how he feels and where his

government is going and how they feel about that investment

capital that he cursed every night before he went to bed, if we

don't have some idea of whether he is going to welcome this or

not, we're going to have not 103,000 unemployed in the province

but several times that amount. This is what concerns me.

The Minister of Economic Development can go out and he can

build steel mills, copper smelters and a big oil refinery which

won't provide one more job than if it were built or the present

refineries were allowed to expand, which he seems to be

against, or if private companies were allowed to go ahead. Not

one more job will be created because the government is involved

and because the government can overrule and because the

government can buy land. The government can say the devil with

the pollution people strictly because the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) want to go on an ego trip. They want to slap those

multinational corporations. That's the only reason we are going

into an oil refinery.

Surely to goodness, the Minister of Economic Development can

see that the same experiment that they tried in Great Britain

just hasn't worked. The once great nation today is in the grips

of economic disparity. (Laughter.) Here our Minister of

Economic Development is trying to go on the same road.

As was pointed out just a minute ago, Mr. Chairman, if the

Minister of Economic Development really wants investment

capital in British Columbia he would talk with his cabinet

mates and he would change the economic climate. We can say that

the reason the mining industry is in the doldrums in British

Columbia is because of the world prices for minerals. But, Mr.

Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, that's right, that's right. And I believe

that some of the NDP back bench believe that's right. If that

is the case, why is mining in the Yukon experiencing one of the

greatest booms since the gold rush of 1898 ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come!

MR. PHILLIPS: "Oh, come," he says. No, they don't

want to believe the economic facts of life, Mr. Chairman. They just don't want to believe the economic facts

of life. Blame it onto somebody else.

I'll tell you, the Yukon is farther away than British

Columbia is from Vancouver. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: How much farther?

MR. PHILLIPS: I mean the mining activity in the Yukon is

farther away than it is in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much copper are they producing?

MR. PHILLIPS: How much copper are they producing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll give you a few facts.

HON. MR. LAUK: How much are we producing?

MR. PHILLIPS: While the past year has been a most

discouraging one for mining in British Columbia, the Yukon

territory continues to progress. Dollars spent on exploration

in the territory are estimated to be, in 1974, $11.9 million as

compared to $7.2 million in 1973, and $4 million in 1972. This

is an increase of 197 per cent during the past two years. At

the same time the figures relating to claim staking for the

first nine months in the Yukon show a similar increase in

activity as follows: 1974 — 12,454 claims....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think at this point I should

just draw the attention of the Hon. Member to what the duties

are as they apply to this Minister.

First of all, standing order 61(2) says....

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you like me to sit down?

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Speeches in the Committee of the

Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

The Department of Economic Development Act,

section 4(1)

says:

"The duties, powers and functions of the Minister extend to

and include all matters relating to economic development of the

province that are not, by law, assigned to any other

department, branch or agency of the government of the

province."

I think it is quite clear from this that while the Hon.

Member may refer to these matters, he's clearly beginning to

discuss the details of them. These really should be addressed

to other Ministers whose responsibilities they are.

[ Page 1239 ]

Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly. If I was straying away, I was

merely trying to answer a question raised by the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who seemed very interested in the

health of the mining industry. I was merely trying to answer

his question. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, because I certainly

wouldn't want to abuse the rules of the Chair.

But anyway, we have the mining industry in the doldrums. We

have the forest industry with no plans to expand. And the poor

British Columbia Railway is in the worst state that it has ever

been under this government. The morale is the lowest it's ever

been Why, Mr. Chairman? Because of political interference —

because of political interference.

This afternoon the Minister of Economic Development referred

to the new railway car plant. He was saying how....

HON. MR. LAUK: I did?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. You don't remember?

HON. MR. LAUK: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you about that new railway car

plant. This also bothers me about the planning ability of this

government because the railway plant that was supposed to open

in 1974 was supposed to have cost $5 million. When it opened

this year it cost $8 million. That's an increase of 60 per

cent.

MR. CHABOT: Eighteen months later.

MR. PHILLIPS: Eighteen months.

MR. CHABOT: Delay.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not only did it not open until 12 months from

the time the announcement was made by the president of the

railway.... So not only can this Minister not do his job as

Minister of Economic Development, but he's taking over a mess

that the previous directors of the railway have created. So

he's not going to be able to devote much time now to the

Economic Development department.

But all of this is his problem. What I would like to ask the

Minister again — and I'd like an answer; never mind the

personal abuse, which I can take, because I'm not concerned for

myself....

HON. MR. LAUK: You're a big fellow, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm concerned about those young people today.

Where are they going to go for jobs? Would you explain to me

what the policy of the Economic Development department is with regard to the

resource industries in this province? Would you tell me what

your policy is with regard to developing manufacturing

industries in the province? Would you tell me what your policy

is with regard to bringing in the new industries of the future?

Do you want them? Are you going to encourage them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the point has been made

previously by myself and other Chairmen that the Hon. Member

should not really question the Minister in terms of policies or

future policies but rather on the present administrative

responsibilities and actions of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't know really whether you'd call

this a policy or not. If he'd just tell us what his philosophy

is — what he's going to do about it.... Is he going to

encourage it or is he going to discourage it?

HON. MR. COCKE: His philosophy is anti-Socred.

MR. PHILLIPS: Because with unemployment in British Columbia

on the incline, with the amount of investment money coming into

the province on the decline, the Minister hasn't signed any

DREE agreements. He has nothing planned for the future. His

Ministers — his other Ministers in the cabinet — are killing

industry. What does he plan on doing? Because, as has been

previously said this evening, I believe the Minister honestly

would like to have a go-ahead policy and create the much-needed

jobs in British Columbia, but he's being hamstrung at every

turn of the wheel by his cabinet colleagues and by the

philosophies of the Minister of Finance.

I'd like to ask the Minister once again just to tell us

something about his department and where it's going, because we

haven't heard one solid word since the Minister's estimates

opened. He hasn't told us what he's done. I'd like the Minister

to tell us. If he doesn't want to tell us what he's going to do

in the future, would he tell us what he's done in the past?

Just tell us how much jobs he has created, how many new

industries he has brought into the Province of British

Columbia.

We'll give him 30 minutes to tell us what he has done. I'll

venture to say that the Minister will get up and it won't take

him very long because he hasn't done anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got 28 minutes left.

MR. PHILLIPS: If he's proud of his department...

MR. CHABOT: Twenty-nine. (Laughter.)

[ Page 1240 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and if he's created jobs and he has

brought in new industry and all of the great policies that he

has alluded to but hasn't really talked about this afternoon

and yesterday, let him tell us exactly what he's done. Now I'll

sit down and listen with a keen ear and if I've been wrong,

I'll get up and say I was wrong. But let him tell us how many

jobs he has created in the province, how many new industries he

has brought into the province. We'll even accept the ones that

are pending if he doesn't want to say that they're here

already. We'll accept the ones that are pending, that deals

have been made on. Let him tell us what he's done, just exactly

what he has done, because he's talking about trade missions and

spending money and helping industries. Let him stand here this

evening in this Legislature — in this committee — and tell us

what he has done to warrant the expenditure of $5 million last

year and another approximately $5 million this year. Let him

tell us what he has done to earn his salary. Let him tell us

what the people in his department have done to earn their

salaries. Let him tell us here this evening so that we can go

out and tell the taxpayers of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Ohhh!

MR. PHILLIPS: He's got nothing to say.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I rather think that

the former Member has been somewhat unfair to the Minister in

posing the questions that he has to him because it's impossible

for this Minister with this portfolio, fettered as he is, to

give you the answers you wish to have. I think you have to

accept that as a basic premise. You can repeat those questions

many, many times over but you aren't going to get the answers

you'd like to have.

However, when this Hon. Minister was in his salad days, he

came out with some very, very interesting statements — the days

when he had a little more foliage on top and I think perhaps a

little better gray matter and direction underneath. I liked

many of the things he stated, and I'm referring to some of his

statements that were reported way back on July 7, 1973, in his

first major policy speech since he was appointed provincial

Minister of industry eight weeks earlier. It was an eight-week

incubation period and eventually a little chick popped through

and we had a few statements.

He called upon businessmen to be unafraid of the socialists

and join them in enhancing social justice in B.C. Will any

businessman in this House tonight who's not afraid of the

socialists please raise his hand? I'm looking around at the

galleries, Mr. Chairman, and I don't see a single raised hand —

as a matter of fact, I don't really see an entirely

encompassing gallery tonight.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): They heard you were

speaking.

MR. GARDOM: That might have been the situation, my friend

the Minister of Labour.

But Lauk carried on and he said that greater social justice

could be achieved only with the support of responsible private

entrepreneurs and by entrepreneur investment to stimulate the

economy and enable it to continue to prosper.

Now there's nothing wrong with that statement. That's a

correct statement, but the difference between the statement and

the actions unfortunately appears to be the difference between

day and night. The 32-year-old cabinet Minister, as he then

was, said that the B.C. government would take a position in the

private sector only where a region needs support, and never in

one already prospering under private business and industry.

Well, wouldn't that be a marvelous statement tonight to read to

the mining industry, and wouldn't that be a marvelous statement

tonight to read to the former insurance industry that we had in

this province?

And he said this: "We believe in the occupied-field theory."

I'll say they do. (Laughter.) Whew! Sometimes when you read

these over twice, you know, you see more significance to them.

"We believe in the occupied-field theory."

MR. CHABOT: That's an old statement. That's not applicable

any more.

MR. GARDOM: Watson, many see but few perceive. You will

recall that.

"We believe in the occupied-field theory. Wherever private

enterprise is occupying a field successfully and responsibly,

it will be left to prosper." That's what the 32-year-old

Minister said, as he then was. And that was a great statement

and everyone would agree with it. What has happened to Dr.

Jekyll? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: As my friend says, that statement is inoperative

now.

And he carried on. Listen to this: "The day (he

said) of the trade mission is practically over. They were mostly junkets at

the taxpayers' expense that did not achieve a defined goal except to familiarize

some foreign businessmen with the nightlife of downtown Dusseldorf."

(Laughter.)

Now let's see who's not here tonight'; He's in Sweden. He's

in Ottawa. Where's he tonight? He's in Ottawa. Has she gone

anywhere tonight? Eh? What is happening with these junkets?

You know, the Minister carried on. Listen to what

[ Page 1241 ]

he said. The Minister said he was not criticizing all trade

missions. Some opened doors and resulted in valuable exchange

of ideas, but the taxpayers' money might be better spent in

directly subsidizing a manufacturer to send his own men a broad

... abroad. Sometimes these Province editorials are

difficult to read, you know. (Laughter.) And, he said, "our

philosophy" — in answer to your question, my friend — "our

philosophy" — two years ago he could spell the word — "is that

we should cooperate and encourage private enterprise." Shame

on you! Did you really say that? "Our philosophy is that we

should cooperate and encourage private enterprise."

HON. MR. LAUK: Read the rest.

MR. GARDOM: Really, the Members of the New Democratic Party

tonight should call a division on that statement alone. Where

possible, he says, where possible, It's only where a region has

been deserted by private enterprise that we will come in and

take over to support that region. Well, of course, you closed

the doors of the insurance industry by saying it is illegal for

them to continue to operate and compete. In a democratic

society, it's illegal to become involved in the insurance

business, and you effectively closed the doors of the mining

industry — as no end of Members have discussed — by virtue of

your policies.

A lot of the Members, I think, have been rather

uncomplimentary to the Hon. Minister. Be their plea either

truth or fiction, I think really their unkindness was quite

unnecessary because this portfolio, in this province, — I say

very unfortunately, but historically — has been a complete loss

leader. It's been sort of a runt portfolio with expertise.

It doesn't matter how well-motivated the expertise may be or

even individually equipped. It has been severely restricted and

it's been severely limited in its scope and in its performance,

I think, with the net result that any Minister who has been

responsible for the administration of a portfolio as this is,

responsible for its progress, has always been the very

unfortunate recipient of a bunch of very ill-conceived

humour.

Its administrative responsibility is essentially anything

that could be attended to by any clerk I. But its functionary

responsibility and its functionary performance requires an

enormous number of skills. It requires exciting dramatic

innovation, and, I'm afraid, ever since the inception of this

portfolio in this province — and I'm not just criticizing this

administration — it has never yet been able to acquire that or

even, unfortunately, rightfully comprehend that fact.

Under a socialistic regime, the proper concept of the portfolio is far, far

more restricted and far, far more hampered than it ever was or ever will be

under any free, competitive enterprise system in this province. I say that the

fact that it is being hampered is perhaps too mild a word, because it has essentially

been emasculated. The reason for that fact is by virtue of some statements that

were never innocuously conceived. A great deal of thought went into it by a

great number of intelligent people, and it has been subscribed to. It essentially

has formed the philosophical bulwark of the New Democratic Party in this province.

I tend to think that it was the party that had the first opportunity to make

effective inroad with it.

It inherited a province that was economically flourishing

and economically thriving and a government that had a great

deal of financial reserve. It came into a situation by good

fortune and by good luck in its own sense to be able to do a

job and perfect the theory that was conceived. As I say, a

great deal of thought went into it. This deals with Prof.

Watkins and his theory and his so-called Waffle Manifesto. A

few of the statements in the Waffle Manifesto which are being

followed by this government are of significance to consider. I

would like to quote a few of them.

"The achievement of socialism awaits the building of a mass

base of socialists in factories and offices, on farms and

campuses."

That is effectively happening in the Province of British

Columbia today.

"Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national

planning of investment and by public ownership of the means of

production in the interests of the Canadian people as a

whole."

Well, you've interpolated that to read "the British Columbia

people." That is effectively happening in the Province of

British Columbia today. You're following this thing pretty well

to the letter. I carry on with a quotation:

"A socialist society must be one in which there is

democratic control of all institutions which have a major

effect in men's lives and where there is equal opportunity for

creative, non-exploitive self-development. It is now time to go

beyond the welfare state."

That is the policy that you people have been following and

are putting into practice in the Province of British Columbia

continuously. Carrying on with a quotation, talking about

control:

"They include extensive public control over investment and

nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy such

as the key resource industries, mining, finance and credit and

industries strategic to planning our economy."

The fact that some people in this province fail to recognize

that there is documentary evidence and documentary direction to

the policies taken by the

[ Page 1242 ]

New Democratic Party in British Columbia I fail to

comprehend, because nothing is subtle about it. This thing was

subscribed to. It was subscribed to by the leading lights in

the government, by the Minister of Finance and the Premier,

with either hat, by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) sitting here tonight, by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), who is not here at the moment, by

the Hon. Speaker, who is listening in his office — yes, I

suppose he is — and by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald).

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): What about the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)? He just joined you.

MR. GARDOM: Did the Minister of Health subscribe to this

too? Where is he? Oh, there he is.

How is your pulse?

He has got his red tie on tonight. Aha! There is a true

test, you see.

We have to make this point, how very consistent the attitude

and direction of this government is to the very ultrastate,

supercontrolled, reign-by-regulation policies that it is

following, and which are totally subscribed to by all of the

governmental departments.

There is absolutely no way I would say to my colleagues in

all of the opposition parties and in this party how one is

unable to anticipate or expect this government, and

specifically this Minister of this portfolio, to move in the

direction and along the lines of the questions that you are

asking him tonight that would be in the true and proper

interests of economic development, because he is confined by

the rigid policies and directions of the Waffle Manifesto.

Apart from the fact that this Ministry is a powerless

factotum — it is sort of a Pooh-Bah Ministry, all pomp and no

circumstance — it is totally subject to the whims of the

Minister of Finance for its existence.

It's totally subject to the whim of the Minister of Mines,

to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and

pretty well all of the control Ministers for it being able to

move in any kind of a successful manner whatsoever. So,

personally, I'm not disappointed. I'm disappointed, but I'm not

surprised by the lack of success that this Minister has been

able to exercise, even if he wished to do it. To all of the

Members who have been so very, very hypercritical of the

performance, I would say whatever else could you possibly

expect? You didn't receive anything, but how could you have

possibly expected anything more? Vain expectations and the

progress of society have always been extremely distant

cousins.

Now as I've said, this portfolio is today — I think it

always has been — fettered by the unilateral actions that have

been taken by the more senior portfolios: the Mines man, the

Lands, Forests and Water Resources man; and the energy man who is not with us

tonight; and Transport and Communications and purse strings who

sits over there; and even old birds-and-bees who usually sits

beside you, but he's not there tonight.

The Minister came in, talked about a couple of things, and

I'm not going to dwell on it. He talked about pollution

improvement. Well, that's utter rot. We all know that the

government mills in Prince Rupert and Ocean Falls are the very

worst polluters of all.

I'd like to talk about two specific things before I sit

down: one innovative and the second one administrative. Dealing

with an innovative thing, this is something that has been

constantly advocated from this corner of the room year in and

year out. It becomes somewhat of an unfortunate bore to many of

the Members, and I apologize for that fact. But the concept is

exceptionally worthwhile. It's terribly regrettable that we

have not yet had an administration in this province that's been

able to properly come to grips with it and to realize its true

significance: that is, to have in the Province of British

Columbia a scientific-industrial research organization or

research park along the lines of the many, many, extremely

well-established and effective ones that we have in other parts

of this country and in other parts of the world.

In order that we are able in British Columbia to keep our

expertise right at home so that we can process our natural

products and not just cut them and dig them and catch them and

then ship them away, I think there should be one policy in

B.C., whatever the government may be — and I cannot understand

why this government hasn't grasped this fact — that we've got

to herald the demise of the policy of extract-and-run.

We have in this province, as a result of the gift of the

good Lord, the greatest raw material and the best supply of

natural energy, I suppose, anywhere in this continent and

probably the best source of this kind anywhere in the world.

The label that should become the label of British Columbia is

"Made in B.C." That should become the effective label of this

province. If we had this type of a scientific research

organization, equipped by industry and participated in by

industry in the Province of B.C. there would be able, I think,

to be more terrific emphasis placed upon secondary industry

than we've ever had before so that we're able to do the very

thing that we've wished to do: make ourselves more

self-supporting in that particular area.

Dealing with an administrative situation, I don't really

know whether or not, Mr. Chairman, to congratulate the Hon.

Minister upon his ascension to B.C. Rail or to commiserate with

him. It has big, big, big problems. It's going to require a

great deal more than spur-line effort and spur-line expertise

to solve it. There are very serious financial difficulties on

the

[ Page 1243 ]

horizon; there are very serious financial difficulties that

have already been experienced, grave financial difficulties.

Those are both from an operational point of view and from an

expansionary point of view.

Perhaps we have to ask the Hon. Minister, since he must have

this information. I don't know of anywhere else in the

estimates that this can be debated. He's taken over from the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and it's going to be an

awful long time until we get to the Minister Without Portfolio

(Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), without seat and without presence over

the past long time.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's never here. Where is he?

MR. GARDOM: But it's going to be difficult to determine. I'd

ask the Hon. Minister: where are the greatest difficulties in

this railway being experienced? Is it operational difficulty or

is it expansionary difficulty? Is it receiving proper return

for the function that it is now performing? Is its equipment up

to snuff? Is it doing the job it should be doing? Is it

properly staffed? Is it properly manpowered? Any problems to do

with the wage scale?

Dealing with the expansion programme, how much more is this

going to cost than it was estimated to cost? Is it going to be

up 100 per cent,200 per cent,300 per cent,400 per cent or

500 per cent? Or is it going to be over that? The Hon. Minister

has this information and I think he should inform this House.

This could well involve millions and millions and millions of

dollars.

People are resigning. We heard that the general manager, Mr.

Trask, has resigned. We have just recently read that Mr. Mike

Wakely, the chief engineer, is also moving out of the railway.

In view of the fact that the 1973 report of Mr. Minty was as

scathing as any report could possibly be of the accounting

procedures and of the audit procedures of B.C. Rail, and in

view of the fact that we find the general manager walking down

the track and we find the chief engineer walking down the

track, and also in view of the fact that its auditors and its

comptrollers pulled out some time ago, and further in view of

the fact, Mr. Minister, in one specific instance we find

estimated contracts for the Dease Lake extension coming in at

$5.2 million reaching 11.3 with an estimated 8.5 to finish (in

other words, an estimated quantity of $5 million requiring $20

million to finish), and in view of the fact that there are now

some lawsuits floating around alleging fraud and alleging

conspiracy on the part of the railroad and its former

vice-president, I would ask the Hon. Minister whether or not he

has concluded it is time for a judicial inquiry into the

accounting, estimating and bidding procedures of B.C. Rail and

the reasons for the resignations and the departure of these

four people from the railway.

There are very, very serious problems that are being

presented. The general public has not been given any specifics.

They have not been given any dollar figures, but one thing has

become extremely evident. The B.C. Rail is in a financial mess

and the public wants to know to what extent it is in a

financial mess, what has to be done to bail it out of that

financial mess, and who caused that financial mess. I pose

those questions to the Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the remarks and

the questions of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) there was some mention of the unemployment figures

in British Columbia. You know, I don't like dealing with these

figures, whether the unemployment is way down, according to the

national average, or way up. I think it's really ridiculous

that we do this in this House time after time after time. We

blame the government in power. I admit that when some of my

colleagues were in the opposition they criticized the poor

Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot), who was unhappy enough in his

job without having those kinds of attacks.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

But let's deal with them. The March 15 figures indicate and

the source is Statistics Canada, as always that we've gone down

in the real, unadjusted portion from 107,000 to 101,000 in

British Columbia.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're happy about the 101,000,

aren't you?

HON. MR. LAUK: Of course I'm not! What a silly statement to

make!

In B.C. the unadjusted figure is down 0.6 per cent, Mr.

Chairman. In Canadian terms the unadjusted figure seems to be

constant. The adjusted figure: B.C. down 0.1 per cent, the

Canadian adjusted figure up 0.4 per cent. That doesn't seem to

be consistent with some sort of special situation in British

Columbia that's discouraging employment and job creation.

I think it's clear from the reports that we have that there

has been a great deal of job creation and you can look over a

longer period of time. Relative to its share of the labour

force British Columbia contributes more than proportionately to

annual job creation in Canada. Over the past five years British

Columbia has provided 14.8 per cent of all new employment in

the country while only representing 10.6 per cent of the

Canadian labour force. In 1974 15.6 per cent of new jobs were

in British Columbia while the British Columbia share of

Canada's labour force stood at 11 per cent. So British

Columbia's not

[ Page 1244 ]

doing too badly in that regard.

You also know, Mr. Member and members of the committee,

through you, Mr. Chairman, that our growth rate is at about 3

per cent. It varies but it's very high — it's extremely high —

both through immigrant and in-migration to the coast and to

British Columbia generally. It taxes the resources of the

governments at all levels — municipal and provincial and

federal — to meet the kinds of needs that are required by the

movement of these masses of people. I think it's a mistake to

believe that we're going to be able to solve that problem at

the provincial level when we have no control over our borders

and we have the demands of the indigenous population demanding

a slower growth period.

In spite of that, or in relation to it, it is the

government's policy to continue a growth pattern in British

Columbia. There should be no suggestion that we are

discouraging growth.

The attempts that we have made to obtain a greater share of

the resource revenue of this province for the people of British

Columbia to support our social programmes have been legitimate

and sincere, and I think that it is unfair to blame the

downturn in the mining industry so entirely upon the fact that

we brought in royalty legislation.

I think that one has to look at the global market situation

and the glut on the world market. It is very clear that mines

throughout the world are closing. In the United States, a total

of 345,000 tons per year in mines, in copper, have been closed

in 1974-75; in the Philippines, 6,000-ton mines of Black

Mountain Consolidated; Australia, the famous Peco and Wariga

Mines closed, 13,000 tons per annum, and so on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Anaconda, Esarsco, Duval, these are all in

the United States. What socialist governments are there?

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the glut of copper and other

metals on the world market has made it impossible to sell at a

price that will keep all of the mines operating. Once we have a

situation when these metals are in somewhat shorter supply, the

prices will go up to the extent where we can employ the miners

that have been laid off both in this country, in the United

States, the Philippines, Australia, New Guinea, in other

SEAPEC countries, in Chile, Peru, Zambia, and Zaire.

Mr. Chairman, there are other questions that were raised. It

seems to me that the political climate may have an effect on

local businessmen sometimes in their investment pattern.

Without commenting in too much detail there I think that this

does not reflect the tendency to invest in this country from

outside, from foreign investors.

We are making a fairly definitive statement to the Minister of Trade and Industry

(Hon. Mr. Gillespie) in Ottawa that his Foreign Investment Review Act should

reflect the needs of the resource-based province. We think that his proposals

of maximum Canadian ownership of resource companies to a resource province such

as us — restricting this kind of thing — affects a resource province such as

ours. We have control through the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams) of regulation. We don't have to worry about putting a flag on

foreign investment. We've got the control here.

This is the story we are telling him. We don't like federal

government interference in that investment pattern. We feel it

is tampering with a very delicate and dangerous global

investment situation. In the past two years, the only and the

major effect on foreign investors has been the federal

tampering in investment in resource-based provinces. That's

clear. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that, and

I have made that point absolutely clear to the federal

Minister. There is no excuse for it, and if I had a philosophy

of a conspiracy theory of life, I would think that Alistair

Gillespie is trying to force the resource-based industries in

B.C. to go to central Canada for their financing.

Yes, indeed, Mr. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips), both you and I and the former Premier (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) curse the eastern financial institutions, and have

done so for many years, and you know it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: You know it. You know what they have done to

us.

One of the Hon. Members raised the question of mineral

exploration in the Yukon. I have explained the glut on the

market and the question today is not exploration. The question

today is production and sales.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

HON. MR. LAUK: The question today is not exploration.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, that's where you are wrong.

HON. MR. LAUK: You can find all the copper you want, but

we've got enough production in this province and we can't sell

it. That's the fact. If production were increased, if sales

were increased, if the market was better, exploration would

increase, and you know that too.

[ Page 1245 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't be ridiculous! You're showing your

ignorance of your department.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: I've always been very flattered when the Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) refers to

my speeches. One never knows how good they are until someone

else reads them back to you, and I appreciate that. I think

they are excellent speeches. They were very well read, too, Mr.

Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That was a pretty old one, though.

HON. MR. LAUK: You have a very good courtroom presence. I

think the speeches were correct. I think that you read most of

them. You should have read all of them. They would have

explained the position that I took then and that I take

now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't think so. The only surprising point

you raised there was the trade missions, but I said "not all

trade missions." We are sending trade missions now without

Ministerial presence, sending only businessmen in contact with

foreign markets. They have been very successful. Ask some of

the private entrepreneurs who you seem to want to represent

every day...and they don't seem to want you. Ask them about

how these trade missions are going. You raise an interesting

point.

Your colleague, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) raised the point last year on a research park for

this province. I commissioned a study. The study is now

complete.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, I didn't find any studies on a research

park, so I commissioned one. It is a good study and it is being

actively considered by the government at this date.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, if I just might respond.... The

Hon. Minister, in his new capacity as one of the directors of

B.C. Rail, and this being one of his estimates....

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh, I was going to get to that. Will you

yield for a moment?

MR. GARDOM: I would be delighted.

HON. MR. LAUK: I thank the Hon. Member. You raise questions involving

the running of the railway, and although I made comments earlier in my estimates,

I think that it is appropriate to indicate, Mr. Chairman, to the Members of

this committee, as they well know, that I was appointed at the Easter break.

I have had an opportunity to read some of the material involving BCR, not all

of it. I don't think that I can answer these questions at this time, nor do

I think the executive vice-president of the railroad should answer these questions

when the president of the railroad will be available to do so. I refer your

questions to the president of the railroad.

MR. CHABOT: Big Daddy.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Is he the

executive vice-president?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, right.

MR. GARDOM: We were unaware of the Hon. the Minister's

position but he certainly has an exceptionally responsible

position with the railroad. It would seem very appropriate to

me, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon, Minister acquaint himself with

the very extremely serious difficulties that this railroad is

experiencing, because the power of questioning other people is

going to be extremely limited. The Minister of Finance's

estimates have disappeared. Are they likely to come back to the

floor again? He said no. t is my recollection that we have

dealt with the Minister of Finance's estimates, have we

not?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, I didn't know they were

passed.

MR. GARDOM: You didn't know the Minister of Finance's

estimates were passed? The Minister of Economic Development is

unaware that the Minister of Finance's estimates have passed.

Would someone please send him a note and inform him of that

fact?

However, it would seem to me, Mr. Minister and,

specifically, Mr. Executive Vice-President of the British

Columbia Railway, that in view of the evidence that has been

accumulated in this province of the scandalous accounting and

the scandalous estimating and the scandalous hindering

procedures and the scandalous bidding procedures.... And, I'd

say, the absolutely scandalous public accountability was very

obvious and already made public cost increases which are

staggering, or some combination of all six. Those are very

strong words.

I am very concerned with public value. I would say that any one of those six

points has got to be answered to the general public and the questions that they

have not had answered. They are very, very serious questions. I think the public

is entitled to a full and complete and impartial and in-depth

[ Page

1246 ]

explanation, which they have not received. I think the

public would be best served by the calm and analytical process

of an independent judicial inquiry under the supervision of the

British Columbia Public Inquiries Act and right outside of the

political arena and the heat of the political kitchen.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Point of

information. The question of why the Hon. Member is continuing

along this line of debate is his concern that he will not have

an opportunity to discuss this with the president of the

railroad. I would like to point out that although the

Minister's estimates are complete, you will note that there is

Bill 27 on the order paper. You will have an opportunity to

question the Minister of Finance.

MR. GARDOM: This is a very interesting departure from the

rules of debate that has been indicated by the House Leader of

the New Democratic Party tonight. When the government chooses

to restrict debate to the strict confines of a bill, do you

ever do it, Madam Minister! We have been ruled out time and

time again on the opposition side by the Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: You certainly have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never! Never!

MR. GARDOM: Oh, baloney never! Baloney never!

AN HON. MEMBER: Never, on a point of order, on a bill.

MR. GARDOM: You are making up in quantity what you lack in

quality, Mr. Provincial Secretary, when you come out with a

statement such as that.

If the Hon. House Leader is now prepared to commit the

government and herself on an undertaking basis that there may

be a complete debate on the financial structure of the B.C.

Rail during the reading of this bill, that would be a very

interesting statement and I'd like the Hon. House Leader to

indicate to this House if she's prepared to do that.

Would you like to answer that?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: ...to repeat my statement: there will be

an opportunity during the debate on that Bill 27 to ask

questions of the Minister of Finance re the B.C. Railway.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, well, that's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, Hon, Member, you have had the

assurance.

MR. GARDOM: With every respect, Mr. Chairman, I have had a

very general statement; I wish a specific assurance, not a

general statement. I don't consider I've received a specific

assurance, unless the Minister would so convey that I have

received that. I'm sure that every Member of the opposition

would like to know that. But we have not received such a

specific assurance.

So the first point that I'm making with the Hon. Minister,

who is the executive vice-president of the B.C. Rail, is

whether or not he would be prepared, in view of the matters

that I have mentioned — the scandalous accounting, estimating

and tendering procedures, budgeting, public accountability, the

fact that these people are departing from this ship left, right

and centre — whether or not it's in the public interest that

there be an independent judicial inquiry.

The second and more important question, in view of the

history of the administrations that we've had in this province — more specifically, providing to the general public an

administration that is completely above board — would this Hon.

Minister be prepared to say that he would recommend the

establishment of an auditor-general who would have independent

expertise, power and interest to reveal — as opposed to the

opposite of revealing — a person who could report independently

to the Legislature on any excesses along the lines which I have

occasioned and take it out of the political arena and let the

general public have true, proper and effective

accountability?

HON. MR. LAUK: I have indicated clearly that those questions

should be directed to the president of the railway. I repeat

that. You have the assurance of the House Leader that there

will be a thorough discussion at that time. I'm still

familiarizing myself with the workings of the railway, the

department, the reports....

MR. PHILLIPS: You knew all about it yesterday afternoon.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LAUK: I hope you listened carefully to what I did

say yesterday.

But, you know, there's one thing that surprises me in the

twilight hours of my estimates. They talk about....

Interjections.

[ Page 1247 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order, please, Hon. Members? The

Minister has the floor.

HON. MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and other

Members talked about this portfolio....

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: I know it's getting rather late, Mr.

Chairman. Some of the Members are taking leave of their

senses.

MR. GARDOM: Order.

HON. MR. LAUK: The criticism of this portfolio is that it

didn't have an active arm. For years it was suggested to the

former administration by many Members of the Liberal benches

that there be a development corporation. You seem to have

completely ignored that through these entire estimates. You

have not asked my any questions on that development corporation — not one. I consider that an irresponsible act on the part of

the loyal opposition. A development corporation that has

capitalized at $25 million, that can have an aggregate amount

of debt to $100 million, that's been active in this province,

and not one question has been asked. I wonder why, Mr.

Chairman.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says nothing has been

asked as far as the B.C. Development Corp. Is concerned. He

seems to think that it's a very important arm of his

department. But I happen to have the single copy of his annual

report of 1974....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are the copies you promised?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where are the reports? Where are the

copies you promised?

MR. CHABOT: I borrowed it.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I borrowed mine from the Clerk's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order, please? Your colleague is

speaking.

MR. CHABOT: I find that the British Columbia Development Corp. doesn't

have very high priority as far as your annual report is concerned. There are

exactly four paragraphs dealing with the British Columbia Development Corp.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on. Right on.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: It'll be a cover-up. You'll file it after your

estimates are done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia

River has the floor.

MR. FRASER: A cover-up! A snow job!

MR. CHABOT: I find that considerably more space has been

devoted in this annual report to women's economic rights than

has been given to the B.C. Development Corp.

HON. MR. LAUK: I know you're against women's rights. I'll

tell....

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister here, who established women's

economic rights in February, 1975, devotes more space and more

words to this new branch of his department than to the B.C.

Development Corp. Now I'm wondering if the Minister's

suggesting that discrimination took place by his department

prior to the establishment of this women's economic rights

branch. Is that what he's suggesting? Is that the reason why

there's the need for the establishment of this new branch of

your department — because you and your department discriminated

against women? Is that the reason why it's necessary? Is that

the reason why it occupies more space in your annual report

than the Development Corp. does? Or is it a cheap political

ploy on the part of the Minister? A motherhood issue will be

covered by the appointment of a token woman in his department,

as they've done in other departments as well.

Certainly there should not be discrimination against women

in your department. Women should be treated equally by your

department. That's how they should be treated. Your appointment

of a token woman in your department isn't going to help the lot

of women in British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or the wives of unemployed miners.

MR. CHABOT: No, I maintain that they should all have equal opportunity

in British Columbia to get into the economic field or the business world or

the

[ Page 1248 ]

job place.

HON. MR. LAUK: When you were the government you didn't even

know the meaning of the word "equal." You didn't have a

clue.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): You had

discriminatory laws.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia

River has the floor.

MR. CHABOT: We have a human rights branch in British

Columbia to look after....

HON. MS. YOUNG: Your human rights branch was a farce, pure

and simple.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, you're suggesting that the human rights

branch isn't doing anything? Now the Minister of Consumer

Services says that it's a farce, the human rights branch. It's

not doing a job: that's what she's suggesting.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: We find that the Expo '74 report is

substantially twice as long as that of the B.C. Development

Corp. We're certainly not trying to downgrade the efforts of

Expo '74, but I do want to say that the B.C. Development Corp.

should have occupied substantially more room in your annual

report — which says very little, in fact, when one examines

your annual report. It talks about the trade missions which you

were opposed to as soon as you became Minister but now

support.

Last year in the Legislature, during the estimates of your

department, you said that the reason for the delay in the

annual report last year was because you wanted to put more

facts into the annual report. Well, I suggest that last year's

annual report did have a few more facts — not a few more,

substantially more facts — than appear in your annual report

this year, because it is void of facts, your annual report this

year. It says absolutely nothing.

Also, last year you suggested that the investment world, the

business community, was lining up at your door to invest in

British Columbia. You suggested that there was investment

capital attempting to get into your office from central Canada,

Japan, Germany and Britain. I'm wondering if the Minister would

tell us just what investment capital has been attracted from

these areas either here in Canada or elsewhere.

I don't think that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was out

of place when he asked for your policy, what the policy of your portfolio is

— your philosophy as far as the management of your administrative responsibilities

in your department are concerned. There's nothing wrong with that. You must

have some particular philosophy, some guiding light that suggests to you what's

right and what's wrong, certain terms of reference. Or don't you have these?

Is it a willy-nilly operation you're administering over there? Or do you have

some philosophy as far as the administration of your department is concerned?

You certainly should have if you haven't.

The Minister mentioned the Molson hop farm. I want to ask a

few questions regarding the land the department is attempting

to secure, the agricultural land that the department is

attempting to secure. I know full well the philosophy of the

Minister regarding agricultural land reserves because he stated

it very clearly at the time of the Tilbury Island industrial

park development where he said that the Land Commission Act was

not designed to protect all farmland in British Columbia.

We know what's happening in Surrey, the 1,500 to 2,000 acres

of farmland that is being set aside there for industrial

development.

The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), the apologist for the

government, who is not here, who is on a political junket at

this time at the taxpayers' expense — not as an official

delegate to the Law of the Sea Conference, but as an "observer," a little reward for being an apologist for the

government, for being an apologist for the government, for

being an apologist for the desecration of farmland in the

Surrey area — he even had the gall, when he spoke, to suggest:

"Oh, there are only a few hundred acres that are suitable to

agriculture."

We also heard the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson),

another apologist for the government. But what bothers me is

the obsession that department has, and that is the accumulation

of land for industrial park sites. That appears to be the sole

function fulfilled by that Minister since he's been in

government.

Now two questions regarding the Kamloops agricultural land,

the former Molson hop farm that will be turned into an

industrial park. There's a substantial

article on the

government's move onto the former hop farm. It reads as

follows: "The provincial government agency wants to spend

millions of dollars to put an industrial park on both sides of

a four-mile stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway here. There are

a couple of snags it has to overcome first. The

government's own Land Commission has put much of the

proposed site in the agricultural reserve, freezing it from

development." Well, they've overcome that snag.

Then the provincial Highways department, which has to

approve all development along arterial routes, let it be known

they would not approve a similar but smaller plan put forward

earlier for the area because

[ Page 1249 ]

of the traffic problems that would result. This earlier plan

was put forward by 12 local business and professional men who

had bought 900 acres of the old Molson hop farm property about

nine miles east of the downtown plan. The new plan comes from

the government owned B.C. Development Corp. It has agreed to

buy 460 of the 900 acres, provided the land is taken out of the

agricultural freeze and that the Highways department gives the

go-ahead for a multi-million dollar industrial park on it.

Accountant Larry Campbell, spokesman for the Kamloops group and

president of the company it formed in 1972 to buy the land,

Kaymor Investment Ltd., refused in an interview to state the

price the government agency is offering. Neither David Corbin,

president of the development corporation, nor Ken Shaughnessy,

the man who negotiated for it could be reached for immediate

comment. Land registry records show the Kamloops group paid

$1.3 million: $500,000 down and $800,000 on a three-year, 7 per

cent mortgage taken by Molson's for the whole 900 acres.

Speculation in Kamloops business circles is that the government

agency will be paying more than this for its half of the

property. Figures being bandied around the interior city vary

from $2.5 million to $10 million, I wonder whether the Minister now is prepared to say what it

has offered for half of the land that was purchased at $1.3

million, or what the B.C. Development Corp. proposes to pay for

that land and the acreage involved. Also, will the Minister

state where the corporation's negotiations presently stand with

the Department of Highways relative to access. The Department

of Highways has indicated that it would generate a serious

traffic problem along this four-mile stretch of road, and I

know full well the great difficulties that private individuals,

or companies, or businesses experience in attempting to get

access onto the Trans-Canada Highway. Is it going to be easier

for the B.C. Development Corp. to gain access to this

highway?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it's between $4,000 and $5,000

an acre.

MR. CHABOT: How many acres are involved?

HON. MR. LAUK: I've looked through my notes and I can't find

the exact acreage. It's over 400 acres.

MR. CHABOT: It says 460.

HON. MR. LAUK: That sounds about correct. I could get the

exact figure for you tomorrow. But I do know it's about $5,000

an acre offered to Kaymor. That's the option price from the

development corporation. I could have more definitive figures

for you tomorrow.

The second point you raised — no, it will not be easier. The

negotiations between the corporation officials and the

officials of the Department of Highways are continuing.

MR. FRASER: I would like to add a few comments here. First

of all I would like to reply to the remarks of the Member for

Skeena (Mr. Dent) late this afternoon. You will probably recall

them, Mr. Chairman. He was happy with everything that happened

in his riding regarding this portfolio. But I wonder whether

the Member for Skeena is listening to the wrong people, because

I have a letter in front of me here now that says that

everything isn't so well in Skeena, particularly with the

Economic Development portfolio.

As a matter of fact, they say that the Member for Skeena

doesn't give a damn; and this is right in this letter. These

people have lost their jobs through government inaction. I

wonder whether the Member for Skeena is listening to the wrong

people, when he stood up in high praise of this do-nothing

Department of Economic Development and this do-nothing

Minister. This letter certainly counteracts all that.

I'm not going to bother reading the letter, Mr. Chairman,

but you probably know these people. It is signed by Mrs. E.

DeMarchi. Have you heard that name, Mr. Chairman? Well, I'll

send you a copy of it. But I don't think the Member for Skeena

is doing himself too much good standing up for this do-nothing

Department of Economic Development and, more specifically, the

do-nothing Minister.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, in that regard that the prior

Minister sat on his fat stats, and so does this one continue to

do the same thing.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I left that up to the Member for Vancouver

Centre. He's quite vocal on that.

Anyway, what I want to say here tonight is that I want some

answers to what I said yesterday. Nobody has had any answers

from this Minister. That's why we are still churning up the

debate here, trying to get answers.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, he was asked several times

yesterday, and again today, about the northern development, and

more specifically the connection for the railroad, the BCR from

Clinton to Ashcroft. He's been dead silent on an answer to

that. He hasn't said one thing, and I think it is about time

that we had an answer. As was said yesterday by myself and

several other people here, this is a very important connection

and there is going to be a calamity in the Fraser Canyon, and

we have no alternate route for the mainline railroads to the

coast. This Clinton-Ashcroft connection would supply this

alternate route. He has successfully evaded even

[ Page 1250 ]

discussing this, and I'd like to hear.... I'm glad to see

he is writing notes, so I know that we will have a I clear and

definite answer from him when I sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the porcupine pie?

MR. FRASER: Well, I'm coming to the porcupine pie too, Mr. Chairman.

That speech will ring in your ears come next election, believe me. Mr. Chairman,

as long as that bunch is government that's what we are going to be eating come

next election, believe me — porcupine pie. There will be nothing left here to

eat because you will have destroyed everything by then.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Well, I'm afraid of that.

The other item that the Minister brushed off is the

resignation of Mr. Trask. I am highly incensed that he

maintains silence on that and doesn't want to talk about it,

and keeps on referring it to Big Daddy, who is in Ottawa

shooting his pride down there. I can't help it if he's there,

but he's the executive vice-president of the railway, and he

knows what happened to Mr. Trask. Why doesn't he get up here

and tell this House and the public of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Trask resigned a week ago Monday. Who is

running the BCR, I'd like to know? Mac Norris, the

vice-president, has been in the office about three days since

January. Who's running it? Nobody is running it. That's a

serious item for everybody in the central interior, and the

next thing is that it will stop running. Then you will have all

kinds of excuses why it stopped. But the people want to know.

The shippers want to know. The employees of the railroad want

to know. And you owe a responsibility to the citizens to tell

them.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday when I spoke on the BCR, this

do-nothing Minister got up and said: "Oh, yeah, sure, we've got

troubles in the BCR, but the real scandal was the last 20

years." Gee, I hope what he said yesterday was right, that the

president of the railroad will get up and tell us about the 20-year scandal

of the railroad.

But before he does, I'll tell you some facts about the

railroad. A lot of those government Members over there weren't

even in this province when they made a railroad out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. LEA: Name names.

MR. FRASER: That's right. You weren't even ere. You don't

know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. LEA: Name names.

MR. FRASER: That railroad was started in World War I, taken

over by the provincial government, and run from Squamish to

Quesnel. It had no connection with tidewater. Every government

from 1916 to 1952 said they'd complete it to tidewater and take

it up to the Peace River and into the Omineca country where it

is today.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you something.

HON. MR. COCKE: Get back on your white horse.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I didn't say that. They had to barge.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Now, listen, Mr. Chairman, I don't need those

oatmeal savages telling me. (Laughter.) You only came out from

Scotland a couple of years ago, like the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace), and they start telling everybody in British

Columbia how o run B.C. I resent that fact.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: I mean it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all Members please not interrupt the Hon.

Member for Cariboo?

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. None of those Scotchmen

get along, and they never will. But when they set themselves up

as experts in the history of British Columbia, I resent that.

I'm going to tell you something, Mr. Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan): Squamish is on tidewater,

but they had to transfer their live cattle, their lumber,

everything to barges.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, but this fellow here says there

[ Page 1251 ]

will be a big scandal, this do-nothing Minister of Economic

Development. I'll tell you a little. I hope they walk into that

head-first like they walked into the Columbia River deal. Now

they're hiding their heads in the sand on that one. They're

going to walk head-first into this one. Mr. Chairman, I'm

urging them to come forward with this scandal on the BCR. We

had a Toonerville Trolley running from Squamish to Quesnel from

1916 to 1952, and it didn't have a terminus anywhere.

We called it the "Please Go Easy," "Pigs Going East," "Prince George Eventually." And what happened? We got a

new government in 1952. They didn't make any promises; they

built the railroad from Squamish to North Vancouver, and from

Quesnel to Prince George, and from Prince George to the Peace

River, and from Prince George to where you fellows have gummed

it up. It's all stopped, heading towards Dease Lake. That is

the record of the prior administration. When we have the

Premier of this province come back here and relate his scandal,

I hope he walks right into it.

Everybody in the interior of this province knows what

happened to the BCR from 1952 to 1972. It was made into a

functional railroad.

Mr. Chairman, what has this government done about it? They

have taken it from a functional railroad in 1972 and ruined it

in two and a half years. Now we're right back into Toonerville

Trolley times and it is again a laughing stock of this province

because of no direction by the board of directors of which this

Minister is executive vice-president.

I want to repeat that I know all about the history of the

railroad and so do the people in the interior of this province.

They want to make a scandal. Sure, there might have been more

money spent on construction than was originally estimated. This

government changed the rules of the game. It was a pioneer

railroad but it was pushed through. They came along and decided

they had to upgrade it. Of course, they doubled and tripled the

cost, and in some cases increased 10 times the cost of

construction. But it was originally put in as a pioneer and a

resource railroad, and that is what it achieved. They got it

functioning after politicians from 1916 to 1952 promised to do

it. When the prior administration came in, they did it.

I have a personal interest in this. My father was an MLA for Cariboo during

World War I. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that he had a little political

difficulty. It was this: he was first elected in 1912 and he got defeated in

1916. Do you know why? Because when he campaigned in 1912 in Cariboo, he told

the Cariboo people that, if they elected him, he would see the railroad was

completed from Squamish to North Vancouver and from Quesnel at least to Prince

George. He couldn't convince the then administration that he was part of to

make this happen and so he was defeated by the Cariboo people in 1916.

I don't like these Scotchmen coming over here from Scotland

as recently as 1960 and telling us about the history of British

Columbia.

I am proud that my family is part of it and I'm just

relating part of it now — the political history — and relate it

to the BCR. For this pip-squeak government to get up now and say

it was nothing but a scandal, I say, "Let him get up and walk

right in to it," because there won't be one socialist

elected north of Kamloops in any event, and there'll be a

landslide if the Premier wants to go on that attack. I realize

that that will probably happen, but I'll just send a warning

through the Minister here that he's walking into a real

trap, In conclusion, the BCR is the lifeline of the community of

the central interior, not only in my riding but in Omineca and

everywhere else. I'm quite happy to see that the Minister

Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) hasn't honoured us with

his presence all week when we are debating this, and I'd like

to know where he is. I checked his attendance record today and

I think since we started on February 18, he's been here about

40 per cent of the time.

I'd also like to know where the Member for Omineca (Mr.

Kelly) is. I imagine they're both in the Cariboo, and if they

are, I don't think they'll ever return. But where's he? The BCR

affects his riding. It made his riding. Do you know, Mr.

Chairman, that in his riding, before the railroad went in there

in about 1968 or 1969 or 1970, they had to truck their lumber

100 miles to a railhead? Now the railroad goes right through

the back door and it made that industry viable in the Omineca

riding. Why isn't he here to say his piece? Where is he? I'd

like you to find out, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I beg your pardon?

HON. MR. LEA: If you tell us where Son of Daddy is, we'll

tell you where he is.

MR. FRASER: Well, you're on the record on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Bluebeard?

MR. SMITH: Right next to you.

MR. FRASER: In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like that

Minister now to level with this House and tell us where Mr.

Trask is. Who was running the railroad last week and this week?

He's gone, Mr. Wakely has gone — the chief engineer — and the

vice-president comes in once in a while for a cup of

[ Page 1252 ]

coffee. Who is actually running this important communication

link in our province? Don't forget, Mr. Chairman, that it will

lose at least $10 million. That's bad enough because all the

taxpayers of this province have to pick that up, but the

citizens in the central interior have lost that much or more

because of the inefficient operation of this railway. It has to

stop and stop fast.

The Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) asked for a

judicial inquiry. I haven't much time for judicial inquiries

because I guess I really haven't too much time for lawyers. I

realize the Second Member for Point Grey is a lawyer and the

Minister is a lawyer, but, believe me, they can churn things up

so bad that the public — the ordinary citizen — never knows

where they're at.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Do you know where you're at?

MR. FRASER: I don't think we need a judicial inquiry, Mr.

Chairman. All I think is that you should get in there and ask

some questions and get it resolved. But don't wait for Big

Daddy to come back from Ottawa. The jet might crash. What are

you going to do then, if he never gets back? We might even have

a by-election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: In all seriousness, it's up to you. You have the

responsibility of the executive vice-president, and I would

like you to level with this House. Who's running that railway?

What has happened to these very vital people who are gone?

Where are we going?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I should respond

to the complimentary remarks of the Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser). He talks first of all about "Scotchmen." Of course,

Scotch only means one thing. The word happens to be Scotsmen,

not Scotchmen. Regardless of that, I really feel quite

complimented that he's so concerned about Scotsmen coming over

to take

part in public life in British Columbia and elsewhere.

I think in the same way that the Member for Cariboo is proud of

his father's history and his contribution to this province, I'm

very proud of what Scotsmen have done for Canada as a whole,

and I'm not ashamed to say it.

If you look at some institution like McGill University and

just look and see who was responsible for the founding of

McGill University, it was half-a-dozen Scotsmen who had the

vision and the foresight to come over and not be afraid to

spread their wings and their ideas and contribute to society

and the educational system.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. WALLACE: I see the Member for Cariboo is after

everybody, including the grizzly bear, tonight. He's been after

the lawyers, he's been after the Scotsmen, he's been after

executive vice-presidents. I think that we look forward eagerly

to the real debate on the B.C. Railway.

I really just wanted to raise another point briefly tonight,

Mr. Chairman. It was with regard to the Minister's announcement

of the women's economic rights branch in his department. I

really find that very interesting, the more I look back over

the record.

The NDP believes that this government should have a

department for women's affairs as a separate department. I

don't plan to debate the pros and cons of that, but I notice as

I look through the records of the different departments that

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has established a task

force regarding women's opportunities in engineering. Of

course, we already have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

with the Human Rights Commission and Mrs. Ruff doing a good job

on that, in my opinion. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) has appointed, I understand, a lady by the name of

Reiva Dexter to look into the question of sexual discrimination

in the curriculum and in the textbooks. Now we have the

Minister of Economic Development who has created this branch to

try and investigate and enhance the equality of rights in the

economic sphere in British Columbia.

I really just have two or three questions. First of all,

would it not seem better to have one department dealing with

equality for women, which I think all parties in this House

sincerely believe in? This piecemeal development of a bit here

and a bit there through different departments seems to me to

lead to inefficiency and perhaps is falling short of the

ultimate goal that could be realized.

I thought it was very interesting that one of our lady

Members in commenting a month or so ago paid the Premier of the

province a questionable compliment when she said that she

thought he would finally get around to supporting the concept

but that some people are just slower thinkers than others. I

just wonder whether, apart from the fact that that really seals

her doom about ever getting into the cabinet, the Minister

could tell us on what basis this new department was set up and

whether there was consultation in cabinet. If there is to be

this piecemeal development of women's department branches and

women's affairs in all the different departments, who is next?

Or is there not some serious consideration to setting up a

separate department?

The other question I would like to ask relates to a

[ Page 1253 ]

report that appeared on the subject saying that Mrs. Kayner,

who was the chairman, I gather, of the branch, said that she

will report directly to the Deputy Minister. The part that

puzzled me said:

"She will be supported by a team of economists, sociologists and other personnel, all of whom

have a knowledge of women's movements. The branch will offer

support and advice to women who want to enter business, and

will present recommendations so that government programmes can

offer equal benefits to men and women."

I looked through the estimates of the Minister's department

and I can't see any particular increase in staff. I think the

staff has increased by a net amount of one person, as I can

remember — 102 instead of 101.

But I wonder if this statement that this branch chairman or

director will be supported by a team of economists,

sociologists and other personnel suggests that we are embarked

on a fairly substantial expansion of staff for this very

specific purpose when the same sort of purpose is being sought

in other departments of government in the way that I've already

mentioned.

And the last point: someone mentioned statistics earlier on tonight and how

the former Minister was criticized as simply being a man who churned out statistics.

I notice that the Minister announced the other day that this government is considering

a statistics Act which, interestingly enough, was reported as being considered

as the result of pressure from the federal government. One of the statements

the Minister made was that the provincial civil servants handling information

relating to individuals would be required to take an oath guaranteeing the protection

of the statistics. This seemed to me really like saying something that should

surely already be the case. Is the Minister suggesting that under our present

system, with whatever relevant detail is handled by his department, he has uncertainty

about the confidences that are maintained in regard to these figures and facts?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: A Member interjects that that was pulled out of

the Act, and maybe so, but I'm asking if it is not just an

integral part of being a civil servant that you preserve

confidence in the material that crosses your desk.

It may not have come across in the report the way the

Minister intended, but the report certainly reads to the effect

that civil servants handling such information would be required

to take an oath guaranteeing the protection of statistics and

would be subject to severe legal penalties if they broke this

oath.

It just seems to me that surely every civil servant on

employment undertakes that kind of oath. I hope that one of the

reasons we're not having another new piece of legislation is

really just for the purpose of achieving something that should

already be the case.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the women's economic rights

branch can be staffed by positions available in the

establishment. We didn't have to increase the establishment. We

haven't staffed, in other words, up to our maximum allowable

establishment, so we're using positions.... We're allowed 107

under our existing establishment, and I don't foresee any need

to increase that in this fiscal year. We felt that the women's

economic rights branch should be integrated and completely a

part of the department; it's not an appendage. Assigned to

Eileen Kainer will be staff people and positions that are

vacant, and that's how we've designed that.

The statistics Act was as a result of some remarks that I

made to people who attended a conference of statisticians. The

chief dominion statistician was there and several other people.

The question arose of whether we would continue to get the

detailed information we get from Statistics Canada and, in

addition to that, the specific information on a regional and

even a municipal basis.

When you provide statistical information on a regional and a

specific area, it's fairly easy for individuals to identify

whom they're talking about — in other words, who represents the

statistics. When it comes to business enterprises and so on, or when it comes to

personal statistics, this may become a question of secrecy. For

that reason the federal government indicated to us that they

may not give us the regional and municipal data that we would

require through their census unless we provided the same kind

of oath and protections that are outlined in

section 10 of the

federal Act, which are much more stringent than the sections

that were in the old industrial development Act.

They were eliminated when we brought in a new Economic

Development statute, and they were eliminated for a good

reason. We felt that we were receiving maximum cooperation. On

the advice of my officials, there was no need to have the

compellability that was in those sections, as there are in the

dominion statutes and in most provincial statutes — in other

words, compelling individuals and corporations to provide or

answer and return and respond, and so on, to the questionnaires

that are taken from time to time.

But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman and the Members of this

House and the people of this province, that their returns are

protected by the general oath. I've established standing orders

within my department to that effect. Only specific people

handle the statistics and they, without the necessity

[ Page 1254 ]

of statutory authority, take an oath in a specific

undertaking with respect to the use of those statistics.

The more desirable approach is to bring in some kind of a

statistics Act. But again, we're still continuing our

discussions with the chief statistician and his officials, and

the cooperation continues. There's no danger at this stage of

us being cut off information. Perhaps in the following session

we'll bring in some form of statute that will protect

respondents in a clear public way, and the Legislature can so

state.

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to discuss with the Minister some of

the figures he gave this House earlier on tonight about British

Columbia's performance in the field of employment. I found them

puzzling, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman. The Minister indicated

that British Columbia had had something like over 14 per cent

of the Canadian increase in employment over a recent period. I

said to myself: how can things be that good when the fact of

the matter is that from January, 1974, when unemployment in

British Columbia was 70,000 people, it went to 102,000 in

January, 1975? I said to myself: how can our performance really

be that good?

Incidentally, Mr. Minister, I'm using the

January-over-January figures in the February, 1975, edition of

The Labour Force, because they're not marked as subject

to statistical error in the way that the February figures

are.

What are the actual factors revealed in this publication?

The increase in employment in British Columbia, year over year,

January over January, of British Columbia as a percentage of

Canadian increase in unemployment wasn't 14-some-odd per cent;

it was 10.9 per cent. It was exactly the share that British

Columbia has of our nation's population. We didn't do better

than one would have expected, as the Minister suggested to this

House. Mr. Chairman, we did far worse than one would have

expected, because during that time our labour force was growing

by some 3 per cent.

Just to keep up we should have had 14 per cent of the

nation's growth in employment, and we didn't have that. We

didn't keep up with it. Where does that Minister get his

numbers, Mr. Chairman?

The fact of the matter is that unemployment in British

Columbia a year ago January was 6.9 per cent. In January, 1975,

it was 9.6 per cent, and those are the numbers. Those are the

real numbers I'm asking that Minister to explain to this House

on the basis of the policies of his department and his

government and what it is doing to the jobs of British

Columbians.

HON. MR. LAUK: I can play games with the Masters of Business

Administration all day with statistics.

MR. GIBSON: That's right.

HON. MR. LAUK: He can make them say what he wants, and I can

make them say what I want, and the public is no better off for

it. I said clearly that over a five-year period these figures

were accurate. I think it's unjustified to take short periods

of time and indicate some kind of trend. In addition, I said in

1974.... I beg your pardon?

MR. GIBSON: You haven't been in power for five years.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, we've been in power for a period of

time during those five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too long.

HON. MR. LAUK: In 1974 I stated clearly — that's from January

to December, 1974 — that we created 15.6 per cent of the new

jobs, while the British Columbia share of the Canadian labour

force was 11 per cent.

MR. CHABOT: A brief question to the Minister. Could the

Minister tell me whether negotiations have been finalized for

the purchase of the Molson hop farm — the portion that's going

to be purchased by the B.C. Development Corp. — whether

negotiations are finalized, whether the purchase has been

consummated?

HON. MR. LAUK: As I understand it, the option was contingent

on two things: that the land would not be in the agricultural

land reserve and, No. 2, that matters can be mutually settled

between the corporation and officials of the Highways

department with respect to access.

MR. CHABOT: One short question regarding this. Does the

Minister think the purchase price is not exorbitant? The land

was purchased by 12 businessmen from the Kamloops area. The

company was formed in 1972. I'm not sure just when it was

purchased, whether it was 1972 or 1973. It was purchased at

$1.3 million, with $500,000 down and $800,000 a year for a

three-year period — over a three-year period. I can't quite

read that. Anyway, the total is $1.3...yes, that's right,

$800,000 is the balance to be paid over a three-year period,

for a total of $1.3 million. Now you've purchased roughly half

of this for $5,000 an acre, which is $2.3 million. These 12

businessmen in the Kamloops area made $1 million from the

taxpayers, and they've sold only half of the land.

In other words, from the time they purchased the land, be it

in the fall of 1972 or 1973, the value has increased from $1.3

million to $4.6 million, a very

[ Page 1255 ]

exorbitant increase in the value of that land as far as I'm

concerned, I think that you've been taken, Mr. Minister — or

your corporation has been taken — to the tune of $1 million.

Wouldn't you think that the purchase of half of that land at

the $1.3 million would be ample? Why should these businessmen,

during the short period they held that land, be able to make $1

million from the taxpayers and still have half their land?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'll provide the committee with

the report on the land purchase from the Development Corp. I'll

ask for one tomorrow. Perhaps it'll be Monday before I could

circulate it.

MR. CHABOT: Will your estimates still be under consideration

on Monday? Will we have an opportunity to ask you a few

questions regarding this apparent waste of taxpayers'

money?

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I can get a report on what the

corporation's standing is with respect to the land — the price,

the number of acres — and ask leave to make a statement to the

House without using time of the question period and without

arousing the petulance of the opposition.

MR. CHABOT: Is there any reason why the Minister couldn't

get this information for us tomorrow?

HON. MR. COCKE: He doesn't feel like it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health says he doesn't feel like

it, Mr. Chairman. I think it a most unfair, most

uncomplimentary remark.

HON. MR. LAUK: He's the Minister of Health and he should

know how I feel. (Laughter.)

It may not be possible to get it tomorrow. I'll try.

MR. CHABOT: There's no reason why you can't get it.

HON. MR. LAUK: It may not be possible for me to get it

tomorrow.

MR. CHABOT: You've 107 people in your department. There's no

reason why you...or 103 or whatever it is....

HON. MR. LAUK: The Minister of Health advises that the Hon.

Member for Columbia River should take two aspirins and come

back Monday morning.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: I know it's 10 o'clock in the morning.

MR. CHABOT: I think the Department of Economic Development

goes to work at 8:30 in the morning. Is there any reason why

between 8:30 and 10 o'clock it is not possible to secure this

information, to see what kind of waste and extravagance has

taken place in the purchase of the Molson farm on the

recommendations from the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson)? He suggested that he was closely involved in all

this. He recommended that you pay out $2.3 million for half a

block of land that was purchased for $1.3 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't know that.

MR. CHABOT: I think this is worthy of closer examination.

This is worthy of the Minister passing the word to his Deputy

so that he does it. The Minister doesn't even have to take the

time himself of phoning Mr. Horben; he can ask his Deputy; he

can ask his Associate Deputy; he can ask his other Associate

Deputy; he can ask his executive assistant. I don't know how

many he has, but he can ask them. Just make a phone call; tell

us what the relevant facts are regarding the purchase of the

Molson hop farm. Did we get taken? Did the taxpayers of British

Columbia get taken? And if so, by how much? I think there is no

reason in the world why that Minister can't come back here

tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock with that information.

MR. FRASER: The people of Columbia River sure got taken.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, the people of Columbia River got taken by

the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) when he

established his extravagant...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: ...$250,000 tourist information booth in that

community.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: The people of British Columbia got taken on that

one, Mr. Minister.

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

the vote?

MR. CHABOT: Waste and extravagance.

Mr. Chairman, I posed a couple of questions to the Minister

regarding the joint programme between the

[ Page 1256 ]

national government and the provincial government dealing

with rail line extension in the north. I know how proud that

government was when it released the great story of development

that would take place in northern British Columbia. Oh, these

rail links would be going from Clapham Creek to Connection and

Telegraph Creek, and you name it. They were going all over the

northwest of British Columbia. I might have my names a little

bit mixed up there, but those are some of the names in that

part of the world.

There was great fanfare. This great development was going to

take place; this new transportation bridge that was to be

established in the northwest of British Columbia was to bring

prosperity and jobs to the people in the north.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Jobs!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think that the assembly is a little giddy.

Maybe we should adjourn until tomorrow morning.

Pardon? Yes, I mean it's close to adjournment now.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports progress and asks leave

to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada