1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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, MAY 2, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 2771 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Routine proceedings Teachers' Pension Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 97). Second

reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2771

Mr. Wallace — 2772

Mr. Smith — 2774

Mr. McGeer — 2776

Mrs. Webster — 2777

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2777

Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 98).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2780

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2780

Mr. Wallace — 2781

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2782

Committee of Supply: Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce estimates.

On vote 125.

Mr. Phillips — 2783

Mr. Wallace — 2784

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2785

Mr. McGeer — 2787

Mr. Smith — 2788

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2789

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2790

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

ask leave that the order for second reading of Bill 69 be

discharged.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Member wish to withdraw the bill

after the order has been discharged? Is that the purpose? Would

the Hon. Member ask that the bill be withdrawn? Oh, I'm sorry,

the Clerk has informed me that you've done all you need to

do.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. House Leader that

this is private Members day? Unless the House decides otherwise

or leave is granted it would be in accordance with standing

orders.... And it appears that estimates have priority over

all other business until completed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is there an objection to finishing this

one bill?

MR. SPEAKER: I can ask for leave, providing it's understood

that we return to the order paper.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with

these two bills.

MR. SPEAKER: That's two bills, is it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Two pension bills.

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Co-operation from the opposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 97, Mr.

Speaker.

TEACHERS' PENSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour I

was discussing one of the peculiar aspects of this bill. It is that while attempts

— genuine attempts and welcome attempts — are being made by the Provincial Secretary

to raise the pensions of teachers retiring and teachers recently retired, there

is in the bill one principle which we question very strongly. That is the principle

of allowing the discrepancy between the pensions of those who retired under

the five-year or the seven-year provisions to be substantially different

from those who retired some time ago, some years ago, who are under a longer

period for the highest salary.

I questioned at that time the problem that arose for the

already retired pensioners. I pointed out that the already

retired pensioners feel that if this problem of decreasing

purchasing power of pensions is to be met — and that's

the objective and the principle of the bill — there is a

curious omission in principle with respect to those who have

retired some time ago.

I discussed a letter dated April 6, 1974, addressed to the

Hon. Ernest Hall, Provincial Secretary of the Government of

British Columbia, signed by Carl K. Knapp, president of the

central mainland branch of the B.C. Retired Teachers

Association. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, because you were

taking keen interest in this, that the writer pointed out that

the bill would increase rather than reduce the anomalies of the

present situation regarding pensions.

A quick paragraph I did not refer to, which give details of

how this works, is on page 2 at the bottom of the page. Mr.

Speaker, if you would like copies of this I would be happy to

give them to you, or to anyone else who is interested. Towards

the bottom of page 2:

"The same principle, or lack of principle, is inherent in the present Teachers' Pensions Act. It

would be exemplified in the federal Old Age Security Act

if that Act had been amended to provide a percentage increase

in old-age pensions to counteract inflation, but had made

no equitable adjustment in the basic amounts of the pension

— for example: $55, $75 or $100 per month — in

effect at the time of the pensioners' initial eligibility."

Those are very important words when we are discussing the

failure in principle of this particular bill.

In the example cited — and they are derived from

actual pension payment in the last 10 years — the type of

escalation now provided under the Act would produce as of

April, 1974, prospective pensions in the disparate amounts of

$60.55, $82.57, $110.09 monthly. That's the difference, which

of course is a mistake in principle. Then the writer goes on to

say:

"One can imagine the indignant reactions of the Canadian people if the federal government attempted to

perpetrate and perpetuate such an injustice." He goes on to say

on the top of page 3:

"On the basis of the viewpoint herein

[ Page 2772 ]

expressed and of the incontestable fact of pension inequity,

with extremes now approaching 100 per cent, some pensions are doubled — those

of other teachers — simply because of the date of retirement, and this seems

inequitable."

Anyway, the suggestions are: (1) the recalculation of existing teachers' pensions

and beneficiaries' allowances is essential to the correction of a major injustice

to a minority whose voice has apparently been drowned out by, "the discussion

consensus;" (2) provision for such equitable recalculation should be integral

to Bill 97, the Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act, 1974.

That seemed to me to be a fair letter, and I think that Mr.

Knapp has raised a point of principle which we, in this House

by way of a government amendment, should correct. Being unable

to present such an amendment I naturally have to urge the

government to present such an amendment. The Provincial

Secretary, I think, may be sympathetic to my advocacy in this

regard. He's looking as though he may accept this. Perhaps

dinner was a good one.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can't quite hear.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): If the postmen were on

strike again you'd be speechless.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The postmen are on strike again, he says.

Well, as somebody said in the paper today, the worst thing

about a postal strike is that it comes to an end and you get

your mail eventually. And there's something to that.

Now the last response of the Provincial Secretary to Mr.

Knapp — and quoting a second letter, this time addressed

to me, dated April 18, 1974 — was as follows:

"You may be interested to note that the last response of the

Provincial Secretary to the submissions of the central mainland

branch of the B.C. Retired Teachers' Association on the issue

of teachers' pensions ended in this

summary fashion: 'I do not

give answers to hypothetical questions based on unsupported

allegations or conclusions.'"

So the allegations and conclusions, Mr. Speaker, which is

tabulated information — and I have it here again —

are supported by the Teachers' Pensions Act, the BCTF

submissions to the government. They are not unsupported, the

B.C. Teachers' Federation, though I don't think they go to bat

quite as quickly for retired teachers as they do for presently

working teachers.

But they did put a brief forward, and I think it's not really fair to dismiss

it as being unsupported allegations or conclusions.

So there is a problem here. It's a problem which I think the

Provincial Secretary — with all his other problems of

trying to determine how many threads there should be in tartans

and whether haggis should be the provincial dish — has

probably overlooked. He probably signed that letter without

carefully reading it. It wasn't a question of unsupported

allegations or conclusions; it's a question of a fairly

well-researched brief.

If it's wrong I'd like him to comment on it. I'm no

statistician or actuarial expert but I looked at it, and it

looks pretty reasonable to me — the principle is

reasonable. The principle is that you treat people in the same

categories equally. I think that while this is a minority

— there's no question it's a minority — minorities

have definite rights.

And I don't like the attitude towards minorities displayed

by the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) in the headline story of tonight's paper.

I think that attitude towards a minority group, which is

Indian, is irresponsible and unfortunate.

I think in a case of a minority of teachers, the retired

teachers, we again should take steps to curb the inequity and

do what we can to correct the problem.

Now I know that this cannot be done by way of an amendment

from the opposition. I therefore urge the Provincial Secretary

to bring forward an amendment which would protect the principle

of equal treatment for all retired teachers regardless of the

year in which they retired.

We are departing from the principle — and this is an

important position, Mr. Speaker — of pensions based

entirely upon contributions. With these bills we are abandoning

that. We're improving the pension schemes by addition of

money.

When we break the principle that pensions are related to

contributions, which obviously are closely related to the date

of retirement, and change it to the new principle which we are

bringing in, which is the principle of sweetening the pension

because of inflation, surely we should think of those who

suffer most from that inflation — namely those who have

retired the earliest.

I think the Provincial Secretary is sympathetic to this view

— he should be anyway — and I hope he will put

forward the amendments I have proposed.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just want to talk briefly on

the same point that the Liberal leader has raised and to ask

one or two questions for clarification.

It seems to me that we are dealing with a problem here that

involves certain value judgments. It would be very nice, in my

view, if all teachers in 1974 were to have a pension which they

could very comfortably

[ Page 2773 ]

live on. But the problem which the Liberal leader has

raised, and which I am sure the Provincial Secretary has

wrestled with, is the fact that a person retiring in, let us

say, 1954 compared with someone retiring in 1974 is retiring on

a contributory pension calculated on a much larger income.

I also received this letter from Mr. Knapp in Kamloops. I

took a long time reading it and I must confess, since I am no

expert either, I had great difficulty understanding exactly

what the point is — unless the point he is trying to make

is that someone retiring in 1954 should have the same pension

as someone retiring in 1974. Now, if that is what he is asking,

I think, with the greatest respect to Mr. Knapp, it is

unreasonable.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why?

MR. WALLACE: Well, the reason I think it is a subject of

debate is that a person retiring in 1954 earned different sums

of money, possibly over different years. If we are going to

treat everyone exactly the same — and, with respect to

Mr. Knapp, this is where I fail to accept his analogy with the

federal pension plan. Until the days of the Canada Pension Plan

the old-age pension plan is a non-contributory,

universal sum of money provided to every citizen of a certain

age regardless of what they put into the plan. In fact, they

didn't put anything in as far as old-age security at the

federal level is concerned.

While I am very sympathetic to the need for retired teachers

to be given a fair pension which acknowledges inflation and is

increased from time to time to deal with that problem, I would

still like the Provincial Secretary to clarify the exact issue

as regards the retired teacher. It is my understanding that in

1973 the Provincial Secretary amended the legislation and

brought in supplementary allowances for the teachers who

retired some number of years ago such that the longer the

period of retirement the greater the percentage of the

supplement, to, I think, a maximum of 66 per cent going back to

teachers retiring in 1950.

In this legislation, I understand as I read it — and I

find this legislation difficult to read; that is why I hope we

can get the whole thing clarified — there is now a 12 per

cent increase across the board based on the original pensions

and these supplementary allowances. The net effect, I think,

amounts to something in the nature of a 20 per cent increase on

these older pensions.

The question raised by Mr. Knapp is that that still isn't enough for the teacher

who retired some number of years ago. This is where I think I would like to

ask the Provincial Secretary what value judgment was made. In other words, what

kind of general criteria were used by the government to decide on the final

figures they have used, namely the 1973 supplementary allowances and the 12

per cent across-the-board increase in this legislation we are now dealing

with?

I think it behoves all parties in this House to recognize

again that however we might like to see the retired teachers

have a much higher pension, there are two factors to consider.

There is the teacher who is presently contributing to a fund. I

would like to know to what degree, if any,

presently-contributing teachers are in any way

subsidizing or contributing toward an increase which is to be

given to the teachers who retired many years ago. That is one

question.

A second question. In granting these increases of 12 per

cent across the board to teachers who have been retired a

considerable number of years — pre-1972 to be

precise, as I understand the bill — the government is, in

fact, using tax money that all taxpayers have paid to

selectively assist the pensions of retired teachers. I'm not

saying that I object to that but we have to put this whole

thing into perspective. There are many other retired citizens

from other pension plans in other occupations who are not

getting an extra nickel to fight inflation other than what they

get through either the federal old-age security or the

provincial assistance provided through Mincome.

I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that when I read this

legislation — and I had some great difficulty

understanding all the details — it seems to me that what

we have to try and decide in this legislation and what this

opposition is trying to decide — and the Minister of

Health will be glad to know that I have decided to support it

— is the degree to which, with the best motives, this

government can, in fact, unilaterally use taxpayers' money to

provide better pensions to teachers who retired some years ago

on the basis that they are hit by the erosion of the value of

the dollar because of inflation.

I've asked these one or two questions; I wonder if

the Minister had any particular guidelines or criteria which

made him decide that 12 per cent across-the-board

was the best method to do it. I would be very interested if he

went to the trouble of finding out what it would have cost to

produce a measure of equalization or at least to prevent the

gap from widening, as Mr. Knapp has pointed out. Mr. Knapp is

quite right in net figures when he says that the method which

has been used by the government widens the gap between the

person who retired some years ago and the person retiring

now.

We worked out an example in our office where, prior to this

bill we are now bringing in, one teacher might have $600 a

month and a teacher who retired some years ago would have $500

a month. The difference would be $100. If and when we pass Bill

97 with the 12 per cent across-the-board increase,

that

[ Page 2774 ]

difference in pensions would be in the order of $112 instead

of $100.

But perhaps the point we are missing is that both teachers

concerned are going to receive a considerable increase in

pension. The very difficult question is to what degree can this

government or any government go in trying to help the teacher

who retired a considerable number of years ago on a pension

calculated on a much smaller income in terms of money values

which have inflated very rapidly at a rate of 10 per cent a

year in the last few years. I just want this party to be on

record as having said that it favours increasing, in a way

possible to this government, the pension of teachers who

retired many years ago and who are unquestionably suffering

from inflation. But I want this party to be on record also as

having recognized that many other pensioners are having exactly

the same problem and that the funds being used by this

government in the bill before us, by way of the government

contribution, is using taxpayers' money contributed by all

taxpayers to assist in raising the pensions of one segment of

our community, namely, retired teachers. I am not opposed to

that but I want it clearly understood that, if we were

government, we would recognize very clearly that there has to

be some kind of point in terms of the absolute expenditure of

taxpayers' dollars beyond which you cannot go to boost the

pension of teachers who retired many years ago.

If this is not to be the case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask the Provincial Secretary a simple question. Again, I don't

profess a lot of knowledge of this problem of pensions. If

there was to be some effort at equalization of pensions,

regardless of the year the teacher retired, is there any point

in having a contributory plan at all? Is there any point in it?

I think that, really, is the crux of the issue that the Liberal

leader has debated and that I am trying to demonstrate now.

We all sympathize with the economic difficulties of any

citizen who retired, let us say, 20 years ago on a pension

calculated on the income the person was earning at that time. I

think there is a moral obligation of government to attempt to

soften the economic difficulties of these retired teachers. Is

it not a valid question also to ask to what degree governments

are obligated to boost the pensions of these teachers who

retired many years ago?

I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary if the request has in fact been

made for equalization rather than narrowing the gap. If that request was not

made, although that is the implication in Mr. Knapp's letter that the sort of

average pension of $400 a month which the retiring teachers; of, let us say,

the 1960s are receiving should be much closer to the $650 pension or thereabouts

which is an average for the teacher retiring today.... To what degree has the

Minister had discussions with the retired teachers and, if there have been discussions,

did he receive a proposal from the retired teachers as to the kind of gap which

they thought would be reasonable?

I think this is rather important, Mr. Speaker. We would like

to know whether the retired teachers or their representatives

put forward any kind of figure which to them would be

reasonable in relation to the pension figure being earned by

teachers retiring, let us say, in 1972, 1973 or 1974, because

the implication in Mr. Knapp's letter, although he doesn't come

right out and say it, is that there should be something closer

to equality.

Really, the gap is considerable because of the ravages of

inflation. I haven't got the exact figures, but again I hope

the Minister would probably quote, for example, what the

average pension is of a teacher who retired in 1962 compared to

1972, just for comparative figures. Suppose these figures are

$400 and $600, for argument's sake. Have the retired teachers

said that the gap should remain at $200, or have they said that

the figures should be closer? In other words, to help us

understand their problem and their goal, perhaps the Provincial

Secretary could tell us to what degree they have been specific

in asking for a boost in the retired teachers' pension. The 12

per cent across-the-board increase, on top of the

supplementary allowance which was introduced in 1973, I think

was a very reasonable effort to help the retired teachers.

While no one can anticipate future legislation, maybe the

Provincial Secretary would like to comment on what his general

philosophy would be towards helping these teachers cope with

inflation in the years ahead.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I would like to make a

few remarks concerning the matter of pension benefits

generally, and I think that Bill 97 is perhaps as good a place

as any to add my comments to this debate.

As I recall, the matter of teachers' pension plans and

amendments to the Teachers' Pensions Act, and increases

for not only teachers who were presently employed and would

receive benefits at some future date but those who had retired

and were on pension at that particular time, has been a matter

of concern to this Legislature on an average of about every two

or three years over the last 20 years at least. As I recall,

even under the previous administration, although the present

administration may not want to admit it, there was never a

time, when pension benefits for those teachers who would retire

in the future were considered, that those people who were at

that time on retirement income were not also taken into

consideration. This is one of the problems that we live with in

a day and age when inflation is a fact of life. It certainly is

difficult on those people who retired a few years ago when they

look at their

[ Page

2775 ]

pension compared to the cost of living today.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that those people who contributed

to a pension plan, be it a teachers' pension plan, a civil

service pension plan, or any other form of pension plan during

their working years, are in a far better position today than

those people who have nothing to draw upon but the old age

pension. Certainly they have a better income, not necessarily

because they were prudent and wise in investment, but because

they were required by the terms of their employment to

contribute to a pension plan during their working years. I

think that if the government and people in business had

encouraged more people to provide through pension plans, we

wouldn't be in quite as serious a position as we are today.

It would seem to me that one of the things that we must

consider now and in the future is that when we provide pension

plans and benefits for employees, be they civil servants or

anyone else, we must somehow devise a formula which takes into

consideration inflationary factors. I don't suggest that we

should fund any pension plan on a non-contributory basis.

I believe it's a right and a privilege and a responsibility of

the employees who are employed to provide part of the benefit

through contributions to the pension plan. The rate of

contribution will be determined by the provincial government as

they see the operation of the pension plan in full.

I'd like to go further than that, Mr. Speaker, and say that

it is my belief that every person who works now has to

contribute to Canada Pension Plan — at least, they

are supposed to be contributing to it — but I think we

should really take a hard look at that type of pension planning

for all people who work throughout the Canadian economy, and

advance from what we know now as the Canada Pension Plan

and the old age assistance pension plan to a guaranteed annual

income. It should apply to those people who, because of lack of

education or anything else, are disfranchised and are not up to

the average level of income, and it should apply to anyone who

is disabled or unable to work because of health or of physical

infirmity. But that, I must admit, is more a federal problem

than a provincial one. We can't solve that problem in the

Province of British Columbia alone. We must seek the

co-operation of the federal government before a

guaranteed annual income can become a reality in Canada.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Yes, I think it should. I think that we should scrap unemployment

insurance, workmen's compensation and all these plans and eventually come out

of this with one plan which will be called Guaranteed Annual Income. It could

very easily reduce the amount of bureaucracy that we have and we are involved

in today and become a much simpler matter to administrate for all people in

Canada, regardless of why they're in that circumstance.

I'm sure that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

will agree with that concept, that people who through no fault

of their own do not come up to what is considered to be an

average income for Canadians today should somehow be

compensated.

Sometimes that happens because of infirmities, sometimes it

happens because of a lack of education and sometimes it happens

because of the fact that the people have not provided for

themselves in their old age.

I'd be the first to suggest to the government that this is

not the last time that we'll see an amendment to the

Teachers' Pensions Act, or other pension plan Acts in

the Province of British Columbia. I would hope that we would

continue to operate on the basis of pension plans to which the

employees are required to make a contribution, and I would hope

that we would continue to operate on the basis that the

majority of the benefits which we guarantee to the employees of

the province will be funded so that they do not have to worry

about the fact that somewhere down the line, because of the

economics of that particular day, the pension that they were

guaranteed cannot be paid to them. It's happened in the past.

While I don't want to preach doom and gloom by any stretch of

the imagination, there is a possibility that we could go

through a period of recession that would put us into that same

position sometime down the road in future.

I think that we're wise to look over the pension plans every

two or three years. I know that we have some very competent

people in the department who understand fully the

responsibility that they have. I have great confidence in their

ability and the advice that they have given to the present

government and the former government throughout the years of

their service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: I would hope that it didn't do that because I've

had many discussions with the gentleman who's seated

immediately behind the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall),

and I respect very much his judgment as a person who has spent

20 years of my life in the insurance business dealing with many

of the problems that he wrestles with on a

day — to — day basis.

I approve the benefits that we have before us in Bill 97 and

I would hope that we won't have to revise the plan every year

or second year, but if we do, it will be because of the

circumstances of that particular time and I'll be the first to

suggest to the government that it is time for a revision at

that time.

[ Page 2776 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's nice to

see some of the people back. The Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) I notice is back, and I'd

like to welcome her to the House, and the Member for Atlin (Mr.

Calder).

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): It's nice to see you back.

MR. McGEER: Well, I haven't been trotting around the globe,

but we're looking forward to the rest of the Members returning.

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

Williams) — we're going to be keen to see him back. We all

have some questions to ask him.

MR. WALLACE: I've never been away, Pat.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, no night life tonight. (Laughter.)

I was going to speak briefly if I could get down to the subject

of retirement, Mr. Speaker, which all of us here will have to

face — some sooner than others.

MR. WALLACE: Have no fear; McGeer is here.

MR. McGEER: We're even getting bad poetry this evening, Mr.

Speaker.

I've spoken a number of times on pension bills in the past,

and I daresay, Mr. Speaker, there will be lots of opportunity

for Members to speak on pension bills in the future, because by

the very nature of how we set our pension schemes up they need

constant revision. Whenever these revisions take place, always

someone isn't getting quite as good a break as someone else and

there are the appeals which we've all received regarding a

little better break for the people who retired longest ago.

The difficulty with the pension schemes is that people are

forced to contribute to them. They provide governments with the

cheapest money that there is. There's no rate of return lower

than a government guaranteed bond. These pension funds go into

government guaranteed bonds so that if it's a funded scheme we

can be certain people who contribute to it will get a

guaranteed return, but still the lowest of any return on money

that there is.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Pat, look at the

benefits and look at the input and then see the difference.

What's the matter with you?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says I don't know what I'm talking

about, but look at what your government guaranteed bonds pay. I'm talking about

the return on the fund. You contribute to the Canada Pension Plan Fund. It's

government guaranteed, federally, and has the lowest interest rate in Canada

— lower than the prime rate of banks.

Presumably those funds are then to return interest to the

people who contributed in the form of their benefits. The

problem is that inflation is something which is constant. If

you examine inflation curves going back to 1776 there's a

constant upward trend, and that's going to continue in the

future. It won't be long before rates for plumbers will be $30

an hour and electricians $50, I expect, and people who are

attempting to live on today's constant dollar will find their

purchasing power relentlessly shrinking. That's why we'll have

continuous revisions and re-revisions of pension

Acts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some people live longer than others,

unfortunately.

MR. McGEER: What we need, in my opinion, is a completely

different system whereby we put people on units, if you like,

which entitle them to a share of purchasing power, where the

units are....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Get a little order, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is this your Uncle Gerry's old speech?

MR. McGEER: Oh, no. Would you like that one? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: No! No! It would be just as out of order

as this one.

MR. McGEER: I don't think it's out of order to talk about

constant purchasing power, Mr. Speaker, is it?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think one should really go back to

MR. McGEER: It's when dollars started.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: He's going to force me down, Mr. Speaker.

If we were to arrange a pension system based on units rather

than dollars and if we were to write our legislation in units

rather than dollars, then by executive order the actual

payments could be increased in proportion to the devaluation of

the dollar.

I noticed a whimsical smile on one or two Members' faces as

though something like this doesn't exist. It does, Mr. Speaker.

I'm fortunate enough to

[ Page 2777 ]

be contributing to a plan that does precisely that. It's an

international plan for university professors, Mr. Speaker, but

it's based on purchasing units. The whole idea of it is that

when a person retires he is entitled to so many units and the

value of these units is increasing year by year. For the person

who retires, nothing could provide greater security than that.

The fault with many of these plans, as with this one, is that....

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I was doing just fine. Doing just fine....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The return? It grows by about 10 to 12 per cent

per year compounded.

So the whole point is that these things have been designed.

They can work. I would just like the Provincial Secretary and

Mr. Forrest to examine these things and give consideration at

some future time to changing the whole basis for giving people

who are compulsory contributors to these government plans an

opportunity for a little better deal in the future.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I was very interested in

the remarks from the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

where he said that those with pension plans are much better off

than those who have none. I agree with him and I think everyone

in this House agrees with him — that's the reason for

having pension plans.

The teachers' pension plan started in the late '20s and

early '30s and it took them 10 years before they were able to

have the first pension drawn from that. The teachers worked

very, very hard for it.

In those years the pension wasn't considered nearly as

important as it is now because it was something that was

entirely new, just as the old age pension was something that

was entirely new. In 1926 when Mr. Woodsworth twisted the arm

of Mackenzie King to produce the first old age pension, I

believe it was $20 a month. The idea of that old age pension

was not to be the entire income of the old person, It was only

supposed to subsidize the income.

From that, pensions have slowly grown to the extent where

now they must of necessity become the entire income. That is

why we find that now not only do we give old age pensions or

guaranteed minimum income to the husband but also to his

spouse, or vice versa. Both members get a guaranteed

income.

As that has grown so, of necessity, the pensions of teachers

have grown. During the 1920s and 1930s, Mr. Speaker, the annual

income of most teachers in elementary and high schools ranged

anywhere from $780 to about $ 1,100 a year.

They make much more than that now per month than they made

in those days per year, and to say that only a partial amount

of what they actually made at that time, their best five years

or their best seven years, would do as a pension now is

absolutely ridiculous.

I think our Provincial Secretary and Mr. Forrest have done

an excellent job of creating a stepped-up scale of

pensions for those people who did teach during those years, or

civil servants who worked during those years and came through

with very small pensions.

About 1960 or so the BCTF tried to negotiate for better

pensions. They had a good scheme worked out. They negotiated

with the government, but the scheme fell through. At that time

they were hoping that they would be able to get 70 per cent of

what their income was for an average of their best five years

— or their best 10 years, I'm not sure. But it never did

amount to that. It amounted to about 30 per cent of that, so

it meant that teachers were once more left with a very small

pension, a very small superannuation.

As a matter of fact, I got a letter just about a week ago

which stated that some of the retired teachers are very

concerned about the pensions for teachers — that is, those

who retired a long time ago. They quoted, for instance, the

case of a man who is 87, and that means that he must have

retired 22 years ago. His pension amounts to $176, which is

less than the old-age pension...I mean, less than the

guaranteed minimum income. But along with that he gets, of

course, his old-age pension.

So if each individual case were considered, I am sure it

would be an actuarial nightmare to go through each one of those

to be able to bring them up. We have to have some sort of a

formula to work on. I'm satisfied that the formula of the

Provincial Secretary and the commissioner of the Superannuation

Branch is a very satisfactory one.

I know it won't satisfy all. I'm sure that some people will

look upon it as being inequitable when it is a 12 per cent

increase to make up for cost of living, because it will mean a

greater increase for some than for others. But what would be an

equitable amount? What would be an equitable scale? No matter

what scale you use there would be some fault to find in it. I

think it is better to make the decision to have a scale that is

workable and proceed with it.

I appreciate very much what the Provincial Secretary has

done in this case, and I'm very happy to support this bill.

HON. MR. HALL: To have a debate on a complex subject like

recalculation of pensions is going to, I think, be a little

difficult, but I am going to attempt to answer some of the

questions which have been posed to me.

[ Page 2778 ]

First of all, may I say that the discussion which is waged

on recalculation stems from a letter which was received some

time ago by the Liberal leader. I think you all got copies. But

I didn't get a single phone call, a single request, from

anybody about recalculation on the other side of the House.

That's the first point.

The second point is that if you know anything about

recalculation at all, and you've all stood up and talked about

it, and only the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party

admits that he knows nothing about it....

MR. WALLACE: Not very much. I didn't say much.

HON. MR. HALL: If you really knew anything about it you

would have been flogging the issue on the question of the

public service employees, or waiting and holding your fire

until the municipal employees' pension plan came up. If there

is a case to be made for recalculation, it is on the public

service employees, because they are far, far, far, far worse

off by Mr. Knapp's lights, and the Liberal leader's lights

— by his concept of equity and justice — than

indeed the teachers are. In fact, you just listen for a while

and you may learn something. You may learn something.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, the teachers' pension payments

that are going out week in and week out range from $405

average, for those who retired in 1960 and earlier, to $620 in

1972. Compare that if you will with the $180 for the municipal

workers in 1960 and $550 in 1972. In fact the average of all

the allowances in the three plans goes like this: municipal

workers — $185; public service — $210; teachers'

pensions — $350. What has happened is that there's now

been complete confusion in some people's minds between

equalization and recalculation.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader also quoted from my last

letter to Mr. Knapp. That wasn't my last letter to Mr. Knapp.

He must have really fallen behind on his correspondence. My

last letter to Mr. Knapp said:

"I would like to acknowledge your letter of April 6, copies

of which were well circulated. It is apparent that no amount of

persuasion, argument or logic is going to be successful in

satisfying you on the question of recalculation of pensions

until and unless provisions are made which will satisfy your

concept of equity and justice."

That's my letter, my signature; and I dictate my letters on

pensions. Certainly I don't take kindly to the suggestion that

I didn't read the letters.

"I have, since coming into government, corresponded with you

frequently and at great length."

As a matter of fact Mr. Knapp's file must be at least four inches thick.

"It is obvious that we have a basic difference of opinion. I

suppose the best piece of material that I can provide by way of

support for the government's position is that which was

prepared by the B.C. Teachers' Federation in the late fall of

1972, amended in part by their facts dated November 29, 1972.

The title of the paper was: 'Problems Associated With

Recalculation of Existing Allowances.'

"In my view, the amendments of 1973 that I have to deal

with, as I was responsible for them, and those proposed for

1974 have made the recalculation method even more problematical

and impractical. While I have no desire to indicate to you that

further correspondence will be futile, I must, out of deference

to my other duties and other correspondence, advise you that I

cannot respond as I have in the past. This is particularly so

when your letters now contain subjective opinions that wander

into the realm of politics."

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that if the Liberal

leader had done 10 minutes work he'd have known, for instance,

that recalculation would mean that retirees prior to 1951 would

lose part of their pension, because the $5,000 minimum wouldn't

really have been in existence. Recalculation means you take the

individual, his or her pension, and you apply every change in

law to it, whether it is good, bad or indifferent.

The fact of the matter is that recalculation will hurt as

many retirees as it would assist. Retirees with pensions based

on 40 years or over would have to pay the refund made in excess

of 35 years contributive service. Retirees and serving

teachers' salaries which exceeded the limits applicable to

certain years would be subject to paying the extra

contributions.

If you want to be fair, and by law we have to be, and I

think the Members would want us to be fair, then the same rules

apply. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there isn't

a single province, with the exception of Manitoba, that deals

with the recalculation method. I think the reason Manitoba does

is the fact that their pension plan is so bad.

I have had, I think, because of the Liberal leader's

statements on radio, two phone calls during the break. One was

from the superintendent of economic welfare for teachers who

want to reiterate, so that there is no misunderstanding, that

the teachers fully support this legislation. He also points

out, as I will point out and emphasize and attest to, that they

have not developed a formula that they are prepared to

recommend to me that could be used for recalculation of

pensions.

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal leader said to me that I'm not really worried

about those who have retired, I think he managed to draw the usual smear

[ Page

2779 ]

across this debate — that because of political

pressure we were only interested in active teachers. That's

exactly what you said.

The trouble is with you, Mr. Leader, you don't know when you

are smearing and when you are not. There he was, thrashing

around for 20 minutes as though he knew something about it. He

never talked about the municipal workers, never talked about

the public service employees.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you going to talk about every single

bill? We will if you wish. I thought you wanted to get them

through.

HON. MR. HALL: It wouldn't improve our knowledge one little

bit if you spoke all day.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that this pension plan

we've got has levels which are superior to any other teachers'

pension plan in the country, with the possible exception of the

particular plan in Newfoundland, which receives a great deal of

subsidy.

I want to discuss, if I may, with the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) the question of whether or not we should really

use the words "tax revenue" for this pension plan. I appreciate

that the only money we get is by tax. But we are really

fulfilling our role as an employer when we contribute the

50-50 sharing payments to the teachers' pension fund. We

are, in effect, assuming the total role of the employer in the

province.

I don't think it is quite square to suggest that it is tax

revenue that is going to enrich one particular segment of the

community because we are fulfilling our role as employer as we

are, indeed, with the public service workers and the municipal

workers.

Furthermore, I want to point out that we have also had a

phone call from the president (Mr. McFarlan) of the B.C.

Teachers Federation who has obviously heard some comments over

the supper time break and who wants to point out that they are

extremely well satisfied with this bill.

I want to point out that my last objection to the speech of

the Liberal leader is that he suggests I have not told the

whole truth. I'm getting a little sick of that kind of language

used over and over again. You stand up and you take a letter or

you thrash some point around; you reiterate it over and over

again. Then slowly but surely, you leave the impression in this

House that we have not told the whole truth. You have done it,

Mr. Member, on almost every piece of legislation and you have

certainly done it on every Minister. I am fed up with it.

We have had meetings with the representatives of these employees of these pension

plans for 18 months. Even if I had a tape recorder I don't think I could take

the time of the House to discuss every single point that has been raised in

the debates and in the negotiations and in the consensus we have arrived at.

Certainly, many of the people came with demands on what they

wanted in terms of escalation. Certainly, the municipal

workers' committee which met with me 18 months ago had some

ideas. I frankly pointed out to that group that until I was

satisfied that the already-retired workers in the

municipal plan received some benefits, I was not interested in

any escalation for the future. When they eventually got

together in the one committee I have referred to time and time

again, certainly they came with demands about pension funds.

One of their first demands, that I remember very well, was that

all of this escalation should go ahead at no cost. I'm telling

you that I am one who negotiates and proceeds by consensus and

principle and who believes that you get the commitment when it

is time to get the benefit.

There is no way I am going to necessarily even attempt to

remember all the bargaining and negotiating points, all the

trade-offs, and all the discussions over a period of 18

months that comes to a consensus and to the piece of material

in front of you. To suggest that I was not telling the full

story or the whole truth to my mind does not serve this House

or the followers he represents very well indeed.

The next point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is to simply

tell the House how the escalation works. I think the Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who has had the benefit of some

assistance from my commissioner of pensions, could probably

look upon it in this way. All the retired people are currently

enjoying a certain level of pension that they arrived at by a

certain formula that has been changed over many, many years,

over a number of times. You were good enough to pass

unanimously only a short while ago a basic increase in pensions

that went back, in one case, as far as 1954. In fact, some

retired people got a 66 per cent increase in their pension. You

used the words "supplementary allowances," which are the

words we used in the legislation. Whatever the retired person

is now getting in any one of these plans is going to be

automatically escalated, without further reference to this

Legislature, by a figure arrived at by Statistics Canada called

the consumer price index, which is currently by my information

about 12 per cent. So every retired person will get a 12 per

cent increase in their salary and it will become automated as

soon as we can get it on the computer.

Mr. Speaker, that percentage is really the least we can do

to try and make sure the purchasing power of the dollars the

teachers have as their basic allowance is not reduced even

further. But we must look upon the fund, the purchasing power

and the investments of the people in some ratio that the

generation that is getting the benefit has had something to do

with the paying for it. I think that is the principle we are

going on. We are adjusting that principle by making sure that

inflation doesn't wither away the dollars by

[ Page 2780 ]

having these automated, escalated amounts going to them as

fast as we can and as rightly as we can.

I move second reading of Bill 97.

Motion approved.

Bill 97, Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act,

1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 98.

MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the basic speech I made on the

Public Service Workers' Act applies again to the

municipal workers with whom we are dealing today under Bill 98.

The particular improvements peculiar to this bill are as

follows:

It clarifies the integration method for past service of the

employees of new employers coming under the Act for the first

time. Many of the Members will know, because of the efforts

made in the field of social assistance and Human Resources,

some of the amalgamation of services that is going on in

Health, and possibly some in Corrections, certainly some by

virtue of bills on the order paper put there by my colleague,

the Attorney-General, will mean that many new people will

be coming in to activity from one area of government and

transfer to another. We must make sure that the integration

method for past service is fair and equitable.

There are some minor adjustments affecting

re-employment.

There is a special agreement for employees of the Veterans

Hospital in Victoria and the Shaughnessy Hospital in Vancouver.

I think that sums up the particular provisions.

Let me also point out that the portability features between

these plans are those which insist that we treat everybody

scrupulously fairly and make sure the legislation is equal in

every respect so that we can have that kind of portability.

I am proud of these bills, Mr. Speaker. I hope the private

sector is taking note of some of the things we are doing

because I think we are pioneering in some areas. I hope the

lead will be followed by other sectors of the community.

I move second reading of Bill 98.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the bill in question is

similar to the others we have discussed earlier today. The

principle is that of assisting and supplementing pensions so

they can be brought up to deal with purchasing power that has

been eroded by inflation.

But it appears that one of the points I made in one of the earlier bills has

been ignored or misunderstood. The fact of the matter is that it is simple to

point out that in all of these bills there are provisions that are similar.

We in the opposition might well talk about any one or all of them if we wished.

But to suggest that because we discussed one, a matter upon which we have detailed

information, which may not be accurate — as I said, the quoted correspondence

with BCTF may be inaccurate — is, I think, a disservice to this House.

The fact is that in this bill on municipal employees, as in

the case of other bills, we are supplementing. But the

supplements are of more assistance to those who are about to

retire or those who have very recently retired than they are to

those who retired previously. I would like to suggest that when

we are discussing the principles of pension bills this type of

thing is perfectly valid. The fact of the matter is that we are

not — accepting the principle in this bill of giving an

identical pension for 35, 25, 30, 42, or God knows how many

years of work which a man or woman might have put in as a

teacher or public servant or as a municipal employee. We are

not talking about having those pensions equalized and having

equal pensions for equal work. That is the point I was raising

in an earlier bill and which I will raise in this one in the

form of questions.

We are using public money; we are using the taxpayers' money

which comes from all to assist certain groups. We approve of

this in principle; there is no question. We welcome this. Had

the Attorney-General's ears been a little less sensitive

to criticism and a little more attuned to praise, he might well

have understood this had he listened. But he didn't. He went on

to focus his extremely short temper on only points which we

think are perfectly valid. That is, in principle, what we are

doing in using public moneys to supplement pensions; and this

supplementary assistance, which we welcome, is of more

advantage to those who have just retired or are just about to

retire than it is to those who retired 20 years ago.

The hon. lady Member for Vancouver — what's Daisy's riding? — Vancouver South

(Mrs. Webster) pointed out the case of a person who retired and is now 83. She

gave an excellent case of the inequalities which result despite the fact he's

done identical work to the fellow who retires today. Despite the fact that his

salary or his income might well, in relation to other incomes, have been worse

than the salary of the person doing the equivalent job today, the fact is that

he doesn't get the same kind of pension, or anything approaching the same type

of pension. Legislation that we have on municipal employees, according to the

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) most recent remarks, apparently

is even worse in creating....

[ Page

2781 ]

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, I keep making that mistake tonight

— the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), not the

Attorney-General. I stand corrected. The

Attorney-General quickly disclaims any suggestion that

someone else should be him. He has enough trouble with the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon.

Mr. Lauk), let alone the Provincial Secretary.

As far as this bill goes it's been admitted by the

Provincial Secretary that if there are discrepancies in the

other bills he has put forward, these discrepancies are equal

or worse in this one. The question that comes up is —

why? Does he like the principle of trying to have an equal

pension for equal work? Must the date of retirement be the

critical factor for those who have served us in British

Columbia — all of us — just as diligently, served

for the same length of time but perhaps served 10 years ago

instead of retiring last year? What is the objection to

discussing the principle of pension equality for equal work?

Why is he so uptight on this particular point? Why is he so

concerned about it? We raise it in the interest of having a

subject aired for a minority group in British Columbia with

respect to teachers, and we get subjected to the most

incredible attack.

I raise it the same way in terms of municipal employees.

What is his attitude toward the principle of pension equality

for municipal employees or any other employees who have done an

equal amount of work, devoted just as much of their life and

labour and brain and brawn to the work of building British

Columbia? Yet they are treated entirely differently when it

comes to pensions where you have perhaps discrepancy, as

pointed out by the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster),

which may well be many times less the pension of someone

retiring more recently. If the problem for municipal employees

is worse, would the Provincial Secretary please outline it so

we can know full well what is the principle and how far the

principle extends for municipal employees when we vote on this

particular bill, Bill 98?

MR. WALLACE: I would like to follow on the point that the....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, it's that Member who is in the Blues again

who's causing all the trouble. (Laughter.)

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I never said a word. You

Conservatives are all mixed up.

MR. WALLACE: Who won tonight? Was it the reds? Mr. Speaker, I'll be

very brief. The fact is that I'm busy trying to keep the Attorney-General

from being maligned wrongly and I'm trying to look after the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) and I have the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) distracting me. It's very difficult, Mr. Speaker,

to make a coherent speech when the Minister has already said I don't know anything

about the subject matter.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I don't even get a chance at that these days.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the Provincial Secretary asserted

that I don't know anything about this. All I'm trying to do,

Mr. Speaker, is get a fair measure of justice, or at least to

understand what the government's doing in this field in what is

a very complicated area and a very difficult and technical

area. I just want to respond in this bill to one or two of the

points that the Provincial Secretary made.

He said if I was concerned about the teachers who have

retired years ago, it was disgraceful that I shouldn't be

concerned about the municipal employees, who are a great deal

worse off than the teachers.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm assuming that the government tries to give

every

section of employee to whom it has responsibility a

reasonable and fair measure of economic justice. That's my

premise.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Now the Provincial Secretary's out of his

chair, Mr. Speaker, and I think that he's not in keeping with

the rules of the House. Just as long as he doesn't interfere as

everyone else is interfering.... Where was I?

MR. SPEAKER: You can have this chair, if you want.

MR. WALLACE: I'm getting help all around tonight. The help

I'm not getting is from my own backbench.

To get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I felt that the

Minister himself admitted that in fact there wasn't being fair

and equitable justice, economic justice, provided to the four

different groups for whom he's responsible.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I said no such

thing.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, would you bring

[ Page 2782 ]

that Minister to order? He's speaking from someone else's

chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Would the Hon. Provincial Secretary please

not speak....

HON. MR. HALL: I never said a thing. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: With respect, Mr. Minister, you corrected the

wrong Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: It seems to be the way.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister in my view admitted one of two

things. Either he had been too generous to the teachers who

retired years ago, or he wasn't being fair to the municipal

retired workers. No matter what way the Minister answers,

there's only one of two conclusions that could come from that

remark. I don't want to belabour the point.

I want to touch on the other point that he said that the

government is just being a good employer. Nevertheless, with

respect, Mr. Speaker, that good employer is using revenue

derived from general taxation from every taxpayer to help the

economic situation of four particular groups in society. While

it may be very idealistic for him to say they're pioneering and

that he hopes that other employers will take cognizance of the

of the government's example, the fact is that the government

has rather a different way of getting its revenue than does the

ordinary employer. The ordinary employer is competing in the

marketplace and trying to earn an income, or finish in the

black at a time of inflation,

whereas the government at any

time can boost its revenue by drawing on the resources of all

taxpayers.

I'm not saying that we should not attempt to boost or to

help keep up with inflation, the economic need of people who

retired some considerable time ago, but I do reject the

argument by the Provincial Secretary that in these four bills

the government is simply being a good employer. The government

is no longer the employer of the people who retired. The people

who retired contributed on the basis of a certain formula and

percentage of the salaries they were earning at that time.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the government

can be responsible for any kind of guarantee they will keep the

pensions of these people in tempo with the pace of inflation. I

know that they are trying to do it and this is exactly what

this bill is now trying to do, but I do feel that it is too

simple an explanation to say that the government is being a

good employer when in point of fact it is acting on behalf of

the better interests of four groups in society.

The other argument that the Minister put forward, that from here on in everything

would be tied to an escalator clause, does not at the same time detract from

the fact that the government is using taxpayers' money in the future plans by

this escalator clause to try and help the four particular groups in society.

I agree that if they didn't help them this way, the chances are that they would

have to be helped some other way, whether it be through the formula of a guaranteed

income or adjustments to the Mincome legislation, or by some other legislation.

It's quite likely that some help would be forthcoming.

I think we must put the whole thing in perspective and

realize that there are indeed many other pensioners whom the

Minister mentioned who worked for private employers, who are

getting no escalation whatever. Their only hope is that the

federal government will continue, as it is now doing, to

escalate the old age security allowance and the people are on

Mincome are receiving the same kind of help provincially.

But the group who are just above Mincome and who retired

some years ago after working for private employers are not

getting any help at all, or very little in most cases, compared

to the four particular groups that the Minister is helping in

this legislation. We support the legislation, but I think it is

important that we have this discussion to point out, in my view

at least and the view of this party, that it's not quite as

simple as the Minister presents.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the point that I want to make is

this: if the two Members who have raised the question of

recalculation of pensions based on a singular knowledge of one

letter accept the premise in that letter and use it

unquestionably without trying to find out any information prior

to the debate ' then I'm telling them that they should be more

concerned with other pension plans. Because if you adopt that

false premise, then the other pension plans are worse. That's

what I said. And I'm telling you that if you adopt the Knapp

concept of equity and justice, you will say that.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't say that at all.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not saying what you said. I'm explaining

what I said that you seem to take objection to. In other words

— and it's obvious that the Liberal is having some

difficulty as usual understanding — I'm saying that if

you want to take the letter and thrash it around here, then

you've got to be a bit responsible for it unless you're going

to do some work on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. HALL: I have told you and I will repeat it now,

because you are now asking me to go over it again. You are

assuming that every

[ Page 2783 ]

recalculation in retirement pensions will lead to an

increase. I can give you — one, two, three, four, five,

six, seven, eight, nine, 10 — 11 groups that will have a

reduction. That's on the Blues; you can look at them.

I've also told you that the B.C. Teachers' Federation

themselves cannot come up with a formula that meets the kind of

amendment that you so blithely ask me to produce. You couldn't

produce it yourself. And I have just told you I had a few phone

calls since you've dragged this stuff across the floor of the

House about not telling the truth and not being fair, and not

being interested in old-age pensions. I've had two phone

calls from the BCTF to reject that position you state.

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last question, if we're going

to run a province — and if we're going to have teachers

and we're going to have municipal workers — then we must

fulfil our roles as employers. I'm asking the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) to realize that there's a difference. Now he

can call it all tax money if he wants, but we must play our

roles as employers. And we've got a trust obligation as far as

the municipal workers are concerned, because as a matter of

interest we don't put any money into that fund at all; it's 50

per cent from the worker and 50 per cent from the

municipalities of this province.

I'm saying that once the pension is based and calculated by

reference to the Act, it must surely be our responsibility, as

the employers of three groups and as the trust

decision-makers on behalf of the municipal workers, to

make sure that that purchasing power isn't eroded.

Now the Member says, and I agree with him, that there must

be some reference to that which is put in. I have accepted that

and I've talked about the generation that received the benefits

must make the contribution. And we've amended that basic

hard-line, old-fashioned principle — prudent

principle — because of the incredible inflation

rates.

I move second reading of Bill 98.

Motion approved.

Bill, 98, Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act,

1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Gabelmann in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND COMMERCE

(continued)

On vote 125: Minister's office, $75,976.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, maybe

we should allow, before we start this debate, the Minister to

answer some of the questions that have been asked regarding his

department. But there's not very much money there, Mr. Premier.

I recognize that — and not very much action there either.

As a matter of fact there's more money than there is

action.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to talk for a moment and ask the

Minister a few questions about steel. The Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) just

recently took a trip to Japan to negotiate on a steel mill. The

only mistake he made was taking the Premier with him. That's

the only mistake he made.

But the fact that he took the Premier with him is not really

as bad, Mr. Chairman.... He could have taken with him the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

I'm sure that those great people of Japan would have loved to

have had negotiations with the Minister of Mines with regard to

a copper smelter.

You know, here goes the Minister of Industrial Development

off to Japan to talk about a steel industry while we hear

announcements being made here in Canada that there's going to

be a steel industry expansion in the Province of Saskatchewan.

And we have further information that the steel industry in

Alberta is going to be expanded.

We have here in British Columbia not a great big, large

steel smelter like the Minister has great visions of, but we

have a steel industry here in the Province of British Columbia.

It's a small steel industry using steel that has been used in a

different capacity. And that's the wonderful thing about

metals, Mr. Chairman: they can be recycled and. reused. Once

they are dug out of the ground they are not lost forever; they

can be used and used and used again.

I'd like to refer to an

article in The Province dated

May 1, 1974. The headline is: "Steel Firm Planning $5 Million

Expansion." This steel firm, Mr. Chairman, is in the Province

of British Columbia. The

article says:

"B.C.'s sole steel maker, Western Canada Steel Limited, of

Vancouver, is planning to spend $5 million on expanding

production. The wholly-owned subsidiary of Cominco Ltd.

will spend more than $3.5 million on re-equipping its

scrap reduction plant on Mitchell Island. The balance of the

capital outlay will be used to increase the output of the

branch plant in Calgary."

The

article goes on to explain why

this steel expansion is taking place. But there's one paragraph

in here that left me slightly bewildered. It left a big

question mark in my mind, and I'm sure it left a question mark

in the minds of many of the industrial people in the Province

of British Columbia. It says:

[ Page 2784 ]

"The provincial Minister for Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce, Gary Lauk, has not consulted the company about its

expansion plans."

The nucleus, an industry that is presently in the province,

a steel industry that is recycling steel and producing steel

for industry in the Province of British Columbia.... Yet the

great Minister of Industrial Development considers this

industry too small to even go and consult with.

I have to ask myself again: what was this trip to Japan all

about? Why did the Minister of Industrial Development go to

Japan — and come back empty-handed, having

accomplished absolutely nothing? It would appear to me that the

Minister is not really interested in small secondary industry

in this province.

As I stated the second time his estimates came up, he has

many proposals on his desk which either he doesn't want to give

any consideration to or he doesn't know how to make

decisions.

Here we have a nucleus of the steel industry in British

Columbia, the start of producing steel for industry. They are

going to expand, but our airy-fairy, high-falutin'

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce doesn't

even take the time to go talk to them. No, he's got to go to

Japan.

I'm not going to delay the debate on this Minister's

estimates; I'm going to sit down. I would like very much to

hear some comments from the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce about this steel industry that we have in

British Columbia.

The Minister seems to get a great deal of humour. Maybe

steel is his favourite comedy because every time we start to

talk about steel he starts to laugh.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Your speeches are always very humorous.

MR. PHILLIPS: But it's no laughing matter, Mr. Chairman. Who

pays for his little sojourn into Japan? It probably cost the

taxpayers of this province $50,000, $60,000.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: But the way this government opposite spends money, well, what's $20,000 or

$30,000? I want to tell you that a great deal of questioning is going

on in the minds of the taxpayers of British Columbia. They want some

answers from this Minister; they want some action from this Minister.

All I want here tonight are a few answers to some questions.

MR. WALLACE: I would just like to add a few comments on the

Minister's statement regarding the steel shortage and the

method he proposes to deal with it and to ask some of the

questions which relate to the local steel companies.

It's very interesting that as recently as in The

Vancouver Sun of this evening, there is some real

skepticism about the statement issued by the Minister in this

House two days ago. I won't quote from the Blues, but the

Minister did say this, or words to similar effect: "Steel

shipments from eastern Canada had been reduced. The freight

rates were up. Japanese representatives had agreed to increase

their 1974 commitments by 22 per cent over previous 1974

commitments."

Most specifically I'd like the Minister to enlarge upon his

statement that the Japanese will alleviate shortages once they

have been validated by this government through the Minister's

department, and words to the effect that the government will

see that the shortages are valid. The Minister went on to

describe the shortages as consisting mainly of steel plates,

structural shapes, reinforcing bars and rounds, with 75 per

cent of the shortage in plate and structural steel. That, I

believe, is the general substance of the statement which the

Minister made to the House, and I'll certainly let the Minister

have this copy of The Vancouver Sun .

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, there will be a small charge. The reaction

to the announcement by the Minister is described by people in

the industry as varying from "downright skeptical to barely

hopeful." If I was a Minister I would hardly take that as a

vote of confidence. Mr. Garrick, who is the regional manager in

the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, said:

"Japanese steel is at least $100 a ton more than Canadian

steel — and Canadian steel is the lowest priced in the

world at present...Structural steel shapes...produced in

Canada cost $220 to $240 a ton in Vancouver while Japanese

steel shapes cost $340 to $360 a ton...And as Japan is

already giving Canada preferential price treatment on steel, it

would be a miracle if Japan would charge less than even the

Canadian price...Why would Japan take steel for which it is

getting a high price and sell it to B.C. at a low price?"

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As I recall, the Minister was also quoted in

another press statement when he was trying to answer that

question: "Why would Japan take steel for which it's getting a

high price and sell it to

[ Page 2785 ]

B.C. at a low price?" One would have to consider whether or

not there has been some other aspect to the deal which we have

not yet been told about. I think I can recall a statement that

the Minister made to the press that there were no particular

deals and that there had been no particular pressure brought to

bear upon the Japanese, but, of course, they had talked about

the continuing supply of coking coal upon which the manufacture

of steel essentially depends.

It's also interesting in this

article that Mr. Schuett, the

president of the Amalgamated Construction Association of

British Columbia, agreed with Mr. Garrick. Mr. Schuett is

quoted as saying, "I really don't see the steel coming in from

Japan any cheaper under present conditions." He goes on to

point out, of course, that the situation might suddenly change

if we have a complete shutdown in the construction industry. He

says we might finish up with steel coming out our ears, which I

hope won't happen. But he, I think, is just pointing out that

the whole market situation can change very quickly in British

Columbia as a result of labour problems in the construction

industry.

I would also like to mention that in this same

article

there's a quotation from Mr. George Crawford who is in charge

of economics and industrial market research for B.C. Research.

He states just as a matter of information that "B.C. Research

has not been commissioned to carry out any...definitive

study of steel needs in the province."

Of course, I was meaning to refer also to the local

involvement of Western Canada Steel which the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned. I think it's very

interesting that a company which has been in business in this

province for 27 years and which in the course of that time has

employed an average of 500 people and paid out $75 million in

wages and salaries should be completely ignored by the

provincial government when it, in fact, is the only

steel-producing company in the province.

I know that certain kinds of scrap steel are required and that you produce

certain types of steel products. It may well be that the structural steel the

Minister says constitutes 75 per cent of the total shortage is not made by Western

Canada Steel. I would assume from what I've read that this is part of the situation.

But at least we would hope that the Minister would touch on that point. Why

hasn't he consulted Western Canada Steel? Is it because that company doesn't

produce the kind of steel in short supply? But if it isn't, would it not at

least make some sense to suggest that if steel output is to be increased in

this province and we already have one Canadian — B.C. native producer, it might

make a lot of sense to see whether that plant could take

part in the increased

production or in altering its particular production pattern to provide the steel

that is needed? Or is it just the old socialist theory again that the only agency

that can really do the job is a government — run agency?

These are all very pertinent questions. That's what I meant,

Mr. Chairman, when I responded to the Minister's statement by

saying that it raised more questions than it answered.

Just in closing, since I have no wish either to prolong the

Minister's estimates, I'm very interested to know more about

the project that was started by the previous provincial

government under the title of SAM (Salvage, Assemble,

Merchandising) which was the crushing of car bodies. It was

started under the direction of the Minister, Ken Kiernan, at

that time. The Minister is looking very puzzled. I tried to

find out more up-to-date information about it; I

understand the latest annual report was 1972. I happen to know

that one of the companies in England has set up a crushing

plant to process old car bodies and, in fact, the result of

that plant is to send the scrap steel to Sheerness. There's a

company there operated by Canadian interests, incidentally,

producing 200,000 tons of steel a year.

We've heard contradicting statements in the House that for a

steel plant to be viable in British Columbia it has to produce

hundreds of thousands of tons of steel. The Minister again

shakes his head. I hope that, since he implies that these

figures are all wrong, he'll give us the correct figures. It is

all very well to sit in this House and shake your head, but it

doesn't help much if you don't come back with the specific

contradictions to the figures the Minister says are wrong.

If a place like Sheerness in England can have a steel plant

producing 200,000 tons of steel a year, and in this case backed

by Canadian interests, I would like to know what, at this point

in time, the Minister envisages as the appropriate type of

steel plant for British Columbia. What would be the most

appropriate form of administration: government or private

enterprise? And, since he had stated that we should encourage a

steel mill in British Columbia, what is the role, if any, that

could be played by the existing steel company in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, I hardly know where to start. I assume

the Members, before they come to committee, will have done some

basic, minimal research into steel production.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is talking about a

scrap mill with an electric arc furnace that produces a

particular type of steel. Well, no one has said that you can't

have an electric arc furnace which can produce 200,000, 300,000

or 500,000 tons of steel very economically to use scrap steel.

I'm particularly delighted to hear about the expansion plans of

Western Canada Steel, even though they are owned by Cominco,

which is owned by CPR.

[ Page 2786 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: First time we ever heard about it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: May I have some order, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. LAUK: If you will stop quacking, Mr. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), both here and at UBC,

you will be able to hear what I'm getting at.

I knew about the expansion plans of Western Canada Steel in

January. Officials of my department and officials of Western

Canada Steel discussed expansion plans in January. We knew all

about them. So what? Western Canada Steel produces what they

call "rebar," reinforcement bars for construction, and

merchant bar. They don't go anywhere near the kinds of shapes

and sizes and other things required for the province's

construction industry and other manufacturing industries within

the province. The shapes and sizes for the construction of

boxcars, for the construction....

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Railway ties are made of wood, Mr. Member.

There you go. He asked me about railway ties. Does Western

Canada Steel make railway ties? They're made of wood.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's getting late. It's 10:20 and I'm afraid

that the man has lost some sensibility here.

You talk about a steel shortage. Look, I recognize what is

happening, Mr. Member for Oak Bay. You've read an article. A

few members involved with the use of steel in this province are

saying — I've heard that today privately and I'll reveal

it to the House — that there is no steel shortage. The

very members that I polled before we left....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Name names. Name names.

HON. MR. LAUK: I can't.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. LAUK: Now, be fair. It's not a sport; we've got to be fair.

Do you know what has happened? Central Canadian manufacturers are a little worried

that Japanese steel producers are going to take over some of their markets.

They are going to start getting up here and they're going to start competing,

and I'm delighted. I think good, healthy competition for our steel users is

a good thing and I think we have done the job.

But I don't believe for a minute that the steel production

of central Canada can meet the needs, of British Columbia. I know there is a steel shortage, and I knew it before

we left, and there is today and there will be tomorrow and

there will be for some months.

There are expansion plans in central Canada for their steel

production, and when that comes on stream maybe they can get

back into competition.

About the price. That's an important factor. I shouldn't be

so irresponsible as to start dictating prices...

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: ...from central Canada or Japan. They would

be correct, Mr. Member, if there was not an increase in freight

rates and, secondly, if they could deliver the steel. But as I

said the other day — I told my little story about the

teapot — if you don't have it, it doesn't matter how much

it costs. The central Canadian producers can't deliver because

they're taking care of their own customers in central Canada

and they don't give a hoot about the people of British Columbia

or the steel users in British Columbia. That's been the case

for years; it's the case today. That is why we went to Japan:

to force them into giving us that steel if they are giving it

to us, well, I'm delighted.

MR. PHILLIPS: Strong-armed bandit.

MR. SMITH: You really laid down the law.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, we've been talking to Michael Hobbs.

There are no trade-offs. This government does not give

away anything from this province. This province doesn't give

away anything.

MR. WALLACE: Did you discuss coal?

HON. MR. LAUK: We discussed coal. I'll tell you that we

discussed coal and it was not related to the steel.

MR. WALLACE: How do you make steel without coal?

[ Page 2787 ]

HON. MR. LAUK: Don't try and cross me up. We discussed coal

supply, new sources of coal and the existing coal contracts. We

assured them that we, as a government, respect those contracts

but there are royalties on coal that we have brought in this

year and so on. Those were the kinds of discussion. They

weren't related particularly to steel, except that they need

coal for steel-making.

MR. WALLACE: Extra steel was dependent on extra coal from

B.C.

HON. MR. LAUK: Absolutely not. No trade-offs. I said

that before and I'll say it again any time: there were no

trade-offs, no agreements with respect to that steel

supply. The steel producers have undertaken in Japan to provide

this steel to us because 60 to 70 per cent of their copper ore

comes from this province. You know, 30 or 40 per cent. This

wasn't discussed, but use your heads. And 20 to 30 per cent of

the coking coal. Sixty to 70 per cent of the copper ore that

goes into Japan is from this province. That's astounding, I

know, Mr. Member, but it is true.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You didn't

have to go to Japan to find that out.

HON. MR. LAUK: So that's the kind of thing. They're

protecting their interests and they are doing the same thing in

other countries in Southeast Asia. In other countries where

they get raw materials they are extending more of a goodwill

attitude, for obvious reasons.

MR. WALLACE: Their own self-interest.

HON. MR. LAUK: I think so.

MR. McGEER: I want to follow up with a question or two to

the Minister. Some of us have been a little puzzled by the

negotiations that have been going on between the Minister, the

Premier and the Japanese interests. I would like it if the

Minister could clarify what the government's game plan is.

I judged, from listening to him, that really what he's

interested in doing is putting pressure on Canadian steel

producers.

If I am wrong in that perhaps the Minister could say so. Is

your interest in talking about a Japanese steel mill in British

Columbia a genuine interest in having a Japanese steel mill in

British Columbia, or is it a device for putting pressure on

established Canadian steel makers?

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, if the game plan of the government is to place pressure

on established Canadian steel makers, is the pressure one to obtain a sufficient

supply of steel for British Columbia or is it to obtain a Canadian steel mill

for British Columbia? Thirdly, is the game plan of the government to place pressure

on Western Canada Steel because it is owned by Cominco — which is owned by the

CPR — so that they don't develop into an all-round...?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, you said it. You, Mr. Minister, made a

vicious attack on Western Canada Steel. You made a vicious

attack on it....

HON. MR. LAUK: By saying that they were owned by the CPR?

That's a vicious attack? (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: You said, "...even though they were owned by

Cominco, which is owned by the CPR." I take that at as a

denigrating remark at one of our more successful industries in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh, come on now.

MR. McGEER: If you didn't mean it that way, then please

correct the record.

HON. MR. LAUK: Be fair.

MR. McGEER: Apologize to them; praise them; say you are

delighted with their performance. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: The Minister can clarify exactly what his plan

is and the plan of the government.

Mr. Minister, the difficult thing for us to understand about

your diplomatic journeys and your statements here in the House

is this: we do have a successful steel producer here in British

Columbia which exports. It is true that it produces a limited

line of steel products. But if there were to be a steel mill of

a more general type, one would expect that Western Canada Steel

might be the natural vehicle for that.

MR. CHABOT: It is, it is.

MR. McGEER: Secondly, Mr. Minister, one would think that if

Western Canada Steel were not in a position to become that

producer in British Columbia, then one of our major established

steel companies in Canada would be the one. This happens to be

one of the very few industries where Canada stands at the top

in technology. The steel producers from Canada export to other

countries of the world and are admired for their

competitiveness and their high technology.

[ Page 2788 ]

One would think that if there were to be a steel mill here

that could not be managed by Western Canada Steel, even though

it has the capital of Canada's largest or second largest

corporation and all the backing of Cominco and CPR, then one

would think that the next best choice would be one of Canada's

steel giants that is internationally recognized as having the

highest technology and a high ability to compete on

international markets. Our steel producers can ship all around

the world, and maybe could ship to Japan, at competitive

prices.

When we have this situation in our own province and in our

own country and we know and understand it, it puzzles me, Mr.

Chairman, as a Member of the opposition, to try to understand

what Japan could have to offer to British Columbia and to

Canada in the way of a steel mill.

If we are just putting pressure on the Japanese, we ought to

state that. I don't think it is a good game plan for a

government because I think there is a bit of insincerity

inherent in that kind of a play.

I think we do have legitimate cards to play in attempting to

get shortages in finished steel available for our

manufacturers. We do supply them with the coal. We are a good

long-term bet for them not only for coking coal, but also

copper concentrates and possibly other minerals. That should be

sufficient to get the supply we need from that country, if we

go about it with good economic diplomacy. But a Japanese steel

mill? Mr. Chairman, I just don't understand the wisdom of that

proposal.

I have tremendous admiration for the Japanese — their

technology, their methods, their successes. But I am not at all

certain that Japanese-owned manufacturing firms would be

as successful operating in British Columbia with British

Columbia labour as would our own British Columbia

corporations.

I've said I believe in Canadian unions and I want to say now

that I believe in Canadian companies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: We have the technical ability. Let's do it all

in Canada.

MR. SMITH: In the earlier stages of debate, with regard to

the estimates of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce, we dealt briefly with the signing of an agreement

between the federal and provincial governments with respect to

regional designation under the DREE programme. While the

Minister dealt briefly with the terms of the agreement, the

whole point of his comments to the House was that the agreement

with British Columbia would be subject to future supplemental

agreements.

I have read with interest some of the releases from Ottawa concerning the position

of British Columbia. The question I wish to now pose to the Minister is why,

when you were signing an agreement on behalf of British Columbia, you allowed

us to be placed in the position of a second-class province.

It is obvious, when you read the terms of the DREE

agreements and the agreements between the federal government

and other provinces of Canada, the agreement which you signed

on behalf of the Province of British Columbia, that you have

been had, Mr. Minister. You have been had.

I would like to refer to the releases which have come from

Ottawa with respect to regional development incentives for

1974. It is interesting to note the difference between the type

of agreement that we have in British Columbia and the type of

agreement that is presently enforced in other parts of Canada.

It says:

"Development incentives and loan guarantees are available to

regions designated by the Governor-in-Council under

the authority of the Regional Development Incentives Act.

I would like to emphasize that it says "regions designated

by the Governor-in-Council."

"The regions designated from April 1, 1974 to December 31,

1976, include all of the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova

Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and

Saskatchewan, together with all of the Province of Quebec

except the Montreal-Hull corridor and the Province of

Ontario north of the southern boundaries of the districts of

Nipissing and Parry Sound."

It goes on to explain beyond that what grants are eligible

and how you qualify for them. There's not one single solitary

mention of the Province of British Columbia. But irresponsible

and unfortunate. I will quote from that release:

"In British Columbia and Alberta, after consultation with

the provincial governments, it has been agreed that the

existing designated regions in those provinces will continue to

be designated until June 30, 1974.

"In addition, in the slow growth parts of these provinces

incentives for selected development opportunities can be made

available under separate agreements with these governments.

Such agreements can provide for assistance to activate special

development opportunities identified by the federal and

provincial governments as necessary to solve particular

problems in each province."

In other words, Mr. Chairman, British Columbia, except for

the areas previously designated, which will remain designated

until June 30, 1974, is not part and parcel of the general

development agreement offered to the other provinces in

Canada.

The question that we have to ask the Hon. Minister is — how come? Why did you

allow British

[ Page

2789 ]

Columbia to be taken down the garden path on the type of

agreement that you signed? I suggest to the Minister that that

is exactly what happened because in the Province of Ontario,

which could be compared to the Province of British Columbia in

many economic aspects, it is interesting to note that the same

release from which I have just quoted also deals with special

provisions in the Province of Ontario. It says this:

"In Ontario, after consultation with the provincial government, it has been agreed that the special

area of Renfrew-Pembroke-Barry's Bay will continue

to be eligible for assistance until June 30, 1974."

In that respect Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta are

equal with respect to areas which had previously been

designated. This is where we

part company with Ontario.

"In this area, where considerable assistance to new and expanding industries has been provided,

opportunities for development will continue to be sought and

federal-provincial assistance provided where necessary

through the general development agreement with Ontario."

I think I interpret that correctly, Mr. Minister, when I

suggest to you that while the agreement for Ontario goes to

June 30, 1974, in special circumstances, the general

development agreement which was previously signed with that

province will still hold. There will be no necessity for

special development agreements to be prepared and signed by the

Province of Ontario with the federal government with respect to

the projects which they might like to have in that

province.

It would seem to me that when you said that the signing of

the umbrella agreement was the first step, that was exactly

what it was — a very small step with respect to

development under DREE programmes in the Province of British

Columbia. It is very obvious that in each and every instance

the areas which were designed as northwestern B.C.,

northeastern B.C. and the Kootenays won't get one single cent

of federal money until the supplementary agreements on each

specific project have been signed between the federal

government and the province.

I'm sure that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) must be interested in what I have to say

because the Kootenays happen to be an area with which he is

very intimately acquainted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not too long, though.

MR. SMITH: It is unfortunate, at a time when we would like to see the

northern part of B.C. and the Kootenays developed, that the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce, in his haste to have something to present to

the people of this province, has signed an inferior agreement.

HON. MR. LAUK: Your friend says I took too much time, and

you say I took too little time.

MR. SMITH: In his haste to have some kind of an agreement to

hang his hat on he has signed an agreement that is certainly

second-class when you compare it to other regions of

Canada. The question that I have to ask the Minister is: why,

when we are in need of development capital and we contribute

far more in revenue to the federal coffers than many other

provinces, would you allow yourself to be taken down the garden

path by the federal government and then come into this House

and tell us how great the agreement would be with respect to

the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I find it very interesting

sitting in this House. You know, this is a debate which has

been going on for some time on Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce. As a matter of fact there are some old Blues that

go back as far as March sometime, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Blues that I would like to refer to are

Blues referring to the First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer). Just like his leader who we were listening

to earlier tonight, he is about as accurate as his leader was

on pensions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: Let me say this, in the Minister's estimates

— because those are the estimates that that Member was

talking in — he was talking about the new kidney

development that was taking place at UBC, the artificial

kidney. Mr. Chairman, he said that this government was not

giving any assistance and that this government should do this

and that and do all of the great things....

MR. PHILLIPS: Order, Mr. Chairman!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, let me read into the record a

letter. The letter is from UBC. It says:

"Re: statement by Dr. P. McGeer in the Legislature on March

2, 1974 concerning the capillary dialyser."

— which statement he repeated in the Minister's

estimates. Mr. Chairman, the letter goes on.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's a capillary dialyser?

[ Page 2790 ]

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It's a new B.C. wine.

HON. MR. COCKE: It says:

"Dear Mr. Cocke:

I do not know where Dr. McGeer got the information which

prompted his statement in the Legislature on March 26, but I

would like to assure you that it was not from me and that there

is little foundation for the comments which he made...."

Oh, Mr. Chairman, isn't that so like the Liberals? Let me

repeat it: "There is little foundation for the comments which

he made."

"As you are well aware from the discussions that I have held

with Dr. Elliot, we are adequately funded at the moment and,

thanks to your intervention in providing the salary for Dr.

Harold Davis" — that's right — "I do not foresee

any major problem at this time. Obviously there may come a time

when Hoffman LaRoche withdraw their support, although I do not

anticipate this, and it would seem that our private funding is

certainly sufficient as compared to the statement made by Dr.

McGeer, if it was correctly reported in the press."

We all know that we can trust the press to correctly report

Dr. McGeer.

"I would like to thank you for your continuing interest in

our project and can assure you that I will not release any

information to any opposition Members or any news media that

would be detrimental to your government unless I had previously

approached you or met a stone wall of problems, which I do not

anticipate."

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: You don't understand accurately over there

in the corner — the goofy corner. Mr. Chairman, I would

suggest that that Minister is doing a fine job.

MR. CHABOT: You've got your pink tie on tonight.

HON. MR. COCKE: He went to Japan, he represented us well,

and he will continue to do a fine job for the Province of

British Columbia.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I'm sure that the Hon.

Member would agree that the Hon. Minister of Health is

sounding, more and more every day, like the former Hon.

Minister of Health and I am sure that he would like to

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

MR. McGEER: Would the Minister be good enough to table the

letter, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. COCKE: I would be delighted to, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to point out that if you do wish

to table that letter you should do it while the Speaker is in

the chair.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I have another letter

concerning another Member of the Liberal benches. You recall

the other day he stood up and he told me about the advice he

was getting from Dr. Hugh Keenleyside.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Oh, not the Blues! (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. LAUK: This is the birth of the Blues.

I don't intend to use the Blues to refer to the Liberal

leader's remarks with any degree of accuracy. I'll just use

words to that effect. (Laughter.)

He said something like this, as I recall: "As an aside, Mr.

Chairman, for the benefit of the Minister, I point out that the

discussions I had with Hugh Keenleyside who has been

involved in the development of underdeveloped countries for the

United Nations, where he was, I think, the senior Canadian

civil servant at the United Nations, indicated that one of the

great problems they had with underdeveloped countries was their

desire for prestige steel mills which were not economically

viable."

He went on and used Dr. Keenleyside as his source for

describing this poor, little people's administration as a

banana republic getting ripped off by the great big steel

producers in Japan. I notice, by the way, that he came back at

8:30. It was clearly obvious that his mother gave him a haircut

during the supper hour. He looked very nice. I don't know where

he is now. Maybe he's out combing it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's have a little bit of order in the House

tonight.

MRS. JORDAN: You're just jealous....

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't mind having half my hair rather than

half my wits like the Hon. Member.

In any event I have a letter from Hugh Keenleyside. May I

have some order, please? Will you listen to this letter? Now,

sit up in your seat.

[ Page 2791 ]

(Laughter.)

Hugh Keenleyside sent us a letter proposing a steel mill for

this province. He says, "You should get involved with the

Japanese." Hugh Keenleyside; December 3,1973.

He said he had a discussion with Hugh Keenleyside. I wonder

if it's the same one.

MR. McGEER: Is that the same Keenleyside that signed the Columbia treaty?

HON. MR. LAUK: I suppose so. I've said on countless occasions how delighted

I am to see the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) here in

the twilight hours of debate every day. As he comes over on "Scare West,"

(Laughter) he comes in white-knuckled, ashen-faced, recently leaving the

brains he was working with at UBC. He joins in the attack. Thank God for the

Blues; otherwise he wouldn't have a thread of what had gone on before his arrival.

He has talked about a genuine steel mill. The answer to that

question, Mr. Member, is yes, we want to have steel production

in this province. But there are a number of things that have to

be done first.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: You said get involved with Canadian steel

producers and European steel producers. I agree with that

proposal and I'm not stating this as a question of policy; this

is my personal opinion. Canadians should be involved in any

steel production in British Columbia. British Columbians are

Canadians too; we should be involved.

But there are other Canadian steel producers in other parts

of the country that should be involved. Perhaps we should have

a whole consortium of people building our steel mills, bringing

together all their expertise.

You asked why the Japanese, Mr. Member. The ocean out there

is called the Pacific.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: They made it 15 years ago, you're wrong.

Japan is on the same Pacific Ocean, Mr. Member. I'm convinced

of it. Would you mind telling your colleague to your right

— to your right — about this situation? Japan is a

market. And in closing (Laughter), having just heard from the

burning bush.... (Laughter.) One last comment, please, chief

(Laughter.) Oh, we've all got the spirit of good humour this

evening. As an ex-Minister, I would like to say.... (Laughter.)

The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) indicated that I got led down

the garden path. Well, I think the Hon. Member is in a maze, let alone a garden

path. I indicated the DREE general development agreement; I wasn't claiming

it was a great thing. I had a press conference in a phone booth to avoid stating

that the general development agreement was the best thing that has happened

to British Columbia.

But at the same time, you're talking about the Regional

Development Incentives Act, which has been going on for

some years. You're talking about designations that occurred

under the previous administration. I'm not blaming you; you

people had nothing to do with it. The fact is that Ontario and

Quebec and the Maritimes were preferred under those

designations. Those designations are continuing to June 30 in

those provinces and they are continuing here until June

30,1974.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got it all wrong.

HON. MR. LAUK: No, you've got it all wrong. It covers all of

British Columbia, de-emphasizing the lower mainland and

southern Vancouver Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye, aye.

HON. MR. LAUK: Thank you very much.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister failed in

quoting from a document, namely the Blues, to quote the

sentence and...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...it made no reference whatsoever to

British Columbia or to Canada. Would you please quote

accurately or not at all?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think usually it's considered

the proper course to tell the Chair what your point of order is

and where it occurred. A matter from committee, of course, is

not usually reported in this fashion to the Chair. If there's a

point of privilege it can be raised, usually immediately, by

calling the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I want the Hon. Members to know that I have

said nothing about people in this

[ Page 2792 ]

House who have access to the Blues that are sitting on the

shelves on each side from using the Blues.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have always pointed out that

they must take responsibility for whether they are quoting

something that is accurate or not. For instance, on one

occasion, the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) was attributed to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), and both of them might have objected

at that. But it so happened and was corrected later.

I do point out, Hon. Members, that you are entitled to quote

from them in this chamber, if you wish to take the

responsibility for their accuracy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Members have the right to correct inaccuracies.

When the references made are to third parties not present in this House and

there is a misquotation or, at least, a misunderstanding of the statement made

due to incomplete quotation, I feel it necessary to point out that the person

(Dr. Keenleyside) in question who is referred to by the Minister in committee

in no way, as I said at the time, was referring to British Columbia or to Canada.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I will

file a document.

MR, SPEAKER: What is the nature of the document?

HON. MR. COCKE: It is a letter I was requested to file with

the House in committee.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada