1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 3ist 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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1977

Night Sitting

[ Page

521 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget debate

On the amendment.

Mr. King — 521

Mr. Lauk — 524

Mr. Lloyd — 530

Mr. D'Arcy — 532

Mr. Barrett — 536

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 543

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1977

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, might I just say to you before you start this evening that you have 22 minutes left to speak.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I accept that, Mr.

Speaker. I'll try to condense my criticism of the government. If it

were to take its full-blown course it would undoubtedly take two and a

half weeks. I'll try to condense that into 22 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment, I had recited for the House

my disenchantment with the fact that the government has failed to

participate in the amendment to the budget, which deals precisely with

the kind of action that is necessary to get the economy of B.C. moving

again, to try to generate the investment climate in the province which

would put the 92,000 people to work who are presently unemployed.

When I say 92,000 people, I think for the first time in my life I am

being a conservative, because I suspect when the next statistics are

released by the Department of Labour the figure is going to be in the

area of 100,000 people who are unemployed in the province of British

Columbia.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Shame!

MR. KING: Needless to say, this affects government revenue as

well as imposing tremendous hardship on people who have lost their

regular income, who are confronted with an unyielding and a rigid

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), to try to provide

some alternatives for those who fail to qualify for unemployment

insurance because of the strengthening of the federal regulations.

Unfortunately, many of our working people have not worked long enough

during the summer to obtain the necessary stamps to qualify for

short-term benefits, much less benefits for the eight and 10 months

that many of the people have been unemployed.

I have recited personal experiences within my own riding of people who fall

between the gaps of all these social services. They fail to qualify for unemployment

insurance. They fail to qualify for any social assistance from that less than

charitable Minister of Human Resources because of a rigid, insensitive, inhumane

administration. For the first time, as I indicated earlier, in my political

life, I have encountered people in this province — in my own hometown — who

were confronted with actual hunger.

I don't find that very amusing. I find it less amusing when the

opposition moves an amendment in an attempt to develop some rational

debate on what thrusts the government's economic policy should take,

and we find a complete absence of any willingness of the cabinet and

the back bench to participate in the kind of discussion that we are

paid to be here and engage in, to come to grips with the problems of

people in B.C. I can only interpret it in one of two ways: either as

unmitigated arrogance and contempt for this institution as the forum

for dealing with people's economic problems, or as complete and utter

subservience to the interests of the small group of millionaires and

the corporate giants in this province to the complete exclusion of

working people, the senior citizens, the handicapped and all of those

groups.

AN HON. MEMBER: Small-business people.

MR. KING: Yes, the small-business people. I predict, Mr.

Speaker, we are going to have a bankruptcy rate in the year 1976-1977

of unprecedented levels simply because this government, through their

taxation policies, through their lack of any policies to stimulate the

economy, are centralizing funds in Victoria, are shrinking and eroding

the disposable income of people, with the end result that there is no

purchasing power in the hands of the people to buy those meals at the

restaurant, to buy those clothes at the haberdashers. Yes, when you

look at the exodus of British Columbians from our fair province down to

the U.S., just south of the 49th, to stock up on groceries and clothes

and other household effects, it simply gives emphasis to what I am

saying. There is adequate evidence.

We like to chide and kid the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) about purchasing his suits in Calgary, to

escape the impost of the 7 per cent sales tax which this government has

placed on commodities in the province. It's a symbol, Mr. Speaker. It's

a symbol, but it's real, and the economy of British Columbia is the

loser.

I expected a bit more from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) when he spoke in the debate yesterday. He represents a

ministry that is certainly basic to the economic health of this

province. The primary resource, the base of this province, is founded

on the forest industry.

Many people are fond of tossing out the observation that in excess of 50 cents of every dollar

[ Page 522 ]

is derived from the forest industry in the province

of British Columbia. Yet the minister made some interesting comments

yesterday, in terms of assessing the state of the industry as it is

now. He fell very short of offering any new policy directions that

would stimulate the industry or that would provide employment. But he

talked about getting big or small companies that are sitting on large

blocks of timber moving. He talked about getting them moving, or

returning to the Crown, the timber that they are sitting on. He not

only made that comment in this House, but he has made it at a variety

of public meetings that he has addressed around the province over the

past few months.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker: You should not blow your little faint

kisses at me. You should blow your faint kisses at the 92,000 people who are

unemployed in this province at the moment.

They are the ones who would like a little bit of charity from the minister.

I certainly don't want to become physical with him. I would rather wax philosophical

and try to appeal to his mind, if that is possible, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, he talks about this timber that

companies are sitting on — that are excess to their needs — and he

makes rumblings about either demanding from them that they utilize the

wood that they hold or removing it. I think that's a pretty good

direction. But rather than the minister going around rattling sabres,

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that he give notice to those companies now that

either they fully utilize the Crown timber that they hold, or they'll

be required to relinquish it. I think that that's an eminently

reasonable position to take.

But I say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, let the public in on your

policy. Don't go around wiffle-waffling all over the place and making

brave statements at public meetings. Develop a policy. You are now a

minister of the Crown, despite the fact that you seem to be unable to

take it too seriously. I say that it is the obligation of a minister of

the Crown, particularly one in such a crucial area, to develop policy,

to let the public in on it, and to serve fair notice on the industry so

they know where they stand. Vague threats that this timber may be

removed from them do little to add to the stability of the industry. It

fails to provide the necessary timber to those small and medium

operators who are now lacking in wood products to retain their work

force and stay in operation.

I think the minister has a further obligation, Mr. Speaker, to

identify the areas to which he's referring. It is not good enough for a

minister of the Crown to go around with vague allegations. If there are

companies in the forest industry in British Columbia that are sitting

on large tracts of timber that they are failing to utilize fully — or

lack of technology and the efficiency to utilize fully — then the

minister has the obligation to identify those companies, to serve

notice, and to let the public in on his conclusions and is criteria.

His brave statements are not good enough. He has the authority to act.

Mr. Speaker, such a direction was advocated in the Pearse report and

certainly I would have no argument with that. I think that the

availability of timber to the medium- and small-size operators would

indeed stimulate employment in the province of British Columbia. I have

discussed privately with the minister the needs of certain operators

within my own constituency who are operating on a fraction of their

capacity because of an unavailability of wood products, and I'm

certainly familiar with the same problem that exists in many other

areas of the province.

Now, the Pearse report, I think, to which he has paid lip service

but refused to act upon, supports the minister's general statements.

The Pearse report criticizes extremely the former Social Credit

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for letting MacMillan

Bloedel sit on some of the old tenures in the province of British

Columbia that were never fully utilized — timber that was

underestimated in the first instance and proved to be far in excess of

the needs of MacMillan Bloedel. That is a very strong thrust contained

in the Pearse commission report. Unfortunately, not only was that

production lost to British Columbia, but as commissioner Pearse noted,

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources of that era allowed

this kind of situation to prevail beyond his statutory right. He

violated the provisions of this authority as minister to let this

position prevail. He was shocked, he said. He found it highly improper

that MacMillan Bloedel was allowed to sit on good timber that was in

excess of their needs.

Now is the new minister, who has criticized this very proposition,

going to act on the basis of his own observations and on the basis of

the recommendations contained in the Pearse commission report? Is he

going to demand of MacMillan Bloedel that they either utilize this

timber and employ people, or relinquish that timber and make it

available on a competitive basis to many of those small- and

medium-size operators no longer able to get a piece of the action? I

think he has this obligation, Mr. Speaker.

Is he going to open up these holdings, holdings that were improperly

put in cold storage by his predecessor in the Social Credit government,

Mr. Williston — holdings that were improperly allowed to be put under

the control of MacMillan Bloedel by his predecessor, an action for

which he was roundly criticized by the commissioner, Mr. Pearse? I

think they should be opened up. I think the small people of

[ Page 523 ]

the province should have an opportunity to bid for

them, get a piece of the action and generate some employment,

particularly throughout the rural regions of this province.

The minister gave us a dissertation about inefficiency. He said that

inefficiency bothered him a great deal and he pointed to the work force

of the province as a prime area where inefficiency is affecting the

competitive position of the forest industry. I say that's fine; I

endorse those remarks — we certainly have to be competitive, we

certainly have to be efficient and we certainly have to maintain our

productivity on as high a basis as possible. But I resent the

preoccupation of not only the Minister of Forests, but also that of his

colleagues, with efficiency in the labour force without ever

acknowledging the evidence of efficiency, as was revealed in the Pearse

commission report, on the part of some of the large forest industries

in this province.

Their inefficiency is manifested by their failure to replace

physical plant. Over the past number of years profits earned in British

Columbia were diverted to investments in other areas of the world where

perhaps the labour market was much cheaper, perhaps safety standards

much lower and exploitation of working people generally allowed to run

rampant. Now there are two sides to the productivity and the efficiency

story. We cannot only demand it of the workers; we must demand it of

the industry as well if we are to have a healthy forest industry in the

province.

What about the minister himself, Mr. Speaker? He demands efficiency

on the part of the trade-union movement involved in the forest

industry, and I find it somewhat curious that he sets himself up as

some kind of sidewalk superintendent to comment on the efficiency of

the work force. I doubt that he has done any research.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I hope the minister is not going to attack me.

(Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, what do we find that minister doing? He is

new, he is naive, he is green, but he is well-meaning. He is

well-meaning. But here we have a royal commission that files an

exhaustive report on the state of the forest industry, and the minister

comes in here, quotes it and says: "You know, these are good ideas."

But does he get moving on the basis of the recommendations of that

royal commission? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. Not on your life! Do

you know what he does? He appoints a committee to investigate and to

analyse the report of the royal commission into the ills of the forest

industry. A committee to analyse the committee, Mr. Speaker — is that

the minister's idea of efficiency and productivity?

He is the man who is criticizing the workers in the forest industry.

He has set up a committee of bureaucrats from his own department to

conduct an investigation into the Pearse report. They even had the

nerve, Mr. Speaker, to invite me to make a representation to that

committee of the minister's bureaucrats.

MR. BARRETT: You've got to be kidding!

MR. KING: Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, after the Pearse

commission conducted hearings through the length and breadth of this

province, invited submissions from the trade-union movement, from the

large operators and the small operators, any interested politician, any

interested citizen, spent a considerable amount of the taxpayers' money

— exhaustive hearings, one of the finest, most detailed reports in

recent history into the forest industry — then that minister sets up a

committee of his bureaucrats from his department, then writes me a

letter — presumably the Liberal leader got one, and the Tory also, as

the forest critics for their department — and, would you believe, asks

me to make a submission to the bureaucrats within the minister's

department?

Mr. Speaker, I have the idea — and perhaps it's a bit quaint — that

we were elected by the people of British Columbia to come into this

Legislature and talk about the ills of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I have the idea — and perhaps it's a bit quaint — that

we were elected by the people of British Columbia to come into this

Legislature and talk about the ills of the economy and try to come to

grips with the needs of the people of B.C. Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to

you that this reveals an attitude of contempt which the government

holds for this chamber. They don't want to enter into the debate; they

don't want to speak on the motion; they do not wish to defend their

budgetary thrust. Perhaps they are bereft of any stomach for that task.

I can understand that, but surely to goodness it's going a bit far when

that minister criticizes inefficiency in the industry over which he has

control and then sets up a committee to study the committee report

which is exhaustive, detailed and intelligent, deals with the ills of

the forest industry and makes precise, detailed recommendations on the

moves that should be undertaken to remedy those ills. It's a bit much,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just draw your attention to the fact that you are on your last three minutes.

MR. KING: Yes, I was hoping you wouldn't do that, Mr. Speaker.

I want to suggest to the, minister that he holds a portfolio in the

government that certainly is one that is basic and fundamental to the

economy of British

[ Page 524 ]

Columbia. Certainly, in terms of creating jobs, in

terms of getting the economy going again, that is one area of our

economy that requires stimulation.

We have a report conducted by the Pearse commission.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I demand another five minutes until

you get the House under control. No one can hear me, and I am sure

everyone in the gallery really wants to hear what I am saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would be quite prepared to

acquiesce to your request if you were the first member of the House who

had ever been interrupted. But I must say to all the members of the

House that the roar is getting a little too high. The member has an

opportunity to complete his speech, I hope, with everyone listening.

MR. KING: I feel better already, Mr. Speaker. I may not be

the first member who has been interrupted but I am certainly the last

and the mostest. But anyway, I appreciate your intervention.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying to the Minister of

Forests that his speech was shocking. He is the person above all, I

think, other than the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who should have come into the House with some advice, some

strategy plan, some thrust to really lay before this House a policy

based on instituting the Pearse recommendations. After all, those

recommendations were developed with the broadest possible consultation

with the industry and with the public of the province of British

Columbia.

We don't need a minister who sits on that report for another six

months before any action is forthcoming. We have a report by a

well-qualified individual, Dr. Pearse, who has done an excellent job

which has been hailed in almost every sector of the province. I suggest

to the minister that rather than coming in here with a lame-duck way,

criticizing the productivity of the work force of British Columbia and

striking a committee to study the committee report, that we expect from

him and his colleagues who are the government of the day, and yet seem

to fail to recognize that.... We demand from them and the people of the

province demand from them a precise strategy, a precise and dynamic

policy to get the economy of this province moving again and to put the

92,000 citizens of British Columbia who are now unemployed to work.

There are 92,000 citizens of British Columbia unemployed, with regions

of the province running up to 18, 19 and 20 per cent unemployed, with

the spectre of that situation becoming much more aggravated and much

more severe over the next and more harsh winter months.

It's a terrible performance by this government. In the one sense, I

still state, Mr. Speaker, that it's arrogance for the government

members not to get up and engage in this debate. On the other hand, I

must express some sympathy and some understanding for their reluctance

to do so when their ammunition and their defence of their just

impossible position is so weak and so pale.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): It is a pleasant surprise

to have such a greeting, Mr. Speaker. To think if one of their members

got up and spoke they could have avoided all of this that is about to

happen to them! (Laughter.)

I notice that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) is reading this week's copy of Oilweek .

I am delighted to see that. Way to go, Jack! Maybe you can find out how

it is that Alberta and Southern, Westcoast Transmission and others have

determined that there were insufficient gas reserves for the Grizzly

Valley pipeline. Two million dollars later — and several thousand

shares and Arthur Weeks — somebody found gas. I think most of the gas,

Mr. Speaker, is on Howe Street. Perhaps he could find that in Oilweek and tell the House in this debate.

I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) when he decries the lack of response to

the opposition critique in this debate on the amendment. But seeing

they won't defend themselves, I will. No member of the government back

bench or no front bencher has risen to defend themselves, and I would

like to take the opportunity to defend them now, Mr. Speaker, on the

debate.

I deny that the reduction in welfare and Mincome payments is crass

and unfeeling and heartless. I deny that on behalf of the government. I

am defending the government on that. Somebody has to pay for the drop

in resource revenue and succession duties. Somebody has to pay, and I'm

really quite surprised at the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber)

criticizing this government because some members have had $1.33 — I

think it was the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) — off

their Mincome cheque, and others $2.10. It all adds up, you know. It's

necessary. It's got to add up to the $25 million or $30 million that's

been taken away by succession duties and resource taxation in this

province.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Why don't you let the Premier make a defence?

MR. LAUK: No, no, no. That's the only defence there is. I'm

giving it. The defence is: somebody has to pay, and it always is the

people who are least able to defend themselves. It is the people who

have been cut off from the mainstream of society because of

[ Page 525 ]

economic conditions who are bullied by this government….

MR. BARRETT: It's the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what gets the pain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does the defence rest?

MR. LAUK: This budget, while doing nothing to create

employment, Mr. Speaker, and wealth for the people of British Columbia

during an economic and unemployment crisis, does contrast quite clearly

the kind of philosophy expressed by the right-wing Social Credit

government with the philosophy of the New Democratic Party. The NDP is

of the view that a reasonable increased burden of taxation be borne by

the super-rich and the corporations of this province — particularly

resource corporations. The people of British Columbia own the

resources. This is not in dispute by anyone on either side of the House.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Oh, I wouldn't say that.

MR. LAUK: The people of this province own the resources.

However, the people of British Columbia, under this present government,

are receiving less and less return for the exploitation of those

resources. The NDP administration, through its progressive policies of

increasing the burden of taxation onto resource companies, set up the

B.C. Petroleum Corporation, and if it were not for that Petroleum

Corporation this year, an even greater burden of taxation would be

placed on the average British Columbia working family.

Last year we pointed out that by the increased taxes and charges of

the budget for 1976-1977, the average working family would have to pay

an additional $1,200 a year over and above their regular taxes, charges

and expenses towards governments of all description. In one year we

have seen that there is absolutely no effort to change this unfortunate

situation and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, it has been reversed. We won't

even go back to the New Democratic Party's administration budget which

relieved the ordinary working family from taxation to a great degree. A

little over 29 to 30 per cent of the taxation burden under our

administration were resource and corporate taxes in this province. I

will catalogue for you how that has changed under the Social Credit

administration.

Last year, in 1976-1977 budget, the total budget was $3,587,250,000.

Are you listening? That was the budget. The people of the province,

through their taxes — social services tax, sales tax, the personal

income tax, Mr. Minister of Finance — totalled $2,732,850,000. The

burden on resource companies and on corporations was $854,400,000. The

burden on resource companies was 25 per cent on the budget; the burden

on the people of British Columbia was approximately 75 per cent of the

budget. This budget, giving rise to this amendment, totalled

$3,829,900,000.

The people's burden was $3,062,510,000, 80 per cent of the burden,

an increase of 5 per cent of the total budgetary burden on the people

of this province. There was a decrease from last year on the resource

companies and other companies of the province of $767,390,000, only 20

per cent of the burden.

I want to refer you to some speeches. Let's play the guessing game,

Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. members guess who said this on February

12,1974, in discussing the budget of that year?

"We have difficulty in relating this budget to having

received the bulk of this revenue from resources, because in going

through the estimates of receipts we find that most of the taxes still

come from people. Property taxes, fuel taxes, personal income taxes,

succession taxes" — he includes that — "sales taxes, contributions from

other governments which come from taxes, contributions from government

enterprises. We know people pay those."

He has included taxes in there that I haven't in my estimates:

succession duties, I haven't; contributions from other governments, I

haven't.

He says:

"And in reality very little of this budget is coming

from the resource industries directly in the way of privileges,

licences, natural resources and royalties. So I don't think that this

can necessarily be called a Robin Hood budget, or a resource budget, or

a share-the-wealth budget. What it is is a very big budget reflecting

the economy of British Columbia and burdening the ordinary people of

British Columbia."

This was William Richards Bennett, after having recently taken his seat in the House, February 12, 1974.

How about March 3, 1975? Again, it is a different budget. He says:

"It replaces an expanding reliance on revenue income

from resource industries with dependence on people taxes, Mr. Speaker.

Taxes which directly affect people are up on a staggering scale, while

revenues from forestry and mining are dramatically down. Property

taxes, Mr. Speaker, just to the province, not concerning the rise in

property taxes to the municipalities, are up $5 million."

What are they up today? Those are people taxes, not corporation

taxes. Sales taxes, which our people pay, are up $155 million; personal

income taxes are up $172 million. They're up $310 million under this

[ Page 526 ]

administration in one year and he's complaining in

1975, the worst inflation year, that personal income taxes are $172

million up from the previous year.

Then he goes on to talk about gasoline taxes being up $60 million.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to embarrass him.

MR. BARRETT: I promise not to tell.

MR. LAUK: It's the member for South Okanagan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: The member for South Okanagan said hotel taxes are

up $3 million, especially at the Capri. And look, liquor income is up

$50 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Shocking!

"I guess the only escape, " he says, "in British Columbia these

years is to drink more because liquor taxes are predicted to be $50

million more this year. On the other hand, forestry is down from last

year's estimates; mining is down $6 million. More from people and less

from resources, Mr. Speaker," he says.

Again, on March 24, 1975, on the 1975 budget, he says:

"We see that the pressure developing in this budget as

a greater share of the budget than ever before is paid by the people of

this province. Taxes from people. The sales tax, the personal income

tax — more taxes from people. Property tax, as the member for South

Peace River says, is escalating as a provincial revenue source and

escalating to people in the municipalities because they're not being

financially fairly dealt with by this province's provincial government."

Now, I don't blame the Premier and the real Minister of Finance for turning his back and talking to the man reading Oilweek .

I don't blame him at all, because it's very embarrassing. Property

taxes have been increased over last year's budget in this present

budget by 4.5 per cent, an increase of almost $1 million; sales taxes

have increased by — are you ready for this? — $32.1 million; sales and

service fees are up 13 per cent or $6.5 million; liquor sales are up by

21 per cent; personal income taxes are up more in one year than in any

other year in the history of this province — 37 per cent, $300 million.

It's not good enough to explain that this will be partly the two

federal points that we've got from them. The federal government has

given up two points of taxation and we're supposed to be taking over

two points. That only accounts for approximately $80 million. The other

$220 million is on the backs of the working family of this province

that has to pay for the giveaway policies of this government in mining,

succession duties and forestry.

Contrast this with the income the government intends to receive from

other sources such as resource corporations. Natural resource taxes

royalties are down 16 per cent by $87 million over last year.

Somebody has to pay the millionaires' share of taxation, and that of

the corporations. It is now the working family. It is unfortunate,

indeed, that when one makes an attempt to point out the frailties in

the approach of this government they seem unwilling and uninterested to

listen. They will not, with some great degree of arrogance, enter into

this debate. I find that a very contemptuous thing for them to do.

Well, I ask them to listen to one thing. The people of this province

elected all of us. We were elected to represent the people and so were

you. The Legislature is a forum of debate to bring out contrasting

philosophy and approaches and alternatives to government, and we made

this amendment for that purpose. For you not to enter into debate and

for you to completely ignore the critique by the opposition parties is

a total failure on your part to accept the democratic system. People

are saying all over this province that your arrogance and your contempt

should not go unanswered and will not be forgotten.

Well, now that I've got everybody's undivided attention, I'll deal

with M.E.L. Paving. You know, it amuses me when there's a great call

for reason and rational debate in the province of British Columbia. It

amuses me when there's a call in this Legislature to have an exchange

of rational thought, to contrast each other's philosophies and

approaches to the administration when this kind of thing occurs, every

time someone gets up and makes a rational speech. It happens every

time, and the contempt and the arrogance that that shows is something

that must disappoint visitors in the gallery, because I'll tell the

people of this province what you….

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Do you know what the visitors expect? They expect a

rational debate. But do you know what gets their attention? It's called

a 2-by-4, and after a year in government we didn't expect that we'd

have so many 2-by-4s with which to get their attention. After 12 months

we have a government riddled by scandal, a government that's on the

ropes as far as its reputation is concerned, a government whose

honesty, as a whole, is very much in question across this country —

after only 12 months. They didn't even make it to the end of the year.

The hands were in the cookie jar before they took office — the

[ Page 527 ]

anniversary date of their taking office. Their hands got slammed shut in the till. Poor Arthur Weeks.

The one thing about Grizzlygate that bothers me…. It's certainly

directly applicable to this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad that

you're looking very carefully over here. What I can't understand is why

everybody is concentrating on these share transactions, and this

insider trading, and Arthur Weeks' cookie-jar routine, and his Howe

Street raising of money to buy shares, and the rumours that are

floating around. Let's not worry about that. How did it start? All the

evidence shows — and this isn't the subject of the order-in-council but

it should be — that there's no gas.

Now ask yourselves these questions about what kind of situation has

arisen here. There was not sufficient gas. There were no tests to prove

that there was gas. The Premier stood up in the House the other day and

said it was supervised by the Petroleum Corporation. That's not

correct. It wasn't. There was no Petroleum Corporation officer, no

official from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation in the field. There was

none in the field. So when he stood up in this House and he said that

it was supervised, he didn't know the truth. I'm sure he wouldn't have

told an untruth, would he have, Mr. Speaker? I mean, he's not the type

that would twist the truth, although it's been recently suggested.

So why the Grizzly Valley pipeline? And why the $2 million? You've

got to ask yourself the question — $2 million, out of money that we

need in this province, to the consortium that's going to build the

Grizzly Valley pipeline. Was it a payoff? Was it a payoff to Alberta

and Southern Gas? How did they get out of that contract? Alberta and

Southern Gas expended almost $30 million exploring in that area, and

now they don't seem to be a participating part of the consortium. What

was that $2 million for?

Mr. Speaker, that pipeline is never going to be built. It's nothing

but a stock manipulation, pure and simple. It is a hoax on the people

of British Columbia, and Arthur Weeks has already made his money —

money which should be in this budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you know that the whole matter of

the development at Grizzly Valley is before a commission. Now I suggest

to you that you are drawing hypothetical conclusions…

MR. LAUK: Inescapable conclusions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hypothetical, hon. member.

…which would perhaps be construed to try to influence decisions

which will be made. Now, I would hope that in the profession in which

you are employed you'd realize you can't try to predetermine the facts

that will be presented, or the evidence that will be presented before

that commission. I would hope that you would be the last to try to

introduce into the House something that would in any way be taken by

the appointed commissioner as interference in his particular area at

the present time. So be guided by that, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am within the proper purview of

debate in the forum here. The judicial inquiry is to investigate Weeks

and others who may have profited by insider knowledge by virtue of the

announcement to build the Grizzly Valley pipeline. What I'm talking

about are the reserves and the background to the building of that

pipeline, which is not within the purview of Mr. Justice Kirke Smith,

and which has to be debated somewhere along the line. That's why I want

to know where that $2 million came from.

MR. SPEAKER: As long as you relate your remarks to the amendment before us, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, those are the

comments I have to make. It's unfortunate that the inquiry will not go

into the whole basis for building the pipeline because if the scandal

started anywhere, that's where it started — that's where the scandal is

going. How do you build a pipeline when there's no gas? How do you do

that? I mean, that's amazing.

The administration that I was a part of had the most detailed

reports that there was no gas. Now we've had a lot of gas in this

House, with no pipeline, but how do you have a pipeline with no gas?

What are they going to pump through it? Fertilizer?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): There's a lot of that in here, too.

MR. LAUK: Since I spoke in the throne debate, Mr. Speaker, I

have a few comments on M.E.L. Paving. I am concerned that recently

there have been a number of proposed settlements that may put a stress

on this already threadbare budget. I am rather concerned about it.

Since I spoke in the throne debate, several developments have taken

place in the M.E.L. Paving scandal.

After my speech in the throne debate the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) gave birth to an afterthought. He announced a retroactive,

secret investigation within his ministry, misdirected to criminal fraud

when the issue is really civil fraud. Let's discover whether that's

there first, then we can discuss criminal fraud. We know those

provisions very well.

M.E.L. Paving charged civil fraud, and if the directors of the

railway or the staff were involved in any way in civil fraud, then the

public is entitled to know all about it. That's what I think. It is not

[ Page 528 ]

something to be hushed up in a non-public, in-House

inquiry. If the evidence also shows criminal fraud, then of course this

must be dealt with too, but I stress that the only charges made to date

are civil fraud, and that charge must not be sidelined, resulting in

the Attorney-General reporting there is no criminal fraud there,

everything is fine so it is not necessary to look any further.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am waiting patiently for you to relate your remarks to the amendment before the House.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the hon. minister knows how to do that very

well. He's the only gentleman of this House I've ever seen cram a

five-minute speech into two hours. (Laughter.) In any event, Mr.

Speaker, I'm certainly glad he's here.

MR. LEA: Air West isn't running.

MR. LAUK: No, he doesn't need to go to Point Grey — those are the old days.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): If I'd known you were speaking, I'd have stayed away.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you can still leave, Pat.

MR. LAUK: You know, that's not unusual for you.

How I'm relating this to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is just this:

if these cases go on being settled, there won't be any money left in

the budget. There just won't be any money left. Where will it stop? How

much fraud do we have to pay for? How much sweeping under the carpet

does this meagre budget have to pay for? Does it mean that the senior

citizens are going to lose their campsites to pay for these settlements?

MR. LEA: And their free passes on the ski tows — you overgenerous group.

MR. LAUK: I'm saying that this in-house inquiry could be used

as a red herring by this government to cover up the fact that there was

civil fraud, and I make that point very clearly. I'll say it again:

this government could use this in-house inquiry as a red herring to

cover up the fact that there was civil fraud. The Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) stressed, and the Premier also emphasized this fact,

that a major part of this in-house inquiry will be a review of the

transcript of evidence in the M.E.L. Paving trial. Well, everybody's

had a review of that. We saw it reprinted in the press after some

prodding. That transcript only tells half the story is what I'm trying

to say. The evidence in the transcript alleges that the railway's

directors and Mr. Broadbent, the railway vice-president, were involved

in a civil fraud that was admitted when the government settled out of

court. But none of the directors, or Mr. Broadbent, gave any evidence

at the trial. No review of evidence can be undertaken unless the

directors give evidence and are open to cross-examination in public, as

they would have been in court.

Now, there's a contradiction, and I asked the Attorney-General but he wasn't here.

MR. LEA: He hasn't been here for a long time.

MR. LAUK: He's been sick. I think that we should send him

some flowers. I hope he gets better. But Mr. Williston denied that the

board of directors ever dealt with the M.E.L. Paving contract, in

direct contradiction to Mr. Broadbent who said that they did. And

wouldn't it be interesting for the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) to table the BCR minutes dealing with the M.E.L.

Paving contract? I don't have a photographic memory, but I do recall

something in there about the M.E.L. Paving contract, going back to

1972. Maybe that would help Mr. Williston's memory. You remember Mr.

Williston, Mr. Speaker? He knew all about budgets.

Mr. Speaker, I have just so much to say about the M.E.L. Paving

case. Everybody's called for an open judicial inquiry — even Jim Hume,

or should I say especially Jim Hume? Let's be fair. Jim Hume of the Colonist says….

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Hume. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Hume. That's right. I'm quoting the real

substantial part of his entire

article right now: "Their call for a

judicial inquiry has merit." (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the case?

MR. LAUK: Way to go, Jim! The Colonist , January 30, 1977, hot off the press.

Frances Russell of the Sun says:

"The Attorney-General's in-house investigation won't

satisfy the legitimate need of the public to know the truth of this

sordid case. This investigation will not be public. The results will

not necessarily be public and, indeed, the exercise could serve as a

mechanism for keeping information from the public."

Heaven forbid! The Vancouver Sun , January 28, 1977.

Victoria Times editorial…. Victoria Times — that's where they had a cartoonist once. (Laughter.) Do you remember that fellow? I think I heard

[ Page

529 ]

someone screaming out the back. A couple of

ministerial executive assistants were dragging some poor fellow out to

a stake. He looked very much like this cartoonist fellow. Anyway, the Victoria Times editorial said:

"Without an independent judicial inquiry into the

M.E.L. Paving case, a shadow will remain over this government and its

Socred predecessor. It is ironic that the NDP's call for an independent

inquiry was enjoined by the current Attorney-General as early as 1974.

Nothing has changed except Gardom's political affiliation and the odd

out-of-court settlement effected by the government last December 24."

All we need now is a death-bed repentance from Paddy Sherman. Have you checked the Telex? (Laughter.)

I think that the public opinion in this province is quite clear, Mr.

Speaker. It's not only this side of the House that's calling for some

sunshine in — it's the whole province. I think that would be the

honourable and the gentlemanly and the responsible thing to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't do it.

MR. LAUK: But, you know, the cherry on the cheesecake has to come tonight — tonight's Vancouver Sun .

You know, we warned them. There are two reasons, economic and in

principle, why we shouldn't settle the M.E.L., Paving case, not to

mention the fact that counsel advised that the government could win it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Do you want to try those facts again and get them right?

MR. LAUK: You know, ever since he left his brains in Point

Grey…. He used to work at Point Grey on brains, you know. No, really,

we paid him something over $35,000 a year to get people's brains and

unfold them and fold them out at Point Grey. Then he was appointed to

the cabinet and he left his brains in Point Grey and came here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Folded or unfolded?

MR. LAUK: He bought himself a new suit, told people to sell

their cars, and he's happy as a clam, Mr. Speaker. He just loves it.

He's the Minister of Health, Minister of Education, Minister of ICBC.

MR. WALLACE: A man for all seasons.

MR. LAUK: Mostly winter, though. (Laughter.) In tonight's Vancouver

Sun it says: "And we knew that everybody would line up at the wicket as

soon as these dunces settled with M.E.L. Paving for $5 million or whatever it

was." Oh, sure. "Here, fellows — let's keep this quiet! Here's

the money."

MR. BARRETT: Christmas Eve!

MR. LAUK: Santa Claus gave M.E.L. Paving the settlement, then

the line-up. They're all the way around the block, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody that even provided sandwiches to the BCR is down there asking

for a renegotiated contract.

Let's talk about the cherry on the cheesecake. You remember the

cherry — Ben Ginter. Oh, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) and the Premier know Ben Ginter.

AN HON. MEMBER: So do you.

MR. LAUK: He's an old Okanagan Valley crony; he's one of

their pals. Old Phil and Ben used to walk arm-in-arm down the street.

They had a little bit of a tiff the other day.

"A fifth company, Argus Construction Ltd., is

negotiating with the B.C. Railway for payment of over $2 million in

connection with overruns experienced on the Fort St. James extension of

the railway.

"Argus owner, Ben Ginter, confirmed Monday he has been

negotiating with the railway for a week and he said he expects to meet

with railway officials later this week. He said the amount he is

seeking is an original claim made in 1971 of $1.6 million plus

interest. 'The total is over $2 million,' he said.

"Ginter made a claim to the railway in October, 1971, after Argus suffered overruns of 60 per cent."

M.E.L. Paving and Red Deer and Keen Industries….

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): You paid him off and you know it.

MR. LEA: For another one of your stupid contracts.

MR. LAUK: Derril Warren has advised….

HON. MR. CHABOT: He joined the party after you paid him off, too.

MR. LEA: I think your leader would be a lot happier if you didn't bring that up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

Interjections.

[ Page 530 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I wish the hon. members of this House would provide

me the same courtesy I provide them, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) I didn't

mean that.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure they will.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, Derril Warren tonight has

advised KRM and Keen to consider legal action against the BCR, as the

BCR has refused to renegotiate. Warren has advised Keen and KRM to

retain counsel.

I understand that Mr. Ginter was on TV tonight. That might get him

off unemployment. He's been having a tough time lately, and boy, does

he know a good thing when he sees it! Bush league. He knows the rules;

he knows it when he sees it. Or did you know this would happen but you

settled anyway? What kind of motivation was there?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Someone said: "Don't nag. I know I'm a little bit

crooked and a little dishonest, but don't nag." We're going to nag. We

want this government to be honest. You may ignore the legislative

debate but we are not going to. We want governments in this province to

be as honest as we were. It's not too much to ask; it's the least we

can ask.

Take a look at this budget, Mr. Speaker. It is an absolutely dull

budget. I have to associate myself with the hon. Liberal leader's (Mr.

Gibson'

s) words in this budget: "It's so uncreative it's beyond

description." We're in massive unemployment and an economic downturn.

The budget provides for no jobs, no economic stimulation, nothing.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) memorized his telephone number…

MR. BARRETT: Finally.

MR. LAUK: …finally. He's careening and reeling under scandal

after scandal. He should be relieved and relieved now, so we can get

other than a lame-duck minister in there. I have nothing personally

against that minister; personally, I like him very much. He's a very,

very pleasant person. As a small-town businessman, he's just perfect.

Everybody likes him. But that's not the issue. I hope he doesn't take

any of this personally.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm speaking for myself. But I will say this:

he is impaired in his present position. He cannot carry on as Minister

of Economic Development and provide jobs for this province. Every day

he is concerned with one scandal or the next; he is every day

careening, and wheeling, and bouncing off walls. We need a person who

is clear-headed, without any shadow over his responsibilities, to get

down to business and to provide the economic development in this

province that we need. For the Premier to mother-hen him at this time

is a big mistake. He is enough of a man to step down from the cabinet

until such time, and if such time arrives, as he is cleared and his

ministry is cleared of any suspicion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you haven't noticed it, you are on your final three minutes.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I say that is that in this budget at a time of

unemployment which will only decrease revenues to this government, at a

time when they are placing more burden on the working family with a 37

per cent increase in personal income taxes, they are occupying their

entire concentration on M.E.L. Paving, on Grizzly Valley and on every

other scandal that comes by. In the meantime the real, proper

responsibilities of a government to administer the economy and the

affairs of this province are being neglected, to the great sadness and

the great suffering of the people of this province and particularly, as

has been pointed out so ably by my colleagues, the little people, the

people who are cut off from the mainstream of society, who don't have a

million dollars that allows them to feel rather comfortable at this

stage of time, the people whose only gift from the government this year

is a free campsite. The little people in this province, the ordinary

working people of this province who provide the bulk of your revenue —

over $3 billion, over 80 per cent of the budget — have been ignored.

It takes so little, Mr. Speaker, to provide that kind of economic

stimulus. But the one thing we know it does take is a clear-headed

minister, who is not distracted by scandal and other matters, to

concentrate purely on economic development.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I was quite

impressed with the opening ceremonies, the blessing we had from

Reverend Rex Krepps where he mentioned that we should sit in this

Legislature and deal with our hearts and not our heads, and he

mentioned that we should disagree without being disagreeable. He also

made mention of the weary round that saps the strength, frays the

nerves and adds nothing to the usefulness of carrying on the government

business, I thought that was very fitting and I would certainly like to

see us get back on that particular track.

As backbenchers over here, we have been

[ Page

531 ]

tantalized to get up and respond to the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty difficult to respond to a tirade like we

had from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I looked very closely

and watched very closely and I couldn't see where he was saying

anything constructive. What kind of a response does he want — just

somebody to get up and throw mud back across the House? All he really

spoke of was the Liberal menace in the Social Credit ranks. Then he

continued to carry on and tried to intimidate the whole back bench.

Sound and fury, but no substance, no suggestions for improvement.

That's really dealing with the province's business, isn't it?

However, I'm not going to carry on. As I said, I didn't get up here to throw mud back at the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: We promise not to haunt you any more.

MR. LLOYD: I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, that during

the opening of the House, when I seconded the throne speech, I made

particular mention that I don't think our province's fault is all the

fault of labour. I think everybody is trying to take too much out of

the system. I mentioned that the business markup is too high. I

stressed that $10 for an electrician and a $30 charge for his service

isn't necessary; that isn't the kind of thing that built our province.

I think we have to watch all the way along the line. The professional

rates are too high — lawyers are charging far too much for their

services.

I have a close friend in the law business in Prince George and he

told me that if their costs and their rates keep going up the same as

they have in the last three years, the average person won't be able to

hire a lawyer anymore.

MR. BARRETT: How lucky can we get.

MR. LLOYD: Possibly we could take the socialist theory and

try to have the government pay for it all. But just because it's a

closed association, I think it's about time they looked at this and

policed it themselves. They are not the only ones — the other

professionals that have closed ranks are in the same boat. We have the

accountants, the dentists and the engineers. Since they changed the tax

laws, nobody can do his own books any more. It now costs more to have

somebody look at your books than it used to cost to have them done. I

think it's about time everybody had a close look — that's what's been

ruining the competitiveness of B.C.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) at least has something

constructive to say when he gets on his feet. He did bring up the topic that

we do need more pulp mills in the province. I certainly agree with that. We

have a tremendous surplus of chips that has been accumulating for the last several

years and I think it's really important that we get more pulp mills on stream

in British Columbia. It would also be important to help keep the price for chips

at a realistic value, if there was more competition for buying these.

But we ask why they are looking at Quebec, then. Why are they not

looking at British Columbia, to put a pulp mill in here? It is a

company that made all its fortune in British Columbia, so why don't

they'put it back into British Columbia? There must be some pretty good

reasons.

Looking at the news announcement on that pulp mill, they are looking

at a $300 million project. BCFP will get a 40 per cent share in equity

in that company for $28 million. That doesn't sound like a very bad

investment to me. They have a great deal of federal and provincial

assistance on this, quite possibly some of the assistance that B.C.

pays into the equalization grants.

But you can see why they would be willing to go down there. They

also guarantee them a loan: $25 million at 6 per cent interest with no

repayments for the first 10 years. I know an awful lot of people in

British Columbia would like to see those kinds of terms, if we could

afford it. The opposition would be the first to jump up and say we're

giving the province away. But I think it's important that if the

federal government can do it in Quebec, they also do it in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at a couple of other reasons why they don't

do it in British Columbia and why they're not looking at British

Columbia. John Fryer, in an

article the other day, stated that the

government is way out of line criticizing the B.C. government

employees. He stated some of the wage levels in that same article. He

said that a labourer working for the government gets $7.10 per hour.

When he works in the private sector, he gets $ 9.10 an hour. He didn't

just say what the private sector was. In the IWA rates in the forest

industry, a labourer gets $6.89 an hour and quite often it's for

seasonal work. He also went on to say a truck driver gets $7.54 an hour

for driving a truck in the public service. He said in the private

sector they get $8.84. In the logging profession, from the IWA rate,

for driving a heavy logging truck, they get $7.95 an hour. They're

getting more than the government's $7.54, but they're working away from

home and they're working on seasonal employment. I think he has to look

at that. They are definitely being leaders in setting rates that

industry can't afford to pay.

The IWA is proposing a $1-an-hour raise for 1977 and, when we look

at the rest of the wages around, I shouldn't wonder that they would.

But we're already the highest-paid woodworkers in North America. What's

another $1 an hour going to do to the industry? We aren't competitive

now, and certainly

[ Page 532 ]

another $1 an hour isn't going to help.

I find it kind of remarkable that the construction industry can tie

the whole province up and hold them up to blackmail, stop the

construction of all the schools and all the projects until public

pressure says: "Sign at any price." And yet Jack Munro, the big hero of

the labour movement, never gets up and stands up for those woodworkers

and says: "Hey, you fellows, hang on. I can't ask for that kind of

money for my men because it isn't there." I find it kind of surprising

and I find it kind of tiresome, too. We say in British Columbia that 50

cents of every dollar comes from the forest industry. Up in my sector

of the country it's probably closer to 80 cents out of every dollar

that comes directly from the forest industry. And I know the others in

my profession are getting a little tired of carrying the ball for all

the service people and all the government people who have it sewn up.

They've got the public blackmailed.

The Statistics Canada report of January 14 says, again, that weekly

earnings in the province are the highest in Canada. Of those,

construction leads, with mining following closely and forestry in third

place, and it's one of our prime industries. And yet we allow

construction and the service industries to bypass us. I say this is one

good reason that the pulp mills aren't looking to British Columbia

right now. We've got to straighten out this imbalance in wages and

costs,

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compare the NDP socialist theory of how

money should be spread around to people watching a poker game. The NDP

has the theory that they should never have to invest in anything and

that they should be able to sit back and watch the poker players play.

And as the pot gets bigger and bigger, they all of a sudden decide they

should get a share of it. They don't want to risk any of their capital.

They don't want to play the game. But they want to get their share of

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to do any work.

MR. LLOYD: I think they have the same approach to business.

Their thoughts on the inheritance tax — they are quite upset about

this. Yet I don't think they have any impression of the problems that

people go through and the risks that they take to stay in business and

build up some of these minor fortunes. Someone mentioned Ben Ginter

over there a while ago. Well, I think Ben was doing pretty well for a

lot of years and he did most of it the hard way. But like all fortunes,

it's only worth as much as you can cover. When you spread yourself too

thin and you get into a bind, nobody picks the tab up and you're on

your own.

Some of the people that they criticize for building up a small

fortune in the forest industry…. They don't look at how many people out

of all the people who got into that business ever come out of it. They

don't look at all those people who go broke. They sit around and look

at the ones who happen to get lucky enough to make it. And I say lucky

enough, because it's a lot like farming. You have to get the breaks.

You have to get the weather and you have to stay with it to do it.

I think it's about time we took that inheritance tax off. The member

for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) mentioned that they took it off farms;

he didn't mention any of the restrictions on that. Why just farms? Why

pick them out? Why not the logging companies? Why not the forest

companies? Why not the rest of them? Are they interested in seeing that

ownership pass to foreign hands? I know of a good many people up in my

riding who retired from business and took their money quickly to

Alberta or to the United States where they wouldn't be hit with this

heavy inheritance tax.

It's also a major cost of doing business, carrying the insurance

premiums you have to have to protect your investment in the company in

case one of the partners goes down the tube. I think it's an expense we

shouldn't have to live with, and I certainly welcome the removal of

that inheritance tax.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say that I think it's really important

we all take a forward step if we're going to get the employment back on

the track, and that we all watch our spending. We should all either

take

part in the poker game or don't expect to take the profit.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I have to rise

in support of this amendment. Before I go into my remarks I would just

like to discuss briefly the reason M.E.L. Paving took B.C. Railway to

court, because I don't think that reason has been covered very much in

this House or in the press, and a great deal about the case has been

discussed.

The fact is that M.E.L. was not the first company to allege fraud in

the issuing of contracts and in the estimation of dirt to be removed by

the B.C. Railway. They were away down the list. There were a number of

firms that alleged that before, but they were simply paid off by B.C.

Railway. It didn't matter if it was $100,000, $200,000 — in some cases

over $1 million — they were simply paid off by B.C. Railway, up until

1972 when the New Democratic Party became government in British

Columbia. After that, when contractors came to B.C. Railway they were

told: "We're sorry, we can't accept your allegation. If you feel you

have a case against us you're going to have to prove it in court."

That's how that case came to be. No doubt other cases would have arisen

and still would be arising had not that policy been reversed last year

— again with the change in government.

[ Page

533 ]

I've always been of the opinion that a contract was

a contract: if you signed for a certain amount, you expected to be paid

that certain amount.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items in the budget which

particularly concern me. Generally speaking, though, I am very, very

disturbed because there has been absolutely no provision to control

gasoline and fuel prices in British Columbia. More importantly, and

perhaps connected to that, there is absolutely no protection offered —

either in the Speech from the Throne or in the budget — for independent

lessees in service stations and bulk plants in British Columbia.

We know that there is more and more vertical integration in this

field, that the major oil companies are entering more and more into the

retail field, and all the time there are fewer and fewer small

operators exercising their right to hold prices where they think they

should be to stay competitive in a free retail market.

It's interesting that the Federation of Independent Businessmen has

recently called for action — not just in British Columbia but in all

provinces — to prevent oil companies from getting into or staying in

the retail marketing of their products. They are already in the

exploration and drilling field; they're already in the development

field; they're in the refinery field and in the transport field, and

now they're getting into the retail field as well.

Many dealers have written to me saying that they have evidence that

the same oil company that's selling them fuel and gasoline and diesel

oil, coming from the same refinery and the same tank truck, is selling

to them at a higher price than they are retailing even through their

own outlets. The same truck will sell to a gas station at 70 cents a

gallon, then go down the street and sell at 60 cents a gallon to one

owned by the oil company. That gasoline can be retailed at a lower

price than the individual lessee can even buy it. I don't consider that

a free market, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

One other item before I get into the details of my remarks regarding

the freedom of an ordinary businessman to do what he wants in the

market. Recently I had a letter from a constituent who runs a cocktail

lounge in a hotel in Trail. Last summer he did something in his bar

which is a common marketing thing in North America, in Europe and in

Asia as well — and certainly anybody who's been to Hawaii will know

about it. It's called a "happy hour." He took it upon himself to lower

prices of bar drinks during the late afternoon and early evening hours

because he had staff on for the evening anyway, it was a slack time,

and it introduced goodwill from the customers.

I always thought in British Columbia — and certainly under a Social Credit

government — that any businessman would have the right to cut his prices anytime

he wanted for his product. Apparently that's not the case here, though.

He was told very smartly by the liquor administration branch — perhaps appropriately,

or inappropriately, now under the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

— that he couldn't do that. He wasn't allowed to do that in British Columbia.

That was illegal. He did not have the fundamental right that any businessman

was supposed to have to lower his prices. Indeed, all he wanted to do was extend

a rather civilized practice to British Columbia that is becoming increasingly

common around the world.

It would be interesting to know what the government thinks — how

they would apply that to other businesses, and how the consumer would

react if the automobile dealers of British Columbia were told they

couldn't have sales on their cars, or there couldn't be sales in

furniture stores, or in supermarkets, or in any businesses at the

retail level in British Columbia and they were stuck with a set price

that they had to keep at all times. I really wonder where the

government's commitment is to the free market, but then some people

have suggested that they really only have a commitment to the free

market and to laissez faire when it applies to everybody else, not when

it applies to themselves. When it applies to themselves there's one way

to do it, and that's the way the word comes down from Victoria.

My colleague from Victoria (Mr. Barber) spent some time the other

night talking about the 5 per cent tax which liquor licencees must pay

to the liquor administration branch on gross sales, and I really wonder

if in the case of the happy hour, the liquor administration branch and

the government were far more concerned with their 5 per cent of gross

sales than they were with their own apparent philosophical commitment

to laissez faire because, of course, it's obvious that 5 per cent of a

1-oz. shot of whiskey retailing for $2 is twice as much as that same

shot retailing for $1, because the tax is on the gross sales, after

all, not on the sale from the liquor store.

I'm wondering, too, Mr. Speaker, how far the government intends to

go with setting up Crown corporations to do things which normally, and

in every other jurisdiction in Canada, have been done under Crown

agencies, usually termed as the civil service. We have the B.C. Ferry

Corporation. It used to be that the ferries were part of the civil

service. Now we have the ferries corporation and we wonder who they're

responsible to, because the government doesn't like to give us any

information about them anymore now that they're a corporation. What is

going to happen when we have the BCBC — the B.C. Buildings Corporation?

They're going to own all the buildings and all the provincial real

estate, and how

[ Page 534 ]

are we going to find anything out about that?

We could carry this further. We could have a B.C. Education Corporation.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A highways corporation?

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, as my colleague from Mackenzie says, a B.C.

Highways Corporation. Oh, you can't ask questions about that. They're

not directly responsible to the Legislature anymore; they're now a

Crown corporation. "We don't have to produce estimates. We don't have

to produce statements of expenditures. We don't have to tell you

anything about their plans at all, but you can call their directors

before a committee, of course, of the House." But then we know that

committees of this House are never called because they're called at the

whim of the government.

We could go even further. We could have a Crown corporation to run

the hospitals of this province, and then where would we be for any

information or insight into what is happening in the health-care field?

It could go on and on into a human resources corporation, a water

resources corporation. If we think it's a tough time exerting any sort

of influence or control over British Columbia Hydro, where would we be

if the water resources branch was its own public corporation? We could

end up where even the Speaker's office, Mr. Speaker, actually worked

for the Speaker's Office Corporation of British Columbia, and we indeed

could be going in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I've called in the past for tax cuts in British

Columbia, both last year and this year. This government has refused.

They say they cannot balance the books if they cut income taxes and

sales taxes, but they've given us figures to show last year and this

year what they were going to spend and what they intended to spend —

or, at least, what they told the House they were going to spend — on

some of their major departments and portfolios. I know last year's

budget says that the Department of Education intended to spend $840

million, but we don't know how much they did spend. I suggested it

could be a good deal less than $840 million. The Department of Health

told this House that they were going to spend $870 million, and yet we

don't know how much they spent because the government has only given us

the six-month bulletin and not the three-quarterly bulletin. And, of

course, there is already evidence that Human Resources have

substantially underspent their budget.

Many people besides myself have talked about the old Social Credit ploy of

deliberately underestimating revenue. I think we see a major new twist on that

in last year's budget, however, and I fear that may be perpetuated in this

year's budget. The figures were put before this House and debated before

this House in good faith by all members on both sides. In fact, the government

across the way cynically knew all the time that they were falsely inflated figures

and that they never had the slightest intention of spending those amounts of

money on people services, on health services, on human resources and on education.

Never the slightest intention, Mr. Speaker. But they were there because, of

course, if they weren't there they couldn't justify the punitive tax

increases that we saw last year. They wanted the public of B.C. to say: "Oh,

where would you have gotten the money?" They wanted them to say that to

the New Democratic Party.

Of course we had to raise taxes. We had to raise taxes to balance

the books because we couldn't have provided even this minimal level of

services if we hadn't raised those taxes. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is

now evidence that there really was never any intention to meet those

budgetary expenditures — only in service departments. It's interesting

that in other fields, such as the Ministry of Highways and Public

Works, the opposite ruse was used. There was a deliberately low figure

put forth. When I say deliberately low, I mean much lower than what the

government, indeed, intended to spend on highways. Of course, last

fall, when the time was thought to be appropriate, it was announced

that there was going to be an extra $40 million expended by the

Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

Interestingly, if one takes not the budgeted expenditure but the

actual expenditure of 1974 and 1975, and makes allowances for inflation

in the cost of building highways, we find that the figure comes to

something like $140 million to $145 million. In fact, with the big $40

million announcement last fall, that only takes the Highways capital

budget to $149 million, almost exactly equal to what the capital budget

on Highways would have been had there been a proper budget put forward

last year to continue the programmes that were already underway.

When are these taxes going to be reduced? Because this year, the

government has reduced resource taxation. At least, the budget shows

reduced revenue from resources. It shows reduced revenue from minerals.

It shows reduced revenue from the forest industry. And, of course, it

shows reduced revenue from succession and gift taxes.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that there is a bit of a go-around here. You

tell the public that you're going to spend a dollar, but before you can

spend a dollar you have to tax them a dollar. Then you tax them a

dollar knowing full well that you're really only going to spend 50

cents. That's what's happened each and every month. There has been a

misrepresentation of the expenditures on people services in British

Columbia for the last 13 months. The justification was that that way we

can keep taxes up and then at the end of the year we can reduce

revenues. We can

[ Page

535 ]

reduce revenues from the resource sector, and from the gift and succession duty area.

The philosophy behind it over there — the rather dogmatic philosophy

— is that development capital in the natural resource field will go

where the resource taxes are the lowest. For the sake of British

Columbia, I hope in my heart that you're right. Because whether I like

you or not, you happen to be the government, and I'm rather more

concerned about the well-being of British Columbians than I am about

whether the government of the day looks good or not.

Mr. Speaker, suppose the philosophy is wrong. Suppose the theory is

wrong and suppose we are all being asked in British Columbia to

participate in a horrible experiment. Suppose that resource development

capital is far more concerned with getting access to the resources and

getting a long-term supply assured than they are in the kind of

resource taxation, stumpage and royalty fee structure under which they

can extract those resources. Suppose that was the case. You know, it

has been suggested by some people that there's some evidence that that

may be the case in some industries already.

A couple years ago there was a firm in Japan that was interested in

building a steel mill in British Columbia. I am sure most members of

the House will recall that. We in British Columbia weren't too sure

that we wanted a steel mill or that we wanted that kind of major

industry, because of environmental problems and effects on the quality

of life. But we did know that somebody was serious about wanting to put

one here and wanting to pay the entire shot and wanting to supply a lot

of investments and jobs in British Columbia in an industry that we'd

never had before. In fact, we'd been told it was not viable before. We

didn't know that for sure. But then, last spring or early summer, the

new Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) went to Japan.

MR. BARRETT: They gave him a steam bath.

MR. D'ARCY: Well, he went over there and he said: "Don't

worry, boys, your problems are all over. Those crazies have gone now.

And you know what I'm going to do for you? I'm going to guarantee you a

permanent supply of coal. No strings attached, no questions asked."

And they said, "Oh, thank you very much."

AN HON. MEMBER: And "Don't increase the royalties."

MR. D'ARCY: He said: "Don't worry about royalties. We may

even wipe those out. But for a while, for political purposes, we're at least

going to keep them low. But don't worry, they're only going to be two-thirds

of what Peter the Red up in Edmonton charges. He wants $2.50 a ton on the average;

maybe up to $9 in some grades. We're only going to charge you $1.50."

At first they couldn't believe their ears. Then they came back a few

minutes later and said: "We certainly appreciate what you've said. We

regret to inform you that we have suddenly lost interest in the steel

mill. We don't think we're going to build anymore. Our capital

requirements have changed; our marketing surveys perhaps didn't tell us

all that we thought; the world situation has changed. Don't call us

about it; we'll call you."

There was a great deal of discussion about a copper smelter, or

copper smelters, in British Columbia a couple of years ago. Afton Mines

was all set to go, apparently — they told us they were, anyway. Now all

of a sudden they're dragging their feet; we don't hear too much.

Even Cominco Ltd. was ready to go, or so some people said, in

Kimberley. They had a big copper claim, which they still have, in the

Highland Valley. They have lots of empty coal cars going back to the

Kootenays from the coast through Kamloops. Transportation didn't seem

to be a problem, therefore. They already had a number of the necessary

pollution control devices in place in Kimberley. Why not think about

going there?

Some people actually had the temerity to suggest that the interest

that Afton Mines had and the interest that Cominco Ltd. had may have

had something to do with a guaranteed long-term supply of high-grade,

or relatively high-grade, copper ore, and even something to do with

drastically reduced copper royalties, providing they put in smelters.

Well, they don't seem to have those concerns anymore. They don't seem

to be concerned about copper royalties; they don't seem to be concerned

about a long-term supply; they're certainly not concerned about putting

a smelter in British Columbia — either company, in my opinion. They're

not in a hurry.

It's rather interesting, this movement of capital resource

industries. If your philosophy over there is correct, we will see some

investment, but if it's not — if it's a cut-and-get-out thing, if the

main interest of the resource development companies has been access to

resources — it won't matter if the stumpage duties and the mineral

resources are absolutely zero in British Columbia. They're not going to

come here because they no longer have any incentive to be here, because

they know they've got it made.

Mr. Speaker, I am rather interested in a few statements made by the

chairman of MacMillan Bloedel. I'm certainly not going to take this

opportunity to attack that company or that man, but he had some

interesting things to say about his own industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Knudsen said: "We

[ Page 536 ]

have seen a drastic reduction in capital investment

in British Columbia over the last six years. We hit a high in 1970;

last year, we hit a 12-year low. You know," he said, "our production

costs are continuing to go up. We're going to have to put in some more

capital."

But, Mr. Speaker, suppose that that company and other companies

operating on the coast of British Columbia find that they don't need to

increase productivity, they don't need to increase efficiency, because

they have a pliable government, and every time they complain the

government lowers the stumpage and the resource revenue and says:

"Don't worry, fellas. Let's run with a 15-, 20-, 25-year-old plant

facility. We don't need to smarten them up at all. We don't need to

introduce new technology, because every time we complain the slice

going to government is going to go down."

He says some other things that are rather interesting. He says:

"Productivity has declined because of a lack of investment in new

facilities." I wonder where we've heard that before. He also says:

"Total labour costs have risen more quickly in British Columbia."

Notice the word "total," Mr. Speaker — "total labour costs." There are

more people employed than perhaps should be employed to generate the

kind of productivity that our international competitors are getting.

And here is the real catcher from this captain of industry: "Both we and

our analyst have complained and will complain of other disadvantages, notably

heavier taxes." That's what he says.

Mr. Speaker, I have another concern about the future of British

Columbia and the bottom-line government, because there is some evidence

that the bottom line is dripping red in some aspects. There's another

article that caught my attention. It said: "Can that mounting foreign

debt load maim Canada?" It's rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, but some

people were very concerned here that foreigners in 1976 were lending so

much money to different Canadian governments and their Crown

corporations. It was an incredibly high figure, they said — $9.2

billion from abroad last year. That's in all of Canada.

We know that British Columbia Hydro borrowed over 20 per cent of

that $9.2 billion, or will be borrowing it in 1976-1977, because bills

have been put before this House and will be put before this House to

guarantee that kind of borrowing.

So we have a government on the one hand that is concerned, so they

say, about the bottom line but yet allows a major Crown corporation to

be one of the largest importers of foreign mortgage money in all of

Canada, at a time when economists are saying we're getting into a great

deal of trouble because our total foreign borrowings are too darn high.

It wouldn't be so bad, Mr. Speaker, if we had some evidence that this money

was needed. But we keep hearing that there is an excess of power. We keep hearing

that projects aren't popular and they aren't needed. We keep hearing

that excess power has been sold to the United States. And, Mr. Speaker, 55 per

cent of the capacity of British Columbia Hydro is only just now, and in the

next few years, coming on line. We have three major projects that are either

nearing completion or about halfway there and that, when on stream, will increase

the power production we presently have in British Columbia by 55 per cent. And

still we go further hundreds of millions and billions into debt. And that is

a debt load that each and every one of us — when we pay our light bill, when

we get on the bus, when we buy our natural gas — are going to be paying. Our

employers will be paying and that will be part of their cost when they compete

in the international market. And our children will be paying, because these

debts and bonds go on for years and years and years.

I consider that bad business and bad business management. And yet

how do you get at that, Mr. Speaker? The minister responsible is not in

the House tonight, and when asked questions on B.C. Hydro, he said: "I

think this sort of thing is justified under the circumstances, but if

you want to know anything else, you're really going to have to get hold

of the directors of that corporation." But the House committee that

would have to talk to those people has yet to sit during this

parliament, not just during this session but during this parliament.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has carried on for some time. It's getting

late in the evening and, while I have some more notes here, I believe I

will sit down. I think I have made the points that I think are most

important. I think I can continue for a while. There seems to be a

small cabal in the corner, including one of the members whom I signed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I had

anticipated that someone from the government would give a defence of

their position or non-position on this amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: No defence is needed. You haven't made a case.

MR. BARRETT: We haven't made a case. Well, Mr. Speaker, let

us assume that that member is a person who knows how to make a case. He

said we haven't made a case, is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. BARRETT: There is a basic assumption here, related to that member's attitude to the House, that he can make a case. Is that correct?

Interjection.

[ Page

537 ]

MR. BARRETT: Well, I've got two of them in the act now, after

I've gotten up. Now they start chattering away. But when it comes to

making a case, they were very good at it when they were in opposition.

I remember the member for Vancouver–Point Grey with some of the

comments he used to make when he was in opposition, about employment

and about the expenditure of public money. Why, here's a quote from

that member, Mr. Speaker, related to employment on the railroad. This

is what the former Liberal member for Vancouver–Point Grey said in this

House about those things. On October 3, 1973, he said about the

railroad: "But the point about it is that the system of accountability

has been totally absent in all these years in B.C. Railway." That's

what you said.

lnterjection.

MR. BARRETT: Because of that, and because of the inadequacies

of the members of the boards of directors who were there for reasons of

politics and not railroad experience. The experience of those people

was vitally effective in that railroad's decisions. Those are the

people who are on the board of directors and, quite frankly, they did a

lousy job. On the basis of that speech we ordered Swan Wooster's

report. On the basis of that speech we ordered the comptroller-general

to go in. On the basis of that speech, where you made those

accusations, we ordered the studies to be done on the B.C. Rail, and a

study of those speeches….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, now. Let's go on further to what the

member said, He's applauding himself. Let's keep up the applauding.

He's doing very well. He's like a responding student and he's passing

his exam very well, Mr. Speaker. Now I want to listen to the rest of

his essay.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's getting cultural.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! You're getting Social Credit lessons, Mr. Liberal Member.

Let's go on to hear what you said: "The method of letting contracts,

the accounting procedures, the way decisions were reached for

development would have been a disgrace to a private corporation, much

less a Crown agency."

During all this time speeches were being made by the former

president of the B.C. Railway in this House about what a magnificent

railway it was, all the jobs it had been doing for British Columbia,

how well it was run, and handsome the profit picture was, and so on and

so on. Then he goes on to praise me, Mr. Speaker! This is what he said….

HON. MR. McGEER: I take it back!

MR. BARRETT: You can't take it back now, just like you switched parties. You can't change the words in Hansard . This is what he said…. Don't cough now!

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm choking!

MR. BARRETT: You certainly are choking! You'll be choking on your words in a minute! You'll be choking on your own words.

All those statements were accepted without question by the press,

who played along with the former Premier in letting the public know a

story that was not true with regard to that railroad, that has only

been brought out now by the new Premier. He was praising me for

bringing up a story on the B.C. Rail.

Would you bring me that piece of paper? I got so excited in quoting

him, Mr. Speaker, I may even ask permission to file this because this

is not a message from an ambassador. (Laughter.)

It's all the more reason for a judicial inquiry asked for by that

member and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and they are

Liberals. They are eating their words tonight, and that member is

choking on them. Do you favour a judicial inquiry now that you are in

government and part of a cover-up, Mr. Member? Do you?

HON. MR. McGEER: Wait and see!

MR. BARRETT: Wait and see? Oh!

MR. MACDONALD: There's a struggle going on, eh?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, there's a fight in the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, The decision has not been made.

MR. MACDONALD: Wait and see!

MR. BARRETT: Wait and see who's going to win in that

push-pull of power politics. Oh, now we're getting a picture of what's

going on. Someone's conscience is emerging, and who will be the victim?

The victim will be the former Socred cabinet minister who'll be

sacrificed for Liberal ambitions in that cabinet. Oh, how sad! Oh, how

sad, that member who spoke in this House so eloquently about Can-Cel

with wild accusations. Oh, what a hatchet job he used to do, Mr.

Speaker, par excellence. Without substance, without fact, but with

rhetoric. Wild accusation, think up anything, say anything, do

anything, to get the NDP. How ironic! Within a matter of 15 months he's

the man in the frying pan, and who's shaking the griddle but the man

from West

[ Page 538 ]

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the

member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), saying: "Wait and

see. We're going to get him yet!"

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) doesn't like it when his cabinet colleague says

"wait and see" on a judicial inquiry. What does it mean? What is it we

see that late this time of night, Mr. Speaker? What is that quote from

Lear, my friend? "Get thee glass eyes…"

MR. D. COCKE (New Westminster): "…and like a scurvy…"

MR. BARRETT: "…and like a scurvy politician…"

MR. COCKE: "…seem…"

MR. BARRETT: "…seem to see only…"

MR. COCKE: "…to see the thing…"

MR. BARRETT: That's right. (Laughter.) They've got it.

MR. COCKE: "…to see the thing thou dost not…"

MR. BARRETT: "To see the thing thou dost not see." My friend,

you pass! You pass! And he fails, because what we've had revealed

tonight in this timid moment is that there is a struggle going on,

there is a twinge of conscience left in that group, and some of them

want that judicial inquiry that they asked for. Some of them do. He

doesn't want it! Oh!

MR. LEA: That's because he joined the Conservative Party.

MR. BARRETT: Now it's 10:30 p.m. and they know the press is

at rest so the truth can come out. Only at this time of night will they

allow this little bit of exposure to come out. The score so far, Mr.

Speaker, within five short minutes is: one for and one against and one

in doubt. He's for it. He's against it. And you don't want to even hear

about it!

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that makes me hesitate to even discuss

this subject is the fact that I do have a great residue left of being a

social worker. I know what kind of pressure people go under when

they're under this kind of attack, when their own chickens come home to

roost. I don't want to belabour this point because through it all and

despite it all I happen to like the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), and I offer my professional services of comfort

and love to him anytime he wants to come to my office.

One for, one against, and Garde is sick over it! One for, one

against, and Garde's sick over it, and the head man doesn't know which

way it's going or coming. Like my friend the member for Vancouver said,

they're lining up outside the office. We ought to get Mr. Vander Zalm

to do the interviewing for these welfare applicants because we know

that the means test has been dropped. The court case was settled and it

said: "Come on in, gang, the trough's available." One for, one against

and one on the griddle.

Now, too, that the press has gone I want to bring up something that

otherwise might embarrass them. Oh, they're here, but it's 10:30 p.m.

and their pencils are done. I want to relate to you, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, calm yourself, Doctor. Calm yourself. We

know you are for the judicial inquiry; we know your colleague is

against a judicial inquiry and we know Garde's sick about it, so we

have got you three pegged.

We know there's a fight going on in the cabinet. But I don't want

the press to write about it because it will embarrass them. Put your

pencils down — this might upset you, too.

Now, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), this is

for you to ponder on because I know that you attempt to give yourself

the appearance of the only rational member in this House, the only fair

member in this House, the only one who doesn't speak for a vested

interest, i.e. the ordinary people or the mining companies. You speak

right up in the middle and down the fence, or whatever way it goes —

anything to survive — and I understand completely. You wouldn't jump

over there; you wouldn't do that. You know why? Because your dad would

never let you do it. (Laughter.) That's why!

Look at this in the paper this morning, my dear friend, the former

Attorney-General. This is not a front-page story. It won't be the

emotional screaming of any hotliner. It won't be the subject of great

television interviews. It won't be the announcements made by pontifical

economic observers of British Columbia. Why, it's just a timid. little

story about a mine closing on Texada Island.

MR. LEA: Where?

MR. BARRETT: On Texada Island.

Interjection.

[ Page

539 ]

MR. BARRETT: Blubber Bay. Yes, Mr. Voice from the Ceiling,

Blubber Bay. If this mine had run out of ore 15 months ago, we would

have had three demonstrations, four emergency debates demanded by the

opposition, attacks on the legislative lawns with vicious language

against cabinet ministers by screaming Social Crediters standing up in

this House saying that the NDP is scaring out the mining industry. We

would have had commercials on the radio from the mining industry saying

that the NDP has done it again — a mine has closed in British Columbia

— and we might have one or two paid people sleeping on the steps,

protesting that they've lost their jobs.

Why, 14 months, what a difference it makes. Not one government

member has spoken about this mine closing and the loss of jobs. Not

once has the Liberal member got up in this House and said: "Oh, a mine

has closed — the socialists took the ore out of the ground." Not once

have we heard the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

saying: "Jobs are fleeing!" That's the way his colleague used to say it

— the one who is the Minister of Mines. He's the Minister of Mines!

Jobs are fleeing, and what kind of story do we get in the press? Not a

headline scare, not a series of vicious editorials, but a polite story

saying: "Oh, too bad — the mine ran.out of ore."

I can guarantee you folks in British Columbia — and don't you spread

the word, press gallery — that if this had closed under the NDP, the

headline would have been: "NDP Scares Out Investors." Now the mine ran

out on its own, and they can't even blame us. What a sad night this is

for the mining industry — with jobs going down the drain, the ore runs

out and the mine closes, and they can't even blame the socialists. They

planned it wrong. They should have run out of ore when we were still in

office; they could have blamed us.

Where are the scare headlines in the Vancouver "Fun" and the Vancouver "Pravda"?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the Vancouver "Pravda" is the official

mouthpiece on the editorial pages for that little coalition,

right-winged group over there.

Here's the heart-breaking story of the town closing up, here's the

heart-breaking story of this mine closing — and not a single word

blaming it on Social Credit. Not a single word! Why, it's

an act of

God. He's back now that the socialists are gone! Oh, there they are;

the righteous pound their desks in glee while the jobs, away they flee.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's 180 jobs down the tube.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, 180 jobs down the drain, and not a word. I want to

bet you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had been in office there would have been screaming,

hollering, yelling, and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano would have come

in in the middle of the screaming and the hollering attempting to steer the

middle course by saying: "Don't be emotional when you attack the socialists

— do it rationally; it's their fault."

My, my, my. The Vancouver "Fun" and the Vancouver "Pravda," and

there won't be one front-page story saying that Social Credit scared

the mine out of British Columbia; Social Credit drove the investors

out; Social Credit turned the ore rotten; social Credit used terror

tactics; Social Credit is losing jobs. The hypocrisy of the big city

press, the hypocrisy of this now government — oh, it makes one weep, if

I had any tears left.

You know, Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign they went around

this province and said 100,000 unemployed, which was false — 92,000

people out of jobs in British Columbia. There is a major amendment on

their budget and what do they put up to defend them? A guy way down in

the corner who, when he stood up, was mistaken for an attendant. Only

when he got up to speak did they find out that he wasn't reading from a

mislaid message in the House and that he actually was an MLA. That was

the defence they had against this amendment — throwing that member into

the cannon fodder only to be chewed up by his own leader who went out

and had coffee.

What a disgraceful performance this government has put on with this

feigned silence, this new demonstration of control. What a mockery they

made of the sentences they spewed out of their public relations offices

about mining, forests and jobs. People are losing jobs all over this

province, and not a single cabinet minister has stood on his feet and

defended the government against this amendment. Not one! They even had

the Tory leader (Mr. Wallace) and the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson)

supporting our amendment. Things really must be hard up out there for

that to happen. Even the free enterprisers who are left down there —

the two of them — who sit in opposition can appreciate the serious

problems in this province — 92,000 people unemployed: cutbacks in

health, cutbacks in social services, cutbacks all the way through on

services to people. It is an opportunity for that cabinet to stand up

and justify itself, and they push in a guy who sits down in the corner.

Then when he stood up to speak, the Premier looked down there in

amazement and said: "Who cut that string?" That's right.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Chabot said in the newspaper on January 29 that he is going to put some confidence back in the

[ Page 540 ]

mining industry. You're going to put some ore back

in the ground, Mr. Minister? "B.C. Copper, Light Dimmed." There's

another one.The Story here on Friday, September 17, 1976: "The future

of the industry remains heavily dependent on world market conditions."

Do you know who said that? It was a chief spokesman for the mining

industry. World market conditions! A year before they were blaming the

NDP, and so were these fellows and ladies. My, there goes the lady who

knew all about the secret police force. Yes.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I do believe I have an echo. (Laughter.) I believe it. Yes, I believe I have an echo back there!

MR. LEA: Little Sir Echo.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, little sirocco. Oh, it's not an echo, it's

only Jim — excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) . We have always known that we have heard hollow sounds

reverberating in that empty chamber. Once in a while they sneak out

involuntarily, but it's okay, Mr. Minister, you made it back in the

cabinet. Whew! Yep, he almost didn't make it! But now he's been

trained; now he's whipped into shape. Now he sits there and hasn't got

a single word to say about an amendment that damns this government for

not finding a job. He's okay, gang. He's back in where he wanted to be,

and he was one o f the say-anything do-anything,

write-anything-to-get-back-into-power gang. The only thing is, he is

going to be lonely because, through you, Mr. Speaker, his old buddy who

used to be yappier than he was in demanding jobs, is on the skids.

Do you remember how it used to go for him, Mr. Speaker? Not the

little mousy meow that we get tonight, but it used to be the heavy,

machismo — "Jobs!" he used to scream. Why, my goodness, it put out

100-watt light bulbs in this very chamber when that member screamed for

the ordinary people of this province. Now he's back in the cabinet, and

all we get is…"meow." Can't you see his fighting constituency when the

people hear what I have to tell them, when I report what the minister

said when we debated this amendment and we demanded jobs and social

services for people? I'll have to get up and say: "Oh, yes, one cabinet

minister did speak. He said 'meow.'"

MR. LEA: A pussycat.

MR. BARRETT: He's turned into a pussycat. You're right. Mr.

Member.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, some people have been given relief. Do you

remember that word used during Depression days — "relief"? Yes, some

people have been given relief. The millionaires on Monday gave $30

million relief to the millionaires while 92,000 people go without jobs.

Not one move, not one twitch, not one wink of the eye of any initiative

from this government to help these people who are unemployed in this

province get jobs. The $30 million given to the municipalities of this

province would provide a lot of jobs in building roads, sewers,

sidewalks that are much needed all over this province, but you're

giving it to the millionaires, and then you use the member for Fort

George (Mr. Lloyd) to get up and say: "Oh, we've got to let the

millionaires stay happy."

Mr. Speaker, who comes first in this province, the millionaires or

the ordinary people who deserve some security and jobs? The silence is

deafening. You don't show one iota of concern for the average people.

You got exactly what you wanted — power. You said anything, did

anything; you've got it and you don't care a fig what happens out there.

It's been 15 months when you could have demonstrated what you

believed free enterprise to be. It's been 15 months when you could have

said the private enterprise system can provide jobs, can provide

security, can provide social services, and now you say: "Well, we're

leaving it to the private sector and nothing has happened."

Your philosophy is on trial and your silence condemns it. There are

people out there, Mr. Speaker, who believed those ads that the free

enterprise system and its competitive nature would provide them an

opportunity to make a living. There were people out there who believed,

because of your advertising, that private investment was going to bring

a bonanza to British Columbia if we could only get rid of the NDP.

You say that you don't want to interfere in the private sector, Mr.

Speaker. Let the public of this province know that after 15 months,

because of your laissez-faire attitude, there are no jobs. I ask the

people of this province to consider what would have happened if Ocean

Falls had been happening under their government when they were going to

close it up, and Can-Cel, and Plateau Mills, and Panco Poultry, and the

Princess Marguerite , and

Kootenay Forest Products. Every single one of the basic industries that

you brag about in your Crown corporations was started or initiated by

the NDP. That was dangerous socialism, but you have not sold a single

one of them off — not a single one of them.

Are you prepared to say that perhaps private industry and the

free-enterprise system sometimes need a helping hand and some

leadership by a direct investment through equity? Not on your life. You

give

[ Page

541 ]

the millionaires $30 million in a tough year and

say: "Okay, gang, we hope you'll put it in the economy!" It's an

incredible performance by a self-satisfied government sitting there

under orders to play the game in this House, remain silent, and hope

that all the problems will go away.

Mr. Speaker, it has already been catalogued in this House as to the revenue

projections for next year from the natural resources. It is already a catalogued

fact that those natural-resource revenues will be down. We had one of the most

convoluted speeches ever given in this House yesterday from the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) when he stood up and said: "Just because the

industry is making more money, just because sales are better, does not mean

that we should collect anything more in taxes. As a matter of fact, they are

going down: from $80 million projected a year ago on revenue from lumber sales

down to $50 million." The minister stood up and gave us industry's

dictated speech with the imprimatur of the Premier on it saying that laissez

faire means: "Good for you, gang!"

The working people of this province who are already working, who

that member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) spoke about, are asked to pay

more out of their income tax. You have the nerve to come into this

House and start attacking working people who are on hourly wages and

say to them, "tighten your belt — you're asking for too much, " when it

was your government, Mr. Member, who doubled the ferry rates, who put

up four points on the income tax, who socked it to the poor? Mr.

Speaker, while they give these huge handouts to industry and while the

millionaires get $30 million, he's got the temerity to come in this

House and say: "Oh, we're paying the workers too much per hour." Who's

going to buy the cars? Who's going to buy the gas?

Interjection

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, Mein Kempf speaks again. Mr. Speaker, that's right.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Speak up.

MR. BARRETT: What's that again? I can't hear you, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: You haven't spoken in the debate! You speak up!

MR. BARRETT: Stand up and speak in the debate!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What's that? You're not eligible for campgrounds — you're not old enough.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Ohhh, Mr. Member! Ohhh! He's afraid to repeat it

in the House. You know, you stand up in the debate, Mr. Member, when

you talk about guts. You stand up in the debate! Let's hear you stand

up! Let's hear you….

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, those are those great little voices

from the back benches: "Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip!" Stand up and defend your

government, and defend yourself. When it comes to the kind of….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Right, Mr. Member.

There has been a decrease in the number of jobs in the mining

industry. There are more people unemployed than at any time since the

Depression in many ways, in many areas; a 13 per cent increase in

bankruptcies in one year under Social Credit, and you sit there all

afternoon, all evening, and not one cabinet minister stands up to

defend the government's actions.

Had you ever considered that you might be part of getting this province going again rather than wrecking it?

Had you ever considered announcing an immediate reduction in ferry

rates so that we can get ready for, hopefully, a better tourist year

next year?

Had you ever considered an immediate reduction in the sales tax, as

suggested by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), so

that the building industry could get going? Has it ever occurred to you

that that $30 million collected could go into the municipalities and

get jobs going at the local level, so that people could pay taxes and

keep their homes?

Has it ever occurred to you that with the amount of underestimating

you've done in the budget — up to $125 million — there is enough work

in reforesting in the forest industry that could be planned for this

spring and initiated by this government?

There is not one single positive step to provide jobs in British

Columbia; there is not one, single statement to give some comfort and

succour to the people who have relied on basic guaranteed incomes such

as Mincome. You have set up a Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) who panders to every base, ignorant prejudice against

people who need help.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a smug, content, powerful group in power, representing powerful

[ Page 542 ]

groups that wanted to have power in British

Columbia. It is the last hurrah of the old downtown Vancouver

establishment, back in power through a coalition one more time. But

there is not a bit of leadership, not a bit of commitment, not a bit of

understanding.

I find it ironic that not only did they reject the member for

Nanaimo's (Mr. Stupich'

s) challenge to have public debates on the

budget…. That's what the member for Nanaimo said to the Minister of

Finance: "Let us have public debates outside this chamber and around

the province to discuss the budget if you believe so much in what

you're doing." Not only did they reject that, but when the opportunity

comes in the House — they won't even participate in the amendment in

the House, let alone outside.

Mr. Speaker, I have to wistfully recall some of these experiences to

you about the wild bleatings of that group when they were in

opposition, and their deep concern for the ordinary citizen. I remember

the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition running around British

Columbia saying, "Not a dime without debate." Mr. Speaker, for the

millionaires it's millions of dollars without debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. BARRETT: Millions of dollars without debate — that's what's going on.

We find that in the time in North America when a new President in

the United States has recognized that there is a need for government

entry into the economy, when they have attempted to stimulate our

neighbour's interests in the south by $30 billion in a budget

supplement presented by President Carter, what do we find here in

British Columbia? We find a completely opposite direction.

You are bereft of a single idea, a single commitment, a single

direction that would give those people out there in this province who

are waiting on you as a new government some hope, some thought that you

care, some belief that someone in Victoria is listening to them in

their anguish as they wait for unemployment insurance or welfare, or as

their mortgage payments become due on their houses.

Who was it that said it more eloquently than I in this House? One

single voice from the past of Social Credit said it more eloquently

thanI. It was Cyril Shelford, the member for Skeena….

MR. MACDONALD: Speaking in the halls.

MR. BARRETT: Speaking in the halls. That's right, Mr. Former Attorney-General.

He's no millionaire. He joined Social Credit when it was really a grassroots

party. He stood in his place and said: "What is your philosophy? What is

it that I can take home to my community?" He has to go home to a community

that has unemployment of over 20 per cent; he has to go back to a community

that has hundreds of homes for sale; he has to go back to a community that has

many storefronts available because small businesses have gone broke. Sooner

or later that member will have to leave this chamber, go back and be confronted

with questions on the Main Street in his small town. What message can he bring

them from a government he had so much hope in?

MR. WALLACE: Come on across, Cyril. You'd be better off over here.

MR. BARRETT: No, he wouldn't, Mr. Member. I want to tell you why he wouldn't be better off.

I have witnessed in this House MLAs who have gone from this side

into Social Credit, and they are not vilified. But you know better than

I, Mr. Member, one member whose name I won't mention who left Social

Credit on the basis of principle and how he was vilified. I wouldn't

suggest any names, Mr. Member, but I saw the abuse given to a member

for Oak Bay when he left Social Credit on principle. The abuse he took!

But when it goes the other way, it's all right. So don't suggest that

to the member for Skeena. He's had enough pushing around as it is.

Mr. Speaker, 92,000 are unemployed, hundreds of people now available

for what they thought was Mincome are not getting it, and handicapped

people have been shown absolutely no sympathy or understanding by this

government, but just the smallest example of all is one I want to

conclude with, because it demonstrates the absolute indifference this

government places on the problems that people have in a very complex

society.

What is the value of all your dollars, what is the value of all your

material possessions, if inner peace and inner happiness and some

personal comfort and security can't be found in terms of personal

relationships? Mr. Speaker, while the family life in North America is

being devastated, while a complex society rages on with great battles

of complex political structure, while complex and intricate communities

are developing and abolishing themselves all over North America, that

greatest fabric of all, family and family life, has been torn asunder

in North America, and not because of any particular political belief

but because of the absence of deep roots of any family life in an

atavistic society that measures success only on the basis of the

acquisition of material goods.

A quiet all-party move was made in the chamber by the member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), the member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson), the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) to bring

[ Page 543 ]

together religious communities in this province on

a cooperative venture to examine what politicians, the state and church

could do to preserve family life — the first time that the religious

communities in this province have been challenged by an all-party

committee with no political advantage for any group to gain. No

publicity boasting any particular political philosophy in advancing

this idea, but four sincere, dedicated elected MLAs cooperating in a

way that we see plaintively appealed to by letters-to-the-editor and

editorials all across this province: why can't they get together and

work together? They did, Mr. Speaker — four of them, and they are to be

congratulated for it.

They met with the religious communities of this province,

representing the established churches, evangelical churches, Wesleyan,

Calvinist — every single secular approach — the East Indian religious

community and the Jewish community. Every religious community was

brought together and asked: "Would you help us as we are the lawmakers

and you are the people who appeal to spirit? Help us to re-establish

some roots and strength in the basic family life in a very complex

society." The community worked for a year and a half, and did

outstanding work, quietly. It brought together a semi-ecumenical

movement, not only in politics in that committee but also in the

religious community itself.

In December of this year, after that conference was held, as a

measure of economy, this government cut them off. And it's not the

$60,000 this government cut off that is the measure; it is the

philosophy, or absence of it, that would allow a government to stop

this kind of development in a community that needs healing. The $60,000

was not an issue to make or break the government; it was a statement of

the basic philosophy of a government that says: "Make a buck. Survive.

Acquire goods. Family life will survive on its own." I tell you that

the cutting off of that conference is a more symbolic argument in

favour of this amendment than anything else. I said earlier that you

are shameless, and you've proven it so far in the debate on this

amendment.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I accept the

invitation of the opposition for the government to respond to this

debate. We've been waiting for them to speak to the motion but, quite

frankly, I've been a little discouraged. We've had personal attacks.

We've had discussion about everything except the amendment, so after I

move adjournment, tomorrow the government will take the full day and

evening to respond to this motion.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:03 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1977, 2001, 2011: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada