1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

167 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Economic sanctions against B.C. forest industry.

Mr. Chabot — 167

Tenders on new ferry. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 168

Shortage of grain cars on B.C. Railway. Mr. Phillips — 170

Sampling of meat for residual antibiotic material. Mrs. Jordan . — 170

Throne speech debate Hon. Mr. Stupich — 171

Mrs. Jordan — 177

Privilege Political influence. Hon. Mr. Hall — 187

Telephone bugging. Hon. Mr. Lauk — 187

Routine proceedings Mr. Gabelmann — 187

Mr. Williams — 194

Mr. Morrison — 201

Farm Income Assurance Act (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Stupich Introduction and first

reading — 205

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I have the pleasure this afternoon of introducing to the House,

as a consequence of a bloodless or nearly bloodless coup which

occurred last Friday evening, the new leader of the Progressive

Conservative Party in British Columbia on my left.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I want

to join in congratulating my good friend across the way on his elevation to

high office, however brief that tenure may be.

I want to draw to the attention of the House once again, as

I have done for, I think, every year in the last 22, that we

have in the gallery today a group of students along with their

teacher from that great constituency of mine.

You know, I've always said that my constituents are the best

educated politically in the province. In the gallery today we

have the students from the Cowichan Secondary School with their

teacher, Mr. Thompson, and I would ask the House to welcome

them.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

introduce in the gallery today a group of legislators from the

House of Representatives in Tennessee, who have come up to look

at our Provincial Museum and also to watch our House in

operation.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to join with the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) in expressing our appreciation to the fine students

he has in the area that he represents. And I'd like to thank

them very much for the flowers, and particularly for the fact

that they have shown no discrimination between their Member and

myself by way of colour.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST

B.C. FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. A statement

made by the former Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

last spring stated that the increases in the price of

lumber constituted criminal irresponsibility on the part of lumber

manufacturers in British Columbia, and that if this trend

persisted there would be economic controls imposed on these

companies.

I'm wondering whether the Minister would like to tell us, in

view of the continuing high price of lumber in British

Columbia, whether that government proposes economic controls or

sanctions against the forest industry of British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Mr. Speaker, that…(mike not on).

M R. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Certainly prices have gone down,

but not significantly — you know it yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I want to ask another supplementary question.

The Minister expressed great concern just last spring. I'm

wondering whether the Minister is concerned, in view of the

fact that this government has taken over several sawmills in

British Columbia since coming into office — namely, Columbia

Cellulose and Plateau Mills.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. This is not a time for speeches; that

occurs during the throne speech.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering, in view of the continuing high

price of lumber in British Columbia, whether they're going to

give some assistance or some relief to those people who buy

lumber in British Columbia by the establishment, basically, of

a two-price system. Show your concern or repudiate that

Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: I gather that the supplementary question, in

effect, is exactly the same as the main question, which is: are

you instituting controls?

MR. CHABOT: No, whether it's going to institute controls.

The second question or supplementary question is: are you going

to establish a two-price system, particularly to the people of

British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be fairly clear that

government policy is to see that there is a greater return from the resources,

and, government in turn will see that that is distributed in a reasonable way.

In that sense, we are looking at increased royalties in that particular sector

to benefit all of the people of British Columbia.

[ Page

168 ]

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. The Minister says that

they're looking at increased royalties and stumpage in the

forest industry. Does he not realize, or will he say that that

will bring about cheaper lumber costs in British Columbia by

the increase in royalties and stumpage?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It will mean a more equitable return to

all of the people of British Columbia from that particular

sector.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Member

would defer to this Member who has…is it a supplemental

on the same subject?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I hope it's better than the

last one. (Laughter.)

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The Hon. leader of the

Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), among other things, has

suddenly become a judge in this House on the content of the

questions.

The supplemental question to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources has to do with this same matter of the

impost against the lumber industry. The Minister introduced,

through his department, a new stumpage-appraisal system. It was

to go into effect, but has not been implemented at the present

time.

I understand that the Minister is looking into the whole

matter again and that he may revise that particular system and

the rates that will be imposed. Will the Minister indicate to

the House when he intends to tell the industry the position,

and what will be the new rate of stumpage appraisals in the

Province of British Columbia? When can we expect that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I did answer the question last week, and

I indicated that I would advise the House at the time.

TENDERS ON NEW FERRY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister

of Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) with reference to the

story about a new B.C. Ferries ferry order. May I ask whether

or not tenders were called so that British Columbia naval

architects would have an opportunity of bidding on this ferry

which apparently, according to the Friday news story, is going

to a Seattle naval architects firm?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I hadn't seen that particular news story

until this morning. At no time have I said that any contract or

tender has been awarded.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, did you ask for tenders?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute, don't panic and I'll give

you the correct answer. Don't leave, don't run away, stay right

there.

Competitive estimates were obtained — this is in a report

dated May 24, 1973 — competitive estimates have been obtained

from the Victoria, B.C., naval architects, CELL (Case

Existological Laboratories Ltd.) for design fees for a trailer

ship and a 274-car ferry. These are…and then it gives the

costs submitted by them. They were also asked for the time

required for design, ready for tender, and it gives the

time.

The same thing was asked of another firm and we find that

the amount of money being asked to provide this and the time

required to do the job is much less with a firm whose plans

were in this place the other day.

No one has yet been awarded the tender. When I arrive at a

decision — and I have this material to digest before I arrive

at a decision — it will then be made public. But submissions

were called for, and that's the result of the submission.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do I understand the Minister correctly,

Mr. Speaker, that the design firm from Seattle which presented

the displays last week received British Columbia government

money to prepare those designs and prepare those models and

that it was because of the estimate for that preparatory work

that you turned down the British Columbia firm?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On May 24 there had been absolutely

nothing done in any way, shape or form by any firm.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That was a holiday, that's why.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: May 24, if you check the calendar, was

not a holiday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Since then…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's how far out you are; you don't

even know the date of the holidays. You're on holidays all the

time — you must be. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Since then, has any British Columbia

money, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Minister, been

expended for designs of any ferries — or at least for designs

of any ferry — by this Seattle firm? Have they received any

money from us? Or has the British Columbia firm received money

[ Page 169 ]

do the type of work that you talked of?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not the type of work involved in this.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Any other type? What type?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you will just give me I haven't sat down. I haven't even started to sit down. Just

give me time to answer your question fully.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you both address the

Chair?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Submissions were made. It was determined

that submissions should be made to Ottawa on the basis of

design of new ferries. This firm did that job, but that is not

to say they did any of the detailed work involved in this call

for tender that I referred to. That is not the job that has yet

been awarded. They did do some work on the basis of their

experience in other fields, and related to a B.C. naval

architect also. Submissions were made to Ottawa because we

wanted some approval for a new type of design. And they did

that work. That's all that's been done.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I try to find out, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Minister, whether or not there has been any

payment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, certainly. They did their job and

they got paid for it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well the payment, then, occurred

subsequent to May 24, and it was for design work on this

particular ferry, and it was payment by the British Columbia

taxpayer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It wasn't just for the work that I

referred to, that I read out to you. It wasn't for that work at

all. It was for preparing sketches for submission to the

federal government, and these were only sketches, nothing

whatever to do with the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth

of work, and I would ask you to realize that. The sum that was

paid to this firm was $10,000 which was….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's better now. Let's go.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I've no compunction about giving

that. It is a minuscule sum compared to the $30 or $40 million

that will be spent in British Columbia for construction of the ferry. That's the main

thrust of the whole thing: the fact that the ferry will be

built in British Columbia, not the $10,000 that went to a firm

with the knowledge, the experience, the innovative capability — and recognize that innovative capability, please. And they made

this submission to Ottawa, because we have to go through them

for any change or acceptance of design capability, the safety

features, the safety factors, the whole bit. They did that job

because of their special qualifications. And they got paid

$10,000. I don't know whether they've been paid yet or

not….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now that we have discovered that this

firm has been paid $10,000, and then the Minister went on to

say that there would be a ship constructed on the basis of the

sketching plans that were done….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't said that yet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well I thought you said about all those

jobs in B.C.?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay. Well on what date will we have a

decision on the construction of this ship?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the House understands the answer, even

if the Member doesn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's important, Mr. Speaker, that he

recognizes the difference between designing and construction.

You just finished up by asking at what stage will we know when

construction is going to start. The construction will start

after the plans are drawn. Once this work I outlined to you to

start with is done, it is on the basis of that that you call

tenders for construction. You see? What you are talking about

now are two different things. Three different things,

really.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Three things.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Three things.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And the step we are now moving into is

determining….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's step two.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Step two. We've had submissions on the

cost of preparing these plans and the time that it will take

both of those firms to

[ Page 170 ]

prepare them. It is on that basis I must make a decision as

to which one will be taken, and then it will be tendered for

construction.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But there is only one firm.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've only said one firm did the

sketching.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SHORTAGE OF GRAIN CARS ON

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a

question to the Minister of Agriculture. In my constituency

over the weekend I've been informed there is a great shortage

of grain cars on the British Columbia Railway. It is hampering

the taking off of the crop by the local farmers. Has the

Minister of Agriculture intervened, or would he intervene on

behalf of the farmers of the Peace River area in talking to the

President of the British Columbia Railway and ask him if he

could take some urgent steps to alleviate this situation?

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

the answer is yes.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): This is a very serious

problem in that part of the province, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if

either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea), would comment on the request that was made by

the president or the manager of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture to have either Highways department trucks or other

form of government trucks used in the absence of these grain

cars to help to ship the grain? I understand that it was

promised that the matter would be canvassed. Could you tell us

what has happened with regard to that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, Highways department trucks,

while they have been used in emergencies are useful only for

very short hauls. The load they can carry is much too small to

be of any use in the problem described by the Hon. Member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

SAMPLING OF MEAT FOR

RESIDUAL ANTIBIOTIC MATERIAL

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hope I do better at the

races than I'm doing in this question-and-answer period.

I'd like to address my question to the Minister of

Agriculture. If he will recall, in the spring session I brought

to his attention and asked a question in regard to the sampling

of domestic meat in British Columbia for residual antibiotic

material. He couldn't answer it at the time, but said that he

would take it as notice and advise the House and myself of

whether or not there was sampling of domestic meat for

antibiotic residuals going on in British Columbia and what the

results of these would be. Now I can't find any record of his

answer and I sent this through to the department.

So my question today — and it has again come up — is, has

there been sampling of domestic meat for antibiotic residuals

in British Columbia over the last year, and are they going on

now, and have they found any examples of these residual

antibiotics in the meat?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall the question

being raised and it is one that could well be put on the order

paper. It is a federal programme. Any sampling that is done in

Canada, and it is being done all the time, of course, would be

conducted by federal authorities. They don't consult with me

about it; they might inform my department. But if there is any

sampling done in any specific area of the country or any

specific area of British Columbia, I am just not aware of it or

of the timing of this sampling. As I say, it is a question that

could be put on the order paper and then I could give an answer

in detail.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Am I to

understand and is the House to understand from the Minister's

statement that he is not aware of any programme going on in

British Columbia, that in this period of six months he's not

even seen fit to inquire about a matter that is of real public

concern as to whether or not these residuals are in domestic

meat that is being sold over the counters in British Columbia,

and that you are adopting a "let the federal government do it

and if they advise me I'll know" attitude?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I am not sure what the question was, Mr.

Speaker, but if it was: do I know whether such work is carried

on by the federal government, if that was the question, then my

answer is yes. If the Hon. Member is asking am I satisfied that

the federal government is doing the best job possible under the

circumstances to guard the health of Canadian citizens, then my

answer is yes. If it was any other question than that, I missed

it completely, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, my question is: does this Minister know

what is going on about residual antibiotics in the Province of British

[ Page

171 ]

Columbia in domestic meat…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I think his answer is most

inadequate.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, question time is finished so there are no

more answers.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'd like to

join with those Members who have spoken already in welcoming to

the executive council the new Members appointed to the cabinet,

and would also join in welcoming the new Member for South

Okanagan (Mr. Bennett).

If I could just comment briefly on the question that was

left unanswered, if indeed it was a question, Mr. Speaker. I

think it was more in the way of a political speech, which

surprised me a bit in that that particular Member, I

understand, will be speaking later in this debate. However, I

think I made it plain, Mr. Speaker, I know that testing is

going on, I know that it is being done by the federal

government and I am satisfied that whether it is done in every

part of the Dominion of Canada at the same time on a daily,

weekly or monthly basis, I'm satisfied that the job is being

done well. And I think the record that the Canadian government

and its services have made, in comparison to what is going on

in the rest of the world as a whole, is something to be looked

on with pride by the Canadian citizen rather than something

that should be looked down upon, as was indicated by the Hon.

Member for South Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you mean North Okanagan.

HON. MR. STUPICH: North Okanagan. My apologies. I really do

apologize. (Laughter.) You know there is really no worse thing

in this House than to compare a Member with the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan in remarks of that kind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't have to make that

accusation. It is perfectly obvious every time she speaks. If

you want a proper answer, ask a proper question and that answer

will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, we've gone on now for some time discussing the opening speech.

It was indicated well before the House came together, and has been indicated

since, that there are two very important topics to be discussed in this House

— one agriculture and one labour. Yet in the debate so far, most of the discussion

about agriculture — the needs of the agricultural industry, the needs of the

farmers themselves — has been from the government side of the House, from the

backbenchers and from the cabinet alike, very little contributed by the Members

of the opposition. Very little, except to say that the remarks in the opening

speech were general remarks. And I don't know what anyone would really expect

in an opening speech other than general remarks.

To say, as this particular speech did, that legislation

would be introduced to rationalize credit systems for primary

agriculture, to encourage secondary and tertiary agricultural

industries, to join with producers to provide means of

achieving some stabilization of farm income, is being quite

explicit in describing the sort of legislation that the

government intended to introduce in this session.

And in speaking thus on the opening day, the

Lieutenant-Governor was, I think, in a way, inviting some

suggestions from the opposite side of the House as to how they

thought these general principles, the aims, the problems as

they were identified by people in the time between the sessions…as these problems were identified, that we were asking for,

perhaps, some suggestions from the other side of the House as

to how these things might be achieved — whether they were indeed

the main problems in the agricultural industry, or whether

there were other problems perhaps more important and were left

out of the opening speech. We've heard none of those, to the

best of my recollection — and I've tried to be in here as much

as possible — very little in the way of suggestions as to what

could be done.

I recognize there's some problem there because of the

position the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture found

itself in and the fact that the report was tabled only late

last week. Nevertheless, I certainly hoped, Mr. Speaker, and I

expected that there would be something from those Members on

the other side of the House who were not members of the

committee, that they might have felt free to give the

government advice, perhaps along these lines or along other

lines. But of course, as is so often the case, we have been

quite disappointed in the suggestions as they came to us from

the other side of the House.

In the spring session, Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal

of talk about agriculture, but it was confined almost entirely

to one bill, Bill 42 at that time, now the Land Commission Act .

It has been praised. It has been criticized. It has been

damned; been praised by people from all walks of life, and

criticized by people from all walks as well.

I have one newspaper story here where a chap by the name of

Basford, whose name is not unfamiliar to

[ Page 172 ]

the second opposition party in the House, I suppose. And the

headline says "Basford Praises B.C. for Land Commission Act."

Now, of course, it's praise not unmixed with criticism, but he

does, in general principles at least, praise the Land

Commission Act and points out "the desire to get proper

land-use techniques can only be applied through this sort of

action by the provinces." This is the kind of planning which

has been desperately lacking in this country.

Certainly I find myself in agreement, on this point at

least, with Mr. Basford, and I was hoping that some of the

Members opposite also might feel the same way.

Concern from some members of the community that while they

thought the Land Commission Act was designed to do something

worthwhile, was very important, that it has failed because it

has not stopped the subdivision of farmland. A letter here from

one writer who says that in spite of the legislation which she

thought was going to save good quality farmland, she sees

evidence of farmland still being subdivided, being lost to

future food production.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that a lot of this was

in progress, a lot of it had gone to this extent. We knew this

at the time; we recognized it; we discussed it. A lot of this

had gone to the extent that it just couldn't be stopped.

However, by bringing in the legislation at the time that we

did, we at least indicated that there was going to be a halt to

a loss of this exceptionally good farmland which is so scarce

in this Province of British Columbia.

Some concern also that we acted hastily; we could have

waited. I recall — and I think I said this in the spring — I

recall standing in this House in 1964 and urging the Minister

of Agriculture of that day to do something to halt the loss of

farmland through subdivision and to industrial construction,

and being told at the time the government was concerned; the

government wanted to act, but they couldn't do anything until

the matter was studied further. That was in 1964.

When we came to office, of course, we found that there was

very little progress made in this except within the department

where it was obvious that many of the members of the staff had

been working on this, I was going to say hopefully, but more

often, Mr. Speaker, it was hopelessly, because although they

tried from time to time to get something going in the way of

legislation that would protect farmland, they tried in

vain.

By waiting another year for further studies, we would have lost another 20,000

acres. Those are the statistics; that's the rate at which it was going, and

the rate was increasing. By waiting two more years for further studies, then

of course, it would have been at least 40,000 acres. The longer we waited, the

more difficult the problem would have become and the more farmland would have

been lost.

We've been accused of driving up prices of farmland. Mr.

Speaker, this is just like panic buying of beef in grocery

stores. Prices have gone up. They have not gone up only in

British Columbia. Now, some of these people who are so

concerned about what is happening in British Columbia, and

can't see beyond our borders, don't seem to realize that

jurisdictions all over the world — all over Canada, all over

the United States, all over the world — have had this same

problem of rapidly escalating land prices. They've had it, Mr.

Speaker, because in this time of inflation one hedge against

inflation, and everybody will be advised to do this if they

have financial advisers, one of the hedges against inflation is

to invest in land.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke at a Federation of Agriculture

convention in November of last year, and in response to a

question that had been raised just prior to that meeting,

advised people who were contemplating investing in farmland

with a view to subdividing it, that maybe they had better go

slow. Some of them took that advice, most of them did, I

think.

I'm now advising those who are investing in land, which they

think will not be within the farmland reserve, not to invest in

that land with the hope of making great capital gains because

the government is aware of what has been happening. The

government is aware that a substantial amount of land outside

of the proposed reserves is being bought up, not with a view of

building today or tomorrow, but with a view to holding it until

they are able to sell it at a fantastic gain. The government is

aware of this; and when the government is aware, has the power

to act, and as we have shown in many instances, has the will to

act, we will see that those land prices come down to where they

are reasonable for people who want to build homes on it.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and give many examples as to what

is happening in other parts of the world. Just one note here:

in Denmark, where the sale of agricultural land has been very

severely restricted…not just restricted so that people who

are not farming can't buy it, but restricted so that even

farmers can own only a certain limited amount of land, only the

land that they can, as farm operators, farm profitably,

economically, and manage successfully. Not that they are able

to buy this land with the hope that they will be able to invest

in it and perhaps sell it at a profit at some later date.

The same thing is happening all over the European continent;

it's happening in Ireland, it's happening in the States — price

of land escalating rapidly; government after government taking

steps to try to control it.

Mr. Speaker, since the Land Commission did become

established, and it wasn't named until late

[ Page 173 ]

May or June of 1973, they have made some progress. Together

with representatives of the Department of Agriculture, they've

travelled around British Columbia, met 24 of the 28 regional

districts with the responsibility of taking these plans that

have been suggested, making the changes that they want to make

to adjust them to suit the more local needs as they know them — the explicit needs, the boundaries of the communities. And they

report to me that by the target date — that is within 90 days

within proclamation of the particular

section — by that target

date, four regional districts will have their plans deposited

with the Land Commission for approval by the cabinet, another

six within another 30 days. That will be 10 out of the 24; 14

of them by the end of the calendar year. That is the plan at

the moment. They feel that many will be able to meet these

targets quite easily.

They have found that in spite of all of the criticism, in

spite of the attempt by some people to raise public concern

about this legislation, and in spite of the fact that there

still is some very real public concern about the legislation — they have found as they have an opportunity to discuss the

legislation, the purposes of the legislation and the way in

which it is going to work, a greater and greater public

acceptance of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if I could move to another topic for a moment.

I mentioned this in my opening remarks, and that is the topic

of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. The report was

tabled last week. It was a good report, Mr. Speaker.

I want to compliment the members of the Standing Committee

on Agriculture who gave up their time this year between

sessions. Apart from the Members of the cabinet, and apart from

myself in that I wasn't able to attend all of the meetings as

much as I wanted to, the attendance, apart from cabinet

Ministers, was very good.

The feeling in the agricultural community…the fact that

the farmers were able to meet with this committee on their home

ground, to discuss their problems with them, that the members

of the committee were knowledgeable enough about the problems

in agriculture to answer their questions, to ask questions, to

receive their comments, to receive them obviously with a view

to listening and making note of them, and the report when it

was finally drafted, I think says something for the way in

which it did work this year, and I think the House is to be

complimented for having named that committee and for having

given it the task that it did give it between the spring and

the fall sessions in 1973.

The committee laboured. The committee put a lot into it, they did good work.

The report of the committee has been tabled, it has been reported on in the

press. There is one thing that I would mention and I don't know whether this

was in the press — it was certainly in the report. But the committee did make

a point of welcoming the contribution made by the staff of the Department of

Agriculture. They used the staff quite extensively on their travels throughout

the province to make arrangements. They found them willing to help on every

occasion. The time of day didn't really seem to make any difference to any of

them; they found the staff — and I think this is general throughout the province

— to be very good in helping the committee in every way possible.

I would just like to say a word, because they may be left

out, for the staff in headquarters here in the Douglas Building

right across the street. While they didn't get too involved

with the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, I do want to

say that they, too, in the past year (to my knowledge they've

been here just over a year) have really put themselves into the

programmes that have been evolving since this administration

has been in office.

Of course, I have no way of knowing what they did before. I

don't know, for example, that the Deputy before my time used to

arrive regularly in his office at 7:30 in the morning, and I

don't know, I suppose, regularly leaves by 6:00. They don't

know, for example, that you can't go into that department on a

Saturday without finding some members of the staff there. They

don't know that I have been there as late as 7:30 on a Sunday

evening and have left the building with some members of the

staff still there. They don't know that my own secretary, for

example, when I chastised her for coming in regularly at 7:30

in the morning and suggested that I would report her to the

union, said that she is appointed by order-in-council and is

not concerned about any reports to the union.

I certainly want to express my appreciation to not only the

staff out in the field that helped the committee so much but

the staff here at headquarters who have put so much into the

programmes that have been developing over the year and whose

work will be reflected in the work from here on.

One subject that has been very much to the fore in the past

year, Mr. Speaker, has been the question of marketing

boards.

A few words, first of all, about the poultry marketing board

and, I suppose, in particular about what was described as a war

between B.C. and Manitoba. You will recall that there were some

people in the province who were importing eggs at a lower price

from the Province of Manitoba than they could get here in this

province. At the time, I went on the air, in the papers,

publicly supporting the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, urging

producers and wholesalers to support the industry here in the

Province of British Columbia, warning people that if we let

down our own industry we wouldn't be letting down the poultry

producers, we would be letting down the consumers in the

Province of British

[ Page 174 ]

Columbia.

I said then that if eggs were temporarily cheaper in some

other jurisdiction and were imported into the Province of

British Columbia, if we brought those eggs in and sacrificed

our own industry, let it go under at a time when cheaper eggs

were available from someplace else, eventually the day would

come when those cheaper eggs would not be available and when

the B.C. consumer would be at the mercy of egg producers in

some other province or country and would have to pay whatever

price was asked at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize how prophetic my words would

be. The latest report I have, dated the week ending September

8, shows that egg prices to the consumer varied in Canada from

a high of 99 to a low of 81, a spread of 18 cents. Highest was

in the Province of Newfoundland which you might feel is

something exceptional, 93 was the price in Ontario, and the

lowest province of all was the Province of British Columbia

where eggs were on sale for 81 cents a dozen — 18 cents lower

than the highest. This, in itself, justified the support that

we urged consumers to give to the British Columbia

egg-producing industry.

A word about CEMA. I was asked many times when British

Columbia was going to join the national egg marketing agency. I

did report on it publicly; I am not sure that it was picked up

widely. But last week an order-in-council was put through and

British Columbia is now the 10th province to become a member of

the national egg marketing agency. I am particularly anxious to

do this because the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr.

Whelan, on many occasions has indicated that he is not

interested in talking about income stabilization in Canada for

any commodity group unless the producers themselves are willing

to talk about orderly marketing for the whole nation, not just

province by province. We are now part of the only national plan

that is currently in existence. The turkey board has indicated

to me that they, too, are ready to sign the agreement, so it

will not be long before we are part of a 10-member turkey

national marketing plan as well.

Earlier in this debate one of the Members from my own side

of the House raised some questions about broiler production in

the Interior. As he said at the time, I have been in touch with

the broiler group, urging them to encourage some production in

the Interior of the province. The Member from Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis) didn't realize at the time but I had a study going on by

the staff in the Department of Agriculture. I just received

their report on Friday and read it yesterday. If I could just

read the last paragraph, Mr. Speaker:

"It would seem that a poultry processing plant in the Interior

is a necessity and only awaits the addition of broiler permit or quota to become

practical.

"The broiler board should have been aware long ago that prospective broiler producers in the Interior

should have the opportunity of producing for the lucrative

broiler-chicken market and allowed this area to become a part

of the industry."

Mr. Speaker, certainly I concur wholeheartedly in that

report and expect that the report will not be long in getting

back to the industry.

Just two more notes about marketing boards. A year ago when

I came in, there was a great quarrel going on between the Grape

Marketing Board and the purchasers of their product. The price

was resolved last year; a formula for arriving at a price was

resolved this year, so everything seems to be going along quite

satisfactorily. I have had a letter from the chairman of the

winery association to say that they are getting along very well

with the growers right now.

But perhaps of more interest to the wine connoisseurs in the

province, I may say that at one reception about a year ago

where the Lieutenant-Governor of the day was serving imported

wine, I suggested to him that they should be serving B.C. wine.

Since then, the Lieutenant-Governor's secretary has made a

point of drawing my attention to the fact that we have always

had B.C. wine and only B.C. wine served when he has been

entertaining in Victoria here. What he does out of Victoria, I

don't know.

There have been some comments about the quality of B.C.

wine. I would like to read a letter that I, again, just read

yesterday:

"I am sure that you will be pleased to hear that two

of our 100 per cent British Columbia-produced products have recently

received awards of distinction at the International Wine Fair held in

Ljubljana, Yugoslavia between August 24 and September 2."

So our wine, Mr. Speaker….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What wines?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't think I should advertise the wine;

I'll let anybody know who wants to know. There are two 100 per

cent B.C. wines and I'll let you know privately what kinds they

were.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Let's see, what constituency is yours?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, my father came from Yugoslavia, and

I think, from what I knew of him

[ Page 175 ]

when he was alive, they are quite the connoisseurs in

Yugoslavia. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, there is one other marketing board that by its

actions and actions against it has attracted a lot of heat,

perhaps not very much light, in recent months. That is the

activity of the B.C. Fruit Board.

It was indicated earlier, I believe, that several studies

were going on. Of course, the Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture was looking into this and spent a lot of time

hearing representations from many people who knew all there was

to know about the fruit-growing industry and the problems

thereof. They all had the only solutions that would really

work.

They were working on it; the B.C. Federation of Agriculture

had commissioned a study; my own department had engaged the

services of Dr. Claude Hudson, a consulting economist, one with

a great deal of experience working for the federal government

and the United Nations in different parts of the world, to do

what he calls, "An Economic Study of the Tree Fruit Industry in

British Columbia." This is not the printed draft — copies are

being printed — but at least I do have a copy of the final

draft ready and would like to quote briefly from this report at

this time. It's a study, of course, as far as he could in the

some seven weeks that were at his disposal, to analyse what has

been happening in the tree fruit industry, to analyse what is

happening now, and to make recommendations as to the

future.

He goes into quite a lot of detail as to how he finds the

industry right now: "The state of the industry is not as bad as

some people would portray it, but not nearly as good as it

should be." He points out, for example, that one measure of

what is happening is the percentage of Farm Credit Corporation

loans in arrears: 11 per cent in 1963 and 1964; up to a high of

14 per cent in 1972; down to 11 per cent in 1973 — still very

high. But he points out also that the Farm Credit Corporation

has never had to foreclose a loan to an Okanagan orchardist,

which is in sharp contrast to a total of 916 commercial

failures reported by Statistics Canada as having occurred in

business and industry in British Columbia in the five years,

1968 to 1972. Bad, but not as bad as it might be.

On page 103, I'll read from the conclusion: "The importance

of the fruit industry itself provides the economic base for an

annual contribution to the Okanagan economy of about $50

million." I emphasize that, at this point, simply to point out

the necessity to save the farmland in the Okanagan: a $50

million contribution to the economy of that area, and that is

under somewhat depressed present conditions.

Sales performance. He gets into the question as to whether

B.C. Tree Fruits is really doing it's job, whether it could be

done better otherwise. He comes to the conclusion that it is

doing a good job:

"A comparison of the performance of B.C. Tree Fruits with a

large fruit marketing cooperative in the northwest United

States and Ontario confirms that B.C. Tree Fruits' net returns

to growers were significantly higher than net returns to

growers of the other marketing organizations."

We're doing much better, in spite of more difficult

circumstances, more difficult circumstances, in that a major

part of our crop has to be exported beyond the fruit producing

areas

whereas, in the case of the United States and in the case

of Ontario, they are producing largely for local market.

One heading "Half Truths Damaging the Industry."

"It is a matter of real concern that some growers have been

making a deliberate attempt to destroy the confidence of other

growers and the general public in the orderly marketing

concept. While one can sympathize with individuals who are

ardent believers of a free enterprise system, it is unthinkable

that they should be allowed either to destroy a marketing

system which has functioned well or to use it as an umbrella

for their own private profit at the expense of others."

Talking about sales outlets, there's been some confusion I

know in the minds of many of the people who have written me,

and who feel that the sales outlets are very restricted. In

numbering them:

"In marketing the 80 per cent of its apple production

surplus to B.C. requirements, B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd. sells to

132 wholesalers and chain store supply depots located in 45

cities and towns in western Canada, and to 124 wholesalers and

chain store supply depots in 56 cities and towns in eastern

Canada — quite a different marketing problem from that

confronting apple growers in Ontario and Quebec, where the

producing areas are within easy reach of large urban

markets."

Packing house renovations. Here he feels is one of the areas

where much could be done: "Most of the existing packing

facilities were built well before 1950. Many indications of

obsolescence, and yet no financing available within their own

organization to do much about it." He suggests a revamping of

that organization. He suggests there be government assistance

for that but, before there's any move of any kind, he

recommends that, in order to clear the air for the community as

a whole, as well as for the growers themselves, the government

make arrangements for a grower plebiscite to confirm their

support for continuation of a centrally controlled industry

with one-desk selling.

In

summary then, his recommendations: First, his concern.

Some people complain about a very low return for their crop and

there are figures in here showing that some producers of Golden

Delicious apples, as they say, are getting 1.5 cents a pound

for the product they deliver while others are getting 7.5

[ Page 176 ]

cents; and the same holds true for all the other varieties.

There's a very low figure and a higher figure — I'm not going

to say a very high figure, but certainly much higher. And when

you consider that the high is five times the low figure, you

can see that there's just no hope for the person at the low

levels to be making any kind of a living at all, even if the

one at the top levels is doing well.

Part of the reason for this is the type and age of trees.

Last spring we changed the ALDA legislation so that it could be

used to replant orchards. He's suggesting that this be more

widely used and that the application of ALDA be talked about a

good deal more so that people will be making use of it.

He feels there could be a lot more in the way of orchard

management advice go out. This follows one of the

recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture, who while they expressed their appreciation for

everything the staff had done, pointed out also that in almost

every area of the province and in almost every commodity group,

the staff were shortchanged — they were understaffed, if I

might use that word. He's recommending, in the case of the

fruit industry itself, that there be a very substantial

increase in the staff available and that the staff be widely

engaged in advisory services, trying to show people how they

can be helping themselves even under present conditions, let

alone under improved conditions.

Market and supply-demand. Questions that we're faced with

competition from outside sources, the fact that we have to sell

a very large portion of our product outside the producing areas

of our own province and there suggests a price stabilization

programme, And of course this was referred to in the opening

speech.

Amalgamation of packing facilities. Right now, with some 14 cooperative organizations

and some four independents — each one of them arguing with the other as to who

can do the better job and how the job should be done; when any one of them puts

in a new piece of equipment that will enable them to do the job more efficiently,

the other 17 feel that they all have to have it in order to continue getting

support from their growers or the growers will leave them and go to the others

— with all of these problems, suggests that there be an amalgamation of the

packing facilities; that there be five co-ops instead of the present 18 organizations

— one co-op for each of the producing areas, i.e., one for each of the four

producing areas in the Okanagan Valley and one for the Kootenay area, that the

government encourage this and that the government help in financing construction

of improved equipment so that they'll be able to handle the job more efficiently.

But even apart from that, the simple amalgamation itself, according to his calculations,

would save one cent a pound. When you consider that the packing house charges

approximately four cents a pound, what he is suggesting is a 25 per cent saving

in costs at the packing house level, a very substantial saving.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I apologize that the printed report

isn't ready yet; it will be very soon I hope. The draft report

is ready, and anyone who cares to have the draft report is

welcome to it. I'll table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose report is it.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose report?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Dr. Hudson.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Just pass it around.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Whatever you like. I'd rather like to get

this one back sometime because I've made a lot of…

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Table it? Would you prefer it? I'll table

it, but in the meantime you could take it down to Mr. Anderson

for a start…

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister asks leave to table the document.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize now for

absenting myself from the House tomorrow through to Friday.

It's a time when I would rather not be away, and yet I must be

in Ottawa. The federal Minister of Agriculture (Hon. E. Whelan)

has invited the provincial Ministers of Agriculture to talk

about several things and the Prime Minister of Canada (Rt. Hon.

P.E. Trudeau) has indicated to some extent what the nature of

the discussions will be.

The federal Minister of Agriculture has said there's no

shortage of food, that we can produce ten times as much as we

need; the Prime Minister has said we are to talk about ways of

increasing food production. So I think all this indicates that

Ottawa doesn't really know why they're calling us there, except

that they want to talk to us and, hopefully, to listen.

There was some indication in the Calgary conference that the

federal government was ready to talk about stabilization of

farm income, but there was very little talking about it.

There's indication now that they are ready to talk because, in

this quotation from the Prime Minister, he uses the words

"Government producer-financed income stabilization

[ Page 177 ]

programme." So hopefully we're going to talk about some

provincial government-federal government involvement in a plan

that will help stabilize farm income and certainly, as the

Minister of Agriculture for British Columbia, I'm going back

there to tell the federal Minister that B.C. is ready to move

ahead on this, as was indicated in the opening speech.

We're going ahead anyway. The opening speech makes that

quite clear. We hope that Ottawa will choose to come along with

us.

Beyond that, again at the Calgary conference, there was an

admission from the federal government that there needed to be

some rationalization of the credit that is available to

farmers. So many different plans of wide variety are available

in so many different provinces — even a wide variety within

provinces — so that farmers in need of credit hardly know where

to go in order to get the credit that they needed for a

particular programme — a rationalization is seriously needed.

There was some admission by the federal government of this

problem that something should be done, and yet absolutely no

discussion on it at the Calgary conference.

I'm going back to that conference. Again, I'm not clear,

when you listen to the remarks of the Prime Minister and the

federal Minister of Agriculture, just what they are going to

propose about this, if anything at all, really. But I'm going

back there ready to say that B.C., on its own if necessary, is

ready to go ahead with a rationalization of credit for farmers

in the Province of British Columbia.

The third thing in the programme — and again there's been

some indication, but only an indication, that the federal

government might participate in this — that there should be

some expansion of agricultural secondary and tertiary industry,

and that in order to achieve this, if we're to achieve it with

primary farm products, there must be some willingness and some

financing put into this programme by the provincial and federal

governments. Again, as was promised in the opening speech,

whether or not the federal government is willing to move, ready

to move at this time, the Province of British Columbia is ready

to go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, after all this time of talking, of being aware

of the problems, recognizing the problems, we've identified the

problems here in British Columbia. The select standing

committee heard them all over the province; the Members haven't

been saying much about it in this session, but there's

opportunity yet and there will be further opportunity in the

debate.

We know some of the problems here in the Province of British Columbia. We said

when we introduced the legislation to save farmland that the next step would

be to make it possible for farmers not to go on subsidizing the consumers as

they have in the past. And that's the way these subsidies have worked, Mr. Speaker

— it's not a case of subsidizing farmers; it's farmers who, through their long

hours of work, their hope that someday they might get something out of it, who

are the ones that have been subsidizing cheap food for the consumers in this

province, in this country and often throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, we promised

in the spring session, when we said we would save land, that the time had come

when the farmer was going to quit doing the subsidizing, that it was the responsibility

of the community as a whole to make sure that farmers also had a right to a

decent standard of living, and that their ability to earn that decent standard

of living should not depend upon the possibility that one day they might be

able to sell their land off for subdivision.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would start by saying

that I am very pleased to once again take my seat in this

Legislature, representing the people of the North Okanagan with

a view to expressing their concerns as they directly affect

them within our constituency, and to express their concerns and

suggestions as they feel the provincial government might better

handle the problems and concerns of people in British

Columbia.

I'd like to comment on the Hon. Leader of the Liberal

Party's (Mr. D.A. Anderson) comments and welcome the new

Conservative Party Leader (Mr. Wallace). I see why they

received such a hearty welcome from the Liberals because they

have seemed, Mr. Speaker, to have so much in common, that

they're being known as diminishing numbers. However, we join

with them and we hope that the Liberals are not going to suffer

the same fate.

I'd like to offer an encouraging word to that dejected

little group on the left, but it's very difficult to know what

to say to people who are standing at their own demise. I did

meet a young 12-year-old boy on this weekend, and he had read

the paper and he wrote a little poem. Maybe it says very simply

and better than I how they feel:

"The Liberal crew once stood at six,

Now they find that they're in quite a fix.

When once they thought they had a solid five,

They find that

now there is just four alive."

And he had a great big question mark.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I told you, Mr. Member, that I wanted to

express some sort of concern for you.

Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the Agriculture Minister's

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) speech when he comes back. I guess he's out

announcing the new policy on a further land grab in British

Columbia that he referred to in his speech. I would hope that

that Minister or

[ Page 178 ]

his colleagues will clarify the situation, which in fact can

be described as a "bomb" that he dropped in this House this

afternoon.

Are we to understand from that Minister's veiled remarks on

private ownership of homeland in British Columbia that once

more there will be an extension of land grab by this socialist

government? Is he saying to the young people of British

Columbia: Don't buy a home today, because we are going to

forcefully devalue private properties held in British Columbia?

Is he saying to them: Rent now, and wait for state housing? Are

this Minister and this government, Mr. Speaker, also saying to

the older people of British Columbia: Sell, sell, sell today

and get what you can out of the equity that you've spent your

life putting into your home, because we are going to forcefully

devalue your private property in the name of state

socialism?

Is the Minister saying to the new people coming to British

Columbia, young and old: Don't buy a private home in British

Columbia. We don't believe in private home ownership. We are

going to forcefully devalue the equity of those homes and what

you pay today will be less than half tomorrow. Wait, rent in

British Columbia and then wait for state homes? Is he saying

very clearly to the people of British Columbia that the day of

a fair return on your investment in your home, that is often

made throughout a lifetime, is in fact gone forever, and that

this socialist government is taking one more step and force

devaluating private homes and privately-held family lands in

British Columbia?

I ask that Minister to clarify this situation, because there

are going to be a lot of concerned families in this province in

a few hours when that release is out. And there is a very

concerned opposition because we do not believe that this

government has a mandate to make virtual serfs of the people in

their own homes in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to lend my voice in welcoming

the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett). It's a delight

for me, as one of the elected representatives in the whole

Okanagan Valley, to see his outstanding victory in that crucial

by-election, and it was a crucial by-election, because indeed

the future of politics in British Columbia was determined at

that time. The people spoke very clearly that they would not

buy in British Columbia a destruction of their individual

rights and a destruction of the way of life that they had

worked so hard to build up in the name of a philosophy that is

foreign to British Columbia.

I look forward to working with this Member; I think it is

good for the Okanagan. We have a united front and we will be

able to bring to this government's attention its very strong

obligation in continuing the work of the Okanagan water basin

study.

We are of a united opinion that this $2 million study, which is coming to a

conclusion now and which was initiated by the former Social Credit administration,

has imposed a serious responsibility on all senior levels of government. The

first is to see, before that final report is brought in, that it is taken to

public hearing.

The Minister isn't here, but I am pleased that he has

acceded to this request of mine, so that the public can have an

opportunity to really analyse what the various sociologists and

economists and scientists had to say about the future of the

Okanagan valley, and so that they can determine in their own

words before the final report, whether or not they agree,

whether they wish to make any additions or whether they

seriously question some of the contents.

When that final report is brought down, we will stand

together as united Members in the Okanagan Valley to encourage

the provincial government to set up a logical and encompassing

vehicle that will represent the valley from the border to the

Revelstoke area, through which these programmes must be

undertaken to assure a future for the Okanagan on a socially

desirable basis and a sound economic basis and on a so-called,

non-polluting basis, and in a way that will conserve our water

resources and our land resources to the benefit not only of

today's people who are living in the valley, but to the future

generation.

This is going to be a very big job, Mr. Speaker, and it is

going to require not only a united vehicle through which the

people and the government can talk, but it is going to require

a great deal of financial input. It would be grossly unfair for

any level of government to say to the people of the Okanagan:

"This is your baby. We financed the report; now you do the

job."

There is a very small population in the Okanagan possessing

and occupying one of the most vital pieces of land and water

area not only in British Columbia, but perhaps in Canada. It is

far too much to expect these people to bear the financial

burden that will be required in water management, land

management and pollution control in that area.

So, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we will be standing

together to bring a united voice from the Okanagan and, I am

sure, the voice of concerned citizens all over British Columbia

who use this area as a playground and a hobby area, who get

their enjoyment from seeing our apple trees and our water…to their benefit without any of the labour. It is hoped that

they will respond to our call for financial assistance and

technical input from the two senior levels of government. This

should be initiated as soon as the report is complete and

decisions made by the current provincial government.

I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to extend my best wishes to

the new chief. We are almost getting a government with all

chiefs and no workers. You've

[ Page 179 ]

got an equal balance. I wish you well.

I will be the first to criticize you if I feel you are

abusing your office or the privileges that go with office, but

I also shall be the first to compliment you if you are able to

bring some sort of sense and coordination to the very unsettled

financial conditions and social conditions that are arising

very rapidly in British Columbia in this year of 1973.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the government — I believe it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer), who used his outside circuit rather than this House.

But he did announce the long overdue provision of the previous

government to phase out a portion of Oakalla Prison and to turn

those lands over to the Municipality of Burnaby as a park

area.

We would hope that the government will follow through on the

initial plans that were evolved by the former Social Credit

administration to phase out the whole of the prison, and that

those lands and those buildings, if the buildings are

repairable, should be turned over to the people in that area

for recreational and park purposes.

Surely there could be no higher mark of man's ability to

overcome some of his major social problems than to be able to

convert a dastardly prison into a stimulating and exciting and

people-oriented recreational area.

With that, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit government had, as

the Minister will know from his files, in correlation with the

Oakalla programme, a policy throughout the province whereby

outdated and outmoded provincial government buildings and

strategic and unused provincial government land should be

turned over to regional districts and involved municipalities,

providing they had a programme of development for recreational

purposes for those buildings and those lands. I would hope, in

complimenting them on the Oakalla situation, that they would

indeed accept my suggestion and continue with this programme

around the whole province.

I would like to say a word or two, Mr. Speaker, about the

committees that have been travelling through the province this

summer, and that were started by this administration. I think

that all Members of the House approached these committees and

the committee structure with enthusiasm and with a genuine

desire to hear concentrated views from the public, and also

from those who are out in other areas of the province who work

in the various fields…and that these views as they were

brought in would truly shape the policies and future policies

of this government, and for the people of British Columbia.

I also believe that every Member of the opposition, regardless of their party,

was determined to be non-political in their actions on the committee, and their

conduct. They did recognize that there were obviously deep ideological differences

among them, but they were determined not to use the committees themselves as

a political platform.

Certainly there is no doubt in my mind that on the two

committees in which I had the opportunity to serve, this was

carried out by all opposition Members — not only in

determination to work, but to work in a spirit of good will,

and to make these committees worthwhile.

However, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that it became

increasingly disappointing to myself and, I am sure, to other

Members on the health and welfare committee that what the

committee was, in fact, was not a listening post for the public

and an avenue through which the public could speak to their

government, but straight window-dressing. What we were actually

doing was trying to correct theoretically independent

information of what the government already intended to do and

had, in fact, already been drafting its legislative programme

to meet.

I don't like to say it but I think we must admit that this

health committee was poorly organized. Repeatedly we were told

that many bona fide health units and many volunteers in the

health field and many professionals in the health field wanted

to appear before that committee. They had either not heard of

the hearing or if they had, Mr. Speaker, they had the great

time of one to two days to prepare their briefs. This in spite

of the fact that the chairman knew fully two months before the

committee hearings started that this was the direction in which

the provincial government was going to go. There was certainly

a good month's time between the time that the committee

hearings and terms of reference were announced and the time

that the committee actually got on the road.

The attendance by the Members on the health committee was

certainly not as outstanding as it was on the other committee

in which I served, the agricultural committee, but by and large

it was reasonably good, with the exception of the Ministers. I

regret to say that when those Ministers did appear — and they

were extremely rare occasions…not one on the road for one

of the Ministers — they tried to influence the committee and to

influence the hearing, in terms of some political grandstanding

on the part of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi)

and in terms of asking unrelated questions or questions that

had previously been canvassed a short time before they appeared

at the hearings.

Then, when the time came to draft the final report of the

health and welfare committee, to find that the Ministers tried

extremely hard, in part successfully, to influence the findings

of the committee, then I think that they bring the whole matter

of travelling legislative committees in British Columbia

into

[ Page 180 ]

serious question.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this must prove ultimately

frustrating and disillusioning to the public, who really had

something they wanted to say, and to the members of those

committees who really wanted to listen and who really wanted to

make constructive and serious recommendations to the

government.

I have no objection to travelling committees, providing the

people who work in the sectors in which the committee hearings

are concerned, and who have a vital interest, or who have

something they want to say, have ample opportunities to know of

the hearings — where they will take place and when they may

appear, so that they can adequately prepare their briefs and

their views. I have no objection to Ministers sitting on these

committees. I have no objection to them having a vote during

the discussions of the committee. But I suggest that they

should take a passive role as far as political appearances are

concerned.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, I believe that they should

follow the attitudes and examples set by the MLAs on the other

committees, not use them as political grandstanding platforms,

and not use them as a way of trying to mould the committee

reports to fit into their preconceived legislation.

I would suggest that any Minister who sits on any of these

committees not be paid the additional $1,000 stipend. I opposed

that in the beginning and certainly, if there is no other

reason to discontinue it, the attendance of the Ministers

during the health and welfare hearings should be ample reason

to discontinue that extra bonus. It should be the Minister's

interest and he should consider it part of his concern as a

Minister, and part of his responsibility as a Minister, to

attend those hearings and to use them as an avenue through

which he or she can learn.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member, I think you are aware

that the matters that are before a committee are for the

committee itself and not for the House. We only have knowledge

of what transpires in committee from the report returned to the

House. How the committee conducts its business is the concern

of the committee and not of the House Therefore, I would draw

your attention to the fact that it is actually out of order to,

in effect, give your own report of those matters that occur in

committee. If matters occur in committee that are important to

that committee, that is the place to settle them within the

discretion vested in the committee from the House.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and your leniency.

I think you will agree that I overcome any transgression of the rules and that

I am making recommendations to the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this

province (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as to how the whole committee structure might be

better re-established in the fall. That is, of course, that the Ministers not

be paid for sitting on the committees in general and, secondly, that Ministers,

while being able to participate in the discussions of the committees, should

not have a final vote in the work of the report of the committee.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in discussing the committees for the

future, that this government must come to grips and make a

decision in relationship to the committees. If you want to use

them and the general political benefits that can accrue from

them, then I suggest that you are entitled to do this; but you

also have to learn to live with them.

The committees, by their terms of reference, are not set up

to, in fact, preach or report what the government wants to say

or hear. The committees are designed to listen and to bring in

a report based on what they hear in relation to their terms of

reference. Whether or not the government accepts that report,

or whether or not the government chooses to use that report as

a means of influencing their own legislation, is entirely the

government's responsibility. It is then the prerogative of the

members of the committee to approach the government in

whichever manner they wish to, as far as whether they agree

that the government didn't accept the recommendations or that

the government did — and praise them for it.

So I leave that thought with you, Mr. Speaker. We would like

to see the continuation of the committee system if, in fact, it

has value to the people of British Columbia and with those

further provisos. I would only sum it up by saying that, in

essence, we would like to see the Ministers behave themselves

when they are on those committees.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, we

have listened to this Member breaking the rules by discussing

the committees; secondly, we have had to listen to her

suggesting that there has been influence by committee members,

and now she suggests that we behave ourselves on committee. I

really don't think that that kind of language should be

acceptable in this House, and I would ask to have it withdrawn.

I am asking her to withdraw that — the suggestion that there

was influence borne….

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Hon. Minister objecting to the fact that

she has to behave herself as a Minister?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I most certainly do.

MRS. JORDAN: But I hope she will attend the meetings more

regularly.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think Hon. Members should make imputations against

each other —

[ Page

181 ]

certainly not against Ministers, as well as other

Members.

MRS, JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the debate has centred largely around

management and labour in this session, and the government has

made it very clear that it considers this its major priority.

In that relation we have discussed legal rights of strikes; we

have discussed problems relating to their possible solution.

But as the battle in this Legislature rages on, Mr. Speaker, so

does inflation in the Province of British Columbia. I would

suggest that in this dramatic shuffle there is a group of

people in this province who is thoroughly lost, and those are

the senior citizens.

To suggest that I was stunned last week when the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) outlined what can only be

described as a rather dry and dreary report to this House on

the reasons why he is worth $46,000 a year to the taxpayers of

British Columbia, and reveals no emergency help or long-term

planned help for the senior citizens of this province, is to be

an under-estimation. If you listened to his speech you saw that

he revealed a complete lack of programming in relation to the

senior citizens and a complete lack of programming in relation

to assisting those on what is commonly called "welfare" to get

off the rolls and seek and find gainful and rewarding

employment.

He talked a little about the expansion of the day-care

programme, which was the previous administration's programme.

The negotiations that he did bring to fruition were all but

completed at the change of government. I welcome the increase

to day-care programmes, but where were his plans and the

evidence of his actions in getting people to work in British

Columbia?

Two significant statements that he made, in my view, were

the complete admission that he had dismally failed in this

area, and that he had made no steps — in fact, had lost ground — in seeking assistance and cooperation from the private

sector in providing job opportunities for the handicapped and

those who are less fortunate and those who are on welfare. I

think it proves that his instant cancellation of the previous

administration's programme of job opportunities, training

on-the-job and make-work projects with the private sector was

not done with thought and it was not done with planning; it was

done in a moment of political temperament which may have been

very satisfying to himself but was hardly satisfying to those

in need and was, in fact, as evidenced with his own figures,

very damaging to those in need.

I would suggest that it serves, without a shadow of a doubt, as proof that

he meant what he said when he said that he would stamp out every vestige of

individual enterprise in the Province of British Columbia and that he would,

in fact, provide jobs through government at the taxpayers' expense.

If you examine his figures, that's exactly what he did. He,

in essence, robbed Peter to pay Paul. He showed a saving in his

department in one sector but failed to show the costs to the

other departments who did the employing — all of which, Mr. Speaker, again must be taken out of the taxpayers, the

hard-working taxpayers' pockets in the Province of British

Columbia.

He has done nothing in nearly a year of $46,000 to relieve

this situation, to create jobs for handicapped, to create

employment opportunities on a part-time basis for those over

60, or to get people off the taxpayer rolls and into

independent and well-paying jobs in the private sector.

All he has done is to perpetrate his philosophy of "big

brother" government, making people dependent on government for

jobs as well as welfare…and that the people of this

province will pay for it by digging ever deeper into their

pockets to meet the mounting costs of living and the rising

taxes that they'll have to impose in order to meet these

programmes in another two or three years. But perhaps even more

startling, and I admire his candour for it, was his admission

that the government itself was, in fact, indulging in

extravagances.

Now I won't repeat these extravagances. We are aware of them

and the people of British Columbia are becoming more aware of

them. But that he should make such a lame-duck plea, a flippant

remark about these extravagances, as to say, "Forgive us our

little sins; forgive us our little extravagances."

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how that Minister grew up, but I

would suggest that in my book, $46,000 a year plus expenses…$1,000 per committee without attendance…nearly $2 million

in party hack fees…travelling to England without legitimate

reason at public expense — and I am sure the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is aware of that — jetting around the

province to visit the constituency that he represents by the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)…the extravagant

renovations that are going on in this building, not at the

foundation level where my priority would be, but in the

Ministers' offices…the telephone bugging….

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: …deals in the forest industry. Little

extravagances? In my book they are big extravagances.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: And when I listen to the Hon. Minister….

[ Page 182 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. I take it that you said

that there is telephone bugging.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) can answer that

question.

MR. SPEAKER: I am concerned about the….

MRS. JORDAN: …he is also speaking for all the other

cabinet Ministers. But all I can say, Mr. Speaker, in summing

this point up, is that he should be so flippant and callous in

his attitude, and that he should consider the things I have

outlined as little extravagances — I wonder, in fact, who he

is, and if he might not well qualify for that well-known

position of Mr. Nixon's tutor.

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia we have an example of a

rags-to-riches government, and that government is enjoying its

riches not through performance and not through merit, but at

the taxpayers' expense. The taxpayers are deeply concerned

about this and so is this official opposition.

Within the Minister's department and through the

extravagances of this government and through the policies that

they have carried out in contributing to exorbitant wage

increases and the role that they have played inflaming

inflation in British Columbia — and they can't accept the blame

for all the inflation, but indeed they have done nothing to

help curb inflation — and by removing the controls that were

previously on and by their own actions, they have set up a

situation which is hurting a lot of people in British Columbia,

but it's frustrating and frightening to the senior citizens of

this province.

I would ask this government and the Minister to heed the

warnings that we gave him last year. I outlined to him then the

problems that the senior citizens in this province were going

to face. The cost of food was spiralling; rents were

spiralling. Housing for senior citizens is becoming

increasingly short with urban redevelopment…and this by the

admission of the Premier because of the policies of this

government, where housing starts are down.

I urge the Premier and Minister of Finance of this province

to look at the situation. If he wouldn't take our word for it,

then let him look out now and see what is happening. Let it not

be said that there is none so blind in the Province of British

Columbia as a Premier who will not see. The senior citizens of

this province are in a desperate state, and the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) revealed no assistance to them

at all.

The Mincome programme, which he enjoys patting himself on the back in pride

about, has in fact proved to be futile and a futile assistance to most of the

citizens of this province. Many were led to believe that they, if they were

over 65, would be receiving $200 a month. This simply was not so. The little

bit that was turned over to those senior citizens who qualified through a means

test was merely a passing on of withheld funds from the federal government.

With this in mind I call upon the government to recognize

the emergency situation in British Columbia now where the

senior citizens do not, in general, have enough money to

provide for their basic food and shelter, and to institute a

programme of inflation bonus food coupons this month, next

month and for the next few months. Make it even $10 a month for

senior citizens, and make these coupons redeemable at any

legitimate grocery store throughout the Province of British

Columbia, and allow these senior citizens to use this as a

basic way of meeting their basic food needs in relation to the

rapidly rising costs.

Such a food bonus programme would not affect their

eligibility under Mincome, if indeed they are eligible; it

would apply to all senior citizens over 65 in the Province of

British Columbia. And it would not affect their tax situation,

either provincially or federally because it would not be

classed as income under the Income Tax Act .

It would not affect the federal-provincial cost sharing with

the provincial government. Therefore these inflationary food

bonus coupons would not, in fact, be a double cost to the

provincial taxpayer.

Along with this effort to help them meet their basic food

requirements, as a second step, I would challenge the

government, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his cabinet, to raise

the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act .

In the last session, Mr. Speaker, I pleaded with the Premier

to raise the $50, that was started by the Social Credit

administration, to $100 in 1973, recognizing that elderly

citizens are facing astronomical rent increases and, as I

mentioned before, acute housing shortages because of urban

renewal and because of the lack of new buildings starts in

British Columbia.

He would not accept this advice then. But I urge him now to

look out into British Columbia and see what is happening and to

raise that elderly renters grant Act, amend it and bring that

grant up to $100 a month, applicable to 1973, to any

responsible person or member of a family that qualifies as a

senior citizen. Then, Mr. Speaker, we'll at least be helping

them to hold their own when they're caught in a vice between

the public, between labour, between management, between

international problems over which they have no control.

Mr. Speaker, they don't have time to wait for public

housing. They don't have time to wait for prices to come down.

When you're 65, when you're 60, every moment counts. Let's help

them get on with living instead of struggling to survive in

[ Page 183 ]

situation over which they have no control and very little

voice.

Along with that, Mr. Speaker…and I would mention, for

your information, that in the estimates of March 31, 1974, the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) revealed that $3,500,000

would give $50 a month to every senior citizen renter in the

Province of British Columbia who qualified. Now, Mr. Speaker,

if we double that and allow for a slight increase in the senior

citizen population, we're still only talking about $8 million,

of which he's already budgeted $3,500,000, Surely when we're talking about office renovations and silk

couches and curtains to the tune of $2 million, Mr. Speaker, we

can afford to use a little reasonable restraint, to go a little

slower and take some of this money and divert it to where it is

most needed.

Mr. Speaker, along with that I would urge the government, as

a third emergency measure to help the senior citizens of this

province, if they won't accept the bill that I've put in the

last two sessions and will put in again tomorrow, to draft

their own Act which would, in essence, grant a cash grant of up

to $500 to begin with to elderly citizens in British Columbia

for home repair.

Mr. Speaker, the health committee report, which I'm sure

you've read, puts strong emphasis on keeping elderly people in

their homes through health measures. If they're losing their

sight, then the committee recommended homemakers to assist them — community involvement. But it isn't going to do the elderly

citizens nor the health programme nor the taxpayers of this

province much good to keep older people in their homes if, in

fact, those homes are falling down around their ears.

Just as we get old as people and we break down, so houses

get old and break down. Mr. Speaker, if you've ever got a

quotation on a paint job for one of the small little houses in

Vancouver that are on 25-ft. lots, you'll know that the paint

alone, if it's of any quality, comes to well over $200. That's

without the labour to apply this paint.

If the government instituted this programme now, there are

many elderly citizens in British Columbia who have broken

steps, who are living in unsafe homes with faulty wiring, who

have leaky roofs and whose general well-being would be greatly

improved if the peeling paint were repaired. They simply cannot

afford it.

That's not just the elderly citizens who are receiving Mincome, Mr. Speaker.

There are many elderly citizens who worked very hard and were very prudent and

saved a small amount of money and who own their own homes and who perhaps have

a car, thinking that they could enjoy their retirement years, and now find that

merely keeping up the home is, in fact, taking away their little extra money

with which they could have a holiday or with which perhaps they could have a

roast of beef instead of hamburger.

Mr. Speaker, on this subject, I believe that if the

government undertook this programme, they would show an opening

of their minds in the policy of where they're going to go in

senior citizen housing. I've long advocated that masses and

masses of public housing, whether for young people or

middle-aged people or senior citizens, is wrong and it leads to

human stifling and moral breakdown. I think to have a policy

that is obviously gearing itself to tucking senior citizens

away in senior citizen housing projects which are state owned

and which the state provides and are part of the socialist

philosophy, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Our thrust in British Columbia for senior citizen housing

should be to keep elderly people in their own homes as long as

they want to stay there and as long as they are able. As health

services increase, as the pilot project in the Kamloops area in

the Okanagan have proven, that ability will be lengthened

through such things as meals-on-wheels and some type of

assistance in the major housecleaning areas of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased, after I had spoken to deaf ears

twice in this House, to see in the paper that at the welfare

conference Mr. Walter Turnbull, who was the former deputy

postmaster general in the federal government and who is now 77

years old and who, perhaps, can speak out more eloquently than

most elderly citizens because of his experience in government,

his knowledge in government and because of his age, said that

he disputed contentions that old people generally are happy

with accommodation in homes for the aged.

People living in homes for the aged built under the National

Housing Act amount to about 3 per cent of Canadians over 65

years old. He said that no doubt the trend will be more and

more towards homes for the aged because governments like to

hand out building contracts. Those are his words, Mr. Speaker.

He said that most elderly people prefer to stay at home if they

can, and if they could find money to repair them. That is where

government aid should be directed.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I talked about this in

this House, I believe it myself and I was very pleased to see

that this knowledgeable gentleman who is now himself a senior

citizen, Walter Turnbull, made a point of stating publicly this

position. I think we must take every opportunity to allow

senior citizens to enjoy their homes, to use them, to putter

around in their homes, which are very much a part of their

social activities in older years. I would ask, Mr. Speaker,

that the government do, right now, bring in a programme of

home-repair assistance to the elderly people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few

[ Page 184 ]

minutes on the Indian situation, as it it's commonly called

in the Province of British Columbia. I think that in doing

this, you're talking about the interaction between the native

Indian people of British Columbia and the province itself as it

is represented by the NDP government today.

This, of course, must also, I'm sorry to say, involved the

situation of the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). I don't

intend to repeat the concerns of the official opposition as

they were outlined by my colleague for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

so adequately the other day. But I do wish to point out that

the action of the Premier of the province and his colleagues in

this case — and as one example, Mr. Speaker, in another case

that I will outline — can only lead to an air of suspicion,

first because the Premier has been involved for many years in

public life…and in the instance of his department of Indian

affairs, he knows from his own experience that the federal

Department of Indian Affairs could, at the most charitable

description, be described as a fiasco.

He knew, as we all know, that the desire of the majority of

Indian people in Canada and in British Columbia has been to

stand on an equal footing with other Canadian citizens,

enjoying the same rights, the same privileges and the same

responsibilities as their fellow Canadians.

They have also pointed out, as do many other groups in our

society, they do have special problems with which they need

special help. But in spite of this knowledge, the Premier

created a Minister whose sole responsibility was for Indian

activities — in essence, a department of Indian affairs — and

he placed the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) in charge.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier prides himself on being a social

worker and a man who is sensitive to human needs, human strengths, and

human failings, and he had worked with the Hon. Member for Atlin for 12

years in this House. He knew, and we knew, this Member well. We knew of

his great strength and, as he is a human being, we knew of his

weaknesses, as each of us know of each other. We knew of his service to

this Province and he knew, and the Premier of this province knew, and

we knew where this Member stood in relation to culture, and in relation

to his views on Indian rights, not only in British Columbia but in

Canada. Certainly not all of us agreed with him all the time, but all

of us — and many people outside this chamber — respected this Member.

And yet now, with a completely inadequate explanation, this Member has

been unceremoniously dismissed from the cabinet, and we must ask why.

We must ask whether or not in fact the Premier was flying a political kite

to set up an Indian affairs department that he thought might prove more popular

than he had anticipated, and to put the Hon. Member in charge as an astute political

move. He then found that this kite was not popular, and that the only way out

and the easiest way out was to fire the Minister — to make that Minister a scapegoat.

Or did the Premier find that the Member for Atlin, who had

always been very frank about his position…

AN HON. MEMBER: Very frank.

MRS. JORDAN: …in fact, to be unwilling to back down from

that position and proved, in fact, to be unwilling, as he

always was, to toe a party line? And did he prove, in fact, to

be a man who might well reveal policies of this government

towards the Indian people? And did he, in fact, just prove too

hot to handle?

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia and this

official opposition want a better explanation than they have

received. We want to express our respect to the Member for

Atlin, and our acknowledgement of his service to the public of

British Columbia. But what we also ask is: what is the policy

of the government of British Columbia? To date, we have heard

nothing but glib phrases and seen nothing but a few unrelated

giveaways that put a few dollars into the Indian peoples'

pockets without any thought to their future. How concerned

about the native people is this government?

Mr. Speaker, in my time in public life I have had many

opportunities to work with native Indian people on some of

their programmes, and I have never seen a group of people who

are so boxed in by regulations, tossed about by bureaucracy,

and tied up with red-tape in my life. I suspect there are no

other people in the world that find themselves in quite this

situation. The Premier knows this and so does the Hon. Member

for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), yet what is their

policy? We have seen their policy in relation to the Hon.

Member for Atlin, and now we see the actions of that Minister

stirring up greater concern. We must ask if they, in fact, are

going to add one more brick to the suspected house for Indians

that Barrett is building and serve as another concrete example

of why the Indian people in British Columbia are growing

concerned and very uneasy about their future under the NDP

government, and how, by their own words, they must look with

some suspicion at any so-called assistance that the NDP

government offers. Like B.C. farmers, they might ask, "What is

the real reason?"

Mr. Speaker, I bring to you as an example the conduct of the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

as he acted when he was Minister of Highways, with the Qualicum

band of Indians. The band, after an open discussion with that

Minister in which the band thought that they were receiving a

sympathetic hearing regarding their concerns for highways and

regarding their concerns for their possession of their

artifacts, were stunned to receive a letter from the

[ Page 185 ]

Minister. I will quote that letter, Mr. Speaker. The

Minister, in taking a very rigid stand, stated:

"The Department of Highways must have, by law, the same

rights and control on reserve lands, including expropriation

for highway purposes, as are vested in the department in the

case of non-Indian lands."

In his second letter, Mr. Speaker, dated April 27, 1973, the

then Minister of Highways, the current Minister of

Communications, stated: "I am afraid the proposal that some

form of three-party agreement, under which individual Indian

bands would be able to opt in and out, would not be

satisfactory." And then he adds, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you

will listen very carefully to this, and I quote:

"I might add that this continual problem of non-co-operation

from some of the Indian bands, where we are desirous of

co-operating, makes the department less receptive to the

requests of Indian bands who require some help and roadwork

from the department."

Mr. Speaker, the letter in itself is a disgrace, but that

Minister knows full well, innocent-looking though those

concessions were, that he was acting for the Indian bands; that

they would, in fact, if the Indian bands had conceded, had

long-term effects, not only on their own band but on all bands

in British Columbia, and very wide effects as to what the

Indian bands in British Columbia enjoy in the way of legal

rights in the protection of their property and the possession

of their property. Yet, with full knowledge of this, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Communications took a rigid stand with

one little band, the Qualicum band, in their efforts to work

out a road problem; a stand that, if they had agreed, would

have destroyed many more of their rights and protections

without them even knowing it.

On the top of this type of subtle power play, the Minister

had the audacity to threaten them, and to tell them that if

they wouldn't cooperate in making these minor concessions,

which in fact had far-reaching implications, this government

would not be prepared to co-operate with other Indian bands,

whether or not their discussions related to legitimate

concerns. In other words, he was going to punish them for not

doing what he wanted them to do. This Minister, who admitted

publicly that the ferry workers put a shotgun to his head, had

in fact tried to put a shotgun to the head of a small little

Indian band in the Province of British Columbia, a gun that was

loaded, a gun that would have in fact destroyed the rights of

the Indians under the BNA Act, the Indian Act, and destroyed

their one little Act that helps them hold on to the control of

their land, the Trespass Act . We must ask, Mr. Speaker, if

there is no limit in the hunger for power of this Minister, and

is there no limit to the actions that this government will take

in trying to get their own way?

Mr. Speaker, these are just two examples of why the Indian

people of British Columbia are concerned, and why they want

some answers, and why they, in their own words, are looking

with suspicion on the actions of this government. Mr. Speaker,

I would like to suggest that in dealing with the whole of the

so-called Indian problem, in spite of any political

maneuverings that go on by any government, the whole issue is

wrapped up in the fundamental issue of land.

The high-handed, wheeler-dealer attitude of that Minister

will not work and can only serve to foster greater distrust and

can only serve to complicate the native Indians' already

complicated position. And in trying to destroy the BNA Act we

have to recommend in trying to stop the Minister from doing

this, that this Act, as it affects Indians, is a fundamental

bill as well that clearly spells out the federal power.

Unfortunately, however, this Act is also used both ways

against the Indian people. The federal government uses it to

protect their jurisdiction and provinces use it to deny

responsibility for any help to Indian people in a wide range of

services. And sadly caught in the middle of this legislative

plague are the Indian people who still must often look to the

same BNA Act for the fundamental protection of their land.

No matter how attractive the offers of government or how

well-meaning the concerned offers of the public, we in British

Columbia and in Canada must come to grips with the land issue

and the Indian question. Anything else is playing around with

surface fluff and isn't going to solve the problem. I suggest

that the present Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) had better

not ignore the real issue of the land question by applying

simplistic administrative procedures and trying also to use

high pressure tactics on the Indian people.

Sooner or later the people of Canada have to face the land

question and land independence. I don't think any provincial

government, particularly in light of the current situation

today, can wait for the federal government any longer. No

longer can provincial governments hide behind the idea that the

BNA Act makes the federal government the sole government

responsible for solving the land question.

If you review the situation, Mr. Speaker, you will recall

that, in all, land title is conferred by the provinces in the

name of the Crown. In turn the Crown, in the right of the

province, must ultimately be in a position to confer title

against which no outstanding Indian land claim could apply. In

short, the provinces must get themselves into a position with

the titles that they claim jurisdiction to confer are in fact

theirs to confer in the first place. They can't honestly

continue to do that in British Columbia or in any province

unless and until the

[ Page 186 ]

Indian land claims are settled.

The provinces, when one considers their right to confer

title and their responsibility which theirs to ensure its

validity, are at least partners with the federal government in

negotiating with the Indian people for the settlement of the

Indian land question.

Mr. Speaker, let's face facts. This question will ultimately

be settled with money; I don't think we should kid ourselves in

any way. The Indian people must be given compensation for any

land which they held, in my view. For years the province has

not been giving people, in fact, a clean title. If we face

those two facts we can come to grips with the question.

I realize that financially we are talking about a very

sizable sum of money. But the fact that the debt today is great

is not going to make the problem go away, so let's get on with

the job and start now. Frankly, I have no doubt that the Indian

people in British Columbia would be reasonable.

I think, in talking about how this settlement could be made,

that we have to recognize that obviously in 1871 in British

Columbia land was not worth what it is today. Obviously the

Indian people at that time did not occupy every square inch of

the land in British Columbia. However, it is equally true that,

unlike the United States, we did not claim British Columbia by

right of occupancy and we ourselves have not yet occupied all

of British Columbia. However, if we could negotiate a final

cash settlement, many fundamental Indian and other Canadian

problems would be on their way to being solved.

As a beginning, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we might

consider some agreed variations to the following formula upon

which we could get started. If we accept that British Columbia

is approximately 366,000 square miles in area, and if we assume

on the basis of historical facts that in 1871 value of the land

in British Columbia was worth $1,000 a square mile, or

approximately $1.60 per acre, and we know that the Crown — somewhat in question — in the right of the province granted

title to the land in those early years at from $1 to $2 an

acre, the 1871 evaluation of all British Columbia land would be

approximately $366 million. If we considered loss of

opportunity over the last 100 years, and it must be taken into

account, we could take a factor — for example, I'll use the

factor of' 10 — and this would set the 1973 value of Indian

land in British Columbia at $3,066 billion.

If we realistically agreed that perhaps one-half of British Columbia was, in

fact, occupied by the Indians at that time, we are talking about a compensation

price in the order of $1.83 billion. Assuming that the Indian people would keep

all of the already existing reserve land, it might well be possible to round

this figure off at around $1.5 billion. Then, Mr. Speaker, in terms, of repayment,

if we used the parity bond interest at 6.5 per cent, we would find that the

Indian land-claim earning capacity would be approximately $100 million annually.

If you translate that money into economic action programmes for the Indian people

of British Columbia, $100 million annually is a significant and substantial

figure.

I think, in suggesting this formula, and for the reasons I

outlined before, that it would be realistic for British

Columbia to share this figure 20/80 with the federal

government. If we did that, the annual cost to the province

would be approximately $20 million.

In suggesting how you raise $20 million, I would suggest

that we might well consider a rollover tax on all shares traded

in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. If the latter idea were

chosen, a one per cent rollover tax on the shares traded in

1972 would net approximately $8 million and the remainder could

come from general revenue. Obviously, future growth of shares

traded on the stock market in British Columbia would have a

general lessening impact on the amount of money that would have

to come from general revenue over the years.

In any event, if you examine the figures of this government

with $125 million surplus for this year, $12 million should not

be too difficult to find.

Mr. Speaker, against a gross provincial product of nearly

$12 million during 1972 and the solid and stable position in

which British Columbia was in 1972, it would appear that this

suggestion should at least be a reasonable formula from which

this government and the people of British Columbia can start

thinking in terms of settling the Indian land question once and

for all and provide, in so doing, the economic action programme

for the Indians with their own money, which they can administer

themselves, and from which they can gain great economic

benefits in their own industries themselves.

That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that there isn't still a

need in areas for special consideration and special problems.

But as we on this side of the House stand for fair and

equitable treatment of the farmers in British Columbia so

adversely affected by Bill 42, so we in Social Credit stand not

only for fair and equitable treatment of the Indian people of

British Columbia but for honesty and factual independence of

the Indian people.

AN HON. MEMBER: A change of heart.

MRS. JORDAN: I offer this formula, or a variation of this

formula, as a point from which serious negotiations can begin

and also to point out to ourselves and the people of British

Columbia the facts that, while we are indeed talking about a

great deal of money in itself the debt will not decrease in the

future.

I suggest this also to point out, Mr. Speaker, that

[ Page 187 ]

this generation in this time of great tax revenues must use

these tax revenues, not for short term giveaways but for the

long term benefit of all the people in British Columbia; and

that we must now at this time when social attitudes — even when

the attitude of the federal government and when financial

reserves have never been so right — come to grips with this

problem and to settle, once and for all, this fundamental

issue.

The climate is right. The finances are there. Believe that

the Indian people are there. I would urge this government,

instead of playing the silly games that we have seen through

the actions of the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan), and the Premier of this province in his

treatment of the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), get down to

business to do something to restore the confidence of the

Indian people, and to give them the legitimate avenue through

which they can undertake, with their own money, their own

economic and social development programme.

Mr. Speaker, you've been very patient and I thank you for

your time. I should like to go into matters of agriculture,

when the bills come before this House, and at that time express

the views of the constituency I represent in relation to their

direct needs. Thank you.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker,

regretfully I want to rise to correct some statements that were

made.

There was a vast catalogue of accusations against this

government. I want to categorically deny two of them at this

moment. Firstly, that cabinet Ministers involved themselves in

using political influence to determine the course of the

reports from the standing committees; and secondly, that

Ministers serving on committees have got "a thousand dollars," I think were the words. Regretfully, I'm going to have

to read the Member's speech — a hymn of hate if ever I saw one;

if ever I heard one. That should be sufficient reason for any

increase in salary for the Provincial Secretary — and deal with

the matters as they come up in Hansard .

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

Mr. Speaker, I regretfully too must rise on a point of personal privilege. The

implication in the lady Member's recent speech was that I was involved in some

way in telephone bugging or at least could give an explanation of it.

Telephone bugging is described under the Criminal Code — and

the allegation would be a charge of a criminal nature — as "the

surreptitious interception or recording of private telephone

conversation or conversations." I have not been involved in any

way in that kind of operation. If the lady Member is referring

to a newspaper story, or alluding to a newspaper story that occurred some months ago, the press

covered it carefully and all the facts were set out. I'm sure

the lady Member didn't mean to impute a criminal charge and I

know she regrets her statement now, but I wanted to correct

Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out for the benefit of Hon. Members

that, if there's a scintilla of evidence available that

anyone's telephone is bugged, I want you to indicate that

evidence immediately to the Speaker, under whose jurisdiction

the introduction of telephones in the building is in charge.

The B.C. Telephone Company, under my instructions, installed

telephones. If there is any such evidence, or you want any

assurance, please feel free to meet with the Speaker on that

question.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I

believe the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson)

is in Russia at the present time.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I meant Seymour.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): They're both

good Members.

MR. GABELMANN: The speech that we've just heard for the last

hour-and-a-quarter, Mr. Speaker, is one that makes me very,

very sad. Not only were the allegations made against various

cabinet Ministers and various committee members, but some very,

very serious things were said about senior citizens in British

Columbia. And coming from that particular political party, Mr.

Speaker, it's absolutely sickening to hear.

The comments that were made that this government isn't

concerned about senior citizens, that this government isn't

doing things for those people who are so disadvantaged in our

society are nothing short of sad; nothing short of sad when she

and her government had 20 years to do something and they did

nothing whatsoever. At least in our year or so, Mr. Speaker,

we've begun to do something. It's not nearly adequate. It's got

a long way to go. But we have made a beginning and I think that

the senior citizens out there would have been mightily offended

by that previous speech.

HON. MR. HALL: Within six weeks of coming to office.

MR. GABELMANN: We did more in the first six weeks than they

did in the last 10 years.

[ Page 188 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about a number

of items this afternoon in discussing the throne speech debate.

I wanted, first of all, to begin by talking about the

buildings, the procedures, the session, and how MLAs fit into

this whole traditional mould.

As someone who still hasn't reached thirty, I'm very out of

tune with the kind of things that happen, both on the floor of

this House and outside the House in terms of official functions

and the things that have gone on that I suppose are carryovers

from the days several hundred years ago in Britain, the

lord-and-master attitude, the attitude of class, the attitude

that there was those who ruled and those who were ruled.

Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking of events like the opening of this

Legislature, at which time we were allowed — we didn't have to

but we were allowed — to stand on the steps of the building and

watch a military happening, despite the fact that the

militarists were cadets, most of them I suppose in their teens.

That was a disturbing day for me, Mr. Speaker, because it

happened shortly after the military coup in Chile, and I found

the parallels frightening.

When I saw what looked to me like carbines — I'm sure they

were empty but they still looked pretty threatening — in the

hands of those teenagers, I was pretty shaken up because it

brought home to me the fragility of democracy; it brought home

to me the horror of what happened in Chile and what has

happened in many, many countries around the world. I would hope

that in future days, Mr. Speaker, we in this province and the

rest of us across this country can perhaps do away with

military presence, with military connotations, not only at the

opening ceremonies of this Legislature but at all other public

events in this province. It offends me, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about the fact that we now have two sessions

per year, the fact that we have two openings per year of this

Legislature and the fact that we get two salaries per year. It

doesn't really make much sense to me that we have this

parliament opened in January and then opened again in

September. It seems to me it would make much more sense if we

had one opening per year and, if it was required, we could have

two or three or however many sittings we required during that

year. But really, we need only to have one session per year, in

the strict sense of that word, Mr. Speaker, although we may

well want to sit on two, three or four occasions throughout the

year. We then don't need to have a special opening.

Nor do we have to have, Mr. Speaker, a system where we are paid for sitting

at our desks in this chamber. It seems absurd to me, when I spent four hours

and sometimes six hours a day in this chamber in some weeks of the year, that

my salary is being paid for that particular function, when in fact 90 per cent

of my work, 90 per cent of my activity is out in my constituency as representing

constituents' problems. I can do 90 per cent of my work without ever coming

into this chamber, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the fact that we are here to draft and to

prepare and to consider legislation, in a sense our most

important priority. But the role of Members has changed over

the last few years.

I'm not sure, obviously, what it was like years ago, but,

from what I understand, in years gone by the primary job that a

Member had was in fact to consider legislation, was in fact to

consider estimates of the government. That's no longer the

case, Mr. Speaker. The real job of MLAs currently is acting as

ombudsmen within their own constituencies. That's where we do

all our work, that's where we spend most of our time and I

think we should recognize that fact when we devise systems for

payment to MLAs.

It seems absurd to me, Mr. Speaker, if I have to spend a day

in my constituency attending some function or looking after

some problem, that it costs me $100 off my salary. That's

absolutely absurd, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a system we should

do away with.

My suggestion would be that we simply pay MLAs an annual

salary. If they don't come into the House, the public will soon

learn that, because the press will dutifully report the fact

that a certain MLA or MLAs are not attending the session — and

in some cases that could perhaps cost the government a vote in

this House. So I'm sure that attendance would be similar to the

kind of attendance we now have.

Let's rationalize this whole procedure. I think, if only so

that we understand that our job is not only to be here to

consider legislation and estimates, but also to represent the

people out there who have a great many problems and

concerns.

Mr. Speaker, in order to do that job, of representing and in

order to do that job of considering, we need to have additional

staff or support or back-up — I call it staff, which is a word

I don't like. We really need to have a full-time secretary in

our constituencies. We made some advances — we've got a

part-time secretary now for our constituencies. I told my

secretary not to work during the session because she's been

working so hard the last three or four months, and I've been

paying far below the minimum wage if she would ever tell me how

many hours she's actually worked. The amount of money that's

being paid for that secretary is just not sufficient for the

amount of work that is required from her.

In addition to that kind of secretarial help we also really

need to have some kind of professional research

[ Page 189 ]

back-up. It's impossible, Mr. Speaker, for me to read all of

my mail, much less do any raw research or much less do any

thinking. It's impossible for me to keep up with the volume of

briefs and correspondence and issues that go on in this

province. I would like to be able to have someone working with

me who could assist in much the same way as the Members of

Parliament do in Ottawa and, of course, in many other

legislatures around the world.

I'll leave that, Mr. Speaker. It's a plea I remember raising

in the spring session and we made some advances. It's a plea I

expect to be raising at every session of the Legislature as we

go on, because I don't expect that we'll get to a situation

where we are all happy, but I do hope that some changes can be

made in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I have several things to talk about, but I want

first of all to deal with some problems in the Okanagan Valley.

I had no idea that today I would be following the Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and also speaking on the same day

as the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). The Okanagan

Valley is an area that currently is unrepresentative by

government Members. It's an area that suffers from a lot of

other problems as well, Mr. Speaker. The valley has some very

limited capacities. It has a limited amount of water, it has a

limited amount of space, and as a result it faces problems that

are unique to itself alone. There's really no other area in

British Columbia that has the kind of problems that do exist in

the Okanagan. We think of the Okanagan — those of us from the

urban areas — as being a rural area. In fact, in many senses of

the word, the Okanagan Valley is a very, very urban area. I

think when we talk about solutions to population pressures and

when we talk about solutions to transportation problems in that

valley, we have to think of the valley as being an urban

area.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of discussion about widening

Highway 97, creating a four-lane freeway from the Okanagan

border right through to the Trans-Canada Highway in the north

part. Mr. Speaker, it would be a tragedy if we did that. Much

of the movement, outside of the tourist season, is limited;

it's from Penticton to Kelowna or from Osoyoos to Vernon, and

it's limited travel between specific communities in that

valley. Rather than spending the millions and millions of

dollars that would be required on highway projects in that

valley, perhaps we should be considering some rapid water

transit in that valley. It's well suited. Initially in the

early days, of course, water transit was a major solution to

transit and transportation problems in that valley. I think

perhaps we should seriously consider coming back to those kinds

of solutions.

We're also going to have to co