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)

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 45 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend

an Act Respecting Medical Services (Bill

10). Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 45

Oral questions

Beach access to Christina Lake. Mr. Richter — 45

Effects of cutbacks on natural gas supplies. Mr. Nunweiler — 45

Indication of natural gas shortage. Mr. Curtis — 47

Incentives for natural gas exploration. Mr. Smith — 47

Revenue allocation for Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Mr. Morrison

— 47

Workmen's compensation for Alex McClellan. Mr. Chabot — 47

Ratification of B.C. Rail contract. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 48

Purchase of Panco Poultry Products. Mr. Phillips — 48

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. King — 49

Mr. Schroeder — 52

Mr. Brousson — 57

Mrs. Webster — 61

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very special pleasure today. Many years ago, when I first

became interested in politics in the CCF, there was an MLA representing the

great riding of Mackenzie. His name was Bert Gargrave and he represented that

constituency for many years. Bert Gargrave is on the floor with us this afternoon.

I'd like the House to make him welcome.

Another special pleasure related to the first one is the

fact that, finally, when Bert went the way of all politicians

and left this House, three years later his young brother went

in and won the constituency, became the seatmate of a premier

for many years and he was one of the delights and one of the

most well-liked Members of this House. I'd ask you to welcome

as well as Bert Gargrave his brother, Tony.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join

in the welcome to the Gargrave brothers and also to welcome to

our chamber today a group of students from Victoria High

School, my own former high school, and I hope that they not

only enjoy their time here but, perhaps, learn something of how

we conduct our business.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

AN ACT RESPECTING MEDICAL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend

an Act

Respecting Medical Services .

Bill 10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

BEACH ACCESS TO

CHRISTINA LAKE

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

want to direct this question to the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

My question is: is the government going to take any action on behalf of the

resort businesses of Christina Lake, who have asked for government intervention,

regarding beach access from a public road that has been virtually cut off by

private land owners?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would provide me with details with respect to

the location, I'd be pleased to pursue the matter further.

MR. RICHTER: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. While the

information has been provided through a considerable amount of

correspondence with various Ministers, I'd be pleased to do

this. But will the Department of Lands be undertaking a

physical survey to establish legal boundaries of the properties

in dispute?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly, in most cases like this we'd

be prepared to carry out the survey work, But I note, Mr.

Speaker, that we did offer to provide a major access on the

lake and provide three-quarters of the cost. The local people

were unwilling to contribute; and that was a major new

precedent set. Unfortunately the community didn't take

advantage of it.

EFFECTS OF CUTBACKS ON

NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): I'd like to direct a

question to the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

I note, in an announcement by West Coast Transmission, that

they are going to cut back on natural gas supplies. Since this

is a part of my region, it is of a great deal of interest to

the people of my region and, I'm sure, to the rest of the

people of the province. I'd like to ask the Attorney General

what effect this is going to have on our area.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Well, Mr. Speaker,

it isn't only a serious matter for my friend's area and some of

the pulp mills around Prince George; it's a serious matter for

Cominco, which gets West Coast gas through Inland; it's a

serious matter for Can-Cel, which gets it through Pacific

Northern, and for other industries of British Columbia — commercial enterprises, What has happened is that the Beaver River fields…and

I'd like, with the indulgence of the House, to make a little

longer statement on this than simply to reply to the

question.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no. It's the answer

[ Page 46 ]

that will be the surprise. (Laughter).

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's surprising and refreshing.

Anyway, the Beaver River natural gas field, due to water in

the reservoirs, has been cut back in its output by — I won't go

into the amount…but when gas is replaced by West Coast from

other sources, there will still be, overall, a 10 per cent

reduction in the through-put through West Coast's pipeline.

West Coast has said that they will reduce supplies to all

customers on an equal, pro rata basis. To this the Government

of British Columbia takes exception that everybody should be

treated equally with our gas. We think that the National Energy

Board has been remiss in not making provision for a reasonable

contingency reserve for this kind of a situation, rather than

permit, as it has done, all of the gas gathered by West Coast

to be shipped partly in British Columbia and mostly over the

line.

We think that the National Energy Board made a mistake in

allowing the last 70 million cubic feet per day to be exported

without ensuring that British Columbia's position would be

safeguarded. The result is that the Government of British

Columbia is concerned. We have sent today a telegram to the

Hon. Donald S. MacDonald with a copy to the National Energy

Board, Robert Stanfield, Pierre Trudeau and David Lewis. It

reads as follows:

WEST COAST TRANSMISSION TODAY ADVISED NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES TO

B.C. UTILITIES WILL BE CUT BACK 10 PER CENT ON PEAK DEMAND DAYS THIS WINTER.

CUTBACK THREATENS EMPLOYMENT IN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, ALTERNATIVE

FUEL SUPPLIES UNCERTAIN AND COSTLY.

That would be bunker fuel.

GOVERNMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ASKS THE MINISTER AND THE NATIONAL

ENERGY BOARD TO ENSURE THAT BRITISH COLUMBIA REQUIREMENTS ARE MET IN PRIORITY

TO EXPORTS.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: One minute, please; is this a supplementary or

is it another subject? Anyone with a supplementary to this

statement? I'd like the House to stick to the supplementary

before we go on to another subject.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My question will be on discussion of this

subject, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker — and the question is

addressed to the Minister of Finance and the Premier (Hon. Mr.

Barrett): in the light of the problems that have occurred with

this company, and in the light of the problems that are

occurring with respect to energy transmission in British

Columbia, which are basically related to an extremely highly

capital-intensive industry incapable of rapid changes from year

to year and therefore, of course, a problem dealing with

getting money from or in B.C. for capital purposes and in the

light of the uncertainty this company and others have fared

during the past year over nationalization plans of this

provincial government, when will the Premier or Minister of

Finance make a clear statement in this House of his plans

respecting this and other energy transmission companies? Unless

this is done, Mr. Speaker, we are going to get problems of this

nature year after year because these major corporations

which…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've asked your question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I trust I'm given the same

courtesy as the Attorney General was given earlier. We didn't

criticize him on this side of the House. My question is: when

are we going to have clear statements of the government's plans

on expropriation of companies in the energy and the energy

transmission field?

HON. MR. BARRETT: One of the problems in the provincial

government setting a firm policy, Mr. Speaker, is the

week-by-week change of the federal government's policy in

energy. We had a great deal of difficulty in asking the

National Energy Board to consider British Columbia's position

before it makes decisions.

However, despite the federal government's changing policy,

on Friday of this week I will ask the Attorney General to

release to all the Members of this House a copy of the B.C.

energy board report.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The basic

problem is not that of energy, but this government's policy

towards investment and policy towards nationalization of

companies. May I ask the Premier whether on Friday of this week

or Friday of any following week in this session we can get a

clear statement from him of this government's intentions

respecting nationalization of companies in the energy

field?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Member doesn't

raise this for political purposes. (Laughter). If anyone would

do that from the Liberal Party, they'd be sorely embarrassed

considering the

[ Page

47 ]

lack of federal government position.

I have stated that the Government of British Columbia will

be filing a complete energy board report this Friday.

INDICATION OF NATURAL GAS

SHORTAGE

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Premier.

The news of the gas shortage reached the general public

yesterday and today. Did the government or any Member of the

government have any advance indication that this would be the

case?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we did not have any advance

indication, Mr. Member, but within 24 hours the energy board

gave us an immediate report after contacting the three

principal wholesalers. The energy board report was delivered to

my office this morning and I must commend the energy board for

prompt action in preparing the material and making it available

for us.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, then, Mr. Speaker; I just want

to pursue this a little further. There was no indication to the

government that suddenly black headlines would speak of a

possible winter gas shortage?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. The earliest notice of a possible

problem was in July. Since the problem, the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and the energy board immediately set out to

have a report, and I must thank them both for giving us the

information within 24 hours.

INCENTIVES FOR NATURAL GAS

EXPLORATION

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental question

concerning the same problem of the supply of natural gas for

British Columbia, to the Attorney General. In view of the fact

that it is a problem apparently caused by the overproduction in

some wells which results in a condition which produces salt

water, has the Attorney General or the government any plans to

actively encourage drilling companies to increase their rate of

exploration for natural gas in the Province of British

Columbia?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Premier said the energy report and

recommendations will be filed with the House on Friday. In a

section of that you will find that the question of royalties

and incentives for exploration are dealt with. Those are only

recommendations to the government, but they will be taken very

seriously.

REVENUE ALLOCATION FOR

VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, due to the fact

that we've had leave of the House for a statement by a

Minister, perhaps we could ask if we could have a slight

extension of the question period by leave of the House. I'd

also like a supplemental — and I'm not quite sure in view of the

answers that we've had from the other side who to direct this

one to — but I believe it should be directed to the Lands,

Forests and Water Resources Minister (Hon. Mr. Williams).

My question is: has the Minister set in motion any measures

for ensuring a natural gas supply to Vancouver Island in view

of the gas shortage predicted for the winter of 1973-1974, and

would the Minister give any consideration to the possibility

that any portion of federal money received as a result of

revenue allocation to the provinces, as a result of the

two-price system for oil, be used to partially finance a

natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island?

I would also like to ask the Minister: would he not agree

that a Hydro natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island would

greatly expand rapidly declining exploration for natural gas,

and what, if any, are the current plans for a pipeline to the

island?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that under this

government no, consumer in British Columbia will suffer and

that policies that develop will take care of that.

But with respect to Vancouver Island in particular I would

simply say that B.C. Hydro is carrying out very intensive

detailed studies of alternate energy sources for the Island and

that covers a wider range than the Member suggested.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

FOR ALEX McCLELLAN

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Labour: has one Alex McClellan, executive assistant to the

Minister of Agriculture, been granted by the Workmen's

Compensation Board a permanent partial-disability pension?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea; I don't monitor

the day-to-day applicants for workmen's compensation benefits.

I would suggest that the Member for Columbia River direct that

question to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

MR. SPEAKER: I might point out the rule has been, and was

adopted by this House, that these be matters of urgency and

importance. Surely that is one for the order paper.

[ Page 48 ]

MR. CHABOT: I think this is of importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it may be for your purposes, but the

question is for the purposes of the House.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject?

MR. CHABOT: On the same subject, yes. Would the Minister be

prepared…?

MR. SPEAKER: I think your question is out of order,

therefore you cannot ask a supplementary.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister has access to the files and I'm

wondering if the Minister would be prepared to table the

claimant's file with the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

RATIFICATION OF

B.C. RAIL CONTRACT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question for the Minister of Labour

arising out of his answer yesterday that there is an agreement

that will bind both parties to voluntary arbitration in the

case of the B.C. Rail dispute. May I ask whether the agreement,

as it comes down from the government-appointed arbitrator, will

have to go to the membership for ratification, or whether or

not, when it comes down, it will be the final settlement?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the agreement that was reached

between the management of B.C. Rail and the representatives of

the United Transportation Union simply provided for the

acceptance of the Industrial Inquiry Commissioner's report as

binding. Now, what the trade union does with that award in

terms of ratification with their members is an internal

question for the trade union, not a matter for consideration by

my department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask a supplementary of the

Minister then, Mr. Speaker? Is it therefore that once the

report comes down there will be no further reference back to

the commissioner, back to the arbitrator, no further reference

to some other body? Will it be up to the union to put it to

their membership or accept it as it is?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time, I have indicated that

the trade union asked for voluntary arbitration and they undertook to accept

the award of the Industrial Inquiry Commissioner, whatever that award may be,

and. that's final and binding.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The reason I ask these questions, Mr.

Speaker, through you to the Minister, is that there appears to

be some contradiction between the CP story out of Vancouver

quoting Mr. Smeal and the questions and answers of yesterday. I

just want to have it clear in my mind that once the arbitrator

brings down a report, that's it, it's final, and there will be

no further negotiations, there will be no further use of

arbitrators, or panels, or the Minister's good offices, or

anything of that nature.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could ask the Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey to explain it to the Second Member for

Victoria. For the fifth time, the award will be binding.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On whom?

HON. MR. KING: On the members of the trade union and on the

B.C. Rail management, and I don't know how we can clarify that

any further.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that should terminate the matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think what would terminate

the matter is if the Minister would inform Mr. Smeal in

Vancouver of his views, because his views are different from

Mr. Smeal's.

PURCHASE OF PANCO POULTRY PRODUCTS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

On July 6, 1973, the Minister announced negotiations for a

partnership with Pacific Poultry Co-op to purchase Panco

Poultry Products Ltd. Would the Minister please advise me where

these negotiations stand at the present time?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): For the

purchase of what?

MR. PHILLIPS: A partnership with Pacific Poultry Co-op to

purchase Panco Poultry.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There have been discussions between my

department and the poultry co-op with a view to acquiring or

constructing a broiler-processing plant. These discussions are

still going on.

MR. SPEAKER: We are already three minutes over. I allowed a

little additional latitude.

[ Page 49 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Would this be going through the British

Columbia Development Corporation…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …or what vehicle of…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are already three and one

half minutes over the regular time for question period.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am asking you to allow me the courtesy of

putting my question. I have a supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid I cannot because the bell rang, and

I rang it. (Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I appreciate this

opportunity to participate in the debate on the Speech from the

Throne, and before continuing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to

welcome all Members of the assembly back to this, the 30th

session of the current Legislative Assembly. I should at the

same time like to welcome and congratulate the newly-elected

Member for South Okanagan, Mr. Speaker. I certainly wish him

well in continuing to represent his riding with all the same

aplomb as his illustrious predecessor. I stop just short of

wishing him the same successful tenure of office.

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Now, as indicated in the Speech from the

Throne, a substantial portion of this session will be devoted

to consideration of labour legislation. Surely it is not

necessary to emphasize and re-emphasize the type of volatile

climate of industrial relations which prevailed in this

province when our government took office just one year ago.

I think everyone is familiar with the history of

confrontation and acrimony which has characterized labour

management relationships in this province over the past number

of years. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't hold as my purpose an

attorney to make any statements which would further inflame

that climate. I think to assess blame under these circumstances

would run that risk, and I have no intention of playing that

game. I think that would be a negative and backward approach to

what we should be looking forward to with a positive attitude

and with a cooperative spirit in terms of trying to develop a

better climate and a better relationship.

It has been my approach from the outset to appeal to the

reason of the parties concerned in an effort to establish a

positive and cooperative attitude as a prerequisite to turning

labour management relations around in this province. Mr.

Speaker, there are those who think that legislative change

alone will perform this task. Many who stand on the sidelines

hold that the problems are simplistic, and hence legislative

change is the answer to the problems in industrial relations.

These advocates, in many instances, are the same people who

criticized the previous administration for its failure to

consult and collaborate with the parties affected by

legislative reform and policy changes.

This government recognizes that healthy social relationships

cannot be legislated. I think there must be a desire and a

motivation to make new laws workable and acceptable to those

who must work under them. What better method to develop this

attitude, Mr. Speaker, than to ask labour, management and the

public, but particularly the actual practitioners, to advise

the government on the areas of needed legislative change. This

kind of initiative by government in no way impinges upon the

sovereignty of this legislature, nor upon the responsibility of

the government for making the final policy decisions and

translating that into legislation. The approach simply ensures

that the experience and the expertise of those directly

involved will be capitalized upon in formulating new policy. In

short, Mr. Speaker, I think the phrase "participatory

democracy" has been given meaning by the approach that this

government has taken to legislative reform in the labour

field.

In March of 1973, three special advisers to the Minister of

Labour were employed: namely, Dr. Noel A. Hall, Director of the

Institute of Industrial Relations at the University of British

Columbia; Mr. Ted MacTaggart, a well-known labour lawyer from

the City of Vancouver; and Mr. James Matkin, associate

professor of Law, also with the University of British Columbia.

These three gentlemen were chosen to assist and advise the

government on new labour law on the basis of their wide

experience and the broad respect which they commanded both in

labour and management circles. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that

they have completely justified the confidence that everyone

held in them. For my part, I could only add that my association

with these gentlemen has been extremely rich and rewarding, and

I am sure that their invaluable contribution to analysing and

assessing the need for change in industrial relations law in

this province will be manifested for years to come and be

proven when the legislation is introduced to this House very

shortly.

Mr. Speaker, the advisers were appointed in March of this

year, and a series of conferences were organized to provide for

the input of labour,

[ Page 50 ]

management, and the public. The first such three-day

conference took place in the City of Victoria on April 13, 14

and 15. A similar two-day conference was held in Prince George

on June 22 and 23. Now, these were the main conferences that

were held, and at that time at all of these meetings, the main

representatives of industry and labour were invited. These

conferences were extremely well attended by the Employers'

Council Co-ordinating Committee, representatives of the B.C.

Federation of Labour, the Teamsters' Union, the Law

section of

the Canadian Bar Association. No only were briefs submitted,

but a good deal of dialogue was developed in an effort to

define any common ground that existed in respect to the points

of view of both labour and management toward legislative

change. During this period, more than 40 interested groups and

persons representing management and labour submitted

briefs.

Lengthy discussions were held, as I indicated, with the

Employers' Council, the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council,

Construction Labour Relations Association, the Labour Law

Subsection of the Canadian Bar Association, and Canadian unions

and many others. In total, in addition to these hearings,

through private consultation and private meetings, more than 70

written briefs in total were submitted to the advisers. I think

one would agree that the government went to great lengths to

ensure that those people affected by legislative change would

have a great deal to say about the new structure that should be

set up to deal with their problems. I might say, Mr. Speaker,

that the people who were invited were extremely vocal and

extremely cooperative in putting forward their points of view.

The advisers also spent considerable time discussing existing

legislation with representatives and officials of the

Department of Labour.

From this process of review, a number of problems became

apparent. I should like to discuss some of these problems, and

I might add that these problems were identified and recognized

and acknowledged by the participants generally — by labour and

by management. It's true that their recommendations for

solutions were sometimes widely divergent; however, they

certainly acknowledged the need for some action, some change,

in these particular areas.

The first area that became noticeable was with respect to freedom of choice,

Mr. Speaker. Freedom of choice has been discussed in this chamber on quite a

number of occasions — I believe it was discussed yesterday, but in a different

sense from that which I wish to deal with today. The process of free collective

bargaining depends upon every worker having the right to join a trade union.

One of the valid complaints to the advisers was that workers have been deprived

in the past of their rights under the law to organize into trade unions because

of intimidation and unfair labour practices by employers. Sometimes, the right

of collective bargaining has even been denied after the employees have been

certified by the Labour Relations Board because of the refusal of the employer

to bargain in good faith. The right to certification is really meaningless if

the true meaning of collective bargaining, and the true benefits of obtaining

a collective agreement after being certified, are thwarted and impinged upon,

and indeed denied, by an action of an employer in failing to bargain in good

faith and execute a collective agreement with his employees.

We think that is one area that certainly needs attention.

This message came through loud and clear on many, many

occasions during the hearings.

Interference with the workers' free choice is a serious

problem. Many times it's difficult to prove that interference

has taken place. Many times it's impossible to determine the

true wishes of the employees after unfair labour practices have

been proven. In certain instances a delay injustice amounts to

denial of justice because of time limitations upon

certification procedures.

A genuinely free society, I submit, must ensure that workers

are not denied their freedom of choice. There is a need for

more effective enforcement of the law to ensure that the will

of the majority of the employees is given real effect.

Now a matter of general concern for both labour and

management is the wildcat strike issue. I am sure this is a

matter of wide and general concern to the public as well. The

economic waste that accrues from a breech of lawful contractual

obligations has to be a basic concern to everyone who is

genuinely interested in the economic welfare of this

province.

One of the fundamental difficulties with illegal strikes,

under existing legislation, is the inability of the law to

respond to the source of these illegal wildcat strikes in an

effort to alleviate the cause. The present capability of the

law is as ineffective as stationing an ambulance at the bottom

of a cliff to pick up the casualties, rather than erecting a

barricade at the top to prevent the accident from occurring.

There is a need for a new design and a better approach in this

area — other than court injunctions and the focus of public

opinion to simply inflame the matter — in an effort to prevent

it from occurring. Surely this is an area where innovation and

experimentation are sorely needed.

Another area that came to light in discussions that we held

across this province was the problem of individual rights. This

also has been mentioned in this House, both yesterday and on

other occasions. And you know, Mr. Speaker, if I can digress

for a moment, I find it just somewhat ironic that we have a

self-styled defender of the individual rights of workers in the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who points out and

espouses the need for

[ Page 51 ]

legislative change to protect these fundamental rights. But

where was he, where was his concern when he occupied this

office for 18 months and made no effort, no attempt, Mr.

Speaker, to bring in any legislative change which would

guarantee the workers' rights? So that concern and the

protestations ring just a little bit hollow, Mr. Speaker.

Collective bargaining, to be successful, must protect

individual rights; I think everyone will concede that. While

the principle of democracy is inherent in trade unionism, and I

have no hesitation in making that statement, it is essential to

ensure that the majority of a union, or the majority of

employers in an employers' association, do not infringe upon

the rights of minority groups or individuals. The way in which

minority rights, and individual privileges and liberties are

protected is perhaps the greatest hallmark of the maturity and

the civilization of any society. There is an important need, I

believe, to provide an opportunity for individuals and

minorities to seek redress from the abuses of government, of

trade unions, or employers. And I think that some attention

must be paid to this important question.

Under our collective bargaining law some groups are given

special rights. I think it's unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, to

expect that society can also demand special responsibilities

from these groups.

Another area which has been talked about, and one of the

areas which I think is generally recognized as creating a great

deal of industrial strife, is the question of technological

change. More concern was probably manifested in this area

during the course of the hearings than any other particular

question that arose. There was a broad recognition by both

labour and management that there was a need for some positive

change in this important area.

The great advances in science and technology that we

experience today bring with them problems affecting employers

and the workers. While it is difficult to fully assess the

dimensions of the problem, it cannot be denied that some

special consideration must be given to those workers who are

dislocated or laid off by new technology.

Perhaps improved technology would be indeed stimulated if the people most closely

affected were offered protection from any disruptions that might accrue. The

proposition that improved technology benefits all society must be given effect

at the immediate source, Public interest disputes are of course one of the areas

of concern. Again, I would point out that this question has already been raised

on the floor of this House during the current session. I noticed though, Mr.

Speaker, that those who express concern that the collective bargaining measure

didn't apply in public interest disputes had no valid alternatives to offer.

They simply said that collective bargaining and the strike weapon in public

interest areas is archaic, it's outmoded and something should be done. But,

Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear one positive recommendation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: "Something should be done," they said.

But no one came forward with a specific recommendation to

improve the system. Are you advocating compulsory

arbitration?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Well you should make that very clear.

Mr. Speaker, the dispute that has just been settled on the

B.C. Railroad makes it abundantly clear that voluntary

arbitration is available now. Perhaps these people should read

the statutes. That always has been available, Mr. Speaker.

You know, that little group over there was labouring very

seriously and mightily yesterday to portray themselves as

credible critics. Indeed, I believe the second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) indicated that "we want to be

rational critics" and we heard that. But I might add that

nothing in what he said added to his credibility; only his plea

to be recognized was heard and made any impression on this side

of the House.

The process of collective bargaining faces its greatest test

in public interest disputes, and there's no question about

that. But you know, we have over the past years attempted to

solicit the best brains in this province, to bring together the

greatest bulk of experience to advise us on new methods that

might be undertaken to deal with this important question. The

dilemma is to seek an alternative to the strike weapon when it

seriously threatens or impels public health and the welfare of

the province, without at the same time denying the workers

their democratic right to the full measure of free collective

bargaining.

Those people who advocate the abolition of the strike weapon

can't be very concerned, or at least they're not very

consistent when they say the balance of power must be

maintained. Now, if we're to take away from the workers the

right to strike, what equivalent action, what equivalent

measure would you assess on the employers to ensure that the

balance of power was indeed maintained? I've heard no

recommendation in that respect, Mr. Speaker. But I think there

are a number of innovations, I think there are a number of

measures which can be adopted and can be developed to deal with

public interest disputes.

Certainly the situation we have just seen on the BCR

demonstrates that in some circumstances the workers are willing

to be bound by voluntary arbitration. I think if they are

willing to be so bound they should certainly have that option

and be

[ Page 52 ]

encouraged to do so. But I find it difficult to accept that

in a free society with all that concern that's been expressed

about individual rights, how you can suggest that employees

should be bound in a compulsory way to accept the last offer of

management without the right to strike. If they are willing to

be so bound, they should certainly be encouraged along that

route.

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: It's quite interesting, Mr. Speaker. I don't

mind that; I think that's quite interesting. I wonder if they

speak with the same voice when they're out in the hustings and

the public as they do in this House. I doubt it very much.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes they do, that's why the public buys.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: Perhaps that's so; there should be a message

there.

One of the other areas that's particularly irritating, and

one of the real problems that we're going to have to try to

come to grips with, is this whole question of strikes,

picketing and enforcement — the legality of strikes. As a

result of the briefs presented and the hearings conducted by

the advisers, there were some areas where both labour and

management found common ground, at least in substance. They

agreed to a certain problem area, that a common approach was

necessary and some need for change was certainly indicated.

One such area of common interest was the administration and

enforcement of legislation. Both parties believed that a new

approach was very important and justified. There was a common

concern expressed about the failure of court injunctions and

judicial proceedings to establish any degree of industrial

peace. While there was a great divergence of opinion, again, on

the substance of law relating to strikes and picketing, there

was a real consensus between labour and management on the need

for a new structure to enforce the law on strikes and

picketing. These, Mr. Speaker, are but some of the main

problems with which our legislation will deal during the

session of the Legislature.

Quite frankly, I do not take the position that our new legislation will solve

all the problems. Obviously it will need constant consultation to monitor the

effects and to be receptive to any needed amendments that reveal themselves.

I think it's important if we're to develop a cooperative relationship that

we remain flexible and convince management and labour that if, in fact, any

of the legislative change which is introduced proves to create inequities that

we are willing and receptive to this kind of consultation and this kind of scrutiny.

At the outset of my address today, I think I outlined the

need for more cooperation and the importance of positive,

constructive attitudes by labour and management. Obviously the

same need exists with respect to the public. This chamber is

undoubtedly the greatest forum of public opinion, and attitudes

which are developed here are subject to attention by the media

and hence have a great effect on the public's understanding of

events which unfold here. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I appeal

to the same sense of cooperation from all parties in analyzing

and reviewing the legislation when it is introduced.

It is not my purpose to suggest that the legislation should

be accepted without scrutiny, without criticism and without

full debate. What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the

debate should be temperate, should be constructive, and

certainly not calculated to inflame; attitudes and destroy an

opportunity for a cooperative attempt to make the system work.

While I look forward to the introduction of the new legislation

with a great deal of confidence, I'm conscious that the

greatest need is for a mature attitude toward the important

question of labour-management relations in this province.

I thank you for the opportunity of participating in this

debate, Mr. Speaker, and as I indicated earlier, it seems

particularly appropriate to me that the two main questions to

be dealt with at this session are with respect to workers in

this province — both in the industrial sector and the

agricultural sector. I think this surely is an appropriate time

to consider the need for improving the lot of these people who

surely represent the vast masses and the vast majority of the

people of this province. Mr. Speaker, to this very worthwhile

objective the New Democratic Party government is totally

dedicated. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): It's a delight to take my

place in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I think it has been strictly

an oversight, but no one in the House has deemed it necessary

to extend congratulations to, I think, four very deserving

individuals who are seated in the chambers, and they are the

new cabinet appointees. I'm delighted and excited for the fact

that not only did they receive their appointments, but that

they assumed their chairs here. As I look at them now, I see I

must make a correction, there are five.

I think it's a feather in your cap, those of you who are the

new cabinet appointees, that at least your appointment was

given due consideration; you were selected from those that

were, which is different from the other Cabinet Ministers who

were only selected because they were there. (Laughter.) They

got their appointment by virtue of seniority, which reminds

[ Page 53 ]

me of a very ugly story which I heard on tour this summer

and which shall not be repeated in this House. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aw shucks!

MR. SCHROEDER: There was also among the cabinet appointments

a very serious cabinet disappointment for which I believe the

people out there in the flood plains still have not had a full

explanation. My sympathies go out to the Hon. Member concerned.

I don't believe that he was given proper and fair treatment. A

man who has represented his riding since 1949 and has

maintained a certain degree of credibility since that time

certainly could not have lost that much confidence in a short

term for conduct which is not uncommon to some of the rest of

us in this House.

While I'm also in a congratulating mood, I would like to

congratulate the personnel who are involved in the redecorating

of the chamber. I think they've done exceedingly well. I could

perhaps make some comment on the colour of the carpet, but I'll

forego that comment.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: It's sort of like the shirt, isn't it? Yes it

is.

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: Other congratulations go to the Premier for

his victory in the Frisbee contest. I think it was amazing that

he should accomplish all that and all with one hand, too, sir.

Fantastic!

We are here to consider the Speech from the Throne.

AN HON. MEMBER: Having done that…(Laughter.)

MR. SCHROEDER: Having done that? I think that the Cabinet is learning

quickly. In one year they have already decided that it is not wise to go out

on a limb in a Speech from the Throne such as they did earlier in their administration

when they gave us some promises about specifies — for instance, the introduction

of the bill of rights, which we have not yet seen. And so they have given us

very little insight into the direction of their programme for this year. Seems

that they have rather chosen to insulate themselves against any attack and they've

created that insulation by saying nothing. However, there are some allusions

to something we might expect in terms of labour or agriculture, consumer affairs

(about which I'm delighted), mining, some discussion on energy sources, and

some considerations in municipal affairs. And I'd like to confine my remarks

this afternoon to these particular areas.

Before I do, I'd like to commend the government on one just

one more thing and that is the institution of operative

standing committees which held public hearings throughout the

province during the summer months. I was a member of two of

those working committees and I think the lion's share of

approximately seven weeks of the summer work was dedicated to

work on these committees. It did take time away from the

constituencies and it did give the people of the province an

opportunity to sense that they were being heard — at least that

they were being listened to. Over here — and this could have

been, perhaps, the text of my speech — I have the stack of the

Hansard report of just one of the committees of which I was a

member this summer. These are the words that were spoken before

the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education.

It is quite a handsome set; you can see it there. It's about

twice as thick as the Hansard from the last session.

These are just the words that were spoken, Mr. Speaker.

These are not the words that were given to us in written form;

those form another stack about one-third as high as the one we

have there. There was a lot said; I don't know how much was

heard. But when we condensed it, Mr. Speaker, to the report

that will be tabled in this House — and I shall not divulge any

of the information that is in the report — it was a very

concise, abbreviated report that will be presented.

I was a little chagrined because, when the committee met in

its last deliberations, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke), to whom most of these suggestions will be directed, sat

in our chambers and advised us that a brochure giving the

direction of the Department of Health was already completed and

that there had only been one change made — and that had been

the flyleaf of the brochure.

So I really wonder, Mr. Speaker, how much of our summer's

work was given due consideration by the department. I really

wonder.

AN HON. MEMBER: You say the report was already printed?

MR. SCHROEDER: No, that's not what I said.

The people who believed, in good faith, that they were

giving information that would be utilized in the formation of

policy and direction, must now know that the policy was already

established before the final report was given, Mr. Speaker, and

that all of their deliberations and all the number of hours

that were spent by this committee were. . may I call it

"window-dressing "?

There is every indication that philosophy and

[ Page 54 ]

policy will prevail and that it has already been

predetermined what that direction will be and that input equals

zero; and all I can say for the standing committee is that it

will bring back many fond memories, Madam Chairman, and it will

bring memories of good friendship and of good laughter in our

quiet hours.

Let me speak of labour relations. I am delighted to see in

the throne speech an indication that there will be

consideration given, at least, to what has been called in

previous sittings the "conscience clause."

It is that right which belongs to every individual to follow

the dictates of his religious conscience regarding his

association with labour organizations. I am delighted to see

that it is there, and I won't make any more comment because all

we have in the throne speech is that it will be considered. We

don't have any indication of what will be the ramifications. So

at the minute of seeing the ramifications I think we can make a

more intelligent evaluation.

I appreciate the Premier's office using its influence to

issue the back-to-work order for the workers of the B.C.

Railway. I think, though, that the government has assumed a

rather ugly position. It is somewhat on a hot griddle. In

assuming the position of an employer, as the government has

done and has intentions of continuing to do, they are also

making themselves the object of strike. At the same time, their

administration, the existence of their administration, depends

upon the support of the very individuals who are striking

against them. Do they think, in the light of all of that, that

they can make an objective labour settlement — that they can

defend the economy on the one hand and capitulate to an illegal

strike on the other?

It is a strange precedent that we have established just

recently. Is it any wonder that the Minister of Transport (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) said, "In this settlement we have got a gun to

our heads"? You had better believe he has a gun to his head,

and the gun is on both sides. On one side he has those who

represent labour, who have supported him in his election, and

on the other hand he has the general consumers in our province,

who await his judicial decision, one which, supposedly, is a

decision that is fair to each and all.

Is it any wonder that the Minister of transport said that we

had a gun to our head? Is it any wonder that he said that it is

time we re-evaluate our position about giving the right to

strike to civic employees? Oh, the change of position…I

think the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) said

something similar when she said, "We used to think, when we

were in opposition, that all we had to do was just snap our

fingers and we could change policy like that, but we are

learning that it is taking just a little longer than that."

My, how the weight of administration brings change in the administrator, In

the crucible of responsibility the big rocks grind against each other first

and the grinding ultimately makes little ones of us all.

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) says

that he wants to defend the right of every individual to join a

labour union. I would agree that every individual has that

right. But I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would not

also agree that, at the same time, every individual must also

have the right to join the union of his choice — also, not only

the union of his choice but whether to join the union, and not

to make it a condition of employment. This is where the rubber

meets the road.

I also wonder whether or not the government in recent

actions is already giving us an indication that if their

eventual position in labour relations is going to be compulsory

arbitration. Are they going to come back to where we started

when they first took office? Eventually someone, somewhere, has

to make the ugly decision. Whether it is a group of people

called a union, whether it's an employer, whether it's an

arbitrator, whether it's a conciliator or whoever it is,

somewhere along the line someone has to make a binding

decision. And I am wondering if both this government and the

federal government won't be taking that same position.

Away from labour relations to agriculture. I am glad to see

in the throne speech that we have an intention by this

administration to stabilize farm income. Very, very good. I am

glad, for this other reason, that the Premier of the province

moved quickly in the railway strike, because the indication

that we have from the farmers out on the flood plain is that

feed, which just a few weeks ago was costing them $92 a ton,

moved quickly to $98 a ton — then to $105 a ton. Then, in the

light of the railway strike, the suppliers gave every

indication that the cost of the feed was going to be $150 a

ton.

Now the very pressure of the anticipated escalation in the

price caused the farm folk to rush to the supplier and buy up

every bit of feed that was there, thereby escalating the cost

of the feed even more because of its shortage of supply. The

pressure to buy now automatically makes the price of the

commodity higher.

I think that the government, our government here, must

influence the federal government on import curbs to ensure

proper farm income. It is impossible for us in the Province of

British Columbia to produce food products at higher costs — the

truth is, at the highest costs in Canada — and then compete

with the imports at the marketplace when the imports there at a lower cost per unit. Somehow or other

[ Page 55 ]

there must be a curb; we must have the same privilege for

the market man, for the farmer, as we have for the

labourer.

The labourer, if he is not getting what he deems to be a

proper return for his labour, can withhold that service. He can

strike. If a farmer deems that he is not receiving a proper

return for his product, can he withhold his product? No. The

minute he does, or the minute he asks a dearer cost, the

borders of our province are opened and we must compete with

tomatoes, cherries, prunes, apples at a cost lower than we can

afford to produce them. They can be placed in our marketplace

from outside sources. We have no strength at all.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Talk to the

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). You're all mixed

up.

MR. SCHROEDER: We have no strength at all in the

stabilization of our farm income as long as we have no import

curbs at our borders. If you want high wages, fine. But if you

want high wages, you must at the same time accept the

responsibility to pay the price of those wages in the price of

the product, and you must at the same time protect that product

against imports.

A guaranteed income for the farmer, I think, is a desirable

aspiration. However, a guaranteed income for the farmer must

mean more than just ample return for his labours. It must also

give him a fair return for the investment that's involved, and

in almost every case the investment is a high investment.

In the field of agriculture I'm a little concerned about the

Land Commission appeal procedures. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), through you, Mr. Speaker, that

this area falls into your jurisdiction and yet you're the only

person on whose doorstep I can lay this. There are three

characteristics to the land-use appeal, and the three

characteristics are these: 1. It's slow. 2. It's slow. 3. It's

slow.

It's easy to establish the policy that land use is to be

determined through a commission, but it's altogether another

thing to implement those decisions. Let me give you just an

illustration: We have a 17-acre farm operating by the Wiebes

just east of Chilliwack. Seven, now nearing eight, years ago

they built a residence for the senior Mr. Wiebe on a corner

one-half-acre lot. It was okayed, building permit, everything

done on the up and up.

Now all of a sudden, since Bill 42, the 17 acres falls under the reserve. When

the senior Mr. Wiebe wants to sell his farm to the junior Mr. Wiebe, but he

wishes to retain the half-acre lot upon which his house rests for himself, it

is impossible to do so. It must have an appeal. Therefore the process of appeal

entered into and we began as early as last May. The appeal still has no answer,

not even an answer of consideration, for something that needs hardly a decision

at all: shall we allow the half acre to be divided from the 17 acres, as a decision

which has been made by the regional council some seven or eight years ago? But

this is what happened. We made our contacts through the various agencies. One

says, "It's not our responsibility; it's another's." Eventually, when we saddle

Mr. Lane with the responsibility as late as July, his excuses are: 1. He has

no office; 2. He has no forms; 3. He has no authority; 4. We have no decision.

Mr. Wiebe is still on his little half acre there on the

corner of his 17-acre farm, ageing, wishing to look after it

before he goes to his final rest, but no decision is made. Bill

42 has worked against itself. It's been a boon to inflation. It

has not made farmers willing to farm. It has not offered a

reasonable alternative to the development of residential

clusters. It's just another indication of the futility of

socialism.

Socialism is idealistic. It's great for musing, occupies the

mind of the dreamer, looks good on paper, but when you start to

ask a socialist to make a decision, he never knows whether it's

the right decision. Being idealistic, he's not sure that he is

making the only decision and as a result he makes none at all.

The whole programme is programmed for self-destruct.

An example of a bureaucratic forest that was constructed in

the Agriculture Department was this business of the freight

assistance, for which our dear farmer friends were going to

receive at least some remuneration for the high cost of

bringing feed, which was at some shortage, from the Cariboo or

from the North Peace. The red tape that they had to go through

to qualify for the freight assistance frustrated farmers, who

by the way don't have a plush office and a lot of bureaucrats

to do their work for them…. They've got to take time out of

milking to fill out those forms, and as a result they just took

the forms and threw them all up in the air and they said,

"Sooner we should pay $8 extra for feed than to go through all

of this rigmarole."

Then we move to consumer affairs. I'm glad to see this new

department established in the administration. The basic word

for consumer affairs is the word "protection." I trust that the

new government in its development of this protection will

consider that not all…. I'm going to say this right, because

I don't want to get it backwards — they assume that all

shysters are non-consumers and they also assume that all

consumers are non-shysters, Mr. Speaker. We provide plenty of

protection for one category of consumer and provide no

protection for the supplier, who by the way is also a consumer.

And the government must provide protection for the suppliers of

the necessary commodities such as groceries and fuel, auto

repairs.

This is what's happening: in an age when it is becoming more

and more popular to pay for your

[ Page 56 ]

purchases not in cash, but rather in cheques, a grocer is

obligated to accept cheques — hundreds of them in a day. Bad

cheques automatically come in. Why? It's because not all

consumers are non-shysters. As a matter of fact, there is an

increase, in the experience of a grocer who approached me, of

95 per cent in NSF cheques in just three years. At the same

time, there's been an increase of 300 per cent in forgeries. I

trust that the Department of Consumer Affairs will take this

problem under its wing and provide some protection for grocers

who must take cheques for the purchases but have no guarantee

that the cheques will be honoured when they're turned into the

bank.

Break-ins for grocers — up 300 per cent in one year. The man

who approached me had nine break-ins in this past year. As a

result, he is non-insurable. There is no way that an insurer

will take the risk of this grocery. I'm sad to see that the

president of Canada's largest insurance corporation is not

here, but if he were, I must ask this insurer to guarantee the

insurability of this kind of consumer and give him that amount

of protection.

There is another category of consumer that has received more

protection than he deserves, because if a person is a welfare

recipient, and he passes a bad cheque, this grocer has had the

experience that he can't touch it. As a result, it's a loss.

What happens to the loss? The loss is passed on in higher

prices for goods and you know who pays for it. The rest of us

who are consumers pay for it.

Let's move on to the area of mining. We've heard in this

House as late as this afternoon that it could be, unless some

curbs are established, that there will be a gas shortage as

early as this winter. I find that strange. If you look at the

exploration rates from figures released from the mining

industry, they tell us that exploration is down by nearly 50

per cent in just one year. If we've got a gas shortage that we

can expect in British Columbia' this year, what have we to look

forward to in two years or three years? Should this

continue?

The area of municipal affairs: there's great concern expressed out in the areas

of municipal jurisdiction on the basis of lost revenue. It is lost revenue because

of the new classification of land — land which was considered residential or

at least potentially residential, and which was taxed on that basis before will

be potentially lost from the tax rolls because of reclassification to farm use.

How in the world is the municipality of Chilliwack to operate a balanced budget

when escalating costs are representing some 14 per cent of an increase over

one year, when the increase in allotment that they get from the government is

only $2 per capita per year? How in the world are we going to operate a balanced

budget on this score? No way. I think that the concern is well-founded and I

ask the government to reconsider, in the Department of Municipal Affairs, the

allotments for the municipalities and give them at least a 10 — 14 per cent

increase in a per capita allowance.

The insurance corporation is next. I'm chagrined to think

that we haven't seen any announcement from the insurance

corporation other than that it's going into general insurance

as of October 1.

Automobile insurance — no announcement; still no estimates;

but worst of all, we have no interim insurance. What are we

going to do with the dear individuals whose insurance has

expired between March 1, and today, and whose previous insurer

refuses to renew the policy on the basis that they have had to

phase out their operation? It seems to me that the Department

of Transport and our good friend the Minister of Transport

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) have given no consideration to the fact

that we cannot expect the insurance companies of British

Columbia to carry their clientele in full force until the

cut-off date. They have had to phase out. They've had to phase

out personnel; they've had to phase out overhead; they've had

to phase out offices; as a result they have refused to insure

those of us whose insurance policies have expired between March

1, 1973 and today. What do we do for insurance when insurance

is mandatory? No consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a bad risk, I guess.

MR. SCHROEDER: The question that I have for the Minister is:

who will give these people the insurance until March 1,

1974?

Moving to the field of education, there's a growing

discontent out there on the flood plains, particularly in the

teaching staff. I ask that the government return respectability

to the teaching profession. The teacher is being alienated more

and more from the student to the extent where it is becoming

near impossible to gain the services of substitute teachers; it

is becoming more and more difficult as time goes on. Words like

"inhumane" have been attached to reasons why substitute

teachers are no longer servicing our classrooms.

Staff — I know of one school in a constituency neighbouring

to mine where the staff threaten to relocate. They have been

encouraged by people in the constituency to create a new

school, something on the basis of the school called the "ideal

school" in Vancouver. They have asked that the return of

authority be given to the teacher, not just back to the

principal, but to the teacher so that the teacher can establish

her own rapport with the students.

It's to the place in the school that I'm talking about where

the students are using three- and four-letter words in refusing

to abide by the teachers' wishes. Now the last straw comes with

this: we have the announcement by the advisor to the Minister

that we're going to consider student unions. When that

[ Page 57 ]

happens, all I can say is: thank God for independent schools

as an alternative.

Next to the area of unorganized territory which normally

falls under the administration of highways. I would like to ask

the government to consider that there are some unorganized

territories which are quite heavily populated. The services to

these areas are minimal, particularly in the area of

transportation. I think particularly of Cultus Lake in my

constituency where we have quite a concentration of retired

folks who live on the lakeside, and who have absolutely no mode

of transportation, not even to obtain groceries, to obtain

drugs, to make visits to the doctors' offices. I'm imploring

the Department of Highways to consider a subsidized bus service

to this area, where perhaps on a one- or a two-times-a-day

basis we can provide transportation to these unorganized

areas.

There are more areas of discussion that I would like to draw

to your attention. However, in the interests of time, I will

leave those discussions until they come up in bills that are

being introduced. Thank you so much.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

it's a great pleasure to follow the Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder). I realize, of course, that I don't quite have his

histrionic talents.

Some of us, Mr. Speaker, have been concerned at different

times with the relevancy of some of the proceedings in this

chamber and some of the speeches that take place in the

chamber. Many of us have felt, I think, perhaps particularly

during the past summer, that the committee work sometimes had

more relevance, more meaning, and I want particularly to

mention the Committee on Municipal Affairs.

This was a very hard working committee — I would go so far

as to say, despite political differences, a very compatible

committee — and I think it's going to file in a few days a very

excellent, at least interim, report.

But I would like to describe for you a scene, Mr. Speaker,

on the night of July 26 last, on the afterdeck of the Edgewater

Fortune , sometimes called the Greenpeace II . It's about

midnight, there's a full moon off South Gabriola Island, and

the committee is holding a late meeting. (Laughter,)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, reports on what happens in

committee are not really supposed to be in the House, but go

on, go on. (Laughter.)

MR. BROUSSON: I'm just describing a scene, Mr. Speaker. And

there, Mr. Speaker, the members of that committee learned the

true abilities of the Member for Chilliwack as he told us the

immortal story of the Phoo bird. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker,

you'll have to wait for the report of the committee to get the

story. (Laughter.)

Like all the Members on the opposition side, I've been

reading and re-reading the throne speech trying to find

something of significance, something new, or maybe even

something useful. I did find two new things and these are the

only two new things in the speech that were not known before in

terms of press releases or stories or announcements or

whatever. First, the reference that the labour legislation will

recognize the sanctity of religious beliefs. Well, Mr. Speaker,

when this was read in the speech a number of people applauded

this remark. But to me it's a shocking thing that we have such

a Minister of Labour that this subject even has to be mentioned

in the Speech from the Throne. It should be taken for

granted.

The second new thing in the Speech from the Throne, Mr.

Speaker, was the announcement of the seminar on nuclear power.

My first instinct was to say, "Well, what's the use? The

Premier has already got a closed mind on that subject. Why does

he go through the window dressing of holding a seminar to

discuss it?" And I think perhaps the Member for Kamloops (Mr.

G.A. Anderson) would agree with that kind of thinking. But I've

decided, Mr. Speaker, to give the Premier and government the

benefit of the doubt on this subject and very seriously to say

that I do welcome this study and I hope very much that the Hon.

Premier will listen to it with an open mind and perhaps change

his mind from the opinions he's expressed previously.

Now the speech also, Mr. Speaker, mentioned the Department

of Consumer Affairs and, as others have done, I want to welcome

this response of the government to my call for this last

winter. I want to congratulate the new lady Minister (Hon. Ms.

Young), to wish her well and I urge her to get as much as

possible away from and out of the Attorney General's (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) office where the consumer affairs branch has been

stifled for some long time.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the new Minister

of my proposal last spring — the series of store-front consumer

advisory offices across this province where ordinary people can

get advice on budgets, on mortgages, credit, warranties, that

kind of thing. It does not need to be an expensive programme. I

detailed some of the costs of this for the Attorney General

last winter. It could be a training ground for young lawyers

and other young graduates.

I don't believe yet, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General

has control over the mortgage brokers with the somewhat "Mickey

Mouse" amendments that we've passed in the last session, and I

hope this new lady Minister will carefully examine this field.

I hope she'll institute an active educational programme in the

schools and in the community.

Interjection.

[ Page 58 ]

MR. BROUSSON: I mentioned that the whole area of credit and

training and education all needs examination.

Perhaps more noticeable, Mr. Speaker, are some of the things

left out of the Speech from the Throne that were not said. I

hope every speaker in this debate mentions them because all

over B.C. the voters watch and wonder why these things are not

happening.

School taxes are not coming off the land. There is no bill

of rights. There is no right to sue the Crown and there is no

ombudsman. Once again promises, promises, promises, and no

wonder the public begins to lose faith in the politicians and

their government.

One subject was left out completely from the Speech from the

Throne and I think it's shocking that it was completely

neglected — that's the subject of transportation.

The last decent debate we had in this chamber on

transportation was nearly two years ago during the estimates of

the former Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Black). On that

afternoon, I remember so well, the NDP opposition at that time

and the Socred government side took turns attacking the fat

cats of the North Shore. That afternoon the NDP Members talked

themselves into opposing the Third Crossing, and that's how it

finally became government policy. Not because it necessarily

makes sense to oppose the Third Crossing from a rational point

of view, but because it made more political hay in Vancouver

East and Surrey.

I think the transportation policies of this government are

one of the biggest disappointments so far. We've had many, many

speeches calling for unified plans, freeways, river and harbour

crossings, ferries, appointment of Mr. Parker, all of these

sort of things. But all of these things so far have produced

nothing. One year later nothing much has happened except, well,

we ordered 99 buses, we got about half of them, we've painted

them fancy new colours, and I understand the upholstery is a

little better — there is a little more space, like Western

Airlines, for people with long legs like me.

One thing that I am encouraged in: for the first time. one

or two people are beginning to realize and are talking about

the necessity of including downtown parking as part of the

problem of transportation. That finally is beginning to receive

some recognition, I talked for three years asking for parking

in downtown Vancouver and the central business district to be

included in the things that government transportation policies

must control.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the public and the government alike

seem to be unaware of what, if anything, is being done.

I changed my mind on one thing on transportation — maybe free buses would work.

I must say that in the election in 1972 I opposed this concept. The more I thought

about it, the more I studied it, the more I think I was wrong and I'm prepared

to say I might have been wrong. I think they might work. Seattle is trying an

experiment of this kind now and I think there is much we can learn from Seattle's

project. It's costing them only $64,000 for a year.

Why don't we try one experiment, Mr. Speaker, for a period?

For example, let's try the experiment of a free bus service

from the central business district in Vancouver to the North

Shore, to North and West Vancouver. Let's try it in rush hours

only, say, from 7 to 9:30 in the morning, from 3:30 to 6 at

night, and put on some express service, and let's see if it

would not work.

The trouble with these kinds of things is that we talk about

them from a very theoretical point of view but most of us don't

really know for sure. The experts can make studies and that

sort of thing, but until you really try it you don't know for

sure.

Seattle's experiment is in the central business area; you

have to pay to get into it and pay to get out of it, but travel

within that area will be free. Perhaps we could try it from one

enclosed suburban area to the downtown area, and try it for a

reasonable period of six months and see what happens. Perhaps

we could make a contribution to the science of

transportation.

One extra point on transportation. I've called many times

for a unified approach to get all the factors into the

equation: the crossings, the freeways, the parking, et cetera,

et cetera. But there's one more I've never heard mentioned

before now and that is the matter of taxicabs. Most cities in

the world — London, New York, Chicago, wherever you go — have

roving taxicabs. If you have to cross town, you can find one

quickly and get there cheaply; you don't need your private car

in the metropolitan or central business district in any of

those cities. Some cities even have a system of scheduled

taxicabs. Mexico City, Caracas in Venezuela, Trinidad, and a

number of other cities particularly associated with Latin

America have taxis that run on regular routes — no special

times, but they shuttle back and forth over regular routes.

They're cheap and they serve a useful purpose in giving people

an alternate to their own transportation.

Well, Vancouver instead has a very limited fleet of taxicabs

which cannot rove around the downtown area. It's against the

law for them to pick up people when you flag them down from the

sidewalk. Surely, Mr. Speaker, a programme for taxicabs would

be a very useful part of an integrated transportation plan for

the lower mainland of British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Minister for

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is in the House because I want

to discuss a recent announcement of his. I give the Minister

credit. He hasn't perhaps developed the corps of executive

assistants and press secretaries and special assistants and

similar administrative arrangements that some

[ Page

59 ]

other Members of the cabinet have, but he's getting his own

in now, Mr. Speaker. He announced a commission of inquiry into

electrical inspection in British Columbia, and he announced

this with great fanfare on September 7.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it's a great pity

to start such a project in such a confused way. I wonder if

this particular project is not chosen because the IBEW has the

Minister's attention or his ear in some way. For five years,

Mr. Speaker, I've been telling this House about the confused,

dangerous situation in the whole matter of safety inspection in

this province.

I want to review this very briefly. In Public Works, the

Minister's department, under Safety Engineering Service, we

have the inspection of electrical; of natural gas; of boiler,

pressure vessels, and refrigeration. Over in the fire marshal's

office in the Attorney General's department we have oil burners

and propane gas being inspected.

I've explained, Mr. Speaker, many times — I'm sure you'll

remember — how often the RCMP "inspect" oil burners and LP gas.

I'm sure, while we all have a great deal of respect for the

RCMP, as inspectors of oil burners and propane gas

installations I would think they would leave something to be

desired.

I've given the House many examples of danger to life,

accidents and near accidents that have happened as a result of

this slipshod system of administration because the fire

marshal's office simply has no proper inspection set-up

whatsoever.

I've explained how other provinces do it all in one

department. I've explained the shortage of inspectors in

electricity and natural gas inspection as well as in the fire

marshal's office, but to no avail with the last government and

it would appear to little avail with this. The new Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the new Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) agreed something ought to be done and

might be done some time, but they've done nothing. I think

basically, it's because the Attorney General and the civil

service don't want to be bothered with trying to make the

administrative arrangements that are necessary.

Finally, the mountain has laboured and out pops this little

mouse of a commission on electrical inspection only. Let me

read you the Minister's objectives; this is from his own

statement. He says:

"It must be stressed that our concern is and must remain primarily to ensure safe electrical

installations for the protection of the public."

"However,

times have changed. Technology has advanced and we must ensure that

legislation and administration keep pace with changing circumstances. I

have therefore asked for and received cabinet approval for a commission

of inquiry into electrical inspection in BritishColumbia under the provisions of the Departmental Inquiries Act ."

All of this, Mr. Speaker, is to be headed by a very

distinguished Canadian, Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, much respected,

well-thought of in British Columbia and, in fact, in

Canada.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what a pity we are not using the services

of Dr. Keenleyside and the rest of his colleagues in this

commission to do a complete study of all the similar inspection

departments that are involved. Not just electric, but natural

gas, propane, oil burners, refrigeration, boiler and pressure

vessels — the whole package.

I urge, Mr. Speaker, the Minister to expand the terms of

reference for this commission, and just for once do it

right.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have another matter to raise with the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). There are very few

businessmen in this chamber. That is something that this

chamber lacks, and I think it is a serious thing, because very

rarely do legislation and government in British Columbia get

some input from those who are practising, working

businessmen.

I want to tell you that it is not getting any easier to be a

businessman in this province. We have complex and new income

tax laws, we have a new provincial Companies Act, we have

increased provincial taxes, and the Premier seems to take the

attitude and attempts to explain to the public that the

corporations and the companies of the province can provide any

amount of taxes, whether they are profitable or not.

Most companies are pretty small, not large, but to hear the

Premier talk about them he thinks that they are all great, big,

huge, corporate giants. Most companies in B.C. are small and

it's tough to deal with the things I am talking about: the

awarding of contracts without tender that has been a practice

of this government; the inflationary wage settlement that this

government has been involved in lately such as the Barrett

formula for the civil service, which is 10 per cent up to 20

per cent; or the Strachan formula for the ferry service, which

is 15 per cent, maybe up to 20 per cent, something of that

order — pretty inflationary settlements that the average little

businessman also has to deal with when his staff sees those

kind of inflationary settlements being made by Big Daddy

government.

Then there is the attitude of the government as a union

organizer. I refer there, Mr. Speaker, to the Public Works Fair

Employment Act. I spoke in the House last winter when we

discussed this Act, and I said that clearly the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and the Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley) were becoming, in effect, union organizers in

British Columbia. We have already heard the Minister of Public

Works waffling about this Act; I heard him being quoted on the

radio the other day saying, "We

[ Page 60 ]

must be flexible." And the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

spoke yesterday explaining how flexible he was being on one

particular tender here in Victoria. I have received a letter

this morning, Mr. Speaker, from a member of my constituency

from a company. It is a copy of a letter dated September 14

addressed to "The Hon. W.L. Hartley, Minister of Public Works,

re the B.C. Ferries Deas Dock facility intercom tender." I

received a copy in my mail today.

Dear Sir: This letter is intended as a complaint and an

enquiry into the policies being followed by your department in

the awarding of Public Works tenders. The dollar value of the

contract in question in this case was small, but the principle

is important for the future.

In July of 1973 we received notice of a tender call on an

intercom system for the B.C. Ferries Deas Dock facility. We

subsequently submitted our tender on August 3, 1973, as

required.

The tenders were opened in public and it was found that

three companies had met the requirements of the tendering

instructions by filling in the tender form provided by the

Department of Public Works. The form encompassed the dollar

value of the tender and required a signature acknowledging

compliance with the Public Works Fair Employment Act of 1973.

The fourth tender opened did not include the correct tender

form, nor did it indicate compliance with the fair employment

Act. This tender was the lowest in price of the four bids

opened.

After the tender opening our firm inquired about the

awarding of the contract, thinking that since we were the

lowest of the firms that had bid in the approved manner, we had

a chance of being awarded the contract. We were told that the

contract was being awarded to the low bidder, and that the

department had gone back to that firm and asked what their

position was regarding a collective agreement. The firm in

question does not have a collective agreement but assured the

department that they were sub-contracting the work to a company

with a collective agreement.

The matter was discussed with Mr. S.E. Edgecombe, contracts

administrator, and his final suggestion was that we send in a

formal complaint. We have also discussed the matter with one of

the other bidders and they have the same opinion we do.

Our basic complaint is that, as we understand the Public

Works Fair Employment Act of 1973, the company tendering for

the Public Works department must have a collective agreement as

well as any sub-contractors. We also feel that tenders which do

not follow the tendering instructions should not be

allowed.

We would appreciate your investigating this matter and stating to us on what

grounds the department can justify awarding this contract, as it appears to

contravene the legislative Act.

That is signed by Mr. G.A. Lane, President, Pacific

Communications Ltd. Copies to the Hon. Mr. Wm. King, Minister

of Labour, and to myself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as someone who has participated in the

construction industry for most of my business life, and has

been very much involved in the tendering process in all kinds

of contracts, as a supplier of labour, as a supplier of

installation, as a supplier of equipment, I think I am very,

very familiar with what is the ethical, fair and honest

practice in submitting tenders. If there is a format laid out

for that tender as to time and place and that sort of thing,

all of those things should be followed, and if someone

tendering does not follow those regulations that tender should

be thrown out — it shouldn't even be opened. Now we have this

new factor, nothing to do with the form of the tender, but the

requirement under the Public Works Fair Employment Act . Now I

fought that Act, I voted against it, but the fact is it's law

and the government should follow it. No talk about the

Minister, about "we must be flexible," can apply in this

situation. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I urge your

consideration of this and I urge your direction to your

departmental officials to follow honest and fair tendering

processes.

Mr. Speaker, I had one final topic, and the Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) will also be interested in

this, because it's in his constituency. It's the Skagit Valley.

Mr. Speaker, the public believes the battle of the Skagit

Valley is won, and I think most MLAs in this House believe that

battle is won. But I must tell you we are going to lose and the

Skagit Valley is going to be flooded.

Let me tell you why. Last September, after the election of

the new government, I told the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) that I was prepared to

cooperate in every way possible and to take this issue out of

the realm of partisan politics, provided he would assure me of

his efforts to continue properly the former NDP policy. What

has happened since then? Nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, except

that last winter, spring and on into the summer a considerable

amount of logging went on in the valley under the auspices of

the British Columbia Forest Service. The Minister has cooled

that somewhat now, but it took him many months to do it.

The Minister made public speeches last fall. He made, at my

request, definitive statements of policy in this House last

February. At that time I explained to him privately the idea

that a deal could be negotiated with Seattle. A combination of

a little cash, a little power at the right price and the right

time would solve the problem with honour and

[ Page 61 ]

satisfaction to all parties, and no confrontations. Clearly

a negotiation was possible; the olive branch was there.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources knows how

that could have been dealt with. The federal government has a

small group which has been ready to work on this. The Hon. Jack

Davis wanted to work out a joint federal-provincial solution.

But what about our provincial Minister? Would he do anything?

Nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker. And why is that? Because he

thinks the Federal Power Commission is going to solve his

problems for him by turning down the Seattle application.

Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it isn't going to work.

The Federal Power Commission is in the business of giving power

permits — that's the American Federal Power Commission. I read

to the House last spring a letter of March 6, 1973, from the

ROSS committee. To the newer Members in the House, let me

remind them what ROSS stands for — Run Out Skagit Spoilers. It

was a letter from the ROSS committee to Jack Davis, and also to

the provincial Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

That letter pointed out that ROSS had no funds and could not

make a presentation to the American FPC, but Seattle would very

likely succeed in that application and that if so it would be

much more difficult and expensive after that to stop the

flooding. But if the government would not or could not go, the

ROSS committee was prepared to make a presentation if they were

given some financial assistance.

I read this letter to the House last March. The Minister

said he hadn't seen the letter but that he would see that it

was replied to. His executive assistant asked for and got

another copy but from that day to this there has been no reply,

Mr. Speaker, not a single, solitary word.

Just recently the Federal Power Commission in Washington

issued an amending order postponing its hearing from December 3 this fall to February 25, 1974. Let me read you the statement

from the Federal Power Commission in that amending order:

"We are aware of the extreme necessity of construction of new generation at this time."

Then they go

on to say:

"However, there are some legalities that must be performed and issuance of an incomplete draft statement

by the staff would be self-defeating and could well lead to

much greater delay."

So very clearly from those words the FPC

has virtually made up its mind. They are aware of the necessity

to get things going but they have to get these legal things out

of the way first. Otherwise, they might have even more

delay.

Mr. Speaker, I have been to the Federal Power Commission in Washington at my

own expense and on my own time. I have talked with members of that commission

and some of their staff. I am listed personally as an intervener and so is the

ROSS committee. We have no money, I doubt if I have the time to go and the Minister

doesn't even answer letters asking for help from the ROSS committee.

The FPC in my opinion will issue that permit to Seattle.

What do they care about the Skagit Valley? And then how will

the Minister negotiate a deal? If he can, how much more

expensive will it be to British Columbia?

I remember the work of the Member from Yale-Lillooet, the

present Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), Mr.

Speaker, in the Skagit campaign. He rode to Seattle with me on

at least one occasion and I remember his eloquence before

Seattle City Council and before the Washington State Ecological

Commission. Where is that Member now?

I remember the speeches of the NDP federal member, Mark

Rose. Where is the NDP policy of defending the Skagit from

flooding under the ridiculous contract signed by Williston and

defended by Bennett?

Mr. Speaker, I ran in August of '72 very largely because I

wanted to finish the Skagit fight that I'd started. I very much

doubt now that I will ever have the time or the money or the

strength to finish that fight. But I remember so well in 1971

in Ottawa talking to Prime Minister Trudeau about the Skagit

and he told me then, "If you want to save the Skagit, get rid

of Bennett." Well, Mr. Speaker, we got rid of Bennett but I

tell you that we are not going to save the Skagit because this

new government and this new Minister of Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) simply don't care, and the Skagit is going to be

flooded. We got rid of Bennett, Mr. Speaker, but look what we

got.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver-South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

would like to start off by saying that early this week I took a

walk around this building and really, from the outside of it,

the southern side of the building is every bit as beautiful as

the part facing the waterfront. I believe that it was

originally intended to be the front of the building, with its

beautiful columns.

In the southeast corner I noticed the cornerstone which was

dated as having been laid on September 28, 1912 by the Duke of

Connaught who was the then Governor-General of Canada. That

means that this building is 62 years old and it has, from the

outward appearance, been kept in marvellous condition. I am

glad today to be able to see the refurbishing and the

renovations that have been made inside the building because I

think that there should be constant renovations in a fine,

dignified building of this type, just as there always have been

in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

[ Page 62 ]

Year after year in the House of Commons special masonry

artisans from Italy are employed so as to be able to continue

with carving that has never been completed, and that will

continue to go on in stages of completion, because the history

of what is happening in Ottawa is being recorded in stone in

the building. I believe that here too we have to maintain the

beauty and dignity and serenity of these chambers, not only for

ourselves but for posterity. It does not belong to the Members

who are here; it belongs to the people of British Columbia, and

when this chamber is renovated or when any of the Members or

the Cabinet Ministers' chambers are renovated, it is not for

personal aggrandizement, it is for the dignity of the office. I

am very, very pleased to see the renovations that have taken

place this year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to some of the

statements that were made by the Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder). I was rather surprised to hear him say that the

teachers were terribly unhappy and in a state of confusion and

that the Department of Education was making things difficult.

He should have been at the teachers' convention this spring.

When they held the convention the chief speaker for the

luncheon was the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

The teachers were so happy to see her come in there that they

gave her a 5-minute standing ovation before she even started to

speak.

The morale of teachers in British Columbia is higher today

than it has been in the last 20 years. Let me say too that

there is not nearly the confusion that the Member for

Chilliwack would have us believe.

Certainly new methods are being tried and new philosophies

are being worked out in education but it's high time they were.

You take for instance in my own constituency of Vancouver South

there are two high schools that are not too far apart — the

David Thompson Secondary School and Killarney Secondary School.

So that there is a transfer of philosophy of thought in the

schools, in the Thompson school they are using a lot of the new

methods, the open school type of approach, and in Killarney

they are using the traditional method and parents from both

schools are permitted to send their children to whichever one

of these two schools they want their children to go to. So

there is no confusion as far as the children are concerned;

there is certainly no confusion as to what the teachers want.

They are given the opportunity to have input into what is to be

taught in the schools. It is the first time in a long time that

they have had that and they are very happy about it.

Certainly, during the last day or two, there have been reports on radio and

television that the teachers are anxious to look for a bettering of teachers'

conditions. But is that not true of the trade union movement? Is that not true

in every movement? If they do not look forward to improving their conditions

then they have nowhere to go. They are certainly not at the stalemate that they

were until this administration came into being.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to another subject.

At the spring session of the legislature I urged the Minister

of Education to give serious consideration to setting up a

northern university and I would like today to repeat that plea.

Last week it was reported that the enrolment at the University

of British Columbia is once more increasing, that it is very

close to or slightly over 20,000 people again. Simon Fraser

University has the highest enrolment in its history and I

believe that it is the same for the University of Victoria.

I believe we must face the fact that we are not only a great

province, but that we are a rapidly growing one. We're probably

experiencing the greatest growth in population of any province

in Canada. In yesterday's paper it was announced that the

national population gain for Canada from 1968 to 1973 — that is

the last five years — has been 6.8 per cent. But in British

Columbia, during that five years, the gain has been a whopping

15.4 per cent.

We can no longer expect the lower mainland universities and

the University of Victoria to serve the entire province, with a

continuing increase in population of this kind. Fortunately, in

the Okanagan and the Kootenays we have the University of

Nelson, which takes care of the needs of many of the students

in that part of the province, particularly for those who can't

afford to or don't wish to come to the lower mainland for their

post-secondary academic education.

But if we're growing fast today, this is only a taste of

things to come. In the spring session, this government unveiled

a programme for the opening of the north that will surely cause

a tremendous population explosion far beyond our wildest

imaginings. Our government is to be congratulated, Mr. Speaker,

on the introduction of an excellent programme to develop the

northern part of British Columbia. The plans and the progress

in the various stages of development fairly boggle the

mind.

The town of Ocean Falls has been saved, ensuring the

livelihood of those employed at the mill there. The government

has taken control of Columbia Cellulose, saving the jobs of

some 3,500 workers, many of whom are in the northern part of

this province. A super port is to be developed at Prince

Rupert. This, along with the CNR and the British Columbia

Railway extensions, will be a joint federal-provincial effort.

The railway development will mean the extension of rail lines

from between Prince George and Prince Rupert, from Terrace

through to Dease Lake, and north to Lower Post on the Yukon

border.

Never before has there been such a programme of

[ Page

63 ]

federal-provincial cooperation brought into being. Included

in this federal-provincial agreement is the revision of the

freight rate structure for wood resources. As a result of the

freight rate changes, tremendous developments are also planned

around Burns Lake in relation to wood utilization programmes by

private firms.

It is estimated that about 1-1/3 million acres of land in

that entire northern area will be utilized for parks, roads,

transport corridors, watersheds, mining and agriculture. It's

estimated that the development of this northern area will

generate a whole new arena of employment. Forestry and mining

alone, it was predicted sometime in the newspapers, will create

approximately 18,000 new jobs in that

section of the

country.

Other sectors of the economy in that region will provide at

least another 17,000 jobs, and it is foreseen that the

programme will create around 65,000 more jobs in other parts of

British Columbia and outside of this province. This will

stimulate a significant influx of people into the northern part

of British Columbia.

Along with the development of new industries and roads to

resources there will also be environmental and ecological

studies for the purpose of wildlife preservation and for the

consideration of the rights of our native people living in that

region.

We may well look forward to the creation of new towns and

the expansion of others. Hopefully, this should take some of

the pressure of population and density and increase from our

metropolitan areas such as Vancouver and Victoria and from the

Okanagan and the Kootenays.

Until now the development of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker,

has been a very lop-sided affair because past governments have

ignored the potentialities and the problems of the north. Let

me say again, never before has there been such a spirit of

cooperation between the two senior levels of government.

Now to be able to accomplish such a programme of this

magnitude, human resources must be taken into account as well

as material resources. One of the problems of the north has

always been the high percentage of transient population, which

will no doubt increase.

Another problem that must be seriously considered, as I have

stated before, is the condition of our native people and the

way they're living. Positive direction must be shown towards

housing, education and employment of our native Indians in

order to improve their living standards.

I was interested, in the beginning of August, to hear the

federal Minister of Urban Affairs, Robert Andras, express

caution with regard to the problem of establishing new urban

centres. This is what he had to say:

You are not going to get people to settle in an area where there is not the

availability of cultural improvement and enjoyment. To develop a city where

there is to be any degree of permanency of residence, there should be available

such cultural amenities as an art gallery, a museum and a university. People

hesitate to settle permanently in a region where there is no university.

Thinking people everywhere not only require work

satisfaction, but leisure and cultural satisfaction as well.

They desire it not only when they go on a holiday, Mr.

Speaker; they want cultural satisfaction within their reach

every day of their lives, every day of the year. When a family

decides to settle into, a new neighbourhood or move to another

city, the first things they look for in that neighbourhood are

the social amenities that can add quality to their lives. These

include a church of their choice, schools for their children,

health centres, social centres, transportation and shopping

facilities.

In outlying areas the school very often doubles for a

community or social centre. This has been one of the stimuli

for producing the community school. However, today this isn't

sufficient; they also look for ways and means of improving

their own education and of providing post-secondary academic

education for their children.

Recognition of education as a continuing process throughout

life has resulted in the development of our junior colleges and

of vocational schools throughout the province. These

institutions provide the first two years of university and

programmes of training in trades for the upgrading of skills

without having to leave one's own neighbourhood and one's own

district.

Unfortunately, many young people who wish to complete their

professional education are still forced to leave home to attend

university. I know what a pull that is because that is the type

of thing that happened to my parents when they wanted us to go

on into higher education once our elementary school education

was finished.

We lived on a farm. It meant that my father had to decide to

bring us into the city. He had to look for another type of work

than farming to be able to support his family. It is a great

pull indeed for people who enjoy the freedom of country life

and enjoy farming.

Until 10 or 11 years ago British Columbia had only one

university, Mr. Speaker. It took a great deal of drive and

determination on the part of Dr. John MacDonald to survey this

entire province for the potentialities of post-secondary

education. This led to the development of the regional colleges

throughout British Columbia, the establishment of the

University of Victoria and of Simon Fraser University. At the

same time as this was happening the University of Notre Dame at

Nelson was being developed.

Now while this present situation may be

[ Page 64 ]

satisfactory to people who live near the universities, who

live on Vancouver Island or on the lower mainland or in the

Okanagan and the Kootenays, the absence of a northern

university does present hardships for students, and for the

parents of students, living in that part of the province. Not

only does it tend to concentrate all of our talented and

educated people in the southern part of the province, but

experience has proven that if young people come to the lower

mainland for their university, many do not return to the

northern part to practise their professions. As a result, our

northern towns and cities have a constant struggle trying to

get and keep professional people. Prince George is short of

registered nurses and social workers right now, and doctors are

at a premium in the northern half of the province.

I understand that Dr. Elliot said just recently that there

are sufficient doctors in this province to service the entire

province but, unfortunately, most of them congregate in the

lower mainland. They don't go out to the boondocks around

Hazelton, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Terrace and Lower Post,

and places like that. Also, anyone who has lived in that

northern part of the province, as I have, will know that many

of the schools suffer a large turnover of staff every year.

Just recently, I read in the paper where Mayor Harold Moffat

of Prince George predicted that within the next decade, due to

intensive northern development, metropolitan Prince George will

grow to a population of approximately 95,000 people. That's a

great city, and it's grown very, very rapidly. I understand

that metropolitan Prince George is between 65,000 and 75,000

at present.

In preparation for this tremendous change, we must make

plans for the expansion of post-secondary education in that

entire region. I would urge the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mrs. Dailly) again, to begin to plan for a university of the

north in that area now. It would be an ideal place for the

development of special programmes for young Indians wishing to

enter the professions. It would be a good place for the

introduction of an Indian studies programme in which the native

people could participate in the planning and the development of

the courses. But let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it should

not be a university geared to native people alone.

Within the next few years, the northern part of this province will require

many young professional people to carry out the development of the north. It

will require educators, social workers, doctors, dentists, engineers, accountants,

biologists, all on a permanent basis. Indian and non-Indian must study together

and work together for a rational and well-balanced development of the human

as well as material resources of their own area of the province. We should educate

the talented young people who are already there to fill these positions, rather

than import all our professional people from the coast or from abroad.

In relation to a university of the north, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to turn your attention now to the plight of the

Indian people in British Columbia. This month's Non-Status

News, the newspaper of the B.C. non-status Indians, reported

the graduation of a native person from the law school at the

University of British Columbia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he is

only the second native Indian ever to graduate in law in this

province. Now isn't that utterly preposterous when you realize

the University of British Columbia has been in operation for

over 50 years, and the law faculty has been in existence for

about 25 years or more?

Equally ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that although

there are approximately 115,000 status and non-status Indians

in the province, at present there are only about 140

registered in all our universities together. In all of British

Columbia, there are only 45 Indian teachers in our public and

parochial schools combined. I'm told that of these, less than

one-half are involved in the classroom in elementary schools,

and there are not more than five — five — native teachers in

all of the province's secondary schools.

We pride ourselves, as Canadians, on being a people who

place a high value on education. In fact, the appreciation of

an educated society has become a world-wide trend. We recognize

that the higher the educational standards of a nation, the

higher will be its standard of living too. But education for

whom? There must be a horizontal opportunity for everyone,

regardless of race or colour, and when we consider this, we can

do nothing but deplore the fact that the opportunities for the

good life obtained through higher education have by-passed our

native people. In the field of education, as in all other

worthwhile facets of life, we have failed them miserably due to

a lack of understanding of their needs. In the Non-Status News ,

one little quote I would like to read is this:

"Schools must be more responsive to the needs of all children, particularly those neglected by the school

system because of their low economic status. The education of

our native children is both a disaster and a national

disgrace."

No race or ethnic group is superior when it comes to brain

power or intelligence. We have many brilliant people among our

native Indians. In the fields of painting, leather work or

carving, their skills are second to none. They're outstanding

workers in the arts, and they are first class hunters and

fishermen and guides. But too often they have become frustrated

and discouraged because their cultural values differ from ours — not because they're wrong, but they differ from ours. They

believe basically in cooperation rather than competition. They

find it all

[ Page 65 ]

too difficult, with lack of education and limited financial

resources, to live successfully in our competitive society.

Again, I quote from the Non-Status News: "What all children

need, whether Indian, white, black, brown or yellow, rich or

poor, are schools without failure." An Ontario study on the

native Indian states this: "Institutional education among our

native Indian population has served as an instrument of

cultural genocide." That's every bit as true in British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, as it is in Ontario.

Be that as it may, integration into the public school system

has not been any glowing success either. In British Columbia,

there are approximately 50,000 status and 65,000 non-status

Indians, A non-status Indian report of 1972 estimated that over

one-half of the non-status Indians in British Columbia received

welfare in some form or other — over one-half. Because they do

not receive federal grants and are not recognized as Indians,

they're much poorer than the status Indians, and their chances

for education are much less. In fact, they're much poorer, Mr.

Speaker, than any other racial or ethnic group in Canada. Isn't

it a shame that we've placed the Indian as the low man on the

totem pole?

They suffer from dismally poor housing, from malnutrition,

from lack of proper sanitary facilities, from ignorance of

their rights as citizens and from unemployment. Add all these

together, and you realize that their energies and ability to

study must be at a very low point. We should not be too

surprised, then, that depression, loneliness and frustration

set in. In desperation, many of them turn to drugs, to alcohol,

and to prostitution.

Mr. Speaker, there are about 40,000 Indian children enrolled

in the schools of British Columbia and their record of school

completion is sad indeed. Statistics show that 78 per cent of

our native Indian children have dropped out by the time they

have reached grade 10. Most Indian young people reaching high

school have a reading comprehension level of about grade 4 or

less. Under these circumstances is the drop-out rate any

surprise? Is it any surprise that 95 per cent of them fail to

complete grade 12? Where are they going to get the

understanding and the ability to relate to our educational

system and our values if there are no native teachers or

coordinators to help them interpret them?

Of the 5 per cent who graduate nearly all are on the vocational programme.

Only 1 per cent of the non-status Indians are on the academic programme, while

75 per cent of all non-status Indians in our high schools are in the occupational

and special classes. Even those who complete the academic programme find it

difficult going into post-secondary education of any kind and, of all the native

Indians in our vocational schools, only 5 per cent of them were non-status Indians.

It was during the last few years, due to efforts of the

better educated among the native people, that such changes have

taken place. They have developed a certain self-awareness and a

great number of self-help programmes. They have developed their

own newspapers, for instance; they've begun a native homemakers

association for young women to teach the native women

nutrition, better homemaking methods, and the proper use of

modern equipment.

They have developed a chain of friendship centres all the

way across Canada, and 11 of which, Mr. Speaker, are in British

Columbia. The purpose of these friendship centres is to find

homes for young native Indians who come from the country into

the heavily-populated urban areas so that they don't land up on

skid row or some other undesirable place, to give them legal

assistance if they run afoul of the law and also to perpetuate

their culture through the arts.

It's not only just for the young people. In the friendship

centre in Quesnel, for instance, they have a literacy programme

that they started last year. It is for the older Indians and

they have 50 Indians registered in that programme.

But, Mr. Speaker, they desperately need educated native

people who can relate to their own culture as qualified

teachers, nurses, social workers, nutritionists, and yes, in

other professions too such as legal advisers and even

architects and builders, so that they can do a great deal of

their own work. Without these educated leaders from their own

community they will continue to be under-educated and

unemployed. They require a minimum of education to be able to

enter Manpower training programmes for trade training.

I was delighted to read once again in the Non-Status News

that the vocational school at Terrace has recently moved into a

programme of upgrading for Indians aimed directly at the native

people which is proving very successful, They say that in the

first year there has been only about 10 per cent drop-out. Many

of these young natives come from the Stikine and the Nass River

area. I was delighted to see that because I realize that they

would probably go as far as Prince George but they might not

want to go all the way to the lower mainland.

I think our Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) should

be highly commended for her interest in what is happening to

the native people and for her insight into some of their

problems by hiring Mr. George Wilson, who has a Bachelor of

Education degree, as director of Indian education for British

Columbia. I realize, and I'm sure the Minister of Education

realizes too, that he has a tremendous task before him. Here

are some of his problems.

Of the 4,100 students in the Prince Rupert area, 20 per cent

or 850 of them are native Indians, but there are no Indian

teachers on staff for the year

[ Page 66 ]

1973-74. There is only one home-school coordinator paid for

by the Department of Indian Affairs. There are no Indian

trustees. There are no Indian clerks, janitors, teacher aids or

grounds men. Do you wonder that these children feel alienated

in a situation that is completely foreign to them?

At Williams Lake, in that school district, of some 6,800

students, 16 per cent are Indians. Again there are no Indian

teachers and no Indian trustees.

A top British Columbia educator and a former inspector said

that it would be optimistic to suggest that, out of this 600

trustees in British Columbia, more than five of them would be

Indians. The absence of Indian adults attached to the school

system in this province in any way has a terribly alienating

effect on the children.

Once again I would like to congratulate the Minister of

Education for trying to ameliorate the situation. Only two

weeks ago she announced the appointment of Mrs. Angie Dennis,

who is a former teacher, to the Education Advisory Board. These

are things that are a great step forward.

Other groups and associations have also tried to do what

they can to help the native people. At Simon Fraser University

the alumni association has announced a students' loan programme

for Indian students going to university. They say:

"The projects that we are actually spending money on have

almost all been to support the native Indians. We felt British

Columbia Indians should be informed of the existence of the

university as a relatively friendly place. They frequently look

upon universities as institutions which are completely alien

and where they are not welcome. We decided specifically to give

bursaries to non-status Indian high school students, because

they receive no financial assistance from government as status

Indians do. Right now the problem, though, is that they never

complete high school and our bursaries are intended to bring

them up to the level where they can enter university."

Simon Fraser University has also hired an Indian teacher as

a coordinator at the university, and the University of British

Columbia has an office for the Association of Indian Teachers.

This is an excellent beginning, Mr. Speaker, but I sincerely

believe that if we are to encourage young Indians in the north

to remain in school we must start right now by training more

Indians as teachers. To encourage them to continue their

post-secondary education, we must create for them a climate

that is hospitable, with courses and disciplines to which they

can relate.

Our coastal universities are already too large and sophisticated and they are

too far away to entice the young Indians from the northern part of British Columbia.

Williams Lake lies on the 52nd parallel and from that parallel north to the

Yukon border the school population of Indians and non-Indians is about 65,000.

In 1971-72 the Department of Education reported that there were some 3,000 students

in grade 12 in that northern region, and about 3,300 or more in grade 11. With

a university centred at Prince George, I am sure that many of these young people

would be encouraged to continue into post-secondary academic work.

Let us not forget that, with the growth of population

through northern development, there will not only be an influx

of workers, there will be an influx also of their children who

are the students who will be going into the high schools and

into the junior colleges. We need a university for them, too,

right in that northern area. I would urge the planning of a

northern university in that region that should begin as soon as

possible so that a deadline of five years could be set for its

opening. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Thank you Mr. Speaker. It

gives me much pleasure to take this opportunity on behalf of

the people of Mackenzie constituency to congratulate the Hon.

Walter Stewart Owen on his appointment as Lieutenant-Governor.

I would like also to express my personal satisfaction with the

ambitious programme of legislation outlined in his opening

speech. I am in complete agreement with our government's

expressed intentions to place in a position of top priority

legislation which will assist and encourage those whose labour

produces the food, goods and services which form the basis of

our enviable standard of living in our province today.

As a Member of this government with some legislative

experience behind me, I recognize the complexities with which

our cabinet Ministers must deal in framing such vital

legislation. I recognize also that the programme of legislation

we are undertaking is a most ambitious one and its debate will

constitute a heavy workload for us all. I intend, therefore, to

keep my remarks brief.

I have expressed my personal satisfaction with the

legislative priorities for this session, as outlined in the

Lieutenant-Governor's opening speech. I feel, however, that I

would be doing less than my duty if I did not respond

positively to his challenging comment that it is our

responsibility to ensure that the voices of our citizens are

heard loud and clear through their legislators. It is because I

believe that my constituents' concern must be expressed in this

House that I intend to speak of problems in transportation,

industrial development, local governments and land use.

In speaking of transportation, let me first say to the Hon.

Minister of Transport and Communication, (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

and the Hon. Minister of Highways, (Hon. Mr. Lea) that their

efforts on behalf of the travelling public are appreciated.

Improvements to the ferry service and highways have

[ Page 67 ]

been noted and commented upon in the local press. However,

growth demands more and better facilities and growth is

occurring rapidly in Mackenzie.

Transportation remains one of the most basic problems to the

residents of my constituency. This does not mean that I favour

the spending of millions of dollars on these facilities without

careful overall planning.

I must report to you that there are a great many people in

my constituency who are greatly concerned about the possible

effects of improved transportation to the areas, as yet

relatively unspoiled, in which they live, This is a complex

matter and it is clear that improved transportation, which is

made necessary by growth, will in turn be responsible for

further growth in any areas made more accessible. Planning is

imperative.

There are however certain adjustments which could be made,

particularly to the ferry service, which would assist residents

in times of peak load on the system. It has been noted that

much of the overload problem