1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 13 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Return to work of B.C. Railway employees. Hon. Mr. King — 13

Mr. Richter — 13

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 13

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act (Bill 2). Hon. Mr.

Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 13

Oral Questions

Compensation for property loss in Salmon Arm fire. Mrs. Jordan.— 13

Proposed removal of school tax from private homes. Mr. Wallace — 14

Plans for northern railway development. Mr. Richter — 15

B.C. Rail dispute. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 15

Proposed compulsory student union. Mr. Schroeder — 15

Retroactive payment of salary to Premier's executive

assistant.

Mr. Morrison — 15

Slash burning permits. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 16

Bill 42. Mr. McClelland — 16

Minty report on B.C. Hydro. Mr. McGeer — 16

Renovations in the Chamber. Mr. L.A. Williams — 16

Throne speech debate Mr. Chabot — 16

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 25

Mr. Wallace — 36

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I beg

leave of the House to make a short statement concerning a

matter of public importance.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the

House that an agreement for a return to work has been achieved

between the members of the United Transportation Union and the

British Columbia Railway. The union requested an agreement from

the company which would bind both parties to voluntary

arbitration based upon the recommendation of Mr. Robert Smeal,

of the industrial inquiry commission. Railway management has

agreed to this request, and I am certainly pleased to report

that the members of the striking United Transportation Union

are returning to their jobs, effective this afternoon. I expect

the full resumption of operations today. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the

official opposition are very happy that the government took the

necessary action, with the Premier's intercession, and we look

forward to seeing things back on the rails again.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are

very grateful that the Minister came forward with this

statement today. We would like, however, some more

clarification on whether this arbitration is to be binding or

whether it is simply a binding commitment to go to arbitration.

I am not too sure whether the voluntary arbitration which the

Minister discussed was going to be binding in its final

result.

We would also like some further information, if possible,

upon the role of the president of the B.C. Rail in this. It is

quite unknown to me whether the Premier was sending telegrams

to the unions in his capacity as Premier on behalf of the

people of the province, or in his capacity as president of the

B.C. Rail. There are a number of other questions that we feel

are important: why it has taken such a long time for this

matter to come to the attention of the Minister of Labour; why,

for example, the Premier of the province was willing to wait

for

[1130]

three full days until the Minister of Labour got

involved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that the statements that are being

made now actually belong in a question period in the form of questions rather

than a brief statement on an important matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right, Mr. Speaker; then I will be happy

enough to continue them in the question period that follows.

Nevertheless, we do welcome the fact that the B.C. Rail

employees will now be back to work.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

we are honoured today to have with us in the gallery Mrs. Beryl

Plumptre, chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, who has

come to British Columbia to establish liaison with the

government in her endeavours to discover the reasons for the

increases in the cost of food. I would ask the House to welcome

her, please.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): It is not very often, Mr.

Speaker, that I have the opportunity of welcoming guests in the

gallery from the constituency of Columbia River, but we have

with us today his Worship Mayor and Mrs. Zazulak and Mr. Ormond

from Golden. I hope that the Members will be on their best

behaviour today. I wish they would join me in welcoming them to

the assembly.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I take great pleasure in welcoming

to the galleries today the Mayor of Kitimat, Mayor Thom, and

the administrator, Mr. Currie.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MEDICAL GRANT ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Medical Grant Act.

Bill No. 2 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.

COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY LOSS

IN SALMON ARM FIRE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would like to address my question

to the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who is looking very prosperous.

It's regarding the Salmon Arm forest fire disaster which took place last week,

and which will carry on for some time.

While I do recognize that the government has

[ Page 14 ]

committed to use the provincial disaster fund set up by the

previous administration to cover immediate capital losses that

were in last week's disaster, I would like to ask if he has set

into motion, or whether the government has set into motion,

plans for studying the long-term social and economic effects of

this fire, with preparations to allow for loss of income to

individuals who will be re-establishing their businesses — such

as farmers and dairymen who will be rebuilding their herds — and to allow for special compensation for families who, while

not directly burned out by the fire, will, in fact, suffer

direct loss of income from the fire's effect.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, I want, first

of all, to thank the Member for raising this question. I

discussed this earlier this morning with the Member from Salmon

Arm, and I want to say, first of all, that there is a change in

government policy. We will no longer assess damage, as was done

under the former administration, on the basis of assessment

only.

I have asked that we now approach the problem with a new

policy whereby we will assess damage and pay back on

replacement value, rather than on assessed value. In terms of

the long-term impact, I received advice that the Minister, who

is working very closely with the Member from that area, is

taking into account the long-term impact of the fire and should

have a special report on that. But on actual terms of

properties lost, replacement value will be the criterion for

payment.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We will look forward

to receiving that report. Who determines the replacement value,

and who will be carrying out the assessment and will adjudicate

on that report?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding that someone is

already in the field and is now determining this, and I've

asked the Member from Salmon Arm (Mr. Lewis) to take a message

back to the people in his area — and I welcome the opportunity

of doing that on his behalf — that replacement value will be

there. Some form of arbitration, since this is a new policy,

will have to be established, perhaps in areas of dispute. And

we have no firm policy on this, but perhaps in a specific

dispute we will have: (1) a government assessor; (2) the

private assessor if there is a dispute about the final sum; and

(3) an independent person on a sort of an arbitration panel.

But we want no one to lose replacement value and the government

will be very, very lenient in that regard.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Are we to interpret from this,

Mr. Minister, that there will be another board established?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. If there is an area of dispute,

then we will find some form of resolving that dispute rather

than allowing the matter to linger, as we found in experiences

of payment for lands behind some of the dams build in this

province. We'll make decisions immediately which will be a

change in policy as well.

MRS. JORDAN: The board will have to be kept open of course,

in areas of urgency.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, certainly.

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

in the same connection I would like to direct a question to the

Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) arising out of

the fires of Salmon Arm. There are serious problems, I

understand, with respect to the current care of the livestock.

I wonder if the Minister could indicate to what extent he or

officials of his department are concerning themselves with this

matter, and if he could provide us with a report?

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

response again to a request from the MLA from Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis), the local district agriculturist was contacted by my

department and told to make whatever arrangements were

necessary to look after the stock in that area, spend whatever

money was required to either feed them in this period or even

to house them if anything could be done in that regard — anything at all that would assist the farmers in that area — and that the arrangements would be looked after afterwards.

PROPOSED REMOVAL OF SCHOOL

TAX FROM PRIVATE HOMES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

direct a question also to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett), and ask if perhaps he would clarify a statement made

in Coquitlam about a week ago that school tax would be removed

from land by spring '74, and this apparently was retracted.

There's some confusion in the press reporting. Would the

Minister care to clarify?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The statement I made, Mr. Speaker, was the

statement I've made in the House on many occasions.

Unfortunately that report was erroneous as it appeared in the

paper.

It is our intention in the spring to introduce a policy

that, over a period of years, would remove school tax from the

private home in British Columbia. That's our policy and there's

no deviation

[ Page

15 ]

from that policy.

PLANS FOR NORTHERN RAILWAY

DEVELOPMENT

MR. RICHTER: This question is directed also to the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett); he seems to be affluent in

getting questions thrown at him today.

Does the planning for a northern railway development involve

in any way a federal government contribution by way of bonds

for capital purposes, rather than cash sharing? And has the

provincial government been advised of any interest rates which

would apply to any federal sharing by way of debt?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it's a straight agreement

between two governments. If the Member wishes, I will file with

the House all the details of the signed agreement.

B.C. RAIL DISPUTE

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

of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). I wonder whether he could perhaps

clarify the statement made earlier, Mr. Speaker, where he

referred to arbitration which would be binding on both parties;

they would both have accepted this voluntary arbitration as

binding? I'm afraid I did not quite understand whether or not

they have both agreed to voluntary arbitration, or whether or

not binding arbitration has been agreed to and the possibility

of future work stoppages has been ruled out by this method.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the statement was quite clear.

The union involved requested management of the company to agree

to be bound by the recommendation of the Industrial Inquiry

Commission when it is handed down. That is what is commonly

referred to as voluntary arbitration, and it is indeed binding

on both parties.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That does clarify the voluntary and

binding aspects of this.

Could I come back then to the president of the B.C. Rail,

Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), and ask him

whether or not he sent his telegram to the union concerned in

his capacity as president of B.C. Rail or in his capacity as

Premier of the province?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I sent the telegram in my capacity as

Premier.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask as a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

whether or not the previously announced plans of the government to shift the

presidency of B.C. Rail to some other person other than the Premier will be

proceeded with, or whether or not there will be delay in this matter?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There will be many plans with B.C. Rail

proceeded with. We have filed with the House the detailed

reports in the areas we are concerned about. There will be no

major changes. I anticipate that the major changes in the

railroad out of those reports will be done while I am

president, and when those changes are completed I intend at

that time to give up the presidency of the railroad.

PROPOSED COMPULSORY STUDENT UNION

MR. H. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This

question is for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

Has the Minister of Education in any way made known to Mr.

Bremer that a compulsory student union would not be pursued by

the provincial government?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I have already

made a statement in the paper that I do not favour such a

union. I would like to make it quite clear however, that this

was simply a statement — the matter of a compulsory student

union — made at a meeting which was reported in the press.

There is a report to be brought forward by the student

committee set up by Mr. Bremer. I think at that time we will

know exactly what they recommended.

MR. SCHROEDER: A supplementary if I may. I'm sorry if Mr.

Bremer is any embarrassment to the Minister. But does Mr.

Bremer enjoy some special arrangement with the department

whereby he is allowed to set policy in these regards?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Bremer was hired specifically to make

recommendations, with the assistance of the people of the

province, for changes in education. Any educational policy

decisions are made by the Minister in collaboration and

discussion with the cabinet.

RETROACTIVE PAYMENT OF SALARY

TO PREMIER'S EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett). Has the retroactive payment to the executive

assistant in the Premier's office dating back to January 1,

1973 been offered or given to any other person whose salary is

paid by the provincial government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would take that question as

notice.

[ Page 16 ]

SLASH BURNING PERMITS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich), Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). May I ask him

whether there are any valid permits still outstanding in the

Kamloops forest district for slash burning at this time or

whether they have been cancelled?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the whole Interior has been

closed for industrial and recreational purposes, and that would

certainly include slash burning.

BILL 42

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Finance. Could the

Minister tell me whether land frozen in an agricultural reserve

under Bill 42 will be given automatic farm classification for

assessment purposes?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not sure if that question is directed

to the right Minister. If you wish to re-direct it to the

Minister of Agriculture….

MR. McCLELLAND: Well it is a matter for the finance Minister

to comment on, Mr. Speaker. But if the agriculture Minister

would sooner answer the question, then I'll re-direct it to

him. Will lands frozen in an agricultural reserve under Bill 42

be given automatic farm classification for assessment

purposes?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Farm classification for assessment

purposes depends on the use made of the land. There presently

is land within the proposed reserves, and there will be land

within the reserves when they become established, used for

other purposes; certainly they wouldn't be given the farm

classification if they are being used for other purposes. On

the other hand they may not be in use at all, they may be just

sitting idle; and again they would not qualify for farm

classification.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that, where

there is a statutory provision, it's not up to the Members or

the government to ask what the law is. And the law, as it

stands, clearly sets out what farm purposes, farm

classification is. It is not a matter — unless you are talking

about future policy.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's not quite true, because I don't think

this has been made clear in this province with regard to the

use of the land under Bill 42. There are many people in the province who believe,

rightly or wrongly, that because their land is going to be

frozen in perpetuity that they will get automatic farm

classification. And that's the reason I asked that question,

Mr. Speaker.

MINTY REPORT ON B.C. HYDRO

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I have

a question for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). Over

the summer has he had an opportunity to study the Minty Report

on the B.C. Hydro and is he prepared to release it to the

House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Member. I will see that the

report is filed in the House shortly.

MR. SCHROEDER: The question is directed to the Minister

without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) in charge of housing. Has

the Minister received any offers from the private sector

involving a suggested partnership in providing housing?

HON. L. NICHOLSON (Minister without Portfolio): We've

received offers of cooperation from the private sector. There

are no specific partnerships being considered.

RENOVATIONS IN THE CHAMBER

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

to the Hon. Minister of Public Works: in all the renovations of

this chamber, have you found some way to open a window?

(Laughter).

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to inform my learned friend that we not only hope to

let in the sunshine, but the fresh air too.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is again a

pleasure for me to take my place in this House and in this

debate on behalf of the people I represent from the Columbia

River constituency. I take great pleasure also in welcoming the

Ministers back from far distant lands. Some have journeyed on

to Europe, Asia, England and other parts of North America. I'm

happy to see that so many of them are back for the fall session

of the legislature. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you'll agree that

some have toured the world as well at public expense. I hope

that their trips were beneficial to the taxpayers of British

Columbia.

[ Page 17 ]

I know that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has just returned from Finland

and I hope that in his holiday-business type combination he had

very fruitful discussions, no doubt, with the financial backers

of Eurocan.

I also want to welcome some of the Ministers who have not

had the opportunity to travel abroad to distant lands — some

who have travelled only between Vancouver and Victoria on the

B.C. ferries. I understand that one Minister in particular was

faced with a very serious dilemma while travelling on a B.C.

ferry. It was impossible, for some unknown reason, to find a

corkscrew on the ferry for that Minister. I hope he has talked

to his colleague and that his colleague probably has issued

corkscrews to the ferry authority so that the Minister will not

be so inconvenienced in the future.

Then, that brings to mind as well the possibility that maybe

there should be some research done by the Department of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce; maybe we're missing

an opportunity to establish a new industry in British

Columbia.

I want to particularly welcome the Premier from his many

journeys. He's travelled to New York, England, Europe, and

Williams Lake. I'm very happy to see that he's finally come

back for the fall session. Let's talk very briefly about some

of these trips he's been on. He's been to New York. He was

there talking to the financial community, leading those people

to believe that British Columbia was a logical and fertile land

in which to invest their dollars. He was using the old "trust

me" speech. "Trust us", but lo and behold, after those people

had wined and dined him in New York he came back just a few

weeks later and betrayed the statements that he'd made to those

people when he took over the Plateau mill under the

circumstances in which it was seized.

The he went on into Europe and talked to the business

community over there. It was a great holiday as well and I'm

sure that the Premier saw many of the great sights in England

and in Europe. But he came back on June 15 and he had a press

conference to tell all about the goodies which he was able to

attract — the secondary industry that he was able to attract to

British Columbia.

So in his press conference on June 15 he said that the

British Steel Corporation is very interested in coming to

British Columbia to investigate the possibility or the

feasibility of establishing a mini-steel mill, whatever a

mini-steel mill is. Well, we've yet to hear the results of the

investigation carried out by the British Steel Corporation on

this major announcement for the establishment of secondary

industry in British Columbia.

He had one other very significant announcement to make. While he was in England

he talked to the Hawker-Siddeley people. He said, "I'm not going to say just

what type of secondary industry they're going to establish in British Columbia

because it wouldn't be fair." It wouldn't be fair. "But I want to say that within

a few weeks they will be establishing an industry in British Columbia." Well,

we haven't heard since June 15, well past three months, anything further from

Hawker-Siddeley or its plans to establish secondary industry in British Columbia.

Of course, I'm sure he wasn't going to establish any

industries or attract investment capital in Williams Lake

because that turned out to be a throwing of cow dung, a

cow-dung meeting he had up in Williams Lake. And I was rather

disturbed to see the Premier of British Columbia on open

television drinking beer, and the short period of time that

it's necessary to drink that beer and to throw the cow dung as

far as he possibly could. I think that he was throwing cow dung

not only in Williams Lake, but in Europe and New York as well

because we've seen the results of the action of that government

since it's been in office. We've seen the results.

There is a serious drop-back in the investment capital

coming to British Columbia, the only jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker,

in Canada that has a substantial decrease in investment

capital. All other jurisdictions have had tremendous increase

in capital expenditures and in investment. But not in British

Columbia. It's decreased not only by the action of that

government but by its attitude as well.

We're pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see the strong and decisive

decision of the people of the South Okanagan as well because on

September 7 there was a genuine vote for free enterprise in

British Columbia, without any doubt. And it was a formidable

win — by 3,700 votes — by Social Credit despite the fact that

that Premier attempted to bribe the voters of South Okanagan

with the Mincome programme, the reduction of age on the Mincome

programme and also with the free prescription drugs, which

programme is to take place on January 1, 1974. It just happened

to be an opportune time for the government to make the

announcement during a by-election. I want to tell you that the

Premier and that government didn't fool the electorate of South

Okanagan because his party and his candidate stood still in the

results of that by-election…

HON. MR. BARRETT: And yours dropped.

MR. CHABOT: …and we see the results. Well, he's won. Our

candidate won as well as most of your members over there and

substantially better than a lot of them.

The Premier made some rather peculiar statements during the

course of the by-election when he was talking about that

individual who carried out a poll. He said that he didn't

believe that a poll could take place; there aren't 200 people

who would talk to a

[ Page 18 ]

Socred in that riding. He went on to say, "Silly, silly,

silly — 200 people would not talk to a Socred in the South

Okanagan." All I can say is, Mr. Premier through you, Mr.

Speaker, that was a stupid statement from the Premier of

British Columbia. Stupid indeed, because 9,700 people were

prepared to put their "X" where they felt it would be most

beneficial to them.

Then we saw the Liberal Party — the leader is absent at the

moment; the leader of the Conservative Party is absent as well — pick their own location, their own territory and their own

issue. The issue was: we are the only viable alternative to

radical socialism. The people told them what they thought of

that.

The Conservative candidate, who incidentally is the leader

of that party, had a programme of unity; he was going to unite

Social Credit and the Progressive Conservative Party if elected

in the South Okanagan. But he said, "Really what I'm attempting

to do is to destroy the Social Credit Party and then they'll

come with me as Progressive Conservatives." He gambled. It was

a long shot for the leader of the Conservative Party in South

Okanagan. He gambled and he lost.

Lo and behold, where do we find the leader of the

Conservative Party today? He's down in Las Vegas, Mr. Speaker.

He's in Las Vegas gambling some more. The only conclusion I can

come to for his location of holiday is that the Conservative

Party has many i.o.u.'s and many notes in the lower mainland

which they're trying to cover with wins from their leader in

Las Vegas.

Then we saw the leader of the Liberal Party there as

well.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Las Vegas?

MR. CHABOT: He spent weeks, week after week in South

Okanagan, attempting to tell the people that Social Credit is a

dying force, that Social Credit is a dead force, and that we

are the only alternative to socialism.

Well, no wonder the results. I looked at the weekly

newspaper up there, the Capital News — I happened to be going

by and spent two or three days there — and I noticed the picture

of the leader of the Liberal Party main-streeting in Kelowna. I

couldn't believe it — the leader of the Liberal Party was

main-streeting in Bermuda shorts. (Laughter). Thank God he's

lost those Bermuda shorts.

No, the results of the by-election in South Okanagan are a

complete repudiation, not only of the leader but of his party

as well, because they dropped 10 per cent of the vote. The man

who said, "Social Credit is dead" has helped kill his own party

in British Columbia.

I never cease to be amazed by certain statements made by

certain people connected with the newspaper world. The editor

of the Vancouver Province is very inconsistent indeed. On July

31, when they carried out that massive assessment of voter

reaction to the results of a by-election, he had this to say

about the political scene in British Columbia:

"The by-election will be crucial to the future of politics

in B.C. In a number of ways. In the first place it will

probably determine whether Warren remains as Tory leader. If he

loses the election he can hardly expect to continue to lead the

party without a seat."

Then, of course, we were given the statement to the voters

of South Okanagan. The editor of the Vancouver Province knows

what's best for the people of the South Okanagan so he told

them how to vote. He told them to vote for his friend, Derril

Warren.

Then we see the complete flip-flop in an editorial written

by that editor on September 15 in which he has this to say:

"The Conservatives (and Mr. Warren) must ponder whether

anything really has changed for them either as far as party

leadership is concerned. It would have to be a strangely ardent

Conservative who sincerely believes that another Tory leader

would have given the party the South Okanagan seat.

Unless the party has hidden in the wings a leader of such

outstanding qualities that he would arouse a spontaneous burst

of enthusiasm among conservatively-minded people in all

parties, there seems little point to seek a successor to Mr.

Warren.

A change-over could do more harm than good by giving the

party a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty just at a time

when it is beginning to show signs of a creditable revival.

It would go too far to say that the Conservatives must sink

or swim with Derril Warren. But they must ask themselves

whether they would go farther or faster with anyone else."

July 31, he suggested that Derril Warren, if not elected in

South Okanagan, couldn't remain as the leader of the party. Yet

he changes his opinion on September 15 in which he urges and

suggests that his friend should stay on. So that's flexibility

and inconsistency as well.

We've resolved the South Okanagan by-election very

satisfactorily, I'm sure, to the people of South Okanagan and

now we get on to some of the actions of the government since we

last met.

We've seen the Premier summarily dismiss the first native

Indian ever elected to a cabinet in Canada. Within nine short

months of his elevation to the cabinet, the Premier said that

he'd lost confidence in his Minister. I'm wondering whether my

statements in

[ Page 19 ]

this House last spring had any bearing on the decision made

by the Premier. I stood in my place and suggested that the

Minister without Portfolio was doing a good job. He was

examining the plight of the Indians in British Columbia and

hoping eventually to bring down some recommendations that would

help those people. I wonder if because I praised that Minister

that he's been dismissed.

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, and if the Premier will

assure me that if I praise some of his Ministers over there he

will dismiss them as quickly as he dismissed the Member for

Atlin (Mr. Calder), I'll start praising them right now, Mr.

Premier, because you can stand the clearing up of those cabinet

benches. Name 'em and I'll start heaping praise on several of

those Ministers right now.

But one has to think that the relationship that existed

between the Minister without Portfolio and Public Enemy No. 1

in Ottawa, Mr. Jack Davis, had some influence upon the

dismissal of your Minister without Portfolio. Mr. Davis is

really in essence Public Enemy No. 1 as far as the Premier of

British Columbia is concerned. He has used a lot of derogatory

terms about Mr. Davis. One comes to mind: he called him a

gandy-dancer, called him an enemy to British Columbia.

I'm wondering whether the relationship between your Minister

and the Minister of fisheries in Ottawa might have had some

bearing. I wonder whether the dismissal had anything to do with

the fact that the Minister without Portfolio was displeased

with some of the policies being implemented by your government.

That Member was very forthright in what he thinks and what he

says. Shortly after his dismissal he had this to say: "Partner,

let me tell you something. I represent a mining territory and

I'm the only cabinet Minister who dares" — did you hear that — "who dares to go back to laws which we introduced. I spent 26

days in my territory. No cabinet Minister has done that. I

dared to go back to get the backlash."

I'm wondering whether the fact that the Minister without

Portfolio spoke out against your mining legislation had

anything to do with his dismissal.

The Premier knows full well that during the last session of the Legislature

that Minister without Portfolio travelled to Ottawa, was absent from the session,

no doubt received government expenses as well, to go and negotiate on behalf

of the Government of British Columbia with the federal government. Then he's

completely repudiated by the Premier. The Premier says he was not travelling

there on behalf of the Government of British Columbia; he wasn't travelling on

behalf of the Government of British Columbia, he was travelling there strictly

as Mr. Calder. That's the statement of the Premier. The Premier knew well that

the Minister was travelling to Ottawa to discuss certain matters with the federal

government.

No, I sometimes wonder, with the attitude and the actions of

that government, whether they really care about the Indian

people of this province. They care as far as lip service is

concerned. They're ready to give lip service to the plight of

the native people in this province; but when it comes to

action, they're certainly not there.

I wrote a letter on August 10 to the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), for which I

received an acknowledgment from his secretary while he was away

in Finland — and for which I have yet to receive a reply from

the Minister — which deals, in my opinion, with a very serious

matter. It has to do with the naming of the Mica Dam. They're

calling it McNaughton Lake. I'll read the letter; I said:

Dear

Mr. Minister:

I'm writing to express my concern and alarm at your naming

of the lake to be formed behind the Mica Dam "McNaughton

Lake."

Just a few miles behind the dam there is a beautiful lake

called Kinbasket Lake. The name of this lake has a significant

historical background that is worthy of maintenance. The lake

was named by Walter Moberley, surveyor in 1866, in honour of

Chief Kinbasket, who had assisted his party down the Columbia

River. Mr. Moberley, in his records, stated that Mr. Kinbasket,

the head man of a small band of Shuswap Indians, was a good,

reliable Indian and that the old chief was delighted to have

the lake named after him. That was in 1866, 107 years ago.

Your renaming of this lake to McNaughton will forever

destroy a historical name in this district. Chief Kinbasket

still has descendants that live in the Windermere district. I'm

asking you to reconsider your renaming of this lake, which will

lose forever a historic Indian name in this district. This

proud Indian family name should be preserved and not

destroyed.

I'm still waiting for an answer from that Minister on that

letter that I wrote him on August 10. I'm sure that he's

received several letters dealing with this most important

issue. Most of the people that I've talked to have indicated

very clearly that they support the name Kinbasket Lake.

You sent a commission, or a task force or whatever you want

to call it, into the Golden area — I think it was July 20 — and

I think they asked that question to the people as to a name for

the body of water. It was unanimous that the name should be

Kinbasket Lake.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that serious consideration will be

given to this request for the maintenance of this historical

Indian name in my riding. I really feel pretty strongly about

this because I know the descendents of Chief Kinbasket, and

they're great

[ Page 20 ]

people. I hope, Mr. Minister, that you will give very

serious consideration to changing your mind on the name of that

lake and to leaving that most important historical name of

Chief Kinbasket on the body of water there. Not only will you

please me and the people in my constituency, but I'm sure that

the feeling is almost unanimous in the Revelstoke area that the

lake should be Kinbasket Lake.

I don't know, maybe the Minister wants to give me an answer

right now. Tomorrow? Thank you very much.

We've also, during the course of the last few weeks, seen a

great deal of activity around here. I want to compliment the

government for the beautiful ceiling and the gold leaf. I don't

know about those television lights, because they get terribly

hot, but nevertheless the ceiling is very lively looking and I

want to commend the government.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Maybe we should have a short recess and move the

camera over there. (Laughter).

But at least in the chamber, you know, it's brought a little

bit of vitality because, from time to time, some of the Members

lean back in their chairs and they have to look at the ceiling;

and a drab ceiling is, you know — quite despondent or hard to

look at. This is a cheery ceiling, so from time to time when we

lean back we'll look at it and cheer up because of the

liveliness of the ceiling.

Nevertheless, we've seen, in just the short period of time

that this government has been in office, a tremendous amount of

waste and extravagance.

We listen to the Premier say that this government is a

government that's run in a business-like fashion. A

business-like fashion; it's just like running any other kind of

business. I want to tell you, with the tactics you used for the

takeover of Plateau Mills, that isn't the type of tactics that

would be used by the business community or the businessmen of

this province.

You have, in effect, by your actions and by your statements,

put the fear of God in the business community of this

province.

You not only have put the fear of God in the business

community, but in the Civil Service of British Columbia with

your blatant patronage — patronage to a greater degree that I

ever believed would ever take place in any government in

Canada. We've seen hundreds, literally hundreds of party hacks — socialist party hacks — given jobs, lucrative jobs.

The Premier laughs at that statement, but not too long ago on radio I listened

to the executive assistant to the Minister of Agriculture answer a question

— and that's a political hack job — as to his background, whether he was qualified

to be an executive assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. When asked that

question, he was kind of dumbfounded; he said, "Well, no, I don't have much

agricultural background, but I've known the Minister for 25 years."

You know, that's the kind of qualifications that are

necessary to get a high paying Civil Service job or political

commission job in British Columbia today.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: There's one political hack that has been given

two jobs at $175 a day and expenses each. So it could be that

he works in the morning for $175 on the Energy Commission and

in the afternoon on this other commission and makes $350 a day.

Those are the kind of blatant patronage jobs that exist in

British Columbia today.

I forget his name; he's a defeated NDP candidate from the

Victoria area, probably Saanich. Johansson? I think his name is

Johansson. He has two of these jobs at $175 a day. Do you know

what's going to take place? There are going to be some of these

other political hacks that have $150-a-day jobs that are going

to be jealous, and then you're going to be in trouble; they'll

be jealous because this man has two jobs at $175 a day.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll want an office like the Minister of

Rehabilitation.

MR. CHABOT: Now we see the spectacle of the purge and the

demotion of the deputy ministers of the Government of British

Columbia. The purge is on; they've been demoted to Associate

Deputy Minister from Deputy Minister, a sideways promotion,

with increases of $6,000 a year — $6,000 a year! And then this

government says it operates in a business-like fashion.

Can you imagine any business corporation demoting its

vice-presidents to associate vice-presidents — to some

redundant job — and increasing their salaries by $6,000 a year?

Can you imagine? He says he operates in a business-like

fashion. But all he wants to do is to silence these people so

that they won't be displeased with their demotion; so that the

way will be paved to bring in some more party hacks at $39,000

to $42,000 a year. Talk about waste and extravagance to a

greater degree than every experienced in the history of this

province. Waste and extravagance.

Then we have — we're talking about waste and extravagance — the highest-paid

politicians in this country — the Premier with his $52,000-a-year salary and

about $17,500 expenses on top of it and the use of the government aircraft,

on top of that, to go campaigning in South Okanagan; and all the Ministers with

their $48,000 a year salaries. Talk about an extravagant and wasteful government.

But the

[ Page

21 ]

Premier will say that if you pay cheap salaries you get

cheap politicians. Cheap politicians.

Is he suggesting that the wages of a janitor, who's probably

working for $550 a month, because his salary is so low but is

the going rate for that particular classification of work, are

cheap wages? Does he consider, because of the fact that he

makes so little, that he's a cheap janitor?

Would he say the same thing about locomotive engineers on

the railroad who are working on the basis of 12 1/2 miles per

hour, that unless they get 20 miles per hour on the BCR, as is

one of the issues at stake in the dispute, those are cheap

locomotive engineers and that you will get cheap work from

those people?

Is that what he's suggesting when he talks about cheap

politicians, and that it's necessary to have the highest salary

structure in all of Canada?

And then we see the attitude of the government relative to

the offices they're building for themselves — up to $50,000 per

office. Is his

interpretation or justification that if you have

cheap offices, you'll get cheap performance? Some of the most

lavish offices in this country, not only in this province, are

presently being constructed and have recently been constructed

in these parliament buildings for those politicians.

Then we listen to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) who is being made a patsy by that government. They

sent him up to Prince George to make a statement that the

legislative roof is near collapse — strictly a cover-up for the

extravagant expenditures taking place at this time to ensure

that the Ministers of the Crown have the most marvelous offices

in this country. This is what the Minister had to say when he

was in Prince George: "It will cost us millions of dollars,

eventually, to restore that building."

As usual, he has to look back 20 years, as the Premier does,

on just about every statement he makes. "The former Social

Credit government," he said, "had neglected to make

needed repairs during the past 20 years. This had endangered

the safety of the 75-year-old building." Well, I challenge the

Minister to file any report indicating that repairs of any

substantial degree which were necessary on this building under

the former government were not carried out. I challenge him to

table any reports on that very issue.

Then he goes on: "In checking the building out, I was interested to find that

they have great wooden blocks or dowellings set out into the stone to hold the

strappings for the slates." Mr. Magoo carried out a personal inspection himself

of the condition of the building. He says, "These blocks have rotted out — dry

rot and so on — so if we had a bit of an earthquake, the roof would come down

like a brick." Come down like a brick; there's dry rot. The only place I suspect

there's dry rot is between the ears of the Minister of Public Works. If he's

concerned about an earthquake, I'm surprised that he would allow those cannons

to be discharged that shook this building just a few days ago on opening day.

Now, Mr. Minister, you can't be serious when you say one thing and do something

else.

Those statements about the condition of the building are

strictly a cover-up for the lavish, wasteful, extravagant

expenditures of this government for Ministers' offices — the

most lavish offices of any Ministers of the Crown in all of

Canada. I consider that the former offices were quite adequate

for good performance without the necessity of all the

lavishness and the imported wall covering, the imported woods

on the walls. I used to listen to those Members across the way

criticize one former Minister of the former government. They

used to say that he was awfully extravagant in his office if he

had a big desk, and all this and that. They constantly harped

on the expenditures of one P.A. Gaglardi. I want to say that

each and every one of those Ministers over there makes that

former Minister look like a piker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Here's the leadership fight.

(Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: But this is the little people's government; it's

necessary to have lavish offices for the representatives of the

little people. They apparently are concerned only about 38

people plus 38 government supporters plus hundreds of party

hacks. I think the Minister, rather than making the

examinations of the building, which he knows nothing about,

should continue his jetting all around the province. I think

that while he's in the jet he's not making the foolish kinds of

statements that he's making while he's standing on the

ground.

And then we've heard from the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). He's

finally come out of his cocoon. After having been a Minister

for a few months, he finally went to Vancouver and made a

statement. He told the business community, "Don't be afraid.

Don't be afraid of us, you've got nothing to fear." I think

that we have evidence that there is fear in British Columbia

and the results are in the cut-back in the amount of dollars

being invested in British Columbia.

Then just after he is making the statement, "do not be afraid, don't

be afraid of us," we hear

from the Premier. He tells the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce to stop bugging the phone in his office: "Stop

monitoring telephone calls coming into your office." I'm wondering how

many other Ministers have had monitoring devices in their offices. I'm

wondering whether the Premier has ever had any monitoring, listening,

bugging devices in

[ Page 22 ]

his office, or whether he's taken them out since his

informing the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce to take his out.

I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see in the Speech from the

Throne, a one-liner on the last page which says, "The

legislation," and that has to do with labour

legislation, "will also recognize the sanctity of individual

religious beliefs." That was in the Speech from the Throne. All

of a sudden that government and that Premier have seen the

light, and the Premier has the audacity of saying, "It's always

been a matter of high principle with me." What a bunch of

nonsense! What a bunch of rubbish! What a deviation from the

truth! You've never been concerned about this particular

matter, never. And then of course, there is the usual, "Oh,

look back over the last 20 years." He said, "Social Credit has

never done anything." That's typical of his attitude — he

always looks back.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I want to tell you it was never an issue under

Social Credit. It's because of the fear of the attitudes and

the statements made….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'll get to you, Mr. silent Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King), I'll get to you.

In the 18 months that I was Minister of Labour, I can say,

without fear of contradiction, that it was never an issue. All

of a sudden there is concern about this very matter. I looked

at the programme they put out, their propaganda programme

during the last election, called "A New Deal for People." There

was a

section dealing with the matter of labour — not one line

about individual religious freedom, not one line. Then they met

in November of 1972 at the NDP convention in Vancouver, and

they had a great series of recommendations on a great variety

of topics. There were 42 recommendations dealing with labour — not one talked about individual religious beliefs.

And the Premier says it was a "matter of high principle with

me." What a bunch of nonsense, straight nonsense! When they

were in opposition, did they ever present a resolution, did

they ever present a bill dealing with this matter? Certainly

not.

I'm rather surprised that the investigative press never

picked up the source or the origin of this concern for

individual religious freedoms, because in October, 1972, 1

presented a bill (Bill 29) dealing with this very subject

matter, and it was turned down. The Speaker even questioned the

validity of the bill at that particular time. And then another

bill was presented in the last spring session, Bill 15, which

was slightly different than the one that was presented in the

October session dealing with this very matter.

We know what the attitude of that government was on that

issue. I am going to read to you what the attitude was. The

Second Member for Vancouver Burrard (Ms. Brown) has made some

statements on what is known as the "Christian conscience

clause." She met with a group of United Fishermen and Allied

Workers' Union Women's Auxiliary on February 4 this spring and

had this to say:

"Warnings that a powerful lobby is pressing for inclusion of

a phony conscience clause in provincial human rights legislation were sounded

by MLA Rosemary Brown (NDP, Vancouver Burrard) when she addressed the annual

convention of the UFAWU Women's Auxiliary on February 4. Mrs. Brown said the

lobby seeking to weaken trade union organization and membership rights under

the guise of protecting religious freedoms has placed the whole organized labour

movement under attack."

Here is a woman who speaks about civil liberties and this is

what she says about the line on individual religious beliefs

which was included in the Speech from the Throne last Thursday.

She called it a "phony" conscience clause.

Now we hear from another Minister who wasn't a Minister at

the time but has become a Minister; she sent a copy of her

letter to the then Premier. She says to Mr. Soukeroff:

"I am in receipt of your letter of September 25 to Premier

Barrett regarding the payment of union dues. Many of my

constituents are Sikhs, Moslems, Buddhists, Jews and members of

other non-Christian faiths, yet none of them ask for special

privileges such as you, a Christian, asks. They believe in

rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

"Caesar has always been interpreted as meaning the

government, and in this case the government, as with all other

governments in Canada, requires that a union which is certified

to represent the employees in a bargaining unit by a secret

majority vote of such employees must represent all employees in

a bargaining unit, not just those who are union members.

"Some years ago this question was put to Mr. Justice Rand

who decided that as all employees benefited from wages and

working conditions negotiated by the union then all of the

employees must help shoulder the cost of maintaining the union.

This became known as the Rand formula, the one under which you

work.

"Your problem could be solved in two ways:

(1) You could be

allowed not to come under the jurisdiction of the union and

therefore be willing to accept the provincial standards in the

matter of wages and working conditions…"

This letter incidentally is dated October 14, 1972.

"…1.50 per hour minimum wage, two weeks

[ Page 23 ]

vacation regardless of length of service, a 44-hour week,

and the threat of discharge without cause or notice.

The second solution appears in the third paragraph of your

letter.

"If you honestly believe that you are unequally yoked

together with unbelievers and are willing to forego the

benefits you now enjoy, then I suggest that you seek employment

elsewhere in a situation which will be more in keeping with the

dictates of your conscience."

So she doesn't believe that a man who has religious

convictions about contributing or belonging to a union should

have the right of working alongside a union member. She sent a

copy of that letter to the Premier of British Columbia, the man

who has been very silent as well when I introduced my bills in

this House. At no time did he speak out on that legislation.

All of a sudden of late you have seen the light.

We have also here the attitude of the Minister of Labour. On

October 23, 1972, he wrote:

"I have for acknowledgement your letter of October 16

alleging what you consider to be discriminatory provisions

contained within provincial labour legislation.

" May I suggest to you that your assertion that labour

legislation is unfair to Christians is presumptuous and borders

on bigotry."

That was the attitude of the Minister of Labour.

"As one who belongs to a Christian denomination and believes

in the basic structure for trade union organizations, I object

to the inference contained in your charge. Christian conscience

is a matter of individual

interpretation. Christianity, once

more, has been used over the years to clothe many questionable

philosophies.

"I do not accept that the democratic process existing in

political organizations, trade union organizations or social

organizations provides a valid area for opting out of majority

consensus decisions on the basis of an individual Christian

conscience."

That's the attitude.

"Thanking you for your interest in writing to me in this

regard and hoping that my comments serve to clarify my

attitude, I am, Yours very truly…"

Well, his attitude has been very clearly indicated to these

people and to the people of British Columbia as well. And the

Premier shares that attitude. It is only of late that he has

seen the light on this very critical matter we have put on the

floor of this House time and again since they have been in

government; and that is a complete flip-flop on the part of

that government on this very critical issue.

There has been a lot of pressure brought on this government on this very issue

because of the fear of the compulsory moves suggested and taken by that government.

I met some of these people just a few months ago and they talked to the Premier

of British Columbia in the corridors as well — and they were brushed aside by

the Premier. They came and told me that the Premier had told them: "I am the

Premier. If you don't like what I am doing, you can run for office." That was

the attitude just a few short months ago on the part of the Premier.

I am wondering whether the takeover of the Plateau Mills

might have had some bearing on the government's changed

attitude in this matter, whether a twinge of conscience was

brought on, whether their conversion was brought on by the

takeover of Plateau Mills. No, I think you have a

responsibility to be straightforward and honest about this

issue — that you were never in support of it before but all of

a sudden you have seen fit to introduce the legislation that

had been proposed by this party since you have become

government.

We have also seen quite a spectacle in the B.C. Ferry

strike, a spectacle indeed of an illegal ferry strike. Once the

ferry strike was on we listened to the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — or whatever his new title

is now — say that he had a gun to his head. An illegal strike

and a Minister of the Crown has a gun to his head; a strike

that lasted for five days at the height of the tourist season

for which many residents on this island depend very much.

But I am sure there is one man over in those cabinet benches

who was very happy to see the strike, happy indeed because the

Americans with their trailers and campers might be convinced to

go back to the United States. There is nothing that would

please that Minister (Hon. Mr. Lea) more than those Americans

going home. "Go home, Yankee!" is his attitude; "We don't want

you here." That is his attitude for the third most important

industry we have in British Columbia.

The Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was

questioning out loud all week prior to the strike as to whether

there would be a strike. He couldn't believe there would be,

yet he was being told day after day by the executive of the

ferry workers union that unless the government changed its

attitude and changed their monetary position on the agreement

that there would be a strike on Friday.

Yet the Minister was bewildered. He kept questioning if

there would be a strike. Well, he got his strike. He was

finally confronted with a strike which was settled five days

after it started, and we saw a complete abdication of

responsibility and a complete surrender on the part of that

Minister to the situation of an illegal strike. "Gun to my

head," he said, "Gun to my head."

We saw the results of an extremely inflationary settlement.

Everything surrounding this government has been inflationary,

absolutely everything. We see

[ Page 24 ]

an average settlement of 15 per cent where some workers

received substantially over $100 per month wage increase. There

is no doubt that it is the most inflationary settlement to take

place not only in British Columbia but in Canada since the St.

Lawrence Seaway.

I can well imagine why the results came about because I was

surprised to see Mr. Haynes as a mediator in this dispute.

Haynes, he is a friend of the Attorney General, the friend of

the silent Minister of Labour over there, too. You know, I

warned you, Mr. Attorney General, through you, Mr. Speaker. I

warned him last spring not to hire Ray Haynes to the judicial

council, but he wouldn't take my advice, he wouldn't take my

advice. He hired him, and it wasn't until he got embarrassed by

his friend that he fired him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that R.C. Haines you are talking

about?

MR. CHABOT: It's R-a-y Haynes, personal friend of the

Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No he is not.

MR. CHABOT: Now he disowns him. (Laughter). Wait until the

B.C. Federation of Labour hears that. The Attorney General is

disowning his long-time friend, Ray Haynes. And the Minister of

Labour now… It might not be necessary to get direct

instructions from Mr. Haynes; it could be indirect now, because

I see that two of the executive of the B.C. Federation of

Labour have been appointed as associate Deputy Ministers of

Labour. Mr. Azarn — is that how you pronounce it — formerly of

the Manpower, now on the executive of the B.C. Federation of

Labour.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, but he was active in the B.C. Federation of

Labour. It was quoted in the press that he was with the B.C.

Federation of Labour; that could be a mistake. The press could

be making a mistake.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: So now he has Jim Kinnaird, vice-president of

the B.C. Federation of Labour, pipeline for Ray Haynes,

pipeline to the Minister of Labour.

I think that the government has to come to a realization in this question of

resolving disputes, such as the B.C. Ferry Authority, that it's necessary to

have a separate unit, separate bargaining unit, for the ferry authority, despite

the possible promises made by the Provincial Secretary to Mr. John Fryer that

it would be strictly three bargaining units and that the ferry authority would

be lumped into one. I think that it is necessary that there be a separate and

distinct bargaining unit. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary is

quite a negotiator of contracts. He negotiated the collective agreement for

the civil service with Mr. John Fryer in a matter of about 90 seconds — 90 seconds.

He was quick, decisive and beneficial.

I think the government must also realize that when they are

dealing with the ferry service, they are dealing with a marine

service and not a civil service. There is no similarity between

the civil service and the marine service as far as conditions

of work and wages are concerned.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Who made them civil

servants?

MR. CHABOT: No, I am saying that they should be a separate

bargaining unit. It's a marine service. Are you saying, Mr.

Provincial Secretary, at this time that you are prepared to set

up an individual bargaining unit for the marine service of the

B.C. Ferry Authority?

HON. MR. HALL: Remember who made them civil servants.

MR. CHABOT: No, I think that we must also come to the

realization that workers who inconvenience the public to the

degree that this particular service did this spring, must be

prepared to come and work under certain conditions of

employment. I think we must ask ourselves whether the B.C.

Ferry Authority is an essential service, that it does provide a

very necessary service to the 300,000 people who live on

Vancouver Island. I think that their wages and working

conditions should not necessarily be tied to the civil service,

but certainly should be tied to the coast marine service of

British Columbia.

I concluded, from my examination of the matter, that the

ferry service is an essential service, and I don't think that

we should kid ourselves about this business of right to strike.

I think that if we allow a vital means of communication to go

on strike and are forced — be it in four days or five days — to

legislate these people back to work or to completely surrender,

as the Minister did, we are being hypocritical by saying that

these people have the right to strike when in effect they

really don't have it, because we are going to either surrender

or be forced to legislate them back to work.

I think that the government has a responsibility that… In

view of the fact that they are preparing labour legislation at

this time, they have a

[ Page 25 ]

responsibility to assess the various jurisdictions which

they consider to be essential services to people, and I think

these essential services to people should be declared

non-strike areas. But the working conditions should be tied to

a particular industry that will ensure that an

essential-service worker receives his fair share of

improvements in working conditions and in wages. I think it is

time that we stopped talking out of both sides of our mouth on

the matter of public interest.

Now, we have seen a strike which started on the B.C.

Railway, and I have to believe that the prodding from this side

of the House has forced that government to act on the B.C.

Railway dispute. It forced them to go through the undercover

channels and the working undercover over the weekend, and it

has resulted in the service being restored. I want to say that

I am most pleased and gratified that the matter is resolved

because, unless it had been resolved, I could foresee some very

serious economic disruptions taking place to all those people

who are served by the B.C. Railway.

But I do want to take exception to what the Premier has had

to say in my attempt to stop a strike from taking place on the

B.C. Railway, knowing full well that most of those shippers and

workers who are along the B.C. railway would be seriously

affected in view of the national strike which created a serious

shortage of boxcars up in that area, and that was why I

expressed my concern last Thursday and last Friday about this

matter. But I do take exception to the Premier making

statements, if this is an accurate report of what the Premier

had to say. He said, "Chabot wants a strike to happen. He wants

trouble." It was a genuine desire on my part to discuss the

matter and to get the government on the job with resolving this

critical economic dispute. If the Premier made that statement

outside this House, and if he was accurately reported, I have

to say that that is a deliberate lie.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are other speakers here this

afternoon, and I am not going to occupy all afternoon, but I

want, at this time, to urge the government to bring its

legislative programme on as quickly as possible. Let's not do

it the way that it has been done in the past. I think that if

you bring it on quickly it will make for more rational and

intelligent discussion on what the government proposes for the

people of British Columbia. Thank you very much.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure

to follow the Hon. Member for Columbia River in this debate. I

was particularly touched by his concern over those political

appointments of the present government, and a few names ran

through my mind — Ron Worley, Lyle Wicks, Newton Stasick, all

those people…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are they?

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Earl Westwood went to London as Agent

General, and Robert Bonner went to another government

agency.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Liberal bag men in every constituency.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Ooh, well.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's only one bag around here.

(Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it was rather interesting to

hear this concern over the patronage appointments expressed by

my friend. I also was concerned and delighted to hear him talk

about the waste of government money on government offices, a

waste and concern which I share, but I do remember a certain

Minister who not only had a jet, but had a car in Kamloops, had

a car in Vancouver, and had a government car in Victoria.

Furthermore, he used to keep a suite in Vancouver despite the

fact he was generally over here — or we hoped he was during the

session — and we do remember his attending the Transport for

Christ Convention where, I believe, the small problem of double

billing occurred, where not only the truckers for Christ, or

the transportation people for Christ, but also the government

was involved in paying a few bills.

I've always remembered the words of my good friend, Art

Laing, who said he didn't mind the former Minister of Highways,

Mr. Gaglardi, travelling like Marco Polo, he just objected to

him being supported by the government like Ghengis Kahn.

(Laughter). In any event, things haven't changed a great

deal.

My basic objection to this government, and indeed the first

full paragraph of the speech, is to chastise them for

resembling their predecessors, because I do feel that this

government has not moved enough away from the attitudes of the

past. Perhaps they are being so lavish in the expenditure on

the government offices and are hiring so many people because

they are simply following along and trying to do better what

the previous government fumbled away at.

The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, is rather typical

of the government. Three-quarters of it is a recapitulation of

the past. We have distinguished visitors who came here, people

who died, people who came to British Columbia for the Canada

Games. Three-quarters of the speech, really and truly, was a

capsule history, a little lesson on what happened in British

Columbia since the last session ended for those government

Ministers who have been travelling

[ Page 26 ]

during that period and haven't been reading the

newspapers.

One-quarter deals with what we are going to get in the

session ahead, and the unfortunate thing is that this portion

dealing with the future in couched in such general language and

is so platitudinous that really it's extremely difficult to

know what to start talking on in this debate. It's a speech

which is typical of the previous administration; it's vague and

it's boring and it's very self-laudatory. I trust that the

present government will, next time perhaps, get away from past

approaches.

Well, I've commented on the similarity in style between this

Premier and his predecessor. The year that has passed has

demonstrated that imitation and not innovation has become this

government's hallmark. I trust that the legislation that we're

going to get is precise and detailed. I trust it will be

legislation and not simply the granting of powers to Ministers

such as we saw in the last session. We had a great deal of

hastily-drafted and inadequate legislation, some of which,

indeed, was so carelessly prepared that it was amended by

Ministers even as the bills were made public for the first

time.

Mr. Speaker, the first substantive paragraph in this speech

deals with the Calgary conference. It's at the bottom of page

2. We're told that this government has adopted a "new stance,

" a "new togetherness" which "augurs well for our

nation." Now, I puzzled over these words, because in all

honesty in the last 12 months I find it difficult to find

evidence of this new stance and new togetherness. We have a

continuing dispute between the federal Minister of Environment

(the federal Minister for British Columbia) and the Premier. I

don't think that's much improvement over the previous feud

between the then Premier, Mr. Bennett, and the then senior

Minister, Mr. Art Laing. I think the distrust and bad blood

have not disappeared. Federal-provincial relations are much as

they were and I find it regrettable that there hasn't been the

change that has been talked of in the Speech from the

Throne.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier interjects about the CNR deal, a deal

which was announced well before your government, Mr. Premier, took office. It

was announced in June of last year when the details were put forward at that

time. I think if you'll go back and check and stop this attitude of yours that

history began when you took office, you'll find that there was a fair amount

of consultation on that. You'll find that it was close to fulfilment at that

time and that it was only the, I think, stupidity of the previous Premier, or

at least his error in not accepting this at that time, which would have had

a signing of that agreement back last summer prior to your taking office. I'm

delighted to see that you are fair enough to shake your head in agreement with

me on that point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They wouldn't do it before and we've done

it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, probably if the previous Premier

had been re-elected he might well have done it afterwards.

After all, he negotiated for over two years, Mr. Premier.

On the same point, we have the Hon. Premier and the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) regarding the discussions

with his federal counterpart, Mr. Marc Lalonde, on free

prescription drugs for senior citizens. I again ask: is this

the new togetherness? Quoting from the Vancouver Province of

August 29: "Barrett, when he announced his intentions last

Thursday, said the federal Health Minister was very receptive

to the proposal. (He has since admitted there were no

discussions with Ottawa.)" Now, is that the "new togetherness"

in the discussions between this province and the federal

government? I doubt it.

In any event, if you read on through that paragraph, Mr.

Speaker, you come to a very curious thing. The only examples

given of this new togetherness between the federal and this

provincial government are a list of those generous British

Columbians who have given land to the Crown. Now, they are fine

people, I'm sure, but these people's actions are "supporting

this new thrust in federal-provincial relations. I cannot see

the connection between the generosity of these people and an

improvement in federal-provincial relations.

Perhaps a later speaker from the government side will

enlighten me, but it seems to me that the typist simply made a

mistake and ran two paragraphs together or introduced the

paragraph in the wrong place, because I cannot think that the

generosity of British Columbians in improving our park system

is really the example of new federal-provincial cooperation.

Admittedly, there isn't much more in that area.

At the top of the third page, Mr. Speaker, we find the

statement that the "government has seen fit to raise the

Mincome level of the province." That, as I understand it, is

the government's way of saying that it will permit senior

citizens on Mincome to benefit from the recently-announced

federal pension and guaranteed income supplement increase.

This, of course, is something that we in this party, and in particular my Hon.

friend the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), have long advocated. We

have not forgotten how this government, and in particular the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), refused to permit the senior citizens of British

Columbia on Mincome the advantages of the

[ Page

27 ]

$17.22 increase in the federal pension scheme last April 1.

We chastised him at that time for not passing on the benefits

that the federal government was giving to these people but

pocketing them himself, or at least having them go into the

provincial treasury. We feel that this is, at least, a

recognition of the error of his policy at that time and we

approve of what the government is doing.

Pensions for senior citizens are important and they are also

important to the taxpaying public. I find this attempt at a

shell game, to conceal who pays for what, to be very

distasteful, because I never believed that a successor

government would really do even better than the previous

administration in this shell game in attempting to get

short-term political advantage. I think a little more

frankness, a little more openness and a little more honesty are

needed by this government, particularly with respect to the

elderly, who in my mind have had their fill of doubletalk.

While I am on the subject of Mincome, I would like to say a

few words about the Hon. Premier's recent remark that he hoped

that senior citizens would spend more of their savings, even

taking trips to Hawaii. It appears that the Premier is at last

waking up to the fact that we put forward when Mincome was

first introduced, and the fact is that those people who have a

small income of their own get no benefit whatsoever from

Mincome and, indeed, are penalized by the Mincome provisions.

They would be just as well off if they spent their capital,

because they would then receive exactly the same income under

Mincome which they now receive from their own savings as well

as, of course, other pension plans. Mr. Speaker, this way of

handing out assistance to senior citizens I think is grossly

unfair and is a real discouragement for these people to save or

to continue saving and for others to save as well.

The other category of retired British Columbians who I think are even worse

off are those that have a locked-in pension scheme. In other words it is not

a question of having capital, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of them having income

which comes to them by virtue of a pension plan. They cannot capitalize it,

they cannot get rid of it, they can't take trips to Hawaii on the strength of

what capital they have — they simply get a certain amount every month until

they die. These people are completely outside the provisions of Mincome in virtually

every case because of past contributions to a pension scheme, and they are unable

to bring themselves inside, as the Premier suggested those with some capital

over which they have control and discretion can do. I do feel it's important

for these people to get the benefit of Mincome by way of a proposal similar

to the federal 50-cent-on-the-dollar provision which prevails in the guaranteed

income supplement. Important for these people. The mistakes in Mincome of the

last year have been shown very clearly, but I think that if only 50 cents on

the dollar of outside income were considered for Mincome calculation purposes

you would permit these people to have some benefit from their pension plan,

or indeed from the capital they may have accumulated in the last few years before

retirement.

We are not talking, Mr. Speaker, of wealthy people. We're

talking of anyone who has saved over his life and may have

anywhere from $1,000 or $2,000 worth of capital up to maybe

$20,000 worth of capital. We are talking of people who have

small incomes from pension schemes in the neighbourhood of

perhaps $50 or even less. These are the people who are

penalized by Mincome. These are the small people who have put

money aside for the future, who find they get no benefit

whatsoever from Mincome, and yet are locked into schemes which

prevent them from taking advantage of Mincome.

The Premier, I think rightly, put his finger on one of the

things that can be done for some of these people, namely they

can spend their capital. We have suggested in the past that

that was about the only advice you could give to someone in

this area. But the other people who are locked into pension

schemes are in a different category, and only if the Minister

will work in a 50-cents-on-the-dollar provision, similar to the

guaranteed income supplement of the federal government, can

these people get any benefit whatsoever from the present

pension programmes. So we most strongly urge that this be

done.

I might add that it would not, Mr. Speaker, be a major drain

on the provincial treasury. At the present time only 6 cents of

every senior citizen's pension dollar comes from the province

and 94 cents is a drain on the federal treasury. The amount of

money reaching British Columbians who are over the age of 65

works out to be about 94 cents federal, 6 cents provincial. We

are not spending a great deal of money under our Mincome

proposals at the present time.

The type of provision which I suggest would cost money,

certainly, but it would not cost an enormous amount, I think it

would get rid of this discrimination against senior citizens

who put money aside, senior citizens who attempted to save for

the future, and at the same time act as an incentive to other

people who are planning retirement in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of senior citizens, I'd like to

repeat again a complaint of mine and a complaint that also has

been raised in this House very effectively by the Hon. Member

for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) on my right and the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on my left — both of them medical doctors — which is the inexplicable failure of the government to deal

with the problem of financing of chronic nursing home care.

Mr. Speaker, during last year's election campaign, all

opposition parties — the NDP, ourselves and the

[ Page 28 ]

Conservatives — spoke at great length about the inequity of

having people who needed chronic care, needed nursing home

care, being forced to use their own savings when they went into

a nursing home or when they went into a private hospital. We

talked at great length of the need to change this system and

bring in a system which would allow these people to get some

sort of assistance from the government authorities similar to

that given to people who are in the emergency beds of

acute-care hospitals.

The Conservative Party, represented by the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay, and ourselves are still talking of this problem, but

the previous official opposition, now the government, seems to

have forgotten it.

There is a good scheme in the Province of Alberta — a very

good scheme on which we modeled, I must confess, our policy in

last year's election campaign, and it's the one we have been

talking about ever since.

It's a scheme which allows the individual citizen who needs

this type of care to go to any type of facility that he or she

wishes. It can be a private one, providing it's non-profit, in

Alberta.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, fine, bring in the same here, Mr.

Minister; I wish you would. The situation is, Mr. Speaker, that

the person can go to a fraternal organization's nursing home — of which there are many in the Province of Alberta — one run by

a city, one run by the provincial government — I believe

there's even one run by the federal government — or one run by

religious orders as well.

It's an opportunity for them to make their own decision as

to where they'd like to go and where they think they can get

the best care and, of course, be in the most agreeable

surroundings. The province, in turn, reimburses a major portion

of the per diem cost of the patient to the institution. There

is absolutely no reason in my mind for us not to have a similar

scheme here in British Columbia.

The Minister in previous years — I'm glad to see him in the

House at this time — has stated that the government does not

want anyone to make profit out of health care — and that's fair

enough as an ideological position. I'm not quarrelling with

that. What I am saying is that until the government comes up

with a scheme for nursing homes — government nursing homes,

government extended-care hospitals — we are saddled with our

present system of institutions. I do hope that he'll look — at

least as a temporary measure — into having people get some

reimbursement for the costs they incur when they get to a stage

where they have to get this type of care and assistance.

It may be that in the future they have a marvellous scheme.

I don't know; we don't know what the Minister's plans are. But at the present time there are many

British Columbians who are suffering financial losses,

substantial financial hardship; others where, perhaps, one or

the other of a couple are in frail health and are expecting in

the future to be forced to make very, very heavy expenditures.

We feel this is unfair and not anything that should be

tolerated by a government which allegedly is here to help the

people of the province first.

A temporary scheme of reimbursement could be brought in — a

temporary scheme similar to that in Alberta. I'm not going to

go into all the details of the Alberta scheme. If the

government has other schemes for the future, fine; but in the

last year many thousands of British Columbians have had this

problem. Many tens of thousands have faced the prospect of

having their savings wiped out and being reduced to penury

simply because of the government's failure to act in this area.

I can only hope that the absence of legislation — of mention of

legislation — of this nature in the throne speech is an

oversight, and that the Minister will come forward with

something better during the next few weeks of the session.

Finally, Mr. Speaker — or not finally; there are two other

things — I'd like to record once more our objection to having

Mincome provisions calculated only once a year. Now the Hon.

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and I argued this

in the spring session at some length, but I feel that the

recognition that has been advanced by other jurisdictions, that

inflation is increasing at a rate which simply cannot be met by

annual increases, is something that he also should pay

attention to.

The fact is that perhaps a quarterly adjustment of Mincome

or of the provincial pension schemes, done at the same time as

the federal pension and the federal guaranteed income

supplement schemes, is desirable. I certainly hope that the

arguments put forward by him last spring, the stone-walling

that he did when we raised questions on this issue, will not

prevail and that he'll change his mind in this area. It is

important, I feel, for adjustments to be made more frequently,

perhaps on a quarterly basis.

Mr. Speaker, before leaving the comments on the throne

speech on social security, I'd like to express my hope that the

legislation promised is going to include things other than only

senior citizens or people over the age of 60. There are many

handicapped people in British Columbia, many people who have

the problem, for example, of the single parent — people who are

in just as much need as senior citizens.

I feel that the speech would be a much better speech if some

recognition of that fact was made. These people require

assistance just as much as senior citizens — in fact, I'm sure,

in many cases, much more than some senior citizens. I regret

that we haven't

[ Page 29 ]

seen adjustments indicated in this throne speech. It's quite

possible to introduce such legislation even though it hasn't

been mentioned in the throne speech. It's a perfectly

acceptable practice, and I'm glad to see the attention on the

part of the Minister of Human Resources. I trust we will see it

and see it soon.

Mr. Speaker, the next paragraph of the speech deals with

committees of the Legislature and the advice that they provide

to the government on areas that are examined by the committee.

It's curious, however, that immediately following this

paragraph we see the paragraph on agricultural legislation.

Perhaps no committee of this legislature has worked as hard as

the agricultural committee over the summer months. They've gone

throughout the province, they've held lengthy hearings and

they've done a very good job, I'm sure.

Yet they haven't reported to the government, and the

government proposes to bring in legislation in the next few

days. Now I really find it impossible to see how these

committees are going to be effective and constructive when

governments bring in legislation after a committee examination

of a problem, yet bring in legislation which bears no

relationship to the committee report.

I'm not saying that this means that committee work is

useless. I'm simply saying that if the government really means

what it says about having the committees play a useful role,

they're going to have to watch for this problem in the

future.

I think committees are extremely useful, but we're going to

have to guard against the idea so many Ministers have that

committees are a great way to shunt off all people who come

with briefs or have complaints or want to tell you something.

You shunt them off to a legislative committee, they hear them

and you never have to worry about them. The Minister can go his

own sweet way without consulting the public in a meaningful and

realistic sense. That, unfortunately, is what has happened with

some of our committees in some of the days that they have been

sitting — where we simply have briefs that should have been

directed to the Minister.

I trust that this line in the throne speech about the

committee system will not mislead people into thinking that

they're playing an active, constructive role in policy

formulation because up to now, in the last year, they have not.

I don't think that this throne speech statement about

committees accurately portrays the system that we have in the

House.

Mr. Speaker, the committee references were followed by references to the agricultural

and food industry, and we're told that "positive measures must be taken to strengthen

and expand this vital food industry," and that "action must be prompt to case

the problems involved." We're told that we're going to consider legislation

designed "to rationalize credit, to encourage secondary industry and also to

minimize the effects of price fluctuation in order to stabilize farm income."

Well, all these, Mr. Speaker, are laudable objectives, but

there's so little information in the speech on what the

government intends to do and how these goals are going to be

achieved. I think it is a realization, however, that Bill 42,

which was hastily drafted, hastily introduced and hastily

amended by the government in the past session, was not the best

way of tackling the problem.

You know, the shame of it is that the original objective of

Bill 42 was something that virtually every group in the

province agreed to. Farm groups agreed to it, city groups

agreed to it; every party in this House, I think, agreed with

the original objective of protecting farmland. But good

intentions are not enough. As the saying goes, "The road to

hell is paved with good intentions."

A bill which came in, which completely disregarded the

principles of fair play, of natural justice or of reasonable

compensation, was simply impossible for the people of this

province, on this side of the House at least, to support. I

trust that this recognition of the damage done by Bill 42,

which I think the throne speech recognizes pretty clearly, will

result in good farm-income legislation. I'm afraid I don't have

an enormous hope of competence. The government's record is not

good in this area. But we will wait until the legislation is

introduced and until then give the government the benefit of

the doubt.

The only thing that I would say is: why has it taken so long

for the government to act in any area of farm income? Why was

this not done previous to this time? You know, we've had

problems of increasing price of feed grains, increasing prices

of beef, and I'm glad the soon-be-Minister of Consumer Affairs

is here because she knows these problems very well. Why was

nothing done in British Columbia with the British Columbia

government-owned railway to reduce the price of transportation

of feed grains from the Peace River area down to the south?

Why was nothing done to attempt to subsidize in that area — as we proposed in this House in the spring session — to not

only aid the agricultural industry but also to attempt to lower

the cost of beef in British Columbia?

We proposed it. It wasn't done. It could have been done

quite easily. If the government can get special deals on wood

chips from CN in the northeast corner of the province, why

can't they get a special deal on their own railway — of which

the Premier happens to be president — in the northeast corner,

from the Peace River country down to Kamloops or down to the

lower mainland? It could have been done and it wasn't. I really

think some explanation is in order.

In addition, how about the proposals made to subsidize the

crop insurance premiums that could have been done by this

government and wasn't? How

[ Page 30 ]

about the taking off of school taxation from the family

farms and farmland? Why was not more done in this area? You

know, much could have been done to aid farm income in the last

few months. Nothing was done. I trust that new legislation will

be a little better than what we've seen in the past.

The next subject of the speech, and again it's the second

substantive subject, is the new labour code for British

Columbia.

We in this party welcome the government's intention to try

and improve the framework of collective bargaining and dispute

settlement. We quite agree that a healthy industrial relations

system cannot be built on — and I quote the Throne Speech — "punitive concepts, distrust or an unyielding bureaucracy and

remain compatible with a free society." We do hope very

sincerely that the government's action will be an improvement

of the province's dismal record in the area of industrial

relations. But unfortunately, to date the record of the last

year is not encouraging. The ferry strike, unnecessary

stoppages on BCR, simply do not indicate that this government

is any better than the previous one when it comes to labour

disputes.

The ferry administration is essentially the provincial

government and the strike which occurred there shows pretty

clearly that the normal economic pressures between employee and

employer simply do not exist when the civil service is dealing

with the provincial government. With a budget of $1.8 billion

the loss of revenue on the ferries is not going to force the

government to change its mind when it comes to a labour

dispute.

What happens, of course, is that political pressure, not

just the economic pressure, forces a settlement and that's what

happened in the ferry dispute. The government admitted it at

the time. We had the Minister quite honestly and openly

admitting that a gun was held to his head and he simply had to

give in. Well, we admire his frankness but we regret that the

government by his action indicated that it is simply not

particularly competent in the area of dealing with its own

civil service when it comes to illegal strike settlement.

This, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the whole question of the

public service labour relations bill which was introduced in

the last session and which we have fortunately, and can comment

on, and which we understand is to be reintroduced in much the

same form.

Well, I trust that amendments by the government will be introduced to that

bill, will be worked into that bill before it comes to us. There are many indications,

including of course the statements of the Minister of Communications that amendments

are necessary. I would hope that some of the corrections that are needed are

made. In particular I would hope that there's be some check of the federal legislation

in this area.

Previous to getting into politics I was involved in the

federal civil service. I was involved at the time when the

collective bargaining machinery and the legislation was put

forward and introduced. It was, Mr. Speaker, a very curious

experience. It does lead me to stress the need for careful

consideration of what happened which we have not yet seen, I

don't think. Certainly it has not yet been made public by this

government. It may be that the introduction of legislation in

this area provincially will be just as difficult as it was when

the federal government introduced its legislation.

The Federal Public Service Staff Relations Act is a much

more detailed law than the provincial one that we had last

session. I think that incorporating some of its terms would

help us to overcome some of the inadequacies of the legislation

which was put up before us earlier. In my mind, in addition to

limiting the right to strike where essential services are

concerned a conscience clause should be introduced, and I'm

glad that the Speech from the Throne makes this clear.

I don't want to repeat the letters, copies of letters, which

were circulated to all Members but it's clear in this instance

that a dogmatic and unyielding position by the Minister of

Labour was overruled by the Premier and the rest of the

cabinet, I must say that I am grateful of that fact. The letters read

by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) made it

perfectly clear that he and the lady sitting on his right (Mrs.

Jordan) were adamantly opposed to any such conscience clause

and I'm delighted to see that this bullheadedness has been

overruled and we're going to get at least some flexibility to

deal with the very, very few people concerned in the whole

matter of union views and automatic check offs.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He doesn't like it either.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Another suggestion to the Minister, who

I'm delighted is listening attentively although somewhat red in

the face, is that we have ways to provide in a more definite

way the supervision of votes to ascertain union support of any

bargaining unit.

I don't want to go through the whole story of Trail or any

of the other areas where we've got this difficulty, but it must

be recognized that with the present legislation — or at least

the legislation introduced last year — this is not clearly

defined.

I don't think it is defined in a way in which the unions

themselves or the employees themselves are going to accept. It

simply gives ministerial discretion in this area. I think that

gives the possibility of tremendous trouble unless the

legislation is amended by the government in that way. If you

don't do it, we

[ Page 31 ]

will. We trust when we do it that you'll accept our

amendments. Because the present legislation is not adequate in

that respect.

In any event these are questions of detail and what I'd like

the government to consider at this time is its whole question

of concepts and the applicability of collective bargaining in

the public service.

You know, I'm sympathetic to the motives of the public

servants who called for these legislative changes. As I said,

10 years ago I went through similar experiences myself as a

public servant. But the federal experience indicates that there

are disadvantages, serious disadvantages, to both the employer

and the employee in the new system. I don't necessarily think,

Mr. Speaker, that the introduction of an adversary system is

the wisest course where public services are involved.

Now, I'm certainly in favour of the employees playing a role

in determining their salaries and in their conditions of work.

Such participation, I think, is really essential. But the

adversary system in labour-management relations was introduced

into industrial relations to cover a specific set of

circumstances which existed between the employer and the

employee in profit-motivated enterprises. Here is the real

distinction. Go back and consider once more the ferry

strike.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that this may be the time for us to

consider breaking new ground. Instead of imposing this set of

relationships which basically is brought in from another

economic framework, the private sector, let us search for a new

system of consultation and dispute settlement which will ensure

adequate compensation as well as adequate service to the

public. I might also suggest to the Ministers that they look

after their own interests. If the Ministers and their new and

inexperienced Deputy Ministers have to endure a growing enmity

from the adversaries that they are creating by legislation, I

think they might find it increasingly difficult to implement

new programmes. Once again I'm quoting from the federal

experience in this area.

I mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that we have evidence

that the present adversary system which exists between big

labour and big unions has its limitations in the government

sector. It also has limitations, I believe, in the private

sector. I hope that in contemplating these new concepts which

I've briefly referred to, the government will examine the

problems that are being faced by the independent logging

operations and operators in this province.

Now, I believe that the Hon. Premier received a brief from these organizations

recently. Certainly I did and I'm sure other MLA's did. It raises some important

points. The effort to ensure that industrial relations are concentrated in the

hands of big business on the one side and big unions on the other, is in my

mind an unwise one. I don't believe that's desirable and I think the changes

in the pattern of forest harvesting in the province have led to substantial

changes in the work force of our basic industry, the forest industry.

It just doesn't seem fair to me, Mr. Speaker — and I again

refer you to that brief — that the men who demonstrated their

commitment to the industry and to the economic development of

this province and who have invested their savings and their

time should be denied a fair return for taking risks in the

private sector there.

The owner-operators are not asking for handouts; what they

are asking is a commitment from the government that they will

not be victimized in a contest between big business and big

unions.

Now, I realize the government has difficulty acting on

behalf of these independents. I realize the connection with the

IWA and organized labour movement will create difficulties, but

the Premier has often stated that he's not beholden to

organized labour and it might be a particularly good place to

start, this area of the independents in the logging field.

Mr. Speaker, the lady Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Hon. Ms. Young) is out of the chamber at the moment,

but I would like to say that I am very pleased indeed to see

that the government intends to beef up the Consumer Affairs

Branch which she heads. Now as I've said on other occasions,

the field of consumer affairs is extremely wide and most of it

is provincial, not federal, and a proper department backed up

with an aggressive Minister — if I can use that term without

offending her — will, I'm quite sure, do a great deal to aid

consumers in this province as well as dealing with problems of

prices and inflation.

I'm sorry she's not here. I wish her well in her efforts and

we'll certainly look with sympathy on what she is trying to

do.

With respect to the proposal in the throne speech to create

a Department of Housing, I'm far less enthusiastic. Mr.

Speaker, during the last few months, we've heard of the

Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) responsible in

this area talk of taking over the university endowment lands

and turning them into housing lots in Vancouver. Well, this

strikes me as being a particularly shortsighted way of getting

over the housing problems that Bill 42 created.

When Bill 42 came in, lots were frozen. You couldn't further

subdivide agricultural land, which of course is the flat land,

the land which is easy to dig trenches in for servicing pipes,

and things of that nature.

Here comes the lady Minister. I should repeat what I said. I

just said, lady Minister, that we trust you're going to do a

good job as Minister of Consumer Affairs.

[ Page 32 ]

MR. McGEER: He wants you to be aggressive.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In any event, back to housing. What we

have heard, instead of dealing with the problems that Bill 42

created, we've heard instead the Minister is simply taking over

an area in Vancouver which had the potential of becoming

another Stanley Park.

What would he do after using up the university lands? Will

he go down to Stanley Park and start putting houses there? You

know, if it wasn't federally owned, I imagine he'd think about

it.

The fact is, it isn't adequate for this government simply to

throw in whatever land they can find for housing, for lots,

subsidize their sale, create windfall profits, when what they

should be doing is looking at the ways and means of bringing

land which is on hillsides or on rocky areas, which is now

presently not considered desirable land for lots, bringing that

into the housing market and using that land for housing.

The Minister has yet to say very much in his new

responsibilities. I trust he'll turn away from this idea of

using up whatever lands he can lay his hands on and then

arriving at the same problem only greater 2, 3, 4 or 5 years

hence.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, on housing, I wonder if much is being

done to consider the enormous windfall profits that arise as a

result of Bill 42? You know, I was surprised when I first saw

that Mr. Block of Block Brothers thought Bill 42 wasn't all

that bad. Then I was told, and I may be wrong, that he had

2,000 lots ready to go, already subdivided, and it suddenly

occurred to me that the price of lots suddenly had a 50 per

cent increase in value. And if you've got 2,000 lots and you

have a 50 per cent increase in their value, I daresay the

windfall profits involved are substantial, and therefore I'm

not at all surprised to find him lauding the government's stand

on Bill 42. The government's created enormous windfall profits

for certain speculators while at the same time denying any

possibility of genuine farmers realizing on their land.

MR. McGEER: The Premier read his telegram.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier was proud of the

telegram.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well the reason is very simple. I don't know how

much money would be involved. I doubt if it'd be less than $1 million, probably

substantially greater than that, and it was a result, of course, of the ill-considered

Bill 42 and it's resolved not in the agricultural area but in the area of service

lots which some people had and were able to make substantial gains on because

of the fact that Bill 42 came in.

Now I trust that something will be done by the Minister in

this area, something may be done by him and his department

which was mentioned in the speech to recover some of those

windfall gains, because certainly they were substantial, and I

was most curious at the time Mr. Block made the statements he

did.

I thought he made the statements because the government had

said that certain land companies in Vancouver had too many

salesmen who weren't making enough money on the average. I

thought he was trying to cover himself that way. But then I

realized, of course, that the major people, the big people,

were making substantial gains out of government policy and, of

course, it was the smaller people who were getting a hard

time.

Mr. Speaker, one area which isn't in the Speech from the

Throne — and I'm disappointed it's not there — is the problem

of native peoples in British Columbia.

Now, we took this government at its word. We in this party

took the government at its word a year ago when they first came

in, when they said they needed a year to study the problems of

the native peoples of British Columbia, but a year from then

they would be bringing in legislation and suggestions and

proposals to aid the Indian people of our province.

Now I realize that the Minister who was responsible was

fired not long ago and the Premier took this on himself. But

certainly the people involved in doing the work and studies and

formulation of policies were taken over by the Premier. They

weren't fired along with the Minister, and I really wonder why

we've got nothing in the Speech from the Throne on this.

I would hope at this stage that the Premier will be saying

something about whether or not his government intends to aid

the native peoples of British Columbia in their legal claims to

recover native land which they feel to be their tribal or

ancestral land. I know this will bring them in conflict with

the provincial government which now feels that it owns this

land, this Crown land in the province. But I'd like to know

what policy is going to be adopted by the government towards

these legal claims and lawsuits that are going to come up, and

whether or not the Premier intends to assist financially or

with legal talent or in any other way, the Indian people who

are going to court to try and get what they consider to be

their rights enforced.

I'd like some knowledge, some information on that. I trust

it will be coming in the session. It's an extremely important

area. It's important for both Indians and of course for other

British Columbians as well, and a statement of policy by the

Premier is I think vital at this time.

[ Page 33 ]

And how about the question, Mr. Speaker, of taxation?

Indians are taxed — for example the sales tax — in the same

manner that others who are of white, brown, or black extraction

happen to be taxed. Yet they don't get the same services from

the provincial government. They don't get the same services in

terms of education, in terms of road construction on reserves.

I'd like to know: what is the policy of this government?

Are we to go the way of some provinces, to treat the Indian

citizen of British Columbia as an equal full-citizen of British

Columbia? Or are we going to continue the present practice of

treating them as something else? It's not a difficult problem,

I don't think. I would like to think it could be quite quickly

solved. But at the present time, we've waited for the year and

we've seen nothing, and I'd like to know when we're going to

see something more.

A specific example of the problem I'm talking about with

Indian people, Mr. Speaker, came up in Prince George when the

Forestry and Fisheries Committee was up in the north

considering forest problems.

It happens up in that area that the Forest Branch is not

consulting with the Indian trappers of an area before cutting

takes place. This government has told us how interested they

are in consultation, yet their own officials are ignoring the

native peoples of northeastern British Columbia who trap in

these valleys, and they are not consulting them before any

cutting plans are put into effect.

These people who trap there, they have for decades, the

first thing they know about it is when the equipment turns up

to build roads in the valleys where they trap. It scares the

game, it scares the fur-bearing animals and of course it

destroys the livelihood of people who may be extremely skilled

in one single skill but are not particularly adaptable to other

jobs in the labour force elsewhere.

They don't even know, according to the witness that we had

before our committee who has sent me further information, they

don't even know it's happening until the machinery is right

there destroying the livelihood of them and their families.

Now why aren't they consulted? Why is there no effort made to minimize the

disturbance and protect these people? Surely a government which claims to believe

in consultation should not only not allow its Forest Service, let alone its

Crown corporations, to act in this arrogant fashion. Here of course, and I think

this is the reason it does take place, Mr. Speaker, we get into the problem

of conflict of interest. How can a government protect its citizens from abuse

from a company when the government itself owns that company? How can a Forest

Service protect these Indian people from abuse when they, of course, are responsible

to the same Minister who is responsible for the company concerned and responsible

for the profit and loss statement of that company?

We have a classic case of conflict of interest where civil

servants are not able to defend the rights of citizens or at

least not doing it effectively because of conflicts of

interest.

The Forest Service backs up the company; it's got no

responsibility for Indians, and of course the company is

responsible to the Minister in profits and loss and not

responsible to anyone concerned with Indians.

You know, perhaps a member of the civil service might be on

the board of that forest company, as is the case in the Prince

George area, and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the one Minister

who tried to protect the Indian citizens of this province got

fired, allegedly for not telling the truth, something which the

Premier himself — or at least the Vancouver Province story

about the Premier's discussion with Lalonde — something the

Premier himself apparently also admits to doing where he stated

that he announced his intentions last Thursday, he said that

the federal Health Minister was receptive to the proposals, but

later on he admitted there was no discussion with Ottawa. Well,

I think more will be said on the question of Indian rights

later in this session. In particular, the second Member for

Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) will be continuing the work he has done

over many years in this area. But I would just like to point

out that in northern British Columbia the situation exists

where Indian livelihood is being destroyed by the failure of

this government to consult.

I am quoting now from an Indian field worker who works out

of Prince George who sent me a cutting from the Lakes District

News of August 22. The headline is, "Up for Bidding" and it

starts off: "Resources Minister Bob Williams announced the

fourth step of the government's development of the northwest,

the sawmill expansion programme." In this man's letter he

states, "The enclosed

article describes the government's

recently announced sawmill expansion programme for the Burns

Lake region. From the

article it seems that the government's

plans for the area have already reached a fairly advanced

stage. Again, as usual, the Indian people affected have not

been consulted."

Now, Mr. Speaker, the stress and regret we feel that this

Speech from the Throne does not include anything for our native

Indian people in British Columbia is genuine. We trust that the

problems we have raised and, of course, the concern that we

have expressed will result in some sort of steps being taken

later on to rectify this.

The subject I would like to mention now, Mr. Speaker, was

not even in this Speech from the Throne but it topped the list

of bills that were to be introduced when the last Speech from

the Throne

[ Page 34 ]

was introduced. It was at the top of the list and it was a

B.C. bill of rights. We welcomed it warmly at that time; we

congratulated the government in bringing it forward. Perhaps

because we did welcome it so warmly the government didn't

bother bringing it in this session.

Now, we realize there were many other bills on the order

paper, and certainly everybody who was in this Legislature knew

how badly drafted they were and how much time had to be taken

up with the amendments, but we don't see why the Speech from

the Throne of last session has not been honoured in this

respect.

There is a tremendous need for a B.C. bill of rights. Most

of the area for civil liberties and individual rights is

provincial, not federal. Even John Diefenbaker's famous

Canadian Bill of Rights is really ineffectual unless the

province backs it up with legislation.

Unfortunately, we don't have it and instead what we have had

is bill after bill last session giving more and more powers to

Ministers, less and less spelled out in legislation, less and

less and less opportunities to go to the courts. We have had

legislation which is frankly discriminatory and is described as

such. The Public Works Fair Employment Act, which denied the

right of ordinary British Columbians who are not members of

unions or don't have union contracts even though they are

members of unions to benefit from government contracts, is

obviously discriminatory, is obviously the type of thing that a

bill of rights should go after.

We have also proposed — and I am delighted to see the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has put on a draft

bill; we will have a draft bill in the House tomorrow — an

ombudsman in this province. Again we fail to see why the

government can't put it forward itself.

It has just been brought to my attention that the name of

the Hon. Alex Macdonald, Attorney General for the Province of

British Columbia, occurs just in front of that of one, David

Anderson, MLA, on the list of patrons of the B.C. Human Rights

Council. I think that at the next meeting of the patrons I am

going to have to take him to task for this because it's

certainly time that the government did something.

What we have instead is a B.C. Human Rights branch. The distinguished performance

of the lady who is heading it up has so far been to take after my good friend

from Oak Bay, the leader of the Conservative Party in the House here (Mr. Wallace)

for putting an ad in the paper which only referred to males and didn't refer

to females as well. Of course, this is a shocking thing and she waxed eloquent

and angry about it. The advertisement was amended. Yet at the same time as this

what I would call picayune stuff — because I think legally, at least, "man"

means "woman" from the point of view of legal

interpretation — we are leaving

these other areas quite untouched. This government is continuing the past practices

of previous governments, which is to curb and restrict the rights of citizens.

For heaven's sake, let's get a decent bill of rights, a

decent ombudsman. Let's get a system which will allow the

individual some opportunity to get redress. Let's allow suing of

the Crown. Why aren't these things in this Speech from the

Throne? Why aren't they available for us on the order paper? We

have had more than a year of this government and yet it simply

hasn't been done.

The next two items on this Speech from the Throne, Mr.

Speaker, concern the energy question which occurs in the final

paragraph. I trust that we are going to have more than simply a

public education seminar at vast expense involving these

various professors and experts. We have to at some stage or

another have a government White Paper, Green Paper, Blue Paper

AN HON. MEMBER: Red Paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …Red Paper, outlining what this

government thinks is going to be the future of power

development in this province. In British Columbia we have only

36 to 39 per cent of the energy used in B.C. coming from hydro

development, and it's time we looked at whether we have any

further rivers that should be dammed or could be dammed. I

personally don't think there are any because I think we have

done enough damage to our fisheries resource already. But it's

time for a proper assessment of this and not simply public

discussions in a thoroughly unstructured sense as is indicated

by this throne speech.

Nuclear power is something on which many British Columbians,

particularly Dr. Gordon Shrum and Dr Keenleyside, have

interesting and important and very thorough views. Let's hear

them as well as the foreign experts.

I really am worried that this is simply an exercise to delay

decision by the government, to fob the whole thing off, to

create more fog and obscurity over the question of power so

they can continue the non-policy they have at the present

time.

What is the relationship between this seminar and the B.C.

Energy Council which people were so proud of a short time ago?

How does it fit in? It appears that this is strictly something

to educate or inform the public and it has no relevance or

bearing on what government actions will be. I think a more

coherent policy is expected in what the throne speech has put

forward at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the final point of what I would like to say

this afternoon is that of industry and the economy and job

creation. The first Speech from the Throne of October of last

year and the second one in

[ Page 35 ]

January of this year both ignored the problem of the

industrial situation in British Columbia: the question of job

creation. We saw, indeed, substantial increases occur in the

areas such as unemployment and substantial reductions occur in

such things as investment in B.C.

Well, it is time for us to realize that the efforts of the

previous government may not always have been wise, but the

efforts of this government in this area certainly have not been

much better. What is needed is clarity; what is needed is

precision in the government statement of what will happen in

the province. Business is not that bad in British Columbia and

I am not one who runs around preaching gloom, but what is

happening in British Columbia is that investment decisions are

continually being delayed just as they were when I spoke in

these terms during the spring and when I spoke last

October.

Decisions are being delayed because people don't know what

the situation is going to be and this results, of course, in a

number of unfortunate things. For example, if you have five

investment possibilities, Mr. Speaker, the government can pick

the two or three best that it wants. But if you have only two

or three and you are worried about unemployment you take the

lot regardless of whether they are environmentally damaging or

damaging in some other respects. It's not my philosophy, but

it's a course of action, Mr. Premier, that your inability to

define your views is resulting in.

I have a few clippings of the last few days. September 5,

1973 from the Province : "The forest industry still edgy over

NDP." This is Bob McMurray writing in the Province . It goes on

to say:

"The forest industry is getting increasingly edgy about the uncertainties of doing business under the NDP

government.

"These uncertainties could lead to a slowdown in the industry's

operations by 1974."

Then they go point by point:

"Uncertainty of government decisions on such things as taxes, stumpage rates….

"Lack