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)

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1973

Morning Sitting

CONTENTS

[ Page 7 ]

Statement

Mr. Speaker's tribute to workmen's completion of improvements to

chamber — 7

Request for leave to televise Mr. Speaker — 7

Motion

Adjournment of the House on matter of public importance.

Mr. Chabot — 7

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 7

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 8

Ms. Sanford — 10

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we commence the day's

proceedings, I would ask you to join me in a tribute to all the

workmen who made the beautiful arrangements possible in this

chamber on time yesterday.

I would also ask your permission pursuant to the recommendation made in this

House and found in the Journals of 1973 on February 27, at page 118:

"The Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills in their report said: your committee further

recommends that Mr. Speaker's proposal relating to

closed-circuit television be deferred pending availability of

additional technical information relating to lighting, camera

positions and related matters."

The technical committee that was appointed pursuant to your

approval of this report and of the television committee report

have supplied a camera and they propose, within the following

week, with your permission, to take closed-circuit television

pictures of the proceedings for test purposes so they can

finish their recommendations to the television committee that

is proposed to be set up under that recommendation. Is your

leave granted for that purpose?

Leave granted.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask leave to introduce a motion. The motion is that the House

be adjourned for the discussion of a definite matter of urgent

public importance, moved by myself and seconded by the Member

for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). Some of the Members appear to think

it's a laughing matter. I have a very brief statement along

with that motion, and the Premier, at the moment,. might deny

me the opportunity of reading this very brief statement. I

think it's important that you have the statement before you

make the decision, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. On the point you've raised, as you know,

you must state in brief form the urgency matter that you wish

to adjourn the House for. Would you kindly do that so I know

what I have to, in my opinion, decide?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The subject matter is

that the B.C. Railway strike, effective at 8 p.m. September 13, will have drastic

economic effects for central and northeastern British Columbia as well as for

farmers in the lower mainland dependant upon feed grains moving on this railway.

In view of the foregoing, it is imperative that immediate action be taken to

resolve the shutdown of this vital transportation link.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, I now have the statement of the

matter. We've already discussed that yesterday in the House and

I understand that the motion had been made yesterday that we

embark upon the reply to thank His Honour for his gracious

speech. There will be a debate on that commencing, presumably,

today in accordance with the motion yesterday.

I refer, Hon. Members, to the Journals of the House, 1969,

at page 19. The Hon. Mr. Murray was the Speaker and he had

before him a similar request for leave to adjourn the House by

Mr. Parkinson. The matter was the breakdown in negotiations in

regard to a health science centre.

Mr. Speaker quoted May 17th ed. at page 365, and stated that

the urgency motion has been refused when an ordinary

parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly, permitting the

question to be debated. He further stated that as the House was

Presently engaged in debating the address and reply to the

speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, the matter could

be raised by moving an amendment to the address and reply to

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's speech so that the matter

obviously will be embarked upon almost immediately. I therefore

indicate, as I did yesterday, that although it may well be that

the matter is urgent, the real question that the Speaker has to

decide, in his opinion, is whether there is urgency of debate.

If there is a means available right away, or within a

conceivably short space of time, the Speaker is bound to point

that out and express his opinion accordingly and I so do.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on that very matter, on the

reference you made comments on, you're talking about the

breakdown….

MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that this is not a question of

appealing from my decision. I have to first decide whether it

is urgent.

MR. CHABOT: What I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, is that

the matter of 1969 was a breakdown of negotiations. They were

not discussing the question of a strike which would have had

drastic economic disruptions in the province, and that is

exactly what we are discussing here. There's no similarity

whatsoever to that reference you have made and the situation

that we're facing this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: There are a number of other cases

[ Page 8 ]

I could cite where they deal with precisely the same point

that the Hon. Member has raised — one was a breakdown in

negotiations on steamships and the same ruling was made by the

Hon. Mr. Shantz. I could go on at length giving all the

authorities if that were necessary, but the fact of the matter,

the urgency of debate is met squarely by the fact that we are

entering the throne speech debate, and I have so decided.

MR. CHABOT: This is not a breakdown in negotiations, it's a

strike.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: You deny me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of

discussing this very critical issue in this chamber…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

MR. CHABOT: Are you denying me the opportunity to discuss

this?

MR. SPEAKER: No, you will have ample opportunity at the

right time. Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: I challenge the ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, you can't challenge that ruling

because there's no such provision in our rules where it deals

with this asking of leave to adjourn the House to debate a

matter of that kind. It's not a subject to a ruling.

MR. CHABOT: How can you rule me out of order then?

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure

in presenting the following motion, seconded by the Hon. Member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford): "That the following address be

presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: 'We, Her

Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to

thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has

addressed to us at the opening of the present session.'"

Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of both pride and humility that I have the

honour today of moving the Speech from the Throne, and at the same time thanking

the residents of Kamloops constituency for the opportunity to do so.

The references in His Honour's speeches to both agriculture

and labour legislation is going to be very important to the

future of the Kamloops constituency being as it is both

agricultural and industrial.

I was very pleased to hear His Honour's reference to the

legislation his government intends to introduce in the field of

labour.

For approximately the last 25 years I have been a member of

the work force of this province, and for 23 of those years was

working in unionized industry: saw mills, commercial fishing

and the refining of oil. In all cases, Mr. Speaker, I took an

active

part in the work of whatever union was certified where I

was employed. I found the work interesting, a source of

satisfaction, and, in almost all cases, there was an

opportunity there to assist one's fellow man to improve

standards for all concerned, including myself of course, and at

all times to strive to keep the relationship between the

company and the employees a mutually agreeable one with a

meaningful dialogue between both parties. We were not always

successful, but in the main the relationship was a good one.

When agreement was reached in principle and a handshake was

offered, in the last 16 years I cannot remember a time when

that commitment was not honoured by both sides.

However, Mr. Speaker, this relationship became more and more

difficult to maintain in the years 1962 to 1972. It became more

and more difficult in the face of restrictive, hampering and,

in many cases, humiliating legislation supposedly to bring

better labour relations to this province.

I do not intend to go into any details on this, Mr. Speaker;

it is unnecessary at this time. But the turmoil spilled over

into the plants and operations that heretofore had enjoyed

peace. It became more and more difficult to keep one plant

peaceful when nearby plants and job sites were in the throes of

battle, open or covert, with their employers. When people have

friends and relatives working under these circumstances of

discontent, the discontent eventually becomes a virus that

spreads from job to job throughout the whole province with the

usual lines for and against being drawn and solidified.

It is difficult enough, Mr. Speaker, to work in modern,

automated industry with its accompanying boredom and lack of

sense of accomplishment without having the added problems of

discontent, rage and frustration I have referred to.

The result was predictable. What had been a relatively happy plant became a

relatively unhappy plant, and the result was difficulty at contract time, absenteeism,

labour turnover, and mistrust between workers and management personnel.

[ Page

9 ]

Without knowing the details of the legislation referred to

in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful — I believe I

should say confident — that with the knowledge of events and

circumstances I have referred to, the legislation will go far

in reversing this trend and improving labour-management

relations in British Columbia.

It will be a long road back, but with the wisdom and

patience of all concerned I am sure it can be accomplished.

The hard-pressed people in British Columbia engaged in

agriculture will be very anxious to hear the details of the

legislation His Honour spoke of with regard to their industry.

The present lot of the farmers in this province, for the most

part, cannot be described as a happy one.

From the time the first settlers came to New France, as

Canada was then known, farming has been a difficult way of

life. For Europeans to cross the ocean and have to begin clearing land of trees before they

could plant, it was a life of back-breaking labour with little

financial return. When Canada fell to England there was very

little migration of farmers until the end of the American

revolutionary war and the resulting flood of United Empire

Loyalists to Ontario and the Maritimes. In most cases these

people left two, three and four generations of farming, and

once again had to go back to the labour of clearing land before

they could farm again.

With the building of the trans-continental railroad the

flood of farmers to settle the prairies began. Most eventually

became farmers but many were from cities and the hardships they

must have faced, particularly in those long, cold prairie

winters, are easy to imagine but terrible to contemplate. And

of course, Mr. Speaker, within the memory of many in this

House, the seven long years of one disaster after another to

our prairie grain farmers and the years and years of low prices

for grain meant a bare existence for those employed in

agriculture.

The initial migration of people to British Columbia was not

for land; it is only in the last few years that land has become

a luxury that few can afford. The thrust was first for fur and

second for gold. Gold was the magnet that drew so many to every

corner of this province. And after the majority of gold was

mined, people began to settle onto the rich lands of the Fraser

Valley and the Interior. In many cases it again meant the long

days of labour to clear the land before farms could be

established.

For far too long, Mr. Speaker, those who engage in agriculture in

any of its forms in Canada have seldom received adequate financial

returns for their labour and their capital investment. As well as low

financial returns, the farmer must fight what is often a hostile Mother

Nature who, in spite of his b ' est efforts, discourages him with heat,

frost, hail or flood.

These poor returns meant an early political awakening of the farmer. I draw

your memory, Sir, to the United Farmers' Party of Alberta which attempted for

many years to improve their lot through political action only to find their

just requirements thwarted because they were operating on a provincial basis

and could not gain sufficient support of the federal government.

There is a long history of agrarian socialism in Canada that

began in 1901 with the formation of the Territorial Grain

Growers Association that was renamed in 1905 the Saskatchewan

Grain Growers Association. This association was formed to try

and lower CPR freight rates, to force them to supply grain cars

they could load themselves, and also to combat the grain

elevator companies which were depressing wheat prices through

monopoly control.

When they were not successful they took the socialist road

and built their own elevators. This brought very limited

success in achieving their goals, so in 1933 the Saskatchewan

Grain Growers Association took

part in the founding of the CCF

movement in Regina together with the Farm Labour Group, the

United Farmers of Canada and others. Eleven years later they

formed the first socialist government in Canada with the

majority of their support coming from rural areas.

The CCF, and later the NDP, remained the government. of this

agricultural province for 20 years, and after seven years in

opposition have once again been returned to government with

strong rural support.

For six years now we have seen a democratic socialist

government in largely rural and farm-oriented Manitoba, the NDP

having been successful in two elections.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to our own Province

of British Columbia.

Socialist success for many years was mostly, though not

entirely, in the urban areas. A certain measure of success was

achieved in federal rural ridings, but it was not until 1972

that support was to swing strongly behind the New Democratic

Party in most rural ridings. Even in rural ridings where other

candidates were elected the vote was often very close.

One of the principal reasons for this change, Mr. Speaker,

was the constant problem of low financial returns to the

agricultural industry and the lack of far-sighted programmes

and planning to help the farmer achieve a standard of living

comparable to the industrial worker and the small

businessman.

Years of battling the elements, low prices for his products,

constantly rising costs for tractors, fuel, fertilizers,

sprays, labour and other equipment used by farmers have taken

their toll. The pledge made to farmers in July and August of

1972 that this New Democratic Party shared their concern and

would move to assist them led to their support.

The speech of His Honour indicates to me that the to

[ Page

10 ]

first step is being taken to honour this pledge. In company with the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture I have spent five weeks travelling this province,

observing agricultural operations first hand and talking to farmers. We held

hearings in the Kootenays, the Okanagan, the central interior, the Cariboo,

the Bulkley and Kispiox Valleys, and the Peace River area.

The committee received over 100 briefs from individual

farmers and various agricultural associations and their main

complaint was low prices for the products grown and rising

costs of operation. Facts and figures were presented in many

cases to prove the points that they brought to the

committee.

We, as the citizens of British Columbia, must make a

decision on whether or not we want agriculture to survive in

this province, or whether agriculture will be allowed to wither

away and leave us to rely on imports from east of the province

and outside our borders.

For some time now we have been warned by United Nations

authorities and others of the growing food shortages in the

world that have begun now with scarcities of supplies of

protein-rich foods. We cannot wait for food supplies to run out

at 12 o'clock and realize that it is 11 :30, as we did in the

case of petroleum supplies. We can cut back significantly on

gasoline consumption, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot cut back on

food consumption in the face of a rising population and rising

standard of living.

British Columbia is a rich, industrial-based province, but

we also produce a large part of our food needs and could

increase production significantly with the proper incentives.

Our farmers are venturesome, hard-working and dedicated to

producing a superior product. They only want to farm and

continue to produce food. They are also hopeful that at last

they will get some consideration and assistance to carry out

their work. When this is forthcoming, many whose land is now

idle while they are employed in industry will return to the

land and the work that they love. This, Mr., Speaker, will

contribute to a much greater satisfaction and enjoyment of life

for all the rest of us who live in beautiful British

Columbia.

Thank you, Sir, for your attention.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I feel honoured and

privileged today to second the motion thanking His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor for his gracious speech. I would also like

at this time to extend my congratulations to the

Lieutenant-Governor for his appointment last spring to his new

position.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we have a birthday, for tomorrow

marks the day in which this government took office one year

ago.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Be careful you don't get

indigestion on the birthday cake.

MS. SANFORD: The benefits accruing to the people of British

Columbia during the past year are significant and mark only the

beginning of a programme bas ed on a philosophy of concern for

people in this province.

Last fall, Mr. Speaker, we saw the introduction of the

guaranteed minimum income of $200 for old-age pensioners in the

province, the highest in Canada. Now we are going to see an

increase in that pension to the old-age pensioners. In

addition, the pensioners will receive, as of January next year,

free prescription drugs.

I urge this government to continue to extend benefits to the

pensioners, for it is those on fixed incomes who are hardest

hit by this rapidly-rising inflation.

The government will also now lower the age at which people

become eligible for benefits under that programme. People who

are 60 years old will now be eligible for benefits of

$200-a-month minimum income. Mr. Speaker, it is the women of

the province who are going to benefit especially from that move

because the women in that age bracket find it almost impossible

to find employment in this province.

We have seen evolved during this past year a whole new

concept in the field of services to people through the

community resource boards. This new concept is designed to

involve people at local levels to determine what the services

needs of the people in their area are and to determine how

these services can best be implemented. This concept has come

about through the cooperation of the Health, Education and

Human Resources Ministers. In fact, they have cooperated to

such an extent that we now have departmental people

communicating with each other. People in those departments are

actually working together and talking to each other, and that,

Mr. Speaker, is a departure from established tradition.

These programmes, which will be administered by the

community resource board for the province, are designed to

involve the total needs of the individual in terms of services

so that individuals will no longer go from one department

through the next agency to another department, but will be

able, in a centralized place, to know that their services will

be taken into account and would be able to be administered,

whether they be in terms of simple counselling, whether they be

health needs, whether they are people with a drug problem, or

whatever.

Local organizations and groups throughout the province are

enthusiastic about this concept. They are clamouring to have

departmental people come and tell them about the programme so

that they can get involved. There are now 32 groups on a

waiting list to have people from Victoria come and talk to them

[ Page 11 ]

tell them what it is all about, and to get involved. They

are excited about the concept and so am I, Mr. Speaker.

During this past year the government has restored the

parkland which has been lost over the years in this province,

and has also shown that parkland in the future will be treated

with the respect that it deserves. In the riding of Comox,

Strathcona Park had become the happy hunting-ground for mining

and logging interests, and the people in my constituency are

relieved that Strathcona Park will not be desecrated any

further than it was at that time.

The government is creating a separate ministry of housing to

deal with one of the province's most pressing problems.

Consumers who have too often been victims of unethical sales

practices and shoddy, poorly manufactured products will have

their interests attended to through a separate ministry. In

addition, consumers will have their interests protected through

the newly-introduced government auto insurance bill, and the

action of some of the companies in recent months convinces me

how necessary that government auto insurance bill was.

The Land Commission served to correct an obvious problem

which had resulted from the efforts of people who were not

particularly concerned about land, but were more concerned

about land as a commodity rather than as a resource. Their

efforts have been unrestrained in the past, and that

legislation will correct a serious problem.

The northwest part of the province, which has been the

centre of considerable attention by this government, will no

longer need to complain about the neglect they have suffered

over the years. The travelling committees which were established

under this government have given the public a long-overdue

opportunity to voice their opinions, and to be listened to by

legislators from all sides of the House.

It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that the legislators who were

travelling with those committees will also benefit from the

experience of going into ridings throughout this province,

giving them a better, broader understanding of what the

province is, and giving them a better understanding of how

people feel in all constituencies throughout British

Columbia.

These, Mr. Speaker, are but a very few of the

accomplishments of this government during the past year. But it

has also, by its performance, laid to rest the fears of some

segments of this population in British Columbia that dire

economic results would occur if the NDP assumed office.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, some of the statements made by the

opposition concerning the assumption of office by the NDP in this

province: you know, that "capital would flee the province;" that

"businesses would cease and move elsewhere," and that "the NDP couldn't

even operate a peanut stand "? Well, Mr. Speaker, the provincial

coffers have never been in better shape.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. SANFORD: Economic growth in this province is rising…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. SANFORD: …at a rapid rate. Mr. Speaker, the economy

is rising at a rapid rate. The growth is happening. But, Mr.

Speaker, I am concerned at this stage about rapid growth as

such because it seems to me that with quick growth there are

dangers inherent, dangers surrounding environmental

degradation, dangers having to do with consumption of power at

an ever-accelerating rate and dangers about the way in which we

are consuming our natural resources.

Unfortunately, this growth that we are seeing is all too

often a result of the international corporation's mindless

desire, dehumanized desire, to expand its operation. I think

it's important that the development of British Columbia is the

result of the planning done by people in British Columbia and

not by foreigners who are operating a great international

empire.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, our increased energy demands at

this stage bear little relationship to the increase in

population in the province at the moment. For instance, the

population in this province in 1972 over 1971 was a 2.9 per

cent increase, while our electricity consumption showed a 7.8

per cent increase over the previous year; that's three times

faster than the rate at which the population is increasing.

This trend has been going on for 10 years and the prediction is

that the trend will continue, and that worries me, Mr.

Speaker.

Where will we get this power that we're going to need? At

what cost will the acquisition of this power be to the

province? Do we need to increase power consumption at the same

rate that we've been increasing power consumption in the past?

Is it time that we thought about reversing the trend, the

present situation where the heavy users of power pay reduced

rates? I'm pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, that His Honour

yesterday made reference to the fact that there will be a

symposium this fall to discuss this question of energy, nuclear

energy, and what the alternatives will be.

With regard to the use of non-renewable resources, mankind

seems to have a lemming-like philosophy when it comes to the

use of resources. When he hears, for instance, that we're

running short of a resource such as whales or oil, does man

then restrain his

[ Page 12 ]

appetite for the use of that resource? No, he rushes to

consume it all at once. This, Mr. Speaker, I think is something

that this government needs to pay attention to; to see what can

be done.

Now the promoters of the profit system will argue that any

attempt to plan or to control growth will result in economic

stagnation and it will result in unemployment and it will

destroy incentives. But I claim, Mr. Speaker, that any system

which cannot combine the two goals of controlled growth as well

as social and economic well-being is a failure. On those

grounds, Mr. Speaker, capitalism does not serve society.

This government must now attempt to tailor the rate of

growth to a rate of population growth — the rate of economic

growth to the rate of population growth. I would like to see

this government direct its attention to encouraging an orderly,

planned, economic development. Perhaps we'll need a secretariat

to undertake this study in depth. We need to have an

intelligent resource use, including a programme of recycling.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the government set up

recycling depots right now throughout the province, where

people…

MRS. JORDAN: …can recycle politicians.

MS. SANFORD: There are some that need to be…where people

can bring their bottles and their cans and their papers to a

depot in the province in their own area where they can be

sorted and then shipped down to a central spot where they could

be reprocessed and recycled.

Mr. Speaker, I would like also to see this government at

this time undertake an equitable sharing of the wealth to cut

down on the present income gap. We must ensure that the return

for our resources benefits the people. We must ensure that the

farmers have some sort of stabilized income. We must ensure

that the old-age pensioners continue to receive benefits

because of the rapidly-rising inflation in the province. And we

must ensure that people have some kind of guaranteed income in

the future, so that no one in a province as rich as this will

have to suffer.

I would also like to see, Mr. Speaker, this government

embark on a programme of education which would discourage the

unnecessary and the conspicuous consumption of goods in the

province, consumption which is promoted by smooth public

relations types.

Mr. Speaker, when we have made a concerted effort in those

directions, we will at the same time have done a lot to achieve

social justice and to ensure a future for our children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chabot moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:47 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada