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 based 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 to

[ 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.