[ 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."

On 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 of rationale for the government's investment in the forest industry….

"Sanctity of contracts and agreements are being questioned.

"Lack of ground rules for growth.

"Delay of administrative decisions is creating planning problems…."

These are the points that are being made.

"Growth of what one official referred to as the

'Williams fiefdom in the northwest."

I am not saying that what policy you eventually come up with, Mr. Premier, has to be acceptable to the forest industry. Not at all. But what I am saying is that if you don't come up with policies, this uncertainty will continue. I think, indeed, the industry in the province is perfectly capable of taking care of a new set of rules, but they cannot take care of continual uncertainty.

In the Sun on Saturday, September 1, there was a headline which says, "Business booms but it may have peaked" and it talks about the same thing. A survey from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is quoted and it talks about the spending plans of companies.

"Across Canada, planned spending is 19 per cent higher than last year but in B.C. the figure is only 11 per cent. Despite the reductions that are going to occur because of the slow growth areas such as the Maritimes, the average across the country is substantially above British Columbia.

"This does not mean a problem right away, except perhaps in the construction industry, but it does mean problems in the future when the construction and the plans for investment which eventually lead to the creation of jobs, will occur elsewhere in the country and not here."

It goes on to say that in the manufacturing area — and let's not forget this government intends to increase manufacturing — "In the manufacturing areas, spending plans are actually down 9 per cent in British Columbia." We haven't even matched last year. These are real subjects of concern.

Again, I am not saying that your policies have to be the ones that agree with the people who are showing concern, but they do have to be clear enough so that they can make their plans on the basis of what they expect to happen.

This article by Conrad Rademaker goes on:

"The commodity price for metals, pulp and paper, oil and natural gas is the reason for gain, and once this cycle swings back again, B.C. will obviously suffer more than the rest of the country."

I have underlined a few other lines in this article.

"No company can effectively plan very far in the future under the present circumstances. As costs have risen, profitability will not rise to previous levels. Most economists have been forecasting a slowdown or outright recession of the economy."

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair]

Now, Mr. Premier, I am not suggesting that you have to lay down policies which are agreeable to the president of MacMillan-Bloedel or anyone else in the forest industry or to anyone in the mining industry. But what you must do and what you haven't done in the last year is lay down what your policies actually are.

People simply do not know when, for example, you are going to take over B.C. Tel — when and if. They do not know when and if your statements about West Coast Transmission are going to be honoured or whether they are going to be dishonoured. The same is true, of course, in many

[ Page 36 ]

other areas as well.

We have in British Columbia potential for growth, good growth, growth which would be desirable from a social point of view. But we are not going to get it if we have the situation where the people simply do not know what the future holds and, therefore, refuse to make investment decisions. The only growth we are going to get then is of things we may not want, and I suggest to you that this session is late enough for defining your policies in this respect.

The regret of the throne speech is that in this area, which is important and which you, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, described during the last campaign as being the "essential question of the last political campaign," namely job creation — we have had really nothing of a substantive nature which indicates what your plans are for the future.

We trust, in this party, that the absence of this from the throne speech is not an indication that you are still groping for new policy ideas and that we will have to wait one more session. We trust that it simply means that you didn't want to put very much into the throne speech because you wanted to surprise people later. All that we ask is that we be favourably surprised in this respect and that we get some sort of detailed layout of your plans for the economy of British Columbia in future months.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I am pleased to return to this Legislature and represent the electors of Oak Bay. I often think it is all too easy for we politicians to think of the party first, whether our fortunes are on the up or the down; but it is the first duty of each Member in this House to represent the people of his riding, and this is what I intend to do.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

From the point of view of the party, it would be my sincere hope that I continue to be a constructive critic in this House.

The seconder of the motion, the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has outlined many of the measures of social reform which the new government has brought in. She spoke favourably about these. I would say that this party supported Mincome, in the raising of the minimum wage and I am pleased with some of the other measures which the Premier has announced publicly. Because of our party position we propose to support measures of social reform.

As I have said in this House before, I think when I was a Socred…One of the first things I said in this House which got me into trouble — there were many occasions — was that I wouldn't be standing here to oppose simply for the sake of opposing. Where there are serious philosophical differences between our side of the House and your side of the House, then indeed we will oppose. But where you bring forward good legislation to provide a better standard of living for all the people in British Columbia, we will be right with you, supporting you.

On the other hand — or as I sometimes say, "however" — when you are misguided, in our view, and bring in policies which we honestly believe are detrimental to the people of the province, we will strongly oppose. I was somewhat distressed, during the recent by-election in South Okanagan, to learn that one of the attacks being directed against this party was that, "What do you know; on some occasions in the House the Conservatives had supported the NDP!" Isn't that just amazing?

I thought this revealed a very fundamental difference between the Conservative Party, as I see it, and the Social Credit Party. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there surely has to be a common ground in our aims and philosophies in this House, whatever party we belong to. To suggest that either party is being less than true to its goals because sometimes it agrees with the government, I think, is a kind of wisdom and insight which electors are looking for in this Legislature.

Since I entered the Legislature in 1969, there have been many changes which I would like to say we appreciate and approve, particularly the fact — and some listeners might wonder why I get excited about a little thing like this — but we do appreciate the secretarial help and the office space. When I was a Socred I lived in a corner of a room with about 20 other guys — or Members, I should say.

I'm not condoning massive office desks, which probably are too expensive, but I am saying that this government gives all the Members an opportunity to function in a reasonably sane and sensible manner as far as the administrative aspect of their duties is concerned. I think it's all too easy now that, perhaps, they are going overboard in some respects that we overlook at least the initial impetus which was taken to assist the Members.

I would apologize to the lady Member for Consumer Affairs for the ad which this party placed in the newspapers. There was no intent to discriminate against lady applicants and, in fairness, I would tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that we interviewed about a dozen applicants for the job, of whom three were ladies.

We finally chose a gentleman who — he couldn't help it, but he didn't belong to British Columbia — was the best man for the job. He had worked for the leader of the Conservative Party in Manitoba for three years, but he was chosen purely on the basis of merit — Mr. Ken MacLeod.

I would like to think that the performance of myself and my colleague from Saanich will reflect his assistance during the session.

The renovations in the chamber, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 37 ]

mark another step in this direction of improved atmosphere and better working conditions for the MLAs. I am not saying this simply because the changes make it easier for us to be seen or heard because nobody could ever quiet a politician anyway. But I think that this is a very important part of the province, where the business of British Columbia is debated and where the very course of B.C. destiny is charted. I think it is only right that such a chamber should have fine decor to give it the beauty and dignity which its purpose demands and to symbolize the respect which citizens hold for our democratic style of government in our modern free society.

The Member on my right doesn't agree with me but I'll continue.

It makes only sound common sense to me that the seat of government, being one of the most historic buildings in the province, should receive top-grade maintenance at all times and should be upgraded when necessary. I feel that the renovating efforts have been carried out with great skill and I consider that all those who have contributed have, indeed, brought some sense of classic beauty into this chamber. If I had to offer a critical comment, it would be that the decorators have taken the shine off the gracious figures of feminine beauty who looked down upon us so lovingly.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister mentions that he hadn't noticed. Perhaps I noticed because I am a clinician. (Laughter).

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): You know what happens in his office. (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: Despite this dulling effect, I feel sure that these ladies up above will continue to be no harmful distraction to the Members in the less-exciting moments of debate.

To be a little more serious, Mr. Speaker, another step which represented a change in the style of government was the travelling committees which went into parts of the province to investigate and assess some of our more serious social and commercial problems. This gives the individual access in a much more comprehensive and realistic way to MLAs than has ever occurred before and it certainly allows the Members themselves to visit and learn about other parts of the province.

It also has the very interesting side effect that Members get to know each other better, and I learned for the first time that one of the amusing aspects of any little effort that I make in here is that the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is just delighted to hear me talk about "our party."

(Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member for Chilliwack wasn't speaking for our party, he was speaking for himself.

MR. WALLACE: Well I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it was a delight to travel with the all-party committee and I would like to pay tribute to the chairperson of that party, the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) who I think brought great charm and diligence combined to the work of the committee.

Again, if one has to be critical, it would be to mention that there was not adequate notice given to the residents in the different areas to give them time to prepare briefs. I would hope that since this policy has been established of travelling committees, that we would attempt to define our terms of reference very clearly and briefly and attempt to give more notice.

On the committee — yes, this is the committee on social welfare and education. The word "health" actually doesn't enter into the title, but we were asked to study certain areas of the delivery of health service and this is one subject where I must say I'm very disappointed with the new government because while we did find out some new information, the very core of what we learned has been known for a long time.

I can't back that up any more efficiently than by quoting the Premier himself when he was in opposition, from his speech in reply to the throne speech on January 26, 1970, more than three years ago. The Premier stated — the then Leader of the Opposition: "hundreds of people, thousands of people are faced with economic ruin because of the fantastic cost of chronic hospital care." Three years ago.

Then his reply to the throne speech, January 25, 1971: "We find large private investors dealing in human misery by making profits out of private hospitals." With respect, I know that the committee has met and has studied the situation. I have confidence that the government will act upon the recommendations this committee is bringing in.

I am pleased to see the Premier nods his head in agreement. But, Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the Premier that surely, in the light of the established need and the suffering and the hardship, could we not have some interim arbitrary help to these citizens who, in terms of the total spectrum of health care in this province, are getting the worse deal of anyone?

The Premier has said and has acted that where inflation is running rampant and the senior citizen on a fixed income cannot negotiate his own improvement income wise, that he has attempted in various ways quickly to bring some help and the latest move was to give the pensioner another $9 and

[ Page 38 ]

some cents a month.

All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it seems to me the situation of the person in the nursing home is exactly comparable to the senior citizen trying to live on a fixed $200 a month in the face of the recent escalating prices which affect the most expensive items in anybody's budget — food and shelter.

I know, Mr. Speaker, the debate that has raged on and off about the financing of hospital care. I am well aware of the pros and cons of $1 a day of $3 a day or no dollars a day. I think it should again be put on record unmistakably that one of the biggest obstacles to bringing the senior citizens this help in chronic care facilities is the intransigence, or perhaps I should say the obstinacy of the federal government. The federal government refuses consistently to participate in the costs of care for citizens in the nursing homes and private hospitals.

The challenge then, Mr. Speaker, is essentially a fiscal one. The need has been demonstrated. The Premier has talked, as Leader of the Opposition, for several years. His government has now been in power for one year and the citizens who are unlucky enough to be receiving care in nursing homes are not receiving any more help today than they did three or four years ago when the Premier took up the cudgels on their behalf as Leader of the Opposition.

The throne speech, in my view, correctly puts the emphasis — if it has to emphasize one subject — on labour-management relations. I think that while we must await details of the proposed legislation, I'm quite sure that most citizens in this province will breathe a sigh of relief if the proposals in the throne speech prove to be as exciting and innovative and to hold hope of real success. The exact language is that "several new concepts will be utilized and that strikes will be settled in a fair and judicious manner without disruption to the economy." I don't know if that is the exact words, but that is certainly the intent of the statement.

I would just suggest to the House, Mr. Speaker, that this is an admirable goal and I'd also like to quote one of the veteran labour leaders in the United States, who said that the strike weapon is archaic. That was George Meaney, and I'm sure if any man has, as it were, gone full circle from being a radical supporter of the right to strike, to the situation now in his later years, where presumably he hopes like most of us to get smarter as he gets older, that he is now saying that we have seriously as a modern industrialized community and society to look at compulsory arbitration as a means of settling disputes.

We have the example here in this Chamber today of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) giving us the good news that two parties to a dispute have agreed to binding settlement.

I think the point that cannot be stressed too often is that we're not living in the same kind of society or in the same era when strikes were almost the only method that the worker had, realistically, to gain social justice. At that time the minority required a weapon to protect their interests against the mass indifference of the majority. But it seems today, Mr. Speaker, as though the tables have very much been turned and the interests of the whole community can be brought into serious jeopardy by exploitation — unreasonable exploitation — of minority interests. One has, and I make no apology for repeating the topic which the other two party leaders have mentioned today, the example of the ferry strike in British Columbia. It is my view that this was a supreme example — and let us hope there are no others — of the government's inadequacy and intransigence in dealing with the labour dispute.

Mr. Speaker, it was the government's first confrontation with the labour movement, and to the great misfortune of the people of British Columbia, the government failed miserably by capitulating completely to the demands of the strikers.

As I said at the outset, I'm trying to be a critic, and I sincerely hope that the remarks I make now and the ones I'm about to make are taken in that sense. What is done is done and what is past cannot be changed, but there is always the hope that all of us will learn from unfortunate experiences of the past.

Without arguing detail by detail about the percentages — time-and-a-half for holidays or double-time — I think the most devastating aspect of the ferry strike was the fact that the government capitulated in the face of an illegal act. Regardless of the merits or demerits, the fair or unfair final decision, it is a very serious day for this province or any other province when government capitulates to the illegal attitude of the minority in our society.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there was internal dissention within the ranks themselves and that there were many issues. I'm sure that the Minister wrestled hard and long to try to deal with the two arms of the union together and to have one understand the other better than they appeared to do from press reports. But, sadly, one has to ask the question: with this kind of precedent, what can we expect from future sectors of the labour force when they look at the very soft, surrendering attitude which was adopted by the government in the ferry strike?

The Minister concerned, Mr. Speaker, made the statement on August 15, "You cannot force people to work if they don't want to work." All that I would say to that statement, Mr. Speaker, is that you can't force them to work but you can force them to be accountable to the law. If a government, which is voted into office to govern and to administer the law and respect the law and uphold the law, fails in the face of an aggressive, angry, vocal minority to condemn action, then, Mr. Speaker, I submit that our

[ Page 39 ]

concept of the free, orderly, modern society that we now enjoy will have to be looked at very closely.

I would predict that future disputes of this kind might lead to even more serious consequences if it becomes clear that the government is weak in the face of illegal acts by strong minorities. I think that a government which submits to the illegal demands of a minority group is indeed neglecting its very first responsibility, which is to govern and to administer the affairs of the province in a fair and equitable manner for all the citizens. Much as I respect the Minister as a person and a friend, I never thought I would live to see the day when a Minister of the Crown would make that devastating, gun-to-the-head statement. My immediate reaction would have to be: who is running this province, the ferry workers or the government?

I have to say that very sadly because I never thought I would hear any Minister of the Crown, let alone the Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), make that statement. It represented complete surrender by the government to a union.

The union had some fair claims to make; I don't dispute that for a moment — that should be made clear. There was a problem, there was a dispute and they were seeking justice. But there is no way that a government can hold up its head after the disaster of the ferry strike and the surrender attitude of this government.

Beyond the gun-to-the-head statement, which is hard to believe was ever made, we then discover that the final decision was the decision of the Minister alone. That the Premier went off on a fishing boat — and there's nothing wrong about that idea, the concept of learning about fishing — at the peak of a crisis which was so potentially devastating to the B.C. economy, leaving the one Minister to make the final decision, I think, represents a serious dereliction of duty by the Premier.

That kind of decision, Mr. Speaker, should have been approved and finalized in cabinet, not in the mind and brain of the Minister of Transportation. I think that this kind of action of the government certainly must shake the confidence of many of the citizens of this province when they contemplate similar disputes in the future. This, again, is not a personal insult on my part to the Minister. It is to say that my concept of how a government should function is that when a decision of this magnitude, with these far-reaching ramifications, has to be made, I just cannot accept that it should be made by one man.

I also say that one of the reasons the government surrendered is that it is scared of the unions. It is a government that derives a great deal of its electoral support from union members. One would have to wait till later events, I suggest, before one could conclude this, but certainly this first disastrous step in labour negotiations by this government would have to have one asking: is, in fact, this government weak in the face of union demands because it depends on union members for so much of its support?

I hope I'm wrong, but time will tell. Beyond the principle I've tried to outline of weak government in the face of an illegal act, there is no question that the settlement has to be 'inflationary and will simply stoke the fires of inflation.

Another aspect of the dispute and the settlement, Mr. Speaker, was, in my view, a clear element of discrimination against the other public servants, because the government had dictated a 10 per cent increase to other public employees. But here they go into negotiations with a certain other segment of public employees and give them anything between 12 to 22 per cent. This would seem to me to be a very certain way of creating dissention within the ranks of the public employees working in this building, for example.

Then, of course, perhaps the most disturbing of all decisions is the Premier's statement that, despite the ferry experience, he has not changed his mind about giving the whole civil service the right to strike. Mr. Speaker, when one looks across this nation and across North America and to all the industrialized nations and recognizes the tremendous havoc which can be brought about by strikes and, as I said earlier, when we have veterans in the field who tell us that it's as outmoded as the Model T Ford, surely this government, instead of giving more people the right to strike, should be looking at some reasonable middle ground where government can guarantee workers a just hearing and a fair settlement, but where this should not entail suffering and hardship and, very often, lasting damage to the whole economy of the province.

I won't just repeat what the former speakers have said this afternoon, but I think it is a fact that this government should take a look at the concept of designating certain services as essential and others as less than essential, in terms of the public interest. In my view, and in the view of this party, there are certain services that just should not carry the right to strike. I include such people as doctors, people in the medical services and hospital field, people in transportation and the civil service, to name but a few.

I think that if we've got any kind of collective wisdom in our society today, we must surely see that if a person wishes to be a doctor or wishes to be a hospital worker or wishes to be in the human service industries and is so concerned that he can only do that if he has the right to strike, he just isn't suitable for that job.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would you include

[ Page 40 ]

lawyers?

MR. WALLACE: No, they're not essential. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, when somebody asks a question, they're liable to get an answer. But again, I'm trying not to pick on particular professions. I'm trying to explain a principle: that there are certain functions in our society where human suffering becomes too great when a strike in that service occurs.

I think this government would show an unusual, but certainly an admirable insight into the changing world we live in, if they would take that second look at the bill which will give all the civil servants of this province the right to strike. The Premier has gone on record in justifying his adherence to this idea: with the right to strike will come increased responsibility. In the ferry strike, Mr. Speaker, we had people who didn't even have the legal right to strike and they still disrupted the whole province and brought tremendous damage and ruin and financial difficulty to the tourist industry and to many other citizens.

The Speech to the Throne, Mr. Speaker, mentions the word "conciliatory," and this is very admirable also. But any settlement or any new techniques will have to be fair to both sides, and if the word "conciliatory," and this is very admirable also. But any settlement or any new techniques will have to be fair to both sides, and if the word "conciliatory" means "surrender to the unions" then the measures are doomed from the start.

I think there is a certain amount of confusion over on the Treasury benches, Mr. Speaker, because even after the settlement was made the Premier said he was not happy with it, the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said he was not unhappy with it, and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) said that politicians should not be directly involved in negotiations. (Laughter). So all I would say in favour of that kind of attitude is that at least each of the three men speaks his mind publicly and says what he thinks. Thank goodness we have at least got a government where the Ministers aren't functioning like puppets on a string, as I can recall in a certain .former administration. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one was that?

MR. WALLACE: But the point has been made in another respect this afternoon. If government is a partner in industry, we certainly have to look seriously at this hitherto non-existing complication that when a strike occurs it could become at one and the same time a partner to the dispute and also the arbiter of the dispute. This, to my way of thinking, creates a tremendous conflict of interest as to how the government as a partner in an industry could negotiate and, if the negotiations break down, that same government could become a vehicle to impose a solution.

The other involvement of union activity, which of course is not mentioned in the throne speech but which was brought in at the last session of the House, was Bill 153, the Public Works Fair Employment Act. This again surprises me, coming from the Premier of this province. I have often admired the Premier of this province because of his statement that he is interested in no one segment of society. He is not tied to business; he is not tied to unions; he is not obligated towards any special sector of the total spectrum of society. He is a man for all seasons and a man for all people.

I see he has support from his Ministers. The backbenchers didn't do very much right now.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Send in their names. (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: But in British, Columbia only 41 per cent of the workers are unionized, so when you bring in a bill…

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Beg your pardon, your department gave me the wrong figure, Mr. Minister. But at any rate it is somewhere around 41, 42 per cent in the figures for 1972. This, I think, is very much at odds with the Premier's professed belief that he is not showing any bias or favouritism to any segment. He certainly is discriminating against workers who are not members of unions.

In addition to what I have just said, there is the sad fact that the principle of discrimination against non-union labour is being spread far beyond the terms of Bill 153 which referred to construction work. The moving industry in Victoria certainly felt the sting of that legislation as well as confusion and mismanagement in the Department of Public Works. Now I hope the Minister is listening, although he is sharing a joke right at the moment. What I would like to tell the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is no joke.

One of the moving companies in Victoria entered a bid and received a letter from the Minister's Deputy on July 6 saying that the provisions of Bill 153 do not apply to contractors providing auxiliary services. But lo and behold, on August 2 that same company received a letter cancelling the contract which had been given to it.

A day or two later the Deputy then wrote another letter completely contradicting his first, saying, "I must rescind my letter dated July, 1972 since I have now been instructed that the provisions of Bill 153 will apply to moving firms doing work in conjunction with Public Works." And so come September we have

[ Page 41 ]

another letter from the Minister himself this time: "The Act does not apply to the type of contract service you offered in the moving of furniture for the government. The letter of July, 1972 was based on a mistaken interpretation of the law." Now, I don't know when the Minister and his department are going to stop turning, but that's three different decisions over a period of three months.

But anyway, even allowing for the confusion, further scrutiny shows that this application of discrimination against non-union firms has spread beyond simply the construction industry. I have a copy of the letter from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), January 19, 1973, to a printing company in the city:

"All material that has to be printed is given to the Queen's Printer to print and what he is unable to produce in the Queen's Printer shop will be put out to bid. Companies that are able to produce the material we require will be invited to bid.

"Preference will be given to union shops of British Columbia companies with the overall criteria of low bidder being operative. If, however, the bids are such that a preference of choice can be made without seriously affecting the public purse, the criteria of union shop in British Columbia companies will always be operative."

Now I am just not quite sure what the phrase, "without seriously affecting the public purse" means, but it does mean that union shops are being given definite preference over non-union.

In a different industry an executive of that company tells me he could not do work for the government unless he had his workers join a union and when he bid on the work he had to sign a statement that this was so. Apparently it happens in this case that his workers were as well of financially or better off than they are in the union.

The sad part of all this is that this business man refuses to let me identify him for fear of being penalized by the government. He might lose the work he is already doing if I stand up in this House and tell the people of British Columbia that the government is being discriminatory.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Public Works tells me that he need have no fear, but the fact is that if you didn't have this discrimination he wouldn't have to worry about being afraid in the first place. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is a sad day in this province when a citizen who feels that he is being penalized in some way or other is afraid to have his elected people speak about it in the House in case he is penalized. This is a tragic situation.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), it may not be the first time, but you must, my friends, stop comparing yourself with a former government which wasn't anything to get excited about either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Always looking back.

MR. WALLACE: Always looking back. You must look forward. I have given credit and I will continue to give credit for some of the forward moves this government has made, particularly in social reform. But this government is moving backward in terms of its attitude to the whole labour management problem and its attitude to the power of unions. I think that if unions are so successful and so important they should quite happily compete with non-unionized areas of labour. If you are afraid of the competition. There are 37 moving companies in Victoria and apparently three of them are unionized.

I think another consequence of this discrimination is that it limits competitive bidding and certainly encourages price fixing among a small number of bidders. In this regard also, it increases the cost to the tax payer, and the example I quoted was that if this man apparently didn't do his particular job for the government, the particular kind of work he does would have to be done in Vancouver at increased cost. There must be fair competition.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move on to another subject which isn't mentioned in the throne speech, but I think it's vital that it be mentioned, and that is amendments which were made to the Assessment Equalization Act at the last session of the House. Here I know I will be accused of conflict of interest because I happened to be born a few miles from the Old Course at St. Andrew's and I want to talk a little bit about golf courses.

The amendments to the Assessment Equalization Act have the effect of doubling the assessment on golf courses in one year, because the ceiling of 10 per cent by which assessments could be raised was deleted except for residential property and agricultural land. I know, Mr. Speaker, that some people might feel that golf is the domain of the wealthy, but nothing could be further from the truth. Golf is played in almost every corner of this province by age groups from 9 to 10 up to 100. We have a golfer in Victoria, of whom we're very proud, who's 104 years old and plays golf regularly.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment really will mean tremendous financial difficulty to golf courses and these may well be converted to other use, such as subdivisions for residential homes. One shouldn't overlook the fact that in a time when we are talking about the dangers and the undesirable aspects of urbanization and industrialization, we want greenbelts around our towns and cities. Surely a golf

[ Page 42 ]

course, not only for its recreational use but its very existence as a greenbelt, is something that we should consider as worthy of some extra consideration by this government.

To put the whole matter in context, Mr. Speaker, there is legislation under section 328 (a) of the Municipal Act by which a council may enter into an agreement regarding fixed assessment for tax purposes other than taxes for school purposes. Councils are proving very hesitant to enter into these agreements, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while no one would ever want golf clubs to be in a position to speculate and profit at the expense of tax concessions, nevertheless it would seem a tremendous pity if golf courses were to go out of business and the land be used for some other less desirable open-space purpose.

One of the interesting physiological features of a golf course is that it has quite an effect on filtering out polluting gases and producing pure oxygen. I think governments must decide whether they really wish to preserve greenbelts, as they say and according to the greenbelt legislation, or whether they will stand by and watch golf courses being replaced by buildings and blacktop.

The recreational opportunities of a golf course are available to all ages, and in most clubs the juniors play a very active part. When we are trying to find vigorous ways of keeping our young people off the streets and away from drugs, there can be very few better ways than to interest your youngsters in golf.

It has a great impetus on the tourist industry, because certainly the golf courses in this city are all open to visitors. They are not closed private clubs and we welcome tourists to our golf courses; therefore, it is to be considered an important part of the tourist business. The golf clubs make very few demands on the municipality for municipal services and they make no demand on the schools. They are non-profit and they provide employment for thousands of citizens each year, but if this amendment to the Assessment Equalization Act is not changed in some way, undoubtedly golf will again become the domain only of the wealthy.

Quebec and Ontario have provisions in their legislation, as does Oregon and Alberta, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that this government should look very closely, and particularly the Minister of Municipal Affairs — though I'm not sure he's listening, but I hope he is. This isn't just an appeal from a Scottish-born golfer who happens to live on a golf course, and I admit all that, and I suppose, as I say, this would be construed as a decided bias, but I have been asked by the two golf clubs in my riding of Oak Bay to bring this matter to the attention of government since it has ramifications far beyond the obvious.

One of them is called the Victoria Golf Club and the other is called the Uplands Golf Club. In passing, Mr. Speaker, one other consequence of the assessment equalization amendment, which I don't think the government realized, was that you can now finish up with a person buying an undeveloped lot with no improvements and paying more taxes than if he had a small improvement on the lot, I think that vacant lots will have to be given some more specific consideration.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think we should mention some of the, points regarding the industry and commerce of the province. The leader of the Liberal Party touched on this in some detail and I merely feel that there is great uncertainty in the province — nobody is quite sure what the government means by a partnership. The word "partnership" suggests mutual respect and fair play regardless of the share you hold in the partnership but again, one can see more substantial conflicts of interest if a government owns a substantial fraction of any partnership deal.

I was very interested in the speech by the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce that, "The government seeks the support of responsible, private entrepreneurs to stimulate the economy and enable it to continue to prosper." I would take it from the Minister's response that I quote him correctly. I've got the whole speech right here, and I wouldn't take the time of the House to read the whole speech but it seems to me that the nub of the speech, or the clear crux of the problem, is that the government does wish private entrepreneurs to enter into partnership with the government and to stimulate the economy. Governments in the past have not been the most reliable people to depend upon when the going gets rough and again, they have powers, unique powers which no other partner in business has, and I think it is somewhat naive of government to expect that private industry, in the light of past experiences here and elsewhere, would be all that eager to enter into a partnership with the government.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the Minister says that's not what they tell him, but this comes across in newspapers and articles in magazines repetitively. All I can say is that one has to, at this early stage in your administration, keep an open mind but sound a warning that when a government becomes a partner, it is a unique kind of situation for the reasons I have mentioned, that government also has unique powers which it can use or abuse. I don't think anyone in their right mind would completely agree with the fact that governments never abuse their powers; they very frequently do. In closing this, it might be wise to state the stand of this party in that kind of area — public business. We feel that government, because of

[ Page 43 ]

its unique position to exert power, not always honourably or with the best of motives, should not be a competitor in the marketplace but have the responsibility to create the economic climate in which private businesses can compete and flourish and expand.

We do not accept that private enterprise is based on greed, as the Premier recently asserted. It is based on the experience that human beings contribute most when they are assured of their independence, a fair reward for efforts expended and risks taken, and an assurance that their initiatives which create jobs and real wealth will be met with something other than punitive taxation.

This does not mean that private enterprisers should have some licence to rip off the consumer at whatever price the market will bear. No way. On the contrary, we believe that the consumer requires and is entitled to maximum protection against any unscrupulous salesman. We hold strong convictions about the importance of competition, the danger of monopolies, the freedom of choice which should always be available to the individual. With true competition and government regulation, not government control, we feel that the consumer would be afforded the best possible value for money spent.

There are many omissions from the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, which have already been mentioned and I won't detail them. But I feel that the whole area of human rights and the need for a more vigorous look at the role of an ombudsman and an auditor-general should be taken by the government.

I'm disappointed that the Premier has still not come forward with specific proposals to remove the education tax from residential property. I'm getting a little restless; he keeps telling us that it will be done but there is never anything specific forthcoming. I would have thought that after one year in office and after an election promise which was in the party campaign literature, surely we should have something specific in this very important tax area. I'm sure that many people supported the NDP government at the last election because of this particular issue in their platform.

Finally, the Conservative Party has so often been looked upon as not being concerned about the poor and the disadvantaged and the sick. I just want to make it very plain that where this government brings in legislation to help the disadvantaged, the handicapped, the downtrodden, we will support that legislation.

We feel that citizens should get a fair share of the provincial wealth. But we would also make it very plain that welfare must not become a way of life for those who can be given gainful employment. The genuine need of the deserted wife and the victim of multiple sclerosis or the mentally retarded must not be confused with the indifference or sloth of the young hippie who wishes to spend the summer on Long Beach subsidized by B.C. taxpayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Filing reports.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files the report of the Overall Medical Services Plan of B.C., Financial statement as of March 31, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files the report of the comptroller-general to the Treasury Board on the effectiveness of the internal accounting procedures, including costs and budgeting in the British Columbia Hydro Power Authority.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we adjourn, Mr. Premier, I would advise the House that as an experiment the restaurant will be open every day from 8 in the morning until 9 in the evening to be available for Members who have to work late at night in the precincts.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:31 p.m.