1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 123 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

On the motion of Mr. G.B. Gardom, Bill (No. 9) intituled

An Act for the Regulation of Cigarette Advertising was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker I would request leave of the House to adjourn the debates to discuss…

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is not in order. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to

welcome you back to the House today. In your absence, a slight error

may have occurred in the record that is transcribed, but I didn't want

to wait until November to correct it. I, by error, attributed great

benevolence to the Province newspaper for having added a lady reporter to the press gallery. I should have said the Colonist and I wish to apologize to the Colonist .

MR. SPEAKER: Is the honourable Member apologizing to the Colonist or to the Province ? (Laughter.) The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable Member state the matter.

MR. McDIARMID: It has come to my attention, through an

article in the Sun

of last evening, of an impending ecological disaster for the entire

Province of British Columbia. It has come to my attention that in the

United States, at this time, decisions will shortly be reached which

may allow the building and construction of a trans-Alaskan pipeline

which, if allowed to proceed, will envisage a thousand supertankers

plying up and down the coastal waters of British Columbia. It is my…

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable Member submit the statement

to the Speaker, please. Order, please. I would call the honourable

Member's attention to a number of references in the 17th edition of

May, the first of which is, "The fact that a grievance is continuing is

not sufficient if it is not of recent occurrence." Secondly, the motion

has been refused when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur

shortly, or in time, and, specifically, under Item 5, when the matter

could be raised by moving an amendment to the Address in answer to the

King's Speech, and in our jurisdiction, of course, the address in reply

to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. It is questionable, as well,

whether or not, and the statement does not make it clear, it is within

the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government or a Provincial

Legislature to rectify. This matter is handled at page 368, under Item

C, "for which another authority was immediately responsible." I think

there are probably a number of other grounds upon which this matter

would fail in urgency. In any case, I rule this motion out of order.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I

am pleased today to rise in my place representing the great

constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain and, before I address the

House on the matter of the Throne Speech, I would like to ask the House

to welcome a member of the Vancouver Parks Board who is in the gallery,

the immediate past Chairman of the Board, Commissioner Andrew

Livingstone, who is with us today.

I repeat it is an honour, Mr. Speaker, to stand here as one of the

two representatives of the great constituency of Vancouver–Little

Mountain and to speak in this Throne Debate, wherein recognition has

been given to British Columbia's joining Canadian Federation. I'd like

to add my congratulations to the Honourable Member from Columbia and to

the Honourable Member from Oak Bay, the mover and the seconder of the

motion. I am pleased, too, Mr. Speaker, to have the freedom to speak to

this debate, because some Members of the House may recall that, just a

year ago, the three women Ministers without Portfolio were denied that

right. They were denied that right, Mr. Speaker. When the estimates

were up for debate by the Honourable Member from New Westminster and

the Members of the socialist opposition opposite, it was that same

Member who spoke out, just yesterday, on women's rights. Could I say to

Members in this House that the women of British Columbia don't need

friends like that? That same Member, Mr. Speaker, yesterday and last

Tuesday in this House, had great pleas for the unemployed in the

Province and there is no one on this side of the House who would deny

the tremendous unemployment situation, a critical situation, in this

Province today. That same Member, that Member from New Westminster,

pleaded for the small people, the small firms who were closing their

doors, he said and voiced his concern for the small businessmen in this

Province who were going to close their doors forever, because of the

policies he blamed on the Provincial Government.

Here is this NDP Party who talks, on the one hand, of being the

friend of labour and who, on the other hand, frightens investments and

jobs away with its socialism and negativism. Here is the Member from

New Westminster, the friend of the working man, and let me tell you

what the friend of the working man had to say after the last Session of

this House. He presented his constituency with an eight-page flyer,

which was distributed to that great riding of New Westminster and it

was a report on this Legislature as he saw it.

AN. HON. MEMBER: A little biased?

MRS. McCARTHY: I would say that it's a little biased. I don't

believe that I will quote very much from it, frankly. But I would like

to quote you one little part. Yes, I will read part of it for you. I'd

like to read one

part in regard to labour which was taken from his

speech on labour estimates last year. I quote: "A change in attitude

towards trade unionism must be adopted by Government. Constant

criticism of the

[ Page 124 ]

labour movement by the Government has undermined

this very important sector of our society. Members of Government should

examine the history of the movement. They will find that trade unionism

has not only moved the working man way up the economic scale but has

enriched the whole economy. The vast market now for goods and services

is a direct result of increased wages permitting a standard of living

and purchasing power undreamed of a few years ago."

Now, that's very interesting, Mr. Speaker. On

this eight-page flyer, I might say, on the front of it has a very nice,

smiling picture of the Member from New Westminster but on the back

doesn't have the union bug. Now, isn't that surprising? (Interruption.)

Let me tell you about the volunteer labour that the Members of the

Opposition are talking about. While this NDP Member talks about the

trade unions and their importance to our economy and how much the

socialist party opposite confirms and backs everything that the trade

unions do, in the Columbian paper of June 2, 1970, a reporter from the

Columbian interviews the Member from New Westminster on why it was he

did not have the union bug on his publication. Just let me quote a

couple of lines from this interview. This is the column written by Alan

Jay in the Columbian of Tuesday, June 2. It says, "Last night, the MLA

said the report was not planned as a regular publication but one would

be issued at the end of every legislative Session. 'We have printed

20,000 copies and they were printed on a small offset press a friend

has in the basement of his home,' he said." I continue quoting from

this article, Mr. Speaker. "'It took eight hours to print one page but

we hope to be able to speed things up by the time the next one is due,'

he said. In view of the NDP's feelings toward trade unionism, I asked

him why the report had been printed by an underground press. 'We had

to,' he replied, 'we don't have too much money and the report is quite

expensive. Besides the unions would have killed us on the price."'

(Interruption.)

Should I ask here who needs the change of attitude? How many

printing shops in New Westminster have closed their doors? Who needs a

change of attitude towards trade unionism in this Province? It's a

sham, a complete sham. The Opposition cries out for labour and for the

unemployment situation in this Province in the face of that kind of

example. While a serious unemployment situation does exist throughout

North America, where mothers and wives are being asked to budget their

meals on unemployment insurance and welfare benefits, the NDP Party in

this House is addressing itself to political gains, and the Liberal

Party becomes the apologists for the Liberal administration in Ottawa.

Today, Canada's Prime Minister is going to return home from his

world sojourn. He is going to pay Canada's unemployed a visit today and

do you know what message he will have for us? Like it or lump it,

Ah…but it is not to worry. He'll have a shrug for the men in the

unemployment lines and a kiss for their wives.

Meanwhile, in his reply to the Throne Speech, the Honourable Leader

of the Liberal Party, reiterated the Liberal policy, the Party policy

of the Liberals in Canada, these Liberals who usually fall between the

two horses of Special Sessions or Royal Commissions, always at the

expense of the taxpayer and usually resulting in confusion. When that

First Member from Point Grey was asked later on a television interview

what a special legislative session would do that present legislation

does not cover for handling labour disputes, he said something about

passing legislation to make people go to work. That's the two sides,

once again, of the Liberal mouth at work. One side talks often about

labour's right to bargain collectively, while the other would destroy,

by creating panic laws, labour's hard-won rights. Here, of course, I

speak of responsible labour.

It must be very difficult, indeed, to sit as a Liberal in this House

and, often, very lonely. In this year of 1971, it must be particularly

embarrassing for the Provincial Liberal Members, in the light of the

economic chaos created by their Liberal counterparts in Ottawa. Let me

emphasize here, their attempt to toss the blame for the unemployment in

Canada on the Provincial Government of British Columbia is not being

believed by the people of British Columbia. When the Liberal Leader

replied to the Throne Speech and spoke of the unemployment situation in

this Province, he completely ignored the fact that the Government of

the Province of British Columbia has authorized construction projects

in just the past three months of quite a good magnitude and I would

like to quote some of these figures: in public works, $1,427,000 has

been made available; in school construction, over seven million,

$7,200,000; in hospital construction, $10,000,000; in ferries,

$1,349,000; bridges, $12,125,000; highways, $28,263,000. This, Mr.

Speaker, gives a total of $60,300,000, initiated in just the past two

and a half months in this Province to initiate employment in this

Province. That story is not being told by the Members on that side of

the House.

I would like to make reference to one line in the Throne Speech. I

am very pleased to see that reference was made to the acquisition of

old Shaughnessy Golf Course for a botanical garden for British

Columbia. The first payment of $666,656 was turned over to the city of

Vancouver on January 4 of this year and the balance of the Province's

one million dollar-share will be paid to the city, according to the

agreement within the next three years. This site, which is right in the

centre of the third largest city in Canada, will, I'm sure, rival

Edinburgh's famous botanical 60-acre park in future years. It will be a

credit to all of those who worked diligently to save the site from

high-rise and townhouse development, as was first proposed.

I would like this House to know, Mr. Speaker, that, at the time I

was serving on the Board of Parks and Public Recreation in the city of

Vancouver and was hopeful of saving this park from the bulldozer, the

Premier of this Province, alone, saw the potential of a botanical

garden to British Columbia and committed Provincial Government funds

for this purpose, providing that there would be Federal funds and

private donors to match. Later, in spite of the disappointment and the

lack of co-operation of Federal participation, he again saved old

Shaughnessy Golf Course from high-rise development when he pledged

Provincial funds for the project, without Federal involvement.

At this time, I would like to pay tribute to the very many people

who worked for that one line in the Throne Speech, for the botanical

garden for Vancouver. Today, I would like to mention just a few: the

Board of Parks and Public Recreation in Vancouver and, especially,

Commissioner Andy Livingstone; the City Council of Vancouver and,

especially, Mayor Tom Campbell and Aldermen Sweeney and Wilson; the

Vancouver Foundation and, especially, Dr. Bill Gibson, who obtained the

private donors' third share of the acquisition; the Botanical Garden

Association and, especially, Dr. Bob Long and Mr. Theo Dumoulin; and

Marathon Realty, with whom I negotiated and received complete

co-operation. It is just one line in the Throne Speech, but it will be

an invaluable asset to the people of British Columbia in future

[ Page 125 ]

years.

AN HON. MEMBER: And good for Marathon Realty.

MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, good for Marathon Realty. They did give us very good co-operation.

Although the Federal Government has not contributed in any way to

this botanical garden, they have announced that they will spend some

five million dollars at the University of British Columbia over the

next few years for a botanical garden and, I would say, this would be

needless and useless duplication. I would hope that those at the

University would see the benefit of melding the University community

with the community at large and work with the city of Vancouver for the

development of our botanical garden at Oak and 33rd. Surely, it is

indefensible today to duplicate the expenditure of funds at UBC, when

the proposed botanical garden is adjacent to one of Vancouver's finest

educational institutes which has space for expansion.

During the past year, I have been examining, as part of my

responsibilities as a Member without Portfolio, some of the workings of

the Family Division of the Provincial Court and, in particular, the

Family Court and the Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act . A number of

men and women in the Province have indicated areas of concern to me in

this regard and I have visited the operation of some of the Courts to

take a look at the operation to see how it works. I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that it is amazing to see the courteous and skilful way in

which some of the judges handle these very difficult maintenance cases.

Before a case gets to the judge, in many instances, a probation officer

or other officer of the Court interviews the wife and the husband and,

sometimes, both of them together. This approach is not directed at

being punitive but at drawing maintenance responsibilities to the

attention of the husband and father. The approach has the effect, for

an example, in one municipality, in having voluntary orders entered

into in one in eight cases. The Family Division of our Court collects a

considerable amount of money, although by no means 100 per cent of the

amount ordered. For example, in the Family Division in some of the

areas I visited, collection was made in full or in

part in 55 per cent

of the cases. It has been found that the use of an officer whose

specific duty is collection and who has had some experience in credit

granting and this type of work brings about a substantial increase in

results. The changes adopted a few years ago in which payment could be

made to the Court or Court officers, and having the Court officer keep

a record of payments, have prevented some of the delays that we have

experienced in follow-up of nonpayment. However, I am advised that the

appointment, for example, to the Greater Victoria Family Court of a

collection officer has substantially facilitated the collection under

these orders and relieved the probation officers and other staff to do

the work they were meant to do. I hope that the use of collection

officers in this kind of work will be explored in British Columbia and

explored more fully in the coming year so we can speed up collections

and make living easier for some of the deserted wives who are concerned

about this very question.

My visits and survey have indicated, and I want to emphasize this,

that all the problems do not lie with the husbands and fathers. Here, I

presume I am changing places now with the Honourable Member for New

Westminster who spoke out for women yesterday. Let me say a word for

the men. Very often, and I would say most often, they are very

concerned with the progress and welfare of the children they are

helping to maintain but are being denied access by the mother. I have

drawn this matter to the attention of my colleague, the

Attorney-General and, I hope, after study it may be possible for this

Government to suggest some changes in the legislation which might

empower the judge to require, in appropriate circumstances, that access

be given if payments are to be ordered.

When a wife denies the husband the right to visit the children, the

husband retaliates immediately by stopping his maintenance payments. He

should have the right to see his children. This is the most common

complaint and the cause of very much bitterness, and is the weakest

area of the present legislation. I also found that some of the orders

are being frustrated by husbands and fathers who fail to show up on a

show-cause summons because there is apparently no power in the Court at

this very moment to issue a warrant for the man's arrest on his failing

to appear.

I also suggest that we might review garnishee procedures: first, to

relieve from the present necessity of a separate order for each pay

cheque but, more important, to enlarge the exemptions presently allowed

to the husband and father which were based, when they were first

brought out, on an entirely different value for the dollar. I think it

would be useful, Mr. Speaker, if he were allowed sufficient exemption

to be an incentive to continue working and to not go on welfare and, at

the same time, an incentive for him to maintain his family. Many of our

Courts are prepared to make adjustments for a man who has been out of

work and has been able to get a fresh job, particularly allowing him to

get on his feet. I feel it would be useful, Mr. Speaker, if we made

provision for this type of thing in the legislation itself. These are

some of the things I found in my tour of only a few of the Courts and

my discussions with many people, things that I passed along to the

Attorney-General and many more. The Attorney-General, I must say, has

shown considerable interest in my suggestions. So I look forward to

some corrections in the legislation.

Now I would like to say a few words about the traffic situation in

the city of Vancouver. The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver

Centre has well documented the case for a rapid transit system in this

House and in public statements outside the House. I believe the Second

Member from Vancouver Centre can take a good deal of credit and

satisfaction from the fact that this Government responded so quickly to

pledging financial support to the proposal put forward by the joint

Provincial-civic study. The ink was barely dry on the report when this

Government made a commitment for 37 1/2 per cent of the costs, on the

basis that the Federal Government would contribute 37 1/2 per cent and

the civic government 25 per cent.

Three hundred million dollars for rapid transit is a lot of money

but, while 300 million dollars is a lot today, it will never be any

cheaper. The rapid transit programme is being committed. We are

committed, as a Provincial Government, to provide 37 1/2 per cent cash

to the rapid transit programme. We are the only Province, due to the

economic planning of the Finance Minister of this Province, that can

come up with an immediate plan to finance such a large expenditure on

planned progress payments. We are the only Government in Canada who can

offer this relief to the transit problems in Vancouver without heavy

long-term borrowing to burden our future generations. Mr. Speaker, this

is the most unique financing programme in the world and, I might say,

it is the envy of the world.

[ Page 126 ]

The initial reaction from Ottawa after the rapid transit report was

published was, of course, predictable. One of Vancouver's Members of

Parliament, the Honourable Arthur Laing, stated that there is no

constitutional authority for such a contribution from Ottawa. Here is

the Vancouver Sun 's October 24, 1970, report on what Mr.

Laing's first reaction was, when he was told the Provincial Government

was putting up 37 1/2 per cent. "The Federal Government has no intention

of helping to pay for Greater Vancouver's proposed three hundred

million rapid transit system," Public Works Minister Laing said today.

"We, the Federal Government, are being very careful not to invade the

responsibilities of the Provincial Governments." Laing agreed that

Vancouver would strangle in automobile congestion if it doesn't get

proper mass transit, but he said he would prefer to see the project

postponed rather than have the Federal Government intervene with the

money. So, Mr. Laing has left Vancouver to strangle in automobile

congestion.

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver's rapid transit programme is one of many

needed projects which are necessary to the growth and expansion of the

great city of Vancouver. Surely, if any one programme in Canada

qualifies for Federal funds, this Vancouver rapid transit programme

does. There are municipal work programmes underway in Canada right this

minute, as we sit in this House, which are fully financed by the

Liberal Administration in Ottawa. Let me point out a few, all done

under the Portfolio of the Honourable Jean Marchand, the Minister of

Regional Economic Expansion: This Legislation is entitled "Special Area

Legislation," and Members of this House may be surprised to learn just

how "special" this legislation is.

In a press release of June 6, 1970, Mr. Marchand explained the

legislation this way and I quote, "Canada will endeavour to provide

financing for Provincial and municipal works that are necessary to

special area plans but beyond the financial resources of the Provinces

and municipalities concerned."

Let me give you some examples of Mr. Marchand's "Special

Legislation." In Newfoundland, April, 1970, an agreement was made for a

total of 82 million dollars: 62 million were outright grants and the

balance of 19.6 million was in loans. This was for the purpose of the

development of a serviced industrial park, for water and sewer work for

the Mount Pearl new town, a new road to link the Mount Pearl area to

the harbour and to the Trans-Canada Highway, three new schools and an

extension of another.

In Quebec, in June, 1970, this same "Special Legislation" was

enacted, where 52 million dollars were given to the Province of Quebec:

26 of it in outright grants and 26 of it in loans. Let me tell you what

non-Federal type of project this agreement covers. The most significant

is the development at Mount Ste. Anne to provide ski chalets, ski lifts

and water systems, a golf course, camping sites, access roads and

promenades; 52 million dollars that was given to Quebec in June, 1970.

That was just for one area. Now, in Quebec City, there was a railway

network reorganization, a downtown parking lot for 650 cars. It doesn't

sound like a Federal case at all, Mr. Speaker, but this is being

financed by the Federal Government as we are sitting in this House

today.

Then let's look at New Brunswick, which, in April, 1970, received a

total of 62 million dollars in grants through this same legislation: 40

million of which were grants and 21 million were loans. This includes,

in Moncton, New Brunswick, and it is underlined in the report,

municipal roads, three schools and sewers. All of this in New

Brunswick. Anybody would think that this was April, 1970

(interruption) . I'll come to that, Honourable Member from Burnaby; I'll

explain to you about that. It's strange how the constitutional

authority applies to everywhere else in Canada, every other Province in

Canada, until it gets to the borders of British Columbia.

Now, just let me quote, so you won't think I am quoting from all of

the Eastern Provinces of Canada. In Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, there were

$3,134,000 in grants and $2,885,000 in loans for the purchase of

additional firefighting for one community, the extension of water and

sewer facilities for yet another community and, in another community,

additional school facilities. Then we get to the Province of

Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, this agreement was signed, which

provided $2,516,000 in grants and $1,935,000 in loans. Let me tell you

what this finances — construction of an industrial park, the extension

of water supply facilities for firefighting equipment, hardly a Federal

expense, and school facilities, traditionally a Provincial expense. In

Alberta, there is $1,206,000 in grants and $1,188,000 in loans, for a

total of $2,394,000. You may have noted by now that the grants diminish

in size as we travel westward from Ottawa. This was in Alberta for

industrial park development, for renovation and equipment for existing

vocational training centres, and for a 12-room elementary school for

300 children, and some application was for sewage treatment.

Mr. Speaker, the projects I have just referred to were all announced

by the Federal Liberals in 1970 and are under way at this very moment.

All the projects I have made reference to amount to well over 200

million dollars.

In this report, every Province in Canada is mentioned, with the

exception of Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. As you know,

Prince Edward Island has a special agreement with the Government of

Canada under the Atlantic Development Corporation and has direct

arrangement for 225 million dollars alone. So, British Columbia is the

only one left out of all the grants and loans, which the Federal

Government was able to make to the Provinces for Provincial and civic

administrative projects in 1970. I want you to know that British

Columbia did not receive one penny of that 200 million dollars. So, you

see, when it comes to boulevards in Quebec City or a sewer system in

Ontario, the Federal Government designates these as "special areas."

The cities and towns in British Columbia that are growing three times

faster than any other in Canada apparently aren't very "special," Mr.

Speaker.

The economic expansion and social adjustment needs of the Canadian

municipalities, mentioned several times by the Minister in his press

releases relating to this programme, aren't considered "special" in

British Columbia. In other words, "Oh, the deal." We don't need to make

a deal with Liberals, we just want equitable treatment from the Liberal

Administration. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has

said that there is no constitutional authority for expenditure of

Federal funds for the city of Vancouver for rapid transit, or in any of

the municipalities of British Columbia for parking lots, for

boulevards, for parks, for sewer systems, for treatment plants. But

there is, Mr. Speaker, "Special Legislation" for the rest of our

country — every Province but British Columbia. All these municipal

works are constitutionally correct, outside the borders of our

Province. Each and every Member in this House should go to their

municipal leaders and point out the inequities in this system, in this

kind of Federal-Provincial co-operation. At this time, I call on the

City Council of Vancouver to go to

[ Page 127 ]

Ottawa and demand fair treatment for the building of the rapid

transit system in Vancouver, not to request better treatment, Mr.

Speaker, but to insist on equal treatment for our city.

Mr. Speaker, a word about housing. Mr. Speaker, if you would get

this House to order, I would speak about housing. Last year in this

House, I suggested that there is a possibility for a family on a

limited income to have home-ownership in our Province, in spite of the

high cost of money, in spite of the high cost of land. The pilot

project that I envisioned is under way right at this moment in the city

of Vancouver and I am happy to be able to tell this House that the

first of 132 homes will be ready for occupancy in June of this year.

The full price, inclusive of land, of each home is $16,200; the down

payment each family will have to put up is $500, with a $1,000 home

acquisition grant, of course, without which this whole plan would not

be possible. The principal, interest and taxes will be $117.74 to each

family and the qualifying income to live in and purchase one of these

homes is $5,244 per year.

I want to emphasize… (interruption) . You know, Mr. Speaker the

Liberals in this House are so embarrassed by the administration in

Ottawa that if Central Mortgage and Housing does give an innovative

housing plan they surely want it mentioned and I wouldn't have thought

of leaving it out. I want you to know. I want you to know that this

housing development would not have been possible without the lower

interest rate provided by Central Mortgage and Housing. Let's hear it

from the Liberals, now (interruption) . I missed that. It would not have

been possible either, Mr. Speaker, if we had not had the co-operation of

the city of Vancouver who zoned for condominium-townhouse development,

and this is a necessity in order to get such a programme under way. May

I reiterate that it would not have been possible at all without the

$1,000 home acquisition grant provided by this Government? I'd like to

tell you, too, that this whole development was done at market price, on

market value land. We purchased the land at $50,000 an acre and surely,

this is not reasonably priced land in anybody's language. The reason

that I wanted to build this pilot project in the city of Vancouver was

to prove to every municipality in this Province that, if it can be done

on high cost land in the city of Vancouver, it can be done more easily

anywhere else in the Province. Unfortunately, many municipal councils

have shown a reluctance to zone for townhouse development and I have

several examples of like proposals, which have been turned down because

the municipalities are reluctant to accept this townhouse concept. I

would hope that this attitude would change in 1971 and that the working

family on moderate and low income who wishes home-ownership in British

Columbia will have that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we could be encouraging more people to

renovate their offices, fix up their homes and repair apartment

buildings and commercial buildings, if we were to provide an incentive

of perhaps 10 per cent of a contract up to a limit of $5,000, with a

diminishing percentage for an amount above $5,000; or, another way,

perhaps, we could provide a flat $500 for work done from $5,000 and up.

There are thousands of homes in our Province that require renovation

and office buildings that require repair, old apartment buildings and

commercial buildings as well. It would create a lot of employment in

this year 1971. The various subtrades: plumbers, electricians, material

suppliers, etc., would all benefit from such a programme and the

benefits would filter throughout the whole community. Perhaps, this incentive programme could or should be shared by the

Federal Administration and used only for winter employment. But

whatever Government initiated it, may I reiterate here, that the whole

home building programme and home construction programme, including the

building of new homes and the renovation of older structures, would

give our whole economy a much needed boost. Housing can be one of the

strongest factors in the overall business recovery.

In the U.S.A., predictions are for a record home construction

programme in 1971, a projected record breaking two million units this

year. U.S. builders are overflowing with optimism for their industry

and credit, of course, can be given to their National Government's

efforts to aid the industry and an ample money supply and falling

interest rates.

Mr. Speaker, we have the market here in British Columbia — thousands

of families who want a house of their own and we have the finest home

opportunity programme in the world here in our Province. We have the

home-owners' grant of $160 per year; we have the home acquisition grant

of $1,000; we have the $5,000 second mortgage programme; and we have

the grants and loans on purchase of existing homes. That programme is

not duplicated anywhere else in Canada or anywhere else in the world

today.

We now need the initiative of the Federal Government to bring the

cost of money down. We need the initiative of the Federal Government to

lower the interest rates and make it possible for every Canadian who

wants to have their own home and the opportunity of ownership, to have

that opportunity. 1971 could be a record year for Canada and a record

building year for British Columbia, if the Federal Government would do

this.

In concluding my remarks today, I would like to pay tribute to the

Federal Government for their announcement this week that four and a

half million dollars will be made available for research and public

education in drug abuse. I would hope that much of that fund will be

spent in British Columbia and, certainly, any money spent anywhere in

Canada on research will benefit all British Columbians, particularly,

our young people who are the hope of the future.

May I repeat a significant phrase in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker,

and hope it will be the positive attitude of this Social Credit

Government for this year and many more to come? I quote, "We enter the

Centennial Year and the decade of the seventies with faith, courage and

optimism."

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, it is

always a pleasure to take

part in this debate and a particular pleasure

to follow the lady Member without Portfolio from Little Mountain in

Vancouver.

You know Confederation is a hundred years old. B.C. is a hundred

years old. Canada is stronger than ever. What would we do without

Ottawa? What would the honourable Members opposite do without Ottawa?

Where else would you lay your sins of omission and commission? Where

would you pass the buck? You can't blame us when things go wrong. Why

would you blame Ottawa? Yet, how can you do that, when one of your

leadership candidates…now, mind you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not expecting

that the Premier of B.C. is going to retire or be taken off the scene

for a long time. I think he probably remembers Sir Richard McBride who

retired in 1915 and

[ Page 128 ]

when he retired something snapped inside of him, and that was the

end of him. I don't think the Premier's going to do that. I don't think

he's going to be like Othello, when he said, "Othello's occupation is

gone," and he was at the end of the road, too.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier through you, you do have

many leadership candidates vying in spite of the presence of the

incumbent. You have one that doesn't blame the Liberals because at the

last election…and I'm talking about the First Member for Vancouver

Centre…he said, "I'm a Liberal Federally and I'm a Socred

Provincially." How can you stand it, honourable Member, when all of

these Members one after the other get up and blame all their sins of

omission on the Federal Liberals? How can you stand this? I think the

lady Member should have a talk to the First Member from Vancouver

Centre and tell him just how wicked those bad Liberals are back in

Ottawa. The Members of the Government benches are all looking very trim

after their last year. They have been a peripatetic Cabinet, travelling

the world. The Honourable Minister for Trade and Industry led all the

rest in his travels this year and I do say that, since they are

travelling this much, the honourable Ministers should keep a look out

for Mr. Trudeau. He has become a little careless in his appearance. We

haven't seen him for days, weeks. The last I heard was that the

Honourable Prime Minister was pulling a rickshaw in Ceylon to put

together a little money to date an orang-outang in Borneo (laughter). I

just hope that he's able to come back to Canada because our immigration

laws are pretty strict.

Turning to the Attorney-General, I think he has a lot to answer for.

I think he's slipped a little bit in the leadership stakes. I think the

flat-earthers, who are behind the Minister of Rehabilitation, pretty

well controlled that last Social Credit Convention. The

Attorney-General isn't helping his chances, really, when he comes into

the House on the Opening Day and he goes on television and accuses, for

example, the Leader of the Opposition of inciting the riot in these

Chambers. He listened to the Member from Columbia, sitting down there,

saying that we incited the riot. Now, that's a criminal offence. There

you were, Mr. Attorney-General, listening to this honourable Member

accusing the Opposition of a criminal offence against the laws of

Canada and the Criminal Code, inciting to riot, and you took no action.

Did you not believe that honourable Member? (Interruption) Yes, and I

don't agree with that at all. As Minister of Labour you got up and

accused the B.C. Federation of Labour of starting the riot, which is

ridiculous. He was wrong (interruption) . Of course, he was. The

Honourable Member for Atlin is one of the best Members in this House

but I don't agree with everything he says and he may not agree with

everything I say. I think, when the Attorney-General goes on television

and says that this was planned and who planned it, judge for yourself.

If you know who planned it, Mr. Attorney-General, lay charges.

AN HON. MEMBER: The B.C. Federation of Labour planned it, they financed it, they advertised it.

MR. MACDONALD: They planned the riots? Now, Mr. Speaker, this

Province has reaped a whirlwind of unemployment and industrial strife

in the last year and part of the reason it has, and a very good part of

the reason, is that the Minister of Labour has been waging an

unremitting vendetta against the labour movement of British Columbia

(interruption). You bet you have. You never consult, never seek a

consensus, never call the Labour Committees to try to deal with the

industrial strife that we have. You lay charges and try to make votes.

I know, Mr. Speaker, it's good politics. I don't deny that it's good

politics for the honourable Members opposite and perhaps even the

Attorney-General and the Minister of Labour to attack the B.C. Fed., to

attack Ray Haynes. They coin votes out of it. Well, all right, the B.C.

Federation of Labour, and the statement you just made was full of

ambiguity and full of innuendo. I say this, you're reaping a harvest of

industrial strife in this Province because you won't…you're making

votes out of ito it's good politics. Why the Member for

Skeena… (interruption) . I know, I don't deny that you make good

politics this way. You're making votes but, I suggest, Mr. Speaker,

that you remember that the honourable Minister should remember that he

is the Minister of Labour, that he has some obligation to try to reach

a consensus and he should not come into this Province and drop

something like Bill 33, push it through the Legislature with no

consultation with labour whatsoever, no attempt to reach a consensus,

never call the Labour Committee. Why not today… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: Is it right that, it's come down to that kind

of a political issue, that if the labour movement takes political

action this is resented by the Minister of Labour and he carries on his

vendetta? (Interruption.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: Would you say the same thing if you were the

Minister of Labour in Sweden where they also take political action, or

in New Zealand, or Great Britain? Would you hold that against them and

say dissolve and then we'll have industrial peace. Ridiculous

(interruption) . Yes, I know, but I say that 1970 was a year of

industrial disaster in British Columbia, and that, in 1971, we should

try for fresh approaches and a reconciliation. I say that the first

thing to do is to go back to square one and call the Labour Committee

of this Legislature to discuss rationally and reasonably our industrial

relations legislation and leave politics out of it. If they want to

take political action… (interruption).

Leave politics out of it. If they want to take political action,

it's no worse than MacMillan Bloedel taking political action. Leave

politics out of it, call the Labour Committee, they are not injecting

the political element. But, in any case, I'm appealing in 1971 for a

new era, a fresh approach to labour relations. I say the cold war that

has existed between this Government and the labour movement has to end,

that it is far too costly for this Province. It's all very well for the

Government benchers to blame labour, but there's blame on your side,

too, and you're carrying on a vendetta. That's got to stop. If you are

willing to stop it, all you have to do is call the Labour Committee of

this Legislature and let's sit down and review the industrial relations

legislation that we must live with (interruption) . I haven't concluded

my address, Mr. Speaker…. No, I haven't started. I wanted to say

something about… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: There are no safe seats, even Trail

[ Page 129 ]

isn't a safe seat. No, I don't think the honourable Minister even is safe. No, I don't think so at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: I wanted to say a word or two, Mr. Speaker, on

the matter of privacy and individual rights. We've had legislation in

this Legislature called the Privacy Act . It has been a mockery; it has

been a paper sword. An electronic surveillance of individuals is going

on rampantly in this Province. Individual rights are being violated.

The Attorney-General, for example, on the Ed Lawson matter, which the

Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds brought up the other day, where

the swordbearer to the Moor of Venice, who played his part beautifully,

was picked up, with no reason whatsoever, and incarcerated and lived

out his punishment. He's been punished already, for no reason,

whatsoever, except, perhaps, that his hair was long. Well, the

Attorney-General and the law officers of the Crown have got to realize

that they are not only the officers for the squares in this Province,

they are also the law officers for the hips and the heads and the hairs

— for all people of the Province. If you don't recognize that, you

won't get respect for the law from a great

section of the community.

AN HON. MEMBER: This man wasn't a Senator.

MR. MACDONALD: It wasn't Senator Lawson, as my friend says.

There was a case in Victoria, too, of a Mr. Bates, who came up in

Court. He had failed to have insurance and he had driven a few miles

without a license and for four days, without being taken before a

judge, it was four days, I think, he was held in the police cells here

in the city of Victoria. That was just a few days ago. Four days in

jail he spent, although the law says twelve hours and you see the

judge. They forgot about him. But, what I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is

the Attorney-General forgetting about these things? You have certainly

said nothing about launching an investigation into the Lawson matter

and you should. You've said nothing about launching it and you've said

nothing about launching an immediate investigation into the Bates

matter and you should.

AN HON. MEMBER: And take action under the law.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think it's late when these

investigations…well, now, if the Attorney-General is saying, "I'm

going to take prompt action in these matters," I'm glad to hear it.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I've done it already, long before you…

MR. MACDONALD: Well, we want the results. Yes, you should tell this Legislature and you should tell the people of the Province.

The Minister of Justice, who was in this Chamber a few days ago,

said this, "A man's right to privacy includes protection from any type

of surveillance without his consent." I say that that principle has

been grossly violated in the Province of British Columbia and I will

cite three examples of how we need proper protection for individual

rights and privacy.

The first example I quote is the amount of credit snooping that is

going on in this and other Provinces. If you go to buy a car, if you

apply for a job, if you apply for insurance, you'll find there is a

dossier upon you, collected from hearsay evidence which you never have

the opportunity of seeing or contesting or correcting, because very

often it is the worst kind of hearsay and malicious gossip in those

dossiers. They want to know, for example, how do you get along with

your wife? Yes, they put that down. What about your morals? Are you the

kind of office girl who sticks up for fellow employees in the office?

Have you been in trouble with the law? Do you drink? Are you associated

with the Social Credit movement? For $25, such is the trafficking in

reputations in the Province of British Columbia, people can buy your

reputation, your dossier. It can cost you a job and you are without

redress. I say that the laws should provide that the dossiers be made

available to the particular people they have been compiled about, so

that those people have a right to know and correct, because big brother

is watching.

I said that there was no real privacy, that privacy was a mockery in

this Province and we've had the Privacy Act , which the Government

watered down very substantially from the Act introduced by Members of

this Opposition. We filed a Privacy Act for previous years. The Court

of Appeal of British Columbia, in the only case that I know, the case

of Davis and McArthur, ruled on that Privacy Act . Mr. Davis is a school

janitor here in the city of Victoria and his wife hired detectives to

go after him. Groundless, they never found any evidence of infidelity

on his part, but what happened in the course of investigation? Cars

followed him, three or four car lengths behind. His telephone was

tapped and they put a bumper-beeper on the back of his car which he

only discovered by accident, something that goes beep, beep, beep, so

that the detective can follow the car around town. He opened the trunk

and the thing fell out. But the Court of Appeal of British Columbia has

found that there was no violation of the Privacy Act of this Province

in either the telephone tapping or the bumper-beeper on the bumper of

Davis's car. So, I say, that that Act has become a mockery.

The next case I want to refer to, under this

section of violation of

individual rights, is the Isman case. I'm talking about Judge Isman of

the Provincial Court of Vancouver, a Provincial Judge with respect to

whom a hearing was held under the Provincial Courts Act of this

Province, the

section that talks about misbehavior or neglect of

duties, the

section that says that if the Judicial Council…I don't

criticize them they are all good members…makes a recommendation, that

recommendation for dismissal of a judge shall be heard by the

Attorney-General and acted one way or the other upon by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council. In the Isman case, however, we saw, Mr.

Speaker, Star Chamber proceedings. Was it a case, as it should have

been of justice not only being done, but justice being seen to be done,

a cardinal principle of the law of human rights? No, they held the

hearings in camera, in secret, clandestinely, in the Workmen's

Compensation Building, heavily guarded with security guards, in

Vancouver. Then the report was made and the Attorney-General suppresses

the report. The Attorney-General said a number of things which I want

to refer to. He stresses that no formal charges have been brought

against Isman. This is the paper of January 15, the Sun , and

that he had done nothing improper in his capacity as a judge. "But," he

said, "we demand high standards of conduct by our judiciary, which are

much higher than the rest of us have to follow." And he adds, "There is

nothing to suggest that at any time he acted anything other than

honourably during his period on the Bench."

[ Page 130 ]

Well, now, if that's the case, we went into another principle, Mr.

Speaker, and that's the principle that is well understood in trade

union law and employee-employer relations. That is, that if something

has been done which doesn't affect your employment, you should not be

fired or reprimanded on the job for doing such a thing. That

principle…no, the Attorney-General said that it didn't affect his

judicial duties. If that's the case why, then, was he crucified, partly

by the leaking of information to the press, partly by this enquiry, and

partly by his suspension? The Attorney-General says he resigned

voluntarily. Well, that's nonsense. He resigned because he had to,

after these proceedings. He would have been subject to dismissal, if a

man doesn't resign voluntarily in those circumstances. His reputation

was destroyed, really, from the time of the suspension by the Chief

Justice before the hearing took place. Sentence first, verdict after,

as they say in Alice in Wonderland. With the accusations, he resigned

voluntarily.

I say it should not have been a secret hearing. I say, further, that

this judge was placed under surveillance by the police. People say that

there is no wire tapping, no telephone tapping, or electronic

surveillance by the police in the city of Vancouver. That's ridiculous.

They have a truck that travels around the city full of electronic

equipment for that express purpose. The Attorney-General said there was

no authorization by Provincial authorities for telephone tapping during

the investigation. He denied that he had made the authorization. There

is no question, however, Mr. Speaker, that a Provincial judge was

placed under surveillance by the police before this incident had

occurred, which, in any case, was not connected with his judicial

duties and the result of that is intimidation of judges, the result of

that is to undermine judicial independence. The independence of the

judiciary is at stake on this thing, and the judges who are subjected

to surveillance in this way lose their independence. Now, my friend

says, "hogwash." If he believes that the phones of judges should be

tapped and that they should be placed under surveillance by the police

without having done anything, then let him defend that position,

because I will not. This is the road to tyranny.

I notice that the Federal Government intends to introduce

legislation in this field of privacy, according to a report from the

Honourable John Turner. Mr. Turner says that he still intends to give

Provincial Attorney-Generals, and not the Courts, the rights to

authorize specific police requests for wire tapping. Well, Mr. Speaker,

I say we cannot trust the head law enforcement officer of the Crown

with that responsibility. I'm not talking personally about it but he is

the head of the police forces in the Province. Look what's happened in

this case. Look at the amount of electronic surveillance that has taken

place in the past years in the city of Vancouver and in other parts of

the Province. I say, if there's to be that kind of electronic

surveillance, permission should be granted by the Courts or a judge,

and only by the Court or a judge, just as a search warrant has to be

obtained, not from the Attorney-General today, but by the Court. I

should move on to the next; I think I've made my point under that

heading. I hope I have, and I hope that we have not heard the last of

this matter in this Legislature because I think new privacy legislation

should be introduced, not the toothless marvel that we now have. If the

Government won't do it, this Opposition will.

I want to say something for a moment about the liquor laws of the

Province. I'm, as usual, a little surprised by the inaction of this

Government. We've had a Royal Commission headed by a judge, and by an

archbishop and by a senator. It's been lying on our desks now for more

than a year and I don't know what we are waiting for, unless it's for

the Archangel Michael. But there has been no implementation of the main

points of that liquor report. We have no Liquor Control Board, as

recommended, that holds public hearings, that gives notice to the party

so that everyone can apply. We have no neighbourhood pubs, we have no

patio or beer gardens. This Commission said, of course, that saner

drinking laws lead to moderation. It was a powerful committee. Instead

of that we still have an acting Chairman of the Board, acting Board

Members, acting Executive Assistants to the acting Chairman of the

Board. If this goes on, Mr. Speaker, these people will have to take

acting lessons. That's their capacity. I'm sure that Members opposite

have taken acting lessons, it didn't appeal to them. In the issue of

Macleans' Leisure Guide , the latest one out, it says this: "Premier

Bennett's very own leprechaun who is opening — what else? — an Irish

pub, tentatively christened 'Clancey's Irish Home' to go with it." And

he says, "Far be it from me to suggest that Clancey contacts in

Victoria could have any pull."

Now, I've got nothing against an Irish pub, or a kosher bar, or you

name it, but I have got lots against the old system where liquor

privileges are granted behind closed doors and campaign funds talk.

Yes, we've lived under that system now and this Government is in no

hurry to change it, I can see that. There was nothing in the opening

Speech about bringing the Liquor Act into this Legislature. Public

hearings, neighbourhood pubs, why haven't we got them by this time? Why

should we still be tied to the B.C. Hotels Association? The Act has to

be amended, Mr. Speaker. Today, a lounge license has to go to a hotel,

club or a resort, it can't go to a neighbourhood pub or tavern. You've

got to have beds, or a hotel, so legislation is needed. I say this

Government should bring the Liquor Control Act into this Legislature at

this Session of the House, and, particularly, to adopt public hearings

of the Liquor Control Board, with an appeal from their decisions to the

County Court as is recommended by the Royal Commission, so that nobody

can say, as I'm saying now, that the thing is done under the tablecloth.

I want to say a word or two also about the state of the Province

because conservation and environment were mentioned in the Throne

Speech and the honourable friends opposite take a great deal of pride

in their environmental programme. Yet to cross beautiful British

Columbia…the only word I can think of to use, is a word that John

Ruskin used years ago…a film of ilth is across the Province of

British Columbia. "Ilth" is an old, old word. It sort of combines the

greed, the headlong pursuit of wealth with filth and that's what we

have in the Province of British Columbia. You talk about people who are

now finding out about the environment. Well, we are pretty close to

Robbie Burns' birthday and he was an environmentalist. Do you remember

that poem when he talked about how his plow had turned up the mouse's

nest, and he said, "I'm truly sorry man's dominion hath broken nature's

social union, and justifies the ill opinion which makes thee startle

from me, thy poor earthborne companion and fellow mortal." Well, my

Leader, of course… (interruption) . The honourable Member is the leader

of the veterans' wing of our caucus, certainly.

We are pursuing a policy of economics over ecology. We are pursuing

the headlong industrialization of this Province — build up the

population as rapidly as you can, industry at any cost — even though

that industry, like Utah Mines, is about to pour into Rupert Inlet,

the figure still staggers me, but I

[ Page 131 ]

believe it's 9.3 million gallons of effluent per day into one

channel. Now, we, on this side of the House, have proposed an

Environmental Bill of Rights and it hasn't been moved, Mr. Speaker, so

I can still speak on it. It's on the Order Paper. It hasn't been moved

because we don't want to shut off discussion. The Honourable Member for

Alberni mentioned the danger of oil spillage and it is a very real

danger, because down at Cherry Point at Ferndale the tankers will be

moving through the inland waters of British Columbia, and a more

beautiful archipelago is not to be found anywhere in the world. They

will be carrying to that refinery 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day

and there will be hundreds of these tankers at work. Can anybody really

say that in time we won't have a Torrey Canyon or a narrow disaster as

in San Francisco Bay? I say that one of the things we can do, Mr.

Speaker, is if we had made it a right of the people of British Columbia

to enjoy clean air and clean water as well as freedom from noise, as

one of their basic constitutional rights, a right that can be protected

by the Courts of this Province, either by Court orders or by damages,

then if there is oil spillage, in that case, too, we have a remedy. We

have the right to go to Court for an injunction, we have the right to

go to Court if that should happen for damages against the international

oil companies that are bringing all this oil down the coast. I don't

say that's the only answer to this question. It's an Ottawa problem,

too, but I do say the time has come when these basic rights, the right

to a clean environment, should be enshrined as part of our laws. I'm

glad that the Member of Alberni applauded that, because I think there

should be general support throughout this House.

They have set up, Mr. Speaker, of course, an Environmental and Land

Use Committee but we wonder whether that committee is not too little

and too late. What is it able to do, for example, to the economic

devastation that has been reaped upon the Indians and Metis that

inhabit the Athabaska Delta area of the Province of Alberta, by reason

of the Peace River Dam? What could this committee do to look out for

the protection of the environment outside of the boundaries of this

Province? What foresight! What disastrous lack of foresight has this

Government been responsible for in making no report, having no

ecological report upon the effects, which have proved to be disastrous,

of the Peace River Dam.

Too little and too late. What about the Skagit River? I support what

was said by my learned friend, in practically every respect, from North

Vancouver–Capilano, and the Member for Yale-Lillooet. I was thinking

more in terms of the legal opinion that was granted, without, as I

understand it, any charge by the Honourable Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano, the other day. He's very complacent about the

Skagit thing. He says it's been stopped. He says, "I've got a legal

opinion that under the International Joint Commission there's no

possibility of delegation of powers with respect to compensation," and

it's been stopped. Well, I just don't share that optimism at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were his legal adviser.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I am not his legal adviser.

(Interruption.) Well, he may have, because I just can't afford to

travel first class. I'm just not a first-class legal adviser. I just

have to admit it.

The Minister of Recreation says that the Skagit matter is a matter

of ethics and I say it's a matter of ethics, too. We are about to

witness the destruction of one of the most beautiful, natural river

valleys in the Province of British Columbia and we're about to witness

that destruction because Ottawa is weak-kneed about it. This Government

is willing, this Government, Mr. Speaker, is perfectly willing to see

the destruction of the Skagit Valley. "Barkus is willing," the Minister

of Recreation is willing, the Minister of Lands is willing. Everybody

is willing, except the people of British Columbia. Now, I say, we have

come at this Session of the Legislature to, perhaps, the last chance to

save the Skagit. Members of this House, and I put them on notice to

this effect, should have to stand up and vote and be counted as a

matter of conscience on this question. If we vote and, therefore, I

propose to move, and I'm not making a motion now but at a later stage

in the Session because I don't want to shut off debate, a resolution,

which may sound innocuous but it expresses what we have to express in

this Legislature. I think it is in order, as it reads: "That this House

express its opinion that further flooding of the Skagit River Valley,

as projected, is not in the best interests of the people of British

Columbia and, further, that we call upon the city of Seattle, the

Ecological Commission of Washington State, the Federal Power

project." On that resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House

will, I hope, get up and vote their support as a matter of conscience,

not a matter of international treaty, not a matter of law, but stand up

and vote as British Columbians.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I'll say what I have to say on one or two

other subjects. Is there a leprechaun in the House? I will conclude

with just two other little matters which I would like to draw to the

attention of the House but I think we all know about them. We saw the

ad of Block Bros. Realty. It was placed in California — "B.C. for

Sale." It wasn't just a little slip by one great real estate company,

and I use the word, "great," in the sense of big and profitable. That

has been exactly what has been happening in this Province. B.C. has

been for sale. The Government opposite has been in office for 18 years

and now they're beginning to try to lock the safe and make some

worthwhile proposals, unquestionably. But they're locking the safe

after the jewels have gone. Whole islands have been bought up by

nonresidents, principally, the Americans. There are guards placed

around some of these islands because they have the waterfront rights,

too. The Cariboo region — you could almost say that the Cariboo region

of British Columbia today is an American region. It's not just the big

ranches like the Gang Ranch or the Nicola Lake Stock Farm that are

American owned, there are other vast tracts of our Province that have

been sold (interruption) . Nicola Lake Stock Farm, is it not? That's the

one I'm referring to. There was a man, Mr. Speaker, by the name of

Wineberg, who made some admissions (interruption) . You did not hear

this last year, with respect, Mr. Member. He said that he's an Oregon

businessman. I think we all know that. He speculated and he found that

B.C. is a speculator's paradise. He's kind of likeable in his way

because he's very candid in what he says. For example, in Macleans he

says, "We have bought islands for $400 or $500 and sold them for

$40,000 or more." Well, you can't dislike a fellow like that, but you

must wonder what kind of a Government we have been having, that's been

asleep while the very lands of British Columbia, the heritage of this

and other generations, have been sold under our feet. At the moment, T.

Wineberg holds clear and perfect title to more than 600 parcels of

undeveloped land; a colonial empire of 60,000 acres! We've been

virtually giving it away because he

[ Page 132 ]

gets it for an average of $10 an acre. He's made huge speculator's

profits on it. They come, many of them nonresidents; they may be

perfectly good people, but the wealthy ones, as I say, often have

security guards and they often don't even travel through the Province

of British Columbia. They come in by plane and land on their holdings,

or they hold their holdings for speculation. The Columbia River — even

the attractive waterfront properties created by the Columbia River

project — I don't know where that word, "attractive," came from

because the old lake was pretty attractive. They've been offering up

there as much as $5,000 an acre. Mr. Wineberg says this, "Here's a

little piece we've picked up for $1,500. I see it's now assessed at

$30,000." He wonders whether Canadians, however, aren't getting just a

bit too chintzy and he particularly resents the fact that customs

officials and the RCMP have been making him pay duty. I guess maybe

he's talking about sales tax (interruption) . Oh, no, on the camping

equipment and cottage furniture he brings into the country. That's a

shame, really, because he's a bird of flight. He's not a real British

Columbian. He's just coming in here on the odd flying visit, and

imagine making him pay duty on his camping equipment! He's just a

tourist, who has 60,000 acres of the best land of British Columbia

(interruption) . Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the Minister

that he should do what he should have done long ago and that's to

abolish the tax sale, and when taxes are in arrears, through the

misfortune of the owner, and he's going to lose his property, let it

revert to the municipality or let it revert to the Provincial

Government. You should have closed that loophole years ago, but you

have not. I say, further, there's another thing you can do, Mr.

Minister, through the Speaker, and that is…well, you're very proud of

your home-owner grant which really, after all, is internal bookkeeping

among the people of British Columbia. But I think that the owners and

the taxpayers of British Columbia should have a tax break by paying at

a lower tax rate than nonresidents. In other words, in a way it's the

principle of the home-owner grant only this is a real principle because

the nonresidents will pay more. The absentee owners of great chunks of

British Columbia should pay more in their taxes because they're

nonresident than do the native people of this Province, our own people.

Now, that won't get us back our land but, I think, in some respects,

all that's gone in tax sales has been bought by Americans, even after

1970, by agents or through corporations to get around the legislation

we passed at the last Session. My colleague from Vancouver East told

you what the loophole was. It was wide open and they took advantage of

it and you wouldn't amend the Act, the Land Act , to prevent it, at that

time, and so they purchased through agents. The provision that there

could be no sales to non-Canadians was, of course, worthless. You were

told that more of our land was sold under our very feet in the last

year until it got so bad that the Minister had to call a halt to tax

sales, I think, last October. The kids sometimes sing, "This land is

our land, this land is my land, this land is our land," but it isn't

our land. No, we've allowed it to be sold under our feet. The land of

British Columbia has been taken away from us under our feet. And what

have we? Yes, I know, Mr. Speaker, the honourable Members out there

don't seem to object to absentee ownership of the Province of British

Columbia. I suppose, too, they support the growth in this Province over

the past 15 or 16 years of a new group of millionaires, all of them

pretty well friends of the Social Credit Government, building up their

wealth from speculators' profits on the highways and by-ways of this

Province, through shopping centres, through gasoline station sites, by

getting the public domain zoned, perfectly legally, to their liking, by

access rights along the highways that the taxpayers' money has gone in

to build up. They reap the profit of the money machine that has been

grinding away for this new group of millionaires throughout all of this

Province. You name it. Britannia Beach, Kelowna, Kamloops, McBride — that is what has been happening to our Province. We face, Mr. Speaker,

in this House, this Opposition, not merely a strong political party on

the opposite benches and I don't doubt its strength, but we face a

political and a financial power on the other side of this House and so

do the people of British Columbia. Because we have seen built up in

this Province a new plutocracy making its money out of speculators'

profits, making money that, if we revered the public domain, could have

been revenue returned to the coffers of the people, a new oligarchy of

wealth as well as political power headed by King Cecil and receiving

loads of support from his loving subjects and the objects of the bounty

that has been made possible by the system that has been allowed to

prevail in this Province over the last 18 years. In 1968, there was the

promise that the enhanced values created by the expenditure of public

funds would not be allowed to be obtained by the speculator for his

profit and his capital gain but would be returned to the people of this

Province. That promise was broken, that promise made to this

Legislature was broken. One hundred years later after Confederation,

the best Centennial gift that we could make, remembering the pioneers

of this Province in 1871, would be to give this Province back to the

people of British Columbia. We honour those pioneers and they would

know what we are talking about today. We say of them that their past is

ours and our future is theirs. We have a chance to make this one of the

most wonderful Provinces that ever existed but, for goodness sake, let

the people of British Columbia have an equity in their resources, in

their lands, in their islands and in their waterways. Give British

Columbia back to the people of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, in these days of

economic stress in our country, I think that those of us who are

engaged in the business of Government carry a very heavy burden which

respect to our responsibilities to constituents. That is the feeling

with which I approach this debate. The major part of my remarks will be

concerned with the problems of poverty and unemployment and I hope that

what I have to say may be of some use to the Government in solving

these problems, which are becoming increasingly great across Canada.

First of all, I have a few short shots that I would like to dispose

of, some, perhaps, not too important, but important to some people.

There is the matter of the new regulations with respect to the

licensing of motor-vehicles, which calls for the placing of a

validating sticker on the license plates for this coming year and the

next few years. A number of people in the Province have tow-hitches

welded onto the back of their cars and it so happens that the ball of

the tow-hitch sits in front of the spot that the validating sticker

should occupy. These people have been warned, when they have appeared

at the motor-vehicles testing stations, that they would have to remove

the ball, or perhaps the entire tow-hitch in order to

[ Page 133 ]

comply with the regulations as of the date of the new license year.

I would like to suggest to the Attorney-General that he might perhaps

add a new regulation allowing people with tow-hitches to attach the

validating sticker to the trunk of the car, where it would be clearly

visible at all times. It would stand out much better than it would on

the license plate itself, and the front validating sticker could be in

its proper place in the centre of the license. I think that this would

be an easy solution to the problem and would relieve many people who

are concerned because they use their cars for towing boats and trailers

and so on, frequently, and it would be a terrible nuisance to have to

remove the hitch and put it back on, especially when they're welded on,

and sometimes safety regulations require that they should be welded on.

Perhaps, the Attorney-General will pick up this consideration and

perhaps arrange that they be glued to the back of the trunk where they

may be clearly visible to anyone who wants to see them.

Another matter which was brought up in the House, both yesterday and

today, Mr. Speaker, was the matter of the American visitor to our city,

I should say to the city of Vancouver, one Edward Lawson, a black

actor, and for the information of the Honourable Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, I would like to state that Mr. Lawson did, at no time,

request

the use of a telephone, therefore, no one was in contravention of the

law in keeping him, as the paper states, "incommunicado." I know that,

because I had a half-hour conversation with him on the phone yesterday.

I have all the details and I would suggest that the honourable Member

should get his information correct before bringing it into the House.

There are many things wrong with this incident, Mr. Speaker, and I am

going to talk about those as well. I think it's important that, we

bring facts to the floor of the House and not… (interruption) . If the

gentleman had requested the use of a phone and had been refused it, and

I understand that in other areas of the Province, refusal has been

made, I would hope that the Attorney-General will see to it that this

right, which every one of us should have, will be enforced. I was the

one, I believe, who first brought it to the Floor last year and it was

supported by my good friend from Burnaby-Edmonds. I'm happy that the

Attorney-General brought it in, but we must make it work in order for

there to be any value to it. However, there are other aspects to this

particular incident, with which I think we should be concerned. I am

particularly concerned about the fact that Mr. Lawson, being black, was

stopped… (interruption) . They don't use that term any more, my

friend…was stopped twelve or more times, sometimes searched on the

street, in a matter of the six or seven weeks that he has been in the

city of Vancouver — on three occasions by the same policeman. Now,

those of you who have seen Mr. Lawson's picture in the paper will

certainly agree that his is not a face that can be lost in a crowd. If

you see him once, you'll remember him and, especially, a policeman who

has been trained to remember faces, certainly, should not have to ask

him for identification three times in a matter of a short space of

time. I think there's a distinct case of harassment in that particular

officer's case. I think discrimination on account of his colour and the

overall picture — to be stopped and checked twelve times or more in a

matter of six or seven weeks — is just too much. He's been pounced upon

on the streets and had his pockets turned inside out, without any

warning and not knowing who was doing it — civilian, policemen in

civilian clothes. I think this is just too much. Harassment is what I

said. Then when he did get to the police station on Sunday, he was

checked in and he was asked a number of questions; where he resided;

where he worked; who his employer was, and so on and so forth. He

answered all the questions. His wallet and other belongings were taken

from him, as is usual. He was able to show that he had a large number

of credit cards. He had a very little amount of cash in his pocket,

less than a dollar in silver. His apartment was less than four blocks

away, when he was stopped in the first place. I will agree that he

refused to identify…rather, he didn't refuse to identify himself, he

refused to produce identification. And he did so after, on three

different occasions; phoning, first, on two occasions, the police

information office in the city of Vancouver and, on the third occasion,

the City Prosecutor's office, at which he spoke to a Mr. Cook. Now, on

each occasion, he was informed that he did not have to produce

identification. He protested because he had been harassed so often and

that's what they told him each time — that he didn't have to produce

identification when he was stopped on the street unless there was a

reason for stopping him. Now, the officer who stopped him on Sunday

warned him that he would charge him with vagrancy if he did not produce

identification and, sticking by his principles, he refused to produce

and was thrown into the wagon and taken down to the station. Upon

arrival there, as I said, he was relieved of his personal property and

a form was filled out, and he was asked to sign the form. He said, "I

want to read it first." He was told, "You don't have to read it, just

sign it." He ignored that, and proceeded to begin to read the form to

see what he was signing, which everyone has the right to do. The form

was taken away from him by the police officer and where the signature

should normally go, the police officer wrote "refused." He didn't

refuse — he wanted to see what he was signing. He was then placed in

the drunk tank. A drunk tank designed for twelve people, having twelve

beds. He was not drunk; as a matter of fact, the man does not drink

alcohol. He does not drink alcohol at all. There were men on the beds,

under the beds, some of them throwing up; it was a real mess he was

placed in. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there must have been

other cells available for this man. He is a man in an honourable

profession. Clean. He has long hair but that's accepted nowadays. I

don't agree with it, but it's accepted, nevertheless, and that's,

perhaps, a part of his acting as well. The next morning, Monday

morning, he was brought before the magistrate and pleaded, "not

guilty." He was ordered released on his own recognizance, taken back to

the drunk tank and finally released at about five o'clock in the

afternoon. The last man to be released from the drunk tank — the last

man. When he mentioned, when he was being booked in, that he was an

actor, it was cause for great hilarity amongst the officers present.

"How could you be an actor?" This type of approach.

I think it's a rather shocking and a rather sad event for the city

of Vancouver. I hope that the Attorney-General will direct a letter

to the Chief of Police of the city of Vancouver to ensure that this

doesn't happen to more of our visitors. A letter of apology is

certainly in order. I think the man is suing the city of Vancouver and

I hope he succeeds.

I would like to direct just a word of congratulations to the mover

and seconder of the motion in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I

think both Members carried out their duties very capably. I think that

they administered, particularly the Member for Columbia, administered

the proper shellacking to those who deserved it and I heartily endorse

what he had to say. I do want to say a word to the two stars

[ Page 134 ]

of the Monday performance. The Leader of the Liberal Party and the

Leader of the Official Opposition, neither of whom is in the House

today, but I will simply say that the Leader of the Liberal Party has a

tremendous amount of gall to suggest that the Government of the

Province of British Columbia is to blame for the unemployment situation

in this Province, when he knows full well that it is the result of the

declared and deliberate policy of the Federal Liberal Government. Who

is he trying to fool? They told us months ago they were going to create

unemployment as a solution to the spiralling prices. You know, it

reminds me a little bit of a cure…. There was a story that went

around in the Qu'Appelle Valley where I grew up. I'm not sure if it's

true or not, but it went around as a true story. That's back in the old

days when the roads weren't very good. Sometimes there were no roads at

all; they used horses and wagons. There was a city boy that came out

from England to become a farmer in the district around Indian Head, and

he was quite concerned about coming down the hills with his horses

because he was afraid the horses would go too fast and he would have

trouble holding them back. So he went to some of his Canadian

neighbours for advice and they told him, "Well, that's simple. You just

put hobbles on the front legs of the horses and they won't be able to

go too fast." Well, any of you who have seen horses with hobbles will

know what happens. The hobbled horses going downhill with a load behind

them, are going to go head first, and that's exactly what happened. But

I think this is a type of cure that our Federal Liberal Government is

applying to the question of inflation. They are going to go headlong

into destruction if we continue at this pace. On the way up, they tied

a wheel on the way up, by the way. This might be what the Liberals

would do, too, on the way up, you tie one wheel so that the wagon won't

slip back when you stop. It makes it easier to control.

I haven't too much to say for my friend on the Official Opposition

because, really, he didn't have too much to say, either. The Leader of

the Official Opposition suggested that new 3 per cent tax, which I'm

sure would please the people of this Province. I'm sure they would be

very happy with a new tax. As a matter of fact, I hear there's a rumour

about that one of the Indian tribes, I'm not sure which, now, is

considering the possibility of making him an honorary chief for his

contribution last Monday. They're going to call him "Chief Stumbling

Block." I think that's an appropriate title for the Honourable Leader

of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable Members that the past

couple of years I've been quite brief in my remarks and I, therefore,

ask their…yes, under half an hour. Under half an hour each time and

I, therefore, ask their indulgence for what would seem considerably

longer remarks today (interruption) . I agree that it probably seemed

longer. The remarks that I am going to make today, Mr. Speaker, are the

very basis for my being here. I became a Social Crediter in Alberta in

late 1934 and I did so, because the country was in a terrible state and

I thought that the people of this country deserved something better.

What I express today, I express as a solution, an analysis of the

problems that face us and a solution that I hope might be acceptable. I

feel that it's worth spending a few more minutes on to do that.

Before I get to that, I would like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker,

about my visit last fall to Australia as a British Columbia delegate to

the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. I want to say, Mr. Speaker,

that I was very proud and very happy to get that beautiful, free trip,

with all expenses paid by the Australian Government, mostly, and, I

would have you know, by the taxpayers of Australia. The Provincial

Government paid very little of it and I want to especially point out

the fact that, in spite of the fact that I have, over the years, since

I've been in this House, expressed my mind freely and criticized the

Government frequently, our Premier is a big enough man, in his sense of

justice, is great enough to still send me to represent the Province on

what has to be considered a problem. I don't care who knows it. I'm

sure that if the Members opposite had the opportunity to do something

similar they would not send the Member for Atlin (interruption) . I

found, Mr. Speaker, I found…. O.K. you guys, they're giving me enough

trouble over there without you helping them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LeCOURS: One thing I found at this conference, Mr.

Speaker, is that the problems which face us in Canada, face people

throughout the world. I was quite pleased to hear references to

legislation by exhaustion. We heard that mentioned in the Australian

House, the House of Representatives. It's quite a general thing, it's

the only control, and I'm thankful that we have it. I find, though, it

rather depressing to contemplate, that none of the countries who has

struggled so hard to obtain their independence from the Mother Country,

have carried their independence further and, by that, I mean into the

economic field. One of the most interesting people I met at the

conference…oh, before I say that, I would like to say that, really,

other than having a get-together where you can exchange ideas, I don't

think the conference accomplishes a great deal. It gives the nonwhite

nations a chance to express their displeasure with the whites, and

rightly so but, other than that, there's no follow-up which is going to

bear any results and I'm quite disappointed about that, because I would

hope that these conferences would be helpful in cementing the

Commonwealth. Some people might think that the Commonwealth is not very

important to us but I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I think that

it's very important that the Commonwealth be kept together, not so much

for the Commonwealth, but the sake of democracy. The British

Commonwealth is the greatest bastion of democracy in the world right

now and unless we keep the Commonwealth together, there is great danger

of democracy disappearing from the face of the earth. There is an

increasing dissatisfaction among the underdeveloped nations with the

type of system that they live under. I agree that that dissatisfaction

exists elsewhere, as well. I'm certainly not happy with it, but I think

that it is important that we continue to participate in these

conferences. It is important that we do our share to keep the

Commonwealth together. I'm not very happy with what is going on with

respect to the sale of arms to South Africa. I think that's a sham and

a phony approach, but that's one of the facts that we have to face. I

think that there are more important things to the survival of democracy

and to the survival of the Commonwealth than the supplying of arms to

South Africa. For the information of my friend across the way, I never

said I didn't like Trudeau. I said in this House, at one time, that I

thought there was great hope for Canada when he became the Leader of

the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, he promised nothing and has done

nothing and, now, I am disappointed that I ever did approve of him.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting people I met at the

conference was a delegate from Kenya by the name of Waruru Kanja, a

tall, handsome man, about 6'2" and

[ Page 135 ]

weighing close to 200 pounds, I would say, a former member of the

Mau Mau. He had, during the struggle for independence, been one of the

leaders in the movement; he eventually was captured by the British. He

was sentenced to death and, later, had his sentence commuted to life

imprisonment as a result of the actions of the Right Honourable Arthur

Bottomley and various other people of influence who were aware of his

plight. Her Majesty commuted his sentence to a life imprisonment. Even

that was not too funny or too pleasant. He occupied the next room to

mine during the conference and we spoke together and ate together

frequently. He told me, among other things, some of the things that he

went through: being left for a week at a time without any clothes in a

small cement cell with about an inch of water on the floor; no

blankets, bunks or anything else. It's rather incredible that, in this

day and age, we should subject any human being to that type of

treatment. This happened just a few years ago; it's not something that

happened in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. It happened less than

ten years ago. Fortunately, they have obtained their independence and,

now, Mr. Kanja is a Member of Parliament — and a very fine one, I'm

sure. He made one or two speeches at the conference. He's from Kenya.

He spoke very well. He's a man of great dignity and I admire him. He's

not bitter. As a matter of fact, he asked Mr. Bottomley, who was also a

delegate to the conference, to take back his good wishes to Her Majesty

the Queen. That was a very nice gesture on his part. I think that it is

important that we consider the fact that these people who are

considered to be terrorists in the days of their struggle for

independence…the Mau Maus were considered as terrorists. Thousands

and thousands were killed. He says that he thinks that maybe as many as

50,000 lost their lives in Kenya's struggle for independence. He says,

"There was no fooling, we were killing each other. That's the only way

we could get our independence." I point this out to emphasize the fact

that people will take hardship for just so long then there comes a time

when they'll face anything to divest themselves of that hardship. While

they were referred to as terrorists in those days I don't think anyone

will suggest that today they are anything but very respectable and

honourable people. They are running their country; they are the

governors, the parliamentarians of their own country. I'm disappointed

that they haven't gone one step farther. They have obtained their

physical freedom but they haven't obtained their economic freedom and I

tried to convince several of them with whom I spoke there, that they

must go farther, they must do what we all must do (interruption) . You

stick around and you'll find out. I'll be telling you more. This man,

Waruru Kanja, Mr. Speaker, reminded me very much of a little poem I ran

across some time ago. It's only four lines and I'm going to quote it,

because I think it has meaning. It goes like this Mr. Speaker:

You might rout a man with a club or a gun,

With a threat or a frantic scream.

But beware the man, the deadliest man,

Who is armed with a dream.

That held true, I think, for the Mau Maus in their struggle for

independence, and for other countries as well. I think that it augurs

well for us to pay heed to these words because they are — how does the

song go? — "The answer is blowing in the wind," if we don't take heed.

I think that's how the song goes, "The answer is blowing in the wind."

We must accept our responsibility to the people we represent. We must

rule, or govern should I say, the Province to the benefit of all and

not just for a few.

Among the topics discussed at that conference in Australia were some

that I was very much interested in. There were student protest,

industrial unrest, poverty and general turmoil, all topics which we

could discuss here at home to good benefit. I noticed that the

speakers, in commenting on these topics, didn't seem, in any way, to

concern themselves with the fact that they might be responsible for

these conditions. They all seemed to think that, like my friend down

the way here, it's all one big communist plot designed to destroy

democracy. I don't agree. I think that all these things, that all these

conditions, are the results of the inadequacy of our system as we now

operate it. I think if we are going to save democracy we must modify

it. We must make it fit the needs of the twentieth century. When I

heard many of those speakers, I recalled the words of Thomas Jefferson,

who said, "All experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to

suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by

abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." How true! That's

right! The late William Aberhart had a saying, which my friend has just

quoted back here, "If you haven't suffered enough, it's your God-given

right to suffer some more."

I think that many of our people have suffered enough and I think

that we must put an end to that suffering. There's a good deal of truth

in the fact that people will shy away from change but it doesn't apply

to everyone. I'm not too hot on history but, if you look back in

history, you'll find that there are many people that have been ready to

put their lives on the line to obtain better conditions for their

people. I think a shining example, not of putting his life on the line,

perhaps, but a shining example of a determined effort, was that of the

late Mahatma Gandhi and, in spite of overwhelming odds, he carried on

his battle; he was able to obtain his goal. There are many people who

have refused to be content with the status quo. The important thing, I

think, is the approach. Movements such as the Black Power movement, the

Yippies, of which we saw some evidence here last week, the Weatherman

and various other revolutionary groups have been flaring up throughout

the United States, particularly, and in some parts of our country, for

the past several years. There were bombings and burnings and riots in

Detroit and the place outside Los Angeles, Watts, and so on. They all

bear evidence of discontent. Even the numerous bombings we've had in

Quebec have caused little concern to the rest of Canada. It wasn't

until last October, or September was it, that the kidnappings, followed

by the murder of a Quebec Minister, made us all sit up and take notice.

We became concerned then, because things were getting serious. Until

then the bombings didn't matter too much to us.

A closer look at all those problem areas will reveal that these

people are not really seeking black power or student power. The people

of Quebec, the FLQ people, don't really want to extend the French

language across Canada. They aren't really concerned about that. These

people are all reacting against something. They're fed up with the

degradations to which so many of our people have been subjected

unnecessarily for many years. They are fed up with many things in our

society. Fed up, for example, with the usury that is tolerated and

allowed, by law, to prevail. I'm thinking, for example, of loan

companies, who can charge 24 per cent interest on a paper loan. It's

not endorsed by the Government but it's tolerated, and it shouldn't be.

I know of one case where a man signed two mortgages. One for roughly

$5,000 at 18 per cent, and he received the $5,000. Then he was made to

sign another mortgage for $1,500 at 24 per cent.

[ Page 136 ]

But he didn't receive that, that was the bonus on the first one. So

you can figure that he was probably paying something in the way of 35

to 40 per cent on his first mortgage in the long run. I say this should

not be tolerated by law. It's completely wrong.

These people are also fed up with a society that allows a lawyer,

for example, to charge three and four and even five thousand dollars

for half a day's work. They do it, and they're allowed to do it by law.

They make their own terms, they make their own rules, and the public is

made to pay for it. I say this is immoral. It's legal but it's immoral,

and it should be stopped (interruption) .

I can name names, certainly,

but I won't because I named them once before, and the press wouldn't

even put them in the paper. But I can name names, certainly. You know,

I did mention at that time that I don't see why any lawyer ever gets

involved with embezzling his client's funds because he doesn't have

to. He can steal it legally. He doesn't need a gun, he doesn't need to

embezzle, he can steal it legally. I think it's time that we moved in

on the lawyers and stopped them from carrying on this way. I know the

Attorney-General thinks this is a big joke but it's no joke to the

victims, I assure you. I beg your pardon, Mr. Attorney-General. I

didn't classify you among those lawyers, in any case. However, it is a

serious problem. It's no joke. It's one thing that somebody should be

doing something about. As long as we allow the lawyers to make their

own rules and then have one of their own men as the judge, the

registrar, you know, who "happens to be an old army buddy of mine, but,

nevertheless, you can be sure that he makes the decisions in the right

direction."…When they go in there to have a bill taxed, there's

no problem in taxing a bill when you have a lawyer taxing it for you. I

say that should be revised and there should be some effort made to have

some independent person as a judge in the taxing of lawyers' accounts.

These people are also fed up with what goes on in some of our

Courts. I say some of our Courts, not all of our Courts, thank

goodness. There's some very strange handling of cases. I've quoted many

of them in this House before. I refer to a classic one where a

policeman identified the offending car as a light car. When the

defendant took the stand he said, "Well, my car happens to be black,"

and the magistrate said, "That makes no difference, you're guilty

anyway." This is the kind of justice we can do without. These are the

kind of judges who should be taken from the Bench. It shouldn't be

necessary to tap their phones to do so. They should be removed for

incompetency when they go that far. I think that when the

Attorney-General receives dozens of letters complaining about a certain

magistrate, he should look into it and find out why there are so many

complaints of injustice.

I'm concerned, also, and the people are fed up with Courts that

obviously favour prominent people in their decisions. There are many

instances. You can read one in the paper almost every week. There are

all kinds of instances of this happening. The poor fellow that's picked

up on Skid Row gets the book thrown at him but if he's somebody who is

a prominent citizen and has embezzled two or three thousand dollars,

then he gets away with a light sentence. This is the way that they

operate. It's not what you've got, it's who you are. It's very often,

not always, but very often the deciding factor.

I believe that these people are also fed up with a society that

allows a medical doctor to make between three and four thousand dollars

in one year for performing illegal abortions. This is made possible

only because of the lack of courage on the part of our Federal

Government to bring in legislation which would make this possible

legally. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, I am personally opposed to

abortion; however, that doesn't detract from the fact that this goes

on. I think that this doctor should have been charged, not with

committing illegal abortions but with embezzling $250,000 from his

patients, because that's about how much he charged them more than he

should have charged. The fee for a legal abortion, therapeutic

abortion, is going to be $50 and his fee was $500 and, in some cases,

more. I think he should have been charged with embezzling that

difference and should be punished adequately for it. He was given a

slap on the wrist — $15,000 fine and two or three months in gaol, which

was nothing.

These people are also fed up with the way we react to different

classes of our society. We don't have a class of society, Mr. Speaker.

There are very distinct differences in our society. The things that you

do in one of the posh hotels in Vancouver, for example, you could not

do in one of the rundown hotels of Skid Row. You'd have the riot squad

there. What goes on in Grey Cup season, for example, in the main parts

of the larger hotels, would not be tolerated for a minute if it

happened on Skid Row by people in working clothes. This is not justice.

We must have the same treatment for all our people.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, I have to enumerate any more. I think

anyone with a conscience will be able to dig up a whole flock of them

for himself. Occasions where we have out and out injustice, it's

tolerated by everyone concerned. Even the Church tolerates it. The

Church professes to preach the word of Christ but seldom really backs

it up by acting on the things that it knows to be unjust. I think it's

time that the collective churches rolled up their sleeves and cracked

the whip and chased the usurers from the temple and all other evildoers

of society. I think they have a responsibility in that regard, to

remove, once and for all, the many evils that face our society.

I mentioned the bombings in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and I think that it

is fair to say that those people are not concerned really about the

language problem. I will venture to say that, if they were assured of a

decent job at a decent wage elsewhere in Canada, they'd be quite

prepared to leave the Province of Quebec and forget their French

dignity as they should be able to do.

Quite often, you hear a rather violent reaction, Mr. Speaker, as a

result of rather minor Government expenditures. I'm always amazed by

this because there are other Government expenditures which the people

seem to ignore completely. I think that the things that people make a

fuss about are rather insignificant in comparison to the fact; for

example, that we're paying about five million dollars a day interest on

our National debt. Five million dollars per day in interest on our

National debt! People don't say a thing about that. The contingent

liabilities take care of themselves. They're paid for by the user the

same as if it were privately owned (interruption) . That's straight

nonsense. You know very well that if the B.C. Hydro were privately

owned, the debt would be paid for by the users of the electricity and

gas, just as they are now. It would make absolutely no difference. I

think the problem is, Mr. Speaker, that we've been brainwashed over the

years into believing that the business of Government is something that

is very complicated and can only be understood by politicians. We

accept certain facts because we're told that they've always been so,

that they're

[ Page 137 ]

inevitable, and so on. I think it's time that we applied more common

sense to some of these problems, because they are not only undesirable

but completely unnecessary. At the time of Confederation, Mr. Speaker,

our National debt was 93 million dollars. That was 103 years ago and

we're still paying interest on that 93 million. We've been paying

interest on it, ever since, to those who loaned it and to those who

have refinanced it since, of course. The debt, Mr. Speaker, has grown

to the point where today, I think, it has reached something in the

neighbourhood of 38 billion dollars. If we consider Provincial,

municipal and school debts on top of that, we are paying interest on

public debts of about 60 billion dollars altogether, which is costing

us about a total of 10 million dollars a day in interest. The people of

Canada have to work to pay off 10 million dollars per day in public

debt interest before they can take one dollar into their homes to feed

their families. If we weren't paying this money in interest, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's quite obvious that the people of Canada would

have an extra 10 million dollars a day to spend on goods and service.

You can understand what a difference that would make. If the people

could spend an extra 10 million dollars a day on goods instead of

paying it in interest, they would create a demand for more goods, and

when they created a demand for more goods, they would create

employment. Employment would create more spending, more spending would

create a demand for more goods. It is an escalating situation where

prosperity breeds prosperity and unemployment breeds unemployment. I

think that this is the first thing we have to do, we have to correct

this situation where we're pouring 10 million dollars a day down the

drain to pay interest on public debts. The Premier knows that, he's in

accord with it, in agreement with it, he's not the one we have to deal

with (interruption) . You'll learn. You just listen. Now the people who

are responsible for this, Mr. Speaker, are those who have control over

our credit and currency — the National Government in Ottawa. We have

put them in there year after year and ask them to run our business for

us.

If you had a business and hired a manager, and if this manager kept

increasing your debt year after year, never paying it off and got it to

the point of bankruptcy, I don't think you would keep that manager on

very long. You would expect to have a manager who would pay off the

debt on your business and you would then be able to show a profit so

you could have money put aside, as you should do and which has happened

in this Province over the last 18 or 19 years. Those of you who have

criticized the spending of this Government over the years will be

thankful that this Government had enough foresight to plan for what is

coming up on us now, this depression that has been instigated by the

Federal Government, because now we will be able to cope, at least in

part, with it, which is something the other Provinces will not be able

to do. I think the important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we must keep

in mind the fact that, at the rate that we have been going in the last

103 years, our National debt will never be paid off. How can any

business or anything else progress if you can't pay off your debts? You

can't just go on piling up the debts. Especially, when they are

producing assets, that's what they are doing. They are producing assets

and they are necessary for the development of this Province. You well

know it, too.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Bank of Canada and this Bank of Canada

supposedly belongs to the people of Canada and, I say, why are we not

using it to serve the needs of the people of Canada? Those of you who

have a house mortgage will know that, depending on the rate of interest

you are paying, by the time your house is paid off, you pay for it two

or three times, depending on the rate of interest, anywhere from 6 to

10 per cent. You pay for it two or three times over the years. This may

be all right for an individual or a private business to have to pay

this kind of interest but when we have a bank that belongs to the

people of the country, when we have the entire population of Canada as

guarantors for any debt, there is no earthly reason why the Bank of

Canada should not provide the money for public expenditure in Canada at

no interest rate, whatsoever. The Bank belongs to the people and,

therefore, the cost of administering such a loan would be borne by the

people as a whole. The cost would be approximately one per cent

incidentally. This, of course, would have the effect that I mentioned a

while ago of making an extra 10 million dollars a day available to

spend on goods and services. Just imagine what would happen if the

Province of British Columbia, for example, had that extra million

dollars, taking out one tenth of it, one million dollars a day, to

spend on goods. How much employment would that create? It gives you

some idea (interruption) . I'll get to that later.

We have to consider, in that respect, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that

we are now being called upon to pay up to 8 per cent interest on some

of our public debts, when we could be doing it at a cost to the country

of about one per cent. I don't know the details with respect to B.C.

Hydro but I know B.C. Hydro has gone on the open market for money.

They've gone to New York. I don't know what they've paid but I do know

the Quebec Hydro went to the American market not too long ago for 50

million dollars, at 10 per cent for 25 years, and 10 per cent of 50

million is 5 million, isn't it? And for 25 years it's 125 million. So,

by the time they have paid off that debt they will have paid 175

million for a loan of 50 million. I think it should be made quite clear

that it is impossible to operate anything, any kind of business or a

country, on this type of economy. We have to do something about it.

I would point out, also, Mr. Speaker, that Canada lends millions of

dollars to other countries, interest free. Just last May, I believe it

was, they loaned Malaysia 52 million, interest free. They've loaned a

lot more again in the past few weeks, interest free but, when they

offered 35 million to the Province of British Columbia for use by the

municipalities, they wanted something like 8 per cent for it. We're not

good enough to have it interest free, like the Malaysians and the

others do. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's important to know that many

municipalities are paying 10 per cent for their money while other

countries are getting monies from us interest free. I think that it is

important to know also that Canada has loaned over a billion dollars,

over one billion dollars, to other countries at interest rates of 3 per

cent or less. Three per cent or less to other countries. Think of what

we could do in Canada with that billion dollars at 3 per cent or less.

Use your own imagination. You know the needs of this country, you know

what we could do with that money, instead of paying 8, 9, or 10 per

cent and better for it. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that our Federal

Government is a sovereign power. It has the authority to bring in any

legislation which it wishes for the benefit of the people of this

country. It's a sovereign power and it has the right to do anything

that is proper and just for the people of this country. We have a Bank

that belongs to the people of this country. Our National debt could be

refinanced through this Bank as the bonds become due, at no cost other

than the cost of administering the loan. We could retire the entire

National

[ Page 138 ]

debt over the years as the bonds become due and we could be carrying

that debt at one per cent, or at no interest if you like, through the

Bank of Canada, without any difficulty whatsoever. In case some of you

say this can't be done, that it is contrary to economic reasoning and

all this, I will have proof for you later on that it can be done. I'll

have quotations from various people of authority to back up what I say.

Many of us, Mr. Speaker, will recall the depression of the "hungry

'thirties." It was a reason for my becoming interested in politics. The

poverty all around made me decide that something could be done to give

us a better life than we were enjoying in those days (interruption) .

It's coming around, I agree with you, Mr. Member, it's coming around

and I'm afraid that it might go full circle if we don't stop it. But we

can stop it. We can't stop it on the Provincial level but we can do

something toward it and I'm going to suggest that something later on.

When the war broke out in 1939, Mr. Speaker, I think you will recall,

probably, that the Government called an Emergency Session and, in seven

short days, they came up with solutions to the problems that were

facing us at that time, the matter of emergency measures for the War.

It took them seven days to solve that problem. Do you hear what's

coming out of Ottawa these days? That unemployment is going to get

worse before it gets better. They don't know what to do about it; they

don't have any solutions; they don't have any right to be governing

this country. Now, in spite of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we had been

floundering around in a depression for about ten years at that time,

with thousands and thousands of our people unemployed and living in

dire poverty, and I remember seeing many of them riding the rods and,

you know, the Regina Riots and other riots where people got their heads

cracked open…and that brings to mind, Mr. Speaker, something I meant

to mention at the outset and forgot to. I'm going to stop here and

mention it, because when I mentioned about heads being cracked open, it

reminded me of a man, who was greatly honoured by all members of this

House and of this Province, a man I had the pleasure of having along

with me at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in

Australia, the former leader of the Official Opposition, Harold Winch.

I think Members here are aware of the fact that he had his head cracked

open and partially lost the hearing in one ear in those hungry days of

the 'thirties. I want to pay tribute to Harold Winch in other ways

besides that indignity he received in those days, that he didn't

deserve. He was, unfortunately, a sick man when he came to the

conference. He had been in hospital for surgery prior to the conference

and had been advised that he had a very serious illness that would

require further surgery, but he managed to get back on his feet and he

came to the conference, nevertheless. It's a great tribute to him that,

in the report which we received a couple of weeks ago — and I'm sorry I

don't have it at hand, I do have it but I forgot to get it out — that

the Secretary-General of the CPA from England, paid tribute to two

people: one, a Mr. Shaw from Trinidad and Tobago, for a motion which he

brought to the floor of the House thanking departing members, and the

other was a tribute to Harold Winch, for the wonderful speech that he

made before that conference. I think that we should all be proud of his

contribution to the conference.

I want to say also, Mr. Speaker, that I was very happy to have, as a

leader of our delegation, the Honourable John Turner, who was on the

floor of the House here a couple of days ago. I was proud of his

contribution to the debate. He didn't try to gain favour with those who

wanted him to say certain things. He said what he thought was right

and, actually, he was criticized by some of our white friends, but the

nonwhites at the conference were very happy with what he said. I was

very proud to have him as my leader at that conference. One sad note,

Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of our delegation, a Mr. Bernie Pilon,

who was the Government Whip in the House of Commons at that time,

apparently suffered a heart attack about a week after his return from

the conference and passed away, and that is a sad note. He was a very

fine chap and I'm sure that his constituents will miss him greatly.

Now, if you'll excuse me, Mr. Speaker, for breaking away that way, by

saying that cracking open heads reminded me of Harold… I just had to

mention that because I had planned on saying it earlier.

I had reached the point, Mr. Speaker, where I said that in spite of

the fact that we had been suffering dire poverty for about ten years

when the War broke out, suddenly all this ended. Suddenly all this

ended. People were able to obtain jobs. They were able to buy the food

and other goods which were on the market and that created a demand for

more goods and the wheels of industry began to turn again. In other

words, we put food on the tables of the nation again, after waiting for

ten long years of suffering — suffering that was most unnecessary. So I

wonder, Mr. Speaker, why, with this experience behind us, our Federal

Government would even consider promoting unemployment and inflation,

because they've promoted inflation as well and they've promoted

poverty. What they're doing now is promoting poverty, because when you

take people's employment away they're going to be poor. When they are

poor, they're going to spend less. If they spend less, then there are

going to be less goods produced. That's going to mean that there'll be

less people working to produce goods and they'll also be poor. It is a

continuing affair and a progressive affair and they are deliberately

bringing on a depression because they think that they are going to stop

increasing prices in this way. I say, it's a very poor approach to a

problem which could be solved quite easily if they had the guts to go

about doing it the right way.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of our people seem to accept depressions and

unemployment as something that comes along more or less like the

seasons, something that you can't avoid, it just comes along because it

has to happen. This, of course is wrong, Mr. Speaker. Hard times,

depressions, unemployment are not acts of God. They are man made and

they can be eliminated by man, if man will only act as he should. I

think it's time that our Federal Government be made aware that they

have a responsibility in this regard and, I think, that this Government

could do something toward it as well. We can restrict some of the

inadequacies that exist in this Province. We can restrict many of the

things that I mentioned earlier, the high interest rates, the

exorbitant fees charged by certain people, any type of injustice I

think we have responsibility to eradicate and make things so that

people can enjoy a better life.

To begin with, Mr. Speaker, we must understand that the real wealth

of any country is what the people of that country can produce. That's

the real wealth. The more you produce, the wealthier you are. I was

quite surprised to find out in the conference in Australia that all

countries are wealthy. I always thought that India was poor. India is

not poor, only the people are poor — the same as in Canada during the

depression. Canada wasn't poor during the depression, only the people

were poor. It's simply a matter of not availing

[ Page 139 ]

ourselves of our credit to develop the wealth that we have. It's a

ridiculous situation and I hope that our Minister of Finance will order

the Federal Government to take steps to correct this situation. If

workers cut down their production, the country, of course, will be

poorer than if everybody was producing as much as they could. If the

farmers grow less grain, and keep that in mind and think of the Federal

Government, if the farmers grow less grain and the loggers cut fewer

logs and so on, and factories work shorter hours and hire fewer people

and produce fewer goods, then we're going to be poorer than if we were

going all out. Can you think of anything more ridiculous, more absurd,

in this day and age, than to pay the prairie farmers to refrain from

producing wealth? To actually pay them to do nothing, when we should be

paying them a bonus for producing more? That is the only wealth we have

— what we produce. The amount of effort put into production determines

the amount of wealth that will be produced. That's only a part of the

cycle, Mr. Speaker. Increased production does not necessarily mean more

wealth for everyone in the country. That's the unfortunate part of it.

Just because we have more wealth doesn't mean to say that everybody's

going to have more. There is plenty of wealth (interruption) . Yes, some

will, that's right. There was plenty of wealth in Canada during the

depression. There was no shortage of anything whatsoever, up to the

industrial development of that date, that is. There is no shortage of

production now. We have lots of wealth now in the country. We're

nothing short. Our per capita production last year was something over

$3,500 per man, woman and child in Canada. Something over $3,500 per

capita was the value of our production last year. The trouble is that

our production cycle does not provide for, nor does it even permit, the

consumption of what we produce. There lies the troub