1970 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 167 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

The Clerk informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr.

Speaker, whereupon Mr. Bruch, Deputy Speaker, took the chair pursuant

section 46 (2) of the Constitution Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. LEO T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, last night at the

adjournment of the debate, many of the members may have wondered why I

was so upset in regards to the adjournment. Well, the two Whips had

come to an agreement in the afternoon that if we reached the member for

Richmond and he had spoken, that the honourable member for

Cowichan-Malahat was to adjourn the debate. We reached the member for

Richmond and I expected, at that time, after the speakers were through,

that the member for Cowichan-Malahat would adjourn the debate, but I

found that it had been arranged differently. I understand that the

honourable the Premier had intervened and made it so that the

honourable member for Vancouver Centre would adjourn the debate. Now

I'm confused as to whether I should be dealing with the Premier as the

Whip or with the honourable member for Langley, and it's because I

think it's very unbecoming and unethical that we should come to these

disagreements the way that it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I do believe that we are

really in a proper order in the debate but, however, I allowed the Whip

of the Opposition to make his statement and I'll recognize the member

for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I am very sorry that there has been this misunderstanding and

I'm very sure that the Whip for the N.D.P. party, the member for

Kootenay, is recounting the facts as he understood them to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's down in black and white.

MR. VOGEL: No, not quite.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. VOGEL: The original proposition arose from a request on

my part to discuss some way that we could avoid an evening sitting.

That was proposition number one. We finally got down to the fact that

if they could terminate the debate on the amendment that they had

proposed, by the scheduled afternoon speaker, we would permit the six

o'clock time limit to run over, and the Whip on the other side said "We

will even stand for three-quarters of an hour and we'll call that an

afternoon sitting," and I agreed.

Now then, in consideration for that, I was prepared to place the

honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat in the lead-off position, and

very glad to do it because he's an honourable member of great stature

in this House, and the understanding was that if there was no night

sitting, that was the understanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. VOGEL: Mr. Speaker, otherwise I would have had no reason to enter into a debate. You know that too, Leo.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (1st-Vancouver-Centre): Mr. Speaker, it's

always a pleasure to rise in the warm and friendly atmosphere of this

House. I am not sure at this moment, not being the bride but the

bridesmaid, having been brought into the debate, and I must say that it

is under very special circumstances.

I know that the House will join with me in attempting to keep the

proper decorum today due to the fact that for the first time I have my

oldest daughter here, and I would point out to the House that she is in

for somewhat of a shock because she still believes that the Premier

works for me.

AN HON. MEMBER: He does. He did last night.

MR. CAPOZZI: At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly

extend my congratulations. I am not going to go into the long accolades

because certainly by now the repetition must be becoming a little

lengthy, but I would like to extend my congratulations on your

appointment. I would point out that you have had one great advantage,

and it is becoming more and more apparent that having worked with such

a fine group over the past three years, you seem to have mellowed in

character and there has not been any serious either reprimand or

knuckle-rapping. I would point out that this is probably the advantage

of having worked with such a fine group over the past three years.

I would like to extend a welcome to the new members, particularly

because since so many of them are on our side of the House it does

become for me a source of a great deal of pleasure, and I would point

out that there are some rather interesting things in the House. I would

point this out to the new members. In each Session there seems to have

been a pattern developed in the past. The first one, if I recall, was

one in which everyone referred to Mother Goose references, and then the

second Session we went on to a selection of fairy tales, and then we

had one Session in which limericks became the key.

This time it did seem as though Shakespeare was going to be the

key-note, and it was started by the Leader of the Opposition but I

think he, in view of the fact that perhaps many were not familiar with

the quotations, felt it should be let die. There did seem to be one

quote which was so apt, and in such a description of that Leader, that

I thought I should refer to a quote from "Henry V" in which it

describes and says, "He doth rant and he doth rave and he draweth out

the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument."

Now, to the new members on our side, and I would ask the people on

both sides of the House and in the gallery to examine them and note the

youthfulness, and exuberance and the tremendous vitality that is

displayed on this side of the House and make the obvious comparison. It

is rather interesting, the titles which have been given to some.

Certainly the member from Revelstoke, Mr. If-at-first, and the Fiery

Scot from Oak Bay, the Bathtub King, of course, from the great riding

of Nanaimo. But there is a title which I think was not earned and

should never have been given, and that, of course, is the title of

Giant Killers which was given to

[ Page 168 ]

the two members from Burrard. I do not think it was

deserved because I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that if you are

going to have giant killers the first thing you must have is a giant,

and I would point out that if there is a giant he certainly sits on

this side of the House.

I think it would only be fair to pay some tribute to those members

who are not here, the past members. Not at great length, but certainly

to point out that there is an increased tempo of the debate this year

and I think that it can be pointed out to the absence of two particular

members on the opposite side. I certainly am saddened by the stilling

or the quietness of the member from Cowichan, but I am sure that this

afternoon he will give us another great display, much to the discomfort

of the present Leader. We saw yesterday a tremendous example that you

are going to have to live with your Diefenbaker, Mr. Leader, because

since your other leader was strangled by an umbilical telephone cord,

and choked by his ties with the trade unions, you have to live with

what you have.

I was rather surprised at the tremendous reaction at the very brief

appearance on the scene of the past Leader which gave rise yesterday to

one of the great displays, and it was rather disturbing to see the

Leader resorting to mimicry of the fine Premier that we have, using

great dramatic effect to try and meet the challenge of the still very

powerful and very effective member from Cowichan. But I would point

out, Mr. Leader, that he has been powerful and been effective not

because of his histrionic ability or because of his dramatic ability

but because, that member has always done his homework and because his

arguments are sound and not because his jokes and dramatic abilities

are well developed. I would congratulate, of course, the Deputy Leader

of the N.D.P. and I am certain that all of us have grown in respect for

her sincerity and her charm in the House, and wish her extremely well

in her new job. I would, of course, because there has to be a leader,

congratulate the leader of the party at the present time. However, to

quote the member from Oak Bay, I will deal with that a little later.

I would, however, like to discuss very briefly part of the election

and the Elections Act which led to the present sitting of the House. I

am sure, Mr. Speaker, that members on both sides join with me in

stating that they are not satisfied with the present Elections Act, and

I think that now that there is time, that a revision of that Act should

start. There are many things that could be revised. Certainly, as the

good member from Richmond— I see I should remember because he got all

the references in the Throne Speech — pointed out very well, the

problem of recording the members and recording the voters and,

secondly, even the removing of names from the list and the

establishment of the times that the voting list could be opened and be

available. The voting cards, Mr. Speaker, were not handled well and I

do not mean this as a reflection on the members or the people who

handled these voting procedures. I believe, Mr. Speaker, and again with

no reference to anyone in the House, that the question of whether a

ballot is or is not marked in pencil should not be an indication of how

that person voted. Obviously, we have moved into an age when the

recording of the desire of a person and what his opinion as to the vote

is, is what counts, and I think it is time we took the pencils out of

the voting booths and but ballpoints in so that people can put and

record their vote in the proper manner.

There are other things, and they are covered in the Act, the wearing

of ribbons, flags, and cards, which today do not have a great deal of

significance. Perhaps the time has come to discuss on both sides and

from all parties the question of election posters and election signs.

It would seem that signs as such have lost their usefulness if all

sides are using them, and perhaps some agreement could be reached

between the parties prior to election, or in the Elections Act, to

disband or limit the use of such posters, because I can think of no

greater or more useless waste of time and material than is involved in

the displaying of the tremendous number of signs that appear and mar

our highways, our roads and our streets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps we could take the Opposition off the ballot.

MR. CAPOZZI: I don't think we would like to do that. The

public manage to do that for us, I think, extremely well. I do believe

that perhaps they may have some usefulness. They may be like hot water

in a maternity case, at least they give your supporters something to do

or work at during an election. Perhaps that is part of their usefulness

that they do serve.

The Attorney-General, by the way, Mr. Speaker, did point out that

this was the Age of Aquarius and as you know it is a time when there is

a great deal of portent in the stars. You will recall, I think, many of

you who wish to, a wonderful

article which appeared on August 2nd in

that great independent Liberal journal, the Vancouver Sun , in

which it did say that the stars portend the defeat of Premier Bennett.

In retrospect, there are some great statements that the stars did tell

us. August 2nd of last year, and at that time the astrologer who spoke

with the true authority of the stars, said that the Premier should look

into new job opportunities, so you will be prepared for upsets on the

27th, and he was absolutely right. There were upsets on the 27th. The

two members from Burrard are no longer with us. He also went on to say

that those born under Virgo have a special gift of emerging from the

most disheveled situations looking as though butter wouldn't melt in

their mouth, and it is perhaps somewhat true of Mr. Premier. But he did

say that you who are born under the sign would do well to take

advantage of your air of untouchability.

But he did also go on, and he perhaps pointed out what was going to

happen because he said to Mr. Berger, "Brace yourself for big changes

on the 27th. The full moon marks the sensitive period and don't let

emotions govern your mood. If you are not a leader now and this applies

to all of you," he said, "explain this to your friends and employer."

Then it went on to say "He will need to give a good deal of thought" — this is Mr. Berger — "to employment affairs and service interests" and

certainly it is pointed out that "this will be an aggravating period, a

time to be wary of words and actions, but efforts to improve your

working conditions could meet with success." And they did, because he

is now once again a very successful lawyer in the City of Vancouver.

They didn't forget, by the way, the good member, the first member

from Point Grey, because they also said that "you may have more than

one chance to be a peacemaker," not a king-maker, "… in the coming

weeks, and on the 29th you should be able to improve any property you

control and there is an increasing emphasis toward the end of August on

ties with your neighbours," and certainly your ties with your

neighbours have grown tighter and tighter since the 27th. But, Mr.

present Leader, the stars haven't really entirely forgotten you and I

did take the trouble to look it up, since you are born under Libra.

"They are very ardent in the things they do, they take up a vocation or

an avocation with zeal

[ Page 169 ]

and enthusiasm from which, at the time being,

excludes all other things from their consideration, but after a while

they may drop it just as suddenly, take up something else as a trade, a

fad or a hobby and pursue that with equal energy and absorbing

interest." He describes the Libra children, because that is your birth

date, sometimes they are up in seventh heaven, optimistic,

enthusiastic, cheerful and happy, and then as suddenly, as when the

member from Cowichan stands out, without any seeming cause the scale

swings and they seem to be down in the dumps of worry and melancholy

just as if they had not a friend in the world.

I am not going to go through the question of the entire campaign but it is interesting again, in retrospect….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no, no!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CAPOZZI: …. to recall the election campaign of the

Liberal leader who on the 1st of August got into his bus and started

the greatest tour of the Province of British Columbia that has ever

been conducted by any soothsayer or any great prophet. On the 1st of

August, in a great burst of enthusiasm, he predicted nine seats. He was

now going to take Kamloops, Cariboo, and Boundary-Similkameen. Very

quickly the tour picked up pace, and on the 5th of August he added

Kootenay and he had now ten seats. He was undaunted, I would point out,

Mr. Speaker, proceeding from victory to victory. He then went on and in

quick Order took Columbia from James Chabot, and in a tremendous amount

of confidence went into the north country and not only did he take the

seats from us but he now took Atlin from Mr. Calder, and he now took

Prince Rupert from you, Mr. Speaker. But he had only begun, because he

now predicted a thirteenth gain as he now said that he was going to

take Prince Rupert and a probable one in South Peace River. But the

great day was still at hand, because now, Mr. Bill Hartley, he went

into Yale-Lillooet, and like St. George still on his white bus, having

now killed 14 dragons he was now going to add six more, and he then

added Yale-Lillooet.

The following two days he took several cuts at the weak-kneed MLA's

for the Social Credit government in Vancouver. Then, preparing for his

tremendous feat in the Royal City on August 23rd, as quickly as Grant

had taken Richmond, he took Richmond, Saanich, two in Victoria and the

two seats in Vancouver-South. His ultimate great prediction, which

rivals even that of his prediction of the sex of the whale, he

predicted that Mr. Bennett would be out in South Okanagan, and that, I

think, probably more aptly than anything else, describes the tremendous

ability he has to predict the great future of the Province of British

Columbia.

But everyone sat down after and they had a post mortem. In the

newspaper, after the election, there was a headline, or a little note

on the column which said that "Vote Fiasco Report Set for the NDP", and

it said that they would have a 60-page report on the reasons that they

lost or were not successful in the past election. I will tell you right

now, Mr. Members opposite, that you don't need 60 pages. It was very

clear in the campaign at that time that you lost because of the very

factor that the public recognized, which was the question of

inexperienced leader, a divided party, bad policies, and the socialist

philosophy, and the people reject you for these reasons. An NDP line

now is the same thing. They are trying to say, having lost for those

reasons, they stand up and point across the way and say, "Look, look at

the minority across the way. You are trying to overwhelm us." Let me

remind them, and remind particularly the ones in the front row, that

they were the people who also said, "Go, go, go to the polls and go to

the people. Now is the time. Let's have an election now." We say the

people returned their selections in wisdom, and what you essentially

are saying is that they made their selections in stupidity, and to me

that is a terrible insult to the voting public of the Province of

British Columbia.

Yesterday the member from Surrey said that democracy could be

failing, that the democratic process, the function of parliament, could

be failing. He said look at the size, 38 members. Let me explain, Mr.

Speaker, that for us on this side, not to vote for the policies that we

believe in, not to vote for those things that we have put forward as

the policies of this Government, not to support these issues regardless

of whether we vote 38 to the Opposition, that not to do these things

would be to turn down the very mandate of the people who have put us in

and have elected this Government. And I tell you now, no matter how

many times you throw up that challenge that we are overpowering you,

that this will not at any time deter us from voting for those things

that we believe in are the sound principles for the Province of British

Columbia.

But I will say this, Mr. Member from Surrey, that if you are saying

that democracy is in danger of failing, I will tell you that it will be

brought down faster by the type of conduct which we saw in this House

yesterday from the member from Vancouver East. I have never seen a more

flagrant example of the abuse of the privileges of this House than he

did yesterday in attacking in this House, and with the privilege of

this House, a member who has served the Province of British Columbia

for 17 years. In the same type of smear tactics that he has used in

every Session to date on an individual from Hydro, a member who sits on

this side, he used yesterday in this House. The member from smear,

because that's what it was, without basic facts, with innuendo that he

is not prepared to repeat outside the House, attacked a member who in

17 years has never had his reputation clouded or marred by any comment

either inside or outside of this House. To me there is no flagrant

abuse of the rights of democracy than to take and use, as he did, those

figures which were undated and to take the value of a piece of property

as of today's date, from a property that was built in years past, and

to say that the figures that were there representing the amount had to

come from somewhere, and leave in terrible suspicion the feeling that

this member, the Attorney-General of this Province, could have been

involved in accumulating that money in anything but an honourable way

is a despicable, and I say despicable act, and the only thing that

saves it is when one considers its source.

Mr. Speaker, there are some other things that I would like to

comment on that came up, and I think that they are extremely important

in relationship to the comments which were also made in the House by

the first member from Vancouver East in which he talked about

philosophies of various parties. I want to point out that again the key

issues which are still involved in this House still involved in

this side and that side of the House, are those issues which involve

the question of socialism as compared with the policies which we have

put forward here. We have heard references from time to time of those

things that the N.D.P. party will do if they are elected or if they

were or are in power, and in the past we have had very little,

opportunity to really go anywhere and look to see what they would do if

they were in

[ Page 170 ]

power. But recently, and we know this from

experience, because they did bring the Premier of the great Province of

Manitoba here to assist in our election campaign, and I think he did a

wonderful job for us. But recently, as you know, he was elected, and

since then the Province of Manitoba has been making great strides.

I took the liberty of just going back for one month over the past

issues of the Winnipeg Free Press, and it may be argued that this is

not a favourable paper, but these are news stories, these aren't

columns. On January the 24th the headline said, "Food firms pulling

out. Two of Canada's largest quick food service firms have decided to

scrap their Winnipeg head office and move to Vancouver. R.J. Bolt, the

president of the Controlled Foods, said they are definitely moving to

Vancouver. 'We are expanding rapidly and our survey shows us that

Vancouver would be a better market'." Then he goes on to say, "We were

certainly concerned about taxes and we were concerned about the

business climate here in Manitoba." Well he hates to leave Winnipeg.

"Winnipeg has been very good to me." Mr. Bolt says, "but the move is

dictated by business practice, and good business practice means leaving

Winnipeg. When you are a public company you have to do what is in the

best interests of your stockholders, and leaving Winnipeg is in the

best interests of our stockholders."

On January the 22nd, "In regard to the moving by the Versatile

Manufacturing Ltd., in which a statement was made Friday that the

Winnipeg farm implement company was giving serious thought to

establishing an expansion of its firm, not in Winnipeg, but in North

Dakota, because of the tax offers offered by the United States.

Referring to a statement by Cy Gonik, the N.D.P. member for

Crescentwood, who called Versatile's threat to leave the Province

blackmail, Mr. Jorganson said 'that is not the best way to encourage

Canadian control which the N.D.P., and particularly Mr. Gonik, talked

about so much'."

On January the 14th, "A clothing plant here shut down, moved to

Eastern Canada, vital again in Winnipeg and Manitoba. The closing of

the plant means a loss of 65 jobs and annual payroll of $160,000. A

statement issued by Ralph King, the public relations chairman of the

Fashion Council of Winnipeg, said 'Manitoba does not appreciate the

contribution that the garment industry makes to the economy of the

Province. The lack of understanding of the industry and of efforts of

the industry as a whole in hiring many people who would have trouble

entering the labour market. Principal shareholders are native

Manitobans who feel that labour and tax policies of the present

government prejudiced the future growth of industry in Manitoba'."

On January 13th, "Garment factory closes. The owner of a small

garment factory in St. Ann, Manitoba, said he will close its doors

January 15th as a result of the increased minimum wage in Manitoba."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh no, no….

MR. CAPOZZI: Trans Air. "The Winnipeg based regional airlines

now announced that it was suspending its prairie services." Mr.

Speaker, that is in only three and a half weeks of newspaper stories.

Who knows how many more there have been before, how many there have

been prior to that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Cheap wages in British Columbia. Cheap wages. Cheap wages.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. CAPOZZI: It seems unbelievable to hear a cry or the

challenge of cheap wages thrown at a Provincial Government, Mr.

Speaker, who boasted the fact that the wages in British Columbia are

the highest of anywhere in Canada.

But that isn't the only thing that is happening in Manitoba, where

we have an example of the fair and very reasonable practices as

outlined by members of the N.D.P., with lack of prejudice, with no

patronage, certainly never, never any care of their own. I would point

out on Friday, January the 9th, there was a new appointment, a new

appointment to Manitoba Hydro, a fellow by the name of David Casbeggs

was appointed to the Manitoba Hydro. Who is he? He was an unsuccessful

C.C.F. candidate in Ontario.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no.

MR. CAPOZZI: Yes. Now, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness his

qualifications certainly made him suitable for the job, I do not deny

this. However, at the same time that this announcement was being made

they appointed a new appointee to the Liquor Control Commission. You

know who he was. It was announced in December that Manitoba New

Democratic Party president Frank Sims was to be the new Chairman of the

Liquor Commission

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe he's got good qualifications … .

MR. CAPOZZI: He has the standard qualification. He drinks a

lot. And, Mr. Speaker, this was immediately having appointed another

defeated C.C.F. or N.D.P. candidate to the head of the Manitoba

Telephone Co. Now, now, now, now, we heard yesterday ….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, a statement as to the tremendous

manner in which advertising is placed in the Province of British

Columbia, and how fair and equitable the programme or pattern that we

can expect. There is no doubt about it, because the Premier of the

great Province of Manitoba made it extremely clear on January 5th, when

he spoke to the Sales and Ad Club in Winnipeg, and he said that his

Government believed that advertising agencies should be chosen on the

basis of merit, not political affiliation, and he further believed that

the agencies that compete for Manitoba Government business should be

Manitoba agencies. That was a very clear and definite statement that he

made and I think he should be very proud of that statement, except four

days later he announced the appointment of the new advertising agencies

for the travel budget of the Province of Manitoba, in which he

announced that a $400,000 travel advertising budget has been placed,

$200,000 with the advertising agency of MacLaren, which runs a very

small ad office in Winnipeg and is based in Toronto. But the second

$200,000 was placed with the Dunsky Advertising Agency, of which

Menahem Dunsky is listed by Canadian Advertising Rates and Data as

president, copy chief, account executive, creative director, and is a

small Montreal agency which, incidentally, handles the advertising for

the Federal New Democratic Party. Certainly there is nothing Dunsky

about that group, I'd have to say that.

[ Page 171 ]

But, that is typical, Mr. Speaker, of the type of policy that we can

expect from the members opposite who say one thing and mean another,

because we heard great talks about the new modified and the new

clarified position of the N.D.P. I believe you, and I assume that many

of you have taken the trouble to read the outlines of the Watkins

report and the Watkins manifesto in which it describes Canada as

nothing more than an economic colony of the United States. It says,

this is what it says, "Capitalism must be replaced by Socialism by the

national planning of investment and by public ownership of the means of

production." It calls not for the nationalization of just the telephone

company, but for the nationalization of the commanding heights of the

economy such as the resource industries, finance, and credit, and

strategic to the planning of the economy and a utopian democracy. And

who endorsed that, and who endorsed that, the present leader of the New

Democratic Party in the Province of British Columbia. That certainly is

not unexpected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. CAPOZZI: It does say in the book that this is what you

can expect when they get excited. But this is not unexpected, Mr.

Speaker, because this is the same Leader of the Opposition who said in

his original series, running for the Leadership for the first time,

when he said that, "I am not concerned now nor will be concerned what

our corporate giants accept, if they can't cooperate with what the

working people want in this onerous burden of ownership and management

for themselves." This is what we are presently, and must be concerned

with, and that is why, from this side of the House, we must be

constantly reminding people that no matter which head they wear, no

matter whether they now turn around and attack labour or try to create

the new image of their ties with labour, that they are still, have

been, will be branded as the socialist concept, and it has to be that

concept that we as the 38 elected members must constantly oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say, in dealing with this question that

was referred to, or was brought up, on the question of American firms

etc., that it is amazing to me to hear the double talk that we heard in

the House from the first member from Vancouver East when, in

supporting, as he said, certain aspects of Benson's White Paper, he

suggested a capital gains tax, and there are many who believe that a

capital gains tax under its proper perspective is not unjust. But, on

one hand to be suggesting the tremendous amount of a capital gains tax,

and on the other be opposed to the taking over by Americans of Canadian

companies, how do you think that Canadians can get the money to invest

in their own companies if it is taxed away every time that they make a

gain of some sort?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we are going to have a capital

gains tax, and I think that people can learn to live with a capital

gains tax under reasonable circumstances, but I attack one principle

that has been outlined in the White Paper, and that is a dollar earned

under any circumstances is a dollar to be taxed, because I do not

believe that that takes into consideration one of the key things that

we, in a development province, must be constantly aware of, and that is

the question of risk. There is a difference between a dollar earned as

a salary on a guaranteed wage over an annual scale, and the dollar that

a man invests and he may lose entirely. There is a tremendous

difference. There is a tremendous difference. If that isn't taken into

consideration in a tax arrangement then I think that all of us will be

opposed to a position of the White Paper.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the Throne Speech, the concept of the

Throne Speech would indicate that I would have to agree with certain

speakers that it probably has the same problem that I do of being

overly wordy, and that there's such a thing as reducing it. I would

hope that you would pass this, Mr. Speaker, to the Lieutenant-Governor,

that in the future perhaps a certain amount of the excessive overkill

within that document could be reduced. I think the achievements of this

Government stand for themselves, and the proposals which are in the

Throne Speech speak for themselves, and do not require the

overabundance of words which we presently find there. It is a Speech

which I think could be simplified.

We have heard a succession of speakers as we near the last day, that

have criticized portions of the Throne Speech. I must say for those of

us who are in the House in our second term, Mr. Member from

Cowichan-Malahat, that the attacks and the criticisms seem much less,

and do not seem to have the usual spark that we have experienced in the

past. I would think that, if anything, the criticism we have had or

seem to have is that we are going too far in the right direction, and

we are being asked to be constantly aware of the things that are taking

place.

I welcome, as I'm sure every member here does, the new landlord and

tenant legislation and will be looking forward with interest to see it

entered into the House, the new housing aid, the Corrections Act, the

development programmes within, and the new programmes which have been

put forward by the Premier at this time, through the Speech from the

Throne. I would, at this time, pay a great deal of tribute to the

policies of the Premier, and particularly to the tremendous success he

enjoyed at the last Premiers' Conference, and I am sure that the

tremendous respect which he has gained over the years at these

Conferences is evident in the respect that is given to the statements

which he has made in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the growth of the Province of British Columbia has been

evident over the past years, and we have seen it in all aspects of the

Province, in the north and the west and the east, and certainly there

has been a growth of trade and development. The statistics which can be

put forward by the good Minister here indicate this, and this growth

has created a growth in Vancouver, which all of us as the Vancouver

members, certainly acknowledge. But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, in

following along the lines of the good member from Alberni, that growth

has created problems and it has created even larger problems in the

larger cities, because the parallel of the development of problems is

not in a direct line with the growth, but multiplied and almost adds to

the square root of the development or the growth of the other area.

Vancouver has some rather unique problems, in that with its mild

climate, a port city, with expanding job opportunities, it has brought

more people in faster, it attracts more people who wish to live here.

As a result of the city life with its anonymity and lack of personal

contact, we are facing today within the city some tremendous problems

and they involve themselves certainly around the problems we have heard

here today or in the past, the questions of pollution, of welfare and

other aspects. It's on these three areas that I would deal, and I will

be quite brief on that, Mr. Speaker.

In reference to pollution, I would again support the view

[ Page 172 ]

that has been put forward by many members of the

House, that it is time that we appointed a Minister of Pollution and I

would suggest that we have three Ministers without Portfolio, and one

of them could do the job, I think, and bring together the various

things that are needed at this time.

But there are two specific items, and I would bring this to the

attention of the Minister of Transport, and that is the question of the

handling of what I would call the ecological limit of cargo limits of

ships moving in and out of the harbour and Straits of Georgia. It is

time, Mr. Speaker, that we establish these limits, because the greatest

danger at this moment is not the drilling for oil in the Straits, the

greatest danger at this moment is the possibility that a ship carrying

any of a number of chemicals could go down in the Straits of Georgia

and, ecologically, destroy the entire area. At the present moment there

aren't regulations that, as such, prohibit the movement of ships

through the Straits, depending on the cargo that they have in

relationship to chemicals. I'm not dealing with explosives, and I

suggest that if a ship carrying logs went down in the Straits that

would be a disaster, but it would not destroy the environment — it

could be solved. But if a ship carrying a load of sulphur or a load of

oil went down, that, very definitely, could destroy the entire Straits

and the water-ways. I think it is time that we established the limits

for certain materials that can be moved through, and if ships carry

larger than those limits, they must go through under very strict

conditions. They must go through with certain warnings given to all

shipping, under certain conditions of both sea and visibility, and that

this type of programme should be started in cooperation with the

Federal Government to protect these areas at this time.

One other small point, Mr. Minister. At the present time there are

regulations, and I would point to the noise pollution we have in the

area of the east end of the city near the Raymar Park Development, a

situation where, under Federal jurisdiction, a train going through must

sound its whistle 500 yards in front of every rail crossing. In that

area, in the east end of the city in a residential area, there are five

crossings, the train 500 yards away must blow for every crossing, there

are 17 trains a day going through that area, and there are 1,500 people

in housing developments there with approximately 900 youngsters.

Certainly a regulation which is suitable for the wide-open prairies

loses its meaning in a freight train moving at ten miles an hour

through the heart of the city, and I would certainly suggest that it is

time that that obsolete ruling was eliminated, and would ask the

cooperation of the Minister.

I would also briefly refer to the question of the Strathcona area.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is very much aware of the stand that

has been taken by the Federal Government, and I would refer to a letter

that was written by Robert Andras, the Minister, in which he states

that they have a definite commitment to the development of Strathcona.

He says, "I personally believe that the commitment of the Federal and

Provincial Governments to the Strathcona area preclude reallocation of

significant funds to the other area," and I would hope, Mr. Minister,

that that understanding will be brought into fruition and that the

scheme that has been put forward by the Strathcona Property Owners

Association could be fulfilled whereby second mortgage money could be

made available to redevelop that part of the City of Vancouver.

We have in the past, Mr. Speaker, heard several discussions on the

question of welfare, and I am pleased to note that there is a change of

name to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, I

would hope that, by doing this, it isn't just a move to solve our

consciences, because the change of name won't help if that's the only

reason for its change. I must say, and I direct this at the present

Minister, I was disappointed by his choice of terms in labeling these

people deadbeats, because I think that this is a very obsolete and

outdated understanding of the problems of welfare, and I would hope

that a sufficient retraction, properly worded to those people, would be

put across. Because the real problem of welfare is not the title we

give them, but the treatment we give them. I would defy anyone, under

our present handling of welfare cases, to be any better with the

situation that they confront if we, having taken away their pride and

their feeling of self-determination, ask them to find their own way in

life with restricted means, with restricted education, and certainly

under very restricted opportunities.

We have one unbelievable situation in Vancouver where we give out

meal tickets which, in itself, does not seem like a bad idea, but these

very meal tickets can only be used at a relatively few number of

restaurants, and we force every person who is presently on that plan

down into the few areas to eat, where they confront each other and

build up their own problems. Instead of treating them like adults and

giving them the choice of where they wish to go and use them, we have

already restricted part of their liberties, and are taking away part of

their own ability to determine the future.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, we face in the Province of British

Columbia a very definite welfare crisis, because we have committed

ourselves to a feeling that the case-worker system will work, and it

has proved that it cannot work. We do not have a large enough number of

case-workers, and even if we did, we cannot expect them to work seven

days a week. We cannot, Mr. Speaker, find either the time or money to

provide the number of workers involved and even if we could, there is

one example in West Vancouver at the present time, where we have a

situation in which we have a ratio in one particular operation, of one

case-worker to one person, at a cost of $28 a day per person, $10,000 a

year, and it is not working. In comparison with a system, for example,

presently used by X-Kalay, which cost $65 a month on a group basis and

is rehabilitating, through this plan, a certain number of people. I am

suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Department take a very long look at

the use of the group system and of the utilization of the people who

are on welfare themselves as a method of solving their problems, and to

combine with these people, under this system, the combination of

experience of our senior citizens, whom we have discarded, literally

discarded, at age 65, and take advantage of some of the wealth of

experience that exists in these people. Put them together with groups

of welfare workers so that they, too, can have a

part in determining

their future, and getting themselves off the welfare roll.

I would point out that we have so little correlation between some of

the things we do. In welfare, Mr. Speaker, we provide that if someone

goes out and earns an additional $50 they are allowed this under their

own welfare arrangement. But, on the other side, in our housing

development, we immediately penalize them on the rent. Now it seems

that if the welfare case were prepared to let them earn the additional

$50 as an incentive, we should be looking at this as an opportunity to

do the same.

I say within the frame-work of the welfare system that the

Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, and I say this to the member from

Burnaby, can be made to work, and I'm not satisfied, and I say this

directly to the Minister, that it is

[ Page 173 ]

presently being conducted in the manner that it

could be. It is, and was not meant to be, a singular job-placement

service to replace manpower. It was meant to be a method of retraining

people, of finding people, bringing them in, with cooperation with

industry, retraining them into jobs, and employing the unemployable,

not placing jobs for employables which can be done at the present time,

through Manpower, in a far better manner than we can do.

I would point out, Mr. Minister, that there is a splendid example of

what can be done presently being conducted by the Vancouver Parks

Board, and I would ask that special attention be given to this, because

under this plan welfare recipients can work in the parks system, earn

wages, and get off welfare. The pilot project will have a combination

of social, physical, educational, psychological, and vocational

limitations, which will be brought to these people who require them, to

assist them in coming back to the work stream. It is expected that

these men will be able to move back into full-time or part-time

employment, and about 500 married men in receipt of social assistance

are available. As a pilot group, 20 are being started and I would ask,

Mr. Minister, that special attention be given to this project because

this is the function that the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen should

be working on and should be attempting to help these people who are

presently on welfare.

This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the final concept, and I would ask

your indulgence for a few minutes longer to discuss the question of the

senior citizens in the Province of British Columbia. At the present

moment, 20 percent of our population is over the age of 55. Roughly ten

per cent of our population is over the age of 65, and we have, Mr.

Speaker, always in our mind, each of us pictured the day we are going

to retire. It is a wonderful scene that we see, sitting on the side of

some lake or on a golf course, or sitting with our companion in the

final stages of the golden years, under pleasant circumstances, in the

most wonderful time of our life. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you want to walk

with me, and I'm sure you can walk within any community of the Province

of British Columbia, but particularly in the larger cities, that ain't

the way it is! Because the people all live, if you want to believe it,

on a street called Lonely Street, and we have moved our senior citizens

out of a productive field of life into smaller and even smaller rooms,

into dingier and ever dingier parts of our economy, and of a living

accommodation.

This group of people has been preyed upon by the Federal Government

who have taken away the value of their pensions, of their bonds, of

their savings, and it has been preyed upon by the Provincial Government

by our own policies which have taken away the value of savings, and the

value of people putting together their nest eggs. Because most of our

policies which we apply, which give people something, whether it is bus

transportation or whether it is some form of extra help in their senior

years under the pension plan, is based on the fact that if they have

nothing, give them something. It is not based on the fact that people

should be encouraged to save to those years, their senior years. Why

should we penalize those very people whom we have encouraged to save?

Such things as bus transportation, which is free to people over 65,

should be free to all people over 65, not on the basis of only those

who are on welfare, or whose pension is not sufficient.

The same thing, I suggest, is in the question of civic

responsibility. They have been preyed upon by an increase of taxes, by

a re-zoning law which, in many cases, has made it impossible for them

to control and own their own home. I ask, Mr. Speaker, through you to

the Minister of Finance, that we establish a plan under which a

mortgage fund is set up, so that money could be made available to the

community, that if I, as a senior citizen, wish to contain and maintain

my tax level as it is today, that on the understanding that when that

property is eventually sold, all the back payment of taxes will be

taken from the sale of that house. They have to pay their taxes, they

are getting the increase in valuation of their property, and all that

is required would be an amount of money which would, during the

interim, pay the community the taxes that are owing on the property.

They would be responsible for interest, and it could be made to work,

and it would enable people to maintain within the framework of their

own income, a level that would permit them to live in their own house.

Certainly this is what all of us want — there are no authors to this

type of thing. I've suggested it in the past, and I would hope that

whoever brings it in would get the share at that time — it's large

enough for everybody, I'm sure, but the concept is there. I would also

point out that these people, these senior citizens, are preyed upon by

the community. We restrict them, because they do not have a mobility,

to paying higher prices for their services, and eventually we shut them

off, which is the hardest thing, and we find them in their smaller

rooms. A group of people that are, in essence if nothing more, caught

in this bind where they are too old to fight, and too proud to die, and

I do not think that the senior citizens of this Province deserve this

fate.

There is a solution, because in the past we have assumed that a man

at 65 has lost his youthfulness, and certainly the Premier has

indicated that this is not the case, and examples over this Province

have indicated this is not the case. My father is 80 years old. He's as

active a man as many in this Chamber, with a mind more active than

most, and I would point out why this is so, is because he has an

involvement. We must go back with these senior citizens and bring them

back. It is not enough to be a loved grandfather, it is as necessary to

be needed. When we view the rising need for chronic care and

hospitalization for older people, why is it, because they have nothing

more at this time to think about than the need for food and the care of

their own selves from a health point of view, that the only time we

concern ourselves with them, the only time people come to visit them,

the only time there's care, is when they're ill.

I am suggesting there is a way out, and I would like to suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that through this media of the press that an invitation go out

to senior citizens of this Province over the age of 65 to join in a

movement that would have the name of Expo 70's, which would be

experienced people for others in the 70's, and I'm referring to the

time of the 70's, not their age, and these people who have great

amounts of experience, of knowledge, of background, would be prepared

to work in two particular areas. Firstly, in the help for our welfare

cases and rehabilitation cases where retired people of business,

executives, bankers, would be prepared to come and work and assist

welfare people to find their way back to a more constructive life

through the training that they can give, and I suggest these people

contact the Minister of Welfare.

Secondly, and I am pleased to announce today that the first

acceptance in principle of this scheme is the development of a group of

senior citizens who would be put together with one of our group

hospitals, and in this case it is Woodlawn. I have received from the

Minister, the secretary, acceptance in principle for the establishment

of a 25-room senior citizens hospital on the grounds at Woodlawn, and

[ Page 174 ]

have received acceptance in principle from Mr.

Charles Young, who is the President of the Kiwanis Club of Vancouver,

that they will take the responsibility of conducting this programme

through, and have received acceptance in principle from Dr. Hughes of

Woodlawn. The understanding would be that this group of people who

would go into the senior citizens housing project at Woodlawn, would be

prepared to devote their time on a volunteer basis to working with

those people in Woodlawn that need the most. Now the purpose of this is

to provide on one hand the experience and affection that they can give,

and on the other hand give it to those people who need it most and who

do not have this direct contact with warm people who can give them the

amount of time and affection that they need. I think this programme,

Mr. Speaker, should be brought to its fruition, and I am hoping to work

with them. I hope that it will be examined with great interest by the

members of the Ministry of Welfare, Municipal Affairs and other

Departments that would be so involved.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would only say this, that tomorrow the

debate on the Throne Debate will finish and at that time we will have

the decision to make as to the acceptance of the Throne Speech. I would

point out that within that Speech, Mr. Speaker, we have seen as clearly

as possible the indication of the progress that the Province of British

Columbia is expecting, and gradually in this House we have seen, as

we've gone through this debate, the clarification of the issues, that

we have found that it is at this stage in our time the concern for

pollution in people brought by both sides of the House. I know that in

accepting the Throne Speech, as we all will tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we

will be marking the great step forward into the 70's with the progress

of this Province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R. M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, Mr. Speaker, this is my maiden speech, so I ask the protection of the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, actually I want my first words to be, for the

first time in my 18 years in this House, to break the rules of the

House by reflecting on a motion and decision that was made by this

House earlier in the Session. I do this by traditionally congratulating

you and the Speaker on your election to your present offices. The first

member from Vancouver Centre has just taken his place and for the first

48 minutes of his speech the only words I can find to describe what he

was saying, in view of the situation in this Province, in Canada, and

in the world, are that Nero was fiddling while Rome was burning. He

chose to refer to the astrological charts and made reference to the

Leader of the Opposition, and he said that it forecast that he was a

man who applied himself with zeal and energy and honesty and purpose,

and then would drop that particular course. That's absolutely true,

that's absolutely true, because his record shows that he was a man who

educated himself with two degrees, gave himself the knowledge, applied

himself with zeal, energy, and devotion to helping people who needed

help in the field of social welfare and the treatment of individual

problems, and he dropped that job very quickly, just as you forecast

and just as that book forecast. But the reason he dropped the job very

quickly was because this Government fired him because he accepted

nomination for the C.C.F., and this Government has regretted that

action from that day to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh no.

MR. STRACHAN: Because, not only did they not, not only did

they lose the services of one of their most capable social workers but

they found him sitting across from them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. STRACHAN: …. and it's obvious from the remarks, that you're getting very upset.

I listened to the member talking about the over 65's when he did get

around to some serious discussion. This Government brought in a law

which he supported which discriminates against the over 65's in the

retention of their employment. How did you vote on that issue, Mr.

Member? You voted for that legislation that discriminates against the

over 65's. So don't get up here with your pious manifestations of a

zealous interest in the senior citizens. It's on the record. You voted

for discrimination against the over 65's, by removing and preventing

the protection of the law in the retention of their jobs from being

extended to this most important group.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that unlike some

people who find themselves in elected office, I am a politician. I'm

not ashamed when people call me a politician. I'm proud when people

call me a politician. Because the definition of a politician is someone

who studies the art and the science of government, and realizing that

the function of government is to give service to the people, with that

definition I'm not ashamed of being a politician. This is not to say

that there are not people in political life who are ashamed, or should

be ashamed, of being politicians. Like every

section of humanity, we

have the people who take advantage of their position and don't show the

highest regard for the fulfilment of the obligation that they have

taken on as elected members.

I want to welcome, too, the new members to the House. I want to

congratulate those who have already made their first speeches. It's a

frightening experience to stand up in this place for the first time,

irrespective of where you've spoken before or what experience you've

had, and find yourself dwarfed by this Chamber and realize the

historical traditions that go with being a member of a Legislative

Assembly.

I am the member for Cowichan-Malahat and, while I was Leader of the

Opposition, if I spent any time discussing my constituency the Premier

immediately accused me of being parochial, but now that I am a new

member I want to talk about Cowichan-Malahat briefly and what's

happening there, what has happened there, and later on in the Session,

as I know, there will be other opportunities which I will utilize to

the fullest possible extent.

First of all, the Court House is completed and open. The new

five-storey administrative and office building is well on its way to

completion. The Minister says they're too good to me. Well you know,

Mr. Speaker, for years they tried to starve the constituency and people

used to say, "Strachan, you're going to have trouble the next election

because as long as you're a member this Government will never do

anything for us". Then, of course, the Government started on the

Cowichan Lake road, and they built the Court House, and people said

"Strachan, you're going to have trouble in the next election, the

Government's spending so much money." Maybe you can't win, but

nevertheless I won, I won anyway.

I was happy to welcome to the constituency the Premier and his gracious lady, the Minister of Lands, Forests and

[ Page 175 ]

Water Resources, one of the lady ministers, the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and I can't think, of all of

the famous people that visited that constituency last summer. Well, of

course, don't forget what you did to the boundaries of that

constituency. Don't forget what you did to the boundaries of that

constituency too, but, however, I am happy to report the progress that

has been made. I have somewhere a picture of the first 13 miles of the

Lake Cowichan road and, where's the Minister of Highways? He'll hear

from me later. The Minister happened to come up to the constituency,

the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, fortuitously, fortuitously

or accidentally, just about election time. He was taking the grand tour

of the Cowichan Lake, and the candidate was having an awful time trying

to get into these pictures with the Minister. I think he made it in one.

But anyway, we are going ahead with a small park on Lake Cowichan.

The Minister will recollect I spoke to him two or three years ago about

the Cottonwood Creek area, and look, Mr. Minister, there's no reason

why you can't get that bit of land right in the middle and go ahead

with that large park that is desperately needed to supply the

recreational privileges and needs of the people of Vancouver Island,

Cottonwood Creek. Well, you know, you walk before you run. It's an

advantage, it's a gain, it's an addition. Certainly we need both

because of the recreational demands and needs of our time. I had

intended to give some time to education but, Mr. Speaker, I'll pass

that over until the Estimates come.

The only other references I want to make about the election are to

the fact that I regard as dangerous the doctrine espoused by so many of

the Government members during their campaign when they indicated to the

voters that unless you had a Government member, unless there was a

member on the Government side of the House, the people in that

constituency would in one way or another be deprived people. That was

the focus of the whole Social Credit campaign. That was the thrust of

the whole Social Credit campaign.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Rubbish!

MR. STRACHAN: And, Mr. Speaker, that is a dangerous doctrine that can….

MR. WALLACE: Rubbish!

MR.STRACHAN: …. destroy democracy and lead the people….

MR. WALLACE: Rubbish!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the expert on rubbish to be quiet?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's his only vocabulary.

MR. STRACHAN: I want to refer again to the election, to the Vancouver Sun

of July 29th, to the great riding of Rossland-Trail, where they had a

nominating convention. I'll just read the first paragraph of the news

report:"An angry Robert Sommers led about 50 supporters from the Social

Credit nominating convention here Monday, charging they had been

deprived of a vote by steamroller politics. 'The big ugly machine was

working tonight — big money,' Sommers said after ending a hot exchange

with B.C. Social Credit League president George Dreidiger, 'It's real

steamroller politics.' he said." Of course I find I have to agree with

that particular attitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the Brothers brothers?

MR. STRACHAN: I want to refer, too, to an editorial.

AN HON. MEMBER: Brothers smothers Sommers.

MR. STRACHAN: Referring to the Social Credit advertisement

which misleadingly tried to identify Dean Scarfe with the educational

policies of this Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, you should be ashamed of yourself.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, in the Social Credit ad they tried

to infer that Dean Scarfe had endorsed the educational policies of the

Government of this Province. Mr. Scarfe said, "I'm appalled by what I

see in these ads. Nobody asked me." He said, "I don't like Social

Credit. I'm certain to vote for someone else. I never have voted for

Social Credit." You see, this

article said that his four-continent

survey showed that B.C. education was tops.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over Uganda.

MR. STRACHAN: The ad didn't say, but Dean Scarfe pointed out,

that he had toured a number of countries including Turkey, India, East

Africa, Ethiopia, nations of Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand.

He said, "I saw very little of Europe. Most of the countries I saw were

under-developed areas." Dean Scarfe also said that he pointed out "that

there is a good deal better education than British Columbia's education

in Scandinavia, Germany, France and in parts of Britain." That's the

misleading advertising that I'm referring to.

Then, of course, Mr. Speaker, there were the ads in the paper that

the member from Point Grey, the leader of the Liberals, referred to the

other day. Here is one of them that was in the Ladysmith Chronicle.

Where's the member from over here? Oh he's gone. This is from the

Duncan Pictorial, August the 13th. "The next time some personnel

manager says you're too old, fight back." The next time some personnel

manager tells you you're too old, fight back. That was on August the

13th. On August the 16th, Mr. Speaker, there was an ad in the Nanaimo

Free Press. "Logging instructor required. Persons presently employed in

the logging industry are invited to apply. The successful applicant

will be fully experienced in all phases of logging, be knowledgeable in

up-to-date logging methods and machinery, and be under 50 years of age."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. STRACHAN: Three days after the ad. What hypocrisy. What

hypocrisy. That ad was placed by the B.C. Vocational School, P.O. Box

130, Nanaimo, B.C. Under 50. This is an instructor. An instructor. An

instructor. The next time an employer tells you, you are too old, fight

back. There's the result.

[ Page 176 ]

I have another situation. Here's another one. Here's another man, a

design draftsman who applied for a job with the Vocational School. When

he applied for the job he had all the qualifications, and when he was

interviewed they admitted he had all the qualifications, but he was

refused the job because he was told that it was departmental policy not

to hire anyone over 35 for the job. The next time anyone tells you

you're too old, fight back, fight back, while that is going on, while

that is going on, and he was told that that is policy. Here's this

great Human Rights Act. Here it is, but it doesn't apply to the

Government of British Columbia. They refused to live up to the

standards that they ask the rest of the people to live up to, then they

wonder why our young people sometimes have contempt for the law. When

the chief exhibit in contempt for the law is the Government of British

Columbia itself.

I've been interested, Mr. Speaker, in what has been said in this

debate so far. The Social Credit member from North Peace River, I think

it was, South Peace River, South Peace River, told us that Government

action in northern British Columbia, I think the phrase he used was

"going at a turtle pace," a turtle pace. That's what he said, that's

what he said. I have to agree with him that the rounded life, the

dynamic life, and all the rest of it in the past has only been applied

in certain favoured constituencies, mostly in Okanagan and Kamloops.

Mostly in Okanagan and Kamloops.

But I was fascinated to hear the number of Government speakers who

got up and proposed a variety of tax increases. The new member from Oak

Bay wants to increase the per diem rate charged patients in hospitals.

One of the newspapers indicated that when he made the statement he was

greeted with just some thin applause by Opposition MLA's. That's not

what we were applauding. We were applauding his previous statement

where he said that many of the patients occupying acute beds, costing

$45 a day to operate, could quite adequately and efficiently be treated

in a facility far less expensive to construct and operate, yet provide

a level of care appropriate to the need of the patient. That's what we

were applauding.

But Mr. Speaker, we've been saying that for years, we've been saying

that for years, we've been demanding a chronic care construction

programme. They were promised in 1956, and after 14 years of promises

we discovered we had 105 chronic care beds in this Province. That's

what you are endorsing when you accept the Social Credit nomination.

You're endorsing the do-nothing policy of this Government for people

during the last 17 years, and now you want an increased load on the

workers and the people of the Province. What he doesn't know or what he

forgets. I don't know how long ago he left that great country of

Scotland, but when the premiums were abolished we added two cents to

the sales tax, and I haven't got the figures with me, but you'll find

that from 1954 until today the contribution made by the people of the

Province through sales tax has increased double and triple what it was,

and is up by millions and millions of dollars, up around $100,000,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. STRACHAN: I was here when the Bill went through, my

friend, I was here when the Bill went through, I know what the Minister

said, and that's what it was for.

DEPTUY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. STRACHAN: I was interested, too, on the suggestion made

by another member, the member from Revelstoke-Slocan, that we add

another one cent to the sales tax, so there's two members increasing

taxes. Remember this, since the election we've announced an increase in

power rates which we can't talk about. We've had an automobile

insurance increase. Can't talk about that. And now they're proposing

tripling the per diem rate for hospitals, they're proposing a one cent

increase in the sales tax.

Then on top of that comes the member from Nanaimo, and he wants a

selective increase on the sales tax. He wants an increase of one cent

on the sales tax to build a four-lane highway from Campbell River to

Victoria. No question that we need a four-lane highway from Campbell

River to Victoria, no question about it. But, Mr. Speaker, we on

Vancouver Island and the workers of Vancouver Island produce one-third

the total forest wealth production of this Province, and year after

year we've been providing the money out of that one-third, one-third.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, year after year while many areas,

including yours on Vancouver Island, have had to wait, the wealth

produced on Vancouver Island has been used all over the country, all

over the Province, and he's not only proposing an increase in sales

tax, he's proposing regional taxation, regional taxation. The people of

Vancouver Island, as far as I am concerned, have made their

contribution and are making their contribution to the wealth production

of this Province, and I'll fight to my last breath any attempt to

increase the sales tax for that.

It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this group is now the high tax

party. They are the people who want to load the taxes on the backs of

the people of this Province. Now the election's over…. now the

election's over, increased power rates, increased car insurance,

increased sales tax, increased hospital rates, this is the proposal

you've been getting.

Mr. Speaker, just in case there is any doubt about that matter, the

motion on the Order Paper has been placed since I spoke in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Premier speak on the Budget about power?

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, while you are taking that under

advisement, while you are taking that under advisement, I was

interested to note the

section in the Throne Speech which referred to

the continuation of harmonious cooperation that existed in this

Province with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I can't remember

which of the members over there it was who last year launched a vicious

attack on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but I'm glad to know

that harmonious cooperation does exist.

On the same page 1 notice a reference to the Workmen's Compensation

Board and its intention of constructing a rehabilitation centre in

Richmond to accommodate injured workmen and to reduce the time and cost

involved in returning injured B.C. workmen to productive employment. I

think this is a first-rate proposal. I think it should have been done a

long time ago. I'm sorry, however, that the Government has not adopted

what I consider to be the most rational policy with regard to

rehabilitation. I think there should be a unified rehabilitation

programme in the Province of British Columbia, because as it now is we

separate those who require rehabilitation because of illness from those

who require rehabilitation because they happened to have something

happen to them on the job. We're proposing to change

[ Page 177 ]

the name of a department to a Department of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement and I think if we are going to

have a fully effective rehabilitation programme then it must be

co-coordinated.

You know I'm not interested in a change of name, Mr. Speaker,

because it was in 1958 that we changed the situation, and it was in

1963 the programme was changed and we changed the name of the Family

Division to Social Assistance and Rehabilitation Division. We changed

the name actually in 1963, and when I put questions on the Order Paper

asking what the total case load was I found that in '64 it was 28,000.

How many had been rehabilitated? The answer was seven. In '65 when I

put the question on the Order Paper, what was the total case load, I

was told 29,000, how many had been rehabilitated, 41. In '66 the case

load was 29,000, how many had been rehabilitated, 45. The next year I

put the answer on the question paper — I put the order, a question on

the Order Paper. (laughter) Well, I could have written the answer

myself. I put the question on the Order Paper. Do you know the answer I

got, Mr. Speaker? The Minister answered, "It is not possible to provide

an answer. The method of keeping statistics is being changed." That's

all the change of name accomplished in 1963, and I certainly hope that

now that we've upgraded the change of name from merely a change of a

section of the department to a change of name of the department, that

something more will be done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when I am speaking of social welfare I want to

refer to something else related thereto. You've heard a lot of talk

about social welfare, that able-bodied people are on social welfare,

and I just briefly want to quote from the magazine, The Provincial,

which is a magazine put out by the Civil Service Association of British

Columbia, from a recent issue, January, 1970. They draw attention to

the fact, Mr. Speaker, that in a brief they cited the case of a

draftsman, grade 1, in Victoria, working for this Government who could

improve his financial status by quitting the Government service and

going on welfare. The man, married with two children, has a net annual

salary of $3,324. On welfare he would get $3,582 a year which is $258

more than he earned as a Government employee. He's a draftsman, grade

1. Now there's an indication of where the Government is once again not

giving leadership.

I notice in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, references to

cost-sharing programmes which the Government indicated that they don't

like, but my goodness they're sure happy to get them. They say they're

very happy to get these, some of them refer to ARDA, some of them refer

to the water control situation.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about pollution and the need

for something to be done. The lady Minister from North Okanagan, when

it was suggested that a pulp mill go into that area, she said, "Never!"

But you know, here is an ad from The Financial Post of last

September, placed by the Okanagan Regional Industrial Development

Council, of which the City of Vernon is a member, and look what it

says, "Plan your move to British Columbia's Okanagan Valley by December

31st and you will be money ahead. The Okanagan Valley is the only area

in British Columbia where substantial federal grants of up to one-third

approved capital costs." I like that initiative free enterprise risk

capital attitude. "And accelerated depreciation allowances are

available for new plant construction. But this highly advantageous

condition will alter drastically at the end of the year when the

Federal Government introduces a new incentive programme for which the

Okanagan is not eligible." It says — it says "If abundant fresh water,

a large and reliable labour pool, and location in one of North

America's finest resort areas sounds appealing, start planning your

company's move to the Okanagan." The City Council of Vernon helped pay

for this ad.

Here are two ads, both from The Financial Post, different issues.

"You want abundant fresh water for your next plant site? Plant yourself

in British Columbia. A virtually unlimited supply of fresh water from

countless rivers, lakes, and streams is only one of the natural

attributes of British Columbia." Who paid for that? The Government of

the Province of British Columbia, Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce. They are inviting, they are inviting the companies

to come in and pollute the water.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I notice in the Speech from the Throne that

control of air pollution standards is being passed on to the local

areas, again a refusal by this Government to accept its responsibility.

I would like to read, I have several letters but I'll just read you

this one. It came to me from Chemainus, dated January 26th. "Dear Mr.

Strachan: I am only ten years old but by the time I am 40 I may be dead

if pollution is not checked. The forests, fish, and maybe the human

race. DDT needs control to preserve birds. In a few years where will

our drinking water come from?" Signed "Yours truly." Mr. Speaker, I

threw across the floor earlier a remark that said, "What we need in

this Province is a Minister who is against pollution." That is a

desperate need in this Province, a Minister who is against pollution.

Because the Pollution Control Board is not there to prevent pollution.

This Minister admits quite frankly that he is not there to prevent

pollution. He is there to decide how much pollution he is going to

allow.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's been an easy position.

MR. STRACHAN: I am quoting from the Kamloops Pulp and Paper

News, an

article written by the Minister in '67, and he said, "Our

choice is progress or idealism." Progress or idealism. He said "The

hard fact of the matter is that some degree of pollution is inevitable

with the development of our country, which is particularly true of our

industrial expansion." Then he said, "We cannot sacrifice progress and

its benefits to unrealistic idealism." We cannot sacrifice progress or

its benefits to unrealistic idealism. He says, "It is perhaps a caprice

of life that the great water resource which is a major fact of our

progress is also our main vehicle of waste disposal." A caprice of

life! That is not a caprice of life. That is a Government decision.

In another

article in that same series he says, "Those who feel that

our rivers and lakes must be retained in an original state of purity

will be disappointed in what I have to say, for I can offer only

reality. No matter how much one may want to avoid it, the truth is that

pollution is inherent in man's progress. The two cannot be separated."

Mr. Speaker, this Minister is enunciating a philosophy of despair,

he has already given up and has no right to be in charge of pollution

prevention in the Province of British Columbia. There is his

philosophy. There is his attitude. A philosophy of despair. Progress or

idealism! Mr. Speaker, unless human progress is based on idealism it

can't be progress at all.

That's the basic difference between this party and that party and

that party, because from here on you are all the same in your attitude

towards our society. You think the

[ Page 178 ]

most important thing in the world is the gross

national product. That is worshipping the golden calf, Mr. Speaker, and

has produced the society that we have today, with its shoddy values,

and where we have a Minister of the Crown who is able to stand up and

say it is a caprice of life that we use our rivers as sewage disposal

units and say there is nothing we can do about it, because this is

progress.

Mr. Speaker, we have problems. I have said in this House that any

industry that can't afford to operate without pollution is not an

economic industry in the Province of British Columbia. We have problems

in education, pollution control, inflation, social welfare, municipal

or regional development, health care, recreation, labour laws, legal

aid and judicial equality, problems in the mishandling of our natural

resources, problems in housing, problems in foreign ownership, and the

impact this has on our development. You know, Mr. Speaker, I will save

this for later. This has to do with the Minister of Mines. I will save

that for later. These problems are the end product of the kind of

society that you people believe in. This society, your society, was

built by men whose main thrust was for the fast buck. You support a

society whose economic ethic is based on greed, covetousness and

self-interest. These are the motivating forces of the creed that you

espouse, and the end product of that creed are these long series of

problems that I have just listed for you. With your creed of divided

society, you have promoted discord, you have helped cause the situation

today, because you believe in this kind of world. This is your kind of

world, because of the ethics that you, as so-called free enterprisers,

have adopted.

We wonder why there is so much unrest and dissatisfaction in a

continent that has so much. Mr. Speaker, there is a haunting emptiness

to the kind of society that you people have produced in North America.

That is the cause of the unrest. That is the cause of the

dissatisfaction. That is the cause of the problems. This haunting

emptiness within this human being, because of the ethics of your kind

of society.

You know, Mr. Speaker, a 17-year-old girl last week attended a

business conference in Vancouver. I don't know how many of you read her

comments after she had attended that conference. A 17-year-old high

school girl attended a trade and industrial conference, along with

about 350 businessmen. Asked what conclusions she drew after sitting

through 23 speeches and often lengthy discussions from the floor, she

replied, "Everything centres all the time on money. Everybody is so

money-minded. What really surprised me was that people would come right

out and say that they are in business just to make money. I somehow

thought they would be more subtle about it." She was also dismayed at

the way Canada is considered a part of the United States. This is a

17-year-old girl after listening to businessmen of Canada in

conference. She was dismayed at the way they considered Canada to be

part of the United States. She said that "eventually perhaps we will

all live in one big world but right now I still feet very nationalistic

about Canada."

Mr. Speaker, I feel nationalistic about Canada, too. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that surely, surely, surely it is our responsibility to learn

from the experience of others and to learn from history, and the United

States Ambassador to Canada just last week gave us the benefit of the

United States experience. With exactly the same ethics as you people

espouse, exactly the same attitude as you people support, the United

States Ambassador, Adolph Schmidt gave a free warning for British

Columbia. He said, "Guard your natural resources." He said, "I hope it

will not be taken amiss if I remind you that my country also was

blessed with areas of great beauty and an abundance of natural

resources. But in our eagerness to tame and develop our portion of this

continent, or more specifically to make our fast dollar while the

getting was good, we have in many cases been profligate in our misuse

of these irreplaceable resources." In their pursuit of the fast dollar

they have in many cases been profligate in their misuse of their

natural resources. He said, "I hope your magnificent land of British

Columbia by forward planning, comprehensive and adequate zoning and its

regimen enforcement, can profit from some of our mistakes." You know

Mr. Speaker, someone should sign that man up in the New Democratic

Party. Someone should sign that man up in the New Democratic Party,

because this Speech from the Throne doesn't give any indication that we

have learned anything from history or that we are prepared to put an

end to the profligate misuse of the natural resources of British

Columbia.

You know, Mr. Speaker we on this side of the House, say that the day

of the fast buck, no matter what, must be ended. Your motto has been

"Sell, trade or give away anything, anytime, to anybody." You say we

should be thankful for every dollar that comes our way from some

charitable, munificent, splendiferous individual from across the sea or

across the border. Mr. Speaker, we are sitting in the driver's seat.

VancouverSun , January 23, 1970. Washington, D.C. "The Federal Power

Commission has issued a staff report forecasting shortage of natural

gas by 1973 or '74 unless either the discovery or the import of

additional gas supplies is sharply increased." Three or four years from

now! South of the border. They are going to be running out, and we are

breaking our necks to get rid of our natural resources as quickly as we

can at fire-sale prices. VancouverSun , January 23, 1970. "A 20-year

limit placed on reserves of metals." 20 year! "A leading Canadian

geophysicist said Wednesday that world consumption of non-ferrous

metals, copper, nickel, lead and zinc, is rising so rapidly that known

reserves are likely to be exhausted within 20 years."

We go madly and merrily along. Parks, anywhere, lakes, it doesn't

matter, get them out and get rid of them. Sell, trade, or give away.

Mr. Speaker, what we need are new standards, new values, and new

attitudes. The moaners, the people of little faith across the way, say

we should be thankful for every dollar that comes into the Province for

foreign exploitation of our own resources. But you know, Mr. Speaker,

even private enterprisers, some of them, are now beginning to realize

and recognize the need for change. Recently A.J. Miller, the former

president of the Ford Motor Company, said, "Business must recognize

that it cannot meet today's problems working alone, and that a high

degree of government direction and involvement is necessary." A high

degree of government direction and involvement is necessary. This is a

former president of the Ford Motor Company. Recognizing today's

economic scene, recognizing today's world, and you sit there and say

the best government is the least government. The best government is the

one that protects the future of the country and its people, and any

government that doesn't lead a country for its people, is no government

at all.

You know, Mr. Speaker, what they say? They say that oh well, United

States and all the rest of it, we're anti-American. But you know, Mr.

Speaker, we are in a situation where our social welfare rolls are

climbing, our unemployment figures are increasing. This system is

failing to ensure enough high-income jobs to maintain our position as a

Province with

[ Page 179 ]

the highest average income level in Canada. Our

economy is bleeding to death for the quest for the fast buck and for

this Government's policy of getting rid of our natural resources as

rapidly as possible. The level of secondary and tertiary industrial

development in British Columbia must be increased rapidly, must be

increased rapidly. New jobs can only be created in plants, not in the

mine or the woods, because the machines now do the work in the mines

and the woods. More of our raw material must be processed here in

British Columbia. I read your reports of the shortages. The world needs

them, and there is absolutely no reason why, with the proper Government

involvement, we can't produce these jobs. Why should we give them away

in a raw, semi-raw state while we have unemployed and people on

welfare? Why should we export them as rapidly as possible to be

processed in the United States or Japanese factories? The Economic

Council tells us that by 1980, by 1980 primary industry will employ

less than ten percent of our work force, less than ten per cent of our

work force.

Sit and listen my friend, just sit and listen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I'm not anti-American,

I'm pro-Canadian. You know, I have a quote here from someone we all

know, where it says Canada must free itself from the tight-money grip

caused by the United States, siphoning Canadian dollars to help pay for

the escalating Vietnamese war. Do you agree with that? Do you agree

with that? Canada must free itself from the tight money grip caused by

the United States siphoning Canadian dollars to help pay for the

escalating Vietnamese war. Another quote — he said, "We must seek to

displace our dependence on New York with the Canadian bond market and a

Canadian equity market of truly major proportions." Do you agree with

that? Or is that anti-American? These statements were made by the

Honourable Robert Bonner quoting to the Daily Colonist February 27,

1966. He said "The current drain, on Canadian reserves began last fall,

when the United States reversed the flow of money through

American-owned subsidiary companies in Canada to help pay for the

Vietnamese war abroad and its huge war on poverty at home."

AN HON. MEMBER: Robert who?

MR. STRACHAN: Robert Bonner said that. American owned

subsidiaries were draining off Canadian capital. This is what he said,

and I agree with him, I agree with him. You know, Mr. Speaker, we need

the wealth production here for social needs.

Last year the Minister of Labour, the Honourable L.R. Peterson,

Q.C., Attorney-General, Minister of Labour, Budget Debate, 3rd Session,

28th Legislative Assembly, February 1969, said, "It is the philosophy

of this Government that every citizen should be able to expect to

obtain employment under satisfactory working conditions." Where are the

policies in the Throne Speech that are going to allow the citizen of

this Province to expect to obtain employment at decent working

conditions, and at decent wages. Mr. Speaker, we are in serious

economic trouble, and there is more inflation to come. All the

predictions are for more inflation, and inflation always has hurt the

low-income group.

I was pleased to hear the member from Vancouver-Centre refer to the

problems of the senior citizens. We have a report that up to one

thousand of Greater Victoria's old people are living in appalling,

sleazy apartments, because they can neither find nor afford other

homes. There are present economic situations that support….

The Premier is simply extending his usual courtesy, Mr. Speaker, don't interrupt him, please.

The Economic Council in 1966 laid out the position that Canada was

facing, and it said, they made it abundantly clear, that if ways were

not found to restrain price increases, growth wouldn't be sustained and

we would get the worst of all worlds, inflation, slower sales and

higher unemployment, and that's exactly the position that we are now

moving into.

Part of our problem in this country is, of course, the fact that so

much of our economy is not controlled here in Canada. Part of our

problem is the multi-national aspects of control that have developed,

so that the individual governments are finding it almost impossible to

keep up to the ramifications of the business world and its ways of

manipulating. Through development of the multi-national corporation,

governments are finding it almost impossible to keep an eye on what

these corporations are doing. Their financial operation, their

relationship, the

procedures they use in order to arrive at their prices, and The

Financial Post of January 17th, gives us a picture of the financial relationships of the octopus that controls the forest and pulp and paper industry.

I'm hoping to demonstrate to you, as Minister of Trade and Industry,

the complete failure of the Government you support to be aware of the

world here around us and the action the Government must take in order

to overcome the problems today.

Here is the octopus, and this is only in one field. There's the

octopus, and this is why they are able to almost, and look at the name,

MacMillan Bloedel, Great Lakes Paper, Slater Steel Industries, Salada

Foods, Inter-Continental Pulp, Prince George Pulp, Canadian Forest

Products, Swiss Falls Power and Paper, Washington Star Limited,

Manikoogan Power Company, Quebec North-Shore Paper Company, Ontario

Paper Company, B.C. Forest Products, Brunswick Pulp and Paper Company,

Bow-Water Scott, Bow-Water Mersey, Minus Basin Pulp and Power, Skeena

Craft, Columbia Cellulose. There's the relationship. There's the

relationship. There's the business man's alliance. There's the

businessman's alliance in operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a super government.

MR. STRACHAN: And you sit back and you talk about

competition. You sit back and talk about free enterprise and

competition of the market place, when that's the situation. The same

article, and this is the Financial Post speaking, and they say, "Going

on to the next decade or two the growth of the corporate giants and

proliferation of the joint subsidiary will bring the world pulp and

paper industry closer together." Is it any wonder that, and they

describe the other, same situation exists in other fields of endeavor?

Now Mr. Speaker, I want to….

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to hear yourself talk.

MR. STRACHAN: Maybe I have been sounding off, according to

your dictionary, but I have more to say, and I'm going to say it. I'm

like the 17-year old girl I spoke to you about, I'm a nationalist,

insofar as Canada is concerned, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the

system must be changed,

[ Page 180 ]

it has to be changed.

All through this debate Mr.

Speaker, all through this debate every

Social Credit member has attacked the Benson White Paper. Almost every

Social Credit member has attacked the Benson White Paper. I think they

are preparing the way for the Premier's Budget Speech. — I think they

are preparing the way …. I listened to your speech, you just sit

quiet a minute, my friend, and I'll tell you about the White Paper.

These

speakers are preparing the way for the Premier's Budget Speech when, as

usual, he will lash out at Ottawa and blame Ottawa, and blame the

Liberals, and blame Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, our whole economy is about to fall apart. People on the

low incomes are being squeezed. Our whole tax structure from top to

bottom is crying for revision. It's shot through with inequalities,

it's shot through with special privilege and growing unworkability, and

this old Tory party across the way is opposing any changes. I don't

think any of you have even read the Benson White Paper, except the

Premier. Let's look at what happened in this Province before we start

attacking the tax policies of the Federal Government.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the changes that were made in the tax

notices in this Province for property taxing by law, so that the people

would not have a full realization of the impact of Provincial taxes.

The changes were instituted last year for the people in the rural

areas. We used to, when we paid our taxes, we got a receipt that showed

the break-down of what we had paid for schools, what we had paid for

hospitals, what we had paid for local taxes, and everything. Now they

don't want the people to know this, or remember this any more. Now all

you get is a little square back, with none of the details, none of the

details. It so happens I insisted, I asked for a photostat of the

paper, the tax paper that went with it, so that I can keep up to the

changing situation. Then you changed the delinquent tax date insofar as

the payment of taxes was concerned, which is an imposition on the

farmer. It has made it more difficult for the farmers of this Province

to operate, forced them to go to the banks and borrow money at high

interest rates. Your property-tax system is rigged to discourage

improvements of people's homes.

You have an assessment of Foundations at the maximum succession rate

for tax purposes, and many of those trusts, as you know, provide social

benefits.

I want to remind you what your Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs

said about your own Provincial tax system. He said the local tax system

in British Columbia is outdated. He said the municipal tax collection

is outdated, inefficient and inconvenient. He said another major factor

in taxation is making sure it is applied equitably. The Deputy Minister

of Municipal Affairs admits and did admit that your property taxation

system was inequitable. Then your assessment policies have driven

thousands from their homes. Your assessments have driven thousands of

people from their homes, and only the wealthy can now afford to live in

the nice areas of British Columbia, the waterfront areas, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, the member has been asking for my position on the White

Paper. I propose to examine the White Paper now in some detail, in some

detail. Page 5, — I don't care how long it takes. Mr. Speaker, it's

time somebody stood up in this House and spoke for the little people,

the little people of British Columbia. We've heard you defend special

privilege over there.

The White Paper starts off by saying the government will welcome

public discussion. Detailed discussion are also planned with provincial

government representatives. It says, "The need for a general reform is

clear, and in some instances striking. The problems to be faced admit

to no easy solution. Reforms in this complicated and controversial area

of government policy will inevitably fall open to argument. The needs

of the federal and provincial governments for money to do useful and

important things are so great, that we cannot now afford to reduce the

over-all revenues from personal and corporate income tax." They are

advanced for discussion and review. Then he describes what is fairness

in taxation principles, and one of the measures of fair taxation is

that people in similar circumstances should carry similar shares of the

tax load. People in similar circumstances should carry similar shares

of the tax load. Fairness also requires that people with higher

incomes, people who are better off, should be expected to pay in taxes

the larger share of their incomes than persons with lower incomes. This

concept of "ability to pay" is embodied mainly in the personal income

tax as a progressive graduated tax. A final important goal for tax

reform must be its appeal to Provincial Government and legislatures as

a system they too can use, and it goes into that later on.

Now on Page 9 he talks about the increase in exemptions under the

tax proposal. He describes the exemptions, then he says, "This change

in exemption alone would take about 750,000 Canadians off the income

tax rolls." 750,000 Canadians are no longer going to pay income tax

because of the increased exemption. Are you opposed to that? Are you

opposed to that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he is.

MR. STRACHAN: It's obvious from every remark we've had from that side of the House that you are opposed to it.

Taken together with the other changes proposed it would reduce taxes

on almost 3,000,000 more at the low end of the taxable scale. Reduce

taxes on 3,000,000 Canadians at the low end of the tax scale. Are you

opposed to that? You must be, you must be, because every expression

we've had from across the House has been in opposition to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can't live now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who're you fighting for?

MR. STRACHAN: Page 10, 1.29. Capital Gains was raised. This

is what he says, "Those who make substantial capital gains in the stock

market or in real estate increase their ability to spend money just as

those who earn wages or derive an income from carrying on business.

Interest payments are already fully taxed. Capital gains are now widely

sought as an objective in investment. Indeed the freedom of capital

gains from tax is distorting the investment of savings under present

circumstances."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. STRACHAN: Distorting the investment of savings. I could

talk to you about Frank MacMahon and the capital gains that he got — five cents a share, and they went on up, up, up.

Now then, page 10, 1. 31. "Once capital gains are included in

taxable income, the portion of the total income of the wealthy that is

brought into tax would be dramatically

[ Page 181 ]

increased." But it's also proposed, don't forget, that the marginal

rates in excess of 50 per cent be reduced to 50 per cent in four

installments as the capital gains subject to tax increase. In other

words they're going to lower the base of tax while they're bringing in

the capital gains situation. Now, I'm not finished with capital gains.

I went to page 36, "At present Canada does not tax this ability to

pay." This is the capital gains. "As a result, some very well-to-do

Canadians pay far less tax than others with similar abilities to pay,

and less even than others with much lower incomes (all because these

particular Canadians receive a large part of their income as capital

gains). Moreover, it has been possible for the sophisticated to arrange

their transactions in such a way that they receive as capital gains

amounts that would have been income had the transaction been carried

out in a normal manner." Are you in favour of that? Tax evasion? Tax

evasion?

I'd like to look at another aspect of the government's White Paper,

which I think is interesting in reflecting the attitudes of the people

across the way. It says various fringe benefits received by employees

or by owners of businesses would be included in income for the first

time. For example, an employee or owner of a business with a

business-owned car available for his personal use would be required to

include a minimum amount in this taxable income unless he pays the

business at least that amount for the use of the car. Then over here on

page 16 it says, "The government has considered this issue at length."

This is the matter of capital gains. "It proposes two sets of measures

to remedy the disparity. First, in regard to those in businesses and

the professions, and to certain types of benefits granted by employers

to senior employees, it intends to set more rigorous limits to check

expense account living." What are these factors of expense account

living? "The costs of attending conventions and belonging to clubs

would no longer be permitted as a charge in determining business

income."

AN HON. MEMBER: Permanent home at the Vancouver Hotel.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the cost of yachts, hunting and

fishing lodges or camps, amounts spent for tickets for games and

performances, the costs of entertainment, would also be excluded.

Owners or employees of a business having a car or aircraft available to

them for their personal use,…

AN HON. MEMBER: How about aircraft trips?

MR. STRACHAN: …. including travel to or from home, would

have to pay the business a minimum standby charge. Yachts, hunting

lodges, fishing camps. Are they against taxing people who have this

privilege? That's what they're opposing. That's what they are trying to

protect, these special privilege groups. The people with the yachts and

the aircraft and the hunting lodges. This is why they're opposed to the

capital gains tax. How about the section, Mr. Speaker, in the Benson

White Paper which is going to give a special privilege? I'm talking

about this Paper and I'm quoting from this Paper. You oppose it, you

oppose it, and it's on your conscience you oppose it.

Listen to this, "An additional amount of $500 is currently added to

the personal exemption for a person over 70, or for a blind person, or

for a person confined to a wheelchair. Although the royal commission

recommended that this be cancelled, it is proposed to continue this

additional exemption." An additional $500 for people over 70, blind

people and people in wheelchairs. You're opposing that? You're opposing

that? You're opposing that? All you're protecting, yes, are the hunting

lodges of the elite….

AN HON. MEMBER: And the aeroplanes.

MR. STRACHAN: …. and the aeroplanes, and the camps. That's what you're doing, that's what you're doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're going to shoot your plane down, Mr. Benson will shoot your plane down.

MR. STRACHAN: We've had a situation, Mr. Speaker, with regard

to the mines and I hear this wail about the mines, about the mines. Mr.

Speaker, there was a special privilege for mines where they were

allowed to write off, where they were allowed to pay no tax at all

where they paid no tax at all for the first three years of their

operation. This Paper does not propose to take away from mines the

right to the complete write-off of their total investment. This Paper

preserves the right of the mine. Now where's this initiative, this risk

capital we hear so much about? The Benson Paper still allows the full

and complete write-off, but what it stops, Mr. Speaker, is the evasion

of tax once the company has had the full return on the amount of money

they spent. That's what it avoids.

But what you're trying to preserve is the right of a company that

even after it's received its investment in full, time and time again,

still to be exempt from paying taxes. Like the Endaco Mine in this

Province — tax free. A million and a quarter dollars a month profit and

not one cent of taxes going to the people. The Paper also makes it

clear, the Paper also makes it clear how we came into this matter of

depletion allowancing and how the tax structure changed and how, long

after the three-year exemption, the companies were still able to evade

taxation through depletion allowances, depreciation and write-offs.

They weren't paying their fair share of the taxes, and this Paper

simply says it's time they did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. STRACHAN: And we agree, we agree. The present situation

has allowed them to be high-graded. It still allows depletion

allowances, Mr. Speaker, but the depletion allowances must be used for

further exploration. What's the matter with that? What's the matter

with that? They change the method in this Paper to allowances so that

the person gets the benefit of taxes paid by the corporation. What's

the matter with that? It's simply saying that if you've got the money

you pay the tax.

What do we say about apartment dwellers, apartment owners? Page 62,

let's have a look. Apartment owners, "Many taxpayers who would

otherwise be in quite high tax brackets have become landlords, and have

been able to reduce or eliminate the tax on their other income by

claiming the maximum depreciation on their buildings. Ideally this

early generosity should be offset by lower depreciation deductions in

later years, or by recapture of the extra depreciation on sale.

However, if the taxpayer buys additional buildings, and with the

relatively low down payments required, this can be done out of the tax

saving alone, he can postpone almost indefinitely, the day when his

total depreciation deductions will drop below average. Moreover,

[ Page 182 ]

since most of the buildings concerned are in the same class, a

taxpayer who sells a building can avoid recapture of the proceeds by

investing them in another building. Finally, if the taxpayer continues

this process through his life, the tax postponed becomes tax saved

forever. When a taxpayer dies, excess depreciation is not recaptured,

and the person who inherits the buildings is entitled to depreciate the

full fair market value of the buildings, no matter what net book value

his predecessor had. The government proposes to close this loophole in

three ways."

You're protecting the yacht owners, the aircraft people, the mining

companies, the apartment dwellers — the apartment owners, the tax

dodgers, the dead-beats in the high income level. That's who you're

protecting. All this tax would do, Mr. Speaker, all this tax would do,

would mean there would be a day of reckoning for the owner of each

large building. As each such building is sold the taxpayer would bring

back into income the amount by which depreciation deducted for tax

purposes exceeds the depreciation actually suffered.

Foreign Corporations. "As noted above, the exemption privilege is

susceptible to abuse. Not all foreign corporations carry on bonafide

business operations." Some are merely devices to dodge income tax, and

in actual fact in many cases, because of the ramifications of the

situation and the tax structure, Canada has become a tax haven for

foreign corporations who are dead-beats and dodging their tax

responsibilities to this country. This Paper proposes to change it.

You're opposed to paying corporations? "Provisions will be put forward

to prevent taxpayers from reducing Canadian tax by transferring the

operation" — now I showed you that chart of the inter-relationship of

companies — "Provisions will be put forward to prevent taxpayers from

reducing Canadian tax by transferring the operation of a foreign branch

which has sustained losses to a foreign company in order to avoid the

Canadian tax which should ordinarily be recaptured on subsequent branch

profits."

Mr. Speaker, in this Paper there's allowance to be made for child

care for mothers who go to work, it proposes to make a tax allowance

for child care for mothers who have to go to work. Do you oppose to

that? You'll protect the apartment owners, you'll protect the big

mining companies, you'll protect the big yacht owners, but the mother

who has to go to work — not a word, not a word. They're against the

Benson White Paper and they're on the record, they're on the record.

Whose side are you on, whose side are you on?

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to go through the chart, the income tax,

the whole series of tables, because you know what happens here? It's

interesting, starting about Table Four. Single taxpayer, no dependents,

$3,000, his tax deduction will only be reduced by $7, but do you know

the man with a $100,000 a year income, his taxes are only going to go

up by $677. That's all, that's all, it's going up by $677.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, do they react.

MR. STRACHAN: Then you come to a married taxpayer with no

dependents. At $8,000 his tax will go down by $71. The man with a

$100,000 income, his tax will go up by $414. The married man with a

$100,000 under these changes, his tax will go up by $414.

This is on income from employment, this in on employment income,

productive income, paid for the contribution you had made to the

productive life of the community. Married taxpayer, two dependent

children, $8,000 a year, his tax would go down by $83. The man with a

$100,000, married man, two children, his tax will go up by $417. And we

go through the rest of the tables and we find there isn't much

difference. I gave you the figures on the people who are going to

benefit.

The chart also shows that out of all this is going to come an

increase in revenue to the Province of British Columbia and to the

coffers of the Province of British Columbia, of $2,800,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a headline somewhere which talked about

somebody organizing revolt — revolt — because of these tax change

proposals, a businessman or somebody is going to organize revolt. Mr.

Speaker, if any trade union leader used that kind of language about the

editorial writers would have been saying. You can imagine what they

would be saying. Organize revolt.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote you from a small businessman

in British Columbia that I am proud to have in British Columbia. He is

of Danish extraction. You may have noticed the piece in the paper the

other day. He is up in the Fraser Valley somewhere starting up business

with $50,000, or 60,000 investment, building clogs and shoes. He said

he was asked wasn't he afraid his business will by shot down by Finance

Minister Edgar Benson's small business taxation proposals in the

controversial White Paper. Not this small businessman! In his own words

he said, "I don't mind paying higher taxes as long as it can be shown

the tax load is being evenly distributed." "I don't mind paying higher

taxes as long as it can be shown the tax load is evenly distributed."

You people have been part of the massive attack mounted on the

Federal Government and the Benson tax proposals for special privilege,

to maintain special privilege. And the Liberals in this House, I think,

should be fairly ashamed of themselves because not only did they fail

to rise in defense of the 4,000,000 taxpayers of the low income group,

not only were they prepared to accept the special privilege that has

been bleeding us to death in Canada, but they weren't prepared to

defend the proposals made by their own Liberal Minister in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that a good idea should be

supported, no matter who makes it. I have no vested interest in

maintaining the status quo, but I don't want to see this country

degenerate into chaos. Nobody can win that one. Sinclair Lewis wrote a

book a number of years ago called 'Babbitt,' and he described the

typical businessman of the era, concerned only with his own little

world, his own little interests, proud of his ignorance, and content

with everything as it was. Babbitt, in today's society, Mr. Speaker,

will destroy Canada. Everyone in this country is demanding that

everyone else makes sacrifices but they want to be left alone to do as

they please. This is the ethic of your society, the society you

produced. Make everyone else make sacrifices, but leave me alone, to

make my slice of pie.

It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, the relationship there is between the

free enterprise ethic of "let me do as I please" and the hippie

generation. Their thinking, their attitudes, are almost identical.

Leave me alone to do as I please. It is my business. Don't interfere

with me. That is the hippie attitude, and that is exactly the end

attitude that you have produced in our society. Make everyone else

change, but leave me alone. Everyone is demanding that everyone else

make sacrifices but they want to be left alone to do as they please.

I can't help returning, Mr. Speaker, to what that 17-year-old girl said. "Eventually perhaps we will all live in

[ Page 183 ]

one big world country but right now I feel very nationalistic about

Canada." I still feel very nationalistic about Canada. In these days of

crisis, Mr. Speaker, every Canadian must search his conscience and his

soul. He must ask himself if his attitudes and actions are motivated by

narrow self-interest or does he fully recognize the needs of Canada.

Right now, as never before in history, Canada needs the support of the

people of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada has asked for our help

and our understanding. Mr. Speaker, it will be at our peril that we

refuse that help and understanding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. AGNES KRIPPS (2nd-Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I wish

to thank the honourable members of this House for the warm welcome they

have extended to me, and I was interested to hear the first member from

Vancouver Centre say that his daughter was in the House and she still

thinks the Premier works for him. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have made it

clear to my four children in the House that the Premier not only works

for me and every member of this House, but he works for all the people

of British Columbia.

May I offer my congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker. Your

office is the cornerstone of the democratic functioning of our

Legislature, and I am confident that as a born parliamentarian you will

serve in an impartial and effective manner.

May I also congratulate all members returning to the House and the

many new members, such as myself, who were elected and have taken their

seats in this Legislative Chamber. We are charged with an immense

responsibility. I hope we prove worthy of it. My sincere

congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the

Throne.

I also wish to congratulate the Premier of this Province on his

great victory and that of the Social Credit party. Our Premier has

accomplished a unique task which will never be equalled in the history

of this Province. My congratulations to him for having raised British

Columbia to its present level of achievement. To the Premier and Mrs.

Bennett I offer my sincere best wishes for many years of continued good

health and happiness.

I extend warm regards to the honourable part-time Leader of the

Opposition and also to the honourable lady Deputy Leader of the

Opposition, and I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if she was good enough to be

a Deputy Leader she is good enough to be the Leader. My warm regards

also to the honourable Leader of the five-member Liberal party. The

role of those designated as members of the Opposition is not to oppose

the Government simply for the sake of opposing, but rather to aid in

the solving of problems by keeping a vigilant watch for error, and by

presenting alternate proposals which will lead to more effective

solutions and better legislation. I look forward to seeing our

Opposition functioning in this positive manner.

I also wish to express to the people of Vancouver South my sincere

and grateful thanks for the great majority I enjoy as the result of

their expression of faith and confidence in me and the Social Credit

Government.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no more challenging times for ones who

enter the provincial political arena than at present. I am very proud

of the Premier of our Province and the Leader of the Social Credit

Government, the Government of imagination, new ideas, and experience.

The Government with the financial ability to make all our dreams, and

in particular those of the less fortunate, come true. I will work and

give all my time and energies and abilities to see that my Leader's

programme is fully carried out in the best interests of all the

citizens of this great Province, the Province of opportunity and

plenty. I will go about that task, along with my colleagues, to see

that the good and welfare of all people receive paramount attention.

I consider it an honour, Mr. Speaker, to take my place in this

debate on the Throne Speech and to represent, along with my colleague,

the Honourable Minister of Health and Hospital Insurance, the

constituency of Vancouver South, the most diverse and representative

riding in the Province of British Columbia, the riding which,

according to all news media, is going to set the pattern for the

Province. How goes Vancouver South, so goes the Province, they said.

And away we went, making the 1969 election victory, in the words of our

Premier, the greatest and the sweetest of them all.

Mr. Speaker, the legislative programme outlined in the Speech from

the Throne is most impressive and shows clearly the determination of

the Government to keep things moving forward in our Province, with

particular emphasis on the quality of human life and environment. It is

a positive, concrete programme, adapted to the needs of today with

plans for the needs of future generations yet unborn.

Mr. Speaker, in the early days when our country was being developed,

there were so many things to be done by so few that the talents of each

person, young and old alike, were utilized to the maximum. The strength

and vigor of youth was combined with the knowledge and experience of

the older folk to break new ground. Today, Mr. Speaker, we find

ourselves in a rather affluent society with comforts, conveniences, and

wealth beyond the wildest expectations of our pioneers. An integral

part of the affluence, is the decreasing need to take full advantage of

the potentials of every segment of our society.

One of these very important segments, Mr. Speaker, is that of our

youth, the greatest single human resource which in British Columbia is

862,447 strong, almost 50 per cent of our total population under the

age of 25, according to the 1966 census. The youth of today are bigger,

stronger, better educated, and more knowledgeable about the world in

which we live than any previous generation. These young people want to

be heard. They want to be recognized. They want to help. They feel they

have something to offer, but are often frustrated because we do not

provide the opportunity, nor have we made provision to take advantage

of their offers. Mr. Speaker, I believe the talents and energies of

today's youth are misspent. Essentially, children love change. Today's

young people were born into it, have adjusted to it, and welcome it.

The generation gap that often occurs, I believe, is due to the fact

that adults and those in authority are all too often resisters and not

supporters of change.

Our society tends to overprotect our young. We give them few

opportunities to share in the decision-making. As a consequence, many

young people do not have the opportunity to prepare themselves to

become a fully responsible, mature adult when they reach the magic age

of 21. Mr. Speaker, the youth of today must be given an opportunity to

grow, to be creative, to learn, and to become aware and able to develop

as responsible citizens. They must be given the chance they deserve to

prove themselves as individuals in this affluent society.

Mr. Speaker, today there are just too many unmet needs of youth. The

lack of co-ordination and direction, for example, is frustrating to the

young people and, as a result,