1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 407 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1971

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY

(Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to

stand in my place representing Vancouver–Little Mountain in a very,

very important week to British Columbians and to our Nation and to the

world — Brotherhood Week. I know the Members of the House will join me

in recognition of a week that I hope will become a year-round

commitment of all Members of this House and all Canadians everywhere of

Brotherhood Week in British Columbia.

I think a very good example of Brotherhood Week was made yesterday

when all of the people of the lower mainland joined with Channel 6 and

8 television in their yearly telethon. It is my pleasure today to

announce that the Variety Club yesterday raised $180,000, the latest

total, and more monies are still coming in from those citizens. That

$180,000, Mr. Speaker, includes the $25,000 grant from our Provincial

Government (interruption). I think it would be unanimous, Mr. Leader, and I'm sure that you wouldn't question the expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, I would say, too, that I would like to join Members of

the House and, particularly, Members of the Opposition Party in wishing

the Honourable Member from Burnaby North a very happy birthday.

As I was putting some thoughts together on the Budget Debate this

last weekend, I tried to recall what the Honourable Leader of the

Opposition Party had said just a week ago. It wasn't easy. It appears

that the Honourable Leader is now affecting the stance of a

businessman. He's trying to be the knowledgeable businessman, Mr.

Speaker, and he's shedding his social worker role. It now appears that

he may even be trying to negate his support of the famous Watkins

Report. Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what self-respecting Socialist and

supporter of the Watkins Report would go to Japan or any other outside

country to encourage them to invest in British Columbia?

Let me quote from the Watkins Report that the Honourable the Leader

of the Opposition supported. "Capitalism must be replaced by Socialism,

by National planning of investment and by the public ownership of the

means of production." It goes on, drawing on Marx, by saying, "The

programme should include nationalization of the commanding heights of

the economy," which is a Lenin quote I might add. "The radicals reject

as futile any policy of making American corporations behave as if they

were Canadian corporations, or substituting Canadian capitalists for

American capitalists. There is not now an independent Canadian

capitalism and any lingering pretensions on the part of Canadian

businessmen to independence lack credibility. Without a strong National

capitalistic class behind them, Canadian Governments, Liberal and

Conservative, have functioned in the interests of international and,

particularly, American capitalism, and have lacked the will to pursue

even a modest strategy of economic independence." The reporter,

reporting on the Watkins Report, says "Canadian capitalism is dead,

death to international capitalism."

So it is strange that the honourable Socialist Leader should back

that philosophy and still be holding meetings with the Japanese car

dealers. On this side of the House, we've always found it a little

surprising that the Socialists over there argue that a British

Columbian working at a job provided by an outside investor… (interruption).

I am not quoting the Watkins Report now, Mr. Member. Again, I'm

saying the Socialists over there argue that a British Columbian working

at a job provided by an outside investor would somehow be better off if

he remained unemployed until such time as domestic capital filled the

investment gap.

Let me give the Leader of the Socialists opposite and his Members

sitting there some facts about British Columbia's economic growth,

which he chose to ignore just a week ago.

In the past ten years capital investment in this Province has grown

by 125 per cent, investment of that magnitude then helped to stimulate

a 134 per cent increase in wages and salaries, a 126 per cent increase

in Gross Provincial Product, a 157 per cent increase in building

permits and a 78 per cent increase in retail sales. All of this, from a

population which increased only 32 per cent, which, in itself, is a

good sized increase.

The assessment of the Budget, however, from the other honourable

leader of the Socialist Party, the Member from Cowichan-Malahat, summed

up all the benefits, all of the programmes of this tremendous

$1,300,000,000 Budget as one that would have been suitable 45 years

ago. He said it would have been a great Budget 45 years ago, Mr.

Speaker, but not suitable today. Now, I have here the 1927 Budget, and

I would suggest to the honourable Member that he would not want that

kind of financing for our people today. Let's just take one item — the

Pacific Great Eastern Railway. In 1927, the PGE… (interruption).

You were the one…they didn't put out…I just thought you might

bring that to my attention so that I could tell you, for your

information, Mr. Member, that there wasn't a 1926 Budget produced. They

were both produced as a joint Budget in the year of 1927 (laughter).

In 1927, the PGE covered…Mr. Member, please listen to this because

I know you'd want to know this. The PGE covered, in 1927, 347 miles

and, for years afterwards, it was known as the railway that started

nowhere and ended nowhere. In 1971, however, how many miles does the

PGE cover, today? The Budget we're talking about, today — 1,797.8

miles, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in 1927, the Government… (interruption) Let me tell

you, that's more than the Federal Government did. In 1927, the

Government of that day showed a revenue from all railways in the

Province, and I say all railways, of $74,000. At the same time, they

showed a deficit and maintenance of the PGE at $300,000, as well as a

$790,000 interest payment for that one year, alone.

Over $1 million loss, Mr. Speaker, in 1927, when $1 million was a

very large part of the then $19 million total Budget of that year.

Today, our PGE shows, under this administration, as a viable,

profit-producing corporation, shows a full profit, after all expenses,

of $896,000, very close to a $1 million profit, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the Honourable Member from Cowichan-Malahat can go back 45

years if he wishes to. He can use any comparison, try any yardstick,

any measuring stick he wants. They're all the same, Mr. Speaker, a

remarkable contrast between bad fiscal policy of 1927 with good

business management of today in 1970 and 1971.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was a little concerned, over this last

[ Page 408 ]

weekend, to note in the press a

summary of cutbacks

in bus service in both Vancouver and Victoria by our Crown corporation,

the B.C. Hydro. Now, I can understand that a higher wage contract

would, perhaps, result in cutbacks of service in order to fit into the

businesslike management of that corporation. Perhaps, curtailment of

some special runs or services is indeed justified. But, Mr. Speaker,

one announced policy to eliminate theSun day 50 cent pass has to be a

pretty picayune decision by the B.C. Hydro. Our Government established

the senior citizens' bus pass for all elderly citizens on the

supplementary income, and my colleague, the Honourable Member from

Mackenzie, the Minister without Portfolio, was responsible for bringing

that to the attention of the Hydro and seeing that it was done. It has

given a great deal of pleasure to very, very many senior citizens. It

has been a good and a sensible programme and it pays tribute to the

senior citizen, who has contributed to his community, but who is caught

in an inflationary period where each of his dollars lose their value

daily. But there is still a group of old age pensioners who are not in

receipt of the supplementary income and they're not millionaires,

either. For a great many, the only recreation they have is theSunday drive with Hydro.

I would hope that Dr. Shrum and the B.C. Hydro would take a second

look and consider the wellbeing of the many pioneers, without whose

efforts in building this country most of us would be far worse off

today.

I'd like to say, too, in respect to the pioneers of this Province,

that I believe most citizens would approve of providing a free pass for

Centennial Year. It could be the Golden Dogwood Pass and would

demonstrate, in this Centennial Year, our respect and gratitude to

those people who struggled through a depression and two World Wars to

preserve a way of life in which they believed.

Also, I'd like to suggest that we all light up for Centennial and,

in case you think I'm talking about that bad smoking habit, I'm going

to suggest that everybody puts their porch lights on and lights up

every street in every community in British Columbia for the Centennial

Year. I'd even suggest that those people who have Christmas lights

change the bulbs to blue and yellow and light up a blue and yellow

Centennial theme all across this Province for Centennial 1971.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it always pleases me to see the examples of

good humour in this House. I think one of the most interesting and

probably unlooked-for advantages of sitting in any Legislative Chamber

is the opportunity of hearing some really funny quips, some genuine and

quick humour, and it has long been my contention that without that this

would be a pretty dry association, indeed. Now, if I were judging the

Session thus far, I would say that the Good Humour Honours Award should

go to the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable First

Member from Vancouver Centre, the Minister of Agriculture, and the

Honourable Member from Dewdney. Hilarious as these gentlemen can be,

Mr. Speaker, none of them can match the wit, however, of the Honourable

the Leader of the Liberal Party.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's when the Honourable the Leader of the

Liberal Party speaks in the Budget Debate that he becomes the most

hilarious. For three successive Sessions, this Liberal Leader has given

us an insight as to what he and his Party would do if they had the

opportunity to present a budget to this house. Now, that has to be

pretty funny. I mean really funny, especially the part where he

promises sound fiscal management. Then there was the

part in his mock

budget where he talks of shadowy dealings and internal jugglings.

Knowing the record of the mismanagement of past Liberal administrations

in this Province and the ineptness of the financial management of our

money by the Federal Liberals, right now, I've… (interruption) . I've never been a Liberal, my friend. The Liberal Leader's budget would rival a best selling joke book, it really would.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MRS. McCARTHY: Let me share with the House a few examples of

Liberal fiscal policy and their sound business management. Now, you'll

recall some of these. I think you probably have heard of these before.

It seems to me I've brought these before the House before, but I'll try

not to be repetitious.

A few years ago, the Post Office Department overestimated the size

of the Christmas mail. The result — a stock of 53 million stamps marked

Christmas, 1964. The printing cost was $16,000. Because it was one day

late in renewing a lease, the Defense Department was required to pay an

extra $17,250 for the rent of a Montreal building. Through a clerical

error, a hospital was paid a construction grant of $109,000, although

it had only sought $46,000. Then, of course, we all remember, with much

shame, the CS5 history. Here was $140 million of CS5 aircraft, built by

Canadair in Montreal, which have now been scrapped and will never fly.

One of the Conservative Members, obviously a rather biased gentleman,

Mr. George Hees, Progressive Conservative Member for Prince

Edward-Hastings, said, "It is the most irresponsible waste of public

funds in Canadian peacetime history." Well, I don't know. I think I

would argue with Mr. Hees on that. They have done better than that and

let me tell you about it.

Consultants fees…You'd be interested in that, because you've been

a consultant, Mr. Member from Vancouver East. Eight hundred and

forty-three thousand dollars — the Federal Government does things, in a

big way — was paid out to consultants for two departments. The Manpower

and Immigration Department, in disclosing details on its consultations,

claimed that, despite having a staff of more than 9,000 people, there

was nobody on the payroll qualified to do the work of these

specialists. Could the work have been performed by the regular staff of

the department? The short answer was no. Then the department, when

asked what was so special about the qualifications and requirements,

explained that there were no desirable qualifications specified for

those positions. There we are, with $843,000 of the taxpayers' money

down the drain.

Then you'll recall the

on taxation and let's hope that we can forget it one of these days. I understand it's still with us. But, remember that that White Paper

had received — the Department, Mr. Benson's department — over 5,000

letters at the time, April 10, 1970, when he, in spite of his 6,000

employees, put 10 chartered accountants on the payroll to answer the

backlog of 5,000 letters. Ten chartered accountants were each to be

paid $200 a day; for living accommodation, they would receive $200 a

week extra. Then, to oversee the chartered accountants to make sure

they were answering all this mail on the White Paper , Mr. Benson hired a projects manager, who was to be paid, again, $200 a day.

Then, we could turn to the exciting story of the CYC, where they

spent $70,000 on a road that goes nowhere at Fort Norman, with a

population of 300. They spent $70,000

[ Page 409 ]

on planning in Mackenzie River settlements, with as

little population as 35 persons. They spent $85 million on a railway to

serve one mine, Pine Point, owned in large part by a competing railway

company. Then you can turn to the exciting story of the Bonaventure and you'll recall that that refit was to cost $8 million; it grew to $17 million and then the Bonaventure was scrapped.

Well, I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and some of these are

rather interesting. I think it's rather interesting to note that the

Consumer Affairs Department puts out very costly press releases and one

of them is, "How Do I Buy and Judge Shoes?" This is where our money is

being spent under this very fine fiscal management the Liberal Leader

talks about. One of the questions is rather interesting. It says, "Are

there different types of feet and do they need any extra consideration

when choosing shoes?" The answer is, "Yes, there are two extreme types

— the thin foot and the fleshy foot, with many variations in between."

Of course, everyone will recall the National Art Centre, which was,

in itself, a rather expensive project and overexpended by millions its

capital budget, but, now, in October they spent in public relations,

alone, a sum of $589,000 of tax money. We could go on and on to note

that, for instance, the new uniforms for changing the National armed

forces into a new colour and a new uniform across Canada is going to

cost all of us, as taxpayers, $25 million. The B & B Commission, of

course, has been more than spendthrifty with our tax dollars and, just

in their commission activities, just for honoraria to the Committee,

itself, we have a sum of $800,000 for a nine-month period.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we could look to all of the many expenditures for

defense, expenditures for capital, but one of the interesting expenses

that I'd like to draw your attention to is the Prime Minister's office,

the Prime Minister of Canada, who, has appointed to his staff since he

has become Prime Minister, 69 extra people in his office. "How many of

these appointments were filled by the Public Service Commission?" the

question was asked. Five of the 69 were filled through the Public

Service Commission and 64 of them were not. Of all of the people that

were appointed to the Privy Council Office, under the present Prime

Minister, just since his time in office, there were 163 new people.

This amount of people compares with only 39, under the old

administration. A question was asked, and this was at the time of high

austerity in Ottawa, "How many of the present Prime Minister's staff

will be dismissed under the Government's austerity programme?" The

answer was, "None." That's quite an austerity programme.

I was surprised… (interruption) . It's about time somebody henpecked him, Mr. Member, I can tell you.

You'll find that the head of the Canada Council has given as reasons

for some of the grants in Canada, through Canada Council — I should

read you some of these grants; there was $9,400, for instance, given to

continue research on prehistoric culture at the neolithic site of

Urvaba in southwest Turkey. There was research on "Class Consciousness

of Blue-collar Workers in Vancouver Area Electoral Riding." It was

interesting to note that Professor John Leggett, who was suspended at

the time from Simon Fraser University, was the one that was given the

grant. There were, of course, some very interesting ones, too, that

we've all heard about, such as pianos that were financed to be broken

up, such as the Town Fool and grants for provision of some way-out

things, not the least of which is one that went for $10,550 to research

on, "What Makes Bystanders Intervene or Stand Aside in an Emergency."

The head of the Canada Council seeks balanced presentment. He says that

people will find this uncomfortable, but it's meant to be

uncomfortable. "The more the Council is able to do, the more public

attention it will get and this, obviously, carries with it a measure of

criticism, but I'd rather be criticized than forgotten," he says about

his Canada Council grant. I don't think we're going to forget him for

very long and, especially, in view of the fact, that, with all of these

spendthrifty accounts coming out of Ottawa, and they are too numerous

to repeat here, they are a daily happening in Canada today. They are as

common as a Canadian sunset.

In spite of all of these overexpenditures and wastefulness of our

tax dollars, Mr. Speaker, the Federal assistance to the National Cancer

Institute last year was reduced from $350,000 to $250,000 in the year

1970-71. In other words, we can finance somebody to break up a piano

but when it comes to cancer research, and the Honourable the Liberal

Leader is always talking in this House about research, we can't find

$100,000 in Canada.

The British Columbia taxpayers do not find that kind of budgeting,

Mr. Speaker, very funny. In fact, they don't have a sense of humour at

all when it comes to that kind of budgeting. They will, I'm sure, keep

their good sense and ignore the Liberal Leader's budget, which was

presented to us a week ago.

I know the honourable Members would miss my references to the

Federal Administration if I didn't make some. I do wish to state my

very deep concern about where we, as Canadians, are headed in the

decade of the 1970's. Last year, I raised some questions about the White Paper

on taxation that had no reference as to how much we were going to make,

how much we were going to lose, how much we were going to gain in our

personal income, how much we were apt to lose, Mr. Speaker, in our

personal freedom. I wish the Members would be serious, especially the

Liberal Members to whom I'm really addressing this.

You will recall, perhaps, that I termed the White Paper ,

a Socialist document, last year, and statements and events since have

proven this point quite substantially. I want to read an excerpt from

the Toronto Telegram which

quotes Prime Minister Trudeau in London, that's London, England, on

January 13, 1969, and it is this, Mr. Speaker: "The Prime Minister gave

his views and his testimony to Canadian university students in the

United Kingdom. One of the questions was this: What society would you

choose to make Canada; socialist or capitalistic?" Now this was his,

Mr. Trudeau's answer, "Labour Party Socialist, or Cuban Socialism, or

Chinese Socialism. Socialism from each, according to his means."

And then the questioner said, "From each according to his ability,

to each according to his needs — that's the Marxist formula. Would you

support that, Mr. Prime Minister?" And the Prime Minister said this:

"Yes, in theory, but not entirely in practice. I think in history there

have been some small communities which would have done that and I

support this and admire it. I do not think it is workable, under

present circumstances. There is still a lot of hate and violence and

injustice and inequity and racial discrimination, which we shall have

to overcome before ever reaching such a state. But if you ask me if it

is an ideal, if it is a beacon, something which the world should have,

yes I think it is."

Now let me read what the writer of this

article has said. His name is Lubor J. Zink from the Toronto Telegram . He says this, "It confirms what perceptive students of Mr.

[ Page 410 ]

Trudeau's writings have been saying, namely, that

his ideal of social organization is some form of Marxist Socialism and

that his views have not changed since he joined the Liberal Party and

became our Prime Minister."

I want to say this to all Members in this House that Canadians

everywhere must awaken and realize that the freedoms, the liberties,

the way of life that they would preserve, Mr. Speaker, and those

liberties that are so often taken for granted, can be lost by apathy,

by disconcern, and, Mr. Speaker, by misplaced party loyalty.

The misuse of drugs in our communities, the drug addiction of

youngsters in schools, the growing number of young people in the

working world, who are using drugs, have grown at an alarming rate. In

my address to the Throne Speech, ten days to two weeks ago, I commended

the Federal Government for their grant to provide $41/2 million to

research the education on drug abuse in Canada.

I am very happy today to speak, on behalf of a Government that has

recognized the seriousness of this grave social problem like no other

jurisdiction in Canada, to provide the interest on a $25 million fund,

which in itself, the first year, in British Columbia, alone, will

provide almost one half of the $41/2 million committed by the Federal

Government to spend in all of Canada this year. And the remarkable

thing about our fund, Mr. Speaker, is that it is perpetual. It will

continue to fight these dread diseases. I am not speaking in detail

about the fund set up in the Budget for drug education. I am not going

to refer in depth to it, so you will not be able to call me out of

order, Mr. Member. The remarkable thing about our fund, Mr. Speaker, is

that it is perpetual. It will continue to fight these dread diseases.

Something that seems to have escaped the honourable Members in the

Opposition, both the Socialists and the half-mast Socialists sitting on

their left, is that this commitment by this Government to use the $25

million of this fund, along with the $75 million in other funds set up

by this Government, making a total of $100 million, will be used for

schools and hospital construction. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, does any

Provincial Government in Canada use taxpayers' money any better? Can

any other Government in Canada provide a fund, use it for the good of

the people in building schools and hospitals and still put the interest

of the fund into various things, amounting to millions yearly, for drug

rehabilitation, for a native Indian fun d, for sports and fitness, for

cultural and artistic improvement, for world disaster relief?

No, Mr. Speaker, no other Provincial Government does this, nor can

they. Let me say this, no Federal Government does this, nor can they.

It is only because of the sound financial management by this Social

Credit Government, by our Finance Minister, that the Province of

British Columbia can do so, today, and British Columbians can be proud

and I say to you, British Columbians are proud, of this unique

accomplishment.

Now, on the subject of drug addiction, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer

to out record of debate of last year, wherein I brought before the

House a statement attributed to the Federal Minister of Health, the

statement by the Honourable John Munro, who was reported by the press

throughout our Nation as saying, "if we find that a significant

minority of the Canadian people smoke marijuana, we would be totally

irresponsible if we did not legalize it." The record of our debate

shows clearly that my motion of that time was to express the deep

concern of this House that a Federal Minister should make such a

statement at all and, further, to call on the Minister and the Federal

Government to fulfill Canada's obligations in regulating and

controlling the use of drugs for any purpose, except those permitted

under the single convention of 1961, the Narcotic Drugs Convention.

At that time, and again, recorded in our debates, the Honourable the

Leader of the Liberal Party rose to his feet, in defense of his Liberal

Minister, by saying that Mr. Munro had denied ever making that remark.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this caused some consternation in

this House, for if, indeed, the remark had not been made, then the

motion under debate which I had put on the Order Paper may not have

been in order at all.

Following voice of your concern, in this regard, the honourable

Liberal Member said this and I refer to page 790 in the record of our

debates; " MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister telegraphed me personally denying the accuracy of that report. AN HON. MEMBER: What date? MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, had I known it was required I could have produced it

today." Now, after this statement, there followed a lengthy debate in

this House… (interruption) .

Oh, I'm very pleased to hear that, Mr. Member, because there was a

very lengthy statement in this House on whether the motion was indeed

valid. In fact, it negated the whole motion itself because we then

concentrated on whether or not that motion should have been quashed.

The seriousness of the motion was lost in the fact that the Members

brought this question into the whole debate.

Now, to put the record straight, Mr. Speaker, I have here the tape

recording, the sound track, of the syndicated television programme

called "Under Attack," wherein the Federal Liberal Minister did,

indeed, make the statement attributed to him by the press across this

country (interruption) . Mr.

Speaker, I will be very pleased to file this tape with the House and

will do so, immediately, after the Honourable the Liberal Leader files

the copy of the wire which he said that he had received (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order (interruption) .

MRS. McCARTHY: I hope I'll have the opportunity of wearing it

just after you speak once again. There was much discussion during the

Throne Debate on unemployment, Mr. Speaker, and recently published

figures, no matter which one chooses to believe, do nothing to assure

us that unemployment in Canada is being solved. I noted that, on the

same day that Canadian unemployment and British Columbian jobless

jumped, there was a Canadian press story reporting on the 1971 Capital

Budget for Central Mortgage and Housing on the same page. It was

presented by Robert Andras, the Minister without Portfolio, in charge

of housing in the Federal Government, and it noted that that budget had

been cut by $152 million.

At a time when the Canadian economy needs housing starts to

increase, the Federal Administration has decreased their funds. Mr.

Robert Andras, to me, has always appeared to be very aware of the

housing needs of the low- and moderate-income family and I'm very

disappointed, indeed, to see that the Treasury Board has not backed his

policies in this very needed area. Every working man or woman should

have the opportunity of home ownership in Canada today.

Last December, Mr. Andras announced a $180 million housing programme

for Quebec through Central Mortgage and Housing. I immediately wired

Mr. Andras, for I felt that, if the Federal Government was announcing

such a flow of

[ Page 411 ]

money to Quebec to generate employment, then,

surely, it could not do less for the Province of British Columbia.

Taking into consideration that Quebec's population is three times that

of our Province, I requested that Mr. Andras' department make $75 or

$100 million available to us. I'll read my wire, addressed to the

Minister in Ottawa: "I refer to Monday's announcement that the Federal

Government will make available $150 million to Quebec for housing in

1971. British Columbia, as the fastest growing Province in Canada,

requires a more aggressive building programme just to keep pace with

the tremendous growth. The influx of people from other Provinces to

British Columbia adds greatly to our high unemployment figure. This

high unemployment rate, along with the increase in population, requires

action now. Therefore, I would ask that your Government provide from

$75 to $100 million to initiate building for low- and moderate income

families, senior citizens and handicapped people in British Columbia.

Our home acquisition grant and homeowner grant, along with our second

mortgage programme, insures maximum building and return for every

dollar spent on housing in our Province. In light of our serious

employment situation, may I have your confirmation by return that you

will consider British Columbia as eligible for the same consideration

as was announced for Quebec yesterday."

The Minister's reply of December 24 was very positive and I will

read it to you now: "Re your telegram. The 1971 budget for Central

Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be announced shortly and you will

see that very substantial provision is made for the purposes mentioned

in your telegram for the coming year.

I haven't had any indication from Mr. Andras, nor has our Department

of Municipal Affairs, as to how the allocation for British Columbia

will come about for the $942 million, which was announced in the

Vancouver Sun of last week. I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that

there are few programmes that have a beneficial effect on a community

to match that created by an aggressive building programme. The Economic

Council of Canada, in its 1970 Annual Report, has noted that Canada

needs at least 21/2 million housing units by 1975 and that just gives

our country four more years to catch up, or to adequately house, our

people. If we were even to meet that goal, many other attendant

benefits would be created. For example, can you think how much

furniture, how many refrigerators, how many stoves would be bought by

all these people, who would be in new accommodation? Consider all the

trades that would be required to serve these homes — plumbers,

carpenters, landscapers. These homes would require additional schools,

additional hospitals and public services, which all create more jobs.

The benefits are endless and the money generated through such a

building boom filters throughout the whole community.

Along with easing our unemployment problems, it is necessary that

our Province meet the basic needs of housing, of education and medical

care for the thousands of citizens who pour into British Columbia from

other parts of Canada and from all over the world. Our Province is

growing three times faster than any Province in Canada. This factor

alone makes it imperative to plan ahead for the influx of even more

people in the decade of the 70's.

We should remember, as well, that no other Province can benefit from

a Federal mortgage programme as much as British Columbia. British

Columbians can obtain maximum benefit for every dollar loaned on a

building programme by the Federal Administration by virtue of our home

acquisition programme.

So, now, I am calling today on all contractors and builders, all

architects, all developers, even all planners, anyone who is at all

interested in municipalities, anyone with a plan on the drawing board

or any building proposal, to make the decision to begin, now, in 1971.

I'm asking anyone who has experienced difficulties with financing, or

difficulties with municipal councils in their reticence to zone for

townhouses, or difficulties in obtaining conventional loans, to come

forward, now in 1971. I will make my office available and I will

receive any programme and co-ordinate and assist in any way to get them

off the ground.

I am asking that all proposals be presented to my office by March

15. At the same time, I am asking the Honourable Mr. Robert Andras to

meet with us in British Columbia to assist in financing, through CMHC,

as many of these programmes as possible.

What I'm saying today, Mr. Speaker, to all the building trades and

to every person involved in a building programme, "Come forward, now,

let's take an inventory of all the plans, all the programmes either

under way or hoped for and let's show the Federal Government that we,

in British Columbia, have the ideas, that we, in British Columbia, have

the manpower, that we, in British Columbia, have the market."

What we require now is the cooperation from the Federal Government

to provide a flow of mortgage money through CMHC at reasonable interest

rates and to encourage the conventional loans to be channelled into

smaller units so that we may have the opportunity of the best housing

and building programme in Canada in 1971.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget demonstrates, clearly, the sound fiscal

policies of a Social Credit Government, with financial credibility with

our own people and our fellow Canadians, with financial credibility in

the world market and it reflects the stable business administration of

the British Columbia Social Credit Government, which has laid the

foundation for an even greater British Columbia, and, in consideration

that there will be a Social Credit administration for many years to

come, Mr. Speaker, let no one doubt the great future that lies before

this great Province of ours.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver East.

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

pleasure to take

part in the Budget Debate in this House and a pleasure

to follow the lady Minister without Portfolio as I followed her in the

Throne Speech Debate. I should refrain from chiding the Honourable lady

Minister, as a gentleman, but I can't refrain from saying one or two

things on housing. For example, the lady Minister chided the Honourable

Mr. Andras and the Federal Government for their record in housing. My

good friend from Burnaby Edmonds has handed me the copy of the interim

accounts of the Province of British Columbia up to the end of December

of last year, and this honourable Legislature, lady Member, votes for

housing — $5 million!

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they spend?

MR. MACDONALD: What did they spend? They spent, for the first

nine months of 1970, at that period $1,686,000, and they chide the

Liberal Government in Ottawa! Through the years, the story has been the

same, that Provinces like Ontario, particularly, and Quebec, to a

lesser extent, have taken advantage of the monies made available to the

[ Page 412 ]

Provinces through the Central Mortgage and Housing

and this Province has been a laggard. This Province has not taken up

the money that was lying there upon the table. Our record as a Province

in the matter of housing has been abominable and parsimonious. We don't

even begin to spend the money that this Legislature votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: All talk and no action.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a long time since Parliament, as an institution, and I'm going to make a serious speech today, Mr. Speaker (interruption) .

Is that right, honourable Member? It's a long time since Parliament, in

the year 1264, was first summoned by Simon de Montfort, the Earl of

Leicester…

In the year 1264, when he summoned two knights from the shires and

two burgesses from the burroughs and two citizens from each city.

Parliament has gone through many changes in the intervening period,

many reforms, changes in procedure. It's come a long way, baby. Yet,

sometimes, we wonder today just how relevant Parliament is. Is it, as

an institution, retaining its relevancy for the age in which we live? I

rather doubt it.

I would like to say, once again, to the lady Honourable Minister

without her Portfolio, who spoke, as, she always speaks, against the

drug traffic, that she was a member of a committee of this House in the

year 1968 and she affixed her signature, and a very charming signature

it was, to the report. The report made some very excellent

recommendations and those recommendations were for education in the

schools. We all know what they are, they're in the Journals .

AN HON. MEMBER: Was the committee to meet again?

MR. MACDONALD: The committee was to meet and there was to be

a research programme undertaken by the Provincial Government, not the

bad Liberals in Ottawa but by this Provincial Government. That report

has never been implemented. I question the sincerity of the Honourable

lady Minister, who makes these great speeches on drugs, when, being a

Member of the Cabinet, a Member of the Executive Council, she lacks the

influence, or the will, to implement that report.

I do think, and I'm not going to spend any time on this matter, that

Parliament, itself, as an institution, has to be brought up to date in

modern terms. I really believe that. I think, between the great organs

of opinion-making, which is the fourth estate, and the fourth estate

has come a long way, too, and between the cabinet, that Parliament is

in the crunch. I doubt whether long speeches, such as I'm making today,

and the recycling of information, as I will be recycling some

information today, as we all do, I doubt, to some extent, whether this

is the kind of effective working democratic form that it should be.

I would like to see, in the case of the press because, as I say,

including the age slaves who labour as journalists and the newspaper

titans and tycoons, that there should be, because this is an important

institution of democracy…I agree entirely with those who say there

should be a Press Council to protect individuals, to protect the public

in its right to know, to protect the working journalist in his freedom

to express the story as he sees it. I think in the case of Parliament,

itself, that there are ways of making it more effective, that there are

long technical matters in today's society, which can't really be

effectively and well dealt with on the floor of the House, such as

this, in a rather large Assembly and, certainly, not in Ottawa. They

should be considered in a committee. The committees of this House

should be working. They should be summoning the experts in the various

fields, be it housing or drugs or whatever it is, and they should be

effectively working and helping to initiate legislation. It shouldn't

all be handed down to us from the Cabinet. I think, with that kind of a

Parliament that a lot of the partisanship, which is part of Parliament

today — the Government proposes, the Opposition opposes and vice versa

— can be got away from. Some of that is inevitable and some of it is

good. Parliament, probably, is too partisan because we're not seeking

to improve society through effectively working committees. I would like

to see a special committee of this House spend a whole year on

considering the relevance of Parliament, as an institution, today.

There is already a committee, but I would like to see it sit through

the whole year, to listen to opinions, just as the Federal Government

sent the Constitution Committee throughout the country. But this would

be to hear the opinions of experts. How can we make Parliament

effective and hear from the people, too, and how can we make Parliament

a really effective democratic institution?

Now I want to say a word, and I do this with trepidation, Mr.

Speaker. I want to give a word of advice, if I may, to the Liberation

Front. I do this with trepidation. I don't know what my daughter will

say about any remarks I'm going to make today (interruption) .

To the Liberation Front. Yes, isn't that the Women's Liberation Front?

I think frankly this is a great social movement for the emancipation of

women. Probably, in its modern stage, it did not begin a few years ago.

It began with a great Norwegian world playwright called Hendrik Ibsen

who wrote The Doll's House, I think, in the year 1906, but I could be

wrong about the year. He had those famous lines in there, where Henrik

said to his wife, "Above all else, you are a wife and mother." Nora

replied, "Above all else, I am a human being." That was the beginning

of a great movement for the emancipation of women…

AN HON. MEMBER: And then along came Wenman.

MR. MACDONALD: …but it has a long way to go (interruption) .

Not only along came Wenman, but, in the last few months, hanging on to

the back of this great movement for emancipation, is what you might

call the Yippie fringe.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what effect they have on

you, but they frighten me a little bit. This is a great social movement

and some of the demands and some of the deportment of the fringe is

hurting that movement for the emancipation of women. I think that

emancipation, and I agree entirely with my friend from New Westminster,

should, today, primarily take the road of advances on the social front.

There is the social front and there is the legal front.

The social front is by far, in my opinion, the most important, today

— the winning of things, such as day nurseries, to free women either

for a job or from the continual hour around-the-clock cares of the

home, maternity leave, equal pay, and something decent for the mothers

on welfare, who make up such a big proportion, and these are the

mothers who are bringing up the children of tomorrow. They form the

deserted wives particularly, such a big proportion of our assistance

rolls and they are receiving pittances, not up to the level of other

Provinces, and told to

[ Page 413 ]

bring up their children on these pittances.

So a great deal has to be done in the realm of social change.

Even in the legal fields, you don't, Mr. Speaker, have to look very

far to find examples of male chauvinism. I picked up the statutes and

in the Change of Name Act , for example, in

section 4, if a person is a

married man, he may likewise change the given name of his wife but, if

a married man, he needs the consent of the wife. If the person is a

married woman — now here's the distinction — she is not, during the

life of her husband, entitled to change her surname. So all the

initiation is left with the man. He can make an application to change

his name — the woman can't.

She can, of course, if she's divorced, she's no longer a wife. If

she's widowed, she's no longer a wife. If she's separated, she can't

change her name. If she's married, she can't change her name. If they

are a couple, she can't initiate the application. That's not the

largest example of discrimination but it does exist. I know the right

to change the name should be there.

Then, there's the matter of abortions. I want to say just a word

upon that because, while I support entirely the elimination of the

matter of abortions from the Criminal Code — it has no place whatsoever

in the Criminal Code of Canada — yet, to be frank with you, I'm a

little concerned that there is a stage, in later pregnancy, where

abortion may become infanticide, where reverence for life may become

euthanasia, or mercy killing. They say, landlords' rights, the right to

control your own body, but — landlords' rights, without any regard for

the tenant who may be the child. I've said what I had to say in a more

serious way about the Women's Liberation Movement. I wanted to say,

too, that I'm a little concerned on the part of some of the people.

There are boys as well as girls, who are carrying some of the signs.

I'm concerned that they're so grim and angry. I'm concerned that they

regard all men as the enemy. I'm concerned that they want to wipe out

all the distinctions between men and women and dress. I don't want the

girls to be dressed like inmates of a Soviet work camp. I know it might

be said, even of Robbie Burns, that he was a male chauvinist or a

sexist, when he wrote some of his poetry,

"She dresses, aye sa clean and neat,

Both daicent and gentile,

And then there's something in her dress,

Gars any dress look weel."

Robbie Burns was not a male chauvinist. I was glad to see that one

of the great supporters of the Women's Liberation, Dr. Elli Maranda of

UBC had this to say in the Ubyssey . "Today with the roles of men and

women alike moving toward a merging point, " Maranda is quick to point

out, "there are differences between the sexes that cannot be forgotten

in either the social or professional world," and I say the same. When

one of the people making a speech about the rights of women in the

French Chamber of Deputies got up and he said that after all there's

very little difference between men and women, the whole Chamber rose up

and said, "Vive la difference." That's what she's saying, equal but

different, feminine and attractive. Mini, midi, maxi and I'll call the

taxi. I don't like the blurring of all of the distinctions, and some of

that blurring has taken place between the men and the women, the girls

and the boys. They used to say that, one poet said,

"And here's the bounding little flea,

You cannot tell the he from she,

The sexes look alike, you see,

But he can tell and so can she."

I think Dr. Elli Maranda is quite right and what we have to support

is, don't let the men be the ones to wear the peacock feathers and be

cock of the walk. I think the girls should be attractive, too, I think

there are some jobs that are, in spite of the great need for equal

opportunities and equal pay, there are some jobs that are naturally

feminine and some that are naturally male. I don't want to see female

strip miners and I don't want to see female bomber pilots (interruption) .

I'll be in enough trouble at home.

There's all kinds of exploitations in this world between man and man

— economic discrimination, economic oppression, psychic oppression

between man and woman, a great deal of it between man and man, between

woman and woman, and between women and men. What we have to do is to

respect the rights of all human beings, eliminate oppression and

discrimination where it exists between human beings, regardless of sex,

colour or creed.

I want to say something to the Honourable Minister of Health, Mr.

Speaker, whom I'm glad to see is in his seat, because I had the

pleasure of writing a letter to the Honourable Minister on the question

of dental health, particularly of the school children of the Province

of British Columbia. I had the pleasure of receiving his reply and, to

my surprise, really, because it wasn't marked as a copy, the letter was

received by all the dentists of the Province. I hurry to assure the

Honourable Minister that I'm not complaining about that. It was a good

letter, in many respects, but the letter really points up the

scandalous pockets of dental decay, particularly in the matter of

school children's teeth that are to be found in the Province of British

Columbia. In this letter, for example, the Minister says that, by 1968,

there had been an improvement. Only 49 per cent of the teeth of

children between the ages of 7 and 15 that were looked at did not

require attention. In other words, 51 per cent of those teeth did

require attention. He says in this letter, and he refers to the dental

survey in Greater Vancouver, that the survey showed that only 8.7, and

he used the word, "only," only 8.7 per cent of the pupils was in the

category of neglected treatment of dental caries — in other words,

needed fillings. That's the average for the Greater Vancouver Health

District. But, look at the situation when you turn to the surveys

themselves, and, since the Minister was writing to me as the Member for

Vancouver East, I think he might have given this information. Neglected

treatment of dental caries, it is true for the Greater Vancouver Health

Unit, 8.69 per cent was the number needing care — the neglect — but in

Vancouver East and parts of Vancouver Centre, because Health Unit No. 1

runs from the northeast to the city, down into Centre, that percentage

was 21.66 per cent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, dental decay, dental

neglect caries are more than twice as bad in the eastern part of the

city of Vancouver as they are in the rest of the city. In the

prosperous areas of the city of Vancouver that percentage is down to

6.73 per cent.

The same thing happens when you turn to the figures on teeth needing

restoration. In the riding of Vancouver East and down into Vancouver

Centre, the number of teeth needing restoration is more than twice as

many as the average in the Greater Vancouver Health District. If you

turn to the northern reaches of the Province, in the other dental

survey, up there, you find figures that are absolutely staggering in

the extent of dental decay. I gave the neglected treatment of dental

caries figures as an average of 8.9 per cent in the greater Vancouver

Health area, in the Cariboo area, 36.02 per

[ Page 414 ]

cent, more than four times as bad; in the Skeena area, 37 almost 38 per cent, almost five times as bad.

There has to be a crash effort made to do something about the dental

health of the teeth of the children of the Province of British

Columbia. There has to be something done about dental fees. We have to

give equal opportunity for dental care, Mr. Minister, to all of the

children of the Province, whether they live in Vancouver East or

whether they live in Skeena, or whether they live in Point Grey. Where

the need is greater, the care should be greater in the school systems.

I'm going to have more to say about this under the estimates of the

Department of Health as to what should be done, so that dentists will

be available not only in the lower mainland areas but in the far

reaches of the Province, such as Columbia riding, Mr. Speaker, and in

other parts of the Province. I'm going to have something to say about

dental fee increases, but I intend to leave that for another time.

I want to say something, today, that has been raised in the House

before but it is something that should give every Member concern. That

is the Americanization of the Canadian funeral business. I know I've

raised this in the past, and other Members have, but the invasion that

has been taking place, whereby two chains of American funeral

companies, one is the International Funeral Services of Des Moines,

Iowa, and the other is Service Corporation International of Houston,

Texas, are continuing to accumulate funeral homes, grave marker

establishments and cemeteries in all of the Provinces of Canada,

including the Province of British Columbia. We saw last year how four

very large funeral businesses in the Province of British Columbia had

been taken over by Service Corporation International — Ocean View,

Simmons and McBride, Mt. Pleasant, Forest Lawn. We didn't see, at that

time, that the profits that these international funeral chains were

making out of the people of Canada and out of the people of British

Columbia and, now, the second of the two that I mentioned has feelers

out to acquire another funeral business in the Province of British

Columbia. Negotiations are now in progress by the firm that's known as

International Funeral Services. Look at their ad. Here's an ad from the

Canadian Funeral Service Magazine , and it's just of last October,

"Attention — Funeral Directors," and this is an IFS advertisement. "Are

you getting a proper return on your invested capital? A number of

funeral directors have found they are not. Have you considered selling

your business?" and I'm abbreviating the ad. They have openings for

funeral directors. These American firms are coming into the Province of

British Columbia, taking over the traditional, usually family-owned,

Canadian mortuary service and continuing the name, continuing the

tradition and extracting inordinate profits out of the victims, at a

time when they can least bargain competently for themselves. There's

one widow and, of course, I won't name her, but I'll give the exact

figures in my own riding of Vancouver East. Her example shows you how

they make up all of these watered profits and profit figures that I

will refer to. She went to Mt. Pleasant Funeral Home, which has been

taken over by the chain, and she was given the usual sophisticated

selling job. She was shown a coffin for $500 or $600, which was a

little better than an egg crate and she felt she couldn't bury her

husband in that. This was a widow with a total estate of $15,000,

hardly a wealthy person. She was sold the second cheapest coffin in

that establishment for $824 and the funeral service cost her $487. The

clergy received $10 and her total funeral bill was $1,323 even though

the family already owned the funeral plot. Thirteen hundred and twenty

three dollars, with a discount of $118 for cash, so, perhaps, you

should say $1,208 plus $71 for opening the grave at Ocean View, which

of course, is also owned by the chain. So it comes to $1,279, if she

has the cash to pay it quickly, if not she's on the 7 per cent rate and

pays the higher figure and this out of a very small estate.

Look at the profits that these organizations are making. In the

July/August issue of the Canadian Funeral Service , International

Funeral Services, the first one I mentioned, shows its operating

results because they're in the market. They're watching out for new

people to sell out their businesses and join the chain. Their net

earnings per share of common stock, which, in 1969, were 15 cents, in

1970, were 36 cents, an increase in profit of 140 per cent. Sales away

up. Service Corporation International went up from a take of $619,000,

in 1969, to $1,100,000, in 1970, a similar huge increase in both sales

and profit.

There are gold mines in our cemeteries, Mr. Speaker, and they're

being paid for by people who have not heard of the Memorial Society, I

regret to say. They are paying money into chains, of which they know

nothing, in many cases. The Americanization of the funeral business

goes on apace and, surely, if we, as a country, can say anything good

for ourselves, Mr. Speaker, surely, we can say that we should be able

to attend to the burial of our dead as a Nation, without allowing giant

chain organizations to come into the field, take over our mortuary

business and give themselves watered stock. This is the way they make

their basic profit out of the thing. Service Corporation

International's prospectus was for the sale of 350,000 shares of common

stock to the public at $14 per share but the promoters, and that's in

the fine print, had given themselves stock options to buy the same

stock — for example, American General acquired stock options to buy

360,000 common shares of the same company with warrants exercisable at

$1.67 per share — this is the stock that is put on the market and sold

to the public at $14 per share. I say that the Americanization, we're

not against the Americans, but I say that the funeral business, really,

should be as the Memorial Society does it, on a nonprofit basis, or

done civically or done as our hospitals do it — that profit has no

place in the funeral and cemetery business.

I want to say something, Mr. Speaker, about the real tragedy of the

last few days and that's the bus thing. British Columbia has come to a

crossroads and we've taken the wrong turn. We've taken the turn to

practically fighting people off the buses with a stick, cutting back

the bus service, encouraging the proliferation of more and more cars on

our crowded streets. I say this is one of the great tragedies of

British Columbia at this time. The lady Minister, who took her seat,

mentioned that it was picayune that the B.C. Hydro should take away the

downtowner Sunday pass, or the Sunday Pass, the 50 cent pass. I

say it is picayune that this Government, Mr. Speaker, where the

responsibility lies, should be starving public transportation at this

time.

I say they are showing absolutely no social vision. They are giving,

for the subsidy of public transportation, a measly $2 million to Hydro,

and you have to compare that with expenditures of, say, $27 million

just to build the approaches to a First Narrows bridge to bring more

cars into the city of Vancouver. You look at the increase in the car

population, which, in 1968, licensed vehicles in British Columbia,

918,000; in 1969, 988,000, an increase of 7.6 per cent, when the

population of the Province went up much less than half of that — about

3 1/2 per cent. Yet, we're following a policy,

[ Page 415 ]

Mr. Speaker, of encouraging people to go out and buy an old car

because they've got to get to work. How can nurses get to work, Mr.

Speaker, in the small hours of the morning? How can shift workers get

to and from work, without going to the used car dealers? How can people

go to the bingos or to the theatres, when the service has been cutback

as drastically as it has? I say that this Government is absolutely

oblivious to the real social costs of starving public transportation.

Because you put, on the one side, Mr. Speaker, the kind of subsidy that

is needed for rapid transit under a Regional Transit Authority, and I

don't think it should be under Hydro…I think Hydro regards it as a

nuisance, that's obvious. Chairman Shrum says, "Well, we'll get people

to work and we'll get them back from work and that's it." I think it

should be under a Regional Transit Authority and should be well

subsidized. I think that's a saving of dollars, because, on the other

side of the ledger, what have you got? You've got money to create more

sterile acres of asphalt and blacktop. You've got the fumous clouds of

exhaust in the atmosphere. You've got the rising toll of deaths on the

highway, which, in the last year, were 542, I think, in B.C., and the

accident rate, which rose 20.9 per cent of reportable accidents from

1968-69, up from 58,000 to 70,000. These are all the costs on the other

side of the ledger (interruption) . I'll just talk a few more out then

I'll move to adjourn. You've got the expenditure of these vast sums — $300 million for rapid transit to start in how many years. $200 million

for a First Narrows bridge. The Minister has said that we are going to

contribute 37 1/2 per cent of the cost of the rapid transit system. But

it's an if-y offer, Mr. Minister, it's, "if the Federal Government do

this or that, " is it not? (Interruption . ) Yes, it's an if-y offer.

I think you should contribute at least 37 1/2 per cent for rapid

transit but it shouldn't be on a conditional basis with strings

attached to it like that, because I don't see that we're getting rapid

transit for many years to come and the thing has been stalled and mired

down. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should scrap the expensive First

Narrows crossing and use that money to generously fund public

transportation. I think we should tax the big cars more than the little

ones, to a much greater extent than we do. I think we should build

parking bays at the outskirts of our city and have good bus service to

enable people to come down. I think we should reduce the fares and not

increase them. I think we should increase the downtowner passes and the

pensioners' passes. I think that pensioners and people in need, quite

frankly, it would be cheap if they had free bus service, cheap compared

to the spaghetti of freeways that we're building. I think we should

modernize our public transportation bus system and add things such as

mini buses. I think we should give a green light to the buses and have

"bus only" lanes, so that they could move quickly through the city

streets on regular fast schedules. I think we should have things, like

pedestrian walkways and overpasses and bicycle paths. Yet, this

Government, Mr. Speaker, on this, which is one of the great social

issues of our time, has taken the wrong road. They have no vision of

the problems of an urban society. They are a hick Government, suffering

from rural myopia, needing glasses, ready to spend hundreds of millions

on things, such as freeways, and the rest, and bridges and congestion

and pollution, and not the few dollars that are needed to give the

people of the lower mainland particularly, the kind of fast,

comfortable bus service they so badly need. Where there is no vision,

the people perish. Nothing could be more true in the field of rapid

transit than that, today.

Look at the ad that Hydro puts out. I say you can't blame Hydro

because they're an instrument of the Government. They try to blame the

union. They start out by saying the new agreement between B.C. Hydro

and the Transit Union will add further large increases to the already

high transit losses. I'd like to say that the union settlement that the

transit drivers got, was less than they deserved. It was less than the

National average and they should have been offered a better return,

much earlier in the negotiation proceedings, because they have a very

difficult job. They have the lives of people in their hands. They're

fare collectors, they give friendly advice and they try to work their

way through the traffic snarls. Yet, the increase they got was less

than the National average. That strike was unnecessary. But, all the

way through this advertisement, to Hydro, public transportation is a

nuisance, something to be sloughed off, something to be cut back and I

say that this is a disgrace. There is no answer whatsoever provided at

this time, Mr. Speaker, for the transportation problems of the people,

and especially the poorer people, of the lower mainland of British

Columbia.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I have one other topic I'd like to

mention and that is a question raised by my colleague, the good Member

from Vancouver East, who made a speech which was carefully researched

in this Legislature a short while ago. He raised a question of

principle, which, we, on this side of the House, are not afraid to

face, Mr. Speaker, and take to the people of the Province. Now there

were, of course, differences, and there are some differences between

the situation regarding the then Minister of Highways, in 1968, and the

matters raised by the honourable Member, but the principle is exactly

the same. That principle is that we, on this side of the House, do not

believe that speculative profits from values created by the taxpayers'

dollar should be drained off into the speculator's pocket. You may say,

Mr. Speaker, that we should not name the people, the new family

dynasties of great wealth, that are growing up in the Province of

British Columbia but, with respect to that, Mr. Speaker, we say that

the people have a right to know. We condemn this Government for

continuing to drop a veil of secrecy over the ownership of companies

involved in promotions beside the highways of the Province of British

Columbia.

The Second Member for Point Grey has placed the amendment before

this House to the Companies Act which would let the sunshine in and let

the people of the Province know, when public business is being

transacted, who the real owners of the company are. Instead, this

Government has preferred, as it were, the same method as is in the

secret Swiss bank accounts, where the curtain and veil of secrecy is

let down.

We say that there should be respect, in the year 1971, as there was

years ago, for some of the basic principles of trust and equity which

were taken for granted once but, which are, today, greatly abused. Let

me read from the judgement of that great American jurist, Justice

Cordoza. "Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for

those acting at arm's length are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary

ties.

A trustee is held to be bound by something stricter than the morals

of the marketplace. Not honesty alone but the punctilio of an honour,

the most sensitive, is then the standard of behaviour. As to this there

has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate." That

principle has been enormously abused, and I'm talking not only about

the Province of British Columbia but throughout Canada and the United

States of America. We say that this Government, and the trends of this

Government, should live up to the

[ Page 416 ]

principles of trust and fiduciary relationship, and respect the

matters of equity that were once values held dearly by our forefathers.

We say it is a simple matter that the profits of land speculation can

be returned to the people of this Province and I intend to suggest one

vehicle by which that could be done, Mr. Speaker.

As I say, what happened in 1968 is the same, in principle, so far as

the policy of this Party stands, as what is being raised today. In

1968, the Provincial Government proposed to name the Yellowhead

Highway, that new beautiful highway that turns off at I think Tete

Jaune and turns to Jasper. They propose to name it Gaglardi Way. It

should be named Gaglardi Way. It has not been named Gaglardi Way but it

should be named Gaglardi Way, because believe me, Mr. Speaker, when a

traveler, say, with his family, is going to leave the city of Vancouver

and take his family up to Prince George or through the Yellowhead to

Jasper, he will be paying homage all along those ways to a little group

of land speculators. If he wishes to avoid paying homage to those land

speculators, it will be as difficult as somebody trying to go through a

minefield without a mine detector. If he gets by Langley, he comes to

Cache Creek. He may put up for the night in Cache Creek or he may buy a

gallon of gas, and when he does, he will be helping to repay, to pay a

toll, because this is a toll road, Mr. Speaker. Don't tell us, Mr.

Speaker, there are no tolls in the Province of British Columbia. We

have toll roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political tolls.

MR. MACDONALD: He will be paying a toll to those who have

acquired the land and sold the land for gasoline station sites. He will

be paying a toll at Kamloops at that junction. He will be paying a toll

at Valemount.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget Princeton.

MR. MACDONALD: He will be paying a toll at Blue River. He

will be paying a toll at Tete Jaune. He will be paying a toll at

McBride. Where he stops for a meal, where he puts up for the night at a

motel, where he goes into a shopping centre and where he buys his gas,

he will be paying the new millionaires, the ground-floor millionaires,

who have been able to make money out of speculation in land beside our

highways.

As that traveler staggers on, from one point to another, he will be

parboiled, fried, stewed, fricasseed and devilled by the same

ground-floor land speculators, and my friends may laugh but it is their

children and their children after them who will be paying those tolls.

We are told, Mr. Speaker, that the groups involved happen to be just

the same people, that this is a coincidence, that this is a free

enterprise Province, that anybody could have got into and done the same

thing. We are told by the Minister, who is now the Minister of

Rehabilitation, "Don't mollycoddle the young," and we agree with that.

"Don't mollycoddle the young," the Minister says. Perhaps, a gas

station site, perhaps, a housing subdivision, perhaps, a motel

subdivision along the highway — don't mollycoddle the young, be modest

about it. The facts about the route that I have described are well

known, Mr. Speaker. It is stated, and was stated very frankly by the

Regional District Planner, C.M. Suri, for the McBride area, who said

that the selection of commercial areas has been influenced by the

provision of access roads by the Highways Department. It has to be like

that. You can't have these rich commercial areas, unless you get the

access and unless you get the zoning. That's a public matter and, where

the public interest is involved, Mr. Speaker, there should be no

suspicion. There should be no cause for suspicion. The highest

standards of Government require that these things be above suspicion.

It does not matter who the new, dynastic families are. I suppose, we

should say to ourselves that we're glad it isn't American capital. But,

really, there is a better way in which these profits can be returned to

the people.

So I close, Mr. Speaker, by making two suggestions, and one of them

I've made, already. That is that there must be no more secrecy attached

to the ownership of companies that do public business along the

highways of the Province of British Columbia.

The second is that we need a vehicle, by which we can retain, for

the people of this Province, the land values that their tax dollars

created. I suggest that, as we have the Bank of British Columbia, we

should have the Land Bank of British Columbia, modestly capitalized. My

goodness, think of the money we've put into the cultural funds and the

sports funds and the cigarette funds — ten million dollars would launch

this bank and it would make the Bank of British Columbia look sick in

comparison to the kind of returns it could make to the people of

British Columbia. It should have the powers and all of the people of

British Columbia should be shareholders in the Land Bank of British

Columbia. It should have power to acquire land, whether it be Crown or

private, which is going to be of enhanced value as a result of public

expenditures, to acquire the land cheap and to lease it out for

gasoline sites and let them pay a rent coming back to the Land Bank of

British Columbia. Let the shopping centres return to the people of

British Columbia the increased values of that land, which the people of

British Columbia have created. Let the restaurants do it. Let there be

land acquired for housing, as my friend and colleague said, $160 an

acre assessed value land. Why shouldn't that be taken into the Land

Bank of the Province of British Columbia and, then, made available,

perhaps, to the municipalities, perhaps, to an agency of Government,

perhaps, to a home-owner, perhaps, for an industrial estate? A vehicle

by which we can safeguard, for the people of British Columbia, their

true inheritance, their true inheritance. It's really very simple. They

say in Quebec, " maitres chez nous , " "masters in our own house," and we

say the same thing here that we should be, on behalf of the people of

British Columbia, masters in our own house. We say this land is our

land. Let the profits from that land, the profits that are created by

the legislation we pass here or the Budget that we are now discussing,

let those profits flow back to the people of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to

take my place in this Budget Debate, before you as your person graces

so beautifully the Throne Chair, today.

I'm very pleased that I have this privilege, again, which is my

fifth time before this Legislature. It is a wonder and a pleasure to

note and to observe the regular thrust and parry that goes across the

House, which I do not engage in, but it's a pleasure to watch and see.

The brilliant minds in action, the words are spoken, sometimes in jest,

sometimes in earnest. I cannot help but wonder at the basis for it all.

I wonder when the Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East digs up

the matter, again, of the former Minister of Highways and the

[ Page 417 ]

so-called land deals; I thought that was gone and buried, because

there was none. It was all a matter of innuendo, attempted

assassination by innuendo. When the Honourable Second Member of

Vancouver East, who is now doing their regular thrusting, who is so

good at it with a hatchet, has the temerity to attack two of the most

honourable citizens in the city of Kelowna, the Bennett boys, sons of

the Premier… (interruption) .

I didn't. I'm coming to the point and straight to the point. I'm not

beating around the bush like the other half is doing. It's bad to beat

around the bush…the temerity of such a ridiculous attack. "What did

you say, Mr. Premier?" He said, "I laughed," and well he could laugh.

You know when they thought at one time that they'd really assassinated

the Honourable the former Minister of Highways, he resigned his

position and they said, "We've got him." But they didn't get him for

that — that was all innuendo there was no basis. But, unfortunately… (interruption) . No, they didn't get him. He got tired of it and resigned.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to the aeroplane?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I'll tell you about the aeroplane. Yes,

the aeroplane, that's all you've got. All you accomplished, my friend,

was this. Let me tell them, Mr. Speaker, what they accomplished. All

they accomplished — they forced the Government to return the only

decent aeroplane they had. They turned back that aeroplane, which was

the only decent aeroplane this Government had, and they should still

have it. A Government, third largest in Canada, a moving corporation,

that gets things done — all you accomplished, my friends, was that you

made the Government, just by press coverage and pressure, to send back

the aeroplane. You're asking our civil servants to fly around in those

tin cans over the most hazardous land in the world. That's what you

accomplished. The civil servants, some day, should speak to you and

say, "What have you done?" That aeroplane, the ones you have, now, are

unsafe, completely unsafe (interruption) . OK. If I were in power to ground them, I would, because they are safe for… (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: They are safe only for one thing, fair weather

and they are not safe over the mountains of British Columbia. They are

completely dangerous. I haven't been an aircraft pilot for the past 35

years but I would not step in the door of that aeroplane and fly to

Calgary in the overcast. That's completely dangerous. One of those

aircrafts, if one engine stopped, it couldn't maintain more than a

5,000 ft. level over the mountains. They'd all be dead. This is what

you accomplished. Another ridiculous thing, I never heard the like in

my life…Just listen to this. We had to be so strict, the Government

had to be so strict, that if a Minister has an appointment in

Revelstoke or Prince George or wherever he goes with the aeroplane that

he must, his wife can't go with him. She has to go by bus or train or

another aircraft because no one but civil servants and Ministers fly in

those craft. How ridiculous can you get? I don't criticize the Federal

Government for it, but they fly several 707 jets that cost $1,000 an

hour to fly and everybody flies in them. This is that hotheaded

attitude of our Opposition, today. Always attacking, never building. I

said it before… (interruption) .

How you blew it! You know, the Premier said, during the last election,

"I will tell the people of British Columbia that I intend to give the

honourable gentleman Minister without Portfolio, a full portfolio after

this election. If you don't agree with me, you know what to do. The

Province of British Columbia knows what do do." What did the Province

of British Columbia do? Answer: Look at the Floor, swept right around

the other side, almost eliminated the Opposition. That is because you

do not understand the people will not stand for these assassinations

and innuendo. They will not stand for ridiculous charges that have no

foundation. You might be applauded in the press and, well, you should

be, because the press tells what happens here. But the people, the

people think and vote and, my friends, how they voted! That is a result

of these innuendo attacks. Surely, by now, you could learn. I'm helping

you by telling you all this. I wonder why you don't learn. You're all

fine fellows, in a way, but, when you start to think, the people of

British Columbia expect you to do something constructive. My Honourable

Second Member from Vancouver East, the attack he made today and raked

this thing all up, which I wasn't forced to reply to, but I felt I

must. What good has that done except deteriorate and hurt and damage?

You've already learnt your lesson. Do you want more?

British Columbia is the most vital Province in Canada. Things happen

here. The problem that we've got — the same problem in the east, as we

have in the Opposition. The same problem here as in eastern Canada. It

could be spoken as one word. What is that word, jealousy? They are

jealous of the Government. The east is jealous of British Columbia. Let

me give you one little example. Two or three years ago, the Federal

Government had a Prime Ministers' Conference. I think it was in Ottawa.

I think the Honourable the Prime Minister of Canada decided it would be

a good idea to put this on TV so the people could see "…What a

good job, I, Trudeau, do, because, you know, I've got charisma. When

they see me on that TV, do you know what's going to happen? They're

going to say we love that man." Well, they put it on TV. What happened?

They will never put it on TV, again, my friends. Did you ever see it on

TV again"

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, never. Why? Because who had the charisma?

Your Prime Minister and all Canada saw the policy of British Columbia,

the greatness of the Province. They said, "We'll not do this again

because they won't believe what we're writing. Here's someone who tells

the facts. This is why British Columbia expands. We can't have this

anymore." I often wonder why the CBC has another…and that brings me

to the next point — the CBC. Now, I'll say this with respect to CBC as

a TV station, I think they're the finest that we have — United States

or Canada (interruption) . I don't care about them. They never call me out at CBC. Everybody

else but me. I don't care about that. I don't have to do any favours

for anybody. It's great. Sure. But they are a great station. They have

great programming but their brain freezes when they start talking about

British Columbia. What happens to them? Jealousy, again. What do you

call those Indians up and near the Williston Lake? Are they Wild Grass

Indians? Tall Grass.

Well there's a programme that really had a flair, where the poor

Indians — and God bless them all — had nowhere to go. They were living

down the valley of the river and suddenly a terrible Government flooded

the lake. The poor Indians were lifted in body and thrown up on the

shore of the lake —

[ Page 418 ]

nowhere to sleep, nowhere to go, nothing to eat, no doctor. What a

disaster! Then the camera shows a man standing at the side of the road,

thumbing a ride, his arm is broken but he's thumbing a ride. You'd

almost imagine a CBC television crew with their electronics and their

trucks just happened to be passing when this fellow was thumbing a

ride. What a joke!

It gives the wrong impression of British Columbia to the rest of

Canada. It is wrong because I could tell you about the Tall Grass

Indians. Why, even in my town, there's a lady gathering up cans and

bottles and preserves to send up to them, which is very commendable.

But what are they going to do with them? They've already got more than

they can use. What does it do? It just does more damage. Trying to

damage British Columbia and you laugh, Mr. Member. You're entitled to

laugh. It sounds funny but it is stupid, it is sad. Let's took at

another thing.

I listened to a programme last March and I got livid with…I was

just livid, that's all. There were some ecology experts, doctors all,

three of them, and they took on after British Columbia and the terrible

state of our ecology here, that terrible "Bennett Country." No one

cares — the Fraser River is an open sewer. On both sides of the Fraser

River — dead fish. Both sides, not one side, both sides. Was this on a

local programme? No, it was on the National programme. It was from

Ottawa. What do you say to this? There is no way of replying. Everyone

in Ontario, when I tell my relatives in Toronto that I live on the

banks of the Fraser, they send me condolences now. They just see dead

fish on both sides of the river. This is what the people think. Why I

ask, why must it be, "Knock down British Columbia" policy? Jealousy,

that's all. Jealousy by the Opposition, jealousy by the Federal

authorities, but we care not at all. I know we don't, because the

purpose of the whole issue of this Government is to continue to do a

good job. Let the chips fall where they may. The day will come when

they must see, must understand — and that day is here now. But it takes

more time. We're waiting, serving our people. Where would the CBC — this is not a vicious attack — I'm just surprised, that's all. I'm just

surprised and this bothers me.

Where was the CBC, when the largest senior citizens' home in Canada

was opened two weeks ago when I was there, the seventh one I've been

to? Where were they when that was opened, when they could show a

constructive thing that British Columbia is doing for our senior

citizens? Where were they when a $1 1/2 million project, the like of

which there isn't anywhere in this country? Where were they? They

weren't there, I can tell you. I was there and the gratification of all

those present, so thankful that the Provincial Government and the

Federal Government and the Lions Club all went together and contributed

their money to build this structure (interruption) .

Mr. Premier, I'm glad you said that, because I remembered you saying

it before. I told them there that day. They asked me to speak… (interruption) .

Right. They said to me, "Oh, we have a Member here from the Provincial

Government, George Mussallem, would you like to say a few words?" You

bet, I would. I got up there and I told them. I told them the whole

story, Mr. Speaker. I told them that all honour to the Lions Club who

went and gathered up the 10 per cent, who received…yes, all honour to

them. All honour to the men and women that worked for this thing day

and night, all honour to them. I said it was a community effort, all

honour to the community. Then I said this, "I was at another senior

citizens' home a while ago," and, you know, I told a story, then. I

want to tell you, again, because it had no effect. I pointed out,

there, as I point out again, that the Provincial Government made a

present of $540,000 towards this home, a present, a gift, a total gift.

That, I said, made it possible. It couldn't have been possible without

that gift, because the Federal Government lends their money to CMHC at

a full rate of interest. There is no gift, not one cent, 7 7/8 per

cent. When that home is paid for, I pointed out, they would have paid

back, instead of $1 million, nearly $6 million and more. I didn't want

to work it out, but about $8 million. Believe me, they stood there and

took credit. I said there was a Doug Hogarth, a Member for the Federal

Government, there, and I turned to him and I said, "Mr. Hogarth, go

back and tell your Cabinet that the least they could do is give the

money back interest free." He said to me, "We would, we would, but the

people of Canada won't." "Well," I said, "Mr. Hogarth, the people of

Canada are out here right now. There are about a hundred people there.

Let's hear the people of Canada." You've never heard such applause. So

I say it again. That is the voice of the wilderness — no one heard, no

one cared. These poor people are so — the senior citizens — fine

people, but they're so grateful to be in there.

They are grateful to everybody. Who are they grateful to? Only one

Government made it possible, and that was the Provincial Government. Do

I ever hear you, the honourable Opposition, say anything about it? Not

one word, not one word. I never in my life heard anybody try and get on

bandwagons, but why don't we hear you say it in between? Well, it is

very interesting to see. So I said my words, then, and they realize it.

I think we should get the story across more often because there will be

many more homes built. Perhaps, if we shame the Federal Government

enough they will remove the interest rates — not give away any money.

Impossible? Well, it may be impossible, but let's try, Let's keep at

it. Let's tell the story continually. I don't understand this "Knock

down B.C." policy. I can't understand it.

I shouldn't waste my time or the time of this House talking about

it, because we don't care (applause) . I thank you. I shouldn't do, but

I must do it. I must do it. You know, it makes you feel better when you

get it off your chest. It makes you feel better.

There's the Honourable Jack Davis, who runs around the country…

AN HON. MEMBER: Doing nothing.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, he never did anything but knock B.C. all

the time. A Member of British Columbia. Does he help, does he lift,

does he encourage? No, just knocks all the time. He says, "You know,

one of these days I'm going to shut down one of those pulp mills.

They're just dumping that effluent in the water." British

Columbia…what a horrible way they do. They tell them how much

effluent they can put in. They don't tell how much they can't put in.

Well, I tell you, you have to be an educated man to understand that

statement. I don't understand it. But the ridiculous nature of a policy

of a man that spends his time just knocking the Province of British

Columbia, his own homeland, is beyond my understanding. I've got to

compliment… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, you hear this nonsense but I rather enjoy it. I don't mind it. It's very nice to hear.

[ Page 419 ]

But, you know, I wish I remembered the Minister saying that, but I'd

forgotten it. It would have been a fine line to have on here, but I

never had it. I'm glad you reminded me. Just for the sake of it, let me

say I said it.

I must compliment the Attorney-General on a thing that's so little

but it's so important, so little but so important. Amongst his massive

duties of his office, it must take him, it must be the least thing of

all…But, when this Government put in the Odometer Law, I want to tell

him what a great boon it has been for the automobile industry as a

whole. I want to tell him that it levelled out the values of

automobiles on used car lots to a point where they've become a useful

value according to the odometer reading. You know, now, generally, what

you've got. You say that your car has gone 80,000, 90,000, 100,000 or

15,000. It has been a good law. It has been a help to dealers and

customers alike and I compliment him (interruption) . The Honourable Member speaks facetiously, but there is no way we can add water to the product (laughter) .

Mr. Speaker, there's one suggestion I'd like to make seriously. Most

remarks have been serious, today. I'd like to make a suggestion that

the Attorney-General look at another very important facet in the same

line. A car gets into a wreck or what we call a "total." The insurance

company, or the owner, whatever the case, will say it costs so many

dollars to fix it. I can get so many dollars for it as a wreck.

Perhaps, it will be cheaper not to fix it, get rid of it. Insurance

companies mostly do this and they sell the car to a private buyer, a

handyman in a back alley garage. A lot of good men can do jobs with a

car and they'll buy these wrecks. I'm thinking of one in particular,

right now, that had gone 3,000 miles. Now, that car had an accident

total on it of $2,200. The buyer bought this 1970 car for $1,100, which

is very cheap for a 1970, but if you add the $2,200 on top of that to

what it cost to repair, you have more than the car is worth. Why did he

buy it? He bought it to make money, Mr. Attorney-General, and he's

entitled to do it, nothing wrong with it. There is something wrong, in

a way, but he's within his rights, should I say. He takes that car into

his garage, wherever it is. Perhaps, it's the garage of his own home,

if he's a handyman. He takes that car, straightens, adjusts, rebends

over heat, and that car is almost as bad a wreck when it's finished as

when it was started. The only thing — it looks nice, patched up and

painted. I recommend that any car that's totalled, Mr.

Attorney-General, should have…or any car that has…Let me put it

this way, any car with a reportable accident should have it listed or

noted on the transfer slip, so when a customer buys the car he knows

how many reportable accidents it's been in. Now, this is just the same

as weights and measures — the man should know what measure he's

getting. The man who buys this car that I'm speaking of has a wreck

before he bought it. I think this is very important.

I have something else that disturbs me greatly and now I'll move my

attention to the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Minister of Agriculture,

I'm sorry to have to tell you, but your marketing boards…No, that's

not a word. I've run out of control. I can tell you, at this hour, that

just a few weeks ago, a man in the town of Mission, who has a small

vegetable stand by the side of the road, making a little business to

keep himself and his family, goes around buying vegetables wherever he

can and sells them in his market. He's allowed to do this, but they

restrict where he can buy. This man lives in Mission. He can go as far

as Agassiz, on this side of the river, but if he crosses the river and

goes to Chilliwack where the vegetables are, he's in violation of the

law. Can you imagine anything so stupid — the fact that he goes another

mile? There are no vegetables in Agassiz that he wants, but they're in

Chilliwack, across the river. Mr. Minister, this man is being an

entrepreneur, thought he could just get away with it a little bit,

anyway. He's tried it two or three times. It doesn't work, they catch

him. Now he's breaking the law. I spoke to you, Mr. Minister, and you,

yourself, said you can't understand the marketing boards — they're

stupid. Why do you allow this to continue? I say this has to stop. I do

not think that there should be any board powerful enough to dictate to

the Government what it should do. The most annoying part of it is this,

Mr. Speaker. I went to the chairman of the board — I spoke to him over

the telephone, I should say. I called on the telephone and I said,

"What are you going to do with the potatoes?" There were other things,

too, but potatoes were the main. "Ho, ho, " he says, "we're going to

give them away to somebody. That will serve them right." I'm telling

you, this sneer, this attitude of glee, he was happy that he could do

it. I tell you it is seldom I attack anyone on the floor of this House,

but that man deserves an attack. He should be out of there.

The Poultry Board is just as bad. I have, in my town, a man by the

name of Ted Watson, owner of Blythwood Turkey Farms, who is just making

a living raising turkeys and doing a great job. He received a quota,

arbitrarily, without warning. I will not bore this House with the

details. Suddenly, the board decided he's not going to have that quota.

They took him off and here he's got, in cold storage, about 30,000

birds that will be sold at a loss to him. We're not through with this,

yet. I say to you, Mr. Minister, that if that board gets away with

that, it will be a disgrace against the escutcheon of your office.

The board chairman said to me — his name is Wolfe — said to me with pleasure… (interruption) .

Wolfe. Not the honourable Member. Now, I don't like doing things like

this, but I must. What annoys me, I'll go along to any end to talk,

discuss and change and alter and agree, you know that. But when he

said to me with glee, "Huh," he says, "he's not getting away with it" — speaking of Watson.

Now, I tell you, when any man says this, it makes me mad and something has got to be done. I hope it's done, Mr. Minister (interruption) .

I'm not asking questions now because it gets into details. The Minister

knows. He knows what he's talking about. I've got evidence in my desk

which I will give you later, Mr. Minister, and I tell you, I ask you

from the floor of this House, that something has got to be done for

Watson. An honourable man, who served his country through the war, who

is practically — well, I shouldn't go into that — I'm not going to

mention that. I'm telling you — an honourable man, a family man — who

deserves better than this and he must get better than this.

I'm going to tell you another thing, Mr. Minister of Agriculture,

something that bothers me greatly. This time, I will have to mention

that the villains of the piece are the large stores — Safeway,

Woodwards. I'm going to tell you something that will surprise you,

perhaps. In my constituency, there is a very large chicken hatching and

selling industry, very large. They sell in this area and also in

Langley too, Mr. Member. They sell live broilers eight weeks old, 3/4

to 4 lbs. They sell them to a processing plant for 21 cents a pound.

The processor takes them, pays the freight on them, packages them,

allows for shrinkage to reduce them to when they're ready for the oven,

and sells them to the stores — I give approximate figures — for 41

cents a pound. Now, that is

[ Page 420 ]

an approximate figure and that allows the grower about 2 cents a

pound profit with which he's satisfied — 2 cents a pound profit. To

give you an idea how large this market is, there's over 60 million lbs.

of chickens a year sold in British Columbia. It's a big business. The

large food stores sell this, exactly the way they get it, for 49 cents

a pound. They just sell it. They take the same bird and sell it as a

broiler for 59 cents a pound. They'll take an 11 to 14 week old bird

for which they pay 42 cents a pound and it's on special at 69 cents a

pound. I just saw it today. How can we ever expect to reduce the cost

of living, if we're going to permit this thing to happen? How the

Minister will correct this, I don't have a clue, but this is a very sad

state of affairs. I think it's worthy of this Government's

investigation.

All these miscellaneous little troubles, I know, are not very

important, but British Columbia continues to become greater and better

and finer under the leadership of the best Government in Canada.

A country that will be surrounded by green belts forever. Sometimes,

we are sorry about the green belts of the city of Vancouver, the Fraser

Valley. Worry no more, my friends. What we've forgotten here — we hear

this big noise emanating from the desert country to the south — we need

green belts. We forget — we're not down south — we are here in the most

lush, most beautiful Province in the world. All around us will be green

belts forever. The mountains all over. They're the green belts. It's

not the little bit of meadow, we will grow farm produce in there for

food. We don't have to have that in grass. Our green belts were created

by the Creator in this great Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow my friend from Dewdney, whom I

always enjoy. May I always appreciate humour, as he does, as long as I

am in this House. I do enjoy listening to him, even though I very

seldom agree with him — but that's part of the debate.

I'm sorry my friend from Columbia River is not in his place today,

Mr. Speaker. I've done some research over the weekend. Is he coming

back? All right, I'll save my little gem for the Member from Columbia

River.

I'll move instead to some advice, if I may, Mr. Speaker, through

you, to the First Member from Vancouver Centre. This is sort of a

record Session because he hasn't won one yet this year. He just

continually loses. I must say, though, he also bears the gibes pretty

well.

While I'm waiting for the Member from Columbia River, whom, I know,

can hardly wait for the results of my weekend research, I want to agree

with the Minister without Portfolio who spoke earlier this afternoon

about Hydro. I, too, must condemn Hydro for its actions since the

strike was settled. Once again, it's simply reaffirmed my conclusion

that Hydro long ago has forgotten that its prime purpose is to serve

the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, Hydro is not a private

business and Hydro must accept the principle that a viable

transportation system in our major urban centres is essential to the

whole Province.

Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to even imagine how an economy in a

Province such as ours, could function properly without an adequate

public transit system in Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster and so

on. This, in no way, seems to be Hydro's intent or purpose, and I think

we had another glaring example of this over the weekend. Service

cutbacks in transit service in Vancouver and the lower mainland affect

the entire Province. Even more than that, Mr. Speaker, it reminds me

that this is the service that has refused to expand since it took over

the transportation in the lower mainland. In my own riding, for

example, the old B.C. Electric handled the transportation up to the

Seymour River and those of you who are familiar with the North Shore

know that, since that time, development on the North Shore has spread

from the Seymour River right out to Deep Cove and, indeed, beyond. But

there still are no Hydro buses east of the Seymour River. They simply

refuse to extend their service. They flatly ignore the fact that people

live out there and their entire policy has been one of no expansion

and, indeed, cutbacks. So I join with that Minister in condemning

Hydro's action over the weekend.

But the point must be made, and the Member has stated it well, that

Hydro is a product of this Government. It is somewhat astounding to

hear the lady minister get up and say, "Bad, naughty Hydro," without

accepting any of the blame or responsibility for their actions. This is

the Government that established Hydro and it's now this Government's

responsibility to tell Hydro that their job, indeed, is to serve the

people of the Province and not to cut back service. It is, also,

unfortunate and true, Mr. Speaker, that these cutbacks by Hydro affect

the senior people of our Province more than anyone else and that is to

be regretted.

Mr. Speaker, I see the Member from Columbia River is back. I welcome

him back. I wanted to carry on a bit of the discussion that was a

debate that was going on from either side of the House during this

Budget Debate. As a matter of fact, the debate has been crossing Party

lines. I have a colleague to my left, here, with whom I agree and I'm

talking about hunting.

The Member from Burrard first raised it and said that hunting should

be abolished and I agree with him. The Member from Columbia River says,

"No, it's just a great sport." Well, I did some research in my library

and I found a poem I want to read to the Member. He may have heard it

before but I don't think it will hurt to read it again. This is by

Ogden Nash, Mr. Speaker. Ogden Nash wrote:

"The hunter crouches in his blind

'Neath camouflage of every kind,

And conjures up a quacking noise

To lend a lure to his decoys.

This grown-up man, with pluck and luck,

Is hoping to outwit a duck."

I think it sums it up pretty well, far better than I could, Mr. Speaker.

While I'm disagreeing with people, Mr. Speaker, I wish to disagree

with another friend, the Member from Langley. I admire the Member from

Langley for standing up and saying what he believed to be the future of

our Nation, but I wish to stand up and say that I totally disagree with

the concept he outlined in this Legislature. I think that Member, Mr.

Speaker, despite his years, has failed to realize that the real

Canadian character is a sea-to-sea character and will always be so

(applause) . While you're applauding over there, I say that those who

don't see that have succumbed to the parochialism and separatism of

Social Credit, because, Mr. Speaker, continually, we have heard Members

from that side of the House, in this Session of the Legislature,

speaking up in separatist fashion. The Member from Langley's remarks

confirm my worst fears. The Canada East and Canada West theory is a

step backwards — a hundred years into our past.

[ Page 421 ]

I would be the first to admit, Mr. Speaker, that the values of our

Nation have a price and we must be prepared to pay it to keep our

Nation as one. I offer some free advice to the Government. If you look

in the history of Governments of British Columbia, you'll find that

this is not the first Government to attempt to win its way by

separatist talk. It's not the first. There have been many Governments

in this Province who have taken this step, but, Mr. Speaker, without

exception, the people have turned on those Governments and thrown them

out of office and they'll do so again.

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to be lengthy, this afternoon, which I

know will please the Members. I wish to speak on the Budget. I think,

in many respects, it has been well debated. It is not a complicated

Budget. The Premier's Address was straightforward and he put it on the

line what he was going to do. Many Members have analyzed the Budget

very well. The Leader of the Liberal Party was the first to point out

the new tax increases on motels and gasoline will not even meet the new

fund that is being established, which is a fact that should be realized

by those who are going to be paying the shots. Many have shown, on this

side, that the tax increases are not, in fact, necessary. The Member

for Cowichan-Malahat showed how projections of the Minister of Trade

and Industry fly in the face of the Minister of Finance's Budget. If

you read the Annual Report of the Minister of Trade and Industry, as

that Member pointed out so well, it reads like the document from some

other Government, because it, certainly, doesn't match what the

Minister of Finance had to say.

Then again, Mr. Speaker, after so many years, why should the

Minister of Finance change now? This is a typical Budget, it follows

the pattern. The pattern is well established and well known. The

Minister of Finance has always taken money from general revenues and

put them into little, special funds and, then, in turn, the little,

special funds are given to the Crown corporations, namely B.C. Hydro.

This is a pattern that is there, consistently, throughout the Budgets

of this Minister. Even the Member for Alberni has got the picture. One

of the first over there. He's now got the message, he now knows why the

Minister of Finance has stayed out of the marketplace. He told us — the

interest rates are too high. By saying that, Mr. Speaker, he admitted

the advantage of meeting the needs of the Crown corporations out of the

little funds that the Minister of Finance has.

AN HON. MEMBER: Teachers' pension.

MR. CLARK: Teachers' pension, Workmen's Compensation pension,

Municipal Superannuants' pension, Civil Servants' pension — he's paying

them a lower interest rate (interruption) . Exactly. The ironic part,

Mr. Speaker, is that the Member from Alberni has got the picture, but

he doesn't know it yet. It will take another year when he reads his

speech back, Mr. Speaker. Then, maybe he'll really understand.

We've got another fund this year, Mr. Speaker, but we'll be

discussing that later. One can't help but suggest that the tax

increases that are forecast in this Budget and outlined in this Budget,

are not really to meet the expenditures of this Budget. They are to

create a surplus for a motherhood budget which, perhaps, will come next

year or the year after. That, too, is patterned, that's typical, that's

in form, the Minister of Finance has done it consistently. It's no

surprise, Mr. Speaker.

It leaves one question, though, that taxpayers in this Province

should ask. Are the new elements of the Budget, the new fund, is the

new fund, worth the tax increase? But further comment on that, too, Mr.

Speaker, might better wait until a later date in this Session.

I must emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that there is a glaring lack in

this Budget. I spoke about it in my contribution to the Throne Speech

Debate and I have no hesitancy in speaking about it, again, with no

apology. It is that the glaring gap on intermediate care is still here

in British Columbia, despite the flowing words that appear in that

Budget. For the elderly people of this Province, it means nothing. I

agree with the Member for Oak Bay, whom, I think, deserves the

congratulations of this House for doing a very fine research job on the

costs of intermediate care and laying the facts before this House. I

agree with him, although I, personally, believe that his estimates were

somewhat low, at least, low as I envisage the service the Province

could provide, because I just don't see a bunch of cold, stark

hospitals where we're going to place our elderly. I envisage a whole

concept of services that this Province could afford, now, services for

the elderly and places for them to live that would include recreation

facilities, for example. It would include, certainly, nursing

facilities, but to suggest that all people who are chronically sick

should be grouped together to spend the rest of their lives with a

bunch of other sick people is just a disgusting thought to me. Elderly

people are no different than the rest of us. They don't like to be

around only sick people.

Is it beyond our imagination for us to conceive of environments for

the senior citizens of this Province, where they could be looked after

as far as their health needs are concerned but still have a variety

that those of us, who are healthy and young, enjoy in our community

streets? I think this is within our reach in this Province in this

year. I think we need combination services for the elderly. I don't

accept the concept of cold, stark intermediate care. Mr. Speaker, if

you need a challenge for this Province in this Centennial Year, I still

can't think of a better one than this. I can't think of anything that

would give a greater boom to our economy than an imaginative programme

for the senior citizens of this Province, in terms of residence, in

terms of nursing care, in terms of recreation facilities, in terms of

social services. Can you imagine anything that would give a greater

boost to our construction industry than an imaginative programme

presented to the people of this Province? What greater challenge could

there be than for communities with resources to get together and answer

the needs. Who in this House would not admit that there's nothing more

embarrassing to him, as a Member, than the knowledge that, in his own

riding, there lives elderly people who are waiting only death.

Besides that, Mr. Speaker, besides the people who would be needed to

build these facilities, it would create brand new professions or

expanded professions, at least — the people who would be required to

nurse, the nurses, if you will, the recreation workers, the social

agency workers. Mr. Speaker, I can but repeat what I said in my Throne

Speech contribution that I find our Centennial celebrations

hypocritical as long as this lack exists in the financial planning of

our Province. I cannot celebrate, with any exuberance, the senior

citizens, the pioneers, the founders, as long as this situation

continues.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the question of municipal taxation

as it's outlined in the Budget. We have the apples and oranges graphs,

again. They've been there for some time, too. We've got more apples

than you have oranges when, really, the taxpayer only has to look at

his own municipal tax bill to know whether or not his taxes are going

up and how well he's treated by this Province. B.C.'s municipal taxes

did

[ Page 422 ]

go up last year, Mr. Speaker, almost all municipalities in the

Province, certainly, those in the lower mainland. Once again, as I have

every year in this debate, I would point out to the Members the costs

in just one constituency on land and what's happened to them. I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of any graphs that may exist in

the Premier's Budget Address, this is the surest method of determining

what's happening on the municipal tax rolls of British Columbia. You

take those costs, which are not directly benefited by the land, and you

take those costs which do not directly benefit the land, namely health,

social welfare and education, and you subtract the Provincial grants.

Then, that total you divide by the population. It's that simple and

you've got the per capita costs of people services. What's happened to

them? Any Member can do it. The municipal treasurer would be happy to

give you the figures.

In 1962, in the District of North Vancouver, the per capita costs

was $46.78; in 1963, it was $53.18; 1964, it was $58.35; in 1965, it

was $59.59; in 1966, $65.50; 1967, $79.27; 1968, $91.20; 1969, $101.29.

You can't argue with the figures, Mr. Speaker. Municipal taxes in this

Province are going up and the cost of people services is being borne by

the municipal landowner. There's been a 100 per cent increase in people

service costs to the municipal taxpayer in less than six years, under

Social Credit administration. There has been a tax increase every year

and, this year, it will be greater than ever by this Budget because,

although there is a 5 per cent reduction in welfare costs, there is no

increase this year in per capita grants. So I can state, Mr. Speaker,

with certainty, that next year, as I table these figures in the Budget

Debate, the increase will be even greater. There is another tax

increase on land in British Columbia, this year, and it's right in the

Budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the question of some concern

to me and should be of concern to this House. It involves the Minister

of Health. I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, a category of events, during

the past year, which, in my opinion, indicated very clearly the

incompetence of this Minister. Included in those events, as just one

item, was the alleged incident involving this Minister and a Dr.

Regehr. It was over a hospital for Clearwater.

Mr. Speaker, although my concern, at the time, was not primarily

with the hospital, the more this subject bounces around from various

Ministers and various quarters in the Province, the more concerned one

must become as to exactly what's happening to the hospital in

Clearwater. Unless, of course, the Minister didn't mean what he said in

this House the other day, when he said there'll be no hospital in

Clearwater. It will be, I think, what he called a diagnostic centre.

That's what he said in the House, the other day.

Then his colleague the Minister of Rehabilitation goes up to

Clearwater and the story in the newspaper says, "Centre Ready by Fall:

Rehabilitation Minister Phil Gaglardi announced an early beginning on

construction of a long awaited hospital here." When is a hospital a

hospital? What are we being told? What are the people in Clearwater

being told? What exactly is it, Mr. Speaker, that has been told us here

and is being told to the people of Clearwater? It obviously is not the

same thing.

I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that that was not my primary concern when

I first raised this topic in this House. My primary concern was, and I

want to make this very clear, that a Minister of the Crown, any

Minister, would attempt to use his position and influence to put into

question the rights of a private citizen to practice his profession in

this Province.

That was my concern, and I made that clear and I make it clear

again, because I don't think there is any Member in this House, who

would not agree with me, that any Minister, by his office, who would

threaten such a professional is not worthy of his office.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's given you an answer to that.

MR. CLARK: Yes, he's given us an answer and I intend to deal

with it. The first thing the Minister told us is that he tabled a

letter, Mr. Speaker, that he had sent to Dr. W.G. McClure, the

Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. In it, he asked

two questions and I would like to deal with them first. The first

question he asks of Dr. McClure and the College: "Does a doctor

licensed by your College to practice in this Province have the

unqualified privilege of engaging the Minister of Health in public

debate, in such a manner as to require that this Minister defend the

health care policy approved and endorsed by either your College or the

Medical Association, without, at the same time, taking upon himself the

responsibility for making it clear he also speaks in opposition to an

officially expressed view of the College or of the British Columbia

Medical Association?"

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister has suggested, by this question, is

that doctors or, indeed, any other profession, have some special

restriction upon themselves when they choose to enter into political

debate with this Minister. I don't accept that, and I don't think this

House would want to accept that. If any doctor wishes to engage that

Minister in debate, he has every right to do so…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CLARK: …by whatever means he chooses. He has no special

privileges and no special rights and, hopefully, in engaging the

Minister in debate, he would make his position clear. But he's got no

special onus on him to do so.

The Minister went on to ask the second question. "…when, as in the case in point, Dr. Regehr has publicly expressed

disapproval of policies stated in my letter, etc, etc,, does your

College and the British Columbia Medical Association intend to state

publicly that Dr. Regehr's views represent the policies of neither your

College nor the British Columbia Medical Association and, further, that

my letter referred to above has been endorsed as embodying the official

views of your profession?"

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister would have every professional send in

his speech first for clearance. Indeed, that's what I think the

Minister meant when he stood up and said that, or inferred at least,

that I had infringed upon gentlemanly conduct, because I hadn't sent in

my speech to be vetted.

New rules for gentlemanly conduct! I don't accept what the Minister

has said in his letter to Dr. McClure. The doctors of this Province

have as much right as any other citizen to engage in debate on whatever

platform they can find with the Minister of Health, if they choose to

disagree with his policy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, and I remind you that it was the Minister who

raised the question of gentlemanly conduct and honour, the point I had

raised, Mr. Speaker, was that the Minister threatened a doctor. It was

that simple. Indeed, by threatening this doctor he threatened the

entire profession of British Columbia, too. The Minister answered… (interruption) . You just listen, my friend. Your profession is

[ Page 423 ]

the one involved. Mr. Speaker, this is what the Minister said to Dr.

McClure and this is what he tabled in this House by way of an answer.

He said, "At no time have I ever suggested or said that I was going to

look into Dr. Regehr's medical competency and see about lifting his

license." That's what the Minister said in this House and to Dr.

McClure. "At no time have I ever suggested or said that I was going to

took into Dr. Regehr's medical competency and see about lifting his

license." May I be as clear as possible, Mr. Speaker. That is an untrue

statement — tabled in a letter by that Minister in this House. It is an

untrue statement. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister said.

There is one witness, who could be in this House — the Minister of

Rehabilitation — because, at the meeting in question, November 5, 1970,

the Minister of Rehabilitation was there and he heard the remark. So

was Dr. Regehr. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what the Minister said to

Dr. Regehr. He said, and I'll table it. I will give full explanation.

Don't worry, Mr. Speaker, I intend to give full explanation as to the

document in my hand (interruption) .

I will, and I'll table it. I'll be happy to. This is what the

Minister said and, then, I'll give him the chance to deny it."I want it

very, very plainly understood…"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, please. I think the Point of Order is well taken that the Member should divulge the source of his reading.

MR. CLARK: Certainly. All right, if that will make the

Minister happier. This is the transcript, Mr. Speaker, of the meeting.

Is that clear enough? (Interruption.) November 5, 1970 (interruption) . Transcript (interruption) . The Minister's statement. " I want it very, very plainly understood…" (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. What is the Point of Order?

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): We must know if this is a court reporter's transcript, or whose transcript is this of the meeting?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I allege this is a transcript of the meeting.

MR. PETERSON: Well, by whom? A transcript isn't an official transcript unless it's by a court reporter (interruption) . Were you there?

MR. CLARK: No, Mr. Minister.

MR. PETERSON: Did you record it?

MR. CLARK: No, Mr. Minister.

MR. PETERSON: Did you tape it?

MR. CLARK: No, Mr. Minister.

MR. PETERSON: We've got enough of these tapes around.

MR. CLARK: Let's be quite clear and stop foggying the issue

or clouding the water. We're talking about a statement that a Minister

of the Crown made in this House. He said, to continue, Mr. Speaker…

HON. G. McCARTHY (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to a Point of Order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your Point of Order?

MRS. McCARTHY: If a Member in this House can rise and quote a

document, with two pieces of paper in his hand, and allege that it was

a recording or a record of a meeting and does not give us either the

time or place, only gives the date, does not give us the source of the

information, anyone can come in this House and give such an… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAK