1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 361 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. PATRICIA J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm

not quite sure where I stand today. I'm always nice to the Premier, and

I know I'm a member of the gentler sex, but I do wish you all a happy

Valentine's Day tomorrow, today.

I would like to begin, Mr. Speaker, by again expressing the honour

and pleasure that I feel in standing on the floor today representing

the people of the North Okanagan, that gem of British Columbia. I've

learned two things about this, two new points this session, Mr.

Speaker. One, that it doesn't pay to extend courtesies to the

honourable members of the Opposition solely when it comes to speaking

positions, because if you do they put a hex on you and you end up

speaking on Friday, the 13th.

While I am here, Mr. Speaker, in the second debate of this House in

this Session of Parliament, I would like to lend my voice to the

congratulations and warm welcome to the new members of this Parliament,

and to again compliment them on the quality of their debate, and also,

Mr. Speaker, to lend my voice to those many voices that have

congratulated you on your re-election as Speaker of this House. In fact

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to lend my voice to all the

niceties that have been said in this Session of this Parliament on the

floor of this House.

The North Okanagan is an area of many interests and many concerns,

Mr. Speaker. My colleagues in the Cabinet are aware of the problems,

and I would just say to the floor of this House that our major concern

is in being able to balance our economic needs with our environment and

to that end we stand completely committed. I would like to turn the

attention through you, Mr. Speaker, of the honourable members to the

publication on their desk entitled, "Women and the Law in British

Columbia." I am pleased to say that the explanatory notes in the front,

I think, display very well the intent of this booklet and I am very

pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of this Budget, and on the

basis of the previous debate, that this book will soon be very much out

of date. I don't mind if it's out of date every year, if we continue to

bring in Budgets like this, Mr. Speaker.

When we turn to the Budget, Mr. Speaker, being one of the latest

speakers in this debate, many things have been said, all of which I

heartily endorse, and I think I can best sum up my feelings by quoting

someone else. It's from the Toronto Telegram of August 9th. "The simple

fact is that these once raw and potentially outreaches of Canada cannot

be developed by men who cannot make big decisions, who are not super

salesmen and who cannot move fast to solve the huge problems of human

economic underdevelopment. No one," the

article says, Mr. Speaker,

"could accuse Mr. Bennett of defaulting in any of these key areas. When

Premier Bennett said some of the intellectuals and technocrats in

Ottawa couldn't operate a peanut stand, he was right. In B.C. they need

a leader who thinks, who builds like a Pharaoh, and before Mr. Bennett,

the Pacific Great Eastern Railway went nowhere, carried little freight,

coastal transport vital to maritime trade operated at the whim of

eastern railway companies." And the

article goes on to say, Mr.

Speaker, "Driving in the British Columbia interior was like making

one's way around modern Bolivia. Bennett spent the first half of his

years in power making British Columbia institutions work properly for

British Columbians. Trade followed Bennett's modernization, the reality

of operation. A west coast phenomenon of the 60's followed."

Mr. Speaker, I think that says more adequately than I, what other

people think of this Government as well as what we think of ourselves,

and I would suggest that in this Budget for 1970, this is the first

step of the phenomenon of the 70's for the people of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we've had some interesting Sessions watching the

Opposition decide who was to be their Leader. We've had one or two or

three Leaders in the last while, but the honourable House Leader of the

Opposition has been running in the forefront, and he's been very

bravely displaying for us and the press, what he feels are his

qualifications for this high office, and he's been extolling these

self-acknowledged qualities. I think that we should have a look at his

own words as they are in light of leadership qualities. A leader should

have aims, and what are the aims of this leader, Mr. Speaker? As late

as November, 1968, he said that he would scrap the University of

British Columbia, and in August, 1969 he said that he would champion

for teacher power. These are the qualities for leadership, Mr. Speaker.

Now, not only must he have high objectives and aims, Mr. Speaker, he

must have integrity. He issued a press statement not too long ago, in

which he stated that he really wanted to set the records straight, that

he wanted everybody to know what the situation was. In that

article he

went on to not only talk about his soft tomatoes, but to plead that he

was too poor to attend the University of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, please. One of the practices

of the House has been that you do not question a member's integrity, so

the member may word that differently.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, I'm supporting it, Mr. Speaker, but thank

you. And I do support his integrity and I support him in name.

Unfortunately, when I looked up the records to find out about the

Seattle University I find, Mr. Speaker, that at that time the average

monthly rate for boarding at the University of British Columbia was $40

a month and the tuition ran around $200 a year, and at the University

of Seattle the average boarding rate per month was $60 and that the

tuition was considerably higher than $200, and today it is one of the

most expensive universities in the State of Washington.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I worked in the cafeteria and paid $15 a month for my room.

MRS. JORDAN: It would have been less expensive, Mr. Speaker,

to go to the University of British Columbia, whose fees today are well

in line with the fees right across Canada. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, we

certainly are well aware and support his integrity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MRS. JORDAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, we'll leave education, the party has given us his view on that.

[ Page 362 ]

But you know, one of the things that impressed me about this young

honourable member is that he has a very tidy mind and he always has

very tidy solutions to very tidy problems. Cypress Bowl is one of the

examples that I would like to mention, and he's so tidy that he comes

out with a great headline in which he says that he denies that politics

spur his attack on Cypress Bowl. But in a few days, Mr. Speaker, later

in the Sun , this is after he tidily denied that politics spur

the attack, he sort of flexes his sponge-rubber muscles, and he bravely

challenges the developers of Cypress Bowl. But, Mr. Speaker, after

these headlines, after this challenge, this paper teddy-bear of tidy

land had no roar at all, because it was just a little "poof." Because

he hadn't even had the courage to speak to the people and challenge

them themselves. It was a paper "poof," Mr. Speaker, but however,

again, perhaps this is a quality that they wish in their party.

Mr. Speaker, we go on to the next quality of leadership which is

courage, pardon me, is character, moral character and I strongly

support the honourable Leader's stand. He made it very clear in his

self-heralded credentials the other day, when he spoke his views on

marriage licences, and as the honourable member from Revelstoke-Slocan

so brilliantly brought out and commented, that he should have lots of

experience because of the rocky rail of the N.D.P. marriages.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I must ask the member to withdraw the reflection that the member did not have courage.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. We're really having

trouble establishing these leadership qualities. But anyway, we are on

to these self-heralded credentials and the final one, Mr. Speaker, as

he discussed marriages, and he's gone through the marriages of the,

N.D.P. and he says, Mr. Speaker, he says, in spite of being a

University graduate, in the Vancouver Sun on November 16, 1968,

that his only interests are booze and women. Mr. Speaker, I don't know

whether to caution the public, I don't know whether to caution the

women of this Province, the union bosses, or the honourable Deputy

Leader of their party.

Well, I'm not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that he has this support,

because I find that the comments of the honourable second member from

Vancouver East are such that I don't choose to even remark on them,

other than suggest that he is the softest tomato of all soft tomatoes

sold in the Province of British Columbia by the N.D.P. and I come from

the tomato country.

However, I don't want to forget all the members on the other side of

the House, and I listened to the debate with great interest, and you'll

see why I had obviously thought this up before the very long and

honourable debate we heard last evening from the Opposition. But the

honourable member of Cowichan-Malahat, Mr. Speaker, a man that I have

always felt was a man of high repute, and a man of truth, and indeed a

man of stature, and a man who would never, with all his general

knowledge and his research assistants, with all his parliamentary

experience, stoop to extremes in political licence. I listened the

other day, Mr. Speaker, as he thoughtfully enlightened us and my

honourable colleagues on the industrial development programmes of

British Columbia. He looked into his crystal ball of hindsight and he

talked about our Government's water policy and he chided the Government

and he chided my colleagues for what I consider are outstanding efforts

in industrial development. He gleefully flooded through papers, reading

ads in the Financial Post , and then he smiled over at me, Mr.

Speaker — and that's always very nice — and he accused me of selling

out the natural resources of the North Okanagan on the basis of an ad

in the Financial Post placed by the Okanagan Industrial

Development Committee, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, I thought it would

interest the House to know, who was Chairman of that Committee, and who

had represented the North Okanagan, and who had promoted that ad.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member from Kootenay.

MRS. JORDAN: No, not the member from Kootenay, but a card carrying member of the N.D.P. party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…oh….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to discuss, also, the travel industry

in British Columbia, and I'm sure it won't come as a surprise to any

members in this House that British Columbia is a force to be reckoned

with in the world of tourism, and this is not only our opinion. Not

only are we reckoned with as a force, as being an exciting and

interesting place to visit, but it is acknowledged in the sophisticated

world of tourist promotion. The philosophy behind this department, Mr.

Speaker, is not only a recognition of the value of the tourist dollars

to all areas of our Province, but also a firm conviction that the

exchange of people in a relaxed and holiday mood is one of the most

potent forces in fostering international understanding and world peace.

Travel is a positive vehicle through which we as British Columbians

and Canadians can better understand other cultures and other people's

habits and other customs, and other countries' desires and fears, I

feel, Mr. Speaker, that travel is a very positive force through which

we as a people in British Columbia and Canada can let others become

aware of our culture, our habits, our customs, our desires, and also

our fears. Surely there is no better way than in our personal conduct

in other nations and our treatment of our visitors, to better

demonstrate a philosophy of man's humanity to man, and to better

demonstrate our desire as citizens to give and to take and to treat

others as we would like to be treated, and to show that we as a

Province and a Nation recognize that all people have a right to

freedom, to achieve the desires that all people have in common.

To achieve these aims of international understanding British

Columbians as travelers must be made aware, before visiting other

countries, of the need of touring education, and Osaka '70 is an

excellent example. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in this Budget that there

is money set aside for the printing of a pamphlet, and for the want of

a better name we could call it "Japan, Our Host." Because, Mr. Speaker,

there is no more tradition-conscious people in the world than the

Japanese, nor is there a people more offended by an affront to their

traditions than the Japanese, and I selected a few examples to relate

to the honourable members, if I can just find them. You, know, such a

simple thing as a gift to a Japanese can prove an embarrassment to the

unwary giver and, Mr. Speaker, in the gift world there are certain

wrappings, and certain colours, and certain ribbons which are very

significant. I think it's important to note that two Japanese men

seldom shake hands, and the Japanese man and the Japanese woman seldom

shake hands. The Japanese, Mr.

[ Page 363 ]

Speaker, are so interested in maintaining their

cultural habits and their history that in 1955, through their

Department of Education, they did a complete research and transcript of

their habits and customs and this book was circulated widely throughout

Japan and is in use today.

Now, I mentioned that there are special things about a gift, a

simple gift to your hostess. The Japanese, on the corner of their

parcels, indicate very humbly in writing — and this writing is always

available at the stores where you purchase your gift — that it is

either a valueless

article or small remuneration or a token of

appreciation, and by belittling himself he is really trying to convey

that he has done his very best to choose a gift or fitting present and

he hopes that he will be pardoned if he has chosen the wrong gift.

There are also special dates in Japan when one should give or not give

a gift, and an example is from July the 1st to July 15th one gives

articles of luxury, or food stuffs such as fish, or articles for daily

use, and from the beginning of November to November 15th one gives

gifts to children in the age of three, five and seven, and these would

be in the form of dresses or accessories or foot wear. There is the

same tradition for wedding gifts, and other habits.

Just in the area of languages, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be

well for us all to know the different meaning of the simple words "yes"

and "no", and the Japanese uses "yes" when he is giving a negative

he answers a query, "Don't you know that?" a Japanese would logically

say, "Yes I do…," when he means, "No I don't know that," and my

advice to you is don't ask a negative question.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this booklet, which could contain a

resume of Japanese history and culture, could be distributed through

all travel agents, airlines, and shipping companies to every British

Columbian who is buying a ticket to Osaka or to the Orient, and in this

way we would make them more conscious of their roles not only as

tourists, but as peace emissaries and believers of international

understanding for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Travel Industry, which has a very

healthy share of this Budget in relation to its position, has

successfully undertaken many sophisticated promotions, and one of the

most successful has been the annual more or less come-hither promotion

to the west coast of the United States and California. This is when

dozens of volunteers, just people who are interested in the travel

industry throughout British Columbia, have got together with the Travel

Department and they fan out through all parts of California to sell

British Columbia as a holiday area, as an interesting place to see.

They talk to service clubs and auto clubs and women's clubs anywhere

they can, but mostly they just want to get to people, and this

promotion has been described not only by British Columbians, Mr.

Speaker, but by knowledgeable people in international tourism, as one

of the best promotions of its kind in the world.

To complement this excellent programme, Mr. Speaker, the Department

of Travel Industry will continue to put greater emphasis on

inter-British Columbia travel, and this is with the aim of making

British Columbians more aware, not only of the value of the travel

industry, but more knowledgeable of our own Province. Psychologists and

psychiatrists tell us that one can't understand others unless one

understands themselves, and this is equally true in the travel

industry. We in British Columbia, I believe, do understand ourselves,

but we must be more knowledgeable about our own Province and our

country and the Department of Travel Industry will continue to place

straight emphasis on this aspect of tourism.

We believe that there should be a greater emphasis for and a greater

stimulation for the average British Columbian to be more aware of the

values in this industry, not only as it affects the Province as a

whole, but as it affects them as individuals. To help achieve this aim,

the Government does provide 60 per cent of the salary costs to regional

tourist co-coordinators, and this is over and above the other grants

that go to the regions and to the communities in tourist grants and

municipal grants. The work of these regional coordinators is to

stimulate an over-all knowledge of the travel industry, to advise how

to achieve the best dollar value in such simple areas as the printing

and the placing of brochures, and to advise how to attract conventions

or to encourage the improvement of service available to the visitors,

and to help develop more interesting, better looking, and more

efficient transportation, accommodation and enter tainment, and other

service industries. They encourage the areas to participate in

activities which are organized by tourist organizations and in service

trades, in educational courses which are related to the tourist

industry.

While British Columbia does enter into a multitude of independent

programmes and cooperative programmes with other Provinces and States,

the department in the Government are constantly asking themselves, what

others are seeking in British Columbia, and how can we be in the

forefront in the tourist industry, not just today as we are, and not

just tomorrow as we will be, but 20 or 50 years from now. For at that

time, we know, there will be a greater population and a greater

pressure on our own natural resources, not only from our residents, but

from what is our leading and will be our leading industry, tourism.

Just as we're in the forefront in environmental management, Mr.

Speaker, so are we laying the foundations to avoid a yet unheard of

word, tourist pollution. For make no mistake about it, tourist

pollution will be a concern for the future and, in fact, it is already

a concern of one of the most popular holiday areas in the United States

— that is in Hawaii. They're finding that improper tourist planning and

the tendency to cater to popular whims of the day, whether it's in

construction or entertainment, and the complete dependency on their

climate as an attraction, has led to an overabundance of tourists to

the exclusion of their own residents in recreational areas and in

entertainment areas. They now find they are faced with high prices.

They are dependent on the tourist industry for their economy, and they

lack any major activities now which would involve the tourists that

aren't extremely expensive. What it's doing is reducing the variety of

tourists that they will attract, and it is reducing the standard of

life for their own people, and they have openly admitted that they face

the dilemma of enforcing rigid regulations which almost might be too

late. The other problem is that as the world shrinks

transportation-wise, their type of environment is going to become a

dime a dozen.

In British Columbia we feel that there are numerous ways to lay a

sound foundation to avoid tourist pollution in its broadest sense. Many

of them you know of, but I'll go over them because they're in the

Budget, and that's our Government's multiple land use policy, our park

and recreational programme, one a month for the last 12 years, our

multi-use forest park policy which promotes the use of reforested areas

for recreation, and the establishment of a Forestry Recreation

Department, are just a few of the tangible "green" efforts that we are

laying the foundation

[ Page 364 ]

for.

But as a department and as a Government we are very much aware that

man is one of the earth's most restless creatures, and that he is a

creature who builds up and pulls down and he alters and he refurbishes

and he redesigns according to his needs.

AN HON. MEMBER: …and pollutes.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, and he pollutes, Mr. Speaker, and this is

according to his own personal needs and his mental restlessness, and

thus, Mr. Speaker, as the animal in the wilderness responds to his

environment, so is man affected by the same environment he individually

or collectively creates for himself. I feel that as he builds

economically, so likewise does he crave an ever-increasing respite from

his own building and his own commercial activities, and so likewise he

cringes from the monotony of this ever-increasing commercialism and the

monotony of the environment that he creates. I suggest that this does

nothing to soothe our nerves, but I suggest that this is why the

outdoors and the unique call to man all over the world today as they

never have before. For despite man's drive and his obvious pleasure in

advancing technologically and commercially, he has a basic and inherent

requirement on occasion to find his solace in solitude, and to again

establish himself with the bond between himself and with the bond

between he and nature, and I believe that's why this need for what I

call quietude has become almost a fervour with people in the North

American continent today.

In a Province where our land mass is dedicated to sustained yield

forests, and where mountain wilderness makes an additional one-third of

the total land mass of the Province, if we plan wisely and we work

together as people in British Columbia, we have an almost unlimited

potential and we can avoid tourist pollution. As far as uniqueness is

concerned I think again we, as British Columbians, must constantly ask

ourselves what are we, what are others, and what will they seek in

British Columbia. For it's a cinch that an American is not seeking

another America, and the German is not going to seek another Germany,

and the Japanese is not going to seek another Japan, and you know as

well as I do that you can't sell palm trees and sand to people that

live in palm trees and sand and, as the honourable the first member

from Burrard said, you can't sell grey cement and glass to people who

are surrounded by grey cement and glass. You can't expect people to be

deliriously happy when they walk into a motel in Fort St. John that has

the same, small, blacktop entrance and the same, small,

routinely-furnished room that he is going to find in Eureka, California

or in Mexico or in Europe.

I feel that British Columbia communities must be encouraged to

reflect British Columbia in their design and in their character and

very much so in their attitude. We mustn't let ourselves become just an

extension of American communities in attitude and architecture, and I

think Victoria's a glorious example of this. It's a mecca of spirit,

there are the Parliament Buildings, there's the Empress, there are

beautiful old homes, the small quaint homes, what you could call Oak

Bay charmers, there is unique entertainment, you have Trounce Alley.

But what is there on the entrance of town? A glass, blacktop shopping

centre, with about as much character as my left toe, Mr. Speaker. I'm

speaking up for British Columbia and a British Columbia personality,

Mr. Speaker.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have to encourage private developers

of tent and trailer courts to incorporate personality in their areas.

You just can't accept the fact that a trailer, a tent, a picnic table,

your stew, and your kids are all one on top of the other, and we have

to see that this type of tourist pollution doesn't happen in British

Columbia.

Americans, who are our volume market at this time, I feel come to

Canada expecting to feel that they are in a foreign country, and we

might as well capitalize on it, and this again says that we must

develop a British Columbia atmosphere. And how do you go about

achieving this uniqueness, Mr. Speaker? The first step, I would like to

comment on a suggestion by the honourable first member from

Vancouver-Burrard, who is not only a David in the political world, but

he is a Tiger of tourism, he is a champion of Keep British Columbia

Green — pardon me, he is champion of Keep British Columbia Clean. I

think this is an excellent slogan to adopt, and I know he will tell you

more about it, but he said I could let you know that the lower mainland

and Greater Vancouver Tourist Promotion Council has adopted the slogan

Keep British Columbia Clean. I was talking to Rothman's the other day

and they say that they will try and put it on their cigarette packages,

along with the other slogans they're going to have to put on.

AN HON. MEMBER: British Columbia against the world!

MRS. JORDAN: Could get it on our candy bars! We've got to

face the facts of life, Mr. Speaker. If people smoke, then there is no

reason why they can't smoke happily but still keep British Columbia

clean. We can even put it on the whisky bottles, Mr. Speaker, that is

fine with me.

Not only has our David in politics and our Tiger in tourism

suggested a provincial advisory board of excellence, design, colour and

quality, which I heartily endorse, I would like to, without taking the

time to quote him, elaborate on what I think could be some of its

complementary aims in working with our Tourist Department. I think that

together the two could encourage leaders of tourism to not only be

knowledgeable, but to have courage in their knowledge to be themselves

in reflecting that particular part of British Columbia that they live

in. To encourage each area to develop its own personality and its own

community attractions and to capitalize on their natural assets, and

only import that which is outstanding in itself or complementary to

their environment. We could provide qualified speakers to city councils

and municipal councils once every two years, who would come up not just

with the theory of tourism but with some practical suggestions that

they might adapt to their own areas. I think that it could encourage

all Chambers of Commerce to have an environmental committee to aid the

aggressive businessman in the smaller community to realize that he can

make money, that there is dollar value in a community developing a

personality and in a council developing a Main Street personality, and

that there is very much a need for the preservation of people and

natural areas in and around our communities.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other area in the tourist industry that I

would like to discuss for one moment and that is in food, because I

feel that in food there is a limitless area to promote British

Columbia. I really don't see why we have to be bound to Colonel

Saunders' Kentucky Fried Chicken, and I think that chain companies

coming into British Columbia should be encouraged, even though they can

keep their small trade-mark, to develop a trade name that reflects

British Columbia, and the best I could come up with in the chicken was

"Creston's Kootenay Fried Chicken." But I thought I might do better

with MacDonald's hamburgers, because I like

[ Page 365 ]

MacDonald's hamburgers, and I think they should be

here, but I think their arch should be distinctly British Columbian —

it can be a cedar, it can be shingles, anything you want, and that the

company should, at least the stand should reflect British Columbian

architecture. And on the menu, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we could

have that big, juicy, luscious, well-loved top-of-the-menu named the

"Bennett Burger," and the little tiny baby ones could be the "Herbie

Burger." How would you like Cowichan Fish and Chips, Mr. Speaker, as

well as Okanagan Apple Pie?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the honourable leader of the

Liberals has come in and I wanted to say that I heard his budget on

Monday and I won't say anything more. But I have also been interested,

Mr. Speaker, in the fact that he has expressed such interest in the

motion pictures industry, and in this film industry I wondered if he

doesn't possibly fancy himself as a bit of an actor, Mr. Speaker,

rather the Tiny Tim of politics. You know, I think it did appeal to

him, Mr. Speaker, because he formed his own film company, and its first

production was a very touching epic and a human appeal entitled,

"Personal Aspirations of the Liberal Leader of British Columbia as He

Seeks his Identity in the Just Society for Our People." I would like to

liken this down-to-earth people film, Mr. Speaker, this Tiny Tim of

politics, to a garden, and I feel that this whole idea must have been

in the bud in the Union Club, and that the stem was nurtured in West

Point Grey, and that the flower emerged on the people's free bastion of

Hood Point, and following this, Mr. Speaker, our thespian tip-toed for

the adjudication of the fragrance out to Harrison Hot Springs. In case

the members of the House don't know it — I hate to enlighten them

because I have friends there — Hood Point is not exactly a public

thoroughfare, it is on Bowen Island, it's a very lovely place, the only

problem is you have to have a pedigree before you can have a camp to

get there.

Mr. Speaker, while we are discussing the Liberals, I hope the

honourable Liberal leader will get on that hot line to Ottawa even

though he was told yesterday not to call back again — but there is a

grave concern, and I express it most seriously, of the people of the

Interior of this Province. These people are concerned, Mr. Speaker, not

only about the ruling of, but the philosophy which appears to be

emerging through the rulings of the Canadian Radio and Television

Commission. This emerging philosophy, Mr. Speaker, seems to reflect a

completely centralized control of Canada's communications, and in this

instance the practical applications of such a philosophy is that a

small Government appointed body is reflecting its views on a

disadvantaged group of people in Canada and in British Columbia. When I

say disadvantaged, I mean disadvantaged in terms of geographical

situation and the receiving of television receptions.

This decision, Mr. Speaker, that was rendered in November that bans

all forms of transmitting of free choice of American television shows

to the majority of the geographical areas in Canada and British

Columbia, leaves approximately 64 per cent of the population of Canada

shackled, and I really mean shackled, by a silent law, to government

and to an intellectually elite medium control. I feel, Mr. Speaker,

that this C.R.T.C. decision is truly discrimination and is blatant

censorship at a time when we are endeavouring to broaden and to wipe

out regional disparity. Just from the economic point of view, Mr.

Speaker, it leaves those areas not close to the border at a

disadvantage in trying to attract tourists to their area. It leaves

them at a disadvantage in trying to compete as retirement communities,

and it certainly works a hardship and a disadvantage to shut-ins and

handicapped people. All these people, Mr. Speaker, consider television

as a form of entertainment as part of their lives today.

Mr. Speaker, I well appreciate that it isn't the fault of that

little group across the floor that they don't have much to say, no

power, but, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a reflection on the

integrity of the people in the Interior. We are no less capable of

deciding for ourselves what is good and what is wrong with American or

Canadian television. We are no less susceptible to corruption than

anyone anywhere else in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I am sure, and I am sure

the honourable member him self desires and will fight for a strong and a

united Canada and a Canada that truly reflects Canadian culture.

I don't think any

of us quibble with the aims of the Broadcasting Act which directs

Canadian broadcasting to, and I quote, "safeguard, enrich and

strengthen the cultural, social and economic fibre of Canada." But what

we do challenge, Mr. Speaker, is how this aim is achieved. In denying

the Interior people American entertainment, the Commission stated that

"such intrusion by the United States would disrupt the Canadian

Broadcasting System within a few years." And, Mr. Speaker, I hate to

say it, but to many people in the Interior who have been subjected to

what I really have to call a daily dose of salts that has labelled

"C.B.C. Talent and Entertainment," and who have paid the bill for it,

the disruption of C.B.C. is exactly what we would like to see. We feel,

Mr. Speaker, that this tax-supported medium should serve the people,

the people should not serve the medium.

Mr. Speaker, I am not

referring to the decision that was rendered yesterday. I think some of

it is good, but I think the thought that Canadian content will be up to

60 per cent is going to send the people in the Interior reeling. Mr.

Speaker, the Interior people just feel they can no longer tolerate the

negativism and the hour-after-hour of the self-styled pundits that sit

on C.B.C. and smoke their way through an inarticulate analysis of

everything from hog's breakfast, to society, to Canada, to every

province, and they also feel that there has been abuse of the public

service programmes.

I am sure this

is difficult for the coastal members to appreciate, because you do have

the flexibility and the choice of various stations, and I really, Mr.

Speaker, can't feel that freedom in television viewing is going to be a

threat to nationalism if we truly have a country worth being national

about, and I am sure we do. We also feel, Mr. Speaker, that if by

disrupting the C.B.C. we would destroy Canadian broadcasting, we feel

that is nonsense. I don't very often quote the Sun , but I would

quote Les Wedman , who said that, "Competition is the Geritol of the

tired blood of Canadian television," and I thoroughly agree with that

because, Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of a limitless budget and the

artistic licence that C.B.C. has enjoyed, they can produce little more

than what they have produced and report that they are flat broke, then

I suggest what they need is stimulation and that it is competition.

They stated, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian advertisers wouldn't

advertise on C.B.C., and I think rather than accepting this as a fact,

questions should be asked. Why not? Is it because of the Canadian tax

laws or is it because the advertiser knows, Mr. Speaker, as it is his

business to know, that the average Canadian, who has a choice, is not

watching C.B.C. in prime time and if not, why not? My suggestion is

that people will tune in to C.B.C. when C.B.C. tunes in to

[ Page 366 ]

people, and that we in Canada must have what is our right, and that

is our right to freedom of choice in the world of communications and

entertainment.

We all, as I say, want a strong Canadian culture, a strong news

media of which we can be proud, and we want our broadcasting and our

television broadcasting to stimulate our national pride and our

national culture, but we want it, Mr. Speaker, through freedom of

choice because that is a Canadian right.

Now, Mr. Speaker, speaking of the C.B.C., I enjoyed an interview

with them this morning on a subject that I want to bring before the

members of this House. It is a subject that I have thought about a

great deal, and I do not consider myself a technical authority on it,

but I think that I am qualified to speak on it. The subject, Mr.

Speaker, is the topic of sterilization as a means of family planning,

both male and female. For the past three years we, as Canadian people,

have been involved in a dialogue dissecting and analysing abortions,

and a great deal, Mr. Speaker, of this discussion has been factual and

constructive whether the view was positive or negative. I do not intend

to speak on abortions, but I do believe in all these presentations that

we have avoided or we have missed 50 per cent of the point, and that is

sterilization as a means of permanent family planning.

At the outset, I wish to make it very clear that I am aware of the

religious implications in this subject and I certainly don't wish to

impose my views or the honourable members' views on them in any way,

nor do I sincerely believe that they wish to impose their beliefs on

others, nor do I believe they wish to let their views hinder individual

freedom of choice where it is not harmful to society. Family planning

is more than just a medical-legal matter, Mr. Speaker, it first and

foremost involves the individuals themselves and, secondly, the various

professions that are concerned with administering and providing this

service. If we — and we have proved in our law regarding homosexuals —

believe that the State has no place in the bedroom, and if we as

Canadians believe as the critics say of the White Paper, that the State

has no place in the living room, then I suggest that the State has no

place in the connubial room. While it is the attitude towards the law

that delayed an abortion law change, there appears to be nothing in

Provincial law — Mr. Speaker, if you'd call the honourable member from

Seymour to order he might not make these glaring mistakes and let out

the terrible false impressions that he did on the floor of this House

the other day — there appears to be nothing in Provincial law, nor

Federal law, which makes male or female sterilization illegal, so in

this instance, it is not a question of how to effect a reasonable and

workable law, but when are we going to put it in force.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the area of male sterilization we know that

vasectomies are being done by the thousands in British Columbia and by

the hundreds of thousands in Canada. The procedure takes place quite

respectably, and I won't go into it, and it makes no difference as long

as there is written consent and consultation with the partner whether

the male is single or married. The main problem here is that while the

law does not say such an operation is illegal, neither does it say the

operation is legal, and this is the case with every operation from a

gall bladder to a tonsillectomy. But, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Medical

Protective Association has not seen fit to give the physician the

authority to go ahead with this procedure and still maintain his

insurance against prosecution. The other problem is that while the

decision to perform the operation is the physician's, which I believe

is right, the permission as to whether or not male sterilization can

take place in the hospital is for the hospital board to decide. This

decision is influenced by personal attitudes of the individuals and the

board members, and I would think probably by some of the giggles that

we heard in this Chamber when this subject was introduced. Mr. Speaker,

this leads to a situation where you have regional disparities in legal

human rights — not on the basis of cost or equipment available, nor on

religion but on the basis of the thesis of the inability of these

people to face up to the situation today.

The question of female sterilization is far more complex, not again

because of the law, for the situation appears no different legally from

that of the male, but I suspect because of the moral attitude of the

medical profession, the lawyers, the hospital directors and some of the

legislators in this Chamber. We see in our attitude, Mr. Speaker, an

unwillingness of this human service establishment to be objective and

to take the lead. Do you know, somehow or other I feel that our

concepts and our attitudes towards both abortion and sterilization are

associated with the immoral, the inadequate, and the mentally

handicapped, and Mr. Speaker, that is just not so. I'd bet my last

dollar that the subject of permanent family planning by ligation or

vasectomy has been discussed in over 50 per cent of the homes of

Canada, and probably 50 per cent of the homes represented in this

building today. The moral legality for this is in the legislation if

you accept the code adopted by the World Health Organization in 1960,

when they stated that health is a state of complete physical, mental

and social well-being, and not simply the absence of illness or disease.

Contrary to popular belief, the quest for abortions in hospitals in

North America today is not largely with unmarried girls. It's estimated

that over 50 per cent of these requests come from married women and

they fall into three groups. One is the happily married couple who have

their family, they're financially well off but they, for one reason or

another, don't want more children. This person isn't in too difficult a

situation because of their social and economic connections, and they

can often achieve the abortion if they want it and they can often

achieve sterilization. The second group of women fall in the class of

those who are poor parents or medium-income parents, who already have a

larger family than they can look after and love and clothe, and whether

or not this woman is allowed an induced miscarriage, which is parlour

terminology, is dependent again on the law and on the physician's

attitude, and it's most unlikely that this family could involve

themselves in sterilization as a means of permanent family planning.

The third group is the older, single, divorced or widowed woman who has

no desire for a child, and her alternatives are the same.

Mr. Speaker, the question of the treatment of these cases is not the

point of discussion today. The point is why? And I really can't

understand why these women should find themselves in this situation to

begin with. Why should these women not have the right to choose legal

and permanent family planning? And this should be by the method of

tubal ligation if they so desire. Here again, why should the attitude

of a few force these women into an intolerable situation, which I'm

sure seeking medical treatment for pregnancy is. It's intolerable for

them economically, emotionally and, most important, physically. Who can

argue that an induced miscarriage is not more dangerous physically and

emotionally and economically than a legal medically-supervised tubal

ligation? If a mature woman who, for one reason or another and through

personal choice between she and her husband,

[ Page 367 ]

cannot have a tubal ligation in Canada today except for reasons of

extremely poor health or extreme mental conditions, the mature, single

woman hasn't got a hope in hades. I think that the pill and the other

preventative measures have given society a false sense of security, and

that it has allowed the professions to avoid the issue. We seem to tend

to fall back on the argument that we don't need permanent prevention

because the temporary systems are so effective, and if not we can

always get in to the ever popular discussion today of abortions, which

is really a price paid well beyond the cost of forgetfulness or a fear

of the pill.

I don't want to, in this discussion, overlook the medical opinion

that a tubal ligation is considered major surgery, and this is because

of entering the peritoneum,

whereas vasectomy is not considered major

surgery. But what I do say is that while we recognize, and we do

recognize, as the honourable member from Oak Bay verified yesterday,

that there are side effects and we know that there are risks — minimal,

yes — but there are risks with the pill, there are risks with tubal

ligation and there are grave risks with abortion, but no one can prove

in most individual cases which offers the greater risk and the greater

chance of complications. And, one might ask, why female sterilization

if male sterilization is readily available? To that I can only suggest

that there are many reasons which are personal which lead some men to

feel that they don't want to have a vasectomy — they might be afraid of

surgery, they might be nervous, or they might fear for their virility,

which is a completely false impression — but this leaves the woman in

the position where she must do all the family planning. She does not

have the same choice as the male. Tubal ligation and the freedom from

further concern, and she's forced because, I suspect, of our wrong

impression of the public's attitude and the unwillingness of the

medical profession to speak, and the fear of litigation on the part of

physicians, which I can well understand, to use the pill or mechanical

devices or play Russian roulette. The mature, single woman is in a

hopeless situation.

Mr. Speaker, there are many married and single women, who under

these situations, faced with these choices, would rather have a tubal

ligation under correct medical conditions with its percentage of risk

than face the alternative. I certainly don't advocate wholesale

sterilization, but what I do advocate is that male and female

sterilization, or ligation operations, be put on an equal footing in

Canada and be made available in accredited and approved hospitals under

proper medical circumstances, with written consent on the part of both

partners and the adjudicating committee.

Mr. Speaker, I realize I'm taking time, but I would just like to set

the legal position of this straight. The Canadian Medical Protective

Association has held a strong view opposing these operations and they

stated in an

article in 1948, "The Canadian Medical Protective

Association has become increasingly concerned over the casual attitude

adopted by doctors towards the sterilization of patients." It goes on

to say that month after month they're getting requests, that they have

told doctors not to do this, that they will not be covered by their

insurance and that some of them will end up trying to defend themselves

in Court, and this hasn't proved the case, Mr. Speaker. Again, in the

Journal of May, 1967, they wrote another

article which followed two

unsuccessful charges in the Ontario Courts, and the charges were

dismissed because the operations had been consented to in writing by

the individuals and by the doctors. On November 19th in 1960, the

British Medical Journal reported the words of Lord Justice Devlin and I

think these appear to be the most significant in the judicial world,

but I'm sure the lawyers can argue this, but he suggested that an

assault should not be treated as criminal if done either to avert

danger to life, or grave and immediate danger to health, or with the

consent of the other party and for purposes not otherwise criminal. Mr.

Speaker, all through the American cases, the Scottish law and the

what is left to be done is that we must accept the fact that the

general public are much further ahead in their thinking in this area

than we are.

I believe that we as legislators have an obligation to bring this

subject to the forefront, and to ask those with whom the approach to

this subject rests to reassess their thinking and to speak publicly

what the medical policy should be, and I call on the Medical Protective

Association of Canada to give assurance of coverage for both male and

female sterilizations if performed under the proper circumstances.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the risk to the Canadian Medical Protective

Association in dollars is infinitesimal compared to the people benefits.

I'd like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Robbie

Burns has been quoted so often in this House today, or in the last week

— I'm not a Scotchman, this poem that was penned in 1792 certainly was

not written about the subject I have discussed, but it was quoted in a

brief to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, and I'm

sure it was quoted with sincere intent, and I believe that it is

appropriate today. Along with that, Mr. Speaker, he said,

"While Europe's eye is fixed on mighty things,

The fate of empires and the fall of kings,

While quacks of state must each produce his plan,

And even children list the rights of man,

Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention

The rights of women merit some attention."

Mr. Speaker, this great Social Credit administration has led in many

fields of legislation, and it has led in economics in Canada, and it

has led in moulding the public's attitude as no other government in

Canada has. I feel that it is appropriate with this exciting and with

this sound Budget, with its renewed emphasis on people and our

environment, and with its emphasis on social, psychological and

economic well-being and, most importantly, with its emphasis on the

family, that we should lead in the field of permanent family planning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A. B. MACDONALD (1st-Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'm

pleased to take

part in this Debate. I've been wedged by the Whips this

afternoon between the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of

Welfare, and I'm going to try to condense a few minutes' thought into

three-quarters to an hour of words for the benefit of this Assembly. In

order to allow honourable members, especially those opposite, to be at

ease, I will mention the main subjects I'm going to deal with, because

my job is to talk and yours is to listen, and if you finish first you

can go and have coffee. I want to comment on a few of the speeches that

have been made, very good speeches, in this House, and then I want to

deal with the matter of tenants' rights in the Province of British

Columbia, I want to say something about the wages and income, I want to

say something about the looming Hydro crisis in the Province of British

Columbia, and I want

[ Page 368 ]

to say something about Hydro transit rates.

Before going on with those subjects I want to commend the manner in

which the lady Minister delivered her speech, but to take exception to

her vicious attack upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

(Laughter) I am not, as a Canadian, content that I and my children

after me should exist for their mental food on piped-in cablevision

from south of the line. I didn't like particularly what the lady

Minister said about the matter of abortions and sterilization, because

she came back to what is the real vice in the situation today, and that

is that the woman has to appear before some tribunal like the

Therapeutic — that's what it's called — the Therapeutic Abortions

Committee, probably made up of men, and I say this is humiliating and

degrading to the dignity of that woman.

I want to commend some of the speeches that have preceded me, and in

particular the honourable member from Atlin, because he is a great

spokesman for his constituents and the Indian people of British

Columbia. But what he said took real courage, because we've heard a lot

of flak coming from the Indian community, and I suggest that behind a

lot of the opposition to the White Paper on Indian Affairs, which I

think is a good document, a lot of that has been based on special

privileges within the Indian community, because you don't have

equality, you don't have equality within that community. You have good

land and you have poor land, you have rich reserves, you have poor

reserves. You have discrimination in the sense that an Indian woman

with band rights marrying a man who is off the reserve and being

divorced from that man, still loses her band rights when she attempts

to return to her own land, and there are wrongs in the Indian community

too. But this member had the courage to say "yes" to social equality

and "no" to segregation and that took courage, and I commend him for it.

The honourable member for Oak Bay is not in his seat, so I won't say

very much about him. He's kind of a lonely Livingston still waiting for

his Stanley, but he has, on his voyages of discovery, he discovered the

post-acute bed, and that's an accomplishment. He's not ready to extend

the socialized hospital system, in which he makes his sustenance, to

the post-acute bed, he wants to turn that over privately, but it is

something that he has made this discovery and I can validate these

remarks because I heard them with my own two ears.

The member for Yale-Lillooet made a very good speech and he has been for a number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that?

MR. MACDONALD: He made the best of his speeches on the future

of medicine at this Session. And you may say that the honourable member

is an unlikely prophet, but so was Ernie Winch. You may say, when he's

talking about a new future for medicine in the field of healing and

prevention and away from this nonsense of fee-for-service, that is

breaking Medicare at the present time, that he's a visionary, that he's

been making the same speech year after year, but he has pointed to the

future. Make no mistake about that.

I want to say something about Commonwealth for a moment and make an

appeal to the Government benches and to the Attorney-General in

particular. I won't repeat what was said by the second member for Point

Grey, but the facts of the matter are simply that for seven years they

allowed the enterprise to go on and investors to fall into a trap. If

the Government of British Columbia could be sued by the people who have

lost money in the Commonwealth Company, Mr. Speaker, they would be

suing today and they would win.

Now let me read a letter to you — and I'll give the name because

this lady wouldn't mind, she's in my constituency — Arlene Sawchuck.

She makes $4,500 a year, she's not one of the affluent people of this

world. She wrote to the Prime Minister asking for redress because she

was assessed $76.59 income tax, and what was the interest on which she

paid income tax? It was from her investment in Commonwealth Investors'

Syndicate. "I invested my life earnings — $6,500 in what I thought to

be a reputable Canadian company named Commonwealth Investors'

Syndicate, and you are well aware of the fiasco, and the final outcome

appears dismal for me." And what does she ask? She asks, however, "I

feel, therefore, that the B.C. Government should be liable for the

income tax charged me on $335.19, the amount of the interest I received

before the company was declared bankrupt. To me this interest is only a

minute part of my principal of $6,500. However, should I receive my

principal in full at a future date," this is a nice letter, a nice

person "I would be only too pleased to pay the income tax on interest

received. The above situation certainly discourages a person from

investing in one's own country. I know I've learned the hard way."

Those are life's savings. She wrote the letter on November 26th, 1969,

and she sent copies of it, that's why I haven't hesitated to use her

name, she even sent one to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. The

situation, and I hope I've made it clear, is that she's forced to pay

income tax on the little interest she earned and lose the whole

principal of $6,500. What I say is we have a disaster fund in this

Province of British Columbia, but I say that the time has come when

this Government must make compensation, at least so many cents on the

dollar, to these investors who have lost so much as a result of the

Commonwealth fiasco in which the Government played so huge a part.

The honourable member for Langley mentioned the case of Walter

Redel, a respected British Columbia civil servant on a tour of duty in

Quebec City, when he was beaten up by two turtle-necks posing as,

supposed to be policemen, were policemen. That man has suffered

injuries which may become worse in the future, and the Government and

powers that be in Quebec have treated this thing in a most cavalier

way. Oh, they say that the police will investigate, they always

investigate, and the police will exonerate, they always exonerate.

There may be a reprimand and maybe there'll be a suspension for a week,

or something of that kind, for the two people involved, and I say

that's not enough. This is a good servant of the Provincial Government

and a good employer should help him to meet the legal expenses of

taking legal action against the people involved and, if possible, the

Government of Quebec. That's the least you can do, Mr. Ministers, for

this servant, and it's the kind of thing a good employer would do, for

after all, he was on duty at the time that he was injured. If that is

not done, if we are acquiescent about this type of situation, it will

be repeated again and again, as it is being repeated again and again

with people not so respectable. But the way to see that this does not

happen is to make those responsible feel the pinch and let them be

sued, with the help of the employer, by Mr. Redel.

Now I want to say something about tenants who are not an

insignificant portion of our community, Mr. Speaker, because with

changing conditions the proportion of people who are tenants in the

City of Vancouver must be what, 30 or 40 per cent? 52 per cent already?

And in other parts of the Province it will be rising. Yet in our

constituency of

[ Page 369 ]

Vancouver East, the conditions of tenants are absolutely deplorable.

I'm not talking just about the rooms or the old houses, although I've

gone into old houses renting at $80 or $90 or $100 a month, and you

open the gate and the whole fence almost falls down, and you go up the

porch and you're lucky if you don't put your foot through the porch.

Well, around Commercial Drive, there in that little area there's some

of the worst houses. Oh yeah, at least $80 a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's $120.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm wrong on the rent I think — it's

higher than that. And we have, built by slumlord apartment builders, in

Vancouver East, some of the worst new apartment blocks that you could

ever see. They're sound boxes — if a person coughs three apartments

away you hear it, and these bright new stuccoed apartment buildings

will be slum living and fit to be condemned, certainly in the space of

ten years, and yet the rents that are being paid in places like that, I

have them here, I have them reported by the Real Estate Board. I don't

know whether I can rely on these — Bachelors in the East End of

Vancouver at the present time, $95 a month. One bedroom, $125. Two

bedroom, $150. Poor accommodation, and rent greatly in excess of what a

tenant can or a family should pay out in rent. Would you believe what a

penthouse in the South Kerrisdale District would cost? No, that isn't

here, but these rents are grossly excessive.

I say that the time has come when we've got to protect the rights of

tenants otherwise than under the archaic Landlord and Tenant Act which

makes them, in effect, serfs of a feudal landlord —

an Act going back

through the centuries which ought to be repealed. I say we need

legislation by this Government. I know the City of Vancouver has a

Rental Grievance Accommodation Board, but that Board has no powers. It

hears grievances, it lets off steam. The place where the responsibility

lies is here in this Legislative Chamber. Oh, they can send in the

building inspector if there's a complaint, they can do that anyway. He

has no power to help somebody who isn't getting heat, no power to help

somebody where the accommodation is dirty and noisy. He has no power,

they have no power to do anything in the case of a family that come

along with children and are denied access to apartment living because

their children are discriminated against, and this is the kind of thing

that's happened. So I say a tenants' bill of rights should require

proper notices of rent increases, at least a year, appeals with power

to roll back excessive rents. This is something Prime Minister Trudeau

is asking this Government in the name of inflation, to do. I'm not sure

that he's ready to take that step himself in terms of the power to act,

and I'll deal with that a little later.

I think we have to repeal the Distress Act under which a landlord

for a number of reasons, including default in rent, can come in and

seize the goods of the tenant, his personal effects and furniture, with

limited exemption, put them up to auction if he wants to go through the

full procedure, and sell them off for nothing. That's a wicked power to

leave in the hands of any person in today's society. I think that the

security damage deposit should be banned because it has been abused,

and the best way to handle that is simply to ban security deposits.

I think there should be access to the Board with powers given to it

by this Legislature to both landlords and tenants in respect to

termination of leases, complaints as to service and the rest of it,

without going through the jungle of legal procedure that has grown up

and accreted around the old Landlord and Tenant Act, where you

practically need two degrees to be able to evict a tenant or to make a

complaint at the present time, and it's an expensive, costly procedure.

The Board should have power to set conditions of service,

maintenance of services like heat and the rest. It should have powers

to prevent snooping by the landlord, because when a tenant rents a

premises that is his castle, and there should be a limit to the access

to that living accommodation on a proper basis. The landlord should not

have a second key and duck in there when the tenant goes to work, and

that happens today, and that's a gross invasion of privacy. There

should be recognition of tenants' associations, which I suggest are

going to be something that we should live with and will live with in

the future, because other people have the right to band together and so

should they, and they should be recognized, and the discrimination

against children must end. These tenants' grievances hit worst the

senior citizens — the high rents — the low-income groups, and they are

the people who should be heard by this Legislature.

Now I want to say something about, you might say, the national

debate as it were, and I listened with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to the

remarks last night of the member for Cowichan-Malahat and other

speakers who have discussed the danger of inflation. A danger, which

inflation is only part of it, which amounts almost to a breakdown in

the conditions for economic growth and prosperity in Canada and many

other countries, because rising prices are destroying the living

standards of Canadians, chiefly those on fixed income and the lower

income groups. Inflation doesn't hit the well-to-do particularly. They

spend a small part of their budget on the necessities of life like

food, clothing and the rest. They can put off the decision to replace

the second car. But it hits the poor, and it hits the senior citizens

and it hits the families with children. High interest rates actually

benefit, actually benefit those who live on unearned income, and the

insurance companies.

It means that we are running into a situation in the way we are

tackling it, of fewer jobs, more unemployment, higher costs of the

necessities of life, and for organized labour it means running hard to

stand still, to remain in the same place. Like the tail wagging behind

the dog, it never quite catches up. Although trade union members are in

a better position to meet inflation than other working Canadians,

British Columbia, as a result of this kind of thing, is facing this

summer what I think will be a long hot summer of industrial unrest. I

have no hesitation in saying, and I think the chairman of the Prices

and Income Board agrees, that the place you have to start is prices. I

have no hesitation in saying that price-setting is the chief culprit,

in the kind of economic breakdown that we are suffering today, and that

Prices and Income Board in Ottawa cannot be allowed to remain a

toothless wonder. It must be given teeth and power to roll back prices,

to roll back excessive prices.

Now next week the Government of the Province of British Columbia

will have a chance to show whether it is serious about prices and

industrial strife, because the Federal-Provincial Conference is taking

place next week, as I understand it. I have been amazed at the silence

of the Government benches in respect to this matter, because Prime

Minister Trudeau has indicated that he intends to act, to ask the

provinces for legislative power — a transfer of jurisdiction from the

provinces to the Federal Government to enable the Prices and Income

Board to roll back excessive prices, and we've had nothing, nothing

from the Government benches on this question. Will Mr. Trudeau really

take the courage to

[ Page 370 ]

make that decision? Will this Government have the courage to give

him that power — to give the National Government the power to arrest

the increase in excessive prices on a national basis — a power that it

needs at the present time? Of course it means relinquishing some power

to Ottawa, but the interests of national planning require that, and

this is one country.

Within this Province there are many things too that should be done,

Mr. Speaker, and I have mentioned one already, and that is the matter

of excessive rates. The 1960's were marked by industrial strife. At the

beginning of the 1960's in those halcyon days some people looked

forward to a period when strikes and lock-outs would be fewer — a kind

of archaic weapon of last resort that would be seldom employed. But the

facts of the matter are that by 1969 the time lost through strikes and

lock-outs had risen to 7,732,000 man days, which was an all time high

in Canada, and the graph shows that it had risen during that decade to

about double what it had been at the beginning of that decade. Strikes

were of longer duration and there were more of them. But I should add,

in defence of the Province of British Columbia, and the labour movement

of British Columbia which is blamed for so many things, that the man

days lost in the Province of British Columbia over the last three years

were lower than the national average. Increasingly, too, strikes

involve the public, who simply use the settlement to raise prices,

often much beyond any wage increase cost The whole community, including

organized labour, suffers from this kind of breakdown in organized

industrial growth. This Government has been condemned. There is no use

blaming the so-called labour bosses, Mr. Speaker, because never, before

have so many settlements recommended by union officers been turned down

by the membership, because the membership today have real grievances

when they look at real estate prices, and I mentioned a few of them,

when you look at professional fees, when you look at all of these

things, prices running wild. The membership have been rebelling against

their own union officers, because they are afraid of their own security

in a situation which they think has got out of hand.

The member for Oak Bay the other day said something about doctors'

fees, and since I have the figures here I would like to give them. It

is true my figures of net medical income — and this is from medicine —

are dated 1967, they are D.B.S figures. They showed at that time that

the medical profession led all the rest very substantially, and the

average income of all the doctors across Canada from the practice of

medicine at that time was $25,157. The average means that when you

throw into that mix those who are the young fellows just coming on, and

the old people slackening off in their practice, and the people working

in the public service, that you have an immensely high average. My

estimate today, based upon the increases that have been given, is that

the net figure is closer to $35,000 on the average. When the working

man, when the employees of this Province look at that kind of thing

going on, and they see Medicare ready to be broken by that kind of a

drain, and nobody can deny it is excessive —

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): They don't work 40 hours a week.

MR. MACDONALD: No, but they should. You heard the member from

Yale-Lillooet. What's the matter with 40 hours a week? I don't exempt

other professions. I think, for example, the law profession has charged

excessively in the matter of divorces. In spite of the new code that

came down which made the matter of divorce in a simple separation case

easy, we have had fees charged of $500, and in that area I think that

has been excessive.

Bill 33 is no solution. Bill 33 is no solution. I am getting into

the habit of repeating a bit like my friend beside me, for emphasis,

because I want to emphasize that. A big stick in the long run embitters

and prolongs industrial strife. Look at the post office strike. Look at

the Montreal police. Look at the situation in Newfoundland today. That

is not the answer.

I would like to quote a little bit from a very distinguished

economist, John K. Galbraith, who said that the public service should

have the right to strike. "If we deny the right to strike to policemen

and firemen, it should only be because we made manifestly certain that

they do not need it. If the public services cannot act on their own

behalf, their compensation will fall even further behind. Manpower and

skills will not be attracted to public employment if civil servants

cannot protect themselves with full collective bargaining rights." This

is a distinguished economist who is making these remarks.

We have to seek new directions towards a planned and equitable

society, and I am suggesting three directions. First,

Federal-Provincial powers to check excessive prices, fees, rents and

profits. Secondly, a stronger trade union movement should be given a

place at the table where the real decisions are made. Thirdly, there

should be national and provincial conferences between employer

associations and the national and provincial labour bodies and

governments to lay out for a year or two ahead guidelines for

production goals, prices and labour income. On the first point the acid

test, as I said, will come next week — the question of whether or not

the Governments of British Columbia and Canada and the other provinces

mean business about checking rising prices. That is where it has to

start.

Let me finish my quotation from Galbraith, who in respect to

inflation said this, "The heartland industries such as auto, steel,

chemicals, oil, and petro-chemicals and large scale consumer products

account for North American inflation. Controlling wages and prices in

these primary industries," he suggested, "will soon be inevitable no

matter how politically distasteful for governments."

Well, I don't propose wage controls. I think you check inflation at

the price level, and then reasonable wage negotiations take place in

that atmosphere, and to that extent I certainly support what Mr.

Galbraith has said. I am not suggesting that there can be, as there

used to be, price control over all the commodities of this country, but

it should be limited price control applied to what he calls the,

"heartland industries," which could easily be effective, and the

heartland matters such as credit and other factors in the economy.

On the second point, a stronger labour movement must be part of the

planning process. It is a shocking fact, Mr. Speaker, that today in

British Columbia only 43 per cent of the work force is able to bargain

collectively for better wages and conditions, in other words, have

trade unions, 43 per cent. And this has not led to fewer strikes, or

less industrial unrest. The percentage in 1958 was 54 per cent were

organized, and it has been declining because of rough labour

legislation in this Province.

I go down into the City of Vancouver and at the present time see

some employees of Hertz and one other car rental service walking the

streets trying to get a first contract, which is granted in other parts

of the world — they are unionized in the United States, they meet union

conditions — and yet the

[ Page 371 ]

attempt of the people of British Columbia to win bargaining rights

has certainly not been protected by this Government. We need laws to

encourage and protect blue and white collar employees to select the

trade union of their choice, and there are ways in which that can be

done and that 43 per cent should be closer to what is the case in

Sweden, which is about 90 per cent organized, and that is one of the

goals of the New Democratic Party. Make no mistake about it. Yes, we

believe the employees in places like Hudson's Bay and the chartered

banks should be able to bargain collectively as other members of the

community can, and we do not believe that this will lead to further

strikes and industrial unrest, but it is one of the preconditions for

sound planning of our economy prices and income policy.

In Canada today the house of labour is not only too small, but it is

divided and fragmented with essential labour bodies largely powerless

to guide or lead their affiliates. And big bodies, for example, like

the Teamsters' Union are not in the B.C. Federation of Labour. They

should be, and they will have to be in time. I don't know what the

the kind of bargaining that will have to take place in the future.

Bodies like the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour

Congress should be encouraged by Government to enable them to speak for

all trade unionists, and they should be given the power, if necessary

by legislation, to settle jurisdictional problems between unions which

often lead to strikes.

Labour should be encouraged to promote a labour bill of rights, to

ensure that trade union members have a tribunal which can protect them

in access to employment, fair hiring-halls practices, against excessive

initiation fees — these are rare but these abuses can occur — and the

right to run for union office in fair elections, to receive audited

financial statements of union affairs, not to be suspended or expelled

without proper trial and appeal, not to be denied due processing of

their grievance. I know these abuses are rare, but trade unions today

are more than private associations or clubs, they are semi-public

bodies with an important role to play in the community. I believe that

labour's image will be improved when the rights of union citizenship

are protected and understood, and I think that 43 per cent can grow

more easily when the rights of union citizenship are protected and

understood.

If central labour bodies lack the necessary powers, and they are the

proper place where this kind of a tribunal should be set up, labour

should consider asking for such a labour bill of rights from the

Legislature. I might give two or three examples, and though I have had

a fair amount of labour experience, Mr. Speaker, I have found very few

cases where unions have not acted in an honest and a democratic manner.

But there are kind of tight situations that can come up, mostly out of

the mainstream of the big trade unions of this Province, but they do

happen.

I remember a case, for example, where a man went to run for

president of his local union, and once he announced his candidacy and

began to solicit signatures — maybe the Attorney-General knows this —

he was immediately put suspended on some charges about what he had said

in a blind pig in East Vancouver on the night of Friday the 13th, and

the suspension and trial procedures carried on enough to prevent him

winning the presidency. I know people, mostly young people, sometimes

go into a hiring-hall or a union with the hiring rights, and they are

waiting to go out on a job, and they want to see the list and who is

eligible and where they stand on that list, and sometimes they are

denied that, and that kind of a list should be posted where it can be

seen. I had a case brought to my attention within the last ten days

where a constituent of mine was really coerced into joining a company

union and then, because she was bucking this union a little bit, the

union itself procured her discharge. The president of the union said,

"If you don't fire this person, I will go." Of course the boss was

happy to oblige, and then the union, of course, refused to process the

grievance. They have a collective agreement, but they denied her the

right to process her grievance under the union contract. Now, I suppose

you might sue if that was a big enough association, but it just

wouldn't be worth while. Here was a case of her rights being dreadfully

abused in a company-union type of situation.

With stronger labour federations, with employer associations and

government participation, I believe my third point, that basic planning

of production goals, wage gains, and prices, is possible. This, Mr.

Speaker, is the middle way, and I use Mr. Justice Nemetz' phrase,

"between the compulsion of Bill 33 and the unplanned grab-as-grab-can

chaos we have today." Around the conference table the main signposts to

a better life can be discussed and promoted with justice to all

segments of the community. Such conferences, such prebargaining

provincial and national conferences, not unlike the Swedish situation

but adapted to our own country, will not eliminate strikes; indeed the

strike must remain as a weapon of last resort in a free society, but it

can immeasurably reduce mistrust and industrial conflict.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to my next subject which is, what I have

portentously called, the Looming Hydro Challenge, because I am thinking

about the next decade more than I am thinking about the 60's. I am

thinking about where we go from here in the Province of British

Columbia. I agree entirely with the speeches made by the Leader of the

Opposition, and last night by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. Which

leader? We have all kinds of potential leadership material. But I am

not, and this is personal with me I guess, I am not too interested any

more in fighting the battle of the Columbia River. It is a little bit

to me like a battle far ago. But there is a responsibility, in terms of

so much flooding and so little generation, for the situation we are in

today. You could have had more power for the money, Mr. Minister. But I

am leaving it there.

I am talking about the next ten years in this speech, and the

figures are staggering as to the power needs of the Province of British

Columbia as we enter the period of the 1970's. This is the ticking time

bomb, the load growth factor in the Province of British Columbia.

Estimated a long time ago by the…. I know the Minister has referred

to the growth rate in the past, but I look at this Budget Speech and I

see no vision, no plans whatsoever for the 1970's, as if this Province

had come to a stop in 1970. No, there is nothing there, there is no

vision there, there is no planning going on to look after this thing.

This Budget is the cautious, Mr. Speaker, the cautious,

backward-looking Budget that is not going to electrify B.C. In the

1970's, and the ship of state in the Province of British Columbia is

like a boat drifting down the two rivers and not thinking about the

future. That Budget Speech was not, Mr. Speaker, vintage Bennett.

Cautious and afraid, that's what it was.

Mr. Speaker, the blunt facts of the hydro crisis today are that the

growth rate which the B.C. Energy Board a long time ago predicted to be

6.4 per cent has run in the last year — this is the generating capacity

of the Province of British Columbia

[ Page 372 ]

— at 10 to 11 per cent. Now those figures are not

quite right,

because the Hydro figure — the increase in demand in the last year was

11 per cent, but there are fairly stable chunks of power coming into

the market from Cominco and Alcan which don't show any significant

growth, so Hydro's growth rate is higher. But the facts of the

situation, the staggering facts, Mr. Speaker, are that in the period of

seven years we are going to have to double the electrical generating

capacity of the Province of British Columbia. Our present electrical

capacity, our present electrical capacity, Mr. Speaker, is 5,082,000

kilowatts, 5,082,000 kilowatts. Our load growth factor is eight or nine

per cent, and it's not going to be less in the future, and that means

that we are going to have more than 10 or 11 million kilowatts of

capacity in the next seven years. What have we got on line? We have on

line in the Peace River another five generators to come in, a little

more than 1,000,000 kilowatts and on Mica Creek we have 2,000,000 to

come in, in 1977,. and yet this Budget that we're discussing, the

Premier's speech that we're discussing, has no plans to meet the

challenge of the 70's.

In the Province of British Columbia power consumption, of course,

has grown fantastically, Mr. Speaker, from the days of the early coal

miner who would use a sluice box and little water power that way and a

bit of wood to make his fire. But the growth in electrical capacity in

this Province is predicted by a graph which I have obtained from the

speech of Charlie Nash and was made a long time ago, and its

predictions are conservative, but not too far out. He predicts in 1970,

that the kilowatts per capita used by each individual would be about

two, and by the year 2,000, 5.6, an increase of threefold. That is the

use by individuals of electricity which is, of course, increasing as

you electrify the kitchen and use the energy and as the great pulp

mills and other power consuming industries come on line. The population

of the Province, Mr. Speaker, is going up in a steady curve. We are

about 2,000,000 now and we are going to be about 6,000,000 to 7,000,000

in the year 2,000, which is only 30 years away.

This is the measure of the power challenge, the necessity of finding

perhaps 50,000,000 in generating kilowatts, in generating capacity, in

30 years. That's the magnitude of the challenge which this Government

seems unable to face up to or even discuss.

The question remains as to how you generate that power, thermal or

hydro? I think that we are entering the years, maybe another 15 or 20

years, Mr. Speaker, which will be the last kick for hydro power, water

power, because the nuclear thing is coming, and yet water power is

British Columbia's second greatest wealth-producing asset, after the

forests it is our second richest resource. The other materials we burn

to make power — gas and coal and oil — the time will come, Mr. Speaker,

when our great-grandchildren will look back at us and say that we

actually used to burn coal instead of making materials out of it —

plastics, nylons, panties, and pants and things of that kind. We burn

it and we pollute the atmosphere, and we burn gas to make electricity,

and in these years when water power is competitive we should develop

the hydro-electric resources of the Province of British Columbia. That

way we are being fairer to, mother earth.

I'm talking, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking to these Government benches

over here, because I have never in my life, I have never in my life

read a Budget Speech that was so bankrupt of ideas or planning in the

face of this challenge that I'm describing to you, never. The dynamo

has run down, my friends, the dynamo has run down, and we will have to

plan, we will have to plan now, because the decisions we make will

affect the lives of our children and great-grandchildren for perhaps

100 years. We have to plan now, and I think there should be plans,

there should be the planning and the water surveys, Mr. Speaker, which

we don't find.

Where is the extra power coming from? You can create a little more

down the Peace River below the dam toward Fort St. John, but that's

just a drop in the bucket. There is the Liard River. The Liard River is

right up near the boundary, right up near the boundary, and the Liard

River is perhaps the third greatest hydro-electric power producing

potential river in the Province of British Columbia. I know the factors

that have to be balanced, and that's a job for the planning engineers —

the cost of hydro-electric as compared to coal or gas, the cost of

transmission, the disadvantages of thermal, which are pollution, rising

costs of fuel, shorter life for the plant itself.

I say that the time has come for planning and I have no hesitation

in saying that the Government should, at this Session, bring down water

surveys with respect to the Liard River, its power and water potential,

because in my opinion that's the place where the next development can

and should take place. With the development of the Liard River it may

very well be possible, Mr. Speaker, in spite of these scoffers

opposite, these little British Columbians, in spite of these little

British Columbians, it may well be possible that extra water from that

river system can come down south to the parched lands of the Okanagan —

the Minister of Agriculture should be interested in this — can come

down to the parched lands for agriculture or other purposes down to the

line of the Rocky Mountain Trench.

But I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Speaker, that the Government

has lost its vision, has lost its vision, it has lost its ability to

face up to the challenge of the 1970's in terms of the jobs and the

energy resources that we need, and in face of these staggering hydro

figures which I think I've given to the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by discussing — and

I don't think I've been as long as the Lady Minister without her

Portfolio — but I want to conclude my remarks by discussing B.C. Hydro

transit rates. This is something which may seem like a small topic to

the honourable members opposite, but it is a matter of great

significance to the people of the Province of British Columbia. The

rate structure of Hydro is something that affects many fields,

including the field of pollution, including matters of pollution,

including the congestion of our city streets, the well-being of our

people. Dr. Gordon Shrum has said, Mr. Speaker, that transit rates will

have to go up this year because we are losing money.

MR. D. E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be seated. What is your point of order?

MR. SMITH: In yesterday's debate I was ruled out of order

when I attempted to speak about transit rates, B.C. Hydro transit rates

in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You voted yourself out of order.

MR. SMITH: I was ruled out of order yesterday. If it was out of order yesterday, I would think it would be out of

[ Page 373 ]

order today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is quite correct. I was just

waiting to see what line the member was trying to develop, and I must

remind him not to….

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, freedom of speec h in this Assembly will not be abridged over my body.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, just one moment. Will the member be seated.

MR. MACDONALD: I am no John Hampton, Mr. Speaker, but I know when a right is at stake.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be seated.

MR. MACDONALD: I have no intention, I have no intention of desisting from replying to the Premier's speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be seated. The member knows

full well that there are rights of members and there are also rights of

the Assembly, and there are rules of the Assembly as well. There are

three counts on which the member knows full well that he is out of

order on discussing the matters he is attempting to discuss. The first

count is the Motion on the Order Paper, No. 3. The second count is the

decision of this House yesterday, and the third count is Bill No. 9 on

the Order Paper. The member knows the ruling, and I ask the honourable

member as an honourable member to conform to the rules of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of discussing

Bill No. 9, but I want to draw to your attention a passage from May, as

to whether this Resolution No. 3, a resolution by a private member, is

to be allowed to throttle discussion in this House when one member, the

Premier of this Province, has already spoken on the matter.

On page 404 of May (16th edition), it reads, "In determining,

however, whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of

anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the

matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable

time. The reference of a matter to a select committee does not prevent

the consideration of the same matter by the House."

And the other quotation, in 1918, the Speaker of the British House

of Commons, "Gentlemen ought to raise this matter, gentlemen ought to

raise this matter, I do not think that the right honourable gentlemen

ought to raise this matter and another honourable gentleman prevent any

reply." And that's our situation.

So I intend to proceed, Mr. Speaker. All that thing did was say

whether a matter should be discussed in committee or in this House.

It's just ridiculous to say that such a resolution can throttle this

House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member made reference to certain

precedents, and I think if he will read them carefully he will find

that they refer to matters before a committee. When a matter is before

a committee it does not preclude discussing a subject, but it does

preclude discussing evidence before that committee. As I pointed out to

the member before, on three counts there is a ruling in this House, and

I ask him to comply to that ruling as there will be ample opportunity

to discuss these matters. The matter has been given considerable

consideration by the Chair. The matter that the member raised on the

question of a reasonable time is perhaps a valid question to raise.

However, at this time I must rule that the member is out of order in

this discussion.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I respect your office, but

there is a matter of high principle involved here and I intend to

proceed with my remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment then. If the member intends to defy…. Will the member just hold one moment.

MR. MACDONALD: Shall I continue, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, just wait one moment.

MR. D. BARRETT: We want freedom of speech in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The members must remember

that I was not in the Chair when the Premier spoke. The issue is being

raised. I am asking the Speaker to take the Chair, and you can deal

with the matter then.

MR. MACDONALD: May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm asking you to hold for a few moments.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, may I say in that respect, that the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds said that the point should be brought to the

attention of the Chair that the Premier was nowhere checked from

discussing hydro rates and capitalization in his speech by the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I just mentioned to the

member that I was not in the Chair when the Premier was speaking, and

therefore I am asking the Speaker to return to the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter of the transit

rates of the Hydro Company is not just a matter of whether this or that

person will pay a little more out of his income. I think it's a matter

that spreads out and affects the whole matter of traffic congestion in

the big areas of this Province, the matters of pollution. Now, Gordon

Shrum has said that the B.C. Hydro, unless they get a rate increase

this year, will lose in 1969 to '70, $2,800,000, and he claims….

MR. SPEAKER: I must call the member to order on the basis of

the point of order that was raised in the House yesterday, and which

appears in the Votes and Proceedings that were on the members'

desks this morning. I refer him as well, of course, to the anticipation

rule with which I am certain he is familiar.

MR. MACDONALD: I have been reading extracts about it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, and I'm certain also that he is aware of an

amendment to the British Columbia Hydro Authority Act which was placed

on the Order Paper subsequent to the time that the Budget Speech was

read.

[ Page 374 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't intend to discuss that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In view of the ruling of the House yesterday, then the member must observe the rule that has been adopted by the House.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, there's a matter of principle involved here and I'm prepared to stand or fall on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I must order the member to be seated.

MR. MACDONALD: All right.

MR. L. T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Order please. Would the member be seated while the point of order is raised.

MR. NIMSICK: I wonder if you'll allow debate when the Bill is reached on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 9, yes.

MR. NIMSICK: Bill No.9, and also the resolution, which is a

key resolution that has prevented discussion of the Hydro question. Now

there is an indication Resolution No. 3 won't come up till the end of

the Session. Now when the Hydro Bill comes up, is the resolution then

going to veto discussing the Hydro rates?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the answer is no. A Bill takes precedence over a resolution, and as such we can discuss the Bill at liberty.

MR. NIMSICK: But the Motion that was passed yesterday would holdover the Bill, I’d say, the same as the others. .

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Bill takes precedence over any motion.

MR. NIMSICK: The point at issue right now, Mr. Speaker, is

the fact that the Honourable the Premier, when he made his Budget

Speech, discussed this question. He wasn't called to order, and now

it's been thrown out and nobody can reply to him. I doubt whether

that's according to the intended rules of a Parliament such as ours.

MR. SPEAKER: It may be somewhat unfortunate that the

resolution appeared on the Order Paper at the time it did. Certainly it

prohibits, a certain amount of discussion on the subject matter that's

being raised, by the 'honourable member at the moment. The facts of

life are that the resolution is on the Order Paper, that discussion of

the matter does violate the anticipation rule and I must request the

honourable member to observe the rule that was adopted by the House

yesterday.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we've never had that ruling set out in the Journals

of the House clarified as to why the Premier, for example, was allowed

to speak on this matter and we, the Opposition, not allowed to reply on

the same matter. If that's the situation, that's something that I can't

abide with. I can't accept the ruling of the Chair in that respect,

because I think I would be instrumental in whittling away the rights of

a free Assembly. I don't accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me simply point out to the member that the

ruling is not mine. This is a ruling of the Assembly itself that was

made yesterday, and this is the ruling I am asking members to observe.

AN HON. MEMBER: By the Government majority.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. Regardless of what majority

it was, the facts of life are that this Assembly — a minority of this

Assembly — confirmed a ruling made by the Chair, and the House must

abide by that ruling. I have no alternative, nor can I overrule this

House at any time. So I must ask the honourable member to observe the

rules as he knows them, and to refrain from discussing the matter of

British Columbia Hydro rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Steamroller majority.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. MACDONALD: I can't accept that, Mr. Speaker. I can't

accept that in justice to the people who elected me. They asked me to

come here and represent them. I intend to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is not going to be denied an opportunity of discussing hydro rates at the proper time.

MR. MACDONALD: I want the same opportunity the Premier had.

MR. SPEAKER: I simply point out to the honourable member once

again, and to all honourable members, that this House adopted a

resolution yesterday which binds this House, and binds this Chair, and

binds the member on his feet at the moment, to observe that rule, and I

must insist that he does so. Otherwise, his speech is over.

MR. MACDONALD: Have you ordered me to take my seat, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: If you continue with B.C. Hydro rates, I have no alternative, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: I intend to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: If you have further intention to proceed, I must order you to take your place.

MR. MACDONALD: I do so under protest, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a curtailment of….

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, we have too many people on their feet at once.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think it's a curtailment of the rights of a member, but I take my seat, under protest.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the

[ Page 375 ]

Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, with due respect to the decision of the House, the member has

taken a position based on honour and tradition. He has pointed out to

the House that the rights of one member cannot be abridged when they

have clearly been given to one member and denied to another member, Mr.

Speaker.

It is possible for this House to be in error. It is that honourable

member's opinion that the House was in error yesterday, causing no

reflection on the Speaker whatsoever, but possibly a lack of

understanding by every member in this House as to the exact nature of

what they were voting on yesterday. I respect the honourable member for

his calm adherence to principle and his right to speak and I am

suggesting, Mr. Speaker, as a point of order, that the Government with

its overwhelming majority rescind this motion of yesterday and allow

the Speaker to make the decisions — not the Government majority.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Attorney-General — are you speaking to a point of order?

HON. L. R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It's not the wish of the Government that any member of the Assembly be

denied the opportunity to discuss hydro rates at length or bus rates or

any other rates that they wish to discuss at the appropriate time. As a

matter of fact, the leader of the Liberal party could very easily allow

this to happen during the course of this particular debate now, by

withdrawing the motion that's before the House, but certainly as far as

the Government is concerned, we intend to support the Speaker's rule.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P. L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the point that was raised by

the first member for Vancouver East was that he, as a member of this

Assembly, was not being accorded equal privileges as a member to raise

questions in debate which had been given to the Government Leader

during his Budget Address. Were I to withdraw that motion, I would be

giving opportunities to other members that had been denied some members

of this House who had already spoken during this debate, but had been

permitted to the Premier of this Province, and, Mr. Speaker, it was not

because this matter had not been drawn to your attention. May I point

out that both yourself and the Deputy Speaker had called other members

to order, not on the prompting of a member of the Assembly, but on your

own advice, and this, to me, is not complete impartiality in the

Speaker's Chair, and this is what we demand.

If the Government wants to clear its conscience from the actions of

yesterday in arbitrarily giving to itself powers that it would not give

to other members of this House, then let the Government call that

motion and let's have the debate today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Social Welfare.

HON. P. A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I only want to

detain the House for a few minutes. I don't wish to speak at any kind

of length today. Am I permitted, Mr. Speaker, to speak for just a

moment on what went on now?

MR. SPEAKER: The answer is no.

MR. GAGLARDI: As long as I know which direction I'm going in, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to comment, for just a moment or two, on some of the

speeches that the Opposition have made in the last little while on the

floor of the House. We've seen a complete turn-around in the power

policy that's been enunciated by the last speaker just a few moments

ago. A few years ago on the floor of this House, for the members that

weren't here on previous occasions, the members opposite were

constantly asking us where we were going to sell all the power that we

were generating. They were asking us about the two river policy in the

Kootenay, and the member from Burnaby suggested that we should defer

all of these things until 1984, because they could see no way for us

ever being able to utilize the amount of power that we were generating.

They constantly have been against flooding certain areas in the

Province with these dams that they call useless dams, and now today we

hear the speaker enunciate a new policy from the N.D.P. party. Of

course they have a new one every day. But a new policy from the N.D.P.

party suggesting to us now that we have no plans for the future, and I

imagine you must have been reading or just catching up on your reading

of the plans of 10 or 12 years ago, but if you'd just listen to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and hear a few of his

speeches, and listened to him last year, you'd find that we have ample

plans for all the necessary power for the Province of British Columbia

for the future, and for the continued future, and this Government will

be there to put them in power.

Yesterday on the floor of the House we listened to the last Leader,

or the former Leader of the Opposition, and I must commend him on his

ability to be able to enunciate the different things that he believes

in. But I think it is well known that I'm a bit restless about the

length of speeches in the House and the time that it takes, and so on.

I think everybody knows that I am a little bit in a hurry. But I don't

know of any time in our history when I think more time was wasted in

useless commentary than what was wasted here yesterday, in perhaps the

most outstanding twist that was put to the whole of the Budget, in

yesterday's speech by the former Leader of the Opposition, the member

from Cowichan-Malahat. At no time was there one constructive word that

emanated from that individual's mouth in connection with the Budget,

and of all the nit-picking you ever saw, instead of looking at the

Budget to see what it actually does, but working through the entire

Budget and picking out individual areas to try and make a specific

case. I don't know of anything that could be more devastating to even

the intelligence of the individual that enunciates that kind of a

policy.

The next speaker that followed him, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, I think gave the most outstanding speech I've ever heard him

give on the floor of the House. I think he enunciated a powerful

policy, a straightforward policy, and I think he set forth a policy as

far as our treatment of the Federal Government and so on, in a more

terrific manner than I've ever heard on the floor of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, today for just a few minutes — I want to give the

member from Haney all kinds of time to speak his piece — but I only

want to take a few moments. Incidentally,

[ Page 376 ]

the Premier is going to be turning very, very soon down to Ottawa in

a Conference and I would suggest Mr. Premier, that when you walk into

that Conference you walk in tall — humble as you always do — but tall

and proud because of being capable of producing consistently now, I

think it's 18 Budgets year after year, with an increase to the service

to the people of the Province of British Columbia, a type of Budget

that I believe has been today one of the outstanding marks of

distinction of any man in the role of Minister of Finance in this

entire nation. If I want to be able to get some advice on any given

problem, I am not going to an individual who says that he knows the

answer, I want to talk to the individual who has walked that road,

defeated that problem, and has been able to overcome the difficulties.

He's had the experience, he knows what he's doing, and that's the kind

of a fellow I like to get advice from.

Now, Mr. Premier, when you go to Ottawa, this nation is in trouble

from a financial point of view and in difficulty with one of the

greatest difficulties of inflation. I'd suggest to the members in

Ottawa and throughout the other provinces that they ask the advice of a

man who has proven ability of being able to accomplish a fantastic

situation and bring about a type of Budget with 2,000,000 people that

perhaps is the greatest of any in the entire free world. It would be

your advice that I would be asking for if I were a Minister looking for

some kind of a way out of the dilemma that the nation finds itself in

today.

I want you to look at one side of the Budget that's never been

presented on the floor of this House heretofore. If you were to join

the Department of Health with the Department of Social Services I think

you would come up with around $450,000,000, and then add to that the

Department of Education, $365,000,000. You come up with approximately

80 per cent of the entire Budget in the Province of British Columbia

allocated in services to people. This is the people's Budget. This is a

humanitarian Budget. And this is a Budget that will provide for the

people of this Province perhaps greater services than they have ever

received heretofore and, Mr. Minister of Finance, this is one of the

greatest leaps forward in the 70's for mankind in the Province of

British Columbia, for here is a Budget that provides approximately 80

per cent of its entirety in services to the people of British Columbia.

Now, for just a moment or two I want to talk about the change in policy and direction in the Department of which I am part of.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's already in the paper.

MR. GAGLARDI: Well, there is nothing wrong with that. I have

enunciated it to the paper boys, and so there is nothing wrong with

that. I have enunciated it many, many times, to many organizations, to

industrialists, to newspapermen, to working men, to municipalities. I

have asked them for their advice and I have suggested to them the

policy that I was going to try and bring about, with the concurrence of

the Premier of the Province, and everyone of them said this is what

they have been looking for a long, long time. So there is nothing wrong

with it being in the paper. After all, there aren't very many papers

going to be published and so I don't imagine it will get too far in the

paper. But, maybe I can go on television, if you will pay for it, and

maybe tell the people what is going to go on.

Now, a short time ago, in conference with the Premier, and then

later with Council, we decided that the Department should be changed

from the Department of Welfare to the Department of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement. Now, it is more than just a change in the name, it

is a change of policy.

The old system of handing out welfare, I believe, is perhaps as old

as time. I don't know that there has been any change, really, in the

fundamental policy of welfare in all the years that I have been in

Government, or in all the years previous. So maybe for 50 years or 100

years or as long as welfare has been practised, the policy has always

been to hand people money when they come for aid, and more or less tell

them to go away. Not necessarily in those terms but in that sort of

attitude. That's been the general attitude of providing people money.

Now, in the United States of America this has caused tremendous

difficulties. Watts was one example where people were provided anything

else, and fermented trouble.

When you hand an individual who is capable of working, when you hand

him money six times in succession and he has lost all his dignity and

he has lost his pride, he has lost his drive, he has lost his

initiative, and from then on he becomes more or less a digit and he

doesn't feel. He has learned a new way of life and then, instead of

feeling ashamed, he merely goes to the wicket and demands more and more

and more, because he has been presented with a new way of life, and

government has aided and abetted in that very thing.

Now, we feel that the policy should be changed, and we want to

change it and do everything we can to make it the best policy within

the framework that we are able to work in, that is laid out by the

Federal Government as well as the provincial governments. So what we

want to try and do is highlight the entire programme by rehabilitation,

and rehabilitation is just a highfaluting word for utilization of human

resources or the utilization of the talents of individuals.

Now, what we want to do is to be able to find out the talents of

every individual who comes in and applies for aid from the Government.

The moment an individual comes in to apply for help from the

Government, the Government will hand him a questionnaire and find out

exactly what that individual is suited for. Every individual that

applies is going to be placed in a category. If he is in a category of

employment, and if he is an able-bodied individual, the desire of the

Department will be, when finding out the type of employment he is

capable of, by placing him in a category, to find the shortest route to

getting him back in a job, that it is humanly possible to do so.

We are asking for the aid of all of the industrialists, we are

asking for the aid of all of society. We can't do this job alone. It

isn't just a Government proposition. We want the aid of all the

municipalities, we want the aid of all leaders, we want the aid and the

help and the understanding of all people, and I am sure that we will

get it.

In so doing, certainly we are not going to be able to find jobs for

all the people at the same time. Those who must be kept in hold for a

time, until we can find them a job, will be looked after on a proper

basis. But the whole objective is going to be from now on, and we are

starting a couple of pilot programmes in a very short time, the whole

objective will be, the moment that anybody comes in to apply, not just

to say to him, "Here is some money. Go away," but to say to him, "What

are your talents? What work are you capable of doing?" We, the

Government, are going to say, "We are interested in you as an

individual." Happiness is my talents being used to the best of my

ability in aid of everybody that

[ Page 377 ]

I come in contact with, and I believe that that is why we are here, and that is what we are created for.

We are going to try, with the grace of God, to utilize every talent

of every useful individual that we possibly can in some area of work in

the Province of British Columbia. Now the objective will be, as I have

already stated, not just to say, "Go away. Here's some money. Go away,"

but, "We want to help you. We are a Government with a heart,

individuals with a purpose, and we want to try and aid you in every way

possible."

Now that is for those who are, let's say, in the category of

able-bodied individuals. Some of them, of course, will have to be

retrained. We want to retrain them. We will send many to vocational

school. The young people that have dropped out from schools we will

send also to vocational schools. The individuals, whether they are men

or women, whatever category they fit into, we want to use the shortest

route possible to get them back into a field of activity where their

dignity is maintained, where they are producing, and where they are

contributing to the human need instead of merely being recipients, and

we feel that this is the proper purpose and the utilization of human

beings.

For every individual, whether it is a child or whether it is a

mother, or whether it is a paraplegic, or whether it is a sick

individual, whoever it is, will be placed in a category. Every category

will be only for the purpose of finding out the talents of each

particular category. If it is a mother with children, we don't want

that mother to feel ashamed that she has to receive welfare because her

husband has left, or her husband has passed on, or there is some

difficulty. We want that woman to feel proud that she has five children

and they are the future resources of this Province. Some of those

children, they may be leaders, they may be prime ministers, they may be

doctors, they may be lawyers, we want to see that they get a proper

education. We'll follow them through school, give them every

opportunity, and then when they come of age we want them being taken

care of and put in to the proper stream of employment, and fulfill

their obligations in life exactly the same as anybody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Comment not decipherable)

MR. GAGLARDI: As far as I am concerned, anything I say I

mean, and I stand behind anything I say, and I am not hurting any

individual. I have never tried to hurt any individual, and if you want

to follow my record from 35 years of public service in the Province of

British Columbia, I am a champion of helping people and not hurting

them. When you have got that kind of a record you can shout at me.

Certainly you walked out, because you can pitch but you can't catch.

That is the trouble with you. Good-bye.

Now most people who fall into the category of the paraplegic,

incidentally…. I beg your pardon? I said he could pitch but he can't

catch. Do you want to write it down with your ballpoint? What we would

like to try and do, and I imagine when you go back home, if this policy

is acceptable to you, you will tell them that yours truly suggested it

on the floor of the House. Sure as shootin'.

I want to get through here quickly, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing that we want to try and do — for instance, the

retarded, the paraplegic, and so on, these people are useful people. We

don't want them to be outcasts. We want to utilize their talents. Now

we have a school in Vancouver, such as Varco, and we are training a lot

of them there. I am told that there is no backlog, and, as soon as they

can be trained properly they can be put into different areas in

industry. The paraplegic, if the paraplegic can be utilized, and many

of them are, can be used in offices for different jobs and so on, but

supposing the contribution that they make is not commensurate with the

amount of money that is needed for them to have a fair wage? I think

then the Government would be prepared, and we are asking my Department

to look into this and see that it is a participation programme where we

can augment what the individual is able to earn, so that he is properly

taken care of and gets a proper wage.

We would like also to be able to increase the amount of money that

an individual — that he gets now, yes — but what we want to do is to

elevate or to increase the amount of money that a recipient on welfare

is able to earn without there being any noticeable deductions. Because,

after all, the objective is going to be get them back into the stream

of work, and if they can work part-time and make a little bit of money

for themselves, we don't want to have to take it away from them. We

want to continue to encourage them until they can fulfil their entire

time of working and make their own way, and then we won't have to look

after them on welfare, they will take care of themselves. That's right,

and restore their confidence, their abilities, and their dignity.

Now, the alcoholic, he too will be categorized, as well as the dope

addict, and also the individual that has spent some time in prison and

needs to be rehabilitated. All of these individuals will be placed in a

category. Now it is useless for the Government to be giving money to a

man that is an alcoholic or a dope addict — that is of no consequence

to him — in fact, that is aiding and abetting his habit. What we are

interested in doing is helping out these half-way houses, A.A's,

different organizations that can rehabilitate those particular

individuals in that category. We will give them all the cooperation and

the help because we haven't got all the answers. But the A.A's are one

of the great organizations, better equipped to look after the alcoholic

than any other single individual.

We want to enlist the services of A.A. in any way and every way we

possibly can, the Salvation Army, the Catholic agencies, and all other

agencies. We want the community to help us out. This has to be a total

involvement of all people, because here is a necessary segment of

society that must be looked after or we are going to be in serious

trouble in the near future, worse than the United States of America, if

we don't look after them.

Now the entire programme is going to be to elevate humanity and to

try and dignify them. When a person comes in, he is not going to come

in asking for aid, he is going to come in proudly and say, "Can you

find something for me to do?" We feel that this kind of a policy, that

I think you have to give a tremendous amount of — one thing about the

Premier is his ability to be able to grasp a situation and know when it

is time to be able to implement something. In the past I am sure that

every Minister in this Department has done his job and done it well,

but we felt it was time for a change. It is a new change. It is a new

departure. It is an entire change from a psychological point of view.

We want to elevate humanity instead of deteriorating them. We want to

do our best to make everybody proud that he belongs to the Province of

British Columbia. We want to fit him in, and make him a worthwhile

individual within the borders of the Province. And so, members of the

House, though there are all kinds of things to explain, I think I have

said enough, I don't want to take up any more of your time, but I pray

that the policy will be accepted by the public of the P