[ Page 167 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

The Clerk informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, whereupon Mr. Bruch, Deputy Speaker, took the chair pursuant to section 46 (2) of the Constitution Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. LEO T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, last night at the adjournment of the debate, many of the members may have wondered why I was so upset in regards to the adjournment. Well, the two Whips had come to an agreement in the afternoon that if we reached the member for Richmond and he had spoken, that the honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat was to adjourn the debate. We reached the member for Richmond and I expected, at that time, after the speakers were through, that the member for Cowichan-Malahat would adjourn the debate, but I found that it had been arranged differently. I understand that the honourable the Premier had intervened and made it so that the honourable member for Vancouver Centre would adjourn the debate. Now I'm confused as to whether I should be dealing with the Premier as the Whip or with the honourable member for Langley, and it's because I think it's very unbecoming and unethical that we should come to these disagreements the way that it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I do believe that we are really in a proper order in the debate but, however, I allowed the Whip of the Opposition to make his statement and I'll recognize the member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that there has been this misunderstanding and I'm very sure that the Whip for the N.D.P. party, the member for Kootenay, is recounting the facts as he understood them to be.

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

MR. VOGEL: No, not quite.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. VOGEL: The original proposition arose from a request on my part to discuss some way that we could avoid an evening sitting. That was proposition number one. We finally got down to the fact that if they could terminate the debate on the amendment that they had proposed, by the scheduled afternoon speaker, we would permit the six o'clock time limit to run over, and the Whip on the other side said "We will even stand for three-quarters of an hour and we'll call that an afternoon sitting," and I agreed.

Now then, in consideration for that, I was prepared to place the honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat in the lead-off position, and very glad to do it because he's an honourable member of great stature in this House, and the understanding was that if there was no night sitting, that was the understanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (1st-Vancouver-Centre): Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to rise in the warm and friendly atmosphere of this House. I am not sure at this moment, not being the bride but the bridesmaid, having been brought into the debate, and I must say that it is under very special circumstances.

I know that the House will join with me in attempting to keep the proper decorum today due to the fact that for the first time I have my oldest daughter here, and I would point out to the House that she is in for somewhat of a shock because she still believes that the Premier works for me.

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

MR. CAPOZZI: At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly extend my congratulations. I am not going to go into the long accolades because certainly by now the repetition must be becoming a little lengthy, but I would like to extend my congratulations on your appointment. I would point out that you have had one great advantage, and it is becoming more and more apparent that having worked with such a fine group over the past three years, you seem to have mellowed in character and there has not been any serious either reprimand or knuckle-rapping. I would point out that this is probably the advantage of having worked with such a fine group over the past three years.

I would like to extend a welcome to the new members, particularly because since so many of them are on our side of the House it does become for me a source of a great deal of pleasure, and I would point out that there are some rather interesting things in the House. I would point this out to the new members. In each Session there seems to have been a pattern developed in the past. The first one, if I recall, was one in which everyone referred to Mother Goose references, and then the second Session we went on to a selection of fairy tales, and then we had one Session in which limericks became the key.

This time it did seem as though Shakespeare was going to be the key-note, and it was started by the Leader of the Opposition but I think he, in view of the fact that perhaps many were not familiar with the quotations, felt it should be let die. There did seem to be one quote which was so apt, and in such a description of that Leader, that I thought I should refer to a quote from "Henry V" in which it describes and says, "He doth rant and he doth rave and he draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument."

Now, to the new members on our side, and I would ask the people on both sides of the House and in the gallery to examine them and note the youthfulness, and exuberance and the tremendous vitality that is displayed on this side of the House and make the obvious comparison. It is rather interesting, the titles which have been given to some. Certainly the member from Revelstoke, Mr. If-at-first, and the Fiery Scot from Oak Bay, the Bathtub King, of course, from the great riding of Nanaimo. But there is a title which I think was not earned and should never have been given, and that, of course, is the title of Giant Killers which was given to

[ Page 168 ]

the two members from Burrard. I do not think it was deserved because I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that if you are going to have giant killers the first thing you must have is a giant, and I would point out that if there is a giant he certainly sits on this side of the House.

I think it would only be fair to pay some tribute to those members who are not here, the past members. Not at great length, but certainly to point out that there is an increased tempo of the debate this year and I think that it can be pointed out to the absence of two particular members on the opposite side. I certainly am saddened by the stilling or the quietness of the member from Cowichan, but I am sure that this afternoon he will give us another great display, much to the discomfort of the present Leader. We saw yesterday a tremendous example that you are going to have to live with your Diefenbaker, Mr. Leader, because since your other leader was strangled by an umbilical telephone cord, and choked by his ties with the trade unions, you have to live with what you have.

I was rather surprised at the tremendous reaction at the very brief appearance on the scene of the past Leader which gave rise yesterday to one of the great displays, and it was rather disturbing to see the Leader resorting to mimicry of the fine Premier that we have, using great dramatic effect to try and meet the challenge of the still very powerful and very effective member from Cowichan. But I would point out, Mr. Leader, that he has been powerful and been effective not because of his histrionic ability or because of his dramatic ability but because, that member has always done his homework and because his arguments are sound and not because his jokes and dramatic abilities are well developed. I would congratulate, of course, the Deputy Leader of the N.D.P. and I am certain that all of us have grown in respect for her sincerity and her charm in the House, and wish her extremely well in her new job. I would, of course, because there has to be a leader, congratulate the leader of the party at the present time. However, to quote the member from Oak Bay, I will deal with that a little later.

I would, however, like to discuss very briefly part of the election and the Elections Act which led to the present sitting of the House. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that members on both sides join with me in stating that they are not satisfied with the present Elections Act, and I think that now that there is time, that a revision of that Act should start. There are many things that could be revised. Certainly, as the good member from Richmond— I see I should remember because he got all the references in the Throne Speech — pointed out very well, the problem of recording the members and recording the voters and, secondly, even the removing of names from the list and the establishment of the times that the voting list could be opened and be available. The voting cards, Mr. Speaker, were not handled well and I do not mean this as a reflection on the members or the people who handled these voting procedures. I believe, Mr. Speaker, and again with no reference to anyone in the House, that the question of whether a ballot is or is not marked in pencil should not be an indication of how that person voted. Obviously, we have moved into an age when the recording of the desire of a person and what his opinion as to the vote is, is what counts, and I think it is time we took the pencils out of the voting booths and but ballpoints in so that people can put and record their vote in the proper manner.

There are other things, and they are covered in the Act, the wearing of ribbons, flags, and cards, which today do not have a great deal of significance. Perhaps the time has come to discuss on both sides and from all parties the question of election posters and election signs. It would seem that signs as such have lost their usefulness if all sides are using them, and perhaps some agreement could be reached between the parties prior to election, or in the Elections Act, to disband or limit the use of such posters, because I can think of no greater or more useless waste of time and material than is involved in the displaying of the tremendous number of signs that appear and mar our highways, our roads and our streets.

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

MR. CAPOZZI: I don't think we would like to do that. The public manage to do that for us, I think, extremely well. I do believe that perhaps they may have some usefulness. They may be like hot water in a maternity case, at least they give your supporters something to do or work at during an election. Perhaps that is part of their usefulness that they do serve.

The Attorney-General, by the way, Mr. Speaker, did point out that this was the Age of Aquarius and as you know it is a time when there is a great deal of portent in the stars. You will recall, I think, many of you who wish to, a wonderful article which appeared on August 2nd in that great independent Liberal journal, the Vancouver Sun, in which it did say that the stars portend the defeat of Premier Bennett. In retrospect, there are some great statements that the stars did tell us. August 2nd of last year, and at that time the astrologer who spoke with the true authority of the stars, said that the Premier should look into new job opportunities, so you will be prepared for upsets on the 27th, and he was absolutely right. There were upsets on the 27th. The two members from Burrard are no longer with us. He also went on to say that those born under Virgo have a special gift of emerging from the most disheveled situations looking as though butter wouldn't melt in their mouth, and it is perhaps somewhat true of Mr. Premier. But he did say that you who are born under the sign would do well to take advantage of your air of untouchability.

But he did also go on, and he perhaps pointed out what was going to happen because he said to Mr. Berger, "Brace yourself for big changes on the 27th. The full moon marks the sensitive period and don't let emotions govern your mood. If you are not a leader now and this applies to all of you," he said, "explain this to your friends and employer." Then it went on to say "He will need to give a good deal of thought" — this is Mr. Berger — "to employment affairs and service interests" and certainly it is pointed out that "this will be an aggravating period, a time to be wary of words and actions, but efforts to improve your working conditions could meet with success." And they did, because he is now once again a very successful lawyer in the City of Vancouver.

They didn't forget, by the way, the good member, the first member from Point Grey, because they also said that "you may have more than one chance to be a peacemaker," not a king-maker, "… in the coming weeks, and on the 29th you should be able to improve any property you control and there is an increasing emphasis toward the end of August on ties with your neighbours," and certainly your ties with your neighbours have grown tighter and tighter since the 27th. But, Mr. present Leader, the stars haven't really entirely forgotten you and I did take the trouble to look it up, since you are born under Libra. "They are very ardent in the things they do, they take up a vocation or an avocation with zeal

[ Page 169 ]

and enthusiasm from which, at the time being, excludes all other things from their consideration, but after a while they may drop it just as suddenly, take up something else as a trade, a fad or a hobby and pursue that with equal energy and absorbing interest." He describes the Libra children, because that is your birth date, sometimes they are up in seventh heaven, optimistic, enthusiastic, cheerful and happy, and then as suddenly, as when the member from Cowichan stands out, without any seeming cause the scale swings and they seem to be down in the dumps of worry and melancholy just as if they had not a friend in the world.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no, no!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CAPOZZI:…. to recall the election campaign of the Liberal leader who on the 1st of August got into his bus and started the greatest tour of the Province of British Columbia that has ever been conducted by any soothsayer or any great prophet. On the 1st of August, in a great burst of enthusiasm, he predicted nine seats. He was now going to take Kamloops, Cariboo, and Boundary-Similkameen. Very quickly the tour picked up pace, and on the 5th of August he added Kootenay and he had now ten seats. He was undaunted, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, proceeding from victory to victory. He then went on and in quick Order took Columbia from James Chabot, and in a tremendous amount of confidence went into the north country and not only did he take the seats from us but he now took Atlin from Mr. Calder, and he now took Prince Rupert from you, Mr. Speaker. But he had only begun, because he now predicted a thirteenth gain as he now said that he was going to take Prince Rupert and a probable one in South Peace River. But the great day was still at hand, because now, Mr. Bill Hartley, he went into Yale-Lillooet, and like St. George still on his white bus, having now killed 14 dragons he was now going to add six more, and he then added Yale-Lillooet.

The following two days he took several cuts at the weak-kneed MLA's for the Social Credit government in Vancouver. Then, preparing for his tremendous feat in the Royal City on August 23rd, as quickly as Grant had taken Richmond, he took Richmond, Saanich, two in Victoria and the two seats in Vancouver-South. His ultimate great prediction, which rivals even that of his prediction of the sex of the whale, he predicted that Mr. Bennett would be out in South Okanagan, and that, I think, probably more aptly than anything else, describes the tremendous ability he has to predict the great future of the Province of British Columbia.

But everyone sat down after and they had a post mortem. In the newspaper, after the election, there was a headline, or a little note on the column which said that "Vote Fiasco Report Set for the NDP", and it said that they would have a 60-page report on the reasons that they lost or were not successful in the past election. I will tell you right now, Mr. Members opposite, that you don't need 60 pages. It was very clear in the campaign at that time that you lost because of the very factor that the public recognized, which was the question of inexperienced leader, a divided party, bad policies, and the socialist philosophy, and the people reject you for these reasons. An NDP line now is the same thing. They are trying to say, having lost for those reasons, they stand up and point across the way and say, "Look, look at the minority across the way. You are trying to overwhelm us." Let me remind them, and remind particularly the ones in the front row, that they were the people who also said, "Go, go, go to the polls and go to the people. Now is the time. Let's have an election now." We say the people returned their selections in wisdom, and what you essentially are saying is that they made their selections in stupidity, and to me that is a terrible insult to the voting public of the Province of British Columbia.

Yesterday the member from Surrey said that democracy could be failing, that the democratic process, the function of parliament, could be failing. He said look at the size, 38 members. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker, that for us on this side, not to vote for the policies that we believe in, not to vote for those things that we have put forward as the policies of this Government, not to support these issues regardless of whether we vote 38 to the Opposition, that not to do these things would be to turn down the very mandate of the people who have put us in and have elected this Government. And I tell you now, no matter how many times you throw up that challenge that we are overpowering you, that this will not at any time deter us from voting for those things that we believe in are the sound principles for the Province of British Columbia.

But I will say this, Mr. Member from Surrey, that if you are saying that democracy is in danger of failing, I will tell you that it will be brought down faster by the type of conduct which we saw in this House yesterday from the member from Vancouver East. I have never seen a more flagrant example of the abuse of the privileges of this House than he did yesterday in attacking in this House, and with the privilege of this House, a member who has served the Province of British Columbia for 17 years. In the same type of smear tactics that he has used in every Session to date on an individual from Hydro, a member who sits on this side, he used yesterday in this House. The member from smear, because that's what it was, without basic facts, with innuendo that he is not prepared to repeat outside the House, attacked a member who in 17 years has never had his reputation clouded or marred by any comment either inside or outside of this House. To me there is no flagrant abuse of the rights of democracy than to take and use, as he did, those figures which were undated and to take the value of a piece of property as of today's date, from a property that was built in years past, and to say that the figures that were there representing the amount had to come from somewhere, and leave in terrible suspicion the feeling that this member, the Attorney-General of this Province, could have been involved in accumulating that money in anything but an honourable way is a despicable, and I say despicable act, and the only thing that saves it is when one considers its source.

Mr. Speaker, there are some other things that I would like to comment on that came up, and I think that they are extremely important in relationship to the comments which were also made in the House by the first member from Vancouver East in which he talked about philosophies of various parties. I want to point out that again the key issues which are still involved in this House  still involved in this side and that side of the House, are those issues which involve the question of socialism as compared with the policies which we have put forward here. We have heard references from time to time of those things that the N.D.P. party will do if they are elected or if they were or are in power, and in the past we have had very little, opportunity to really go anywhere and look to see what they would do if they were in

[ Page 170 ]

power. But recently, and we know this from experience, because they did bring the Premier of the great Province of Manitoba here to assist in our election campaign, and I think he did a wonderful job for us. But recently, as you know, he was elected, and since then the Province of Manitoba has been making great strides.

I took the liberty of just going back for one month over the past issues of the Winnipeg Free Press, and it may be argued that this is not a favourable paper, but these are news stories, these aren't columns. On January the 24th the headline said, "Food firms pulling out. Two of Canada's largest quick food service firms have decided to scrap their Winnipeg head office and move to Vancouver. R.J. Bolt, the president of the Controlled Foods, said they are definitely moving to Vancouver. 'We are expanding rapidly and our survey shows us that Vancouver would be a better market'." Then he goes on to say, "We were certainly concerned about taxes and we were concerned about the business climate here in Manitoba." Well he hates to leave Winnipeg. "Winnipeg has been very good to me." Mr. Bolt says, "but the move is dictated by business practice, and good business practice means leaving Winnipeg. When you are a public company you have to do what is in the best interests of your stockholders, and leaving Winnipeg is in the best interests of our stockholders."

On January the 22nd, "In regard to the moving by the Versatile Manufacturing Ltd., in which a statement was made Friday that the Winnipeg farm implement company was giving serious thought to establishing an expansion of its firm, not in Winnipeg, but in North Dakota, because of the tax offers offered by the United States. Referring to a statement by Cy Gonik, the N.D.P. member for Crescentwood, who called Versatile's threat to leave the Province blackmail, Mr. Jorganson said 'that is not the best way to encourage Canadian control which the N.D.P., and particularly Mr. Gonik, talked about so much'."

On January the 14th, "A clothing plant here shut down, moved to Eastern Canada, vital again in Winnipeg and Manitoba. The closing of the plant means a loss of 65 jobs and annual payroll of $160,000. A statement issued by Ralph King, the public relations chairman of the Fashion Council of Winnipeg, said 'Manitoba does not appreciate the contribution that the garment industry makes to the economy of the Province. The lack of understanding of the industry and of efforts of the industry as a whole in hiring many people who would have trouble entering the labour market. Principal shareholders are native Manitobans who feel that labour and tax policies of the present government prejudiced the future growth of industry in Manitoba'."

On January 13th, "Garment factory closes. The owner of a small garment factory in St. Ann, Manitoba, said he will close its doors January 15th as a result of the increased minimum wage in Manitoba."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh no, no….

MR. CAPOZZI: Trans Air. "The Winnipeg based regional airlines now announced that it was suspending its prairie services." Mr. Speaker, that is in only three and a half weeks of newspaper stories. Who knows how many more there have been before, how many there have been prior to that?

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. CAPOZZI: It seems unbelievable to hear a cry or the challenge of cheap wages thrown at a Provincial Government, Mr. Speaker, who boasted the fact that the wages in British Columbia are the highest of anywhere in Canada.

But that isn't the only thing that is happening in Manitoba, where we have an example of the fair and very reasonable practices as outlined by members of the N.D.P., with lack of prejudice, with no patronage, certainly never, never any care of their own. I would point out on Friday, January the 9th, there was a new appointment, a new appointment to Manitoba Hydro, a fellow by the name of David Casbeggs was appointed to the Manitoba Hydro. Who is he? He was an unsuccessful C.C.F. candidate in Ontario.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no.

MR. CAPOZZI: Yes. Now, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness his qualifications certainly made him suitable for the job, I do not deny this. However, at the same time that this announcement was being made they appointed a new appointee to the Liquor Control Commission. You know who he was. It was announced in December that Manitoba New Democratic Party president Frank Sims was to be the new Chairman of the Liquor Commission

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

MR. CAPOZZI: He has the standard qualification. He drinks a lot. And, Mr. Speaker, this was immediately having appointed another defeated C.C.F. or N.D.P. candidate to the head of the Manitoba Telephone Co. Now, now, now, now, we heard yesterday ….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, a statement as to the tremendous manner in which advertising is placed in the Province of British Columbia, and how fair and equitable the programme or pattern that we can expect. There is no doubt about it, because the Premier of the great Province of Manitoba made it extremely clear on January 5th, when he spoke to the Sales and Ad Club in Winnipeg, and he said that his Government believed that advertising agencies should be chosen on the basis of merit, not political affiliation, and he further believed that the agencies that compete for Manitoba Government business should be Manitoba agencies. That was a very clear and definite statement that he made and I think he should be very proud of that statement, except four days later he announced the appointment of the new advertising agencies for the travel budget of the Province of Manitoba, in which he announced that a $400,000 travel advertising budget has been placed, $200,000 with the advertising agency of MacLaren, which runs a very small ad office in Winnipeg and is based in Toronto. But the second $200,000 was placed with the Dunsky Advertising Agency, of which Menahem Dunsky is listed by Canadian Advertising Rates and Data as president, copy chief, account executive, creative director, and is a small Montreal agency which, incidentally, handles the advertising for the Federal New Democratic Party. Certainly there is nothing Dunsky about that group, I'd have to say that.

[ Page 171 ]

But, that is typical, Mr. Speaker, of the type of policy that we can expect from the members opposite who say one thing and mean another, because we heard great talks about the new modified and the new clarified position of the N.D.P. I believe you, and I assume that many of you have taken the trouble to read the outlines of the Watkins report and the Watkins manifesto in which it describes Canada as nothing more than an economic colony of the United States. It says, this is what it says, "Capitalism must be replaced by Socialism by the national planning of investment and by public ownership of the means of production." It calls not for the nationalization of just the telephone company, but for the nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy such as the resource industries, finance, and credit, and strategic to the planning of the economy and a utopian democracy. And who endorsed that, and who endorsed that, the present leader of the New Democratic Party in the Province of British Columbia. That certainly is not unexpected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. CAPOZZI: It does say in the book that this is what you can expect when they get excited. But this is not unexpected, Mr. Speaker, because this is the same Leader of the Opposition who said in his original series, running for the Leadership for the first time, when he said that, "I am not concerned now nor will be concerned what our corporate giants accept, if they can't cooperate with what the working people want in this onerous burden of ownership and management for themselves." This is what we are presently, and must be concerned with, and that is why, from this side of the House, we must be constantly reminding people that no matter which head they wear, no matter whether they now turn around and attack labour or try to create the new image of their ties with labour, that they are still, have been, will be branded as the socialist concept, and it has to be that concept that we as the 38 elected members must constantly oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say, in dealing with this question that was referred to, or was brought up, on the question of American firms etc., that it is amazing to me to hear the double talk that we heard in the House from the first member from Vancouver East when, in supporting, as he said, certain aspects of Benson's White Paper, he suggested a capital gains tax, and there are many who believe that a capital gains tax under its proper perspective is not unjust. But, on one hand to be suggesting the tremendous amount of a capital gains tax, and on the other be opposed to the taking over by Americans of Canadian companies, how do you think that Canadians can get the money to invest in their own companies if it is taxed away every time that they make a gain of some sort?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we are going to have a capital gains tax, and I think that people can learn to live with a capital gains tax under reasonable circumstances, but I attack one principle that has been outlined in the White Paper, and that is a dollar earned under any circumstances is a dollar to be taxed, because I do not believe that that takes into consideration one of the key things that we, in a development province, must be constantly aware of, and that is the question of risk. There is a difference between a dollar earned as a salary on a guaranteed wage over an annual scale, and the dollar that a man invests and he may lose entirely. There is a tremendous difference. There is a tremendous difference. If that isn't taken into consideration in a tax arrangement then I think that all of us will be opposed to a position of the White Paper.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the Throne Speech, the concept of the Throne Speech would indicate that I would have to agree with certain speakers that it probably has the same problem that I do of being overly wordy, and that there's such a thing as reducing it. I would hope that you would pass this, Mr. Speaker, to the Lieutenant-Governor, that in the future perhaps a certain amount of the excessive overkill within that document could be reduced. I think the achievements of this Government stand for themselves, and the proposals which are in the Throne Speech speak for themselves, and do not require the overabundance of words which we presently find there. It is a Speech which I think could be simplified.

We have heard a succession of speakers as we near the last day, that have criticized portions of the Throne Speech. I must say for those of us who are in the House in our second term, Mr. Member from Cowichan-Malahat, that the attacks and the criticisms seem much less, and do not seem to have the usual spark that we have experienced in the past. I would think that, if anything, the criticism we have had or seem to have is that we are going too far in the right direction, and we are being asked to be constantly aware of the things that are taking place.

I welcome, as I'm sure every member here does, the new landlord and tenant legislation and will be looking forward with interest to see it entered into the House, the new housing aid, the Corrections Act, the development programmes within, and the new programmes which have been put forward by the Premier at this time, through the Speech from the Throne. I would, at this time, pay a great deal of tribute to the policies of the Premier, and particularly to the tremendous success he enjoyed at the last Premiers' Conference, and I am sure that the tremendous respect which he has gained over the years at these Conferences is evident in the respect that is given to the statements which he has made in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the growth of the Province of British Columbia has been evident over the past years, and we have seen it in all aspects of the Province, in the north and the west and the east, and certainly there has been a growth of trade and development. The statistics which can be put forward by the good Minister here indicate this, and this growth has created a growth in Vancouver, which all of us as the Vancouver members, certainly acknowledge. But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, in following along the lines of the good member from Alberni, that growth has created problems and it has created even larger problems in the larger cities, because the parallel of the development of problems is not in a direct line with the growth, but multiplied and almost adds to the square root of the development or the growth of the other area. Vancouver has some rather unique problems, in that with its mild climate, a port city, with expanding job opportunities, it has brought more people in faster, it attracts more people who wish to live here. As a result of the city life with its anonymity and lack of personal contact, we are facing today within the city some tremendous problems and they involve themselves certainly around the problems we have heard here today or in the past, the questions of pollution, of welfare and other aspects. It's on these three areas that I would deal, and I will be quite brief on that, Mr. Speaker.

In reference to pollution, I would again support the view

[ Page 172 ]

that has been put forward by many members of the House, that it is time that we appointed a Minister of Pollution and I would suggest that we have three Ministers without Portfolio, and one of them could do the job, I think, and bring together the various things that are needed at this time.

But there are two specific items, and I would bring this to the attention of the Minister of Transport, and that is the question of the handling of what I would call the ecological limit of cargo limits of ships moving in and out of the harbour and Straits of Georgia. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we establish these limits, because the greatest danger at this moment is not the drilling for oil in the Straits, the greatest danger at this moment is the possibility that a ship carrying any of a number of chemicals could go down in the Straits of Georgia and, ecologically, destroy the entire area. At the present moment there aren't regulations that, as such, prohibit the movement of ships through the Straits, depending on the cargo that they have in relationship to chemicals. I'm not dealing with explosives, and I suggest that if a ship carrying logs went down in the Straits that would be a disaster, but it would not destroy the environment — it could be solved. But if a ship carrying a load of sulphur or a load of oil went down, that, very definitely, could destroy the entire Straits and the water-ways. I think it is time that we established the limits for certain materials that can be moved through, and if ships carry larger than those limits, they must go through under very strict conditions. They must go through with certain warnings given to all shipping, under certain conditions of both sea and visibility, and that this type of programme should be started in cooperation with the Federal Government to protect these areas at this time.

One other small point, Mr. Minister. At the present time there are regulations, and I would point to the noise pollution we have in the area of the east end of the city near the Raymar Park Development, a situation where, under Federal jurisdiction, a train going through must sound its whistle 500 yards in front of every rail crossing. In that area, in the east end of the city in a residential area, there are five crossings, the train 500 yards away must blow for every crossing, there are 17 trains a day going through that area, and there are 1,500 people in housing developments there with approximately 900 youngsters. Certainly a regulation which is suitable for the wide-open prairies loses its meaning in a freight train moving at ten miles an hour through the heart of the city, and I would certainly suggest that it is time that that obsolete ruling was eliminated, and would ask the cooperation of the Minister.

I would also briefly refer to the question of the Strathcona area. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is very much aware of the stand that has been taken by the Federal Government, and I would refer to a letter that was written by Robert Andras, the Minister, in which he states that they have a definite commitment to the development of Strathcona. He says, "I personally believe that the commitment of the Federal and Provincial Governments to the Strathcona area preclude reallocation of significant funds to the other area," and I would hope, Mr. Minister, that that understanding will be brought into fruition and that the scheme that has been put forward by the Strathcona Property Owners Association could be fulfilled whereby second mortgage money could be made available to redevelop that part of the City of Vancouver.

We have in the past, Mr. Speaker, heard several discussions on the question of welfare, and I am pleased to note that there is a change of name to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, I would hope that, by doing this, it isn't just a move to solve our consciences, because the change of name won't help if that's the only reason for its change. I must say, and I direct this at the present Minister, I was disappointed by his choice of terms in labeling these people deadbeats, because I think that this is a very obsolete and outdated understanding of the problems of welfare, and I would hope that a sufficient retraction, properly worded to those people, would be put across. Because the real problem of welfare is not the title we give them, but the treatment we give them. I would defy anyone, under our present handling of welfare cases, to be any better with the situation that they confront if we, having taken away their pride and their feeling of self-determination, ask them to find their own way in life with restricted means, with restricted education, and certainly under very restricted opportunities.

We have one unbelievable situation in Vancouver where we give out meal tickets which, in itself, does not seem like a bad idea, but these very meal tickets can only be used at a relatively few number of restaurants, and we force every person who is presently on that plan down into the few areas to eat, where they confront each other and build up their own problems. Instead of treating them like adults and giving them the choice of where they wish to go and use them, we have already restricted part of their liberties, and are taking away part of their own ability to determine the future.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, we face in the Province of British Columbia a very definite welfare crisis, because we have committed ourselves to a feeling that the case-worker system will work, and it has proved that it cannot work. We do not have a large enough number of case-workers, and even if we did, we cannot expect them to work seven days a week. We cannot, Mr. Speaker, find either the time or money to provide the number of workers involved and even if we could, there is one example in West Vancouver at the present time, where we have a situation in which we have a ratio in one particular operation, of one case-worker to one person, at a cost of $28 a day per person, $10,000 a year, and it is not working. In comparison with a system, for example, presently used by X-Kalay, which cost $65 a month on a group basis and is rehabilitating, through this plan, a certain number of people. I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Department take a very long look at the use of the group system and of the utilization of the people who are on welfare themselves as a method of solving their problems, and to combine with these people, under this system, the combination of experience of our senior citizens, whom we have discarded, literally discarded, at age 65, and take advantage of some of the wealth of experience that exists in these people. Put them together with groups of welfare workers so that they, too, can have a part in determining their future, and getting themselves off the welfare roll.

I would point out that we have so little correlation between some of the things we do. In welfare, Mr. Speaker, we provide that if someone goes out and earns an additional $50 they are allowed this under their own welfare arrangement. But, on the other side, in our housing development, we immediately penalize them on the rent. Now it seems that if the welfare case were prepared to let them earn the additional $50 as an incentive, we should be looking at this as an opportunity to do the same.

I say within the frame-work of the welfare system that the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, and I say this to the member from Burnaby, can be made to work, and I'm not satisfied, and I say this directly to the Minister, that it is

[ Page 173 ]

presently being conducted in the manner that it could be. It is, and was not meant to be, a singular job-placement service to replace manpower. It was meant to be a method of retraining people, of finding people, bringing them in, with cooperation with industry, retraining them into jobs, and employing the unemployable, not placing jobs for employables which can be done at the present time, through Manpower, in a far better manner than we can do.

I would point out, Mr. Minister, that there is a splendid example of what can be done presently being conducted by the Vancouver Parks Board, and I would ask that special attention be given to this, because under this plan welfare recipients can work in the parks system, earn wages, and get off welfare. The pilot project will have a combination of social, physical, educational, psychological, and vocational limitations, which will be brought to these people who require them, to assist them in coming back to the work stream. It is expected that these men will be able to move back into full-time or part-time employment, and about 500 married men in receipt of social assistance are available. As a pilot group, 20 are being started and I would ask, Mr. Minister, that special attention be given to this project because this is the function that the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen should be working on and should be attempting to help these people who are presently on welfare.

This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the final concept, and I would ask your indulgence for a few minutes longer to discuss the question of the senior citizens in the Province of British Columbia. At the present moment, 20 percent of our population is over the age of 55. Roughly ten per cent of our population is over the age of 65, and we have, Mr. Speaker, always in our mind, each of us pictured the day we are going to retire. It is a wonderful scene that we see, sitting on the side of some lake or on a golf course, or sitting with our companion in the final stages of the golden years, under pleasant circumstances, in the most wonderful time of our life. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you want to walk with me, and I'm sure you can walk within any community of the Province of British Columbia, but particularly in the larger cities, that ain't the way it is! Because the people all live, if you want to believe it, on a street called Lonely Street, and we have moved our senior citizens out of a productive field of life into smaller and even smaller rooms, into dingier and ever dingier parts of our economy, and of a living accommodation.

This group of people has been preyed upon by the Federal Government who have taken away the value of their pensions, of their bonds, of their savings, and it has been preyed upon by the Provincial Government by our own policies which have taken away the value of savings, and the value of people putting together their nest eggs. Because most of our policies which we apply, which give people something, whether it is bus transportation or whether it is some form of extra help in their senior years under the pension plan, is based on the fact that if they have nothing, give them something. It is not based on the fact that people should be encouraged to save to those years, their senior years. Why should we penalize those very people whom we have encouraged to save? Such things as bus transportation, which is free to people over 65, should be free to all people over 65, not on the basis of only those who are on welfare, or whose pension is not sufficient.

The same thing, I suggest, is in the question of civic responsibility. They have been preyed upon by an increase of taxes, by a re-zoning law which, in many cases, has made it impossible for them to control and own their own home. I ask, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Finance, that we establish a plan under which a mortgage fund is set up, so that money could be made available to the community, that if I, as a senior citizen, wish to contain and maintain my tax level as it is today, that on the understanding that when that property is eventually sold, all the back payment of taxes will be taken from the sale of that house. They have to pay their taxes, they are getting the increase in valuation of their property, and all that is required would be an amount of money which would, during the interim, pay the community the taxes that are owing on the property. They would be responsible for interest, and it could be made to work, and it would enable people to maintain within the framework of their own income, a level that would permit them to live in their own house. Certainly this is what all of us want — there are no authors to this type of thing. I've suggested it in the past, and I would hope that whoever brings it in would get the share at that time — it's large enough for everybody, I'm sure, but the concept is there. I would also point out that these people, these senior citizens, are preyed upon by the community. We restrict them, because they do not have a mobility, to paying higher prices for their services, and eventually we shut them off, which is the hardest thing, and we find them in their smaller rooms. A group of people that are, in essence if nothing more, caught in this bind where they are too old to fight, and too proud to die, and I do not think that the senior citizens of this Province deserve this fate.

There is a solution, because in the past we have assumed that a man at 65 has lost his youthfulness, and certainly the Premier has indicated that this is not the case, and examples over this Province have indicated this is not the case. My father is 80 years old. He's as active a man as many in this Chamber, with a mind more active than most, and I would point out why this is so, is because he has an involvement. We must go back with these senior citizens and bring them back. It is not enough to be a loved grandfather, it is as necessary to be needed. When we view the rising need for chronic care and hospitalization for older people, why is it, because they have nothing more at this time to think about than the need for food and the care of their own selves from a health point of view, that the only time we concern ourselves with them, the only time people come to visit them, the only time there's care, is when they're ill.

I am suggesting there is a way out, and I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that through this media of the press that an invitation go out to senior citizens of this Province over the age of 65 to join in a movement that would have the name of Expo 70's, which would be experienced people for others in the 70's, and I'm referring to the time of the 70's, not their age, and these people who have great amounts of experience, of knowledge, of background, would be prepared to work in two particular areas. Firstly, in the help for our welfare cases and rehabilitation cases where retired people of business, executives, bankers, would be prepared to come and work and assist welfare people to find their way back to a more constructive life through the training that they can give, and I suggest these people contact the Minister of Welfare.

Secondly, and I am pleased to announce today that the first acceptance in principle of this scheme is the development of a group of senior citizens who would be put together with one of our group hospitals, and in this case it is Woodlawn. I have received from the Minister, the secretary, acceptance in principle for the establishment of a 25-room senior citizens hospital on the grounds at Woodlawn, and

[ Page 174 ]

have received acceptance in principle from Mr. Charles Young, who is the President of the Kiwanis Club of Vancouver, that they will take the responsibility of conducting this programme through, and have received acceptance in principle from Dr. Hughes of Woodlawn. The understanding would be that this group of people who would go into the senior citizens housing project at Woodlawn, would be prepared to devote their time on a volunteer basis to working with those people in Woodlawn that need the most. Now the purpose of this is to provide on one hand the experience and affection that they can give, and on the other hand give it to those people who need it most and who do not have this direct contact with warm people who can give them the amount of time and affection that they need. I think this programme, Mr. Speaker, should be brought to its fruition, and I am hoping to work with them. I hope that it will be examined with great interest by the members of the Ministry of Welfare, Municipal Affairs and other Departments that would be so involved.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would only say this, that tomorrow the debate on the Throne Debate will finish and at that time we will have the decision to make as to the acceptance of the Throne Speech. I would point out that within that Speech, Mr. Speaker, we have seen as clearly as possible the indication of the progress that the Province of British Columbia is expecting, and gradually in this House we have seen, as we've gone through this debate, the clarification of the issues, that we have found that it is at this stage in our time the concern for pollution in people brought by both sides of the House. I know that in accepting the Throne Speech, as we all will tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will be marking the great step forward into the 70's with the progress of this Province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

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

Now, Mr. Speaker, actually I want my first words to be, for the first time in my 18 years in this House, to break the rules of the House by reflecting on a motion and decision that was made by this House earlier in the Session. I do this by traditionally congratulating you and the Speaker on your election to your present offices. The first member from Vancouver Centre has just taken his place and for the first 48 minutes of his speech the only words I can find to describe what he was saying, in view of the situation in this Province, in Canada, and in the world, are that Nero was fiddling while Rome was burning. He chose to refer to the astrological charts and made reference to the Leader of the Opposition, and he said that it forecast that he was a man who applied himself with zeal and energy and honesty and purpose, and then would drop that particular course. That's absolutely true, that's absolutely true, because his record shows that he was a man who educated himself with two degrees, gave himself the knowledge, applied himself with zeal, energy, and devotion to helping people who needed help in the field of social welfare and the treatment of individual problems, and he dropped that job very quickly, just as you forecast and just as that book forecast. But the reason he dropped the job very quickly was because this Government fired him because he accepted nomination for the C.C.F., and this Government has regretted that action from that day to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh no.

MR. STRACHAN: Because, not only did they not, not only did they lose the services of one of their most capable social workers but they found him sitting across from them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

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

I listened to the member talking about the over 65's when he did get around to some serious discussion. This Government brought in a law which he supported which discriminates against the over 65's in the retention of their employment. How did you vote on that issue, Mr. Member? You voted for that legislation that discriminates against the over 65's. So don't get up here with your pious manifestations of a zealous interest in the senior citizens. It's on the record. You voted for discrimination against the over 65's, by removing and preventing the protection of the law in the retention of their jobs from being extended to this most important group.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that unlike some people who find themselves in elected office, I am a politician. I'm not ashamed when people call me a politician. I'm proud when people call me a politician. Because the definition of a politician is someone who studies the art and the science of government, and realizing that the function of government is to give service to the people, with that definition I'm not ashamed of being a politician. This is not to say that there are not people in political life who are ashamed, or should be ashamed, of being politicians. Like every section of humanity, we have the people who take advantage of their position and don't show the highest regard for the fulfilment of the obligation that they have taken on as elected members.

I want to welcome, too, the new members to the House. I want to congratulate those who have already made their first speeches. It's a frightening experience to stand up in this place for the first time, irrespective of where you've spoken before or what experience you've had, and find yourself dwarfed by this Chamber and realize the historical traditions that go with being a member of a Legislative Assembly.

I am the member for Cowichan-Malahat and, while I was Leader of the Opposition, if I spent any time discussing my constituency the Premier immediately accused me of being parochial, but now that I am a new member I want to talk about Cowichan-Malahat briefly and what's happening there, what has happened there, and later on in the Session, as I know, there will be other opportunities which I will utilize to the fullest possible extent.

First of all, the Court House is completed and open. The new five-storey administrative and office building is well on its way to completion. The Minister says they're too good to me. Well you know, Mr. Speaker, for years they tried to starve the constituency and people used to say, "Strachan, you're going to have trouble the next election because as long as you're a member this Government will never do anything for us". Then, of course, the Government started on the Cowichan Lake road, and they built the Court House, and people said "Strachan, you're going to have trouble in the next election, the Government's spending so much money." Maybe you can't win, but nevertheless I won, I won anyway.

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

[ Page 175 ]

Water Resources, one of the lady ministers, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and I can't think, of all of the famous people that visited that constituency last summer. Well, of course, don't forget what you did to the boundaries of that constituency. Don't forget what you did to the boundaries of that constituency too, but, however, I am happy to report the progress that has been made. I have somewhere a picture of the first 13 miles of the Lake Cowichan road and, where's the Minister of Highways? He'll hear from me later. The Minister happened to come up to the constituency, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, fortuitously, fortuitously or accidentally, just about election time. He was taking the grand tour of the Cowichan Lake, and the candidate was having an awful time trying to get into these pictures with the Minister. I think he made it in one.

But anyway, we are going ahead with a small park on Lake Cowichan. The Minister will recollect I spoke to him two or three years ago about the Cottonwood Creek area, and look, Mr. Minister, there's no reason why you can't get that bit of land right in the middle and go ahead with that large park that is desperately needed to supply the recreational privileges and needs of the people of Vancouver Island, Cottonwood Creek. Well, you know, you walk before you run. It's an advantage, it's a gain, it's an addition. Certainly we need both because of the recreational demands and needs of our time. I had intended to give some time to education but, Mr. Speaker, I'll pass that over until the Estimates come.

The only other references I want to make about the election are to the fact that I regard as dangerous the doctrine espoused by so many of the Government members during their campaign when they indicated to the voters that unless you had a Government member, unless there was a member on the Government side of the House, the people in that constituency would in one way or another be deprived people. That was the focus of the whole Social Credit campaign. That was the thrust of the whole Social Credit campaign.

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

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

MR. WALLACE: Rubbish!

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

MR. WALLACE: Rubbish!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

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

MR. STRACHAN: I want to refer again to the election, to the Vancouver Sun of July 29th, to the great riding of Rossland-Trail, where they had a nominating convention. I'll just read the first paragraph of the news report:"An angry Robert Sommers led about 50 supporters from the Social Credit nominating convention here Monday, charging they had been deprived of a vote by steamroller politics. 'The big ugly machine was working tonight — big money,' Sommers said after ending a hot exchange with B.C. Social Credit League president George Dreidiger, 'It's real steamroller politics.' he said." Of course I find I have to agree with that particular attitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the Brothers brothers?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Brothers smothers Sommers.

MR. STRACHAN: Referring to the Social Credit advertisement which misleadingly tried to identify Dean Scarfe with the educational policies of this Government.

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

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, in the Social Credit ad they tried to infer that Dean Scarfe had endorsed the educational policies of the Government of this Province. Mr. Scarfe said, "I'm appalled by what I see in these ads. Nobody asked me." He said, "I don't like Social Credit. I'm certain to vote for someone else. I never have voted for Social Credit." You see, this article said that his four-continent survey showed that B.C. education was tops.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over Uganda.

MR. STRACHAN: The ad didn't say, but Dean Scarfe pointed out, that he had toured a number of countries including Turkey, India, East Africa, Ethiopia, nations of Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand. He said, "I saw very little of Europe. Most of the countries I saw were under-developed areas." Dean Scarfe also said that he pointed out "that there is a good deal better education than British Columbia's education in Scandinavia, Germany, France and in parts of Britain." That's the misleading advertising that I'm referring to.

Then, of course, Mr. Speaker, there were the ads in the paper that the member from Point Grey, the leader of the Liberals, referred to the other day. Here is one of them that was in the Ladysmith Chronicle. Where's the member from over here? Oh he's gone. This is from the Duncan Pictorial, August the 13th. "The next time some personnel manager says you're too old, fight back." The next time some personnel manager tells you you're too old, fight back. That was on August the 13th. On August the 16th, Mr. Speaker, there was an ad in the Nanaimo Free Press. "Logging instructor required. Persons presently employed in the logging industry are invited to apply. The successful applicant will be fully experienced in all phases of logging, be knowledgeable in up-to-date logging methods and machinery, and be under 50 years of age."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. STRACHAN: Three days after the ad. What hypocrisy. What hypocrisy. That ad was placed by the B.C. Vocational School, P.O. Box 130, Nanaimo, B.C. Under 50. This is an instructor. An instructor. An instructor. The next time an employer tells you, you are too old, fight back. There's the result.

[ Page 176 ]

I have another situation. Here's another one. Here's another man, a design draftsman who applied for a job with the Vocational School. When he applied for the job he had all the qualifications, and when he was interviewed they admitted he had all the qualifications, but he was refused the job because he was told that it was departmental policy not to hire anyone over 35 for the job. The next time anyone tells you you're too old, fight back, fight back, while that is going on, while that is going on, and he was told that that is policy. Here's this great Human Rights Act. Here it is, but it doesn't apply to the Government of British Columbia. They refused to live up to the standards that they ask the rest of the people to live up to, then they wonder why our young people sometimes have contempt for the law. When the chief exhibit in contempt for the law is the Government of British Columbia itself.

I've been interested, Mr. Speaker, in what has been said in this debate so far. The Social Credit member from North Peace River, I think it was, South Peace River, South Peace River, told us that Government action in northern British Columbia, I think the phrase he used was "going at a turtle pace," a turtle pace. That's what he said, that's what he said. I have to agree with him that the rounded life, the dynamic life, and all the rest of it in the past has only been applied in certain favoured constituencies, mostly in Okanagan and Kamloops. Mostly in Okanagan and Kamloops.

But I was fascinated to hear the number of Government speakers who got up and proposed a variety of tax increases. The new member from Oak Bay wants to increase the per diem rate charged patients in hospitals. One of the newspapers indicated that when he made the statement he was greeted with just some thin applause by Opposition MLA's. That's not what we were applauding. We were applauding his previous statement where he said that many of the patients occupying acute beds, costing $45 a day to operate, could quite adequately and efficiently be treated in a facility far less expensive to construct and operate, yet provide a level of care appropriate to the need of the patient. That's what we were applauding.

But Mr. Speaker, we've been saying that for years, we've been saying that for years, we've been demanding a chronic care construction programme. They were promised in 1956, and after 14 years of promises we discovered we had 105 chronic care beds in this Province. That's what you are endorsing when you accept the Social Credit nomination. You're endorsing the do-nothing policy of this Government for people during the last 17 years, and now you want an increased load on the workers and the people of the Province. What he doesn't know or what he forgets. I don't know how long ago he left that great country of Scotland, but when the premiums were abolished we added two cents to the sales tax, and I haven't got the figures with me, but you'll find that from 1954 until today the contribution made by the people of the Province through sales tax has increased double and triple what it was, and is up by millions and millions of dollars, up around $100,000,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. STRACHAN: I was here when the Bill went through, my friend, I was here when the Bill went through, I know what the Minister said, and that's what it was for.

DEPTUY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. STRACHAN: I was interested, too, on the suggestion made by another member, the member from Revelstoke-Slocan, that we add another one cent to the sales tax, so there's two members increasing taxes. Remember this, since the election we've announced an increase in power rates which we can't talk about. We've had an automobile insurance increase. Can't talk about that. And now they're proposing tripling the per diem rate for hospitals, they're proposing a one cent increase in the sales tax.

Then on top of that comes the member from Nanaimo, and he wants a selective increase on the sales tax. He wants an increase of one cent on the sales tax to build a four-lane highway from Campbell River to Victoria. No question that we need a four-lane highway from Campbell River to Victoria, no question about it. But, Mr. Speaker, we on Vancouver Island and the workers of Vancouver Island produce one-third the total forest wealth production of this Province, and year after year we've been providing the money out of that one-third, one-third. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, year after year while many areas, including yours on Vancouver Island, have had to wait, the wealth produced on Vancouver Island has been used all over the country, all over the Province, and he's not only proposing an increase in sales tax, he's proposing regional taxation, regional taxation. The people of Vancouver Island, as far as I am concerned, have made their contribution and are making their contribution to the wealth production of this Province, and I'll fight to my last breath any attempt to increase the sales tax for that.

It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this group is now the high tax party. They are the people who want to load the taxes on the backs of the people of this Province. Now the election's over…. now the election's over, increased power rates, increased car insurance, increased sales tax, increased hospital rates, this is the proposal you've been getting.

Mr. Speaker, just in case there is any doubt about that matter, the motion on the Order Paper has been placed since I spoke in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Premier speak on the Budget about power?

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, while you are taking that under advisement, while you are taking that under advisement, I was interested to note the section in the Throne Speech which referred to the continuation of harmonious cooperation that existed in this Province with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I can't remember which of the members over there it was who last year launched a vicious attack on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but I'm glad to know that harmonious cooperation does exist.

On the same page 1 notice a reference to the Workmen's Compensation Board and its intention of constructing a rehabilitation centre in Richmond to accommodate injured workmen and to reduce the time and cost involved in returning injured B.C. workmen to productive employment. I think this is a first-rate proposal. I think it should have been done a long time ago. I'm sorry, however, that the Government has not adopted what I consider to be the most rational policy with regard to rehabilitation. I think there should be a unified rehabilitation programme in the Province of British Columbia, because as it now is we separate those who require rehabilitation because of illness from those who require rehabilitation because they happened to have something happen to them on the job. We're proposing to change

[ Page 177 ]

the name of a department to a Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement and I think if we are going to have a fully effective rehabilitation programme then it must be co-coordinated.

You know I'm not interested in a change of name, Mr. Speaker, because it was in 1958 that we changed the situation, and it was in 1963 the programme was changed and we changed the name of the Family Division to Social Assistance and Rehabilitation Division. We changed the name actually in 1963, and when I put questions on the Order Paper asking what the total case load was I found that in '64 it was 28,000. How many had been rehabilitated? The answer was seven. In '65 when I put the question on the Order Paper, what was the total case load, I was told 29,000, how many had been rehabilitated, 41. In '66 the case load was 29,000, how many had been rehabilitated, 45. The next year I put the answer on the question paper — I put the order, a question on the Order Paper. (laughter) Well, I could have written the answer myself. I put the question on the Order Paper. Do you know the answer I got, Mr. Speaker? The Minister answered, "It is not possible to provide an answer. The method of keeping statistics is being changed." That's all the change of name accomplished in 1963, and I certainly hope that now that we've upgraded the change of name from merely a change of a section of the department to a change of name of the department, that something more will be done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when I am speaking of social welfare I want to refer to something else related thereto. You've heard a lot of talk about social welfare, that able-bodied people are on social welfare, and I just briefly want to quote from the magazine, The Provincial, which is a magazine put out by the Civil Service Association of British Columbia, from a recent issue, January, 1970. They draw attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that in a brief they cited the case of a draftsman, grade 1, in Victoria, working for this Government who could improve his financial status by quitting the Government service and going on welfare. The man, married with two children, has a net annual salary of $3,324. On welfare he would get $3,582 a year which is $258 more than he earned as a Government employee. He's a draftsman, grade 1. Now there's an indication of where the Government is once again not giving leadership.

I notice in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, references to cost-sharing programmes which the Government indicated that they don't like, but my goodness they're sure happy to get them. They say they're very happy to get these, some of them refer to ARDA, some of them refer to the water control situation.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about pollution and the need for something to be done. The lady Minister from North Okanagan, when it was suggested that a pulp mill go into that area, she said, "Never!" But you know, here is an ad from The Financial Post of last September, placed by the Okanagan Regional Industrial Development Council, of which the City of Vernon is a member, and look what it says, "Plan your move to British Columbia's Okanagan Valley by December 31st and you will be money ahead. The Okanagan Valley is the only area in British Columbia where substantial federal grants of up to one-third approved capital costs." I like that initiative free enterprise risk capital attitude. "And accelerated depreciation allowances are available for new plant construction. But this highly advantageous condition will alter drastically at the end of the year when the Federal Government introduces a new incentive programme for which the Okanagan is not eligible." It says — it says "If abundant fresh water, a large and reliable labour pool, and location in one of North America's finest resort areas sounds appealing, start planning your company's move to the Okanagan." The City Council of Vernon helped pay for this ad.

Here are two ads, both from The Financial Post, different issues. "You want abundant fresh water for your next plant site? Plant yourself in British Columbia. A virtually unlimited supply of fresh water from countless rivers, lakes, and streams is only one of the natural attributes of British Columbia." Who paid for that? The Government of the Province of British Columbia, Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. They are inviting, they are inviting the companies to come in and pollute the water.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I notice in the Speech from the Throne that control of air pollution standards is being passed on to the local areas, again a refusal by this Government to accept its responsibility. I would like to read, I have several letters but I'll just read you this one. It came to me from Chemainus, dated January 26th. "Dear Mr. Strachan: I am only ten years old but by the time I am 40 I may be dead if pollution is not checked. The forests, fish, and maybe the human race. DDT needs control to preserve birds. In a few years where will our drinking water come from?" Signed "Yours truly." Mr. Speaker, I threw across the floor earlier a remark that said, "What we need in this Province is a Minister who is against pollution." That is a desperate need in this Province, a Minister who is against pollution. Because the Pollution Control Board is not there to prevent pollution. This Minister admits quite frankly that he is not there to prevent pollution. He is there to decide how much pollution he is going to allow.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's been an easy position.

MR. STRACHAN: I am quoting from the Kamloops Pulp and Paper News, an article written by the Minister in '67, and he said, "Our choice is progress or idealism." Progress or idealism. He said "The hard fact of the matter is that some degree of pollution is inevitable with the development of our country, which is particularly true of our industrial expansion." Then he said, "We cannot sacrifice progress and its benefits to unrealistic idealism." We cannot sacrifice progress or its benefits to unrealistic idealism. He says, "It is perhaps a caprice of life that the great water resource which is a major fact of our progress is also our main vehicle of waste disposal." A caprice of life! That is not a caprice of life. That is a Government decision.

In another article in that same series he says, "Those who feel that our rivers and lakes must be retained in an original state of purity will be disappointed in what I have to say, for I can offer only reality. No matter how much one may want to avoid it, the truth is that pollution is inherent in man's progress. The two cannot be separated."

Mr. Speaker, this Minister is enunciating a philosophy of despair, he has already given up and has no right to be in charge of pollution prevention in the Province of British Columbia. There is his philosophy. There is his attitude. A philosophy of despair. Progress or idealism! Mr. Speaker, unless human progress is based on idealism it can't be progress at all.

That's the basic difference between this party and that party and that party, because from here on you are all the same in your attitude towards our society. You think the

[ Page 178 ]

most important thing in the world is the gross national product. That is worshipping the golden calf, Mr. Speaker, and has produced the society that we have today, with its shoddy values, and where we have a Minister of the Crown who is able to stand up and say it is a caprice of life that we use our rivers as sewage disposal units and say there is nothing we can do about it, because this is progress.

Mr. Speaker, we have problems. I have said in this House that any industry that can't afford to operate without pollution is not an economic industry in the Province of British Columbia. We have problems in education, pollution control, inflation, social welfare, municipal or regional development, health care, recreation, labour laws, legal aid and judicial equality, problems in the mishandling of our natural resources, problems in housing, problems in foreign ownership, and the impact this has on our development. You know, Mr. Speaker, I will save this for later. This has to do with the Minister of Mines. I will save that for later. These problems are the end product of the kind of society that you people believe in. This society, your society, was built by men whose main thrust was for the fast buck. You support a society whose economic ethic is based on greed, covetousness and self-interest. These are the motivating forces of the creed that you espouse, and the end product of that creed are these long series of problems that I have just listed for you. With your creed of divided society, you have promoted discord, you have helped cause the situation today, because you believe in this kind of world. This is your kind of world, because of the ethics that you, as so-called free enterprisers, have adopted.

We wonder why there is so much unrest and dissatisfaction in a continent that has so much. Mr. Speaker, there is a haunting emptiness to the kind of society that you people have produced in North America. That is the cause of the unrest. That is the cause of the dissatisfaction. That is the cause of the problems. This haunting emptiness within this human being, because of the ethics of your kind of society.

You know, Mr. Speaker, a 17-year-old girl last week attended a business conference in Vancouver. I don't know how many of you read her comments after she had attended that conference. A 17-year-old high school girl attended a trade and industrial conference, along with about 350 businessmen. Asked what conclusions she drew after sitting through 23 speeches and often lengthy discussions from the floor, she replied, "Everything centres all the time on money. Everybody is so money-minded. What really surprised me was that people would come right out and say that they are in business just to make money. I somehow thought they would be more subtle about it." She was also dismayed at the way Canada is considered a part of the United States. This is a 17-year-old girl after listening to businessmen of Canada in conference. She was dismayed at the way they considered Canada to be part of the United States. She said that "eventually perhaps we will all live in one big world but right now I still feet very nationalistic about Canada."

Mr. Speaker, I feel nationalistic about Canada, too. I think, Mr. Speaker, that surely, surely, surely it is our responsibility to learn from the experience of others and to learn from history, and the United States Ambassador to Canada just last week gave us the benefit of the United States experience. With exactly the same ethics as you people espouse, exactly the same attitude as you people support, the United States Ambassador, Adolph Schmidt gave a free warning for British Columbia. He said, "Guard your natural resources." He said, "I hope it will not be taken amiss if I remind you that my country also was blessed with areas of great beauty and an abundance of natural resources. But in our eagerness to tame and develop our portion of this continent, or more specifically to make our fast dollar while the getting was good, we have in many cases been profligate in our misuse of these irreplaceable resources." In their pursuit of the fast dollar they have in many cases been profligate in their misuse of their natural resources. He said, "I hope your magnificent land of British Columbia by forward planning, comprehensive and adequate zoning and its regimen enforcement, can profit from some of our mistakes." You know Mr. Speaker, someone should sign that man up in the New Democratic Party. Someone should sign that man up in the New Democratic Party, because this Speech from the Throne doesn't give any indication that we have learned anything from history or that we are prepared to put an end to the profligate misuse of the natural resources of British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Speaker we on this side of the House, say that the day of the fast buck, no matter what, must be ended. Your motto has been "Sell, trade or give away anything, anytime, to anybody." You say we should be thankful for every dollar that comes our way from some charitable, munificent, splendiferous individual from across the sea or across the border. Mr. Speaker, we are sitting in the driver's seat. VancouverSun , January 23, 1970. Washington, D.C. "The Federal Power Commission has issued a staff report forecasting shortage of natural gas by 1973 or '74 unless either the discovery or the import of additional gas supplies is sharply increased." Three or four years from now! South of the border. They are going to be running out, and we are breaking our necks to get rid of our natural resources as quickly as we can at fire-sale prices. VancouverSun , January 23, 1970. "A 20-year limit placed on reserves of metals." 20 year! "A leading Canadian geophysicist said Wednesday that world consumption of non-ferrous metals, copper, nickel, lead and zinc, is rising so rapidly that known reserves are likely to be exhausted within 20 years."

We go madly and merrily along. Parks, anywhere, lakes, it doesn't matter, get them out and get rid of them. Sell, trade, or give away. Mr. Speaker, what we need are new standards, new values, and new attitudes. The moaners, the people of little faith across the way, say we should be thankful for every dollar that comes into the Province for foreign exploitation of our own resources. But you know, Mr. Speaker, even private enterprisers, some of them, are now beginning to realize and recognize the need for change. Recently A.J. Miller, the former president of the Ford Motor Company, said, "Business must recognize that it cannot meet today's problems working alone, and that a high degree of government direction and involvement is necessary." A high degree of government direction and involvement is necessary. This is a former president of the Ford Motor Company. Recognizing today's economic scene, recognizing today's world, and you sit there and say the best government is the least government. The best government is the one that protects the future of the country and its people, and any government that doesn't lead a country for its people, is no government at all.

You know, Mr. Speaker, what they say? They say that oh well, United States and all the rest of it, we're anti-American. But you know, Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where our social welfare rolls are climbing, our unemployment figures are increasing. This system is failing to ensure enough high-income jobs to maintain our position as a Province with

[ Page 179 ]

the highest average income level in Canada. Our economy is bleeding to death for the quest for the fast buck and for this Government's policy of getting rid of our natural resources as rapidly as possible. The level of secondary and tertiary industrial development in British Columbia must be increased rapidly, must be increased rapidly. New jobs can only be created in plants, not in the mine or the woods, because the machines now do the work in the mines and the woods. More of our raw material must be processed here in British Columbia. I read your reports of the shortages. The world needs them, and there is absolutely no reason why, with the proper Government involvement, we can't produce these jobs. Why should we give them away in a raw, semi-raw state while we have unemployed and people on welfare? Why should we export them as rapidly as possible to be processed in the United States or Japanese factories? The Economic Council tells us that by 1980, by 1980 primary industry will employ less than ten percent of our work force, less than ten per cent of our work force.

Sit and listen my friend, just sit and listen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I'm not anti-American, I'm pro-Canadian. You know, I have a quote here from someone we all know, where it says Canada must free itself from the tight-money grip caused by the United States, siphoning Canadian dollars to help pay for the escalating Vietnamese war. Do you agree with that? Do you agree with that? Canada must free itself from the tight money grip caused by the United States siphoning Canadian dollars to help pay for the escalating Vietnamese war. Another quote — he said, "We must seek to displace our dependence on New York with the Canadian bond market and a Canadian equity market of truly major proportions." Do you agree with that? Or is that anti-American? These statements were made by the Honourable Robert Bonner quoting to the Daily Colonist February 27, 1966. He said "The current drain, on Canadian reserves began last fall, when the United States reversed the flow of money through American-owned subsidiary companies in Canada to help pay for the Vietnamese war abroad and its huge war on poverty at home."

AN HON. MEMBER: Robert who?

MR. STRACHAN: Robert Bonner said that. American owned subsidiaries were draining off Canadian capital. This is what he said, and I agree with him, I agree with him. You know, Mr. Speaker, we need the wealth production here for social needs.

Last year the Minister of Labour, the Honourable L.R. Peterson, Q.C., Attorney-General, Minister of Labour, Budget Debate, 3rd Session, 28th Legislative Assembly, February 1969, said, "It is the philosophy of this Government that every citizen should be able to expect to obtain employment under satisfactory working conditions." Where are the policies in the Throne Speech that are going to allow the citizen of this Province to expect to obtain employment at decent working conditions, and at decent wages. Mr. Speaker, we are in serious economic trouble, and there is more inflation to come. All the predictions are for more inflation, and inflation always has hurt the low-income group.

I was pleased to hear the member from Vancouver-Centre refer to the problems of the senior citizens. We have a report that up to one thousand of Greater Victoria's old people are living in appalling, sleazy apartments, because they can neither find nor afford other homes. There are present economic situations that support….

The Premier is simply extending his usual courtesy, Mr. Speaker, don't interrupt him, please.

The Economic Council in 1966 laid out the position that Canada was facing, and it said, they made it abundantly clear, that if ways were not found to restrain price increases, growth wouldn't be sustained and we would get the worst of all worlds, inflation, slower sales and higher unemployment, and that's exactly the position that we are now moving into.

Part of our problem in this country is, of course, the fact that so much of our economy is not controlled here in Canada. Part of our problem is the multi-national aspects of control that have developed, so that the individual governments are finding it almost impossible to keep up to the ramifications of the business world and its ways of manipulating. Through development of the multi-national corporation, governments are finding it almost impossible to keep an eye on what these corporations are doing. Their financial operation, their relationship, the procedures they use in order to arrive at their prices, and The Financial Post of January 17th, gives us a picture of the financial relationships of the octopus that controls the forest and pulp and paper industry.

I'm hoping to demonstrate to you, as Minister of Trade and Industry, the complete failure of the Government you support to be aware of the world here around us and the action the Government must take in order to overcome the problems today.

Here is the octopus, and this is only in one field. There's the octopus, and this is why they are able to almost, and look at the name, MacMillan Bloedel, Great Lakes Paper, Slater Steel Industries, Salada Foods, Inter-Continental Pulp, Prince George Pulp, Canadian Forest Products, Swiss Falls Power and Paper, Washington Star Limited, Manikoogan Power Company, Quebec North-Shore Paper Company, Ontario Paper Company, B.C. Forest Products, Brunswick Pulp and Paper Company, Bow-Water Scott, Bow-Water Mersey, Minus Basin Pulp and Power, Skeena Craft, Columbia Cellulose. There's the relationship. There's the relationship. There's the business man's alliance. There's the businessman's alliance in operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a super government.

MR. STRACHAN: And you sit back and you talk about competition. You sit back and talk about free enterprise and competition of the market place, when that's the situation. The same article, and this is the Financial Post speaking, and they say, "Going on to the next decade or two the growth of the corporate giants and proliferation of the joint subsidiary will bring the world pulp and paper industry closer together." Is it any wonder that, and they describe the other, same situation exists in other fields of endeavor?

Now Mr. Speaker, I want to….

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to hear yourself talk.

MR. STRACHAN: Maybe I have been sounding off, according to your dictionary, but I have more to say, and I'm going to say it. I'm like the 17-year old girl I spoke to you about, I'm a nationalist, insofar as Canada is concerned, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the system must be changed,

[ Page 180 ]

it has to be changed.

All through this debate Mr. Speaker, all through this debate every Social Credit member has attacked the Benson White Paper. Almost every Social Credit member has attacked the Benson White Paper. I think they are preparing the way for the Premier's Budget Speech. — I think they are preparing the way …. I listened to your speech, you just sit quiet a minute, my friend, and I'll tell you about the White Paper. These speakers are preparing the way for the Premier's Budget Speech when, as usual, he will lash out at Ottawa and blame Ottawa, and blame the Liberals, and blame Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, our whole economy is about to fall apart. People on the low incomes are being squeezed. Our whole tax structure from top to bottom is crying for revision. It's shot through with inequalities, it's shot through with special privilege and growing unworkability, and this old Tory party across the way is opposing any changes. I don't think any of you have even read the Benson White Paper, except the Premier. Let's look at what happened in this Province before we start attacking the tax policies of the Federal Government.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the changes that were made in the tax notices in this Province for property taxing by law, so that the people would not have a full realization of the impact of Provincial taxes. The changes were instituted last year for the people in the rural areas. We used to, when we paid our taxes, we got a receipt that showed the break-down of what we had paid for schools, what we had paid for hospitals, what we had paid for local taxes, and everything. Now they don't want the people to know this, or remember this any more. Now all you get is a little square back, with none of the details, none of the details. It so happens I insisted, I asked for a photostat of the paper, the tax paper that went with it, so that I can keep up to the changing situation. Then you changed the delinquent tax date insofar as the payment of taxes was concerned, which is an imposition on the farmer. It has made it more difficult for the farmers of this Province to operate, forced them to go to the banks and borrow money at high interest rates. Your property-tax system is rigged to discourage improvements of people's homes.

You have an assessment of Foundations at the maximum succession rate for tax purposes, and many of those trusts, as you know, provide social benefits.

I want to remind you what your Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs said about your own Provincial tax system. He said the local tax system in British Columbia is outdated. He said the municipal tax collection is outdated, inefficient and inconvenient. He said another major factor in taxation is making sure it is applied equitably. The Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs admits and did admit that your property taxation system was inequitable. Then your assessment policies have driven thousands from their homes. Your assessments have driven thousands of people from their homes, and only the wealthy can now afford to live in the nice areas of British Columbia, the waterfront areas, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, the member has been asking for my position on the White Paper. I propose to examine the White Paper now in some detail, in some detail. Page 5, — I don't care how long it takes. Mr. Speaker, it's time somebody stood up in this House and spoke for the little people, the little people of British Columbia. We've heard you defend special privilege over there.

The White Paper starts off by saying the government will welcome public discussion. Detailed discussion are also planned with provincial government representatives. It says, "The need for a general reform is clear, and in some instances striking. The problems to be faced admit to no easy solution. Reforms in this complicated and controversial area of government policy will inevitably fall open to argument. The needs of the federal and provincial governments for money to do useful and important things are so great, that we cannot now afford to reduce the over-all revenues from personal and corporate income tax." They are advanced for discussion and review. Then he describes what is fairness in taxation principles, and one of the measures of fair taxation is that people in similar circumstances should carry similar shares of the tax load. People in similar circumstances should carry similar shares of the tax load. Fairness also requires that people with higher incomes, people who are better off, should be expected to pay in taxes the larger share of their incomes than persons with lower incomes. This concept of "ability to pay" is embodied mainly in the personal income tax as a progressive graduated tax. A final important goal for tax reform must be its appeal to Provincial Government and legislatures as a system they too can use, and it goes into that later on.

Now on Page 9 he talks about the increase in exemptions under the tax proposal. He describes the exemptions, then he says, "This change in exemption alone would take about 750,000 Canadians off the income tax rolls." 750,000 Canadians are no longer going to pay income tax because of the increased exemption. Are you opposed to that? Are you opposed to that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he is.

MR. STRACHAN: It's obvious from every remark we've had from that side of the House that you are opposed to it.

Taken together with the other changes proposed it would reduce taxes on almost 3,000,000 more at the low end of the taxable scale. Reduce taxes on 3,000,000 Canadians at the low end of the tax scale. Are you opposed to that? You must be, you must be, because every expression we've had from across the House has been in opposition to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can't live now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who're you fighting for?

MR. STRACHAN: Page 10, 1.29. Capital Gains was raised. This is what he says, "Those who make substantial capital gains in the stock market or in real estate increase their ability to spend money just as those who earn wages or derive an income from carrying on business. Interest payments are already fully taxed. Capital gains are now widely sought as an objective in investment. Indeed the freedom of capital gains from tax is distorting the investment of savings under present circumstances."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. STRACHAN: Distorting the investment of savings. I could talk to you about Frank MacMahon and the capital gains that he got — five cents a share, and they went on up, up, up.

Now then, page 10, 1. 31. "Once capital gains are included in taxable income, the portion of the total income of the wealthy that is brought into tax would be dramatically

[ Page 181 ]

increased." But it's also proposed, don't forget, that the marginal rates in excess of 50 per cent be reduced to 50 per cent in four installments as the capital gains subject to tax increase. In other words they're going to lower the base of tax while they're bringing in the capital gains situation. Now, I'm not finished with capital gains. I went to page 36, "At present Canada does not tax this ability to pay." This is the capital gains. "As a result, some very well-to-do Canadians pay far less tax than others with similar abilities to pay, and less even than others with much lower incomes (all because these particular Canadians receive a large part of their income as capital gains). Moreover, it has been possible for the sophisticated to arrange their transactions in such a way that they receive as capital gains amounts that would have been income had the transaction been carried out in a normal manner." Are you in favour of that? Tax evasion? Tax evasion?

I'd like to look at another aspect of the government's White Paper, which I think is interesting in reflecting the attitudes of the people across the way. It says various fringe benefits received by employees or by owners of businesses would be included in income for the first time. For example, an employee or owner of a business with a business-owned car available for his personal use would be required to include a minimum amount in this taxable income unless he pays the business at least that amount for the use of the car. Then over here on page 16 it says, "The government has considered this issue at length." This is the matter of capital gains. "It proposes two sets of measures to remedy the disparity. First, in regard to those in businesses and the professions, and to certain types of benefits granted by employers to senior employees, it intends to set more rigorous limits to check expense account living." What are these factors of expense account living? "The costs of attending conventions and belonging to clubs would no longer be permitted as a charge in determining business income."

AN HON. MEMBER: Permanent home at the Vancouver Hotel.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the cost of yachts, hunting and fishing lodges or camps, amounts spent for tickets for games and performances, the costs of entertainment, would also be excluded. Owners or employees of a business having a car or aircraft available to them for their personal use,…

AN HON. MEMBER: How about aircraft trips?

MR. STRACHAN:…. including travel to or from home, would have to pay the business a minimum standby charge. Yachts, hunting lodges, fishing camps. Are they against taxing people who have this privilege? That's what they're opposing. That's what they are trying to protect, these special privilege groups. The people with the yachts and the aircraft and the hunting lodges. This is why they're opposed to the capital gains tax. How about the section, Mr. Speaker, in the Benson White Paper which is going to give a special privilege? I'm talking about this Paper and I'm quoting from this Paper. You oppose it, you oppose it, and it's on your conscience you oppose it.

Listen to this, "An additional amount of $500 is currently added to the personal exemption for a person over 70, or for a blind person, or for a person confined to a wheelchair. Although the royal commission recommended that this be cancelled, it is proposed to continue this additional exemption." An additional $500 for people over 70, blind people and people in wheelchairs. You're opposing that? You're opposing that? You're opposing that? All you're protecting, yes, are the hunting lodges of the elite….

AN HON. MEMBER: And the aeroplanes.

MR. STRACHAN:…. and the aeroplanes, and the camps. That's what you're doing, that's what you're doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're going to shoot your plane down, Mr. Benson will shoot your plane down.

MR. STRACHAN: We've had a situation, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the mines and I hear this wail about the mines, about the mines. Mr. Speaker, there was a special privilege for mines where they were allowed to write off, where they were allowed to pay no tax at all where they paid no tax at all for the first three years of their operation. This Paper does not propose to take away from mines the right to the complete write-off of their total investment. This Paper preserves the right of the mine. Now where's this initiative, this risk capital we hear so much about? The Benson Paper still allows the full and complete write-off, but what it stops, Mr. Speaker, is the evasion of tax once the company has had the full return on the amount of money they spent. That's what it avoids.

But what you're trying to preserve is the right of a company that even after it's received its investment in full, time and time again, still to be exempt from paying taxes. Like the Endaco Mine in this Province — tax free. A million and a quarter dollars a month profit and not one cent of taxes going to the people. The Paper also makes it clear, the Paper also makes it clear how we came into this matter of depletion allowancing and how the tax structure changed and how, long after the three-year exemption, the companies were still able to evade taxation through depletion allowances, depreciation and write-offs. They weren't paying their fair share of the taxes, and this Paper simply says it's time they did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. STRACHAN: And we agree, we agree. The present situation has allowed them to be high-graded. It still allows depletion allowances, Mr. Speaker, but the depletion allowances must be used for further exploration. What's the matter with that? What's the matter with that? They change the method in this Paper to allowances so that the person gets the benefit of taxes paid by the corporation. What's the matter with that? It's simply saying that if you've got the money you pay the tax.

What do we say about apartment dwellers, apartment owners? Page 62, let's have a look. Apartment owners, "Many taxpayers who would otherwise be in quite high tax brackets have become landlords, and have been able to reduce or eliminate the tax on their other income by claiming the maximum depreciation on their buildings. Ideally this early generosity should be offset by lower depreciation deductions in later years, or by recapture of the extra depreciation on sale. However, if the taxpayer buys additional buildings, and with the relatively low down payments required, this can be done out of the tax saving alone, he can postpone almost indefinitely, the day when his total depreciation deductions will drop below average. Moreover,

[ Page 182 ]

since most of the buildings concerned are in the same class, a taxpayer who sells a building can avoid recapture of the proceeds by investing them in another building. Finally, if the taxpayer continues this process through his life, the tax postponed becomes tax saved forever. When a taxpayer dies, excess depreciation is not recaptured, and the person who inherits the buildings is entitled to depreciate the full fair market value of the buildings, no matter what net book value his predecessor had. The government proposes to close this loophole in three ways."

You're protecting the yacht owners, the aircraft people, the mining companies, the apartment dwellers — the apartment owners, the tax dodgers, the dead-beats in the high income level. That's who you're protecting. All this tax would do, Mr. Speaker, all this tax would do, would mean there would be a day of reckoning for the owner of each large building. As each such building is sold the taxpayer would bring back into income the amount by which depreciation deducted for tax purposes exceeds the depreciation actually suffered.

Foreign Corporations. "As noted above, the exemption privilege is susceptible to abuse. Not all foreign corporations carry on bonafide business operations." Some are merely devices to dodge income tax, and in actual fact in many cases, because of the ramifications of the situation and the tax structure, Canada has become a tax haven for foreign corporations who are dead-beats and dodging their tax responsibilities to this country. This Paper proposes to change it. You're opposed to paying corporations? "Provisions will be put forward to prevent taxpayers from reducing Canadian tax by transferring the operation" — now I showed you that chart of the inter-relationship of companies — "Provisions will be put forward to prevent taxpayers from reducing Canadian tax by transferring the operation of a foreign branch which has sustained losses to a foreign company in order to avoid the Canadian tax which should ordinarily be recaptured on subsequent branch profits."

Mr. Speaker, in this Paper there's allowance to be made for child care for mothers who go to work, it proposes to make a tax allowance for child care for mothers who have to go to work. Do you oppose to that? You'll protect the apartment owners, you'll protect the big mining companies, you'll protect the big yacht owners, but the mother who has to go to work — not a word, not a word. They're against the Benson White Paper and they're on the record, they're on the record. Whose side are you on, whose side are you on?

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to go through the chart, the income tax, the whole series of tables, because you know what happens here? It's interesting, starting about Table Four. Single taxpayer, no dependents, $3,000, his tax deduction will only be reduced by $7, but do you know the man with a $100,000 a year income, his taxes are only going to go up by $677. That's all, that's all, it's going up by $677.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, do they react.

MR. STRACHAN: Then you come to a married taxpayer with no dependents. At $8,000 his tax will go down by $71. The man with a $100,000 income, his tax will go up by $414. The married man with a $100,000 under these changes, his tax will go up by $414.

This is on income from employment, this in on employment income, productive income, paid for the contribution you had made to the productive life of the community. Married taxpayer, two dependent children, $8,000 a year, his tax would go down by $83. The man with a $100,000, married man, two children, his tax will go up by $417. And we go through the rest of the tables and we find there isn't much difference. I gave you the figures on the people who are going to benefit.

The chart also shows that out of all this is going to come an increase in revenue to the Province of British Columbia and to the coffers of the Province of British Columbia, of $2,800,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a headline somewhere which talked about somebody organizing revolt — revolt — because of these tax change proposals, a businessman or somebody is going to organize revolt. Mr. Speaker, if any trade union leader used that kind of language about the proposals of the Government of Canada you can imagine what the editorial writers would have been saying. You can imagine what they would be saying. Organize revolt.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote you from a small businessman in British Columbia that I am proud to have in British Columbia. He is of Danish extraction. You may have noticed the piece in the paper the other day. He is up in the Fraser Valley somewhere starting up business with $50,000, or 60,000 investment, building clogs and shoes. He said he was asked wasn't he afraid his business will by shot down by Finance Minister Edgar Benson's small business taxation proposals in the controversial White Paper. Not this small businessman! In his own words he said, "I don't mind paying higher taxes as long as it can be shown the tax load is being evenly distributed." "I don't mind paying higher taxes as long as it can be shown the tax load is evenly distributed."

You people have been part of the massive attack mounted on the Federal Government and the Benson tax proposals for special privilege, to maintain special privilege. And the Liberals in this House, I think, should be fairly ashamed of themselves because not only did they fail to rise in defense of the 4,000,000 taxpayers of the low income group, not only were they prepared to accept the special privilege that has been bleeding us to death in Canada, but they weren't prepared to defend the proposals made by their own Liberal Minister in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that a good idea should be supported, no matter who makes it. I have no vested interest in maintaining the status quo, but I don't want to see this country degenerate into chaos. Nobody can win that one. Sinclair Lewis wrote a book a number of years ago called 'Babbitt,' and he described the typical businessman of the era, concerned only with his own little world, his own little interests, proud of his ignorance, and content with everything as it was. Babbitt, in today's society, Mr. Speaker, will destroy Canada. Everyone in this country is demanding that everyone else makes sacrifices but they want to be left alone to do as they please. This is the ethic of your society, the society you produced. Make everyone else make sacrifices, but leave me alone, to make my slice of pie.

It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, the relationship there is between the free enterprise ethic of "let me do as I please" and the hippie generation. Their thinking, their attitudes, are almost identical. Leave me alone to do as I please. It is my business. Don't interfere with me. That is the hippie attitude, and that is exactly the end attitude that you have produced in our society. Make everyone else change, but leave me alone. Everyone is demanding that everyone else make sacrifices but they want to be left alone to do as they please.

I can't help returning, Mr. Speaker, to what that 17-year-old girl said. "Eventually perhaps we will all live in

[ Page 183 ]

one big world country but right now I feel very nationalistic about Canada." I still feel very nationalistic about Canada. In these days of crisis, Mr. Speaker, every Canadian must search his conscience and his soul. He must ask himself if his attitudes and actions are motivated by narrow self-interest or does he fully recognize the needs of Canada. Right now, as never before in history, Canada needs the support of the people of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada has asked for our help and our understanding. Mr. Speaker, it will be at our peril that we refuse that help and understanding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. AGNES KRIPPS (2nd-Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the honourable members of this House for the warm welcome they have extended to me, and I was interested to hear the first member from Vancouver Centre say that his daughter was in the House and she still thinks the Premier works for him. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear to my four children in the House that the Premier not only works for me and every member of this House, but he works for all the people of British Columbia.

May I offer my congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker. Your office is the cornerstone of the democratic functioning of our Legislature, and I am confident that as a born parliamentarian you will serve in an impartial and effective manner.

May I also congratulate all members returning to the House and the many new members, such as myself, who were elected and have taken their seats in this Legislative Chamber. We are charged with an immense responsibility. I hope we prove worthy of it. My sincere congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the Throne.

I also wish to congratulate the Premier of this Province on his great victory and that of the Social Credit party. Our Premier has accomplished a unique task which will never be equalled in the history of this Province. My congratulations to him for having raised British Columbia to its present level of achievement. To the Premier and Mrs. Bennett I offer my sincere best wishes for many years of continued good health and happiness.

I extend warm regards to the honourable part-time Leader of the Opposition and also to the honourable lady Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if she was good enough to be a Deputy Leader she is good enough to be the Leader. My warm regards also to the honourable Leader of the five-member Liberal party. The role of those designated as members of the Opposition is not to oppose the Government simply for the sake of opposing, but rather to aid in the solving of problems by keeping a vigilant watch for error, and by presenting alternate proposals which will lead to more effective solutions and better legislation. I look forward to seeing our Opposition functioning in this positive manner.

I also wish to express to the people of Vancouver South my sincere and grateful thanks for the great majority I enjoy as the result of their expression of faith and confidence in me and the Social Credit Government.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no more challenging times for ones who enter the provincial political arena than at present. I am very proud of the Premier of our Province and the Leader of the Social Credit Government, the Government of imagination, new ideas, and experience. The Government with the financial ability to make all our dreams, and in particular those of the less fortunate, come true. I will work and give all my time and energies and abilities to see that my Leader's programme is fully carried out in the best interests of all the citizens of this great Province, the Province of opportunity and plenty. I will go about that task, along with my colleagues, to see that the good and welfare of all people receive paramount attention.

I consider it an honour, Mr. Speaker, to take my place in this debate on the Throne Speech and to represent, along with my colleague, the Honourable Minister of Health and Hospital Insurance, the constituency of Vancouver South, the most diverse and representative riding in the Province of British Columbia, the riding which, according to all news media, is going to set the pattern for the Province. How goes Vancouver South, so goes the Province, they said. And away we went, making the 1969 election victory, in the words of our Premier, the greatest and the sweetest of them all.

Mr. Speaker, the legislative programme outlined in the Speech from the Throne is most impressive and shows clearly the determination of the Government to keep things moving forward in our Province, with particular emphasis on the quality of human life and environment. It is a positive, concrete programme, adapted to the needs of today with plans for the needs of future generations yet unborn.

Mr. Speaker, in the early days when our country was being developed, there were so many things to be done by so few that the talents of each person, young and old alike, were utilized to the maximum. The strength and vigor of youth was combined with the knowledge and experience of the older folk to break new ground. Today, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a rather affluent society with comforts, conveniences, and wealth beyond the wildest expectations of our pioneers. An integral part of the affluence, is the decreasing need to take full advantage of the potentials of every segment of our society.

One of these very important segments, Mr. Speaker, is that of our youth, the greatest single human resource which in British Columbia is 862,447 strong, almost 50 per cent of our total population under the age of 25, according to the 1966 census. The youth of today are bigger, stronger, better educated, and more knowledgeable about the world in which we live than any previous generation. These young people want to be heard. They want to be recognized. They want to help. They feel they have something to offer, but are often frustrated because we do not provide the opportunity, nor have we made provision to take advantage of their offers. Mr. Speaker, I believe the talents and energies of today's youth are misspent. Essentially, children love change. Today's young people were born into it, have adjusted to it, and welcome it. The generation gap that often occurs, I believe, is due to the fact that adults and those in authority are all too often resisters and not supporters of change.

Our society tends to overprotect our young. We give them few opportunities to share in the decision-making. As a consequence, many young people do not have the opportunity to prepare themselves to become a fully responsible, mature adult when they reach the magic age of 21. Mr. Speaker, the youth of today must be given an opportunity to grow, to be creative, to learn, and to become aware and able to develop as responsible citizens. They must be given the chance they deserve to prove themselves as individuals in this affluent society.

Mr. Speaker, today there are just too many unmet needs of youth. The lack of co-ordination and direction, for example, is frustrating to the young people and, as a result,

[ Page 184 ]

some feel that they have to resort to dramatic methods, often violent, to make their wishes and needs known to the older generation. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, only about three to five per cent of youth engage in activities outside the law or customs of the community. But it is to this small percentage that our mass media gives so much attention and publicity. Seldom do we hear about the responsible actions of the other 95 per cent, and if we do, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhere in the back pages of our newspapers.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will agree, as will the members of this House, that the standards and strengths of society today will depend largely on our concern for the youth of today and our willingness to help them to develop to their fullest potential. So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that our Government bring in legislation to establish a Department of Youth at the earliest possible date. Such a department would initiate, foster and encourage an orderly development of all forms of youth activity. To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this proposed department do the following: First, take an inventory of all available Government programmes and other agencies in the Province that involve youth — cultural, educational, recreational, social, employment, just to mention a few. Secondly, co-ordinate the efforts of these various bodies for more efficient utilization of available resources. Then engage in continued research and experiment to determine a more appropriate and effective programme that would serve as a challenge to young people to improve their skills and to utilize them in development of a better community, a better Province, and a better world.

The whole purpose of this new department, Mr. Speaker, would be to act as a catalyst for the stimulation of cooperation, co-ordination, and new ideas. Such a department would act as a probe to stir up community action, to develop an infectious enthusiasm that would permeate and activate all people. I do not think for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed department should take over community programmes, but rather it would ensure that programmes begin and continue, so that our most precious resource, our youth, receive the maximum positive environment. Mr. Speaker, I can foresee this department as one supplying that unifying force which is lacking today. It would also open up two-way avenues of communication between youth and adults and the different levels of Government. Mr. Speaker, I look upon our youth as possibilities, as more than problems.

Recognizing the fact that as automation increases, more people will be freed from the necessity of devoting the greatest part of their time and energy to work activities, it is essential, Mr. Speaker, that provision be made for creative use of leisure, and encouragement be given so that individuals may take advantage of their freedom to seek self-enrichment and to pursue goals in the interest of their fellow man. In this respect, I am very pleased that our Government had the vision and the financial resources to establish the British Columbia Cultural Fund, the first one of its kind in Canada, the Amateur Sports and Fitness Fund, and the First Citizens Fund.

Another important role of a Department of Youth would be vocational counseling and employment guidance. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that such a service be provided throughout the Province, through a mobile unit, which we might call "Opportunity Caravan." The trailer, similar to that of a T.V. mobile unit, would visit various areas of the Province and spend a week or so in a given community, providing the service to those who may need it.

A natural extension of a Department of Youth would be the creation of a youth service corps which would be youth aiding youth. Summer programmes could be set up in various areas of the Province, in which students, after an orientation course, would work on a variety of projects in a given community. Such a programme, Mr. Speaker, would provide an opportunity for creative work, for the benefit of others, and at the same time provide an opportunity for concerned young people to be confronted with the realistic problems of people and communities. Those who would be participating in such a programme would gain a deeper understanding of the problems faced by disadvantaged members of society.

Mr. Speaker, by establishing a Department of Youth, I am confident that it will provide not only a greater opportunity for young people to contribute their idealism, energy and thinking toward human resources development in British Columbia, but it will also inspire youth with a sense of excitement, a sense of destiny and belonging, a sense of responsibility, recognition, and faith in their capabilities, a sense of being involved in helping to make a better world for all mankind.

Mr. Speaker, today many inconsistencies exist regarding the age of legal maturity. At what age is an adult an adult anyway? Take for example, a young man who at the age of 16 gets a driver's license and then takes his life and that of many others into his hands when he gets behind the wheel of his car on the highway. At the age of 17, with parental consent, he qualifies for military service. At 18, he is qualified for military service without parental consent. He can face punishment like an adult, in the adult courts, after reaching the various ages between 16 and 18, depending in which Province he resides. At 16 he may compete in the adult world for a job, and become liable to pay income tax. At 15, he can leave school in British Columbia. He is able to vote in the Provincial Election at 19, but he must be 21 to vote in the Federal Election, although at present the Federal Government is considering lowering the voting age to 18. If he decides to marry before the age of 21, he must obtain parental consent assuming he has obtained that consent, he marries, accepts the duties and responsibilities of a parent, maybe even has a child or two. He finds himself in a very embarrassing situation when he wants to buy some liquor at the liquor store because he is not 21 years of age. Nor can he consume liquor if he wanted to, in a public place. In fact this parent may even find it difficult to become a property owner until he has reached that magic age of 21. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the many inconsistencies of the age of legal maturity that exists today, and I think it is time that a single age of adulthood be adopted in Canada from sea to sea.

I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our Government takes the initiative and paves the way for such action. We need legislation so that there will not be so many inconsistencies. We have to get together to help our youth, and let's do it by legislation at this Session.

Mr. Speaker, another area of concern to me is driver training for minors. The cost of traffic accidents today to the people of British Columbia increased last year to a new high of 574 lives lost, 20,371 hospitalized with injuries, and close to $50,000,000 paid in insurance claims. This loss, Mr. Speaker, is reflected in the services and products sold throughout the Province and is a blow to the economy and welfare of this Province. Of the 5,412 traffic fatalities in Canada in 1967, 1,615 or 29.8 per cent of the victims were in the 15 to 24 age group. The group with the largest number of traffic fatalities for most types of accidents.

[ Page 185 ]

I might add here, Mr. Speaker, just for the record, that female drivers have the best driving record of anyone.

From the surveys and studies made, Mr. Speaker, it is an established fact that young people who receive professional driver training have only one-fifth the accidents of the national average of their age. I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that legislation be brought in for an intensive programme of driver training at the earliest opportunity. The aim of this programme would be the professional training of all minor drivers to an adequately high standard, and correctional training of all repeated offenders under the Motor Vehicle Act. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we could reduce the accident death rate, and possibly increase the life expectancy, if we devoted our energies to prevention of accidents, rather than to health care after the accidents have occurred.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to note the Speech from the Throne contained numerous references to pollution and environmental control, and in particular our Government's deep concern for the protection of a quality environment that would be enjoyed by all citizens of the Province. However, to be successful, the whole complex problem of the pollution of our environment, in all its many forms, must be tackled by all levels of government in active cooperation. No solution will be reached, nor little improvement made, by piece-meal, patch-work efforts in isolation. This is particularly true in provincial-municipal government relationship, and I welcome, with a great deal of satisfaction, and gratitude, the proposed legislation that would provide for incorporation of the Province's air-quality standards into the by-laws of British Columbia's municipalities and Regional Districts. However, Mr. Speaker, I would go one step further, by suggesting that our Government take, as it has taken in the past, the lead in enacting Province-wide legislation that would provide for standard enforcement, and penalties for all sources of environmental pollution.

As an example of the need for stronger and more over-all control of water pollution, I would cite the desirability of viewing a whole river, basin, from source to the sea, as a single ecological unit, because the protection of our clean water and the rehabilitation of our polluted lakes, rivers, and streams is of such a complex nature, that success can only be obtained by the enforcement of similar standards over the whole basin. Such standards, Mr. Speaker, can only be set after highly qualified research has been completed and all facets of the problem properly studied. This, of course, is a task beyond the resources of both municipalities and Regional Districts, and I would therefore recommend, Mr. Speaker, that our Government sort out, as soon as possible, the conflicting uses of our rivers, lakes and streams in each of their geographic areas and set standards for the receding waters in each area, and furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Government should set a deadline by which these standards must be met by all contributing to pollution.

In setting such standards, I would suggest the whole range of pollutants be considered, and appropriate standards set for each.

At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the administration and execution of pollution control measures is organized within several Provincial Government departments, and at times I feel, Mr. Speaker, that there is a conflict of responsibility among various Government departments, and a tendency for confusion of authority. I think it is of vital importance that a clearcut and complete system of pollution control be established at the Provincial level, and I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our Government give serious consideration in this Session, towards the establishment of a separate Department of Environmental Control. The proposed new department would have over-all responsibility of implementing and enforcing all environmental control measures in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much talk about the automobile as being the greatest contributor to air pollution, and I would support any legislation that this Government would bring in making it mandatory for all motor-vehicles licensed in British Columbia to carry anti-pollution devices.

Mr. Speaker, there is another area of concern, in the matter of ground pollution which, I believe, requires action. I refer to the pollution and safety problems being created by the increasing use of the non-returnable beverage container which constitutes a safety hazard and a litter problem. I would therefore recommend, Mr. Speaker, that our Government brings in legislation making it mandatory for all beverage containers to be returnable. I suggest that we throw away the idea of the throw-away bottle. Let's make it mandatory that people who profit out of selling beverages be responsible for taking the bottles back. In this way, we will cut down considerably on litter. There are many worth-while groups raising funds through bottle drives, and the throwaway bottle not only puts these groups out of business, but it junks up our highways, our parks and our environment. Let's do something about it in this Session.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that all forms of environmental control cost money, and every Canadian will be paying directly or indirectly to attain our objective. However, one of the many problems with which our local governments are faced is that of financing sewage treatment and disposal. Financial assistance in substantial amounts must be given municipalities if they are to do the immense job that has to be done over the next few years of building sewage treatment plants. Not only will the Federal Government have to find the means of increasing its participation, but the Provincial Government must also face up to the realities of the present situation and devise means of substantial, practical support. I would therefore recommend, Mr. Speaker, that we reexamine in this Session the Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act with a view to establishing greater financial participation at the Provincial level.

Government legislation is, however, only one small solution to part of the larger problem. Each one of us must resolve that each day we will leave our homes, our work, our town or our city a little cleaner, a little better, a little more pleasant for ourselves and those around us. Our pioneers blazed the trails and now it is our turn to sow the seeds and to pioneer the era of giving back to nature what we took out.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about the problems of re-training, adult education, enrichment, adequate use of leisure, and recreation. While some institutions might cover one or two of such problem areas, the public library embraces them all. One does not have to pay to get in, one does not have to dress a certain way, one does not have to be at a certain age or at a certain stage of training or have certain qualifications, for the library covers everyone, the library is the citizens' university, and in this field British Columbia was among the pioneers in establishing a Provincial Public Library Agency. Now in its 51st year, the work of this Agency is far from finished, and I was pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Speech from the Throne mentions the establishment of

[ Page 186 ]

the new Field Consultant Service of the Library Development Commission, and that initial steps had been taken toward the organization of library systems based on the Regional District plan. I look forward to our Government's continued participation in the broad programme for library development throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have great faith in the good will and understanding of all our citizens, and I look forward to a richer life in the years ahead. I am proud to be associated with a party and a Government which has and will continue to contribute to make life richer and fuller for all of the people of British Columbia. Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to publicly reiterate my great admiration for my leader, the Premier of our Province. To me his political courage and foresight are unparalleled in the history of our Province, if not that of all Canada. In 1942, no in 1492 (laughter) …. Just a minute, I've got something for you. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and he discovered America. But on August the 1st, 1952, British Columbia discovered our Premier. That was the year he took the reins in his hands and led the Social Credit Government to victory seven times by convincing the good people of British Columbia that this Government has understood the needs, wants and desires of its people, and has — carried this understanding to Government policies and programmes. Today, we in British Columbia can look back with deep pride and dignity on the accomplishments made in this Province under the Premier's dynamic leadership.

So, Mr. Speaker, as a tribute to all our past achievements and recognition of the good life we enjoy, I suggest that the first Monday in August be declared a provincial holiday to be known as British Columbia Day. With these thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, let us draw nourishment and inspiration from our past to meet and face the great challenges of the decade of the 70's. Let us demonstrate our love of freedom and the private enterprise system by putting forth our best efforts, with full responsibility for every action, deed and word. Let us meet our future with deep faith in our heritage and in ourselves. Faith in the bright future of British Columbia. Faith in the people of our Province and in their capacity for progress. Faith in the Almighty God and His never-ending justice. With vision, courage and determination, let us take up the task of building together the greatest place on earth, British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDE B. GARDOM (2nd-Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I've been in the wings a long time and the hour is progressing, and notwithstanding the fact that the whole House is going to be motivated for great rounds of applause throughout my speech, I would ask that they restrain themselves so we can finish.

Warm wishes to the new legislators to the new Legislature, and I'd say I found their talks spirited, and well motivated, and interesting, and they certainly all got to the point much quicker in far finer fashion than the first member from Vancouver Centre today who spent 45 minutes on absolute and complete drivel, nothing else.

Very quickly to you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations and sincere wishes to you, Mr. Speaker, for temperate and deliberate decisions throughout your difficult task this Session.

Historically, Mr. Speaker, a Throne Speech is designed to be a statement of government philosophy and government policy, so I'm going to look at it in that light. First, you know, it's about 4,500 words long and it covers around 430 lines of print, and of that, 4,400 words and about 430 lines are spent in platitudes, they're spent in musty old figures and statements of past progress. You know, we get all of this in this avalanche of reports we get each and every year, and you know it's little wonder, one thing, that the pulp and paper industry is thriving in the Province of British Columbia.

No, I'm going to go quickly, hold on to your hat, I'll slow down a little later on but now I'm moving quickly.

Number one, what do we have in it? We've talked something about a recording of a debate. We'd like to know when, where and how. Two, you've talked about extending the mortgage loan to older homes. This was all Opposition statements last year, and we're delighted to hear that you've bought our position on it. Three, you talked about improvement to the Payment of Wages Act, reconstitution of the Insurance Committee. Dealing, Mr. Speaker, with the reconstitution of the Insurance Committee, I sure hope that this year the legislation is not written before this Committee sits and has its deliberations. One very interesting thing is the new Motion Pictures Act, and I don't know, does this mean we're going to get a different size of black cats in the paper from now on? It's going to be interesting to see. A new Corrections Act, we'll see what that has. Amendments to the Protection of Children and the Adoption Act, and another label for the Department of Social Welfare, but rather than change the label I would suggest to you, Mr. Prime Minister; that you perhaps should change that particular Minister. The new Land Act. We don't know what's going to be in it but it's certainly high time that you did take a look at the Land Act, and we welcome that.

But, there's the Throne Speech, right there, 98 per cent fat and two per cent edible. We've been at this thing for nearly two weeks, and if private business made this kind of progress in two weeks it would go broke overnight, I can tell you that. Page 9, in the Throne Speech contained one revelation, and it said that the Data Processing Centre continued to show increased use, and I say for 1971, for God's sake let it write the Throne Speech. You know, you know, the words of His Honour were prophetic. He prayed that the blessing of Divine Providence would rest upon your labours. Which you have obviously interpreted as meaning that 1970 is to be your year of going full steam in neutral. This thing is just bare bones, Mr. Speaker, it's Mother Hubbard's cupboard, but the tragedy is not only in its lack of content it's in the attitude of the Government side to its content.

We've heard a lot of noble sentiments and bold statements, and I particularly liked the very fine address of the new lady member who just left the House. I thought she did an excellent job. I'm not going to make comparisons with the three before, but it's up to you. But everybody said, oh the new members, they are going to tell us the way it is, but I tell you one thing, telling it ain't enough, it's voting! On occasion, you know, we hear from these lonely backbench quarters about a Department of Environmental Control. We hear about pollution devices for car exhaust, we hear about some sanity to our liquor laws, aid to independent schools, the taking off of five per cent, Mr. Speaker, on electricity and building materials, and better assistance to municipalities, and Election Act reformed today, all great things, but hearing isn't enough. It's voting. You do the odd bit of skating around in this Chamber and in the corridors and in the lunch room, but in each case I'll say this, Mr. Speaker, with the

[ Page 187 ]

absolute certainty that these Daniel-like advocates are fireproof and immune. Fireproof and immune. Fighting from the rear with the assurance that they'll never have to support their sentiments with their convictions and votes. Never. Where's your spunk? Gone, disappeared into the night.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Just one moment. I believe that last remark should be withdrawn.

MR. GARDOM: Which one?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's reflecting on the integrity of the members of this House.

MR. GARDOM: Which one?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That they should support sentiments with etc., etc.

MR. GARDOM: I'm asking them to support their convictions with their votes, and if that's wrong…. What does democracy mean to you, Mr. Speaker? That's what democracy means to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Will the member be seated. Will the member be seated. The Chair is saying that you have cast a reflection on the integrity of the members and I ask you to withdraw it. I ask the member as an honourable member to withdraw that reflection.

I have already stated, will the member please withdraw that — reflection. I will have no recourse but to name the member if he will not.

I ask the member to withdraw what the Chair terms as a reflection on the integrity of the members of this House.

MR. GARDOM: But, we find these people, Mr. Speaker, roaring like lions but voting like lambs. Or, if your prefer, or if you prefer, laying the law down like Blondie and voting like Dagwood. And I'll tell you why. It's because they become hooked to political survivalism and political perpetualism and making that the end-all, beat-all of public service. That's why we haven't received votes. It's solidarity forever, these people say, but you practise it. This is why people all throughout the world today, in democratic society, are vexed and disturbed, not only in this Assembly but in every Assembly because people are elected, Mr. Speaker, to fight hunger and disease and poverty and the fouling up of our environment, and to establish priorities. This is the thing the public expect of them, and this is the thing that they should be doing, and voting for those things. Lip service isn't enough. Lip service is not enough. They're only posing improvements when they strongly advocate these things and none of them will vote for it.

You know, we can help them off the hook. Free votes. We can help them off the hook. Free votes. If your only job, if your only all-consuming job is to listen to what your Premier says, which is to support Government policy, if that's your only qualification for office, why don't you suggest at the beginning of the Session for one big fat all-consuming vote of confidence in the Government, and after that let's have some free votes in these issues so the public of British Columbia will know where you stand.

There are 55 people in here, Mr. Speaker, representing 2,000,000, and every person in here is speaking for those 2,000,000 in their own way, in their own way, and make no mistake about it. But, they're not here just to articulate before us, but they're here to vote for them, and this is where we run into the fantastic shortcomings of this administration, the secrecy, the inflexibility, the incapacity to adjust.

Here is something I would like to hear from the honourable members on when the time comes to vote on a few of these tithings. I want to talk a little bit about values. I tell you that progress, and science, and technology, and economic improvement can't be at the sacrifice of value, and if today's society, with its fabulous momentum and resources is not now prepared to do things it was unable to do before, it's subject to the highest degree of censure. The values I am talking of ….

If you don't like this, why don't you leave the room? Why don't you go down the hall?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member address the Chair.

MR. GARDOM: Through you, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't he leave the room?

The values that I'm speaking of are the respect for law and order, the dignity of the individual, and I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, it's the sacred responsibility of every society to nourish these things, and when government doesn't do it, it is a lack of complete governmental morality. The Canadian Economic Council says this. "We are in times of dynamic and social ferment, and our decisions for policy actions are things of the present and not for the future." Things of the present, the things you backbenchers have been talking are things for the present, not to be hoisted three years from now before another election. Let's get some of this stuff in now and get it done.

Our existence today is very complex. We find conglomerates in industry, conglomerates in government and a staggering bureaucracy, and I'll tell you all of this, Mr. Speaker, if not properly….

AN HON. MEMBER: Be a gentleman.

MR. GARDOM:…. balanced could well end up stultifying the life blood and the freedom of the individual, and he's the person who's fast becoming the lost and the missing person of our generation. Call him the vanishing identity.

There's a great book, I hope some of you have read it, Escape from Freedom. It's not a new one, it was written quite some time ago by Erich Fromm, and he wrote about the psychology of the growth of Hitlerian Germany, and I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that a benevolent dictatorship augurs just as dangerously. It lowers the resistance and it saps the strength of dissent. We've got to beware of those kind of ideas, we've got to beware of any unfettered imbalance of the governmental syndrome and beware most of all, most of all, this is the theme of my talk, of anything that will restrict the individual from the same rights as others have against him. Because if he doesn't have those rights he is doomed to an existence of cradle to grave mediocrity, almost total regulation and, worst of all, subservience of spirit. Therein lies, therein lies the duty of government, to practise democracy, to practise democracy when in power, not just preach it at campaigns, to protect and to stimulate and to enrich the rights of the individual and do the job.

As the Economic Council said, decisions for policy action are things for the present. I'm going to ask you tonight to look at four reforms, so people can play the same game, in

[ Page 188 ]

the same ball park in British Columbia, in the same way, and according to the same rules, and have equality within the law and equality of approach to the law. I'm talking of legal aid, an ombudsman, the right to sue the Crown, and a fair Compensation Act. Four measures. Let's hear these noble people vote for these four measures. Time is not going to permit me to fully discuss the expropriation chaos in the Province, but suffice to say, Mr. Speaker, tonight, that our expropriation laws are over 28 in number and, according to a statement once made by Mr. Justice Thorson of the Exchequer Court in Canada, he said that they were the most arbitrary of any outside of the Soviet Union. What a great recommendation! We've got to end the mediaeval approach. We need one Act to provide a fair hearing, public hearing and a fair price and rights of appeal, and with the expropriator paying the cost.

Now a couple of words about legal aid, the second point. A characteristic, Mr. Speaker, that has saddled the law from its very outset, has been its inaccessibility to the economically underprivileged, the poor. The gap's been closing, but at a snail's pace, and then only as the result of piecemeal contributions of time and effort by individuals and private organizations. But this patchwork stuff just isn't enough. We have to have a legal aid in British Columbia not only as a social measure, not only as a social measure, but as a democratic right.

You know, way back in 1838 Charles Dickens, through the mouth of the Beadle in Oliver Twist said, "The law is our ass." Surely, Mr. Speaker, it's the heights of asininity in this day and age not to create a means of access to the law that is equal to all, for justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done. Now there's no quarrel, Mr. Speaker, with it being done within the walls of our Law Courts, but that's of no comfort to the people who can't come up the steps and can't open the doors and can't get in. And how justifiably brutal this criticism is when you consider that with the affluence of this Government and its billion dollar budget, it offers little but lip service for improving the citizens' means of access to the law.

The laws are the hallmark of a free society, and this is the classic difference between democracy and totalitarianism, but that beacon has got to shine with the same intensity for all, and for anyone to say in British Columbia today that there is equal access to the Courts of British Columbia, is rank hypocrisy. This is no criticism, no criticism of the lawyers, no criticism of the Courts. They've tried, but the poor cannot afford the new process of law. So this means, perhaps not in theory but certainly in everyday practice, there is one law for the rich and there is another law for the poor.

Economic Council of Canada's very stark statement, "Poverty in Canada is real. It is more than simple income deficiency, it carries with it a sense of entrapment and hopelessness, and the poor tend to be collectively inarticulate." End of quote. You know, the poor view legal redress as a luxury, and I'm only saying it should be everyone's right, and my call is for equal justice for all, relegated not to the charities of some, but Government-supported in the cases of need. The plan that I'm suggesting, I've said it before in this House, as a condition precedent one would have to furnish proof of inability to pay, but once need was established a certificate for legal aid would issue in almost every kind of case, civil and criminal, the preparation of wills and other documents, and so forth and so on. So you'd find that judicare would be the same thing as medicare, save and except with the significant exception that it would be for those people without means.

Moving on, Mr. Speaker, to point three, Ombudsman. We've got to help the public and the poor old taxpayer through the bureaucratic snarls and the jungles of red tape. We have to have a Commissioner of Grievances in British Columbia, somebody who is trained and who has the equipment and the means and the disposal of the Government to properly lend a hand, because Parkinson's laws today are really a runaway locomotive. We all know that. Another very interesting thing, and very interesting for an Ombudsman, would be to investigate, either on the basis of complaint or his own motion, any decision or recommendation made to a Minister. After he made his report to the Minister, if no action was taken then he'd have the right to report to the Cabinet and the Legislature. You know, in Commonwealth Trust, boy when the Inspector of Trust Companies' reports weren't acted on by the two Ministers who were responsible to take some action, the Ombudsman would have heard about it, and this Legislature would have heard about it, and it's highly unlikely that anyone in British Columbia would have been swindled.

A fourth reform to shore up the rights of the citizen and move him closer to parity with the power of the State is to give him the right to sue the Crown. The idea, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is beyond the pale of the law and can't be at fault is the type of fiction that Alice might expect on the other side of the looking glass, but not as fact, which it is, in contemporary British Columbia. You know, it's the concept of the preservation of individual rights that sanctifies democracy, and the citizen has got to be equally entitled to make his own case and wage his own claim, and have his own day in Court against Government, just the same as the other way around.

You know at the present time you've got to come to the Government, you can only sue it in contract in British Columbia, and you have to ask for its permission. Well, I think in its many years in service in British Columbia, in the last 18, I doubt if it's ever been given. You can't sue it in tort, say negligence actions, at all. We need one set of standards, the same rights for citizens against the Government that a Government has against a citizen. I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, the notion that the Crown can do no wrong is something that should have perished with the divine right of kings, and I do hope that in the eighteenth year of Cecil, someone is going to agree with that.

At fantastic cost, Mr. Speaker, at absolutely fantastic public cost, Crux and his cohorts have been charged and their future is now in the hands of the Criminal Courts, but so much of this, if not all, could have been nipped in the bud and unnecessary, if precautions had been taken and the provisions of the B.C. Trust Companies Act had been properly administered and properly enforced by this Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. GARDOM: All it had to do was do its job, but it didn't. I say this, Mr. Speaker, that the present criminal prosecutions will never serve to expiate the monumental neglect of the Government side nor that of the two men, specifically the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General who are both individually and specifically named in the Trust Companies Act to protect the public and to shepherd dealings such as Commonwealth Trust. They either ignored or, as the first member from Vancouver East said last year, turned a blind eye. They didn't accept as being true, or they were guilty of most woeful judgment or worse concerning the

[ Page 189 ]

crystal clear warnings that were passed on to them by the Trust Company Inspectors way back in 1963 and 1964, for as early as then obtuse and highly unorthodox procedures reared their ugly heads.

The law was there, Mr. Speaker. Every member and every citizen should read section 71 of the Trust Companies Act, for under that section, if unsavoury practices come to light, then the Minister of Finance and Attorney-General can shut the shop. The law's strong, the law was good. The Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General could have closed up Commonwealth or stopped its practices overnight, and it was their specific duty to investigate and to invigilate and to keep the public informed — I'm going to repeat that, and to keep the public informed, and to keep the public informed — for that Act provides the widest and most elaborate powers of scrutiny and supervision over Trust Companies than is over any other kind of corporate body in this Province. The law was there, the mechanics were there, but some watch dogs we had! They were told there was trouble in the chicken coop, but it seems all they did was roll over, curl up, and snooze behind the stove. And you know, the people have never been told why. They've never been told why, not to this day. It's still hush, hush. It's still under the rug.

The inspectors furnished a report, terribly unfavourable, highly critical. Nothing happened. Their probe was abortive and their recommendations ignored. Mr. Speaker, red signals were flaring all down the line, and subsequent events have completely justified the criticisms and observations of the civil servants who dealt with the crises affecting this ill-fated and now bankrupt complex. The inspector said, "Trust meant strength, integrity and solidity," and it's a pity and a disgrace that those who didn't act and had the duty and the responsibility to act, didn't appear similarly minded. These two people had the clear duty and the specific right to blow the whistle on the extraordinary activities of the Commonwealth Trust rather than watch it become a fester in the financial mast head of British Columbia. The Government's eventual receiver, Mr. Stanley, in the summer of '68, called the operation "the garbage heap", but garbage heaps are not constructed overnight nor can anyone live beside them and not know that they're there.

A prima facie case of gross non-performance on the part of the Government exists, make no mistake of that, and we need a full-fledged legislative investigation and inquiry into this Government's performance throughout this sorry mess and the resignation of that man, that man, or those men, or any combination of them, who failed in their duty to enforce the provisions of the Trust Companies Act. The public are entitled to an account. They are entitled to the full facts and they want to know what went on in the back room. The final jury are the people, and without that jury receiving a full, a free, and a frank and a complete disclosure from the men of this Government who are in the know, without the public of British Columbia being told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth by this Government, then the people's charge to them will be that there was a breach of this Government's moral, legal and statutory duty. If the Government won't take the stand, the public's verdict has to be guilty as charged.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there's got to be an opportunity for redress for those whose life savings have disappeared into the night, and if this Government's neglect caused or contributed to this debacle or any part of it, as would certainly appear to be the case and a prima facie case, then it should have to face its day in Court just the same as any other citizen, and these unfortunate citizens must be given the right to sue the Crown.

I'll tell you why a good case would lie against it as I elaborate in this talk, and particularly within this period. From the most recent admitted knowledge of the current mess, namely in December of 1967, when C.D.I.C. came on the scene and alerted the Government of the difficulties with Commonwealth, and on January the 5th, 1968, when the Inspector reported to the Minister of Finance and to the Attorney-General that, "This Company was conducting its business in an unsafe and unauthorized manner and in a way that was detrimental to the public interest," end of quote. January the 5th, 1968. What did these two people do? They lay dawdle while the Legislature was in session and while the people's representatives were here. They hid the deal from the people and they kept it from the members of this Assembly. Why weren't we told about that report? Why weren't the members in the House given that information? Why didn't the general public hear about it so they wouldn't have gone through the doors of that spider shop and been hooked? Why?

Then in February of 1968 we find your corrective order, but still no information to the general public, still everything was kept under the rug. Then in the summer of 1968 you appointed your receiver, Mr. Peter Stanley, and next your pronouncement came on November the 8th, 1968, when you said, officially, the whole Commonwealth thing was sour. But through all of these months, through all of these months, some eleven months, during this period when the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General had specific knowledge, as their Bill says, that the Company was conducting its business in an unsafe and unauthorized manner and in a way that was detrimental to the public interest, during all this period of time the general public was still being lulled by that Company, was still being blindly and blithely permitted to go through its doors and they were gobbled up like pullets in a fox house.

Throughout this eleven month period this very cunning outfit, Commonwealth, which was very much under the eye of the Government — that's what your Bill said, it was under your eye — it still used the insignia of the Province of British Columbia, dogwood blossoms on every limb, it still posed to the public that they were in business under your blessing, and they held out that they were something they were not, and to your knowledge or at least your means of knowledge. If it wasn't to your knowledge it was certainly to your means of knowledge, and if it was to your knowledge, who in your department should be fired? Yet you permitted all these poor hapless people to continue to cross the Commonwealth threshold and be plucked. You know, throughout its history it was the only British Columbia Trust Company using the British Columbia symbol, the only one in whom it seems the Social Credit brass played such a prominent public part.

You knew way back in '63 and '64, and the winter of '67, that it was incubating, and specifically in the spring and summer of '68, and all along you knew or should have known that it was an egg of the worst sort and it could hatch a monster, and it certainly did hatch a monster. I think you had this kind of a duty. You had a paramount duty to stand up and say to Commonwealth, thou shalt not sell, thou shalt not sell, suspend its operations, instruct the managers of those branches what they could do and what they could not do and save the poor unsuspecting public, tell Mr. and Mrs. Citizen about the joint so they could have kept out of the thing. I think that was your duty but you didn't, and I think

[ Page 190 ]

you failed abysmally, with the result that thousands and thousands of dollars have been lost by little people.

You know the law says, Mr. Speaker, it says if there is a trap in your house you have to tell people about it. You can't watch them fall through and break their neck. That is what the law says. But that is just what this Government didn't do. They knew a trap was there, or they should have known a trap was there, and they didn't tell anybody.

Here is a specific example. This is a specific example during the period of your knowledge which your Bill 41 last year said. A 57-year-old man sold his homestead land in Alberta, and he wasn't in the best of health. He and his wife went to Kamloops to visit their daughter in the spring of 1968, in the spring of '68 after the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General knew Commonwealth was unsafe and operating in a manner contrary to the public interest, contrary to the public interest — their words — but still allowed to be open to fleece the people. But Commonwealth was really selling then, you know, oh, they were doing a good job of selling to the people when you knew this, I'll say.

This poor fellow saw an official of the Trust Company. He was given every encouragement. He was told that the investments were secure, that a Trust Company had never gone broke, and if one did the economy of the country itself would be gone. He and his wife were treated as long-lost friends. There were stickers all over the office about C.D.I.C. They were told about that too, you know. They said everything was covered up to $20,000. They were hustled in every sense of the word. They saw dogwoods all over the place and they assumed that the B.C. Government was behind it. They assumed that. What would you assume? Mr. Attorney-General frowns at that statement. That is what they assumed when they went in there. I can assure you. Oh, no, Mr. Attorney-General. You don't think the Commonwealth Trust people indicated to the public that the Government of British Columbia was behind them? Where have you been? In fairyland? Their conversation with this official….

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT(Premier): I would like to ask the House to give consent to the member to continue speaking after the hour of six o'clock.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, honourable members, and I can assure you that I am going to be as short as possible.

The conversation of this man and wife in this company dealt with Commonwealth Trust Company notes. Commonwealth Trust Company notes, and all along they were assured that these notes would be as safe as having money in the bank. So they said, "Okay, we'll bring our money here from Alberta and we will give it to you." They say that they had intended, they told me this, we had intended to live on the interest of this money, with some part-time work, and save as much of the principal as we could for our daughters, two of who are physically impaired. As one-half of it was to be in my wife's name, to give her a sense of security and place in society, having worked for about $10 per month in her youth." So this retired farmer went back to Alberta, and he came back a few days later and he plunked down the proceeds of the sale of his farm.

Do you think for one minute, Mr. Speaker, that they would have done any of this if the Government had told them what kind of a mess this thing was in, they had been told, as the Minister of Finance knew, and as the Attorney-General knew, that this company was at that particular period of time acting contrary to the public interest. Of course they wouldn't. They wouldn't have touched the thing with a ten-foot pole.

So what happened next? The Commonwealth official persuaded these people to buy shares in Commonwealth. He said "Boy," he said, "Boy, they are hot. There is a big amalgamation in the winds. The shares are going up from $35 to $50 a piece." This was during the time you say it was unsafe and operating in a manner detrimental to the public interest. "The shares are going from $35 to $50 and you fellows will be able to make about $3,000 profit in a few months, and income tax free." He also told them they should support the company that they were putting deposits in, and he said, "You know, I am in the know. This is insider stuff. The amalgamation is hush-hush, but as soon as it goes through, these shares are going to jump up overnight." So they went along with it, and they bought 100 shares each at $35 per share, $7,000 on the strength of the guarantee that they couldn't lose any money. They had already told them that they would be needing some of this money early in the summer for a house, because they were living in a camper and they would have to have a home by fall. But he said that would be all right, they could sell it. But why was he allowed to sell this junk at this particular period of time?

It gets worse, it gets worse from here on. They paid $7,000 for their shares, $16,500 for a trust note for one of them, $18,000 for a trust note for the other, their total life savings. The reason it was split into those figures is so they would be under the protection of the C.D.I.C., the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, the honourable members know, which has a $20,000 limit, you see. Okay? They turned over all of their money, and it was paid — guess to who? It was paid to the Trust Company, but oddly enough the receipts read that it wasn't for Commonwealth Trust but for Commonwealth Investors Syndicate, and the man and the wife said, "How come? How come?" and they were told that Investors was the same company, that it was just a branch that handles the notes. Then they asked the Commonwealth official, "Are these things covered by C.D.I.C.?" and they were told "Absolutely. Everything is covered 100 per cent." So they took his word.

All this during the time the Government knew the company was conducting its business in an unsafe and an unauthorized manner and in a way that was detrimental to the public interest.

They had heard a lot about prizes and they saw something about prizes. "Is there one for us?" and they said, "Oh, no, business has been so good that all the prizes are gone but a gasoline iron." Well, they got ironed but good, I'll tell you that. What a disgrace! Time after time the Commonwealth was phoned when these shares didn't go up, because they were told they would be going up any day and that was for sure, and they were told that the company could buy back at any time, and that was for sure.

These people were in for their total life savings, as I said, $41,500. But had they received the information and had they been able to look upon Commonwealth as the Minister of Finance, sitting over there, and the Attorney-General, sitting over there, if they had been able to look into that company as you two gentleman had been able to look into that company, they wouldn't have touched it. They wouldn't have touched it. They wouldn't have lost their money. Would the Attorney-General have put his money in it? Would the Minister of Finance put $41,500 in it? Not in a pig's eye!

[ Page 191 ]

They knew, and that is why they would have nothing to do with it.

I tell you, it is only fair and common sense to suggest this, Mr. Speaker, that when these two Ministers, the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General, knew about this thing during the period that I have been talking about — make no mistake about the period, I will say it again. From the time of your order, 5th of January 1968, and this fellow bought in the spring of '68 — make no mistake about the period of time. When you knew about this thing you had a patent responsibility to close the doors of Commonwealth or tell the man in the street about its problems. Close the doors or tell them what you knew.

I'll say it louder. How would you like to lose $41,000, wherever that inane remark came from?

You should have closed the doors or told the man in the street about it, or both, but you didn't and that is derelict, dereliction of duty. If this Government, Mr. Speaker, has in any way caused or contributed to the loss of people such as the ones I have mentioned, it should be prepared to face its day in Court just the same way as any citizen has to face his day in Court. These people say this. The salesmanship was despicable. The people were hypnotized by the statements and the Government-linked appearances of the Trust Company. They say they should have been told about the problems which you knew about, and what do they get now from you? The run-around. They are ignored by the company, they are ignored by you, and they are ignored by everyone, and they say, "If this is democracy in action we don't like it," and who can blame them. This man's wife is now under doctors' care and I say little wonder.

He wrote a letter, he wrote a letter and he got a reply. He got a reply, and the reply, I may as well tell you at the outset so I have your interest, comes from Alberta. It is dated January 14, 1970, and it is under the hand of Harry E. Strom, who is the Premier of the Province of Alberta.

"I read" he says, "with concern your letter of December 1, 1969, advising of your investment misfortunes with Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Limited and Commonwealth Trust Company while visiting in Kamloops, British Columbia in March of 1968." End of quotation for a moment. That was when you people knew about it, you see. "It would appear " — carrying on quoting — "it would appear from the statements contained in your letter that you were misinformed about the collateral notes of Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Limited and the common shares of Commonwealth Trust Company being insured with the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. I am informed by the Director of Trust Companies, Department of the Attorney-General, that your investments are not insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.

"I would surmise from your statements about the misrepresentations made to you at the time you made your investments and several times thereafter that this matter should be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General of British Columbia for possible investigation.

"I am further informed by the Alberta Securities Commission, Department of the Attorney-General, the Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Limited was never registered with the Commission and thereby were prohibited from transacting any business in Alberta." I would ask the Honourable the Attorney-General of this. Was he aware that Commonwealth Investors was prohibited from transacting business in Alberta, and if so, why could they continue to peddle that garbage in British Columbia? Particularly after he and the Minister of Finance knew in late, late winter of 1967, and specifically according to your own Bill of January, 1968, that Commonwealth Trust Company was operating in an unsafe and an unauthorized manner and in a way that was detrimental to the public interest. When the Honourable the Attorney-General for British Columbia found out about this, what did he do? No one's been told. There are thousands of people wanting to find out, who have lost thousands of dollars.

I carry on with the letter. "With regard to your common shares in Commonwealth Trust Company, the new Alberta Securities and Trust Companies Act were assented to in 1967, which precluded a trust company from selling shares in Alberta unless the prospectus had been filed with the Alberta Securities Commission. Commonwealth Trust Company did not file a prospectus after the new Act came into force in 1967 and therefore could not sell its shares in Alberta." Now was the Honourable the Minister of Finance or the Attorney-General aware that Commonwealth couldn't sell its shares in Alberta and if so, when, and did they do anything when they found out to take corrective action in British Columbia? An interesting thing, too, has the Honourable the Attorney-General received the Alberta legislation that gives citizens of that Province, it seems, much better protection than they have in B.C.?

I carry on with the letter. "I would advise that Commonwealth Trust Company ceased to carry on business in Alberta on September 15, 1968." What was the magic date in B.C.? November 8th, wasn't it? Yes. Carrying on with the letter. "At the time, when they closed their only office in Calgary, depositors and certificate holders in Alberta were paid in full, together with interest." All right, now when Commonwealth closed its doors in Alberta on September 15th, 1968, what did you people do in B.C. as a result of that? Truth, please. What did you do? Did you tell the people? Were you aware that the Alberta people seemed to get their deposits and certificates paid to them? And if that happened, why not the B.C. people? I don't know. You have got the answers.

Carrying on with the letter. "On December 20th, 1969, the shareholders of Commonwealth Trust Company, at a meeting in Vancouver, agreed that the company be placed into liquidation and Yorkshire Trust Company was subsequently appointed liquidator. Under the circumstances, I would suggest that you write directly to the Minister of Finance, Government of the Province of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, requesting up-to-date information on your investment….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no way.

MR. GARDOM:…."and whether or not money will be available for distribution to the note-holders of Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Limited and the shareholders of Commonwealth Trust Company." All right, will that money be available for distribution to note-holders of Commonwealth Investors Syndicate and shareholders of Commonwealth Trust Company, Mr. Minister of Finance?

Carrying on with the letter. "I am informed by the Director of the Trust Companies that he will be writing to both the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General in British Columbia for further up-to-date information on the affairs of the Commonwealth group of companies." Has the Attorney-General or the Minister of Finance received that correspondence? And what was the nature of that correspondence and I wonder if they replied to it?

[ Page 192 ]

The final paragraph is, "The Commonwealth group of companies, being British Columbia incorporations, come under the jurisdiction of the Government of British Columbia, and under the circumstances I am sorry it will not be possible to give any direct assistance in this regard as requested in your letter. Yours very truly, Harry E. Strom, Premier." And what does he get? What does he get? What does he get from you? He gets the brush-off. The right of this man and the right of so many like him — and I will just be about another two minutes, honourable members — the right of this man and wife and the right of people like them is this. They should be entitled to go to the Courts. There should be one rule, and the same for the citizen as it is for Government, and give them the right to sue the Crown.

Because apart from this performance, there is also another way that most of this could have been prevented, and that is this, if the Trust Company Inspectors' reports had been filed in this Legislature where they would have been open to public scrutiny, this wouldn't have happened. Truth doesn't need any blind or need any cover, and I am saying this, I am saying let's end the secrecy and have those reports a matter of public record. Because if the members of this Assembly knew what those inspectors told the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General in 1963 and 1964, and specifically in 1968, if the members of this Assembly knew what the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General were told in 1968, you wouldn't find anyone who would have lost a dime from that period on, because they would have been able to get away with it, because their practices would have been under public microscopes. I am saying this, Mr. Speaker, that the Trust Companies Act has got to be amended to make the inspectors' reports available to the Legislature, and we have got to end the double standard. We have got to end the double standards in the guise of business, and most of all we have got to give the little man the ammunition that he needs' to protect himself.

I mentioned legal aid at the outset. Let's give some of these people who have been impoverished legal aid to place their claims against Commonwealth and/or against this Government. Number two, let them have a right to bring their case in Court against this Government and, specifically, the people I am talking about are the ones that I have covered in this period of time, so there is no misunderstanding. Because I think if someone is in a position of trust, you know, we all know what a trustee is, he has a great responsibility. You were the trustee for the creditors of British Columbia, and you had a great responsibility, not to say nothing when you found out that this company was acting in an unauthorized manner, contrary to the public interest. You sat mum, and contrary to law.

I say we have got to do this, Mr. Speaker, we have got to agree we are going to make war not love with the white-collar crooks in this Province.

I would also say we've got to have regular educational publications and programmes under the hand of Government, that will keep the citizens abreast of major changes in the law, and the more prominent pitfalls to beware of, and I think we've got to expose the dirty deals. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, if Government won't do its own share of the job, it has to be held to account, and the citizen has his right to a day in Court.

On the motion of Mr. L.A. Williams, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

Petitions for leave to introduce the following Private Bills were Ordered received:

An Act to Amend the Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company Act.

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company.

An Act Respecting Office Administrators.

An Act Respecting Yorkshire Trust Company.

An Act Respecting Marine Surveyors.

The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.