[ Page 361 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. PATRICIA J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite sure where I stand today. I'm always nice to the Premier, and I know I'm a member of the gentler sex, but I do wish you all a happy Valentine's Day tomorrow, today.

I would like to begin, Mr. Speaker, by again expressing the honour and pleasure that I feel in standing on the floor today representing the people of the North Okanagan, that gem of British Columbia. I've learned two things about this, two new points this session, Mr. Speaker. One, that it doesn't pay to extend courtesies to the honourable members of the Opposition solely when it comes to speaking positions, because if you do they put a hex on you and you end up speaking on Friday, the 13th.

While I am here, Mr. Speaker, in the second debate of this House in this Session of Parliament, I would like to lend my voice to the congratulations and warm welcome to the new members of this Parliament, and to again compliment them on the quality of their debate, and also, Mr. Speaker, to lend my voice to those many voices that have congratulated you on your re-election as Speaker of this House. In fact I think, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to lend my voice to all the niceties that have been said in this Session of this Parliament on the floor of this House.

The North Okanagan is an area of many interests and many concerns, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues in the Cabinet are aware of the problems, and I would just say to the floor of this House that our major concern is in being able to balance our economic needs with our environment and to that end we stand completely committed. I would like to turn the attention through you, Mr. Speaker, of the honourable members to the publication on their desk entitled, "Women and the Law in British Columbia." I am pleased to say that the explanatory notes in the front, I think, display very well the intent of this booklet and I am very pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of this Budget, and on the basis of the previous debate, that this book will soon be very much out of date. I don't mind if it's out of date every year, if we continue to bring in Budgets like this, Mr. Speaker.

When we turn to the Budget, Mr. Speaker, being one of the latest speakers in this debate, many things have been said, all of which I heartily endorse, and I think I can best sum up my feelings by quoting someone else. It's from the Toronto Telegram of August 9th. "The simple fact is that these once raw and potentially outreaches of Canada cannot be developed by men who cannot make big decisions, who are not super salesmen and who cannot move fast to solve the huge problems of human economic underdevelopment. No one," the article says, Mr. Speaker, "could accuse Mr. Bennett of defaulting in any of these key areas. When Premier Bennett said some of the intellectuals and technocrats in Ottawa couldn't operate a peanut stand, he was right. In B.C. they need a leader who thinks, who builds like a Pharaoh, and before Mr. Bennett, the Pacific Great Eastern Railway went nowhere, carried little freight, coastal transport vital to maritime trade operated at the whim of eastern railway companies." And the article goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, "Driving in the British Columbia interior was like making one's way around modern Bolivia. Bennett spent the first half of his years in power making British Columbia institutions work properly for British Columbians. Trade followed Bennett's modernization, the reality of operation. A west coast phenomenon of the 60's followed."

Mr. Speaker, I think that says more adequately than I, what other people think of this Government as well as what we think of ourselves, and I would suggest that in this Budget for 1970, this is the first step of the phenomenon of the 70's for the people of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we've had some interesting Sessions watching the Opposition decide who was to be their Leader. We've had one or two or three Leaders in the last while, but the honourable House Leader of the Opposition has been running in the forefront, and he's been very bravely displaying for us and the press, what he feels are his qualifications for this high office, and he's been extolling these self-acknowledged qualities. I think that we should have a look at his own words as they are in light of leadership qualities. A leader should have aims, and what are the aims of this leader, Mr. Speaker? As late as November, 1968, he said that he would scrap the University of British Columbia, and in August, 1969 he said that he would champion for teacher power. These are the qualities for leadership, Mr. Speaker. Now, not only must he have high objectives and aims, Mr. Speaker, he must have integrity. He issued a press statement not too long ago, in which he stated that he really wanted to set the records straight, that he wanted everybody to know what the situation was. In that article he went on to not only talk about his soft tomatoes, but to plead that he was too poor to attend the University of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, please. One of the practices of the House has been that you do not question a member's integrity, so the member may word that differently.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, I'm supporting it, Mr. Speaker, but thank you. And I do support his integrity and I support him in name. Unfortunately, when I looked up the records to find out about the Seattle University I find, Mr. Speaker, that at that time the average monthly rate for boarding at the University of British Columbia was $40 a month and the tuition ran around $200 a year, and at the University of Seattle the average boarding rate per month was $60 and that the tuition was considerably higher than $200, and today it is one of the most expensive universities in the State of Washington.

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

MRS. JORDAN: It would have been less expensive, Mr. Speaker, to go to the University of British Columbia, whose fees today are well in line with the fees right across Canada. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, we certainly are well aware and support his integrity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

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

[ Page 362 ]

But you know, one of the things that impressed me about this young honourable member is that he has a very tidy mind and he always has very tidy solutions to very tidy problems. Cypress Bowl is one of the examples that I would like to mention, and he's so tidy that he comes out with a great headline in which he says that he denies that politics spur his attack on Cypress Bowl. But in a few days, Mr. Speaker, later in the Sun, this is after he tidily denied that politics spur the attack, he sort of flexes his sponge-rubber muscles, and he bravely challenges the developers of Cypress Bowl. But, Mr. Speaker, after these headlines, after this challenge, this paper teddy-bear of tidy land had no roar at all, because it was just a little "poof." Because he hadn't even had the courage to speak to the people and challenge them themselves. It was a paper "poof," Mr. Speaker, but however, again, perhaps this is a quality that they wish in their party.

Mr. Speaker, we go on to the next quality of leadership which is courage, pardon me, is character, moral character and I strongly support the honourable Leader's stand. He made it very clear in his self-heralded credentials the other day, when he spoke his views on marriage licences, and as the honourable member from Revelstoke-Slocan so brilliantly brought out and commented, that he should have lots of experience because of the rocky rail of the N.D.P. marriages.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. We're really having trouble establishing these leadership qualities. But anyway, we are on to these self-heralded credentials and the final one, Mr. Speaker, as he discussed marriages, and he's gone through the marriages of the, N.D.P. and he says, Mr. Speaker, he says, in spite of being a University graduate, in the Vancouver Sun on November 16, 1968, that his only interests are booze and women. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether to caution the public, I don't know whether to caution the women of this Province, the union bosses, or the honourable Deputy Leader of their party.

Well, I'm not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that he has this support, because I find that the comments of the honourable second member from Vancouver East are such that I don't choose to even remark on them, other than suggest that he is the softest tomato of all soft tomatoes sold in the Province of British Columbia by the N.D.P. and I come from the tomato country.

However, I don't want to forget all the members on the other side of the House, and I listened to the debate with great interest, and you'll see why I had obviously thought this up before the very long and honourable debate we heard last evening from the Opposition. But the honourable member of Cowichan-Malahat, Mr. Speaker, a man that I have always felt was a man of high repute, and a man of truth, and indeed a man of stature, and a man who would never, with all his general knowledge and his research assistants, with all his parliamentary experience, stoop to extremes in political licence. I listened the other day, Mr. Speaker, as he thoughtfully enlightened us and my honourable colleagues on the industrial development programmes of British Columbia. He looked into his crystal ball of hindsight and he talked about our Government's water policy and he chided the Government and he chided my colleagues for what I consider are outstanding efforts in industrial development. He gleefully flooded through papers, reading ads in the Financial Post, and then he smiled over at me, Mr. Speaker — and that's always very nice — and he accused me of selling out the natural resources of the North Okanagan on the basis of an ad in the Financial Post placed by the Okanagan Industrial Development Committee, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, I thought it would interest the House to know, who was Chairman of that Committee, and who had represented the North Okanagan, and who had promoted that ad.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member from Kootenay.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…oh….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to discuss, also, the travel industry in British Columbia, and I'm sure it won't come as a surprise to any members in this House that British Columbia is a force to be reckoned with in the world of tourism, and this is not only our opinion. Not only are we reckoned with as a force, as being an exciting and interesting place to visit, but it is acknowledged in the sophisticated world of tourist promotion. The philosophy behind this department, Mr. Speaker, is not only a recognition of the value of the tourist dollars to all areas of our Province, but also a firm conviction that the exchange of people in a relaxed and holiday mood is one of the most potent forces in fostering international understanding and world peace.

Travel is a positive vehicle through which we as British Columbians and Canadians can better understand other cultures and other people's habits and other customs, and other countries' desires and fears, I feel, Mr. Speaker, that travel is a very positive force through which we as a people in British Columbia and Canada can let others become aware of our culture, our habits, our customs, our desires, and also our fears. Surely there is no better way than in our personal conduct in other nations and our treatment of our visitors, to better demonstrate a philosophy of man's humanity to man, and to better demonstrate our desire as citizens to give and to take and to treat others as we would like to be treated, and to show that we as a Province and a Nation recognize that all people have a right to freedom, to achieve the desires that all people have in common.

To achieve these aims of international understanding British Columbians as travelers must be made aware, before visiting other countries, of the need of touring education, and Osaka '70 is an excellent example. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in this Budget that there is money set aside for the printing of a pamphlet, and for the want of a better name we could call it "Japan, Our Host." Because, Mr. Speaker, there is no more tradition-conscious people in the world than the Japanese, nor is there a people more offended by an affront to their traditions than the Japanese, and I selected a few examples to relate to the honourable members, if I can just find them. You, know, such a simple thing as a gift to a Japanese can prove an embarrassment to the unwary giver and, Mr. Speaker, in the gift world there are certain wrappings, and certain colours, and certain ribbons which are very significant. I think it's important to note that two Japanese men seldom shake hands, and the Japanese man and the Japanese woman seldom shake hands. The Japanese, Mr.

[ Page 363 ]

Speaker, are so interested in maintaining their cultural habits and their history that in 1955, through their Department of Education, they did a complete research and transcript of their habits and customs and this book was circulated widely throughout Japan and is in use today.

Now, I mentioned that there are special things about a gift, a simple gift to your hostess. The Japanese, on the corner of their parcels, indicate very humbly in writing — and this writing is always available at the stores where you purchase your gift — that it is either a valueless article or small remuneration or a token of appreciation, and by belittling himself he is really trying to convey that he has done his very best to choose a gift or fitting present and he hopes that he will be pardoned if he has chosen the wrong gift. There are also special dates in Japan when one should give or not give a gift, and an example is from July the 1st to July 15th one gives articles of luxury, or food stuffs such as fish, or articles for daily use, and from the beginning of November to November 15th one gives gifts to children in the age of three, five and seven, and these would be in the form of dresses or accessories or foot wear. There is the same tradition for wedding gifts, and other habits.

Just in the area of languages, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be well for us all to know the different meaning of the simple words "yes" and "no", and the Japanese uses "yes" when he is giving a negative answer, and "no" when "yes" is expected in English. For example, when he answers a query, "Don't you know that?" a Japanese would logically say, "Yes I do…," when he means, "No I don't know that," and my advice to you is don't ask a negative question.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this booklet, which could contain a resume of Japanese history and culture, could be distributed through all travel agents, airlines, and shipping companies to every British Columbian who is buying a ticket to Osaka or to the Orient, and in this way we would make them more conscious of their roles not only as tourists, but as peace emissaries and believers of international understanding for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Travel Industry, which has a very healthy share of this Budget in relation to its position, has successfully undertaken many sophisticated promotions, and one of the most successful has been the annual more or less come-hither promotion to the west coast of the United States and California. This is when dozens of volunteers, just people who are interested in the travel industry throughout British Columbia, have got together with the Travel Department and they fan out through all parts of California to sell British Columbia as a holiday area, as an interesting place to see. They talk to service clubs and auto clubs and women's clubs anywhere they can, but mostly they just want to get to people, and this promotion has been described not only by British Columbians, Mr. Speaker, but by knowledgeable people in international tourism, as one of the best promotions of its kind in the world.

To complement this excellent programme, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Travel Industry will continue to put greater emphasis on inter-British Columbia travel, and this is with the aim of making British Columbians more aware, not only of the value of the travel industry, but more knowledgeable of our own Province. Psychologists and psychiatrists tell us that one can't understand others unless one understands themselves, and this is equally true in the travel industry. We in British Columbia, I believe, do understand ourselves, but we must be more knowledgeable about our own Province and our country and the Department of Travel Industry will continue to place straight emphasis on this aspect of tourism.

We believe that there should be a greater emphasis for and a greater stimulation for the average British Columbian to be more aware of the values in this industry, not only as it affects the Province as a whole, but as it affects them as individuals. To help achieve this aim, the Government does provide 60 per cent of the salary costs to regional tourist co-coordinators, and this is over and above the other grants that go to the regions and to the communities in tourist grants and municipal grants. The work of these regional coordinators is to stimulate an over-all knowledge of the travel industry, to advise how to achieve the best dollar value in such simple areas as the printing and the placing of brochures, and to advise how to attract conventions or to encourage the improvement of service available to the visitors, and to help develop more interesting, better looking, and more efficient transportation, accommodation and enter tainment, and other service industries. They encourage the areas to participate in activities which are organized by tourist organizations and in service trades, in educational courses which are related to the tourist industry.

While British Columbia does enter into a multitude of independent programmes and cooperative programmes with other Provinces and States, the department in the Government are constantly asking themselves, what others are seeking in British Columbia, and how can we be in the forefront in the tourist industry, not just today as we are, and not just tomorrow as we will be, but 20 or 50 years from now. For at that time, we know, there will be a greater population and a greater pressure on our own natural resources, not only from our residents, but from what is our leading and will be our leading industry, tourism.

Just as we're in the forefront in environmental management, Mr. Speaker, so are we laying the foundations to avoid a yet unheard of word, tourist pollution. For make no mistake about it, tourist pollution will be a concern for the future and, in fact, it is already a concern of one of the most popular holiday areas in the United States — that is in Hawaii. They're finding that improper tourist planning and the tendency to cater to popular whims of the day, whether it's in construction or entertainment, and the complete dependency on their climate as an attraction, has led to an overabundance of tourists to the exclusion of their own residents in recreational areas and in entertainment areas. They now find they are faced with high prices. They are dependent on the tourist industry for their economy, and they lack any major activities now which would involve the tourists that aren't extremely expensive. What it's doing is reducing the variety of tourists that they will attract, and it is reducing the standard of life for their own people, and they have openly admitted that they face the dilemma of enforcing rigid regulations which almost might be too late. The other problem is that as the world shrinks transportation-wise, their type of environment is going to become a dime a dozen.

In British Columbia we feel that there are numerous ways to lay a sound foundation to avoid tourist pollution in its broadest sense. Many of them you know of, but I'll go over them because they're in the Budget, and that's our Government's multiple land use policy, our park and recreational programme, one a month for the last 12 years, our multi-use forest park policy which promotes the use of reforested areas for recreation, and the establishment of a Forestry Recreation Department, are just a few of the tangible "green" efforts that we are laying the foundation

[ Page 364 ]

for.

But as a department and as a Government we are very much aware that man is one of the earth's most restless creatures, and that he is a creature who builds up and pulls down and he alters and he refurbishes and he redesigns according to his needs.

AN HON. MEMBER: …and pollutes.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, and he pollutes, Mr. Speaker, and this is according to his own personal needs and his mental restlessness, and thus, Mr. Speaker, as the animal in the wilderness responds to his environment, so is man affected by the same environment he individually or collectively creates for himself. I feel that as he builds economically, so likewise does he crave an ever-increasing respite from his own building and his own commercial activities, and so likewise he cringes from the monotony of this ever-increasing commercialism and the monotony of the environment that he creates. I suggest that this does nothing to soothe our nerves, but I suggest that this is why the outdoors and the unique call to man all over the world today as they never have before. For despite man's drive and his obvious pleasure in advancing technologically and commercially, he has a basic and inherent requirement on occasion to find his solace in solitude, and to again establish himself with the bond between himself and with the bond between he and nature, and I believe that's why this need for what I call quietude has become almost a fervour with people in the North American continent today.

In a Province where our land mass is dedicated to sustained yield forests, and where mountain wilderness makes an additional one-third of the total land mass of the Province, if we plan wisely and we work together as people in British Columbia, we have an almost unlimited potential and we can avoid tourist pollution. As far as uniqueness is concerned I think again we, as British Columbians, must constantly ask ourselves what are we, what are others, and what will they seek in British Columbia. For it's a cinch that an American is not seeking another America, and the German is not going to seek another Germany, and the Japanese is not going to seek another Japan, and you know as well as I do that you can't sell palm trees and sand to people that live in palm trees and sand and, as the honourable the first member from Burrard said, you can't sell grey cement and glass to people who are surrounded by grey cement and glass. You can't expect people to be deliriously happy when they walk into a motel in Fort St. John that has the same, small, blacktop entrance and the same, small, routinely-furnished room that he is going to find in Eureka, California or in Mexico or in Europe.

I feel that British Columbia communities must be encouraged to reflect British Columbia in their design and in their character and very much so in their attitude. We mustn't let ourselves become just an extension of American communities in attitude and architecture, and I think Victoria's a glorious example of this. It's a mecca of spirit, there are the Parliament Buildings, there's the Empress, there are beautiful old homes, the small quaint homes, what you could call Oak Bay charmers, there is unique entertainment, you have Trounce Alley. But what is there on the entrance of town? A glass, blacktop shopping centre, with about as much character as my left toe, Mr. Speaker. I'm speaking up for British Columbia and a British Columbia personality, Mr. Speaker.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have to encourage private developers of tent and trailer courts to incorporate personality in their areas. You just can't accept the fact that a trailer, a tent, a picnic table, your stew, and your kids are all one on top of the other, and we have to see that this type of tourist pollution doesn't happen in British Columbia.

Americans, who are our volume market at this time, I feel come to Canada expecting to feel that they are in a foreign country, and we might as well capitalize on it, and this again says that we must develop a British Columbia atmosphere. And how do you go about achieving this uniqueness, Mr. Speaker? The first step, I would like to comment on a suggestion by the honourable first member from Vancouver-Burrard, who is not only a David in the political world, but he is a Tiger of tourism, he is a champion of Keep British Columbia Green — pardon me, he is champion of Keep British Columbia Clean. I think this is an excellent slogan to adopt, and I know he will tell you more about it, but he said I could let you know that the lower mainland and Greater Vancouver Tourist Promotion Council has adopted the slogan Keep British Columbia Clean. I was talking to Rothman's the other day and they say that they will try and put it on their cigarette packages, along with the other slogans they're going to have to put on.

AN HON. MEMBER: British Columbia against the world!

MRS. JORDAN: Could get it on our candy bars! We've got to face the facts of life, Mr. Speaker. If people smoke, then there is no reason why they can't smoke happily but still keep British Columbia clean. We can even put it on the whisky bottles, Mr. Speaker, that is fine with me.

Not only has our David in politics and our Tiger in tourism suggested a provincial advisory board of excellence, design, colour and quality, which I heartily endorse, I would like to, without taking the time to quote him, elaborate on what I think could be some of its complementary aims in working with our Tourist Department. I think that together the two could encourage leaders of tourism to not only be knowledgeable, but to have courage in their knowledge to be themselves in reflecting that particular part of British Columbia that they live in. To encourage each area to develop its own personality and its own community attractions and to capitalize on their natural assets, and only import that which is outstanding in itself or complementary to their environment. We could provide qualified speakers to city councils and municipal councils once every two years, who would come up not just with the theory of tourism but with some practical suggestions that they might adapt to their own areas. I think that it could encourage all Chambers of Commerce to have an environmental committee to aid the aggressive businessman in the smaller community to realize that he can make money, that there is dollar value in a community developing a personality and in a council developing a Main Street personality, and that there is very much a need for the preservation of people and natural areas in and around our communities.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other area in the tourist industry that I would like to discuss for one moment and that is in food, because I feel that in food there is a limitless area to promote British Columbia. I really don't see why we have to be bound to Colonel Saunders' Kentucky Fried Chicken, and I think that chain companies coming into British Columbia should be encouraged, even though they can keep their small trade-mark, to develop a trade name that reflects British Columbia, and the best I could come up with in the chicken was "Creston's Kootenay Fried Chicken." But I thought I might do better with MacDonald's hamburgers, because I like

[ Page 365 ]

MacDonald's hamburgers, and I think they should be here, but I think their arch should be distinctly British Columbian — it can be a cedar, it can be shingles, anything you want, and that the company should, at least the stand should reflect British Columbian architecture. And on the menu, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we could have that big, juicy, luscious, well-loved top-of-the-menu named the "Bennett Burger," and the little tiny baby ones could be the "Herbie Burger." How would you like Cowichan Fish and Chips, Mr. Speaker, as well as Okanagan Apple Pie?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the honourable leader of the Liberals has come in and I wanted to say that I heard his budget on Monday and I won't say anything more. But I have also been interested, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that he has expressed such interest in the motion pictures industry, and in this film industry I wondered if he doesn't possibly fancy himself as a bit of an actor, Mr. Speaker, rather the Tiny Tim of politics. You know, I think it did appeal to him, Mr. Speaker, because he formed his own film company, and its first production was a very touching epic and a human appeal entitled, "Personal Aspirations of the Liberal Leader of British Columbia as He Seeks his Identity in the Just Society for Our People." I would like to liken this down-to-earth people film, Mr. Speaker, this Tiny Tim of politics, to a garden, and I feel that this whole idea must have been in the bud in the Union Club, and that the stem was nurtured in West Point Grey, and that the flower emerged on the people's free bastion of Hood Point, and following this, Mr. Speaker, our thespian tip-toed for the adjudication of the fragrance out to Harrison Hot Springs. In case the members of the House don't know it — I hate to enlighten them because I have friends there — Hood Point is not exactly a public thoroughfare, it is on Bowen Island, it's a very lovely place, the only problem is you have to have a pedigree before you can have a camp to get there.

Mr. Speaker, while we are discussing the Liberals, I hope the honourable Liberal leader will get on that hot line to Ottawa even though he was told yesterday not to call back again — but there is a grave concern, and I express it most seriously, of the people of the Interior of this Province. These people are concerned, Mr. Speaker, not only about the ruling of, but the philosophy which appears to be emerging through the rulings of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. This emerging philosophy, Mr. Speaker, seems to reflect a completely centralized control of Canada's communications, and in this instance the practical applications of such a philosophy is that a small Government appointed body is reflecting its views on a disadvantaged group of people in Canada and in British Columbia. When I say disadvantaged, I mean disadvantaged in terms of geographical situation and the receiving of television receptions.

This decision, Mr. Speaker, that was rendered in November that bans all forms of transmitting of free choice of American television shows to the majority of the geographical areas in Canada and British Columbia, leaves approximately 64 per cent of the population of Canada shackled, and I really mean shackled, by a silent law, to government and to an intellectually elite medium control. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this C.R.T.C. decision is truly discrimination and is blatant censorship at a time when we are endeavouring to broaden and to wipe out regional disparity. Just from the economic point of view, Mr. Speaker, it leaves those areas not close to the border at a disadvantage in trying to attract tourists to their area. It leaves them at a disadvantage in trying to compete as retirement communities, and it certainly works a hardship and a disadvantage to shut-ins and handicapped people. All these people, Mr. Speaker, consider television as a form of entertainment as part of their lives today.

Mr. Speaker, I well appreciate that it isn't the fault of that little group across the floor that they don't have much to say, no power, but, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a reflection on the integrity of the people in the Interior. We are no less capable of deciding for ourselves what is good and what is wrong with American or Canadian television. We are no less susceptible to corruption than anyone anywhere else in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I am sure, and I am sure the honourable member himself desires and will fight for a strong and a united Canada and a Canada that truly reflects Canadian culture.

I don't think any of us quibble with the aims of the Broadcasting Act which directs Canadian broadcasting to, and I quote, "safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, social and economic fibre of Canada." But what we do challenge, Mr. Speaker, is how this aim is achieved. In denying the Interior people American entertainment, the Commission stated that "such intrusion by the United States would disrupt the Canadian Broadcasting System within a few years." And, Mr. Speaker, I hate to say it, but to many people in the Interior who have been subjected to what I really have to call a daily dose of salts that has labelled "C.B.C. Talent and Entertainment," and who have paid the bill for it, the disruption of C.B.C. is exactly what we would like to see. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that this tax-supported medium should serve the people, the people should not serve the medium.

Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to the decision that was rendered yesterday. I think some of it is good, but I think the thought that Canadian content will be up to 60 per cent is going to send the people in the Interior reeling. Mr. Speaker, the Interior people just feel they can no longer tolerate the negativism and the hour-after-hour of the self-styled pundits that sit on C.B.C. and smoke their way through an inarticulate analysis of everything from hog's breakfast, to society, to Canada, to every province, and they also feel that there has been abuse of the public service programmes.

I am sure this is difficult for the coastal members to appreciate, because you do have the flexibility and the choice of various stations, and I really, Mr. Speaker, can't feel that freedom in television viewing is going to be a threat to nationalism if we truly have a country worth being national about, and I am sure we do. We also feel, Mr. Speaker, that if by disrupting the C.B.C. we would destroy Canadian broadcasting, we feel that is nonsense. I don't very often quote the Sun, but I would quote Les Wedman, who said that, "Competition is the Geritol of the tired blood of Canadian television," and I thoroughly agree with that because, Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of a limitless budget and the artistic licence that C.B.C. has enjoyed, they can produce little more than what they have produced and report that they are flat broke, then I suggest what they need is stimulation and that it is competition.

They stated, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian advertisers wouldn't advertise on C.B.C., and I think rather than accepting this as a fact, questions should be asked. Why not? Is it because of the Canadian tax laws or is it because the advertiser knows, Mr. Speaker, as it is his business to know, that the average Canadian, who has a choice, is not watching C.B.C. in prime time and if not, why not? My suggestion is that people will tune in to C.B.C. when C.B.C. tunes in to

[ Page 366 ]

people, and that we in Canada must have what is our right, and that is our right to freedom of choice in the world of communications and entertainment.

We all, as I say, want a strong Canadian culture, a strong news media of which we can be proud, and we want our broadcasting and our television broadcasting to stimulate our national pride and our national culture, but we want it, Mr. Speaker, through freedom of choice because that is a Canadian right.

Now, Mr. Speaker, speaking of the C.B.C., I enjoyed an interview with them this morning on a subject that I want to bring before the members of this House. It is a subject that I have thought about a great deal, and I do not consider myself a technical authority on it, but I think that I am qualified to speak on it. The subject, Mr. Speaker, is the topic of sterilization as a means of family planning, both male and female. For the past three years we, as Canadian people, have been involved in a dialogue dissecting and analysing abortions, and a great deal, Mr. Speaker, of this discussion has been factual and constructive whether the view was positive or negative. I do not intend to speak on abortions, but I do believe in all these presentations that we have avoided or we have missed 50 per cent of the point, and that is sterilization as a means of permanent family planning.

At the outset, I wish to make it very clear that I am aware of the religious implications in this subject and I certainly don't wish to impose my views or the honourable members' views on them in any way, nor do I sincerely believe that they wish to impose their beliefs on others, nor do I believe they wish to let their views hinder individual freedom of choice where it is not harmful to society. Family planning is more than just a medical-legal matter, Mr. Speaker, it first and foremost involves the individuals themselves and, secondly, the various professions that are concerned with administering and providing this service. If we — and we have proved in our law regarding homosexuals — believe that the State has no place in the bedroom, and if we as Canadians believe as the critics say of the White Paper, that the State has no place in the living room, then I suggest that the State has no place in the connubial room. While it is the attitude towards the law that delayed an abortion law change, there appears to be nothing in Provincial law — Mr. Speaker, if you'd call the honourable member from Seymour to order he might not make these glaring mistakes and let out the terrible false impressions that he did on the floor of this House the other day — there appears to be nothing in Provincial law, nor Federal law, which makes male or female sterilization illegal, so in this instance, it is not a question of how to effect a reasonable and workable law, but when are we going to put it in force.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the area of male sterilization we know that vasectomies are being done by the thousands in British Columbia and by the hundreds of thousands in Canada. The procedure takes place quite respectably, and I won't go into it, and it makes no difference as long as there is written consent and consultation with the partner whether the male is single or married. The main problem here is that while the law does not say such an operation is illegal, neither does it say the operation is legal, and this is the case with every operation from a gall bladder to a tonsillectomy. But, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Medical Protective Association has not seen fit to give the physician the authority to go ahead with this procedure and still maintain his insurance against prosecution. The other problem is that while the decision to perform the operation is the physician's, which I believe is right, the permission as to whether or not male sterilization can take place in the hospital is for the hospital board to decide. This decision is influenced by personal attitudes of the individuals and the board members, and I would think probably by some of the giggles that we heard in this Chamber when this subject was introduced. Mr. Speaker, this leads to a situation where you have regional disparities in legal human rights — not on the basis of cost or equipment available, nor on religion but on the basis of the thesis of the inability of these people to face up to the situation today.

The question of female sterilization is far more complex, not again because of the law, for the situation appears no different legally from that of the male, but I suspect because of the moral attitude of the medical profession, the lawyers, the hospital directors and some of the legislators in this Chamber. We see in our attitude, Mr. Speaker, an unwillingness of this human service establishment to be objective and to take the lead. Do you know, somehow or other I feel that our concepts and our attitudes towards both abortion and sterilization are associated with the immoral, the inadequate, and the mentally handicapped, and Mr. Speaker, that is just not so. I'd bet my last dollar that the subject of permanent family planning by ligation or vasectomy has been discussed in over 50 per cent of the homes of Canada, and probably 50 per cent of the homes represented in this building today. The moral legality for this is in the legislation if you accept the code adopted by the World Health Organization in 1960, when they stated that health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not simply the absence of illness or disease.

Contrary to popular belief, the quest for abortions in hospitals in North America today is not largely with unmarried girls. It's estimated that over 50 per cent of these requests come from married women and they fall into three groups. One is the happily married couple who have their family, they're financially well off but they, for one reason or another, don't want more children. This person isn't in too difficult a situation because of their social and economic connections, and they can often achieve the abortion if they want it and they can often achieve sterilization. The second group of women fall in the class of those who are poor parents or medium-income parents, who already have a larger family than they can look after and love and clothe, and whether or not this woman is allowed an induced miscarriage, which is parlour terminology, is dependent again on the law and on the physician's attitude, and it's most unlikely that this family could involve themselves in sterilization as a means of permanent family planning. The third group is the older, single, divorced or widowed woman who has no desire for a child, and her alternatives are the same.

Mr. Speaker, the question of the treatment of these cases is not the point of discussion today. The point is why? And I really can't understand why these women should find themselves in this situation to begin with. Why should these women not have the right to choose legal and permanent family planning? And this should be by the method of tubal ligation if they so desire. Here again, why should the attitude of a few force these women into an intolerable situation, which I'm sure seeking medical treatment for pregnancy is. It's intolerable for them economically, emotionally and, most important, physically. Who can argue that an induced miscarriage is not more dangerous physically and emotionally and economically than a legal medically-supervised tubal ligation? If a mature woman who, for one reason or another and through personal choice between she and her husband,

[ Page 367 ]

cannot have a tubal ligation in Canada today except for reasons of extremely poor health or extreme mental conditions, the mature, single woman hasn't got a hope in hades. I think that the pill and the other preventative measures have given society a false sense of security, and that it has allowed the professions to avoid the issue. We seem to tend to fall back on the argument that we don't need permanent prevention because the temporary systems are so effective, and if not we can always get in to the ever popular discussion today of abortions, which is really a price paid well beyond the cost of forgetfulness or a fear of the pill.

I don't want to, in this discussion, overlook the medical opinion that a tubal ligation is considered major surgery, and this is because of entering the peritoneum, whereas vasectomy is not considered major surgery. But what I do say is that while we recognize, and we do recognize, as the honourable member from Oak Bay verified yesterday, that there are side effects and we know that there are risks — minimal, yes — but there are risks with the pill, there are risks with tubal ligation and there are grave risks with abortion, but no one can prove in most individual cases which offers the greater risk and the greater chance of complications. And, one might ask, why female sterilization if male sterilization is readily available? To that I can only suggest that there are many reasons which are personal which lead some men to feel that they don't want to have a vasectomy — they might be afraid of surgery, they might be nervous, or they might fear for their virility, which is a completely false impression — but this leaves the woman in the position where she must do all the family planning. She does not have the same choice as the male. Tubal ligation and the freedom from further concern, and she's forced because, I suspect, of our wrong impression of the public's attitude and the unwillingness of the medical profession to speak, and the fear of litigation on the part of physicians, which I can well understand, to use the pill or mechanical devices or play Russian roulette. The mature, single woman is in a hopeless situation.

Mr. Speaker, there are many married and single women, who under these situations, faced with these choices, would rather have a tubal ligation under correct medical conditions with its percentage of risk than face the alternative. I certainly don't advocate wholesale sterilization, but what I do advocate is that male and female sterilization, or ligation operations, be put on an equal footing in Canada and be made available in accredited and approved hospitals under proper medical circumstances, with written consent on the part of both partners and the adjudicating committee.

Mr. Speaker, I realize I'm taking time, but I would just like to set the legal position of this straight. The Canadian Medical Protective Association has held a strong view opposing these operations and they stated in an article in 1948, "The Canadian Medical Protective Association has become increasingly concerned over the casual attitude adopted by doctors towards the sterilization of patients." It goes on to say that month after month they're getting requests, that they have told doctors not to do this, that they will not be covered by their insurance and that some of them will end up trying to defend themselves in Court, and this hasn't proved the case, Mr. Speaker. Again, in the Journal of May, 1967, they wrote another article which followed two unsuccessful charges in the Ontario Courts, and the charges were dismissed because the operations had been consented to in writing by the individuals and by the doctors. On November 19th in 1960, the British Medical Journal reported the words of Lord Justice Devlin and I think these appear to be the most significant in the judicial world, but I'm sure the lawyers can argue this, but he suggested that an assault should not be treated as criminal if done either to avert danger to life, or grave and immediate danger to health, or with the consent of the other party and for purposes not otherwise criminal. Mr. Speaker, all through the American cases, the Scottish law and the English law, this position seems to be consistent, and I suggest that what is left to be done is that we must accept the fact that the general public are much further ahead in their thinking in this area than we are.

I believe that we as legislators have an obligation to bring this subject to the forefront, and to ask those with whom the approach to this subject rests to reassess their thinking and to speak publicly what the medical policy should be, and I call on the Medical Protective Association of Canada to give assurance of coverage for both male and female sterilizations if performed under the proper circumstances. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the risk to the Canadian Medical Protective Association in dollars is infinitesimal compared to the people benefits.

I'd like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Robbie Burns has been quoted so often in this House today, or in the last week — I'm not a Scotchman, this poem that was penned in 1792 certainly was not written about the subject I have discussed, but it was quoted in a brief to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, and I'm sure it was quoted with sincere intent, and I believe that it is appropriate today. Along with that, Mr. Speaker, he said,

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

The fate of empires and the fall of kings,

While quacks of state must each produce his plan,

And even children list the rights of man,

Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention

The rights of women merit some attention."

Mr. Speaker, this great Social Credit administration has led in many fields of legislation, and it has led in economics in Canada, and it has led in moulding the public's attitude as no other government in Canada has. I feel that it is appropriate with this exciting and with this sound Budget, with its renewed emphasis on people and our environment, and with its emphasis on social, psychological and economic well-being and, most importantly, with its emphasis on the family, that we should lead in the field of permanent family planning. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. B. MACDONALD (1st-Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take part in this Debate. I've been wedged by the Whips this afternoon between the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Welfare, and I'm going to try to condense a few minutes' thought into three-quarters to an hour of words for the benefit of this Assembly. In order to allow honourable members, especially those opposite, to be at ease, I will mention the main subjects I'm going to deal with, because my job is to talk and yours is to listen, and if you finish first you can go and have coffee. I want to comment on a few of the speeches that have been made, very good speeches, in this House, and then I want to deal with the matter of tenants' rights in the Province of British Columbia, I want to say something about the wages and income, I want to say something about the looming Hydro crisis in the Province of British Columbia, and I want

[ Page 368 ]

to say something about Hydro transit rates.

Before going on with those subjects I want to commend the manner in which the lady Minister delivered her speech, but to take exception to her vicious attack upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (Laughter) I am not, as a Canadian, content that I and my children after me should exist for their mental food on piped-in cablevision from south of the line. I didn't like particularly what the lady Minister said about the matter of abortions and sterilization, because she came back to what is the real vice in the situation today, and that is that the woman has to appear before some tribunal like the Therapeutic — that's what it's called — the Therapeutic Abortions Committee, probably made up of men, and I say this is humiliating and degrading to the dignity of that woman.

I want to commend some of the speeches that have preceded me, and in particular the honourable member from Atlin, because he is a great spokesman for his constituents and the Indian people of British Columbia. But what he said took real courage, because we've heard a lot of flak coming from the Indian community, and I suggest that behind a lot of the opposition to the White Paper on Indian Affairs, which I think is a good document, a lot of that has been based on special privileges within the Indian community, because you don't have equality, you don't have equality within that community. You have good land and you have poor land, you have rich reserves, you have poor reserves. You have discrimination in the sense that an Indian woman with band rights marrying a man who is off the reserve and being divorced from that man, still loses her band rights when she attempts to return to her own land, and there are wrongs in the Indian community too. But this member had the courage to say "yes" to social equality and "no" to segregation and that took courage, and I commend him for it.

The honourable member for Oak Bay is not in his seat, so I won't say very much about him. He's kind of a lonely Livingston still waiting for his Stanley, but he has, on his voyages of discovery, he discovered the post-acute bed, and that's an accomplishment. He's not ready to extend the socialized hospital system, in which he makes his sustenance, to the post-acute bed, he wants to turn that over privately, but it is something that he has made this discovery and I can validate these remarks because I heard them with my own two ears.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that?

MR. MACDONALD: He made the best of his speeches on the future of medicine at this Session. And you may say that the honourable member is an unlikely prophet, but so was Ernie Winch. You may say, when he's talking about a new future for medicine in the field of healing and prevention and away from this nonsense of fee-for-service, that is breaking Medicare at the present time, that he's a visionary, that he's been making the same speech year after year, but he has pointed to the future. Make no mistake about that.

I want to say something about Commonwealth for a moment and make an appeal to the Government benches and to the Attorney-General in particular. I won't repeat what was said by the second member for Point Grey, but the facts of the matter are simply that for seven years they allowed the enterprise to go on and investors to fall into a trap. If the Government of British Columbia could be sued by the people who have lost money in the Commonwealth Company, Mr. Speaker, they would be suing today and they would win.

Now let me read a letter to you — and I'll give the name because this lady wouldn't mind, she's in my constituency — Arlene Sawchuck. She makes $4,500 a year, she's not one of the affluent people of this world. She wrote to the Prime Minister asking for redress because she was assessed $76.59 income tax, and what was the interest on which she paid income tax? It was from her investment in Commonwealth Investors' Syndicate. "I invested my life earnings — $6,500 in what I thought to be a reputable Canadian company named Commonwealth Investors' Syndicate, and you are well aware of the fiasco, and the final outcome appears dismal for me." And what does she ask? She asks, however, "I feel, therefore, that the B.C. Government should be liable for the income tax charged me on $335.19, the amount of the interest I received before the company was declared bankrupt. To me this interest is only a minute part of my principal of $6,500. However, should I receive my principal in full at a future date," this is a nice letter, a nice person "I would be only too pleased to pay the income tax on interest received. The above situation certainly discourages a person from investing in one's own country. I know I've learned the hard way." Those are life's savings. She wrote the letter on November 26th, 1969, and she sent copies of it, that's why I haven't hesitated to use her name, she even sent one to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. The situation, and I hope I've made it clear, is that she's forced to pay income tax on the little interest she earned and lose the whole principal of $6,500. What I say is we have a disaster fund in this Province of British Columbia, but I say that the time has come when this Government must make compensation, at least so many cents on the dollar, to these investors who have lost so much as a result of the Commonwealth fiasco in which the Government played so huge a part.

The honourable member for Langley mentioned the case of Walter Redel, a respected British Columbia civil servant on a tour of duty in Quebec City, when he was beaten up by two turtle-necks posing as, supposed to be policemen, were policemen. That man has suffered injuries which may become worse in the future, and the Government and powers that be in Quebec have treated this thing in a most cavalier way. Oh, they say that the police will investigate, they always investigate, and the police will exonerate, they always exonerate. There may be a reprimand and maybe there'll be a suspension for a week, or something of that kind, for the two people involved, and I say that's not enough. This is a good servant of the Provincial Government and a good employer should help him to meet the legal expenses of taking legal action against the people involved and, if possible, the Government of Quebec. That's the least you can do, Mr. Ministers, for this servant, and it's the kind of thing a good employer would do, for after all, he was on duty at the time that he was injured. If that is not done, if we are acquiescent about this type of situation, it will be repeated again and again, as it is being repeated again and again with people not so respectable. But the way to see that this does not happen is to make those responsible feel the pinch and let them be sued, with the help of the employer, by Mr. Redel.

Now I want to say something about tenants who are not an insignificant portion of our community, Mr. Speaker, because with changing conditions the proportion of people who are tenants in the City of Vancouver must be what, 30 or 40 per cent? 52 per cent already? And in other parts of the Province it will be rising. Yet in our constituency of

[ Page 369 ]

Vancouver East, the conditions of tenants are absolutely deplorable. I'm not talking just about the rooms or the old houses, although I've gone into old houses renting at $80 or $90 or $100 a month, and you open the gate and the whole fence almost falls down, and you go up the porch and you're lucky if you don't put your foot through the porch. Well, around Commercial Drive, there in that little area there's some of the worst houses. Oh yeah, at least $80 a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's $120.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm wrong on the rent I think — it's higher than that. And we have, built by slumlord apartment builders, in Vancouver East, some of the worst new apartment blocks that you could ever see. They're sound boxes — if a person coughs three apartments away you hear it, and these bright new stuccoed apartment buildings will be slum living and fit to be condemned, certainly in the space of ten years, and yet the rents that are being paid in places like that, I have them here, I have them reported by the Real Estate Board. I don't know whether I can rely on these — Bachelors in the East End of Vancouver at the present time, $95 a month. One bedroom, $125. Two bedroom, $150. Poor accommodation, and rent greatly in excess of what a tenant can or a family should pay out in rent. Would you believe what a penthouse in the South Kerrisdale District would cost? No, that isn't here, but these rents are grossly excessive.

I say that the time has come when we've got to protect the rights of tenants otherwise than under the archaic Landlord and Tenant Act which makes them, in effect, serfs of a feudal landlord — an Act going back through the centuries which ought to be repealed. I say we need legislation by this Government. I know the City of Vancouver has a Rental Grievance Accommodation Board, but that Board has no powers. It hears grievances, it lets off steam. The place where the responsibility lies is here in this Legislative Chamber. Oh, they can send in the building inspector if there's a complaint, they can do that anyway. He has no power to help somebody who isn't getting heat, no power to help somebody where the accommodation is dirty and noisy. He has no power, they have no power to do anything in the case of a family that come along with children and are denied access to apartment living because their children are discriminated against, and this is the kind of thing that's happened. So I say a tenants' bill of rights should require proper notices of rent increases, at least a year, appeals with power to roll back excessive rents. This is something Prime Minister Trudeau is asking this Government in the name of inflation, to do. I'm not sure that he's ready to take that step himself in terms of the power to act, and I'll deal with that a little later.

I think we have to repeal the Distress Act under which a landlord for a number of reasons, including default in rent, can come in and seize the goods of the tenant, his personal effects and furniture, with limited exemption, put them up to auction if he wants to go through the full procedure, and sell them off for nothing. That's a wicked power to leave in the hands of any person in today's society. I think that the security damage deposit should be banned because it has been abused, and the best way to handle that is simply to ban security deposits.

I think there should be access to the Board with powers given to it by this Legislature to both landlords and tenants in respect to termination of leases, complaints as to service and the rest of it, without going through the jungle of legal procedure that has grown up and accreted around the old Landlord and Tenant Act, where you practically need two degrees to be able to evict a tenant or to make a complaint at the present time, and it's an expensive, costly procedure.

The Board should have power to set conditions of service, maintenance of services like heat and the rest. It should have powers to prevent snooping by the landlord, because when a tenant rents a premises that is his castle, and there should be a limit to the access to that living accommodation on a proper basis. The landlord should not have a second key and duck in there when the tenant goes to work, and that happens today, and that's a gross invasion of privacy. There should be recognition of tenants' associations, which I suggest are going to be something that we should live with and will live with in the future, because other people have the right to band together and so should they, and they should be recognized, and the discrimination against children must end. These tenants' grievances hit worst the senior citizens — the high rents — the low-income groups, and they are the people who should be heard by this Legislature.

Now I want to say something about, you might say, the national debate as it were, and I listened with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks last night of the member for Cowichan-Malahat and other speakers who have discussed the danger of inflation. A danger, which inflation is only part of it, which amounts almost to a breakdown in the conditions for economic growth and prosperity in Canada and many other countries, because rising prices are destroying the living standards of Canadians, chiefly those on fixed income and the lower income groups. Inflation doesn't hit the well-to-do particularly. They spend a small part of their budget on the necessities of life like food, clothing and the rest. They can put off the decision to replace the second car. But it hits the poor, and it hits the senior citizens and it hits the families with children. High interest rates actually benefit, actually benefit those who live on unearned income, and the insurance companies.

It means that we are running into a situation in the way we are tackling it, of fewer jobs, more unemployment, higher costs of the necessities of life, and for organized labour it means running hard to stand still, to remain in the same place. Like the tail wagging behind the dog, it never quite catches up. Although trade union members are in a better position to meet inflation than other working Canadians, British Columbia, as a result of this kind of thing, is facing this summer what I think will be a long hot summer of industrial unrest. I have no hesitation in saying, and I think the chairman of the Prices and Income Board agrees, that the place you have to start is prices. I have no hesitation in saying that price-setting is the chief culprit, in the kind of economic breakdown that we are suffering today, and that Prices and Income Board in Ottawa cannot be allowed to remain a toothless wonder. It must be given teeth and power to roll back prices, to roll back excessive prices.

Now next week the Government of the Province of British Columbia will have a chance to show whether it is serious about prices and industrial strife, because the Federal-Provincial Conference is taking place next week, as I understand it. I have been amazed at the silence of the Government benches in respect to this matter, because Prime Minister Trudeau has indicated that he intends to act, to ask the provinces for legislative power — a transfer of jurisdiction from the provinces to the Federal Government to enable the Prices and Income Board to roll back excessive prices, and we've had nothing, nothing from the Government benches on this question. Will Mr. Trudeau really take the courage to

[ Page 370 ]

make that decision? Will this Government have the courage to give him that power — to give the National Government the power to arrest the increase in excessive prices on a national basis — a power that it needs at the present time? Of course it means relinquishing some power to Ottawa, but the interests of national planning require that, and this is one country.

Within this Province there are many things too that should be done, Mr. Speaker, and I have mentioned one already, and that is the matter of excessive rates. The 1960's were marked by industrial strife. At the beginning of the 1960's in those halcyon days some people looked forward to a period when strikes and lock-outs would be fewer — a kind of archaic weapon of last resort that would be seldom employed. But the facts of the matter are that by 1969 the time lost through strikes and lock-outs had risen to 7,732,000 man days, which was an all time high in Canada, and the graph shows that it had risen during that decade to about double what it had been at the beginning of that decade. Strikes were of longer duration and there were more of them. But I should add, in defence of the Province of British Columbia, and the labour movement of British Columbia which is blamed for so many things, that the man days lost in the Province of British Columbia over the last three years were lower than the national average. Increasingly, too, strikes involve the public, who simply use the settlement to raise prices, often much beyond any wage increase cost The whole community, including organized labour, suffers from this kind of breakdown in organized industrial growth. This Government has been condemned. There is no use blaming the so-called labour bosses, Mr. Speaker, because never, before have so many settlements recommended by union officers been turned down by the membership, because the membership today have real grievances when they look at real estate prices, and I mentioned a few of them, when you look at professional fees, when you look at all of these things, prices running wild. The membership have been rebelling against their own union officers, because they are afraid of their own security in a situation which they think has got out of hand.

The member for Oak Bay the other day said something about doctors' fees, and since I have the figures here I would like to give them. It is true my figures of net medical income — and this is from medicine — are dated 1967, they are D.B.S figures. They showed at that time that the medical profession led all the rest very substantially, and the average income of all the doctors across Canada from the practice of medicine at that time was $25,157. The average means that when you throw into that mix those who are the young fellows just coming on, and the old people slackening off in their practice, and the people working in the public service, that you have an immensely high average. My estimate today, based upon the increases that have been given, is that the net figure is closer to $35,000 on the average. When the working man, when the employees of this Province look at that kind of thing going on, and they see Medicare ready to be broken by that kind of a drain, and nobody can deny it is excessive —

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): They don't work 40 hours a week.

MR. MACDONALD: No, but they should. You heard the member from Yale-Lillooet. What's the matter with 40 hours a week? I don't exempt other professions. I think, for example, the law profession has charged excessively in the matter of divorces. In spite of the new code that came down which made the matter of divorce in a simple separation case easy, we have had fees charged of $500, and in that area I think that has been excessive.

Bill 33 is no solution. Bill 33 is no solution. I am getting into the habit of repeating a bit like my friend beside me, for emphasis, because I want to emphasize that. A big stick in the long run embitters and prolongs industrial strife. Look at the post office strike. Look at the Montreal police. Look at the situation in Newfoundland today. That is not the answer.

I would like to quote a little bit from a very distinguished economist, John K. Galbraith, who said that the public service should have the right to strike. "If we deny the right to strike to policemen and firemen, it should only be because we made manifestly certain that they do not need it. If the public services cannot act on their own behalf, their compensation will fall even further behind. Manpower and skills will not be attracted to public employment if civil servants cannot protect themselves with full collective bargaining rights." This is a distinguished economist who is making these remarks.

We have to seek new directions towards a planned and equitable society, and I am suggesting three directions. First, Federal-Provincial powers to check excessive prices, fees, rents and profits. Secondly, a stronger trade union movement should be given a place at the table where the real decisions are made. Thirdly, there should be national and provincial conferences between employer associations and the national and provincial labour bodies and governments to lay out for a year or two ahead guidelines for production goals, prices and labour income. On the first point the acid test, as I said, will come next week — the question of whether or not the Governments of British Columbia and Canada and the other provinces mean business about checking rising prices. That is where it has to start.

Let me finish my quotation from Galbraith, who in respect to inflation said this, "The heartland industries such as auto, steel, chemicals, oil, and petro-chemicals and large scale consumer products account for North American inflation. Controlling wages and prices in these primary industries," he suggested, "will soon be inevitable no matter how politically distasteful for governments."

Well, I don't propose wage controls. I think you check inflation at the price level, and then reasonable wage negotiations take place in that atmosphere, and to that extent I certainly support what Mr. Galbraith has said. I am not suggesting that there can be, as there used to be, price control over all the commodities of this country, but it should be limited price control applied to what he calls the, "heartland industries," which could easily be effective, and the heartland matters such as credit and other factors in the economy.

On the second point, a stronger labour movement must be part of the planning process. It is a shocking fact, Mr. Speaker, that today in British Columbia only 43 per cent of the work force is able to bargain collectively for better wages and conditions, in other words, have trade unions, 43 per cent. And this has not led to fewer strikes, or less industrial unrest. The percentage in 1958 was 54 per cent were organized, and it has been declining because of rough labour legislation in this Province.

I go down into the City of Vancouver and at the present time see some employees of Hertz and one other car rental service walking the streets trying to get a first contract, which is granted in other parts of the world — they are unionized in the United States, they meet union conditions — and yet the

[ Page 371 ]

attempt of the people of British Columbia to win bargaining rights has certainly not been protected by this Government. We need laws to encourage and protect blue and white collar employees to select the trade union of their choice, and there are ways in which that can be done and that 43 per cent should be closer to what is the case in Sweden, which is about 90 per cent organized, and that is one of the goals of the New Democratic Party. Make no mistake about it. Yes, we believe the employees in places like Hudson's Bay and the chartered banks should be able to bargain collectively as other members of the community can, and we do not believe that this will lead to further strikes and industrial unrest, but it is one of the preconditions for sound planning of our economy prices and income policy.

In Canada today the house of labour is not only too small, but it is divided and fragmented with essential labour bodies largely powerless to guide or lead their affiliates. And big bodies, for example, like the Teamsters' Union are not in the B.C. Federation of Labour. They should be, and they will have to be in time. I don't know what the terms and conditions should be. They will have to be in the future, for the kind of bargaining that will have to take place in the future. Bodies like the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress should be encouraged by Government to enable them to speak for all trade unionists, and they should be given the power, if necessary by legislation, to settle jurisdictional problems between unions which often lead to strikes.

Labour should be encouraged to promote a labour bill of rights, to ensure that trade union members have a tribunal which can protect them in access to employment, fair hiring-halls practices, against excessive initiation fees — these are rare but these abuses can occur — and the right to run for union office in fair elections, to receive audited financial statements of union affairs, not to be suspended or expelled without proper trial and appeal, not to be denied due processing of their grievance. I know these abuses are rare, but trade unions today are more than private associations or clubs, they are semi-public bodies with an important role to play in the community. I believe that labour's image will be improved when the rights of union citizenship are protected and understood, and I think that 43 per cent can grow more easily when the rights of union citizenship are protected and understood.

If central labour bodies lack the necessary powers, and they are the proper place where this kind of a tribunal should be set up, labour should consider asking for such a labour bill of rights from the Legislature. I might give two or three examples, and though I have had a fair amount of labour experience, Mr. Speaker, I have found very few cases where unions have not acted in an honest and a democratic manner. But there are kind of tight situations that can come up, mostly out of the mainstream of the big trade unions of this Province, but they do happen.

I remember a case, for example, where a man went to run for president of his local union, and once he announced his candidacy and began to solicit signatures — maybe the Attorney-General knows this — he was immediately put suspended on some charges about what he had said in a blind pig in East Vancouver on the night of Friday the 13th, and the suspension and trial procedures carried on enough to prevent him winning the presidency. I know people, mostly young people, sometimes go into a hiring-hall or a union with the hiring rights, and they are waiting to go out on a job, and they want to see the list and who is eligible and where they stand on that list, and sometimes they are denied that, and that kind of a list should be posted where it can be seen. I had a case brought to my attention within the last ten days where a constituent of mine was really coerced into joining a company union and then, because she was bucking this union a little bit, the union itself procured her discharge. The president of the union said, "If you don't fire this person, I will go." Of course the boss was happy to oblige, and then the union, of course, refused to process the grievance. They have a collective agreement, but they denied her the right to process her grievance under the union contract. Now, I suppose you might sue if that was a big enough association, but it just wouldn't be worth while. Here was a case of her rights being dreadfully abused in a company-union type of situation.

With stronger labour federations, with employer associations and government participation, I believe my third point, that basic planning of production goals, wage gains, and prices, is possible. This, Mr. Speaker, is the middle way, and I use Mr. Justice Nemetz' phrase, "between the compulsion of Bill 33 and the unplanned grab-as-grab-can chaos we have today." Around the conference table the main signposts to a better life can be discussed and promoted with justice to all segments of the community. Such conferences, such prebargaining provincial and national conferences, not unlike the Swedish situation but adapted to our own country, will not eliminate strikes; indeed the strike must remain as a weapon of last resort in a free society, but it can immeasurably reduce mistrust and industrial conflict.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to my next subject which is, what I have portentously called, the Looming Hydro Challenge, because I am thinking about the next decade more than I am thinking about the 60's. I am thinking about where we go from here in the Province of British Columbia. I agree entirely with the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition, and last night by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. Which leader? We have all kinds of potential leadership material. But I am not, and this is personal with me I guess, I am not too interested any more in fighting the battle of the Columbia River. It is a little bit to me like a battle far ago. But there is a responsibility, in terms of so much flooding and so little generation, for the situation we are in today. You could have had more power for the money, Mr. Minister. But I am leaving it there.

I am talking about the next ten years in this speech, and the figures are staggering as to the power needs of the Province of British Columbia as we enter the period of the 1970's. This is the ticking time bomb, the load growth factor in the Province of British Columbia. Estimated a long time ago by the…. I know the Minister has referred to the growth rate in the past, but I look at this Budget Speech and I see no vision, no plans whatsoever for the 1970's, as if this Province had come to a stop in 1970. No, there is nothing there, there is no vision there, there is no planning going on to look after this thing. This Budget is the cautious, Mr. Speaker, the cautious, backward-looking Budget that is not going to electrify B.C. In the 1970's, and the ship of state in the Province of British Columbia is like a boat drifting down the two rivers and not thinking about the future. That Budget Speech was not, Mr. Speaker, vintage Bennett. Cautious and afraid, that's what it was.

Mr. Speaker, the blunt facts of the hydro crisis today are that the growth rate which the B.C. Energy Board a long time ago predicted to be 6.4 per cent has run in the last year — this is the generating capacity of the Province of British Columbia

[ Page 372 ]

— at 10 to 11 per cent. Now those figures are not quite right, because the Hydro figure — the increase in demand in the last year was 11 per cent, but there are fairly stable chunks of power coming into the market from Cominco and Alcan which don't show any significant growth, so Hydro's growth rate is higher. But the facts of the situation, the staggering facts, Mr. Speaker, are that in the period of seven years we are going to have to double the electrical generating capacity of the Province of British Columbia. Our present electrical capacity, our present electrical capacity, Mr. Speaker, is 5,082,000 kilowatts, 5,082,000 kilowatts. Our load growth factor is eight or nine per cent, and it's not going to be less in the future, and that means that we are going to have more than 10 or 11 million kilowatts of capacity in the next seven years. What have we got on line? We have on line in the Peace River another five generators to come in, a little more than 1,000,000 kilowatts and on Mica Creek we have 2,000,000 to come in, in 1977,. and yet this Budget that we're discussing, the Premier's speech that we're discussing, has no plans to meet the challenge of the 70's.

In the Province of British Columbia power consumption, of course, has grown fantastically, Mr. Speaker, from the days of the early coal miner who would use a sluice box and little water power that way and a bit of wood to make his fire. But the growth in electrical capacity in this Province is predicted by a graph which I have obtained from the speech of Charlie Nash and was made a long time ago, and its predictions are conservative, but not too far out. He predicts in 1970, that the kilowatts per capita used by each individual would be about two, and by the year 2,000, 5.6, an increase of threefold. That is the use by individuals of electricity which is, of course, increasing as you electrify the kitchen and use the energy and as the great pulp mills and other power consuming industries come on line. The population of the Province, Mr. Speaker, is going up in a steady curve. We are about 2,000,000 now and we are going to be about 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 in the year 2,000, which is only 30 years away.

This is the measure of the power challenge, the necessity of finding perhaps 50,000,000 in generating kilowatts, in generating capacity, in 30 years. That's the magnitude of the challenge which this Government seems unable to face up to or even discuss.

The question remains as to how you generate that power, thermal or hydro? I think that we are entering the years, maybe another 15 or 20 years, Mr. Speaker, which will be the last kick for hydro power, water power, because the nuclear thing is coming, and yet water power is British Columbia's second greatest wealth-producing asset, after the forests it is our second richest resource. The other materials we burn to make power — gas and coal and oil — the time will come, Mr. Speaker, when our great-grandchildren will look back at us and say that we actually used to burn coal instead of making materials out of it — plastics, nylons, panties, and pants and things of that kind. We burn it and we pollute the atmosphere, and we burn gas to make electricity, and in these years when water power is competitive we should develop the hydro-electric resources of the Province of British Columbia. That way we are being fairer to, mother earth.

I'm talking, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking to these Government benches over here, because I have never in my life, I have never in my life read a Budget Speech that was so bankrupt of ideas or planning in the face of this challenge that I'm describing to you, never. The dynamo has run down, my friends, the dynamo has run down, and we will have to plan, we will have to plan now, because the decisions we make will affect the lives of our children and great-grandchildren for perhaps 100 years. We have to plan now, and I think there should be plans, there should be the planning and the water surveys, Mr. Speaker, which we don't find.

Where is the extra power coming from? You can create a little more down the Peace River below the dam toward Fort St. John, but that's just a drop in the bucket. There is the Liard River. The Liard River is right up near the boundary, right up near the boundary, and the Liard River is perhaps the third greatest hydro-electric power producing potential river in the Province of British Columbia. I know the factors that have to be balanced, and that's a job for the planning engineers — the cost of hydro-electric as compared to coal or gas, the cost of transmission, the disadvantages of thermal, which are pollution, rising costs of fuel, shorter life for the plant itself.

I say that the time has come for planning and I have no hesitation in saying that the Government should, at this Session, bring down water surveys with respect to the Liard River, its power and water potential, because in my opinion that's the place where the next development can and should take place. With the development of the Liard River it may very well be possible, Mr. Speaker, in spite of these scoffers opposite, these little British Columbians, in spite of these little British Columbians, it may well be possible that extra water from that river system can come down south to the parched lands of the Okanagan — the Minister of Agriculture should be interested in this — can come down to the parched lands for agriculture or other purposes down to the line of the Rocky Mountain Trench.

But I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has lost its vision, has lost its vision, it has lost its ability to face up to the challenge of the 1970's in terms of the jobs and the energy resources that we need, and in face of these staggering hydro figures which I think I've given to the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by discussing — and I don't think I've been as long as the Lady Minister without her Portfolio — but I want to conclude my remarks by discussing B.C. Hydro transit rates. This is something which may seem like a small topic to the honourable members opposite, but it is a matter of great significance to the people of the Province of British Columbia. The rate structure of Hydro is something that affects many fields, including the field of pollution, including matters of pollution, including the congestion of our city streets, the well-being of our people. Dr. Gordon Shrum has said, Mr. Speaker, that transit rates will have to go up this year because we are losing money.

MR. D. E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be seated. What is your point of order?

MR. SMITH: In yesterday's debate I was ruled out of order when I attempted to speak about transit rates, B.C. Hydro transit rates in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You voted yourself out of order.

MR. SMITH: I was ruled out of order yesterday. If it was out of order yesterday, I would think it would be out of

[ Page 373 ]

order today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is quite correct. I was just waiting to see what line the member was trying to develop, and I must remind him not to….

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech in this Assembly will not be abridged over my body.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, just one moment. Will the member be seated.

MR. MACDONALD: I am no John Hampton, Mr. Speaker, but I know when a right is at stake.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be seated.

MR. MACDONALD: I have no intention, I have no intention of desisting from replying to the Premier's speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be seated. The member knows full well that there are rights of members and there are also rights of the Assembly, and there are rules of the Assembly as well. There are three counts on which the member knows full well that he is out of order on discussing the matters he is attempting to discuss. The first count is the Motion on the Order Paper, No. 3. The second count is the decision of this House yesterday, and the third count is Bill No. 9 on the Order Paper. The member knows the ruling, and I ask the honourable member as an honourable member to conform to the rules of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of discussing Bill No. 9, but I want to draw to your attention a passage from May, as to whether this Resolution No. 3, a resolution by a private member, is to be allowed to throttle discussion in this House when one member, the Premier of this Province, has already spoken on the matter.

On page 404 of May (16th edition), it reads, "In determining, however, whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time. The reference of a matter to a select committee does not prevent the consideration of the same matter by the House."

And the other quotation, in 1918, the Speaker of the British House of Commons, "Gentlemen ought to raise this matter, gentlemen ought to raise this matter, I do not think that the right honourable gentlemen ought to raise this matter and another honourable gentleman prevent any reply." And that's our situation.

So I intend to proceed, Mr. Speaker. All that thing did was say whether a matter should be discussed in committee or in this House. It's just ridiculous to say that such a resolution can throttle this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member made reference to certain precedents, and I think if he will read them carefully he will find that they refer to matters before a committee. When a matter is before a committee it does not preclude discussing a subject, but it does preclude discussing evidence before that committee. As I pointed out to the member before, on three counts there is a ruling in this House, and I ask him to comply to that ruling as there will be ample opportunity to discuss these matters. The matter has been given considerable consideration by the Chair. The matter that the member raised on the question of a reasonable time is perhaps a valid question to raise. However, at this time I must rule that the member is out of order in this discussion.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I respect your office, but there is a matter of high principle involved here and I intend to proceed with my remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment then. If the member intends to defy…. Will the member just hold one moment.

MR. MACDONALD: Shall I continue, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, just wait one moment.

MR. D. BARRETT: We want freedom of speech in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The members must remember that I was not in the Chair when the Premier spoke. The issue is being raised. I am asking the Speaker to take the Chair, and you can deal with the matter then.

MR. MACDONALD: May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm asking you to hold for a few moments.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, may I say in that respect, that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds said that the point should be brought to the attention of the Chair that the Premier was nowhere checked from discussing hydro rates and capitalization in his speech by the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I just mentioned to the member that I was not in the Chair when the Premier was speaking, and therefore I am asking the Speaker to return to the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter of the transit rates of the Hydro Company is not just a matter of whether this or that person will pay a little more out of his income. I think it's a matter that spreads out and affects the whole matter of traffic congestion in the big areas of this Province, the matters of pollution. Now, Gordon Shrum has said that the B.C. Hydro, unless they get a rate increase this year, will lose in 1969 to '70, $2,800,000, and he claims….

MR. SPEAKER: I must call the member to order on the basis of the point of order that was raised in the House yesterday, and which appears in the Votes and Proceedings that were on the members' desks this morning. I refer him as well, of course, to the anticipation rule with which I am certain he is familiar.

MR. MACDONALD: I have been reading extracts about it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, and I'm certain also that he is aware of an amendment to the British Columbia Hydro Authority Act which was placed on the Order Paper subsequent to the time that the Budget Speech was read.

[ Page 374 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't intend to discuss that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In view of the ruling of the House yesterday, then the member must observe the rule that has been adopted by the House.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, there's a matter of principle involved here and I'm prepared to stand or fall on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I must order the member to be seated.

MR. MACDONALD: All right.

MR. L. T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Order please. Would the member be seated while the point of order is raised.

MR. NIMSICK: I wonder if you'll allow debate when the Bill is reached on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 9, yes.

MR. NIMSICK: Bill No.9, and also the resolution, which is a key resolution that has prevented discussion of the Hydro question. Now there is an indication Resolution No. 3 won't come up till the end of the Session. Now when the Hydro Bill comes up, is the resolution then going to veto discussing the Hydro rates?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the answer is no. A Bill takes precedence over a resolution, and as such we can discuss the Bill at liberty.

MR. NIMSICK: But the Motion that was passed yesterday would holdover the Bill, I’d say, the same as the others. .

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Bill takes precedence over any motion.

MR. NIMSICK: The point at issue right now, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the Honourable the Premier, when he made his Budget Speech, discussed this question. He wasn't called to order, and now it's been thrown out and nobody can reply to him. I doubt whether that's according to the intended rules of a Parliament such as ours.

MR. SPEAKER: It may be somewhat unfortunate that the resolution appeared on the Order Paper at the time it did. Certainly it prohibits, a certain amount of discussion on the subject matter that's being raised, by the 'honourable member at the moment. The facts of life are that the resolution is on the Order Paper, that discussion of the matter does violate the anticipation rule and I must request the honourable member to observe the rule that was adopted by the House yesterday.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we've never had that ruling set out in the Journals of the House clarified as to why the Premier, for example, was allowed to speak on this matter and we, the Opposition, not allowed to reply on the same matter. If that's the situation, that's something that I can't abide with. I can't accept the ruling of the Chair in that respect, because I think I would be instrumental in whittling away the rights of a free Assembly. I don't accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me simply point out to the member that the ruling is not mine. This is a ruling of the Assembly itself that was made yesterday, and this is the ruling I am asking members to observe.

AN HON. MEMBER: By the Government majority.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. Regardless of what majority it was, the facts of life are that this Assembly — a minority of this Assembly — confirmed a ruling made by the Chair, and the House must abide by that ruling. I have no alternative, nor can I overrule this House at any time. So I must ask the honourable member to observe the rules as he knows them, and to refrain from discussing the matter of British Columbia Hydro rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Steamroller majority.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. MACDONALD: I can't accept that, Mr. Speaker. I can't accept that in justice to the people who elected me. They asked me to come here and represent them. I intend to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is not going to be denied an opportunity of discussing hydro rates at the proper time.

MR. MACDONALD: I want the same opportunity the Premier had.

MR. SPEAKER: I simply point out to the honourable member once again, and to all honourable members, that this House adopted a resolution yesterday which binds this House, and binds this Chair, and binds the member on his feet at the moment, to observe that rule, and I must insist that he does so. Otherwise, his speech is over.

MR. MACDONALD: Have you ordered me to take my seat, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: If you continue with B.C. Hydro rates, I have no alternative, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: I intend to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: If you have further intention to proceed, I must order you to take your place.

MR. MACDONALD: I do so under protest, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a curtailment of….

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, we have too many people on their feet at once.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think it's a curtailment of the rights of a member, but I take my seat, under protest.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the

[ Page 375 ]

Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the decision of the House, the member has taken a position based on honour and tradition. He has pointed out to the House that the rights of one member cannot be abridged when they have clearly been given to one member and denied to another member, Mr. Speaker.

It is possible for this House to be in error. It is that honourable member's opinion that the House was in error yesterday, causing no reflection on the Speaker whatsoever, but possibly a lack of understanding by every member in this House as to the exact nature of what they were voting on yesterday. I respect the honourable member for his calm adherence to principle and his right to speak and I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, as a point of order, that the Government with its overwhelming majority rescind this motion of yesterday and allow the Speaker to make the decisions — not the Government majority.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Attorney-General — are you speaking to a point of order?

HON. L. R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Yes, Mr. Speaker. It's not the wish of the Government that any member of the Assembly be denied the opportunity to discuss hydro rates at length or bus rates or any other rates that they wish to discuss at the appropriate time. As a matter of fact, the leader of the Liberal party could very easily allow this to happen during the course of this particular debate now, by withdrawing the motion that's before the House, but certainly as far as the Government is concerned, we intend to support the Speaker's rule.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P. L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the point that was raised by the first member for Vancouver East was that he, as a member of this Assembly, was not being accorded equal privileges as a member to raise questions in debate which had been given to the Government Leader during his Budget Address. Were I to withdraw that motion, I would be giving opportunities to other members that had been denied some members of this House who had already spoken during this debate, but had been permitted to the Premier of this Province, and, Mr. Speaker, it was not because this matter had not been drawn to your attention. May I point out that both yourself and the Deputy Speaker had called other members to order, not on the prompting of a member of the Assembly, but on your own advice, and this, to me, is not complete impartiality in the Speaker's Chair, and this is what we demand.

If the Government wants to clear its conscience from the actions of yesterday in arbitrarily giving to itself powers that it would not give to other members of this House, then let the Government call that motion and let's have the debate today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Social Welfare.

HON. P. A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I only want to detain the House for a few minutes. I don't wish to speak at any kind of length today. Am I permitted, Mr. Speaker, to speak for just a moment on what went on now?

MR. SPEAKER: The answer is no.

MR. GAGLARDI: As long as I know which direction I'm going in, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to comment, for just a moment or two, on some of the speeches that the Opposition have made in the last little while on the floor of the House. We've seen a complete turn-around in the power policy that's been enunciated by the last speaker just a few moments ago. A few years ago on the floor of this House, for the members that weren't here on previous occasions, the members opposite were constantly asking us where we were going to sell all the power that we were generating. They were asking us about the two river policy in the Kootenay, and the member from Burnaby suggested that we should defer all of these things until 1984, because they could see no way for us ever being able to utilize the amount of power that we were generating.

They constantly have been against flooding certain areas in the Province with these dams that they call useless dams, and now today we hear the speaker enunciate a new policy from the N.D.P. party. Of course they have a new one every day. But a new policy from the N.D.P. party suggesting to us now that we have no plans for the future, and I imagine you must have been reading or just catching up on your reading of the plans of 10 or 12 years ago, but if you'd just listen to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and hear a few of his speeches, and listened to him last year, you'd find that we have ample plans for all the necessary power for the Province of British Columbia for the future, and for the continued future, and this Government will be there to put them in power.

Yesterday on the floor of the House we listened to the last Leader, or the former Leader of the Opposition, and I must commend him on his ability to be able to enunciate the different things that he believes in. But I think it is well known that I'm a bit restless about the length of speeches in the House and the time that it takes, and so on. I think everybody knows that I am a little bit in a hurry. But I don't know of any time in our history when I think more time was wasted in useless commentary than what was wasted here yesterday, in perhaps the most outstanding twist that was put to the whole of the Budget, in yesterday's speech by the former Leader of the Opposition, the member from Cowichan-Malahat. At no time was there one constructive word that emanated from that individual's mouth in connection with the Budget, and of all the nit-picking you ever saw, instead of looking at the Budget to see what it actually does, but working through the entire Budget and picking out individual areas to try and make a specific case. I don't know of anything that could be more devastating to even the intelligence of the individual that enunciates that kind of a policy.

The next speaker that followed him, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I think gave the most outstanding speech I've ever heard him give on the floor of the House. I think he enunciated a powerful policy, a straightforward policy, and I think he set forth a policy as far as our treatment of the Federal Government and so on, in a more terrific manner than I've ever heard on the floor of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, today for just a few minutes — I want to give the member from Haney all kinds of time to speak his piece — but I only want to take a few moments. Incidentally,

[ Page 376 ]

the Premier is going to be turning very, very soon down to Ottawa in a Conference and I would suggest Mr. Premier, that when you walk into that Conference you walk in tall — humble as you always do — but tall and proud because of being capable of producing consistently now, I think it's 18 Budgets year after year, with an increase to the service to the people of the Province of British Columbia, a type of Budget that I believe has been today one of the outstanding marks of distinction of any man in the role of Minister of Finance in this entire nation. If I want to be able to get some advice on any given problem, I am not going to an individual who says that he knows the answer, I want to talk to the individual who has walked that road, defeated that problem, and has been able to overcome the difficulties. He's had the experience, he knows what he's doing, and that's the kind of a fellow I like to get advice from.

Now, Mr. Premier, when you go to Ottawa, this nation is in trouble from a financial point of view and in difficulty with one of the greatest difficulties of inflation. I'd suggest to the members in Ottawa and throughout the other provinces that they ask the advice of a man who has proven ability of being able to accomplish a fantastic situation and bring about a type of Budget with 2,000,000 people that perhaps is the greatest of any in the entire free world. It would be your advice that I would be asking for if I were a Minister looking for some kind of a way out of the dilemma that the nation finds itself in today.

I want you to look at one side of the Budget that's never been presented on the floor of this House heretofore. If you were to join the Department of Health with the Department of Social Services I think you would come up with around $450,000,000, and then add to that the Department of Education, $365,000,000. You come up with approximately 80 per cent of the entire Budget in the Province of British Columbia allocated in services to people. This is the people's Budget. This is a humanitarian Budget. And this is a Budget that will provide for the people of this Province perhaps greater services than they have ever received heretofore and, Mr. Minister of Finance, this is one of the greatest leaps forward in the 70's for mankind in the Province of British Columbia, for here is a Budget that provides approximately 80 per cent of its entirety in services to the people of British Columbia.

Now, for just a moment or two I want to talk about the change in policy and direction in the Department of which I am part of.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's already in the paper.

MR. GAGLARDI: Well, there is nothing wrong with that. I have enunciated it to the paper boys, and so there is nothing wrong with that. I have enunciated it many, many times, to many organizations, to industrialists, to newspapermen, to working men, to municipalities. I have asked them for their advice and I have suggested to them the policy that I was going to try and bring about, with the concurrence of the Premier of the Province, and everyone of them said this is what they have been looking for a long, long time. So there is nothing wrong with it being in the paper. After all, there aren't very many papers going to be published and so I don't imagine it will get too far in the paper. But, maybe I can go on television, if you will pay for it, and maybe tell the people what is going to go on.

Now, a short time ago, in conference with the Premier, and then later with Council, we decided that the Department should be changed from the Department of Welfare to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. Now, it is more than just a change in the name, it is a change of policy.

The old system of handing out welfare, I believe, is perhaps as old as time. I don't know that there has been any change, really, in the fundamental policy of welfare in all the years that I have been in Government, or in all the years previous. So maybe for 50 years or 100 years or as long as welfare has been practised, the policy has always been to hand people money when they come for aid, and more or less tell them to go away. Not necessarily in those terms but in that sort of attitude. That's been the general attitude of providing people money. Now, in the United States of America this has caused tremendous difficulties. Watts was one example where people were provided anything else, and fermented trouble.

When you hand an individual who is capable of working, when you hand him money six times in succession and he has lost all his dignity and he has lost his pride, he has lost his drive, he has lost his initiative, and from then on he becomes more or less a digit and he doesn't feel. He has learned a new way of life and then, instead of feeling ashamed, he merely goes to the wicket and demands more and more and more, because he has been presented with a new way of life, and government has aided and abetted in that very thing.

Now, we feel that the policy should be changed, and we want to change it and do everything we can to make it the best policy within the framework that we are able to work in, that is laid out by the Federal Government as well as the provincial governments. So what we want to try and do is highlight the entire programme by rehabilitation, and rehabilitation is just a highfaluting word for utilization of human resources or the utilization of the talents of individuals.

Now, what we want to do is to be able to find out the talents of every individual who comes in and applies for aid from the Government. The moment an individual comes in to apply for help from the Government, the Government will hand him a questionnaire and find out exactly what that individual is suited for. Every individual that applies is going to be placed in a category. If he is in a category of employment, and if he is an able-bodied individual, the desire of the Department will be, when finding out the type of employment he is capable of, by placing him in a category, to find the shortest route to getting him back in a job, that it is humanly possible to do so.

We are asking for the aid of all of the industrialists, we are asking for the aid of all of society. We can't do this job alone. It isn't just a Government proposition. We want the aid of all the municipalities, we want the aid of all leaders, we want the aid and the help and the understanding of all people, and I am sure that we will get it.

In so doing, certainly we are not going to be able to find jobs for all the people at the same time. Those who must be kept in hold for a time, until we can find them a job, will be looked after on a proper basis. But the whole objective is going to be from now on, and we are starting a couple of pilot programmes in a very short time, the whole objective will be, the moment that anybody comes in to apply, not just to say to him, "Here is some money. Go away," but to say to him, "What are your talents? What work are you capable of doing?" We, the Government, are going to say, "We are interested in you as an individual." Happiness is my talents being used to the best of my ability in aid of everybody that

[ Page 377 ]

I come in contact with, and I believe that that is why we are here, and that is what we are created for.

We are going to try, with the grace of God, to utilize every talent of every useful individual that we possibly can in some area of work in the Province of British Columbia. Now the objective will be, as I have already stated, not just to say, "Go away. Here's some money. Go away," but, "We want to help you. We are a Government with a heart, individuals with a purpose, and we want to try and aid you in every way possible."

Now that is for those who are, let's say, in the category of able-bodied individuals. Some of them, of course, will have to be retrained. We want to retrain them. We will send many to vocational school. The young people that have dropped out from schools we will send also to vocational schools. The individuals, whether they are men or women, whatever category they fit into, we want to use the shortest route possible to get them back into a field of activity where their dignity is maintained, where they are producing, and where they are contributing to the human need instead of merely being recipients, and we feel that this is the proper purpose and the utilization of human beings.

For every individual, whether it is a child or whether it is a mother, or whether it is a paraplegic, or whether it is a sick individual, whoever it is, will be placed in a category. Every category will be only for the purpose of finding out the talents of each particular category. If it is a mother with children, we don't want that mother to feel ashamed that she has to receive welfare because her husband has left, or her husband has passed on, or there is some difficulty. We want that woman to feel proud that she has five children and they are the future resources of this Province. Some of those children, they may be leaders, they may be prime ministers, they may be doctors, they may be lawyers, we want to see that they get a proper education. We'll follow them through school, give them every opportunity, and then when they come of age we want them being taken care of and put in to the proper stream of employment, and fulfill their obligations in life exactly the same as anybody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Comment not decipherable)

MR. GAGLARDI: As far as I am concerned, anything I say I mean, and I stand behind anything I say, and I am not hurting any individual. I have never tried to hurt any individual, and if you want to follow my record from 35 years of public service in the Province of British Columbia, I am a champion of helping people and not hurting them. When you have got that kind of a record you can shout at me. Certainly you walked out, because you can pitch but you can't catch. That is the trouble with you. Good-bye.

Now most people who fall into the category of the paraplegic, incidentally…. I beg your pardon? I said he could pitch but he can't catch. Do you want to write it down with your ballpoint? What we would like to try and do, and I imagine when you go back home, if this policy is acceptable to you, you will tell them that yours truly suggested it on the floor of the House. Sure as shootin'.

I want to get through here quickly, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing that we want to try and do — for instance, the retarded, the paraplegic, and so on, these people are useful people. We don't want them to be outcasts. We want to utilize their talents. Now we have a school in Vancouver, such as Varco, and we are training a lot of them there. I am told that there is no backlog, and, as soon as they can be trained properly they can be put into different areas in industry. The paraplegic, if the paraplegic can be utilized, and many of them are, can be used in offices for different jobs and so on, but supposing the contribution that they make is not commensurate with the amount of money that is needed for them to have a fair wage? I think then the Government would be prepared, and we are asking my Department to look into this and see that it is a participation programme where we can augment what the individual is able to earn, so that he is properly taken care of and gets a proper wage.

We would like also to be able to increase the amount of money that an individual — that he gets now, yes — but what we want to do is to elevate or to increase the amount of money that a recipient on welfare is able to earn without there being any noticeable deductions. Because, after all, the objective is going to be get them back into the stream of work, and if they can work part-time and make a little bit of money for themselves, we don't want to have to take it away from them. We want to continue to encourage them until they can fulfil their entire time of working and make their own way, and then we won't have to look after them on welfare, they will take care of themselves. That's right, and restore their confidence, their abilities, and their dignity.

Now, the alcoholic, he too will be categorized, as well as the dope addict, and also the individual that has spent some time in prison and needs to be rehabilitated. All of these individuals will be placed in a category. Now it is useless for the Government to be giving money to a man that is an alcoholic or a dope addict — that is of no consequence to him — in fact, that is aiding and abetting his habit. What we are interested in doing is helping out these half-way houses, A.A's, different organizations that can rehabilitate those particular individuals in that category. We will give them all the cooperation and the help because we haven't got all the answers. But the A.A's are one of the great organizations, better equipped to look after the alcoholic than any other single individual.

We want to enlist the services of A.A. in any way and every way we possibly can, the Salvation Army, the Catholic agencies, and all other agencies. We want the community to help us out. This has to be a total involvement of all people, because here is a necessary segment of society that must be looked after or we are going to be in serious trouble in the near future, worse than the United States of America, if we don't look after them.

Now the entire programme is going to be to elevate humanity and to try and dignify them. When a person comes in, he is not going to come in asking for aid, he is going to come in proudly and say, "Can you find something for me to do?" We feel that this kind of a policy, that I think you have to give a tremendous amount of — one thing about the Premier is his ability to be able to grasp a situation and know when it is time to be able to implement something. In the past I am sure that every Minister in this Department has done his job and done it well, but we felt it was time for a change. It is a new change. It is a new departure. It is an entire change from a psychological point of view. We want to elevate humanity instead of deteriorating them. We want to do our best to make everybody proud that he belongs to the Province of British Columbia. We want to fit him in, and make him a worthwhile individual within the borders of the Province. And so, members of the House, though there are all kinds of things to explain, I think I have said enough, I don't want to take up any more of your time, but I pray that the policy will be accepted by the public of the Province as well

[ Page 378 ]

as by the Government, and that we can progress with it and start to utilize every individual that God created. Thank you.

On the motion of the Honourable C.M. Shelford, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the house.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to "Public Bills and Orders."

Second reading of Bill No. 3, An Act to Amend the Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 3. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Minister of Finance): Second reading of Bill No. 3, An Act to Amend the Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act.

The Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act provides financial assistance to municipalities for the construction of pollution treatment plants, with the Province paying 75 per cent of the annual cost of borrowing in excess of the amount raised by a two mill levy on the property in the municipality. The Act presently requires the amortization of the borrowing over a 25-year period. The amendment proposes to reduce this period to 20 years, to facilitate borrowing by local governments in the market place.

This amendment has been asked by the municipalities themselves and the Government is glad to cooperate with the municipalities and, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?

The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J. G. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, with reference to this Bill, I certainly believe that it is an improvement. This amendment certainly cuts down the amount of the interest rate, or at least the time for the interest from 25 years to 20 years, a reduction of five years. However, I feel that this is not really the answer to giving assistance to municipalities with reference to the treatment centres or treatment plants. A two mill levy in the larger areas of the Province will accumulate a great amount of money, and much more than is necessary, more than the interest which will come about over a 20-year period. Now what I am suggesting is that there will be no assistance to the larger centres of the Province from the Provincial Government under this scheme. There might be some assistance to some of the smaller towns in the Province, which is a help, but I would suggest that the Government should consider extending this and changing the formula in order that assistance can be given to the large expense required in the lower mainland and in the Victoria area.

MR. SPEAKER: The First Member for Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in making a contribution to this particular Bill, I can only express on behalf of our party, our conviction that nothing less than an outright grant from the Provincial Government to cities and municipalities all over British Columbia, to the extent of 50 per cent of primary. treatment plants, 75 per cent of secondary treatment plants, and 90 per cent of the capital cost of tertiary treatment plants, is going to get us out of the impossible and disgraceful situation where we pour raw sewage into lakes, rivers, oceans and waterways all around our Province.

Repeatedly we have called for the Provincial Government to use the vast funds it is hoarding in its treasury to take care of the prime essentials of life in British Columbia, and surely to goodness cleaning up after our own human waste must rate very high in simple fundamental cleanliness, and as long as the Provincial Government is unwilling to pay for cleanliness in British Columbia, and yet remain the prime taxing power and the prime raiser of funds for public projects in British Columbia, we are going to remain an unclean Province. This lack of cleanliness in British Columbia can be traced right back to Bills such as this one here, which means that the Provincial Government is unwilling to provide financing, when only the Provincial Government has the means to do that.

I talked to people all over British Columbia about this problem and there is universal willingness to spend money and to have this job done properly. But where is the problem? Is it with the Minister of Health? Is it with municipal government? The problem is with the Minister of Finance in this Province and his inadequate legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, last year when this Act was first brought in, and the 25-year limit or minimum was placed on it, that the Government would assist if the financing was done over a period of 25 years, this particularly hit the City of Kimberley which had put in a sewage disposal plant. It was just opened this last summer, but they were denied the right to apply, or they were denied any assistance due to the fact that they were on the 20-year basis. Now, when the honourable the Minister closes the debate, maybe he will be kind enough to answer me as to whether this would take care of the situation in Kimberley, because if it doesn't, I think it is a discrimination against the municipality. Because they had the foresight enough to go ahead when they were asked to, to clean up the sewage problem, and then to be penalized would not be right. I'm thinking that this Act probably will correct this situation, if the sewage plant was not completed until 1969 after the Bill was passed last year, but the 25 years deprived them of that right, and I hope the honourable the Minister would let me know as to whether it takes care of the situation in Kimberley, so that they can apply for assistance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS: Mr. Speaker, it has been my experience that some of the municipalities are in doubt as to what type of treatment plant this assistance applies to. I think it is amply obvious that in most cases, at least if not in all cases, primary treatment is unsatisfactory, because it does not eliminate the objectionable aspect of sewage. I think that for that reason it would be important that the Minister of Finance make it clear that this assistance is available to municipalities for whatever type of treatment plant they wish to install, whether it be primary, secondary or tertiary. I don't think anything less than secondary should be permitted in this Province, and I think that it would be of some help if it was made clear that it was applied to whatever the municipality wished to install.

I noted in my own case, the case of Richmond, we will have conflicting reports from the various departments who are concerned with pollution, and we have never been able to find out for sure whether it could apply to a secondary

[ Page 379 ]

treatment plant for which the Richmond Anti-Pollution Association has been pressing for the past one and a half or two years. I am satisfied that the taxpayers of Richmond are prepared to pay for a secondary treatment plant in order to do their share to preserve their environment, and I think that it's important that it be made clear beyond any doubt that the assistance would be applicable to a secondary treatment plant or better.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when the Bill, which this Bill is designed to amend, was introduced last year, it was obvious to anyone who was familiar with even the possibility of municipal financing, that the Bill would not work. It was useless because there was, under no stretch of the imagination, any municipal financing which was available for 25 years and the honourable the Minister of Finance was aware of that when he brought in that Bill. Now this may be an improvement, provided that the Minister of Finance is prepared to indicate to those municipalities which may take advantage of this Bill, that the Government will extend the guarantees which are essential in order to obtain the financing.

But there is another very serious shortcoming in the whole statute which this Bill is designed to amend, as it doesn't extend the same privilege to those areas of our Province, which today are becoming heavily populated, which are in need of treatment facilities, but which do not qualify as being municipal organizations.

The Director of Pollution Control, on Wednesday of this week, held a hearing in Squamish to consider the impact of increasing population upon the Squamish Valley and the lands lying north through Cheakamus Canyon and the Alta Lake-Green Lake area of this Province. We have a tremendous population and a serious pollution problem with respect to those fresh water lakes and rivers because of increased homes in the area. The result of which is that the area around Whistler Mountain, the Whistler Mountain Water Works Organization, has submitted a plan, and a request for a permit under the Pollution Control Act to build a sewage system, and they are prepared to finance it themselves.

But at the same time the Regional District has submitted an application for a pollution permit. Mr. Minister, the Regional District doesn't qualify for the aid under this Bill, and if it did qualify it couldn't raise the bonds, either 25 years or 20 years. Unless we have, in addition to a financing formula which is contained in the Act, a real substantial grant to the Regional District to enable this to be done, then the pollution problem at Alta Lake, Green Lake, Cheakamus River, Daisy Lake, and throughout that whole area which is one day, we hope, to become the centre of world attention when the Olympics come here, is going to be lost in a sea of pollution. We're going to destroy that river system. We'll either destroy that river system or we'll grant aid, and this Bill does neither.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE: Mr. Speaker, the Bill in principle is doing a good job, and it may be difficult to meet the obligation, as some members have indicated, because of the bond market, but I want to relate this problem to what we have done in respect to housing, which necessitates municipalities or areas getting into the sewage business.

Because of our interest in the habitation of our people, getting them into homes, we have created a situation that the municipalities cannot cope with, which I think is not an indictment against the Government. It's certainly a compliment to the fact that housing has been inspired because of our legislation, and in that legislation which gives us the opportunity to give a direct grant to the housing householder, the new home-owner, and also maybe the old home-owner, but I'm speaking specifically now of the increase in population of houses, that this grant should be followed, in example, in the municipality.

I'm suggesting maybe, although this legislation goes partway, that we could give a returnable loan, with no interest for probably three years, and then the municipalities could get on to the business of a revolving loan being paid back, and other municipalities taking advantage of it. If it's good enough for the householders, Mr. Speaker, I think it's good enough also to see that the householders are able to be on satisfactory sanitation programmes.

I can see no method in which the Central Saanich municipality, which had a near miss there on a by-law just recently, and it will be going to the people again, that this will really help the people out, because the 25 per cent, the velocity of return in going to a 20-year programme will increase the 25 per cent participation, too. It will speed up the return programme, and the mill-rate will have to go up to accommodate the larger portion of the 25 per cent over a 20-year, instead of the 25 years. Even though the Government picks up the lion share, a larger share by the increased shortening of the time of repayment. You just figure it out on your own mortgage payments, and you will see the same thing happens.

But I would like to see also in compatibility to this Bill, something done about the majority that is needed to pass it. We can bring in all the good legislation we want, and if we've got to have 60 per cent to approve it, we're still not going to get approval and get the houses served. I think we need to consider amending other legislation and make this compatible to the 51 per cent simple majority if that's necessary, and then the axe can come into play and we can start to see what kind of results we can get from this legislation. But in the meantime, it takes a too large a majority to get it in operation, and I would suggest that this will lay idle again unless we can get the approval of about a simple majority in the municipality.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think in this House it would be unanimous that the day has long gone when we can allow the dumping of raw sewage into any of our waterways anywhere in the Province of British Columbia. This particular amendment, added to the legislation of last year is, in my opinion, still inadequate legislation.

As the Minister of Municipalities well knows, when he first proposed Regional Districts in this Province I supported the formation of Regional Districts unequivocally, and on occasion, when your assistants were in my constituency attending some meetings that tended to become pretty noisy, and I thought unfair to the civil servants, I had no compunction about getting up and defending them, and defending the position that they were taking. At the same time, I pointed out to the people that this reorganization in our Province was a very necessary put of preparing for the

[ Page 380 ]

future of this Province. I also told them that part of this reorganization would require a reallocation and a restructuring of financial relationship between the Province and the various municipal authorities. The member from Saanich has just outlined to us one of the problems that we face in utilizing machinery to prevent the dumping of raw sewage into our waterways.

I am terribly disappointed that in this last 12 months, two of the major communities on Vancouver Island have sought the cheapest way out by simply extending their lines further out into the sea in order to dump their raw sewage, rather than going through a treatment plant. This, I think, is a very short-sighted policy, but it's an indication of the problem the members spoke of, getting by-laws passed by people, and I suggest that merely reducing it to a 50 per cent majority will not allow the intent of this legislation to come to fruition, because of the number of forces that are operating in a society.

When I supported Regional Districts and said it required a restructuring of the financial relationship between the Province and the municipalities, I warned the people then that unless this restructuring took place, the people would find themselves two-milled to death, because every time we turn around, because of this failure of the Government to restructure the financial relationship, we find projects being sold to the people on an individual basis. Well, we need a school referendum — it's only going to cost two mills, you've got to support it, so you support a two-mill referendum. We need an addition to the hospital — it's only going to cost two mills, so we support it as a hospital referendum. We need a new college — it's only going to cost two mills, so we support a college referendum. We need a recreational facility — it's only going to cost two mills, so we support the recreational referendum.

Mr. Speaker, when this legislation was first proposed, I suggested that, if it was going to be really successful, the Provincial Government would have to accept a much larger share of the financial responsibility in the provision of municipal treatment plants than it indicated in the legislation. This simple amendment, while it may make money easier for the municipalities to borrow, and it may reflect with more realism the life expectancy of the plant because of the expansion that we expect in this Province in the matter of numbers in the next 20 to 30 years, nevertheless, something much more than this simple amendment is required if we're going to satisfy the needs of the people in the matter of the treatment of sewage plants. Simply extending the sewage outfalls further into the water will continue unless there's more changes made to this legislation than this simple proposal to make it easier for a municipality to borrow money.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.S. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this Bill does not really go far enough in principle to meet the needs of the 1970's. We've heard the Minister of Health talking to the municipalities about their obligations to clean up the problem of pollution of the waterways and to go into the field of proper sewage disposal and treatment. But as the honourable member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound pointed out, the problem in a place like Squamish is not s solved by simply putting an amendment to a Statute that was passed that really did not offer solutions to the local responsibility, when they haven't got the means to raise the money, when they haven't got the structure developed to go ahead on a financing programme and, with the bond market in the situation it is today, without any assistance, or backing, or support from the Provincial Government.

The Premier, as Minister of Finance, from time to time has indicated that he is holding the brakes on foreign borrowing. In the circumstances on the question of priorities, it seems to me only logical that if pollution is the greatest and most primary consideration for the decade ahead, which I believe it is, we must come down to a financial formula with proper backing from this Government that puts this number one priority.

I think that when we pass laws in this Assembly that the municipalities are entitled to know beyond speeches and visits from the Minister what the particular minimum requirements are in the Province of British Columbia for sewage treatment. When you look at the original legislation passed in 1969, section 2, how did it define a treatment plant? But, it doesn't really, it doesn't really, it merely says, "as determined by the Minister." Well that's not good enough. There should be clear and defined terms in our legislation so the municipalities can plan for the years ahead in terms of minimum requirements that are set by law, so they apply equally in all areas of British Columbia. Instead of having the Minister going to Richmond one day, going to Delta the next day, going to Squamish the next day — I don't think he's been to Squamish — and telling them what he thinks their priority should be.

It's too serious a matter to set out on one kind of an expense, with one kind of a plant, and then five years from now, when the monies have been raised and the expenditure made, to find that it doesn't really meet the problem of a growing community with the further condensation of buildings, the further urbanization of areas of the Province. For that reason I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed amendment in Bill No. 3 has not clearly dealt with the two aspects that are still uncertain; first, the definition of what a treatment plant must be for the 70's and the 80's, secondly, how the finances can be raised within the next few years before it is too late and pollution becomes the appalling situation of the 80's.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Shuswap.

MR. W.F. JEFCOAT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are a few points in this Bill, or in this legislation to permit sewage disposal, which I think should be discussed a little. First is pollution and pollution control. I believe it's the prime concern of the Province today and I know it is in our area, and we are facing very expensive treatment plants in two or three areas, or two or three parts of my area.

Now, I'm glad to see this Bill changed in that it will help the local areas in borrowing money, but I am concerned with the amount of money and the type of treatment plants. I think that there should be some type of treatment plants adopted by legislation or otherwise, so that the area putting in a treatment plant will know. I have been requested to find out or to get specific plans so that they may not put in an expensive plant today, and then in five years time find that the legislation or the laws or requirements have been changed, so that they have to re-build this whole thing. This is so even in the house-boats on the lakes. They've said what they would like, and they have them now, plans laid down, and I think the same should be in treatment plants.

In this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that probably in

[ Page 381 ]

rural areas particularly, where development is taking place and will be on a much larger basis in the near future, that some kind of a revolving plan could be brought in so that areas that are not fully developed at this time would not have to have the total expense of a large plant to take care of an area that is increasing in population and growth very rapidly. In other words, some type of a plan whereby this could be spread out over the new areas as they develop, and it may be that this Government will have to pick up more of this tab in these areas and ease the burden, so that sewage disposal plants can be put in. Something must be done in these rural areas to facilitate better, and I think that definite plans should be made, and only one type of a treatment plant envisaged, and even though this is by legislation, I think that this Bill should cover it or some legislation should cover the type of disposal plants that can be envisioned over a long period of time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member from Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on this matter of sewage disposal, I think something that we in this House should be particularly concerned with, particularly when we have raw sewage dumping into the inlet almost within stone's throw of this building. If you walk down to where the fishermen tie up their boats which are there tonight at about 5:30, which is low tide, a two-foot tide, you'll not only see but you can smell the stench of the effluent all over that west end of town. and this, of course, has been going on for years and years. But, this doesn't make it any more the right. There's another sewer that empties out by the Undersea Gardens. I understand that the Undersea Gardens have had several fish die because of the pollution in the inner harbour.

Now, it isn't just a matter of changing the legislation for new towns and communities building new plants. I think we have to start right here in this part of Victoria, right here in this City, and in this part of the City and clean up the mess that has been going on for many years, and to do that, Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest that one, we need tougher regulations, much, much tougher regulations and two, that these regulations must be Province-wide and enforced by the Provincial Government and three, that more money must be put up by the senior governments to back up those regulations to enforce them and to see that we do clean up our communities in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a couple of things about this Bill. First of all, it seems to me that nothing that's happened this last year has changed the position that we took when the Bill was first introduced. It would not have been of much interest to those areas which have banded together into districts, and the borrowing powers of the smaller towns were so extended that they would have been unable to avail themselves of this particular piece of legislation, leaving a very small number of communities in the area that could avail themselves of this particular Act. The amendment to the Act may make it easier for that small number of communities to do something with the Act, but I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that unless this kind of financial aid is accompanied by a meaningful programme by the Government, such as they've done in Ontario, and to get into the business of building treatment plants themselves, operating them and invoicing the municipalities, we really won't be putting our money where our mouths have been during these last two debates.

We are quite prepared, Mr. Speaker, to stand up and talk about tackling pollution in this House, but when it comes to putting some money down in a meaningful way that will solve the problem we, I'm afraid, are out through the revolving doors. Unless this Government does do at least that which Ontario has done, and to build treatment plants, to operate them and to invoice the municipalities, it is not good enough.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G. S. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, some comment has been made of disposal of sewage in the sea, and I think it would be only fair to put several other facts before the House in particular relation to those anticipated in Vancouver Island, as mentioned by the honourable member from Cowichan-Malahat. It's been my feeling, in the whole lengthy debate about sewage disposal which ones reads in national and international magazines, that there is a remarkable gap in our knowledge, both technical and otherwise, and that in all fairness to the electorate or the municipal voters in the area that I am concerned about in the Greater Victoria area, a very careful study was carried out by engineering experts, and it was on the basis of this advice that the Regional District proceeded with the plan to dispose of sewage in the sea. Now, I personally am willing to accept the fact that perhaps that record or that study did not, in fact, produce all the answers, but one thing is very clear and I could almost quote the chapter and verse. They stated that to validate the decisions of that study, that further investigation of the behaviour of the ocean in the area concerned should be carried out. I think if you took back on some of the situations in the Province and in other parts of Canada where such projects as the Victoria projects were carried out and have been found to be inadequate, that it was simply because of a lack of technical data before the scheme was implemented.

I would like to make it clear that, as in hospital affairs, I feel we must do the best we can, but we must try to do it with the most efficient and economical use of the money available. In the case of the disposal of sewage in the sea proposed off three particular points, and Macauley Point is the one which the Regional District has consented to construct, not on an experimental basis but on a studied basis, with a follow-up in a technical and a scientific manner, to find out its effectiveness with a deep-sea extended outfall. It should be known by the members of the House that if this is inadequate, I am informed that the engineering involved in then putting a primary treatment plant onto the commencement of the outlet is quite feasible and practical, and the total cost in the long run is unlikely to be more than it would be had you done the whole project to start with. So I feel that it should be emphasized, in fact I feel in all areas of pollution, that because we see the need, we forge ahead sometimes with the best of intentions but with very insufficient data and engineering and scientific knowledge than we should have before we proceed to spend millions and millions of dollars.

Another point worth mentioning, and I haven't had time to follow it through, but as recently as this week I was sent a communication from the Channel Islands which, on the face of it, shows a newer type of treatment which is called an electrolytic type of sewage treatment which is in use there.

[ Page 382 ]

From what little data I have, this seems to me to be something well worth looking at and, according to the figures from the Channel Islands, the cost and the aesthetic appearance of the plant and the size of the plant and the cost of operation do seem to be more economical than anything as yet designed.

Therefore, without going on too long on this subject, which certainly is an extensive one, I would just say that we should, while we wish eagerly to solve the problem, we should be careful that we do enough research before we embark on expenditures of large sums of money. If my suggestion that we have a Department of Pollution Control is not acceptable at least I would, with the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, suggest that this Government must at least set up a Department of Research with the very obvious intention of providing facts, engineering data, oceanographic studies, and the like to the people of B.C., whether it be at a provincial or municipal level, and that some of the points that have been raised in debate this afternoon, however valid they may be, could be put to much better use if we start with the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: I am greatly interested in the debate, especially interested in the large number of members who spoke on this important Bill. Though it's small as far as we're concerned, it's great as far as the effect is concerned. The Province is going to stand 75 per cent over everything over two mills now, over a 20-year period. The great Province of Ontario, with four times our population, is just spending about the same amount on this type of endeavour as British Columbia with one-fourth of the population. British Columbia per capita leads this nation.

The leader of the Liberal party, so busy in his propaganda out in the corridors, Mr. Speaker. The people threw them out in the last election and now they threw themselves out of the House today, Mr. Speaker, showing that the people's judgment was right, my friend, at the very start. I want to say this, that the leader of the Liberal Party is wrong as usual in this debate when he said that the Provincial Government was the largest taxing organization from the taxpayers of the Province, and that's completely false, as usual. The Federal Government is by far the largest tax receiver, they receive 72 per cent of the income tax. He's never in his seat, he's out there busy on the radio with his propaganda because he's not representing his people on the floor of this Legislature. And then not only 72 per cent the Federal receives on personal income tax, but 80 per cent of the corporation tax.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government receives 72 per cent of the personal income tax in British Columbia, 80 per cent of the corporation tax and all the indirect tax fees completely. And I want to say this, that they have besides that — all the indirect tax, yes, the excise tax, my friend, from liquor, which is greater than the profits the Province makes, my intent, if you study these things at all. I want to say this, the Federal Government not only has the lion's share of the revenue, but they have control of the banking system. They have this control at the Central Bank. You're full of pollution, my friend, you've polluted the whole party. You've polluted this House, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you should withdraw that.

MR. BENNETT: I withdraw it. I withdraw you out, too. I would like to abolish all pollution….

AN HON. MEMBER: They all get up and walk out of here like little babies.

MR. BENNETT: Time to walk out again, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has a central banking system with the Bank of Canada with all the finances that the Bank of Canada has, and I want to say this, that it has complete control of all the chartered banks and so forth, and the Federal Government should be doing its share in helping the municipalities and it's not doing a single thing. The Government of British Columbia supplies all the money, for all the schools and all the hospitals, and all we ask is that Federal Government, that all the Federal Government…

AN HON. MEMBER: The people supply the money.

MR.BENNETT: Well, now, isn't that an argument! Why didn't the Liberal leader say that today, and let the people supply it to the Federal Government who get the lion's share of the people's money, my friend. How ridiculous these people are. When they haven't any argument. I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that I am the number one representative of the people that have the money….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, are you for big business…. (noisy comments, not decipherable).

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BENNETT: Big Business, Mr. Speaker, certainly we have big business, we have intermediate business, we have small business, we have wealthy people, we have all kinds of people, and this Government represents them all, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! I wonder if we can get the House back to discussion on Bill No. 3.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, how out of line the Opposition gets once the Premier gets on his feet. I'm going to tell you, they can't take it. The people know they are a bunch of children who never grow up…the party will never grow up…. people don't trust you…

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. BENNETT: …the Federal Government this year, through the Central Mortgage and Housing, is making $14,000,000 available to the municipalities as a start, and at every one of these Conferences I press the Federal Government, as I will again early next week, that they make more money available to the municipalities. To be fair to the Prime Minister of Canada, last week he had a meeting of all the mayors of all the large cities in Ottawa, and I'm sure they pressed the point as well, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say this, that this Government leads in these things, Mr. Speaker, and I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

MR. BENNETT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 383 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 3, an Act to Amend the Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act, be read a second time.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:-

YEAS — 50

Messieurs

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried unanimously. So ordered.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the Bill be referred to Committee for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.