[ Page 123 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

On the motion of Mr. G.B. Gardom, Bill (No. 9) intituled An Act for the Regulation of Cigarette Advertising was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker I would request leave of the House to adjourn the debates to discuss…

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is not in order. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to welcome you back to the House today. In your absence, a slight error may have occurred in the record that is transcribed, but I didn't want to wait until November to correct it. I, by error, attributed great benevolence to the Province newspaper for having added a lady reporter to the press gallery. I should have said the Colonist and I wish to apologize to the Colonist.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the honourable Member apologizing to the Colonist or to the Province? (Laughter.) The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable Member state the matter.

MR. McDIARMID: It has come to my attention, through an article in the Sun of last evening, of an impending ecological disaster for the entire Province of British Columbia. It has come to my attention that in the United States, at this time, decisions will shortly be reached which may allow the building and construction of a trans-Alaskan pipeline which, if allowed to proceed, will envisage a thousand supertankers plying up and down the coastal waters of British Columbia. It is my…

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable Member submit the statement to the Speaker, please. Order, please. I would call the honourable Member's attention to a number of references in the 17th edition of May, the first of which is, "The fact that a grievance is continuing is not sufficient if it is not of recent occurrence." Secondly, the motion has been refused when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly, or in time, and, specifically, under Item 5, when the matter could be raised by moving an amendment to the Address in answer to the King's Speech, and in our jurisdiction, of course, the address in reply to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. It is questionable, as well, whether or not, and the statement does not make it clear, it is within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government or a Provincial Legislature to rectify. This matter is handled at page 368, under Item C, "for which another authority was immediately responsible." I think there are probably a number of other grounds upon which this matter would fail in urgency. In any case, I rule this motion out of order.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in my place representing the great constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain and, before I address the House on the matter of the Throne Speech, I would like to ask the House to welcome a member of the Vancouver Parks Board who is in the gallery, the immediate past Chairman of the Board, Commissioner Andrew Livingstone, who is with us today.

I repeat it is an honour, Mr. Speaker, to stand here as one of the two representatives of the great constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain and to speak in this Throne Debate, wherein recognition has been given to British Columbia's joining Canadian Federation. I'd like to add my congratulations to the Honourable Member from Columbia and to the Honourable Member from Oak Bay, the mover and the seconder of the motion. I am pleased, too, Mr. Speaker, to have the freedom to speak to this debate, because some Members of the House may recall that, just a year ago, the three women Ministers without Portfolio were denied that right. They were denied that right, Mr. Speaker. When the estimates were up for debate by the Honourable Member from New Westminster and the Members of the socialist opposition opposite, it was that same Member who spoke out, just yesterday, on women's rights. Could I say to Members in this House that the women of British Columbia don't need friends like that? That same Member, Mr. Speaker, yesterday and last Tuesday in this House, had great pleas for the unemployed in the Province and there is no one on this side of the House who would deny the tremendous unemployment situation, a critical situation, in this Province today. That same Member, that Member from New Westminster, pleaded for the small people, the small firms who were closing their doors, he said and voiced his concern for the small businessmen in this Province who were going to close their doors forever, because of the policies he blamed on the Provincial Government.

Here is this NDP Party who talks, on the one hand, of being the friend of labour and who, on the other hand, frightens investments and jobs away with its socialism and negativism. Here is the Member from New Westminster, the friend of the working man, and let me tell you what the friend of the working man had to say after the last Session of this House. He presented his constituency with an eight-page flyer, which was distributed to that great riding of New Westminster and it was a report on this Legislature as he saw it.

AN. HON. MEMBER: A little biased?

MRS. McCARTHY: I would say that it's a little biased. I don't believe that I will quote very much from it, frankly. But I would like to quote you one little part. Yes, I will read part of it for you. I'd like to read one part in regard to labour which was taken from his speech on labour estimates last year. I quote: "A change in attitude towards trade unionism must be adopted by Government. Constant criticism of the

[ Page 124 ]

labour movement by the Government has undermined this very important sector of our society. Members of Government should examine the history of the movement. They will find that trade unionism has not only moved the working man way up the economic scale but has enriched the whole economy. The vast market now for goods and services is a direct result of increased wages permitting a standard of living and purchasing power undreamed of a few years ago."

Now, that's very interesting, Mr. Speaker. On this eight-page flyer, I might say, on the front of it has a very nice, smiling picture of the Member from New Westminster but on the back doesn't have the union bug. Now, isn't that surprising? (Interruption.) Let me tell you about the volunteer labour that the Members of the Opposition are talking about. While this NDP Member talks about the trade unions and their importance to our economy and how much the socialist party opposite confirms and backs everything that the trade unions do, in the Columbian paper of June 2, 1970, a reporter from the Columbian interviews the Member from New Westminster on why it was he did not have the union bug on his publication. Just let me quote a couple of lines from this interview. This is the column written by Alan Jay in the Columbian of Tuesday, June 2. It says, "Last night, the MLA said the report was not planned as a regular publication but one would be issued at the end of every legislative Session. 'We have printed 20,000 copies and they were printed on a small offset press a friend has in the basement of his home,' he said." I continue quoting from this article, Mr. Speaker. "'It took eight hours to print one page but we hope to be able to speed things up by the time the next one is due,' he said. In view of the NDP's feelings toward trade unionism, I asked him why the report had been printed by an underground press. 'We had to,' he replied, 'we don't have too much money and the report is quite expensive. Besides the unions would have killed us on the price."' (Interruption.)

Should I ask here who needs the change of attitude? How many printing shops in New Westminster have closed their doors? Who needs a change of attitude towards trade unionism in this Province? It's a sham, a complete sham. The Opposition cries out for labour and for the unemployment situation in this Province in the face of that kind of example. While a serious unemployment situation does exist throughout North America, where mothers and wives are being asked to budget their meals on unemployment insurance and welfare benefits, the NDP Party in this House is addressing itself to political gains, and the Liberal Party becomes the apologists for the Liberal administration in Ottawa.

Today, Canada's Prime Minister is going to return home from his world sojourn. He is going to pay Canada's unemployed a visit today and do you know what message he will have for us? Like it or lump it, Ah…but it is not to worry. He'll have a shrug for the men in the unemployment lines and a kiss for their wives.

Meanwhile, in his reply to the Throne Speech, the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party, reiterated the Liberal policy, the Party policy of the Liberals in Canada, these Liberals who usually fall between the two horses of Special Sessions or Royal Commissions, always at the expense of the taxpayer and usually resulting in confusion. When that First Member from Point Grey was asked later on a television interview what a special legislative session would do that present legislation does not cover for handling labour disputes, he said something about passing legislation to make people go to work. That's the two sides, once again, of the Liberal mouth at work. One side talks often about labour's right to bargain collectively, while the other would destroy, by creating panic laws, labour's hard-won rights. Here, of course, I speak of responsible labour.

It must be very difficult, indeed, to sit as a Liberal in this House and, often, very lonely. In this year of 1971, it must be particularly embarrassing for the Provincial Liberal Members, in the light of the economic chaos created by their Liberal counterparts in Ottawa. Let me emphasize here, their attempt to toss the blame for the unemployment in Canada on the Provincial Government of British Columbia is not being believed by the people of British Columbia. When the Liberal Leader replied to the Throne Speech and spoke of the unemployment situation in this Province, he completely ignored the fact that the Government of the Province of British Columbia has authorized construction projects in just the past three months of quite a good magnitude and I would like to quote some of these figures: in public works, $1,427,000 has been made available; in school construction, over seven million, $7,200,000; in hospital construction, $10,000,000; in ferries, $1,349,000; bridges, $12,125,000; highways, $28,263,000. This, Mr. Speaker, gives a total of $60,300,000, initiated in just the past two and a half months in this Province to initiate employment in this Province. That story is not being told by the Members on that side of the House.

I would like to make reference to one line in the Throne Speech. I am very pleased to see that reference was made to the acquisition of old Shaughnessy Golf Course for a botanical garden for British Columbia. The first payment of $666,656 was turned over to the city of Vancouver on January 4 of this year and the balance of the Province's one million dollar-share will be paid to the city, according to the agreement within the next three years. This site, which is right in the centre of the third largest city in Canada, will, I'm sure, rival Edinburgh's famous botanical 60-acre park in future years. It will be a credit to all of those who worked diligently to save the site from high-rise and townhouse development, as was first proposed.

I would like this House to know, Mr. Speaker, that, at the time I was serving on the Board of Parks and Public Recreation in the city of Vancouver and was hopeful of saving this park from the bulldozer, the Premier of this Province, alone, saw the potential of a botanical garden to British Columbia and committed Provincial Government funds for this purpose, providing that there would be Federal funds and private donors to match. Later, in spite of the disappointment and the lack of co-operation of Federal participation, he again saved old Shaughnessy Golf Course from high-rise development when he pledged Provincial funds for the project, without Federal involvement.

At this time, I would like to pay tribute to the very many people who worked for that one line in the Throne Speech, for the botanical garden for Vancouver. Today, I would like to mention just a few: the Board of Parks and Public Recreation in Vancouver and, especially, Commissioner Andy Livingstone; the City Council of Vancouver and, especially, Mayor Tom Campbell and Aldermen Sweeney and Wilson; the Vancouver Foundation and, especially, Dr. Bill Gibson, who obtained the private donors' third share of the acquisition; the Botanical Garden Association and, especially, Dr. Bob Long and Mr. Theo Dumoulin; and Marathon Realty, with whom I negotiated and received complete co-operation. It is just one line in the Throne Speech, but it will be an invaluable asset to the people of British Columbia in future

[ Page 125 ]

years.

AN HON. MEMBER: And good for Marathon Realty.

MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, good for Marathon Realty. They did give us very good co-operation.

Although the Federal Government has not contributed in any way to this botanical garden, they have announced that they will spend some five million dollars at the University of British Columbia over the next few years for a botanical garden and, I would say, this would be needless and useless duplication. I would hope that those at the University would see the benefit of melding the University community with the community at large and work with the city of Vancouver for the development of our botanical garden at Oak and 33rd. Surely, it is indefensible today to duplicate the expenditure of funds at UBC, when the proposed botanical garden is adjacent to one of Vancouver's finest educational institutes which has space for expansion.

During the past year, I have been examining, as part of my responsibilities as a Member without Portfolio, some of the workings of the Family Division of the Provincial Court and, in particular, the Family Court and the Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act. A number of men and women in the Province have indicated areas of concern to me in this regard and I have visited the operation of some of the Courts to take a look at the operation to see how it works. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is amazing to see the courteous and skilful way in which some of the judges handle these very difficult maintenance cases. Before a case gets to the judge, in many instances, a probation officer or other officer of the Court interviews the wife and the husband and, sometimes, both of them together. This approach is not directed at being punitive but at drawing maintenance responsibilities to the attention of the husband and father. The approach has the effect, for an example, in one municipality, in having voluntary orders entered into in one in eight cases. The Family Division of our Court collects a considerable amount of money, although by no means 100 per cent of the amount ordered. For example, in the Family Division in some of the areas I visited, collection was made in full or in part in 55 per cent of the cases. It has been found that the use of an officer whose specific duty is collection and who has had some experience in credit granting and this type of work brings about a substantial increase in results. The changes adopted a few years ago in which payment could be made to the Court or Court officers, and having the Court officer keep a record of payments, have prevented some of the delays that we have experienced in follow-up of nonpayment. However, I am advised that the appointment, for example, to the Greater Victoria Family Court of a collection officer has substantially facilitated the collection under these orders and relieved the probation officers and other staff to do the work they were meant to do. I hope that the use of collection officers in this kind of work will be explored in British Columbia and explored more fully in the coming year so we can speed up collections and make living easier for some of the deserted wives who are concerned about this very question.

My visits and survey have indicated, and I want to emphasize this, that all the problems do not lie with the husbands and fathers. Here, I presume I am changing places now with the Honourable Member for New Westminster who spoke out for women yesterday. Let me say a word for the men. Very often, and I would say most often, they are very concerned with the progress and welfare of the children they are helping to maintain but are being denied access by the mother. I have drawn this matter to the attention of my colleague, the Attorney-General and, I hope, after study it may be possible for this Government to suggest some changes in the legislation which might empower the judge to require, in appropriate circumstances, that access be given if payments are to be ordered.

When a wife denies the husband the right to visit the children, the husband retaliates immediately by stopping his maintenance payments. He should have the right to see his children. This is the most common complaint and the cause of very much bitterness, and is the weakest area of the present legislation. I also found that some of the orders are being frustrated by husbands and fathers who fail to show up on a show-cause summons because there is apparently no power in the Court at this very moment to issue a warrant for the man's arrest on his failing to appear.

I also suggest that we might review garnishee procedures: first, to relieve from the present necessity of a separate order for each pay cheque but, more important, to enlarge the exemptions presently allowed to the husband and father which were based, when they were first brought out, on an entirely different value for the dollar. I think it would be useful, Mr. Speaker, if he were allowed sufficient exemption to be an incentive to continue working and to not go on welfare and, at the same time, an incentive for him to maintain his family. Many of our Courts are prepared to make adjustments for a man who has been out of work and has been able to get a fresh job, particularly allowing him to get on his feet. I feel it would be useful, Mr. Speaker, if we made provision for this type of thing in the legislation itself. These are some of the things I found in my tour of only a few of the Courts and my discussions with many people, things that I passed along to the Attorney-General and many more. The Attorney-General, I must say, has shown considerable interest in my suggestions. So I look forward to some corrections in the legislation.

Now I would like to say a few words about the traffic situation in the city of Vancouver. The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver Centre has well documented the case for a rapid transit system in this House and in public statements outside the House. I believe the Second Member from Vancouver Centre can take a good deal of credit and satisfaction from the fact that this Government responded so quickly to pledging financial support to the proposal put forward by the joint Provincial-civic study. The ink was barely dry on the report when this Government made a commitment for 37 1/2 per cent of the costs, on the basis that the Federal Government would contribute 37 1/2 per cent and the civic government 25 per cent.

Three hundred million dollars for rapid transit is a lot of money but, while 300 million dollars is a lot today, it will never be any cheaper. The rapid transit programme is being committed. We are committed, as a Provincial Government, to provide 37 1/2 per cent cash to the rapid transit programme. We are the only Province, due to the economic planning of the Finance Minister of this Province, that can come up with an immediate plan to finance such a large expenditure on planned progress payments. We are the only Government in Canada who can offer this relief to the transit problems in Vancouver without heavy long-term borrowing to burden our future generations. Mr. Speaker, this is the most unique financing programme in the world and, I might say, it is the envy of the world.

[ Page 126 ]

The initial reaction from Ottawa after the rapid transit report was published was, of course, predictable. One of Vancouver's Members of Parliament, the Honourable Arthur Laing, stated that there is no constitutional authority for such a contribution from Ottawa. Here is the Vancouver Sun's October 24, 1970, report on what Mr. Laing's first reaction was, when he was told the Provincial Government was putting up 37 1/2 per cent. "The Federal Government has no intention of helping to pay for Greater Vancouver's proposed three hundred million rapid transit system," Public Works Minister Laing said today. "We, the Federal Government, are being very careful not to invade the responsibilities of the Provincial Governments." Laing agreed that Vancouver would strangle in automobile congestion if it doesn't get proper mass transit, but he said he would prefer to see the project postponed rather than have the Federal Government intervene with the money. So, Mr. Laing has left Vancouver to strangle in automobile congestion.

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver's rapid transit programme is one of many needed projects which are necessary to the growth and expansion of the great city of Vancouver. Surely, if any one programme in Canada qualifies for Federal funds, this Vancouver rapid transit programme does. There are municipal work programmes underway in Canada right this minute, as we sit in this House, which are fully financed by the Liberal Administration in Ottawa. Let me point out a few, all done under the Portfolio of the Honourable Jean Marchand, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: This Legislation is entitled "Special Area Legislation," and Members of this House may be surprised to learn just how "special" this legislation is.

In a press release of June 6, 1970, Mr. Marchand explained the legislation this way and I quote, "Canada will endeavour to provide financing for Provincial and municipal works that are necessary to special area plans but beyond the financial resources of the Provinces and municipalities concerned."

Let me give you some examples of Mr. Marchand's "Special Legislation." In Newfoundland, April, 1970, an agreement was made for a total of 82 million dollars: 62 million were outright grants and the balance of 19.6 million was in loans. This was for the purpose of the development of a serviced industrial park, for water and sewer work for the Mount Pearl new town, a new road to link the Mount Pearl area to the harbour and to the Trans-Canada Highway, three new schools and an extension of another.

In Quebec, in June, 1970, this same "Special Legislation" was enacted, where 52 million dollars were given to the Province of Quebec: 26 of it in outright grants and 26 of it in loans. Let me tell you what non-Federal type of project this agreement covers. The most significant is the development at Mount Ste. Anne to provide ski chalets, ski lifts and water systems, a golf course, camping sites, access roads and promenades; 52 million dollars that was given to Quebec in June, 1970. That was just for one area. Now, in Quebec City, there was a railway network reorganization, a downtown parking lot for 650 cars. It doesn't sound like a Federal case at all, Mr. Speaker, but this is being financed by the Federal Government as we are sitting in this House today.

Then let's look at New Brunswick, which, in April, 1970, received a total of 62 million dollars in grants through this same legislation: 40 million of which were grants and 21 million were loans. This includes, in Moncton, New Brunswick, and it is underlined in the report, municipal roads, three schools and sewers. All of this in New Brunswick. Anybody would think that this was April, 1970 (interruption). I'll come to that, Honourable Member from Burnaby; I'll explain to you about that. It's strange how the constitutional authority applies to everywhere else in Canada, every other Province in Canada, until it gets to the borders of British Columbia.

Now, just let me quote, so you won't think I am quoting from all of the Eastern Provinces of Canada. In Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, there were $3,134,000 in grants and $2,885,000 in loans for the purchase of additional firefighting for one community, the extension of water and sewer facilities for yet another community and, in another community, additional school facilities. Then we get to the Province of Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, this agreement was signed, which provided $2,516,000 in grants and $1,935,000 in loans. Let me tell you what this finances — construction of an industrial park, the extension of water supply facilities for firefighting equipment, hardly a Federal expense, and school facilities, traditionally a Provincial expense. In Alberta, there is $1,206,000 in grants and $1,188,000 in loans, for a total of $2,394,000. You may have noted by now that the grants diminish in size as we travel westward from Ottawa. This was in Alberta for industrial park development, for renovation and equipment for existing vocational training centres, and for a 12-room elementary school for 300 children, and some application was for sewage treatment.

Mr. Speaker, the projects I have just referred to were all announced by the Federal Liberals in 1970 and are under way at this very moment. All the projects I have made reference to amount to well over 200 million dollars.

In this report, every Province in Canada is mentioned, with the exception of Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. As you know, Prince Edward Island has a special agreement with the Government of Canada under the Atlantic Development Corporation and has direct arrangement for 225 million dollars alone. So, British Columbia is the only one left out of all the grants and loans, which the Federal Government was able to make to the Provinces for Provincial and civic administrative projects in 1970. I want you to know that British Columbia did not receive one penny of that 200 million dollars. So, you see, when it comes to boulevards in Quebec City or a sewer system in Ontario, the Federal Government designates these as "special areas." The cities and towns in British Columbia that are growing three times faster than any other in Canada apparently aren't very "special," Mr. Speaker.

The economic expansion and social adjustment needs of the Canadian municipalities, mentioned several times by the Minister in his press releases relating to this programme, aren't considered "special" in British Columbia. In other words, "Oh, the deal." We don't need to make a deal with Liberals, we just want equitable treatment from the Liberal Administration. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has said that there is no constitutional authority for expenditure of Federal funds for the city of Vancouver for rapid transit, or in any of the municipalities of British Columbia for parking lots, for boulevards, for parks, for sewer systems, for treatment plants. But there is, Mr. Speaker, "Special Legislation" for the rest of our country — every Province but British Columbia. All these municipal works are constitutionally correct, outside the borders of our Province. Each and every Member in this House should go to their municipal leaders and point out the inequities in this system, in this kind of Federal-Provincial co-operation. At this time, I call on the City Council of Vancouver to go to

[ Page 127 ]

Ottawa and demand fair treatment for the building of the rapid transit system in Vancouver, not to request better treatment, Mr. Speaker, but to insist on equal treatment for our city.

Mr. Speaker, a word about housing. Mr. Speaker, if you would get this House to order, I would speak about housing. Last year in this House, I suggested that there is a possibility for a family on a limited income to have home-ownership in our Province, in spite of the high cost of money, in spite of the high cost of land. The pilot project that I envisioned is under way right at this moment in the city of Vancouver and I am happy to be able to tell this House that the first of 132 homes will be ready for occupancy in June of this year.

The full price, inclusive of land, of each home is $16,200; the down payment each family will have to put up is $500, with a $1,000 home acquisition grant, of course, without which this whole plan would not be possible. The principal, interest and taxes will be $117.74 to each family and the qualifying income to live in and purchase one of these homes is $5,244 per year.

I want to emphasize…(interruption). You know, Mr. Speaker the Liberals in this House are so embarrassed by the administration in Ottawa that if Central Mortgage and Housing does give an innovative housing plan they surely want it mentioned and I wouldn't have thought of leaving it out. I want you to know. I want you to know that this housing development would not have been possible without the lower interest rate provided by Central Mortgage and Housing. Let's hear it from the Liberals, now (interruption). I missed that. It would not have been possible either, Mr. Speaker, if we had not had the co-operation of the city of Vancouver who zoned for condominium-townhouse development, and this is a necessity in order to get such a programme under way. May I reiterate that it would not have been possible at all without the $1,000 home acquisition grant provided by this Government? I'd like to tell you, too, that this whole development was done at market price, on market value land. We purchased the land at $50,000 an acre and surely, this is not reasonably priced land in anybody's language. The reason that I wanted to build this pilot project in the city of Vancouver was to prove to every municipality in this Province that, if it can be done on high cost land in the city of Vancouver, it can be done more easily anywhere else in the Province. Unfortunately, many municipal councils have shown a reluctance to zone for townhouse development and I have several examples of like proposals, which have been turned down because the municipalities are reluctant to accept this townhouse concept. I would hope that this attitude would change in 1971 and that the working family on moderate and low income who wishes home-ownership in British Columbia will have that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we could be encouraging more people to renovate their offices, fix up their homes and repair apartment buildings and commercial buildings, if we were to provide an incentive of perhaps 10 per cent of a contract up to a limit of $5,000, with a diminishing percentage for an amount above $5,000; or, another way, perhaps, we could provide a flat $500 for work done from $5,000 and up. There are thousands of homes in our Province that require renovation and office buildings that require repair, old apartment buildings and commercial buildings as well. It would create a lot of employment in this year 1971. The various subtrades: plumbers, electricians, material suppliers, etc., would all benefit from such a programme and the benefits would filter throughout the whole community. Perhaps, this incentive programme could or should be shared by the Federal Administration and used only for winter employment. But whatever Government initiated it, may I reiterate here, that the whole home building programme and home construction programme, including the building of new homes and the renovation of older structures, would give our whole economy a much needed boost. Housing can be one of the strongest factors in the overall business recovery.

In the U.S.A., predictions are for a record home construction programme in 1971, a projected record breaking two million units this year. U.S. builders are overflowing with optimism for their industry and credit, of course, can be given to their National Government's efforts to aid the industry and an ample money supply and falling interest rates.

Mr. Speaker, we have the market here in British Columbia — thousands of families who want a house of their own and we have the finest home opportunity programme in the world here in our Province. We have the home-owners' grant of $160 per year; we have the home acquisition grant of $1,000; we have the $5,000 second mortgage programme; and we have the grants and loans on purchase of existing homes. That programme is not duplicated anywhere else in Canada or anywhere else in the world today.

We now need the initiative of the Federal Government to bring the cost of money down. We need the initiative of the Federal Government to lower the interest rates and make it possible for every Canadian who wants to have their own home and the opportunity of ownership, to have that opportunity. 1971 could be a record year for Canada and a record building year for British Columbia, if the Federal Government would do this.

In concluding my remarks today, I would like to pay tribute to the Federal Government for their announcement this week that four and a half million dollars will be made available for research and public education in drug abuse. I would hope that much of that fund will be spent in British Columbia and, certainly, any money spent anywhere in Canada on research will benefit all British Columbians, particularly, our young people who are the hope of the future.

May I repeat a significant phrase in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, and hope it will be the positive attitude of this Social Credit Government for this year and many more to come? I quote, "We enter the Centennial Year and the decade of the seventies with faith, courage and optimism."

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to take part in this debate and a particular pleasure to follow the lady Member without Portfolio from Little Mountain in Vancouver.

You know Confederation is a hundred years old. B.C. is a hundred years old. Canada is stronger than ever. What would we do without Ottawa? What would the honourable Members opposite do without Ottawa? Where else would you lay your sins of omission and commission? Where would you pass the buck? You can't blame us when things go wrong. Why would you blame Ottawa? Yet, how can you do that, when one of your leadership candidates…now, mind you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not expecting that the Premier of B.C. is going to retire or be taken off the scene for a long time. I think he probably remembers Sir Richard McBride who retired in 1915 and

[ Page 128 ]

when he retired something snapped inside of him, and that was the end of him. I don't think the Premier's going to do that. I don't think he's going to be like Othello, when he said, "Othello's occupation is gone," and he was at the end of the road, too.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier through you, you do have many leadership candidates vying in spite of the presence of the incumbent. You have one that doesn't blame the Liberals because at the last election…and I'm talking about the First Member for Vancouver Centre…he said, "I'm a Liberal Federally and I'm a Socred Provincially." How can you stand it, honourable Member, when all of these Members one after the other get up and blame all their sins of omission on the Federal Liberals? How can you stand this? I think the lady Member should have a talk to the First Member from Vancouver Centre and tell him just how wicked those bad Liberals are back in Ottawa. The Members of the Government benches are all looking very trim after their last year. They have been a peripatetic Cabinet, travelling the world. The Honourable Minister for Trade and Industry led all the rest in his travels this year and I do say that, since they are travelling this much, the honourable Ministers should keep a look out for Mr. Trudeau. He has become a little careless in his appearance. We haven't seen him for days, weeks. The last I heard was that the Honourable Prime Minister was pulling a rickshaw in Ceylon to put together a little money to date an orang-outang in Borneo (laughter). I just hope that he's able to come back to Canada because our immigration laws are pretty strict.

Turning to the Attorney-General, I think he has a lot to answer for. I think he's slipped a little bit in the leadership stakes. I think the flat-earthers, who are behind the Minister of Rehabilitation, pretty well controlled that last Social Credit Convention. The Attorney-General isn't helping his chances, really, when he comes into the House on the Opening Day and he goes on television and accuses, for example, the Leader of the Opposition of inciting the riot in these Chambers. He listened to the Member from Columbia, sitting down there, saying that we incited the riot. Now, that's a criminal offence. There you were, Mr. Attorney-General, listening to this honourable Member accusing the Opposition of a criminal offence against the laws of Canada and the Criminal Code, inciting to riot, and you took no action. Did you not believe that honourable Member? (Interruption) Yes, and I don't agree with that at all. As Minister of Labour you got up and accused the B.C. Federation of Labour of starting the riot, which is ridiculous. He was wrong (interruption). Of course, he was. The Honourable Member for Atlin is one of the best Members in this House but I don't agree with everything he says and he may not agree with everything I say. I think, when the Attorney-General goes on television and says that this was planned and who planned it, judge for yourself. If you know who planned it, Mr. Attorney-General, lay charges.

AN HON. MEMBER: The B.C. Federation of Labour planned it, they financed it, they advertised it.

MR. MACDONALD: They planned the riots? Now, Mr. Speaker, this Province has reaped a whirlwind of unemployment and industrial strife in the last year and part of the reason it has, and a very good part of the reason, is that the Minister of Labour has been waging an unremitting vendetta against the labour movement of British Columbia (interruption). You bet you have. You never consult, never seek a consensus, never call the Labour Committees to try to deal with the industrial strife that we have. You lay charges and try to make votes. I know, Mr. Speaker, it's good politics. I don't deny that it's good politics for the honourable Members opposite and perhaps even the Attorney-General and the Minister of Labour to attack the B.C. Fed., to attack Ray Haynes. They coin votes out of it. Well, all right, the B.C. Federation of Labour, and the statement you just made was full of ambiguity and full of innuendo. I say this, you're reaping a harvest of industrial strife in this Province because you won't…you're making votes out of ito it's good politics. Why the Member for Skeena…(interruption). I know, I don't deny that you make good politics this way. You're making votes but, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you remember that the honourable Minister should remember that he is the Minister of Labour, that he has some obligation to try to reach a consensus and he should not come into this Province and drop something like Bill 33, push it through the Legislature with no consultation with labour whatsoever, no attempt to reach a consensus, never call the Labour Committee. Why not today…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: Is it right that, it's come down to that kind of a political issue, that if the labour movement takes political action this is resented by the Minister of Labour and he carries on his vendetta? (Interruption.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: Would you say the same thing if you were the Minister of Labour in Sweden where they also take political action, or in New Zealand, or Great Britain? Would you hold that against them and say dissolve and then we'll have industrial peace. Ridiculous (interruption). Yes, I know, but I say that 1970 was a year of industrial disaster in British Columbia, and that, in 1971, we should try for fresh approaches and a reconciliation. I say that the first thing to do is to go back to square one and call the Labour Committee of this Legislature to discuss rationally and reasonably our industrial relations legislation and leave politics out of it. If they want to take political action…(interruption).

Leave politics out of it. If they want to take political action, it's no worse than MacMillan Bloedel taking political action. Leave politics out of it, call the Labour Committee, they are not injecting the political element. But, in any case, I'm appealing in 1971 for a new era, a fresh approach to labour relations. I say the cold war that has existed between this Government and the labour movement has to end, that it is far too costly for this Province. It's all very well for the Government benchers to blame labour, but there's blame on your side, too, and you're carrying on a vendetta. That's got to stop. If you are willing to stop it, all you have to do is call the Labour Committee of this Legislature and let's sit down and review the industrial relations legislation that we must live with (interruption). I haven't concluded my address, Mr. Speaker…. No, I haven't started. I wanted to say something about…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: There are no safe seats, even Trail

[ Page 129 ]

isn't a safe seat. No, I don't think the honourable Minister even is safe. No, I don't think so at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: I wanted to say a word or two, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of privacy and individual rights. We've had legislation in this Legislature called the Privacy Act. It has been a mockery; it has been a paper sword. An electronic surveillance of individuals is going on rampantly in this Province. Individual rights are being violated. The Attorney-General, for example, on the Ed Lawson matter, which the Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds brought up the other day, where the swordbearer to the Moor of Venice, who played his part beautifully, was picked up, with no reason whatsoever, and incarcerated and lived out his punishment. He's been punished already, for no reason, whatsoever, except, perhaps, that his hair was long. Well, the Attorney-General and the law officers of the Crown have got to realize that they are not only the officers for the squares in this Province, they are also the law officers for the hips and the heads and the hairs — for all people of the Province. If you don't recognize that, you won't get respect for the law from a great section of the community.

AN HON. MEMBER: This man wasn't a Senator.

MR. MACDONALD: It wasn't Senator Lawson, as my friend says. There was a case in Victoria, too, of a Mr. Bates, who came up in Court. He had failed to have insurance and he had driven a few miles without a license and for four days, without being taken before a judge, it was four days, I think, he was held in the police cells here in the city of Victoria. That was just a few days ago. Four days in jail he spent, although the law says twelve hours and you see the judge. They forgot about him. But, what I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is the Attorney-General forgetting about these things? You have certainly said nothing about launching an investigation into the Lawson matter and you should. You've said nothing about launching it and you've said nothing about launching an immediate investigation into the Bates matter and you should.

AN HON. MEMBER: And take action under the law.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think it's late when these investigations…well, now, if the Attorney-General is saying, "I'm going to take prompt action in these matters," I'm glad to hear it.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I've done it already, long before you…

MR. MACDONALD: Well, we want the results. Yes, you should tell this Legislature and you should tell the people of the Province.

The Minister of Justice, who was in this Chamber a few days ago, said this, "A man's right to privacy includes protection from any type of surveillance without his consent." I say that that principle has been grossly violated in the Province of British Columbia and I will cite three examples of how we need proper protection for individual rights and privacy.

The first example I quote is the amount of credit snooping that is going on in this and other Provinces. If you go to buy a car, if you apply for a job, if you apply for insurance, you'll find there is a dossier upon you, collected from hearsay evidence which you never have the opportunity of seeing or contesting or correcting, because very often it is the worst kind of hearsay and malicious gossip in those dossiers. They want to know, for example, how do you get along with your wife? Yes, they put that down. What about your morals? Are you the kind of office girl who sticks up for fellow employees in the office? Have you been in trouble with the law? Do you drink? Are you associated with the Social Credit movement? For $25, such is the trafficking in reputations in the Province of British Columbia, people can buy your reputation, your dossier. It can cost you a job and you are without redress. I say that the laws should provide that the dossiers be made available to the particular people they have been compiled about, so that those people have a right to know and correct, because big brother is watching.

I said that there was no real privacy, that privacy was a mockery in this Province and we've had the Privacy Act, which the Government watered down very substantially from the Act introduced by Members of this Opposition. We filed a Privacy Act for previous years. The Court of Appeal of British Columbia, in the only case that I know, the case of Davis and McArthur, ruled on that Privacy Act. Mr. Davis is a school janitor here in the city of Victoria and his wife hired detectives to go after him. Groundless, they never found any evidence of infidelity on his part, but what happened in the course of investigation? Cars followed him, three or four car lengths behind. His telephone was tapped and they put a bumper-beeper on the back of his car which he only discovered by accident, something that goes beep, beep, beep, so that the detective can follow the car around town. He opened the trunk and the thing fell out. But the Court of Appeal of British Columbia has found that there was no violation of the Privacy Act of this Province in either the telephone tapping or the bumper-beeper on the bumper of Davis's car. So, I say, that that Act has become a mockery.

The next case I want to refer to, under this section of violation of individual rights, is the Isman case. I'm talking about Judge Isman of the Provincial Court of Vancouver, a Provincial Judge with respect to whom a hearing was held under the Provincial Courts Act of this Province, the section that talks about misbehavior or neglect of duties, the section that says that if the Judicial Council…I don't criticize them they are all good members…makes a recommendation, that recommendation for dismissal of a judge shall be heard by the Attorney-General and acted one way or the other upon by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. In the Isman case, however, we saw, Mr. Speaker, Star Chamber proceedings. Was it a case, as it should have been of justice not only being done, but justice being seen to be done, a cardinal principle of the law of human rights? No, they held the hearings in camera, in secret, clandestinely, in the Workmen's Compensation Building, heavily guarded with security guards, in Vancouver. Then the report was made and the Attorney-General suppresses the report. The Attorney-General said a number of things which I want to refer to. He stresses that no formal charges have been brought against Isman. This is the paper of January 15, the Sun, and that he had done nothing improper in his capacity as a judge. "But," he said, "we demand high standards of conduct by our judiciary, which are much higher than the rest of us have to follow." And he adds, "There is nothing to suggest that at any time he acted anything other than honourably during his period on the Bench."

[ Page 130 ]

Well, now, if that's the case, we went into another principle, Mr. Speaker, and that's the principle that is well understood in trade union law and employee-employer relations. That is, that if something has been done which doesn't affect your employment, you should not be fired or reprimanded on the job for doing such a thing. That principle…no, the Attorney-General said that it didn't affect his judicial duties. If that's the case why, then, was he crucified, partly by the leaking of information to the press, partly by this enquiry, and partly by his suspension? The Attorney-General says he resigned voluntarily. Well, that's nonsense. He resigned because he had to, after these proceedings. He would have been subject to dismissal, if a man doesn't resign voluntarily in those circumstances. His reputation was destroyed, really, from the time of the suspension by the Chief Justice before the hearing took place. Sentence first, verdict after, as they say in Alice in Wonderland. With the accusations, he resigned voluntarily.

I say it should not have been a secret hearing. I say, further, that this judge was placed under surveillance by the police. People say that there is no wire tapping, no telephone tapping, or electronic surveillance by the police in the city of Vancouver. That's ridiculous. They have a truck that travels around the city full of electronic equipment for that express purpose. The Attorney-General said there was no authorization by Provincial authorities for telephone tapping during the investigation. He denied that he had made the authorization. There is no question, however, Mr. Speaker, that a Provincial judge was placed under surveillance by the police before this incident had occurred, which, in any case, was not connected with his judicial duties and the result of that is intimidation of judges, the result of that is to undermine judicial independence. The independence of the judiciary is at stake on this thing, and the judges who are subjected to surveillance in this way lose their independence. Now, my friend says, "hogwash." If he believes that the phones of judges should be tapped and that they should be placed under surveillance by the police without having done anything, then let him defend that position, because I will not. This is the road to tyranny.

I notice that the Federal Government intends to introduce legislation in this field of privacy, according to a report from the Honourable John Turner. Mr. Turner says that he still intends to give Provincial Attorney-Generals, and not the Courts, the rights to authorize specific police requests for wire tapping. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say we cannot trust the head law enforcement officer of the Crown with that responsibility. I'm not talking personally about it but he is the head of the police forces in the Province. Look what's happened in this case. Look at the amount of electronic surveillance that has taken place in the past years in the city of Vancouver and in other parts of the Province. I say, if there's to be that kind of electronic surveillance, permission should be granted by the Courts or a judge, and only by the Court or a judge, just as a search warrant has to be obtained, not from the Attorney-General today, but by the Court. I should move on to the next; I think I've made my point under that heading. I hope I have, and I hope that we have not heard the last of this matter in this Legislature because I think new privacy legislation should be introduced, not the toothless marvel that we now have. If the Government won't do it, this Opposition will.

I want to say something for a moment about the liquor laws of the Province. I'm, as usual, a little surprised by the inaction of this Government. We've had a Royal Commission headed by a judge, and by an archbishop and by a senator. It's been lying on our desks now for more than a year and I don't know what we are waiting for, unless it's for the Archangel Michael. But there has been no implementation of the main points of that liquor report. We have no Liquor Control Board, as recommended, that holds public hearings, that gives notice to the party so that everyone can apply. We have no neighbourhood pubs, we have no patio or beer gardens. This Commission said, of course, that saner drinking laws lead to moderation. It was a powerful committee. Instead of that we still have an acting Chairman of the Board, acting Board Members, acting Executive Assistants to the acting Chairman of the Board. If this goes on, Mr. Speaker, these people will have to take acting lessons. That's their capacity. I'm sure that Members opposite have taken acting lessons, it didn't appeal to them. In the issue of Macleans' Leisure Guide, the latest one out, it says this: "Premier Bennett's very own leprechaun who is opening — what else? — an Irish pub, tentatively christened 'Clancey's Irish Home' to go with it." And he says, "Far be it from me to suggest that Clancey contacts in Victoria could have any pull."

Now, I've got nothing against an Irish pub, or a kosher bar, or you name it, but I have got lots against the old system where liquor privileges are granted behind closed doors and campaign funds talk. Yes, we've lived under that system now and this Government is in no hurry to change it, I can see that. There was nothing in the opening Speech about bringing the Liquor Act into this Legislature. Public hearings, neighbourhood pubs, why haven't we got them by this time? Why should we still be tied to the B.C. Hotels Association? The Act has to be amended, Mr. Speaker. Today, a lounge license has to go to a hotel, club or a resort, it can't go to a neighbourhood pub or tavern. You've got to have beds, or a hotel, so legislation is needed. I say this Government should bring the Liquor Control Act into this Legislature at this Session of the House, and, particularly, to adopt public hearings of the Liquor Control Board, with an appeal from their decisions to the County Court as is recommended by the Royal Commission, so that nobody can say, as I'm saying now, that the thing is done under the tablecloth.

I want to say a word or two also about the state of the Province because conservation and environment were mentioned in the Throne Speech and the honourable friends opposite take a great deal of pride in their environmental programme. Yet to cross beautiful British Columbia…the only word I can think of to use, is a word that John Ruskin used years ago…a film of ilth is across the Province of British Columbia. "Ilth" is an old, old word. It sort of combines the greed, the headlong pursuit of wealth with filth and that's what we have in the Province of British Columbia. You talk about people who are now finding out about the environment. Well, we are pretty close to Robbie Burns' birthday and he was an environmentalist. Do you remember that poem when he talked about how his plow had turned up the mouse's nest, and he said, "I'm truly sorry man's dominion hath broken nature's social union, and justifies the ill opinion which makes thee startle from me, thy poor earthborne companion and fellow mortal." Well, my Leader, of course…(interruption). The honourable Member is the leader of the veterans' wing of our caucus, certainly.

We are pursuing a policy of economics over ecology. We are pursuing the headlong industrialization of this Province — build up the population as rapidly as you can, industry at any cost — even though that industry, like Utah Mines, is about to pour into Rupert Inlet, the figure still staggers me, but I

[ Page 131 ]

believe it's 9.3 million gallons of effluent per day into one channel. Now, we, on this side of the House, have proposed an Environmental Bill of Rights and it hasn't been moved, Mr. Speaker, so I can still speak on it. It's on the Order Paper. It hasn't been moved because we don't want to shut off discussion. The Honourable Member for Alberni mentioned the danger of oil spillage and it is a very real danger, because down at Cherry Point at Ferndale the tankers will be moving through the inland waters of British Columbia, and a more beautiful archipelago is not to be found anywhere in the world. They will be carrying to that refinery 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day and there will be hundreds of these tankers at work. Can anybody really say that in time we won't have a Torrey Canyon or a narrow disaster as in San Francisco Bay? I say that one of the things we can do, Mr. Speaker, is if we had made it a right of the people of British Columbia to enjoy clean air and clean water as well as freedom from noise, as one of their basic constitutional rights, a right that can be protected by the Courts of this Province, either by Court orders or by damages, then if there is oil spillage, in that case, too, we have a remedy. We have the right to go to Court for an injunction, we have the right to go to Court if that should happen for damages against the international oil companies that are bringing all this oil down the coast. I don't say that's the only answer to this question. It's an Ottawa problem, too, but I do say the time has come when these basic rights, the right to a clean environment, should be enshrined as part of our laws. I'm glad that the Member of Alberni applauded that, because I think there should be general support throughout this House.

They have set up, Mr. Speaker, of course, an Environmental and Land Use Committee but we wonder whether that committee is not too little and too late. What is it able to do, for example, to the economic devastation that has been reaped upon the Indians and Metis that inhabit the Athabaska Delta area of the Province of Alberta, by reason of the Peace River Dam? What could this committee do to look out for the protection of the environment outside of the boundaries of this Province? What foresight! What disastrous lack of foresight has this Government been responsible for in making no report, having no ecological report upon the effects, which have proved to be disastrous, of the Peace River Dam.

Too little and too late. What about the Skagit River? I support what was said by my learned friend, in practically every respect, from North Vancouver–Capilano, and the Member for Yale-Lillooet. I was thinking more in terms of the legal opinion that was granted, without, as I understand it, any charge by the Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, the other day. He's very complacent about the Skagit thing. He says it's been stopped. He says, "I've got a legal opinion that under the International Joint Commission there's no possibility of delegation of powers with respect to compensation," and it's been stopped. Well, I just don't share that optimism at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were his legal adviser.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I am not his legal adviser. (Interruption.) Well, he may have, because I just can't afford to travel first class. I'm just not a first-class legal adviser. I just have to admit it.

The Minister of Recreation says that the Skagit matter is a matter of ethics and I say it's a matter of ethics, too. We are about to witness the destruction of one of the most beautiful, natural river valleys in the Province of British Columbia and we're about to witness that destruction because Ottawa is weak-kneed about it. This Government is willing, this Government, Mr. Speaker, is perfectly willing to see the destruction of the Skagit Valley. "Barkus is willing," the Minister of Recreation is willing, the Minister of Lands is willing. Everybody is willing, except the people of British Columbia. Now, I say, we have come at this Session of the Legislature to, perhaps, the last chance to save the Skagit. Members of this House, and I put them on notice to this effect, should have to stand up and vote and be counted as a matter of conscience on this question. If we vote and, therefore, I propose to move, and I'm not making a motion now but at a later stage in the Session because I don't want to shut off debate, a resolution, which may sound innocuous but it expresses what we have to express in this Legislature. I think it is in order, as it reads: "That this House express its opinion that further flooding of the Skagit River Valley, as projected, is not in the best interests of the people of British Columbia and, further, that we call upon the city of Seattle, the Ecological Commission of Washington State, the Federal Power Commission, and the Government of Canada not to proceed with this project." On that resolution, Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House will, I hope, get up and vote their support as a matter of conscience, not a matter of international treaty, not a matter of law, but stand up and vote as British Columbians.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I'll say what I have to say on one or two other subjects. Is there a leprechaun in the House? I will conclude with just two other little matters which I would like to draw to the attention of the House but I think we all know about them. We saw the ad of Block Bros. Realty. It was placed in California — "B.C. for Sale." It wasn't just a little slip by one great real estate company, and I use the word, "great," in the sense of big and profitable. That has been exactly what has been happening in this Province. B.C. has been for sale. The Government opposite has been in office for 18 years and now they're beginning to try to lock the safe and make some worthwhile proposals, unquestionably. But they're locking the safe after the jewels have gone. Whole islands have been bought up by nonresidents, principally, the Americans. There are guards placed around some of these islands because they have the waterfront rights, too. The Cariboo region — you could almost say that the Cariboo region of British Columbia today is an American region. It's not just the big ranches like the Gang Ranch or the Nicola Lake Stock Farm that are American owned, there are other vast tracts of our Province that have been sold (interruption). Nicola Lake Stock Farm, is it not? That's the one I'm referring to. There was a man, Mr. Speaker, by the name of Wineberg, who made some admissions (interruption). You did not hear this last year, with respect, Mr. Member. He said that he's an Oregon businessman. I think we all know that. He speculated and he found that B.C. is a speculator's paradise. He's kind of likeable in his way because he's very candid in what he says. For example, in Macleans he says, "We have bought islands for $400 or $500 and sold them for $40,000 or more." Well, you can't dislike a fellow like that, but you must wonder what kind of a Government we have been having, that's been asleep while the very lands of British Columbia, the heritage of this and other generations, have been sold under our feet. At the moment, T. Wineberg holds clear and perfect title to more than 600 parcels of undeveloped land; a colonial empire of 60,000 acres! We've been virtually giving it away because he

[ Page 132 ]

gets it for an average of $10 an acre. He's made huge speculator's profits on it. They come, many of them nonresidents; they may be perfectly good people, but the wealthy ones, as I say, often have security guards and they often don't even travel through the Province of British Columbia. They come in by plane and land on their holdings, or they hold their holdings for speculation. The Columbia River — even the attractive waterfront properties created by the Columbia River project — I don't know where that word, "attractive," came from because the old lake was pretty attractive. They've been offering up there as much as $5,000 an acre. Mr. Wineberg says this, "Here's a little piece we've picked up for $1,500. I see it's now assessed at $30,000." He wonders whether Canadians, however, aren't getting just a bit too chintzy and he particularly resents the fact that customs officials and the RCMP have been making him pay duty. I guess maybe he's talking about sales tax (interruption). Oh, no, on the camping equipment and cottage furniture he brings into the country. That's a shame, really, because he's a bird of flight. He's not a real British Columbian. He's just coming in here on the odd flying visit, and imagine making him pay duty on his camping equipment! He's just a tourist, who has 60,000 acres of the best land of British Columbia (interruption). Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the Minister that he should do what he should have done long ago and that's to abolish the tax sale, and when taxes are in arrears, through the misfortune of the owner, and he's going to lose his property, let it revert to the municipality or let it revert to the Provincial Government. You should have closed that loophole years ago, but you have not. I say, further, there's another thing you can do, Mr. Minister, through the Speaker, and that is…well, you're very proud of your home-owner grant which really, after all, is internal bookkeeping among the people of British Columbia. But I think that the owners and the taxpayers of British Columbia should have a tax break by paying at a lower tax rate than nonresidents. In other words, in a way it's the principle of the home-owner grant only this is a real principle because the nonresidents will pay more. The absentee owners of great chunks of British Columbia should pay more in their taxes because they're nonresident than do the native people of this Province, our own people.

Now, that won't get us back our land but, I think, in some respects, all that's gone in tax sales has been bought by Americans, even after 1970, by agents or through corporations to get around the legislation we passed at the last Session. My colleague from Vancouver East told you what the loophole was. It was wide open and they took advantage of it and you wouldn't amend the Act, the Land Act, to prevent it, at that time, and so they purchased through agents. The provision that there could be no sales to non-Canadians was, of course, worthless. You were told that more of our land was sold under our very feet in the last year until it got so bad that the Minister had to call a halt to tax sales, I think, last October. The kids sometimes sing, "This land is our land, this land is my land, this land is our land," but it isn't our land. No, we've allowed it to be sold under our feet. The land of British Columbia has been taken away from us under our feet. And what have we? Yes, I know, Mr. Speaker, the honourable Members out there don't seem to object to absentee ownership of the Province of British Columbia. I suppose, too, they support the growth in this Province over the past 15 or 16 years of a new group of millionaires, all of them pretty well friends of the Social Credit Government, building up their wealth from speculators' profits on the highways and by-ways of this Province, through shopping centres, through gasoline station sites, by getting the public domain zoned, perfectly legally, to their liking, by access rights along the highways that the taxpayers' money has gone in to build up. They reap the profit of the money machine that has been grinding away for this new group of millionaires throughout all of this Province. You name it. Britannia Beach, Kelowna, Kamloops, McBride — that is what has been happening to our Province. We face, Mr. Speaker, in this House, this Opposition, not merely a strong political party on the opposite benches and I don't doubt its strength, but we face a political and a financial power on the other side of this House and so do the people of British Columbia. Because we have seen built up in this Province a new plutocracy making its money out of speculators' profits, making money that, if we revered the public domain, could have been revenue returned to the coffers of the people, a new oligarchy of wealth as well as political power headed by King Cecil and receiving loads of support from his loving subjects and the objects of the bounty that has been made possible by the system that has been allowed to prevail in this Province over the last 18 years. In 1968, there was the promise that the enhanced values created by the expenditure of public funds would not be allowed to be obtained by the speculator for his profit and his capital gain but would be returned to the people of this Province. That promise was broken, that promise made to this Legislature was broken. One hundred years later after Confederation, the best Centennial gift that we could make, remembering the pioneers of this Province in 1871, would be to give this Province back to the people of British Columbia. We honour those pioneers and they would know what we are talking about today. We say of them that their past is ours and our future is theirs. We have a chance to make this one of the most wonderful Provinces that ever existed but, for goodness sake, let the people of British Columbia have an equity in their resources, in their lands, in their islands and in their waterways. Give British Columbia back to the people of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, in these days of economic stress in our country, I think that those of us who are engaged in the business of Government carry a very heavy burden which respect to our responsibilities to constituents. That is the feeling with which I approach this debate. The major part of my remarks will be concerned with the problems of poverty and unemployment and I hope that what I have to say may be of some use to the Government in solving these problems, which are becoming increasingly great across Canada.

First of all, I have a few short shots that I would like to dispose of, some, perhaps, not too important, but important to some people. There is the matter of the new regulations with respect to the licensing of motor-vehicles, which calls for the placing of a validating sticker on the license plates for this coming year and the next few years. A number of people in the Province have tow-hitches welded onto the back of their cars and it so happens that the ball of the tow-hitch sits in front of the spot that the validating sticker should occupy. These people have been warned, when they have appeared at the motor-vehicles testing stations, that they would have to remove the ball, or perhaps the entire tow-hitch in order to

[ Page 133 ]

comply with the regulations as of the date of the new license year. I would like to suggest to the Attorney-General that he might perhaps add a new regulation allowing people with tow-hitches to attach the validating sticker to the trunk of the car, where it would be clearly visible at all times. It would stand out much better than it would on the license plate itself, and the front validating sticker could be in its proper place in the centre of the license. I think that this would be an easy solution to the problem and would relieve many people who are concerned because they use their cars for towing boats and trailers and so on, frequently, and it would be a terrible nuisance to have to remove the hitch and put it back on, especially when they're welded on, and sometimes safety regulations require that they should be welded on. Perhaps, the Attorney-General will pick up this consideration and perhaps arrange that they be glued to the back of the trunk where they may be clearly visible to anyone who wants to see them.

Another matter which was brought up in the House, both yesterday and today, Mr. Speaker, was the matter of the American visitor to our city, I should say to the city of Vancouver, one Edward Lawson, a black actor, and for the information of the Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds, I would like to state that Mr. Lawson did, at no time, request the use of a telephone, therefore, no one was in contravention of the law in keeping him, as the paper states, "incommunicado." I know that, because I had a half-hour conversation with him on the phone yesterday. I have all the details and I would suggest that the honourable Member should get his information correct before bringing it into the House. There are many things wrong with this incident, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to talk about those as well. I think it's important that, we bring facts to the floor of the House and not…(interruption). If the gentleman had requested the use of a phone and had been refused it, and I understand that in other areas of the Province, refusal has been made, I would hope that the Attorney-General will see to it that this right, which every one of us should have, will be enforced. I was the one, I believe, who first brought it to the Floor last year and it was supported by my good friend from Burnaby-Edmonds. I'm happy that the Attorney-General brought it in, but we must make it work in order for there to be any value to it. However, there are other aspects to this particular incident, with which I think we should be concerned. I am particularly concerned about the fact that Mr. Lawson, being black, was stopped…(interruption). They don't use that term any more, my friend…was stopped twelve or more times, sometimes searched on the street, in a matter of the six or seven weeks that he has been in the city of Vancouver — on three occasions by the same policeman. Now, those of you who have seen Mr. Lawson's picture in the paper will certainly agree that his is not a face that can be lost in a crowd. If you see him once, you'll remember him and, especially, a policeman who has been trained to remember faces, certainly, should not have to ask him for identification three times in a matter of a short space of time. I think there's a distinct case of harassment in that particular officer's case. I think discrimination on account of his colour and the overall picture — to be stopped and checked twelve times or more in a matter of six or seven weeks — is just too much. He's been pounced upon on the streets and had his pockets turned inside out, without any warning and not knowing who was doing it — civilian, policemen in civilian clothes. I think this is just too much. Harassment is what I said. Then when he did get to the police station on Sunday, he was checked in and he was asked a number of questions; where he resided; where he worked; who his employer was, and so on and so forth. He answered all the questions. His wallet and other belongings were taken from him, as is usual. He was able to show that he had a large number of credit cards. He had a very little amount of cash in his pocket, less than a dollar in silver. His apartment was less than four blocks away, when he was stopped in the first place. I will agree that he refused to identify…rather, he didn't refuse to identify himself, he refused to produce identification. And he did so after, on three different occasions; phoning, first, on two occasions, the police information office in the city of Vancouver and, on the third occasion, the City Prosecutor's office, at which he spoke to a Mr. Cook. Now, on each occasion, he was informed that he did not have to produce identification. He protested because he had been harassed so often and that's what they told him each time — that he didn't have to produce identification when he was stopped on the street unless there was a reason for stopping him. Now, the officer who stopped him on Sunday warned him that he would charge him with vagrancy if he did not produce identification and, sticking by his principles, he refused to produce and was thrown into the wagon and taken down to the station. Upon arrival there, as I said, he was relieved of his personal property and a form was filled out, and he was asked to sign the form. He said, "I want to read it first." He was told, "You don't have to read it, just sign it." He ignored that, and proceeded to begin to read the form to see what he was signing, which everyone has the right to do. The form was taken away from him by the police officer and where the signature should normally go, the police officer wrote "refused." He didn't refuse — he wanted to see what he was signing. He was then placed in the drunk tank. A drunk tank designed for twelve people, having twelve beds. He was not drunk; as a matter of fact, the man does not drink alcohol. He does not drink alcohol at all. There were men on the beds, under the beds, some of them throwing up; it was a real mess he was placed in. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there must have been other cells available for this man. He is a man in an honourable profession. Clean. He has long hair but that's accepted nowadays. I don't agree with it, but it's accepted, nevertheless, and that's, perhaps, a part of his acting as well. The next morning, Monday morning, he was brought before the magistrate and pleaded, "not guilty." He was ordered released on his own recognizance, taken back to the drunk tank and finally released at about five o'clock in the afternoon. The last man to be released from the drunk tank — the last man. When he mentioned, when he was being booked in, that he was an actor, it was cause for great hilarity amongst the officers present. "How could you be an actor?" This type of approach.

I think it's a rather shocking and a rather sad event for the city of Vancouver. I hope that the Attorney-General will direct a letter to the Chief of Police of the city of Vancouver to ensure that this doesn't happen to more of our visitors. A letter of apology is certainly in order. I think the man is suing the city of Vancouver and I hope he succeeds.

I would like to direct just a word of congratulations to the mover and seconder of the motion in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I think both Members carried out their duties very capably. I think that they administered, particularly the Member for Columbia, administered the proper shellacking to those who deserved it and I heartily endorse what he had to say. I do want to say a word to the two stars

[ Page 134 ]

of the Monday performance. The Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition, neither of whom is in the House today, but I will simply say that the Leader of the Liberal Party has a tremendous amount of gall to suggest that the Government of the Province of British Columbia is to blame for the unemployment situation in this Province, when he knows full well that it is the result of the declared and deliberate policy of the Federal Liberal Government. Who is he trying to fool? They told us months ago they were going to create unemployment as a solution to the spiralling prices. You know, it reminds me a little bit of a cure…. There was a story that went around in the Qu'Appelle Valley where I grew up. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it went around as a true story. That's back in the old days when the roads weren't very good. Sometimes there were no roads at all; they used horses and wagons. There was a city boy that came out from England to become a farmer in the district around Indian Head, and he was quite concerned about coming down the hills with his horses because he was afraid the horses would go too fast and he would have trouble holding them back. So he went to some of his Canadian neighbours for advice and they told him, "Well, that's simple. You just put hobbles on the front legs of the horses and they won't be able to go too fast." Well, any of you who have seen horses with hobbles will know what happens. The hobbled horses going downhill with a load behind them, are going to go head first, and that's exactly what happened. But I think this is a type of cure that our Federal Liberal Government is applying to the question of inflation. They are going to go headlong into destruction if we continue at this pace. On the way up, they tied a wheel on the way up, by the way. This might be what the Liberals would do, too, on the way up, you tie one wheel so that the wagon won't slip back when you stop. It makes it easier to control.

I haven't too much to say for my friend on the Official Opposition because, really, he didn't have too much to say, either. The Leader of the Official Opposition suggested that new 3 per cent tax, which I'm sure would please the people of this Province. I'm sure they would be very happy with a new tax. As a matter of fact, I hear there's a rumour about that one of the Indian tribes, I'm not sure which, now, is considering the possibility of making him an honorary chief for his contribution last Monday. They're going to call him "Chief Stumbling Block." I think that's an appropriate title for the Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable Members that the past couple of years I've been quite brief in my remarks and I, therefore, ask their…yes, under half an hour. Under half an hour each time and I, therefore, ask their indulgence for what would seem considerably longer remarks today (interruption). I agree that it probably seemed longer. The remarks that I am going to make today, Mr. Speaker, are the very basis for my being here. I became a Social Crediter in Alberta in late 1934 and I did so, because the country was in a terrible state and I thought that the people of this country deserved something better. What I express today, I express as a solution, an analysis of the problems that face us and a solution that I hope might be acceptable. I feel that it's worth spending a few more minutes on to do that.

Before I get to that, I would like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about my visit last fall to Australia as a British Columbia delegate to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was very proud and very happy to get that beautiful, free trip, with all expenses paid by the Australian Government, mostly, and, I would have you know, by the taxpayers of Australia. The Provincial Government paid very little of it and I want to especially point out the fact that, in spite of the fact that I have, over the years, since I've been in this House, expressed my mind freely and criticized the Government frequently, our Premier is a big enough man, in his sense of justice, is great enough to still send me to represent the Province on what has to be considered a problem. I don't care who knows it. I'm sure that if the Members opposite had the opportunity to do something similar they would not send the Member for Atlin (interruption). I found, Mr. Speaker, I found…. O.K. you guys, they're giving me enough trouble over there without you helping them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LeCOURS: One thing I found at this conference, Mr. Speaker, is that the problems which face us in Canada, face people throughout the world. I was quite pleased to hear references to legislation by exhaustion. We heard that mentioned in the Australian House, the House of Representatives. It's quite a general thing, it's the only control, and I'm thankful that we have it. I find, though, it rather depressing to contemplate, that none of the countries who has struggled so hard to obtain their independence from the Mother Country, have carried their independence further and, by that, I mean into the economic field. One of the most interesting people I met at the conference…oh, before I say that, I would like to say that, really, other than having a get-together where you can exchange ideas, I don't think the conference accomplishes a great deal. It gives the nonwhite nations a chance to express their displeasure with the whites, and rightly so but, other than that, there's no follow-up which is going to bear any results and I'm quite disappointed about that, because I would hope that these conferences would be helpful in cementing the Commonwealth. Some people might think that the Commonwealth is not very important to us but I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I think that it's very important that the Commonwealth be kept together, not so much for the Commonwealth, but the sake of democracy. The British Commonwealth is the greatest bastion of democracy in the world right now and unless we keep the Commonwealth together, there is great danger of democracy disappearing from the face of the earth. There is an increasing dissatisfaction among the underdeveloped nations with the type of system that they live under. I agree that that dissatisfaction exists elsewhere, as well. I'm certainly not happy with it, but I think that it is important that we continue to participate in these conferences. It is important that we do our share to keep the Commonwealth together. I'm not very happy with what is going on with respect to the sale of arms to South Africa. I think that's a sham and a phony approach, but that's one of the facts that we have to face. I think that there are more important things to the survival of democracy and to the survival of the Commonwealth than the supplying of arms to South Africa. For the information of my friend across the way, I never said I didn't like Trudeau. I said in this House, at one time, that I thought there was great hope for Canada when he became the Leader of the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, he promised nothing and has done nothing and, now, I am disappointed that I ever did approve of him.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting people I met at the conference was a delegate from Kenya by the name of Waruru Kanja, a tall, handsome man, about 6'2" and

[ Page 135 ]

weighing close to 200 pounds, I would say, a former member of the Mau Mau. He had, during the struggle for independence, been one of the leaders in the movement; he eventually was captured by the British. He was sentenced to death and, later, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment as a result of the actions of the Right Honourable Arthur Bottomley and various other people of influence who were aware of his plight. Her Majesty commuted his sentence to a life imprisonment. Even that was not too funny or too pleasant. He occupied the next room to mine during the conference and we spoke together and ate together frequently. He told me, among other things, some of the things that he went through: being left for a week at a time without any clothes in a small cement cell with about an inch of water on the floor; no blankets, bunks or anything else. It's rather incredible that, in this day and age, we should subject any human being to that type of treatment. This happened just a few years ago; it's not something that happened in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. It happened less than ten years ago. Fortunately, they have obtained their independence and, now, Mr. Kanja is a Member of Parliament — and a very fine one, I'm sure. He made one or two speeches at the conference. He's from Kenya. He spoke very well. He's a man of great dignity and I admire him. He's not bitter. As a matter of fact, he asked Mr. Bottomley, who was also a delegate to the conference, to take back his good wishes to Her Majesty the Queen. That was a very nice gesture on his part. I think that it is important that we consider the fact that these people who are considered to be terrorists in the days of their struggle for independence…the Mau Maus were considered as terrorists. Thousands and thousands were killed. He says that he thinks that maybe as many as 50,000 lost their lives in Kenya's struggle for independence. He says, "There was no fooling, we were killing each other. That's the only way we could get our independence." I point this out to emphasize the fact that people will take hardship for just so long then there comes a time when they'll face anything to divest themselves of that hardship. While they were referred to as terrorists in those days I don't think anyone will suggest that today they are anything but very respectable and honourable people. They are running their country; they are the governors, the parliamentarians of their own country. I'm disappointed that they haven't gone one step farther. They have obtained their physical freedom but they haven't obtained their economic freedom and I tried to convince several of them with whom I spoke there, that they must go farther, they must do what we all must do (interruption). You stick around and you'll find out. I'll be telling you more. This man, Waruru Kanja, Mr. Speaker, reminded me very much of a little poem I ran across some time ago. It's only four lines and I'm going to quote it, because I think it has meaning. It goes like this Mr. Speaker:

You might rout a man with a club or a gun,
With a threat or a frantic scream.
But beware the man, the deadliest man,
Who is armed with a dream.

That held true, I think, for the Mau Maus in their struggle for independence, and for other countries as well. I think that it augurs well for us to pay heed to these words because they are — how does the song go? — "The answer is blowing in the wind," if we don't take heed. I think that's how the song goes, "The answer is blowing in the wind." We must accept our responsibility to the people we represent. We must rule, or govern should I say, the Province to the benefit of all and not just for a few.

Among the topics discussed at that conference in Australia were some that I was very much interested in. There were student protest, industrial unrest, poverty and general turmoil, all topics which we could discuss here at home to good benefit. I noticed that the speakers, in commenting on these topics, didn't seem, in any way, to concern themselves with the fact that they might be responsible for these conditions. They all seemed to think that, like my friend down the way here, it's all one big communist plot designed to destroy democracy. I don't agree. I think that all these things, that all these conditions, are the results of the inadequacy of our system as we now operate it. I think if we are going to save democracy we must modify it. We must make it fit the needs of the twentieth century. When I heard many of those speakers, I recalled the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, "All experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." How true! That's right! The late William Aberhart had a saying, which my friend has just quoted back here, "If you haven't suffered enough, it's your God-given right to suffer some more."

I think that many of our people have suffered enough and I think that we must put an end to that suffering. There's a good deal of truth in the fact that people will shy away from change but it doesn't apply to everyone. I'm not too hot on history but, if you look back in history, you'll find that there are many people that have been ready to put their lives on the line to obtain better conditions for their people. I think a shining example, not of putting his life on the line, perhaps, but a shining example of a determined effort, was that of the late Mahatma Gandhi and, in spite of overwhelming odds, he carried on his battle; he was able to obtain his goal. There are many people who have refused to be content with the status quo. The important thing, I think, is the approach. Movements such as the Black Power movement, the Yippies, of which we saw some evidence here last week, the Weatherman and various other revolutionary groups have been flaring up throughout the United States, particularly, and in some parts of our country, for the past several years. There were bombings and burnings and riots in Detroit and the place outside Los Angeles, Watts, and so on. They all bear evidence of discontent. Even the numerous bombings we've had in Quebec have caused little concern to the rest of Canada. It wasn't until last October, or September was it, that the kidnappings, followed by the murder of a Quebec Minister, made us all sit up and take notice. We became concerned then, because things were getting serious. Until then the bombings didn't matter too much to us.

A closer look at all those problem areas will reveal that these people are not really seeking black power or student power. The people of Quebec, the FLQ people, don't really want to extend the French language across Canada. They aren't really concerned about that. These people are all reacting against something. They're fed up with the degradations to which so many of our people have been subjected unnecessarily for many years. They are fed up with many things in our society. Fed up, for example, with the usury that is tolerated and allowed, by law, to prevail. I'm thinking, for example, of loan companies, who can charge 24 per cent interest on a paper loan. It's not endorsed by the Government but it's tolerated, and it shouldn't be. I know of one case where a man signed two mortgages. One for roughly $5,000 at 18 per cent, and he received the $5,000. Then he was made to sign another mortgage for $1,500 at 24 per cent.

[ Page 136 ]

But he didn't receive that, that was the bonus on the first one. So you can figure that he was probably paying something in the way of 35 to 40 per cent on his first mortgage in the long run. I say this should not be tolerated by law. It's completely wrong.

These people are also fed up with a society that allows a lawyer, for example, to charge three and four and even five thousand dollars for half a day's work. They do it, and they're allowed to do it by law. They make their own terms, they make their own rules, and the public is made to pay for it. I say this is immoral. It's legal but it's immoral, and it should be stopped (interruption). I can name names, certainly, but I won't because I named them once before, and the press wouldn't even put them in the paper. But I can name names, certainly. You know, I did mention at that time that I don't see why any lawyer ever gets involved with embezzling his client's funds because he doesn't have to. He can steal it legally. He doesn't need a gun, he doesn't need to embezzle, he can steal it legally. I think it's time that we moved in on the lawyers and stopped them from carrying on this way. I know the Attorney-General thinks this is a big joke but it's no joke to the victims, I assure you. I beg your pardon, Mr. Attorney-General. I didn't classify you among those lawyers, in any case. However, it is a serious problem. It's no joke. It's one thing that somebody should be doing something about. As long as we allow the lawyers to make their own rules and then have one of their own men as the judge, the registrar, you know, who "happens to be an old army buddy of mine, but, nevertheless, you can be sure that he makes the decisions in the right direction."…When they go in there to have a bill taxed, there's no problem in taxing a bill when you have a lawyer taxing it for you. I say that should be revised and there should be some effort made to have some independent person as a judge in the taxing of lawyers' accounts.

These people are also fed up with what goes on in some of our Courts. I say some of our Courts, not all of our Courts, thank goodness. There's some very strange handling of cases. I've quoted many of them in this House before. I refer to a classic one where a policeman identified the offending car as a light car. When the defendant took the stand he said, "Well, my car happens to be black," and the magistrate said, "That makes no difference, you're guilty anyway." This is the kind of justice we can do without. These are the kind of judges who should be taken from the Bench. It shouldn't be necessary to tap their phones to do so. They should be removed for incompetency when they go that far. I think that when the Attorney-General receives dozens of letters complaining about a certain magistrate, he should look into it and find out why there are so many complaints of injustice.

I'm concerned, also, and the people are fed up with Courts that obviously favour prominent people in their decisions. There are many instances. You can read one in the paper almost every week. There are all kinds of instances of this happening. The poor fellow that's picked up on Skid Row gets the book thrown at him but if he's somebody who is a prominent citizen and has embezzled two or three thousand dollars, then he gets away with a light sentence. This is the way that they operate. It's not what you've got, it's who you are. It's very often, not always, but very often the deciding factor.

I believe that these people are also fed up with a society that allows a medical doctor to make between three and four thousand dollars in one year for performing illegal abortions. This is made possible only because of the lack of courage on the part of our Federal Government to bring in legislation which would make this possible legally. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, I am personally opposed to abortion; however, that doesn't detract from the fact that this goes on. I think that this doctor should have been charged, not with committing illegal abortions but with embezzling $250,000 from his patients, because that's about how much he charged them more than he should have charged. The fee for a legal abortion, therapeutic abortion, is going to be $50 and his fee was $500 and, in some cases, more. I think he should have been charged with embezzling that difference and should be punished adequately for it. He was given a slap on the wrist — $15,000 fine and two or three months in gaol, which was nothing.

These people are also fed up with the way we react to different classes of our society. We don't have a class of society, Mr. Speaker. There are very distinct differences in our society. The things that you do in one of the posh hotels in Vancouver, for example, you could not do in one of the rundown hotels of Skid Row. You'd have the riot squad there. What goes on in Grey Cup season, for example, in the main parts of the larger hotels, would not be tolerated for a minute if it happened on Skid Row by people in working clothes. This is not justice. We must have the same treatment for all our people.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, I have to enumerate any more. I think anyone with a conscience will be able to dig up a whole flock of them for himself. Occasions where we have out and out injustice, it's tolerated by everyone concerned. Even the Church tolerates it. The Church professes to preach the word of Christ but seldom really backs it up by acting on the things that it knows to be unjust. I think it's time that the collective churches rolled up their sleeves and cracked the whip and chased the usurers from the temple and all other evildoers of society. I think they have a responsibility in that regard, to remove, once and for all, the many evils that face our society.

I mentioned the bombings in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and I think that it is fair to say that those people are not concerned really about the language problem. I will venture to say that, if they were assured of a decent job at a decent wage elsewhere in Canada, they'd be quite prepared to leave the Province of Quebec and forget their French language and be happy to speak English as long as they could live in dignity as they should be able to do.

Quite often, you hear a rather violent reaction, Mr. Speaker, as a result of rather minor Government expenditures. I'm always amazed by this because there are other Government expenditures which the people seem to ignore completely. I think that the things that people make a fuss about are rather insignificant in comparison to the fact; for example, that we're paying about five million dollars a day interest on our National debt. Five million dollars per day in interest on our National debt! People don't say a thing about that. The contingent liabilities take care of themselves. They're paid for by the user the same as if it were privately owned (interruption). That's straight nonsense. You know very well that if the B.C. Hydro were privately owned, the debt would be paid for by the users of the electricity and gas, just as they are now. It would make absolutely no difference. I think the problem is, Mr. Speaker, that we've been brainwashed over the years into believing that the business of Government is something that is very complicated and can only be understood by politicians. We accept certain facts because we're told that they've always been so, that they're

[ Page 137 ]

inevitable, and so on. I think it's time that we applied more common sense to some of these problems, because they are not only undesirable but completely unnecessary. At the time of Confederation, Mr. Speaker, our National debt was 93 million dollars. That was 103 years ago and we're still paying interest on that 93 million. We've been paying interest on it, ever since, to those who loaned it and to those who have refinanced it since, of course. The debt, Mr. Speaker, has grown to the point where today, I think, it has reached something in the neighbourhood of 38 billion dollars. If we consider Provincial, municipal and school debts on top of that, we are paying interest on public debts of about 60 billion dollars altogether, which is costing us about a total of 10 million dollars a day in interest. The people of Canada have to work to pay off 10 million dollars per day in public debt interest before they can take one dollar into their homes to feed their families. If we weren't paying this money in interest, Mr. Speaker, I think it's quite obvious that the people of Canada would have an extra 10 million dollars a day to spend on goods and service. You can understand what a difference that would make. If the people could spend an extra 10 million dollars a day on goods instead of paying it in interest, they would create a demand for more goods, and when they created a demand for more goods, they would create employment. Employment would create more spending, more spending would create a demand for more goods. It is an escalating situation where prosperity breeds prosperity and unemployment breeds unemployment. I think that this is the first thing we have to do, we have to correct this situation where we're pouring 10 million dollars a day down the drain to pay interest on public debts. The Premier knows that, he's in accord with it, in agreement with it, he's not the one we have to deal with (interruption). You'll learn. You just listen. Now the people who are responsible for this, Mr. Speaker, are those who have control over our credit and currency — the National Government in Ottawa. We have put them in there year after year and ask them to run our business for us.

If you had a business and hired a manager, and if this manager kept increasing your debt year after year, never paying it off and got it to the point of bankruptcy, I don't think you would keep that manager on very long. You would expect to have a manager who would pay off the debt on your business and you would then be able to show a profit so you could have money put aside, as you should do and which has happened in this Province over the last 18 or 19 years. Those of you who have criticized the spending of this Government over the years will be thankful that this Government had enough foresight to plan for what is coming up on us now, this depression that has been instigated by the Federal Government, because now we will be able to cope, at least in part, with it, which is something the other Provinces will not be able to do. I think the important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we must keep in mind the fact that, at the rate that we have been going in the last 103 years, our National debt will never be paid off. How can any business or anything else progress if you can't pay off your debts? You can't just go on piling up the debts. Especially, when they are producing assets, that's what they are doing. They are producing assets and they are necessary for the development of this Province. You well know it, too.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Bank of Canada and this Bank of Canada supposedly belongs to the people of Canada and, I say, why are we not using it to serve the needs of the people of Canada? Those of you who have a house mortgage will know that, depending on the rate of interest you are paying, by the time your house is paid off, you pay for it two or three times, depending on the rate of interest, anywhere from 6 to 10 per cent. You pay for it two or three times over the years. This may be all right for an individual or a private business to have to pay this kind of interest but when we have a bank that belongs to the people of the country, when we have the entire population of Canada as guarantors for any debt, there is no earthly reason why the Bank of Canada should not provide the money for public expenditure in Canada at no interest rate, whatsoever. The Bank belongs to the people and, therefore, the cost of administering such a loan would be borne by the people as a whole. The cost would be approximately one per cent incidentally. This, of course, would have the effect that I mentioned a while ago of making an extra 10 million dollars a day available to spend on goods and services. Just imagine what would happen if the Province of British Columbia, for example, had that extra million dollars, taking out one tenth of it, one million dollars a day, to spend on goods. How much employment would that create? It gives you some idea (interruption). I'll get to that later.

We have to consider, in that respect, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are now being called upon to pay up to 8 per cent interest on some of our public debts, when we could be doing it at a cost to the country of about one per cent. I don't know the details with respect to B.C. Hydro but I know B.C. Hydro has gone on the open market for money. They've gone to New York. I don't know what they've paid but I do know the Quebec Hydro went to the American market not too long ago for 50 million dollars, at 10 per cent for 25 years, and 10 per cent of 50 million is 5 million, isn't it? And for 25 years it's 125 million. So, by the time they have paid off that debt they will have paid 175 million for a loan of 50 million. I think it should be made quite clear that it is impossible to operate anything, any kind of business or a country, on this type of economy. We have to do something about it.

I would point out, also, Mr. Speaker, that Canada lends millions of dollars to other countries, interest free. Just last May, I believe it was, they loaned Malaysia 52 million, interest free. They've loaned a lot more again in the past few weeks, interest free but, when they offered 35 million to the Province of British Columbia for use by the municipalities, they wanted something like 8 per cent for it. We're not good enough to have it interest free, like the Malaysians and the others do. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's important to know that many municipalities are paying 10 per cent for their money while other countries are getting monies from us interest free. I think that it is important to know also that Canada has loaned over a billion dollars, over one billion dollars, to other countries at interest rates of 3 per cent or less. Three per cent or less to other countries. Think of what we could do in Canada with that billion dollars at 3 per cent or less. Use your own imagination. You know the needs of this country, you know what we could do with that money, instead of paying 8, 9, or 10 per cent and better for it. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that our Federal Government is a sovereign power. It has the authority to bring in any legislation which it wishes for the benefit of the people of this country. It's a sovereign power and it has the right to do anything that is proper and just for the people of this country. We have a Bank that belongs to the people of this country. Our National debt could be refinanced through this Bank as the bonds become due, at no cost other than the cost of administering the loan. We could retire the entire National

[ Page 138 ]

debt over the years as the bonds become due and we could be carrying that debt at one per cent, or at no interest if you like, through the Bank of Canada, without any difficulty whatsoever. In case some of you say this can't be done, that it is contrary to economic reasoning and all this, I will have proof for you later on that it can be done. I'll have quotations from various people of authority to back up what I say.

Many of us, Mr. Speaker, will recall the depression of the "hungry 'thirties." It was a reason for my becoming interested in politics. The poverty all around made me decide that something could be done to give us a better life than we were enjoying in those days (interruption). It's coming around, I agree with you, Mr. Member, it's coming around and I'm afraid that it might go full circle if we don't stop it. But we can stop it. We can't stop it on the Provincial level but we can do something toward it and I'm going to suggest that something later on. When the war broke out in 1939, Mr. Speaker, I think you will recall, probably, that the Government called an Emergency Session and, in seven short days, they came up with solutions to the problems that were facing us at that time, the matter of emergency measures for the War. It took them seven days to solve that problem. Do you hear what's coming out of Ottawa these days? That unemployment is going to get worse before it gets better. They don't know what to do about it; they don't have any solutions; they don't have any right to be governing this country. Now, in spite of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we had been floundering around in a depression for about ten years at that time, with thousands and thousands of our people unemployed and living in dire poverty, and I remember seeing many of them riding the rods and, you know, the Regina Riots and other riots where people got their heads cracked open…and that brings to mind, Mr. Speaker, something I meant to mention at the outset and forgot to. I'm going to stop here and mention it, because when I mentioned about heads being cracked open, it reminded me of a man, who was greatly honoured by all members of this House and of this Province, a man I had the pleasure of having along with me at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Australia, the former leader of the Official Opposition, Harold Winch. I think Members here are aware of the fact that he had his head cracked open and partially lost the hearing in one ear in those hungry days of the 'thirties. I want to pay tribute to Harold Winch in other ways besides that indignity he received in those days, that he didn't deserve. He was, unfortunately, a sick man when he came to the conference. He had been in hospital for surgery prior to the conference and had been advised that he had a very serious illness that would require further surgery, but he managed to get back on his feet and he came to the conference, nevertheless. It's a great tribute to him that, in the report which we received a couple of weeks ago — and I'm sorry I don't have it at hand, I do have it but I forgot to get it out — that the Secretary-General of the CPA from England, paid tribute to two people: one, a Mr. Shaw from Trinidad and Tobago, for a motion which he brought to the floor of the House thanking departing members, and the other was a tribute to Harold Winch, for the wonderful speech that he made before that conference. I think that we should all be proud of his contribution to the conference.

I want to say also, Mr. Speaker, that I was very happy to have, as a leader of our delegation, the Honourable John Turner, who was on the floor of the House here a couple of days ago. I was proud of his contribution to the debate. He didn't try to gain favour with those who wanted him to say certain things. He said what he thought was right and, actually, he was criticized by some of our white friends, but the nonwhites at the conference were very happy with what he said. I was very proud to have him as my leader at that conference. One sad note, Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of our delegation, a Mr. Bernie Pilon, who was the Government Whip in the House of Commons at that time, apparently suffered a heart attack about a week after his return from the conference and passed away, and that is a sad note. He was a very fine chap and I'm sure that his constituents will miss him greatly. Now, if you'll excuse me, Mr. Speaker, for breaking away that way, by saying that cracking open heads reminded me of Harold… I just had to mention that because I had planned on saying it earlier.

I had reached the point, Mr. Speaker, where I said that in spite of the fact that we had been suffering dire poverty for about ten years when the War broke out, suddenly all this ended. Suddenly all this ended. People were able to obtain jobs. They were able to buy the food and other goods which were on the market and that created a demand for more goods and the wheels of industry began to turn again. In other words, we put food on the tables of the nation again, after waiting for ten long years of suffering — suffering that was most unnecessary. So I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why, with this experience behind us, our Federal Government would even consider promoting unemployment and inflation, because they've promoted inflation as well and they've promoted poverty. What they're doing now is promoting poverty, because when you take people's employment away they're going to be poor. When they are poor, they're going to spend less. If they spend less, then there are going to be less goods produced. That's going to mean that there'll be less people working to produce goods and they'll also be poor. It is a continuing affair and a progressive affair and they are deliberately bringing on a depression because they think that they are going to stop increasing prices in this way. I say, it's a very poor approach to a problem which could be solved quite easily if they had the guts to go about doing it the right way.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of our people seem to accept depressions and unemployment as something that comes along more or less like the seasons, something that you can't avoid, it just comes along because it has to happen. This, of course is wrong, Mr. Speaker. Hard times, depressions, unemployment are not acts of God. They are man made and they can be eliminated by man, if man will only act as he should. I think it's time that our Federal Government be made aware that they have a responsibility in this regard and, I think, that this Government could do something toward it as well. We can restrict some of the inadequacies that exist in this Province. We can restrict many of the things that I mentioned earlier, the high interest rates, the exorbitant fees charged by certain people, any type of injustice I think we have responsibility to eradicate and make things so that people can enjoy a better life.

To begin with, Mr. Speaker, we must understand that the real wealth of any country is what the people of that country can produce. That's the real wealth. The more you produce, the wealthier you are. I was quite surprised to find out in the conference in Australia that all countries are wealthy. I always thought that India was poor. India is not poor, only the people are poor — the same as in Canada during the depression. Canada wasn't poor during the depression, only the people were poor. It's simply a matter of not availing

[ Page 139 ]

ourselves of our credit to develop the wealth that we have. It's a ridiculous situation and I hope that our Minister of Finance will order the Federal Government to take steps to correct this situation. If workers cut down their production, the country, of course, will be poorer than if everybody was producing as much as they could. If the farmers grow less grain, and keep that in mind and think of the Federal Government, if the farmers grow less grain and the loggers cut fewer logs and so on, and factories work shorter hours and hire fewer people and produce fewer goods, then we're going to be poorer than if we were going all out. Can you think of anything more ridiculous, more absurd, in this day and age, than to pay the prairie farmers to refrain from producing wealth? To actually pay them to do nothing, when we should be paying them a bonus for producing more? That is the only wealth we have — what we produce. The amount of effort put into production determines the amount of wealth that will be produced. That's only a part of the cycle, Mr. Speaker. Increased production does not necessarily mean more wealth for everyone in the country. That's the unfortunate part of it. Just because we have more wealth doesn't mean to say that everybody's going to have more. There is plenty of wealth (interruption). Yes, some will, that's right. There was plenty of wealth in Canada during the depression. There was no shortage of anything whatsoever, up to the industrial development of that date, that is. There is no shortage of production now. We have lots of wealth now in the country. We're nothing short. Our per capita production last year was something over $3,500 per man, woman and child in Canada. Something over $3,500 per capita was the value of our production last year. The trouble is that our production cycle does not provide for, nor does it even permit, the consumption of what we produce. There lies the trouble, Mr. Speaker, and it is the underlying cause of most of our problems. No matter how much we produce we don't provide the machinery for the people to be able, even theoretically to consume that production. To bear that fact out, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the figures for 1969 with respect to Canada's economy. The Gross National Product for Canada in 1969 was 78 1/2 billion dollars. Now, if the people of Canada had earned 75 billion or something like that, it would have been a simple matter for them to buy up the production that they had produced. But, unfortunately, that was not the case. The Gross National Income was only 60 billion dollars.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you can imagine a pile of goods on the floor here representing the Gross National Product of our country in 1969, goods and service at market prices, with a price tag on it of 78 1/2 billion dollars and then if you imagine all the people of Canada standing around this pile of goods with their total income in their hands without making any provisions for savings or money we throw away in interest, and all that, you would easily see that with 60 billion dollars in income they could not possibly buy the production of 78 1/2 billion. This is where the trouble happens. This is where the trouble comes from. This is why we have what we are prepared to call surpluses. In the old days, they said, during the depression, there were surplus goods. There were no surplus goods, there were just goods that people could not afford to buy. My friend, they will call me a Social Crediter, which is what I am.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there were no surpluses during the depression. There were only goods that people could not buy because they did not have the income to buy them with (interruption). I'm not talking about A plus B. I don't know who said that, but I wish I knew, because it shows his ignorance and stupidity, whoever he is. This is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why we have this continuing condition. People are prepared to ridicule and resist change in this way by ridiculing this A plus B theory and other ideas of a similar nature. I think that it's time that we forgot these misconceptions and I would recommend that some of these people who criticize this approach do a bit of reading and do a bit of thinking and use a bit of ordinary common horse sense and they might change their minds. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, there were no surplus goods and there wasn't one family in Canada that couldn't easily use an extra thousand dollars worth of goods if someone had provided the money for them to buy them with. This, of course, would have reduced the amount of unsold goods and provided more work, because this is exactly what happened when the war broke out.

I'm going to try to illustrate just briefly, quickly, I see I have taken too much time now. I'm only half way through. Well, as I said, I don't like taking this much time in the House, but I think it must be said. It must be said and it's going to be said. I'd like to illustrate, Mr. Speaker, how this disparity between Gross National Income and National Product occurs. For the purpose of making it a simple illustration, let us say that a particular plant has an operating cost of $5,000 per day. Right. They spend $5,000 dollars a day in wages, rent, interest, whatever a factory spends money on. At the end of the day they have an amount of goods, this is wages and everything included. At the end of the day they have an amount of goods that the plant has produced. O.K.? If it costs them $5,000 dollars and they must show a profit to keep in business, they're going to put a price tag, shall we say, of $6,000 on it. That's all very fine, providing the $6,000 exists to buy it with. In view of the fact that the factory only put $5,000 into the income pot when it produced those goods, then there must necessarily be only $5,000 available to buy them back with. And this is…(interruption). I beg your pardon. I don't know what you mean by surplus value. You're talking about profit, are you? It's the same thing. Everybody must make a profit, Mr. Speaker, to stay in business. That's fine. But somebody must make the amount of income available to the people if we're going to dispose of those goods. Now, it's a simple matter. I think everybody will agree that during the War, we had prosperity, which is a very, very strange situation. When we have our backs to the walls, fighting for our very lives, we have prosperity. When nobody is bothering us and we can carry on and develop and produce as much as we like, then we run into trouble just as we have now, just as we had during the depression. The reason why we had prosperity during the War was because half of the goods we produced were not placed on the market. They were used for warfare and, therefore, the money that was earned in producing those goods was then available to buy the other goods with. As a matter of fact, we would have had inflation and we could have had inflation during the War, because there was a shortage of goods in those days, if it had not been for the controls placed upon prices and wages and profits, to some extent. But what makes the difference in wartime is that the money available to buy these consumer goods is more than enough. This is why, during wartime, the Government imposed compulsory savings programmes and excess profit taxes and various other taxes to take money out of circulation and to try to balance off income and production of consumer goods. This, Mr. Speaker, is what accounts for

[ Page 140 ]

the disparity between Gross National Income and Gross National Product in any year you want to examine the National budget.

We have plenty of goods on the shelf at the present time and there are plenty of people who need those goods but unemployment is growing and people are spending less. They are spending less not because they don't want the goods but because they don't have the money. They don't have the money, because they're not working, It's going to get progressively worse unless Ottawa decides to make some changes and, I think, we can perhaps do something on our own level as well. I'm going to skip a part of it here, Mr. Speaker, because I've taken more than my share of the time already (interruption). I know you don't unload the whole load just for a few head of cattle.

There may be a few things worth saying here, Mr. Speaker. I have already mentioned the fact about wartime, which is in this next section, but I've already covered that. Normally, prices would have gone up sky-high during wartime if there hadn't been controls on them. I think that's what the Federal Government should have been doing over the past number of years because our prices have gone high and we haven't really had inflation. We've had the results of greed and selfishness, and a growing amount of greed has resulted in these high prices which are unnecessary and undesirable. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that inflation is usually considered to be a situation where you have too much money chasing too few goods. In other words, more money available than there are goods available. I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, that there's been no shortage of goods in the past twenty years. The goods have been in ample supply so there's no reason for today's high prices because they're simply due to greed and selfishness and nothing else. Why does this happen, Mr. Speaker? It's because the Governments are afraid to stand up to the powerful unions and to big industry. That's why it happens. The Governments are afraid to stand up to big, powerful unions and to big industry because they're afraid they're going to lose votes or they're going to lose contributions to their campaign funds. So, they allow this thing to go on and on. I think that's why we should step in and stop it.

We've heard a lot of talk over the past years of a just society. Let's ensure that we have a just society (interruption). I don't mind the Members across speaking but I wish they wouldn't try to outdo me in loudness. There were some very interesting remarks made by one of the members of the Australian Parliament at the conference and I would like to quote here a few lines from his speech. I'll give you the gentleman's name first so we'll know who we are talking about. Mr. Thomas Uren, an MP in Australia, who spoke at the Parliamentary Conference, and I quote. I think this is a very pertinent thing, by the way, Mr. Speaker, I think it's well worth hearing. Incidentally, I noticed in reading the record of the last Session of our Legislature, that I sometimes forgot to end my quotes verbally and, as a result, some people have been attributed with remarks that they were not responsible for. So I'll try to remember, today, to unquote at the end of what I quote. So the quote starts with this, "We have about 70,000 companies in this country making a profit." That's in Australia. "They made a total profit last year of three thousand million, or three billion, total profit." Listen to this. "One fifth of one per cent of those companies, I repeat, one fifth of one per cent of those companies earned 37 per cent of the three thousand million and the top one and a quarter per cent of those companies made 57 per cent of the total profit." Mr. Speaker, if you consider those figures and if the same situation exists in Canada, it's little wonder that we have poverty among a great segment of our society. When one fifth of one per cent of the companies… (interruption). I'm talking about the people who made a profit. Even those who made a profit, it almost all went to one little segment. I don't know about the figures in Canada, but they probably are similar and I think that should be a cause for concern.

The three main policies of our Federal Liberal Government in the past year or so, Mr. Speaker, have been a deliberate effort to increase unemployment, which they have announced and carried out; they pay the prairie farmers a hundred million dollars to refrain from producing wealth; and they've introduced a tight money policy which makes money hard to get and, therefore, more expensive and, therefore, increases prices. So the very tactics that they have employed to reduce inflation is creating inflation, instead of curing it. I think that there's one other aspect that we must consider with respect to that. They have increased interest rates to the point where people are paying 10 per cent for interest on loans for housing for the next 25 to 30 years. So to cure the situation which exists now, Mr. Speaker, which they say is inflation and which I say is a result of greed, they impose a sentence of 25 to 30 years of high interest rates on the poor fellow who has to buy a house now. It's as if you went to a doctor with a bad headache and he said, "Here's a big box of aspirins. Take them for the next 25 years." That's the kind of cure that the Federal Liberal Government has imposed to cure what they call inflation. There's no logical reason, Mr. Speaker, why, in a country as rich in natural resources as Canada is, there should be any unemployment as long as there is work to be done. When the work is all done then we can sit back and enjoy our leisure but, as long as there's work to be done and the natural resources are there to do that work with, there's no logical reason for unemployment.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that instead of charging 10 per cent for loans on housing, the money is made available for housing and for public expenditure through the Bank of Canada at no interest or one or two or three per cent interest, which would be quite logical. Then there would be a great market for more housing in this country. The market is there. People want houses but can't afford them. They can't afford them because the interest rates are so high, and the interest rates have resulted in higher wages in many other high places as well. I know that those who defend high wages say that wages don't cause the high prices; they say it's the cost of material. But the cost of material is high because the wages producing that material were high also. So it works both ways. However, I think that it's important that we consider the great needs of this country and we do something about providing those needs. All the many things that the Federal Government could be doing now to alleviate the unemployment instead of increasing it. There are hundreds of thousands of homes needed across Canada. There are hundreds of extended care hospitals and intermediate care hospitals needed. Decent homes for the aged instead of having them live in hovels in one room as they are now. The entire country is in need of sewage treatment plants and we could clear away many of our slums. All these things would provide employment for many people and improve the quality of our country at the same time. We could do all these things if the Federal Government would use the authority that it has to use the Bank of Canada to provide

[ Page 141 ]

funds at a reasonable rate of interest or no interest at all to do these things with. They could make available half a billion dollars a month for the next twelve months without hurting our economy in the least, Mr. Speaker, and bring prosperity to this country from one end to the other.

If we carried out such a programme, Mr. Speaker, we would be an inspiration to all the rest of the democratic world. I think we would give new hope to the developing countries of Africa and elsewhere and we would put a stop once and for all to the increasing danger of communism because when we can show the people that we can do it better than they can, we'll stop communism.

To give you some idea, Mr. Speaker, of what interest has been doing to us for the past 103 years in Canada, and what it has been doing to the democratic world over the years, I point out that if one dollar had been invested in the year one A.D. at one per cent interest, compounded annually, it would now be worth three septillion dollars. Now, in case you don't know what that is, it's three with twenty-four zeros after it. In order to spend that, Mr. Speaker, it would require every person in the world to buy one million Ford cars a day, every day of their lives and for their successors to keep on doing that for the next 1,500 years (interruption). I'm sorry, Chevrolet cars, right. Every person in the world would have to buy a million cars a day and their successors keep on doing it for the next 1,500 years, to spend the money earned by one dollar invested in the year one A.D. at one per cent, compounded annually. It's rather a shocking statistic, Mr. Speaker, and it gives us some idea of what interest can do and how far interest can hold back the development of any country.

Now I'm getting to the point where I'm going to quote some of my authorities for saying that these things can be done. I think this is pretty important. There are some good Liberals among them, by the way. I hope my Liberal friends will listen. Incidentally, I hope some of the people who might be interested in this topic might avail themselves of the book which was written many years ago by the late, great Gerry McGeer, the uncle of our inept Liberal Leader, who has not seen fit to follow in his uncle's footsteps. It's a book called The Conquest of Poverty. It has been reprinted recently and it's on the market. It's available in bookstores in Vancouver; I'm not sure whether it's available in Victoria, as well. I hope the people will avail themselves of it and read it and become informed on some of the peculiarities of our economic system. I doubt very much if you'll find it at Liberal headquarters. My first quote, Mr. Speaker, is from the former Prime Minister, the Honourable W.L. MacKenzie King, and I quote: "When Governments do not control their money and credit, it matters little who makes the laws. Those Governments are bound to depend on those who control that money, that credit, and it is pointless to speak of democracy." That was MacKenzie King, in Saskatoon, I believe, in 1934. Mind you, he said it, but he never acted upon it. That's the usual Liberal pattern.

Then there was Gerry McGeer. Here is a quote from Gerry McGeer, former Mayor of Vancouver, former MP, former M.L.A. and very well informed. He went to the Senate because they couldn't stand him in the House of Commons. He made things too tough for his own Government so they promoted him to the Senate to get him out of their hair. But he had a lot of good ideas, Mr. Speaker. I quote from what Gerry McGeer said in his book, The Conquest of Poverty. I've quoted this in the House before, I believe, and this is the quote: "Our monetary system is anything but sound. When examined from the point of view of the Government of the people, it actually smacks of the kind of economy one would expect to emanate from a lunatic asylum." That's Gerry McGeer. Too bad Pat didn't listen to him.

The next quote, Mr. Speaker, is from Robert Theobald, an American economist. This is what he said, with respect to providing funds for the Government for public expenditure: "The Government would not have to raise money through taxes or loans. Money could be simply created. Additional funds would not cause inflation, because, by definition, goods are not scarce." That's the situation now, Mr. Speaker. There's no shortage of goods. Increased money supply in the hands of the consumer need not cause inflation because goods are not scarce.

The next quote is from Mariner S. Eccles, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States: "When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government Bonds as they are offered, they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars."

The next is from Graham Towers, former Governor of the Bank of Canada: "Each and every time the bank makes a loan or purchases securities, new bank credit is created, new deposits, brand new money." So it is possible. The private banks do it, Mr. Speaker, so it's quite possible and logical for the National bank to do it.

The next quote is from the Right Honourable J.L. Ilsley, former Minister of Finance in the Federal Cabinet. This is what he said, Mr. Speaker: "There is no more inflationary effects in borrowing money from the Bank of Canada than there is in borrowing from chartered banks."

The next quote is from William Southam, former editor of the Ottawa Citizen. This is quite interesting; he was referring here to the Federal Government, I might say. I quote Mr. Southam: "As long as the chartered banks have a profit interest in the present system, they can, by hidden subscriptions to campaign funds to political parties, count on blocking monetary reforms." He was referring to the Federal Governments, Mr. Speaker. Later, he said, and listen to this: "The Federal Cabinets are composed of men who know little or nothing of the reasons for banking policy, other than that the chartered banks furnish the necessary party election funds." That's quite true, I think. It's quite obvious from the results we have been getting from the Federal Cabinet.

The next authority is Arthur Slaught, a former Liberal MP who was in the House at the same time as Gerry McGeer, and he said: "Our Canadian Members had a splendid opportunity in the last Session to help Gerry McGeer and myself retake for the people the right to create money which we gave away many years ago."

The last one is by Otto C. Lorenz, former associate editor of the American Banker. He said: "Tear our credit and monetary systems apart, students and doctors of philosophy and monetary experts. Shake violently before using and come up with something better." And that, Mr. Speaker, is what we have to do. Come up with something better (interruption). I'm still under the two hour limit (interruption). Anyone who is not interested has the right to leave the House anytime they like. The doors are there and you're quite welcome. I want it on the record. I want to know that I've done my duty by the people of this Province and I don't care what you think about it.

I think the important thing, Mr. Speaker, in solving all these problems is the fact that we must become sufficiently concerned to take an active interest in what's going on. Mr. Justice Holmes of the U.S. Supreme Court said, "I see no

[ Page 142 ]

meaning in the rights of man except what the crowd will fight for." I think that's true. If you're not ready to fight for it, it can't be very good. I think it's time we started fighting for a better life for Canadians by insisting that the Government of Canada use the Bank of Canada to serve the people of Canada.

I'm going to throw away the last section, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to sum up and conclude by saying this. In spite of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the credit and currency of the country are controlled by the Federal Government, and in spite of the fact that they will not allow us to issue credits or currency, and in spite of the fact that the Federal Government disallowed the participation by the Government of the Province of British Columbia in the Bank of British Columbia, which might have helped, in spite of the fact that the Federal Government has done everything possible to produce a poor economic climate in the country over the past year, I think we can do something to alleviate that situation. I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance use some means of getting around the limitations of the Bank Act and the Federal Government, to provide extra funds, to provide extra public works, to provide housing and so on for the people of British Columbia. I know we can't supply jobs for all the people who flock to our Province, because they come flocking from all the other Provinces when they can't get work there. But I think that there is a way of getting around sections of the Bank Act, which prevent us from issuing credit and currency. I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that we use a system whereby the Government would print and issue what I choose to call energy credits, which is the same as script, if you like. Whenever a person does work, he expends energy in producing this work, doing this work, then he should get an energy credit for it. I'm suggesting to the Minister of Finance that this Province produce one hundred million dollars worth of energy credits, to be exchangeable to be related to the regular currency of the Province and that we use them to do a number of things that are badly needed in this Province at the present time. I suggest that we could build a couple of thousand homes for the low-income groups, for one thing; that could be done through the use of energy credits. We could build hospital beds for those who need them so badly and we could do many other things which are badly needed, such as sewers and various other means of cleaning up the ecology. I think, Mr. Speaker, it might be possible, without a budget which is likely to be over a billion dollars again this year, to pay a portion of all Government employees in energy credits. In other words, 10 per cent of all salaries would be paid in energy credits. The only stipulation is that people of the Province must accept them, and the people of the Province will accept them if the Government will accept them in payment for taxes of various kinds. It's a simple matter. The only cost to the Government would be the cost of printing them. They would spread them into circulation by doing various public works and all they would have to do is guarantee to accept them in payment for the gasoline tax, social services taxes and various other taxes which are payable to the Government. When they came in, the Government would simply have to destroy them. That would be the end of the cycle. Next year they could do it again, if necessary, if the climate is similar to what it is now. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and I hope to have more for you at a later date. Thank you.

The Hon. W.A.C. Bennett (Premier) presented Interim Report No. 1 of the British Columbia Energy Board.

The House adjourned at 5:33 p.m.