[ Page 407 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1971

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in my place representing Vancouver–Little Mountain in a very, very important week to British Columbians and to our Nation and to the world — Brotherhood Week. I know the Members of the House will join me in recognition of a week that I hope will become a year-round commitment of all Members of this House and all Canadians everywhere of Brotherhood Week in British Columbia.

I think a very good example of Brotherhood Week was made yesterday when all of the people of the lower mainland joined with Channel 6 and 8 television in their yearly telethon. It is my pleasure today to announce that the Variety Club yesterday raised $180,000, the latest total, and more monies are still coming in from those citizens. That $180,000, Mr. Speaker, includes the $25,000 grant from our Provincial Government (interruption). I think it would be unanimous, Mr. Leader, and I'm sure that you wouldn't question the expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, I would say, too, that I would like to join Members of the House and, particularly, Members of the Opposition Party in wishing the Honourable Member from Burnaby North a very happy birthday.

As I was putting some thoughts together on the Budget Debate this last weekend, I tried to recall what the Honourable Leader of the Opposition Party had said just a week ago. It wasn't easy. It appears that the Honourable Leader is now affecting the stance of a businessman. He's trying to be the knowledgeable businessman, Mr. Speaker, and he's shedding his social worker role. It now appears that he may even be trying to negate his support of the famous Watkins Report. Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what self-respecting Socialist and supporter of the Watkins Report would go to Japan or any other outside country to encourage them to invest in British Columbia?

Let me quote from the Watkins Report that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition supported. "Capitalism must be replaced by Socialism, by National planning of investment and by the public ownership of the means of production." It goes on, drawing on Marx, by saying, "The programme should include nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy," which is a Lenin quote I might add. "The radicals reject as futile any policy of making American corporations behave as if they were Canadian corporations, or substituting Canadian capitalists for American capitalists. There is not now an independent Canadian capitalism and any lingering pretensions on the part of Canadian businessmen to independence lack credibility. Without a strong National capitalistic class behind them, Canadian Governments, Liberal and Conservative, have functioned in the interests of international and, particularly, American capitalism, and have lacked the will to pursue even a modest strategy of economic independence." The reporter, reporting on the Watkins Report, says "Canadian capitalism is dead, death to international capitalism."

So it is strange that the honourable Socialist Leader should back that philosophy and still be holding meetings with the Japanese car dealers. On this side of the House, we've always found it a little surprising that the Socialists over there argue that a British Columbian working at a job provided by an outside investor…(interruption).

I am not quoting the Watkins Report now, Mr. Member. Again, I'm saying the Socialists over there argue that a British Columbian working at a job provided by an outside investor would somehow be better off if he remained unemployed until such time as domestic capital filled the investment gap.

Let me give the Leader of the Socialists opposite and his Members sitting there some facts about British Columbia's economic growth, which he chose to ignore just a week ago.

In the past ten years capital investment in this Province has grown by 125 per cent, investment of that magnitude then helped to stimulate a 134 per cent increase in wages and salaries, a 126 per cent increase in Gross Provincial Product, a 157 per cent increase in building permits and a 78 per cent increase in retail sales. All of this, from a population which increased only 32 per cent, which, in itself, is a good sized increase.

The assessment of the Budget, however, from the other honourable leader of the Socialist Party, the Member from Cowichan-Malahat, summed up all the benefits, all of the programmes of this tremendous $1,300,000,000 Budget as one that would have been suitable 45 years ago. He said it would have been a great Budget 45 years ago, Mr. Speaker, but not suitable today. Now, I have here the 1927 Budget, and I would suggest to the honourable Member that he would not want that kind of financing for our people today. Let's just take one item — the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. In 1927, the PGE…(interruption).

You were the one…they didn't put out…I just thought you might bring that to my attention so that I could tell you, for your information, Mr. Member, that there wasn't a 1926 Budget produced. They were both produced as a joint Budget in the year of 1927 (laughter).

In 1927, the PGE covered…Mr. Member, please listen to this because I know you'd want to know this. The PGE covered, in 1927, 347 miles and, for years afterwards, it was known as the railway that started nowhere and ended nowhere. In 1971, however, how many miles does the PGE cover, today? The Budget we're talking about, today — 1,797.8 miles, Mr. Speaker.

Now, in 1927, the Government…(interruption) Let me tell you, that's more than the Federal Government did. In 1927, the Government of that day showed a revenue from all railways in the Province, and I say all railways, of $74,000. At the same time, they showed a deficit and maintenance of the PGE at $300,000, as well as a $790,000 interest payment for that one year, alone.

Over $1 million loss, Mr. Speaker, in 1927, when $1 million was a very large part of the then $19 million total Budget of that year.

Today, our PGE shows, under this administration, as a viable, profit-producing corporation, shows a full profit, after all expenses, of $896,000, very close to a $1 million profit, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the Honourable Member from Cowichan-Malahat can go back 45 years if he wishes to. He can use any comparison, try any yardstick, any measuring stick he wants. They're all the same, Mr. Speaker, a remarkable contrast between bad fiscal policy of 1927 with good business management of today in 1970 and 1971.

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

[ Page 408 ]

weekend, to note in the press a summary of cutbacks in bus service in both Vancouver and Victoria by our Crown corporation, the B.C. Hydro. Now, I can understand that a higher wage contract would, perhaps, result in cutbacks of service in order to fit into the businesslike management of that corporation. Perhaps, curtailment of some special runs or services is indeed justified. But, Mr. Speaker, one announced policy to eliminate theSun day 50 cent pass has to be a pretty picayune decision by the B.C. Hydro. Our Government established the senior citizens' bus pass for all elderly citizens on the supplementary income, and my colleague, the Honourable Member from Mackenzie, the Minister without Portfolio, was responsible for bringing that to the attention of the Hydro and seeing that it was done. It has given a great deal of pleasure to very, very many senior citizens. It has been a good and a sensible programme and it pays tribute to the senior citizen, who has contributed to his community, but who is caught in an inflationary period where each of his dollars lose their value daily. But there is still a group of old age pensioners who are not in receipt of the supplementary income and they're not millionaires, either. For a great many, the only recreation they have is theSunday drive with Hydro.

I would hope that Dr. Shrum and the B.C. Hydro would take a second look and consider the wellbeing of the many pioneers, without whose efforts in building this country most of us would be far worse off today.

I'd like to say, too, in respect to the pioneers of this Province, that I believe most citizens would approve of providing a free pass for Centennial Year. It could be the Golden Dogwood Pass and would demonstrate, in this Centennial Year, our respect and gratitude to those people who struggled through a depression and two World Wars to preserve a way of life in which they believed.

Also, I'd like to suggest that we all light up for Centennial and, in case you think I'm talking about that bad smoking habit, I'm going to suggest that everybody puts their porch lights on and lights up every street in every community in British Columbia for the Centennial Year. I'd even suggest that those people who have Christmas lights change the bulbs to blue and yellow and light up a blue and yellow Centennial theme all across this Province for Centennial 1971.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it always pleases me to see the examples of good humour in this House. I think one of the most interesting and probably unlooked-for advantages of sitting in any Legislative Chamber is the opportunity of hearing some really funny quips, some genuine and quick humour, and it has long been my contention that without that this would be a pretty dry association, indeed. Now, if I were judging the Session thus far, I would say that the Good Humour Honours Award should go to the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable First Member from Vancouver Centre, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Honourable Member from Dewdney. Hilarious as these gentlemen can be, Mr. Speaker, none of them can match the wit, however, of the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's when the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party speaks in the Budget Debate that he becomes the most hilarious. For three successive Sessions, this Liberal Leader has given us an insight as to what he and his Party would do if they had the opportunity to present a budget to this house. Now, that has to be pretty funny. I mean really funny, especially the part where he promises sound fiscal management. Then there was the part in his mock budget where he talks of shadowy dealings and internal jugglings. Knowing the record of the mismanagement of past Liberal administrations in this Province and the ineptness of the financial management of our money by the Federal Liberals, right now, I've…(interruption). I've never been a Liberal, my friend. The Liberal Leader's budget would rival a best selling joke book, it really would.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MRS. McCARTHY: Let me share with the House a few examples of Liberal fiscal policy and their sound business management. Now, you'll recall some of these. I think you probably have heard of these before. It seems to me I've brought these before the House before, but I'll try not to be repetitious.

A few years ago, the Post Office Department overestimated the size of the Christmas mail. The result — a stock of 53 million stamps marked Christmas, 1964. The printing cost was $16,000. Because it was one day late in renewing a lease, the Defense Department was required to pay an extra $17,250 for the rent of a Montreal building. Through a clerical error, a hospital was paid a construction grant of $109,000, although it had only sought $46,000. Then, of course, we all remember, with much shame, the CS5 history. Here was $140 million of CS5 aircraft, built by Canadair in Montreal, which have now been scrapped and will never fly. One of the Conservative Members, obviously a rather biased gentleman, Mr. George Hees, Progressive Conservative Member for Prince Edward-Hastings, said, "It is the most irresponsible waste of public funds in Canadian peacetime history." Well, I don't know. I think I would argue with Mr. Hees on that. They have done better than that and let me tell you about it.

Consultants fees…You'd be interested in that, because you've been a consultant, Mr. Member from Vancouver East. Eight hundred and forty-three thousand dollars — the Federal Government does things, in a big way — was paid out to consultants for two departments. The Manpower and Immigration Department, in disclosing details on its consultations, claimed that, despite having a staff of more than 9,000 people, there was nobody on the payroll qualified to do the work of these specialists. Could the work have been performed by the regular staff of the department? The short answer was no. Then the department, when asked what was so special about the qualifications and requirements, explained that there were no desirable qualifications specified for those positions. There we are, with $843,000 of the taxpayers' money down the drain.

Then you'll recall the 

on taxation and let's hope that we can forget it one of these days. I understand it's still with us. But, remember that that White Paper had received — the Department, Mr. Benson's department — over 5,000 letters at the time, April 10, 1970, when he, in spite of his 6,000 employees, put 10 chartered accountants on the payroll to answer the backlog of 5,000 letters. Ten chartered accountants were each to be paid $200 a day; for living accommodation, they would receive $200 a week extra. Then, to oversee the chartered accountants to make sure they were answering all this mail on the White Paper, Mr. Benson hired a projects manager, who was to be paid, again, $200 a day.

Then, we could turn to the exciting story of the CYC, where they spent $70,000 on a road that goes nowhere at Fort Norman, with a population of 300. They spent $70,000

[ Page 409 ]

on planning in Mackenzie River settlements, with as little population as 35 persons. They spent $85 million on a railway to serve one mine, Pine Point, owned in large part by a competing railway company. Then you can turn to the exciting story of the Bonaventure and you'll recall that that refit was to cost $8 million; it grew to $17 million and then the Bonaventure was scrapped.

Well, I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, and some of these are rather interesting. I think it's rather interesting to note that the Consumer Affairs Department puts out very costly press releases and one of them is, "How Do I Buy and Judge Shoes?" This is where our money is being spent under this very fine fiscal management the Liberal Leader talks about. One of the questions is rather interesting. It says, "Are there different types of feet and do they need any extra consideration when choosing shoes?" The answer is, "Yes, there are two extreme types — the thin foot and the fleshy foot, with many variations in between."

Of course, everyone will recall the National Art Centre, which was, in itself, a rather expensive project and overexpended by millions its capital budget, but, now, in October they spent in public relations, alone, a sum of $589,000 of tax money. We could go on and on to note that, for instance, the new uniforms for changing the National armed forces into a new colour and a new uniform across Canada is going to cost all of us, as taxpayers, $25 million. The B & B Commission, of course, has been more than spendthrifty with our tax dollars and, just in their commission activities, just for honoraria to the Committee, itself, we have a sum of $800,000 for a nine-month period.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we could look to all of the many expenditures for defense, expenditures for capital, but one of the interesting expenses that I'd like to draw your attention to is the Prime Minister's office, the Prime Minister of Canada, who, has appointed to his staff since he has become Prime Minister, 69 extra people in his office. "How many of these appointments were filled by the Public Service Commission?" the question was asked. Five of the 69 were filled through the Public Service Commission and 64 of them were not. Of all of the people that were appointed to the Privy Council Office, under the present Prime Minister, just since his time in office, there were 163 new people. This amount of people compares with only 39, under the old administration. A question was asked, and this was at the time of high austerity in Ottawa, "How many of the present Prime Minister's staff will be dismissed under the Government's austerity programme?" The answer was, "None." That's quite an austerity programme.

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

You'll find that the head of the Canada Council has given as reasons for some of the grants in Canada, through Canada Council — I should read you some of these grants; there was $9,400, for instance, given to continue research on prehistoric culture at the neolithic site of Urvaba in southwest Turkey. There was research on "Class Consciousness of Blue-collar Workers in Vancouver Area Electoral Riding." It was interesting to note that Professor John Leggett, who was suspended at the time from Simon Fraser University, was the one that was given the grant. There were, of course, some very interesting ones, too, that we've all heard about, such as pianos that were financed to be broken up, such as the Town Fool and grants for provision of some way-out things, not the least of which is one that went for $10,550 to research on, "What Makes Bystanders Intervene or Stand Aside in an Emergency." The head of the Canada Council seeks balanced presentment. He says that people will find this uncomfortable, but it's meant to be uncomfortable. "The more the Council is able to do, the more public attention it will get and this, obviously, carries with it a measure of criticism, but I'd rather be criticized than forgotten," he says about his Canada Council grant. I don't think we're going to forget him for very long and, especially, in view of the fact, that, with all of these spendthrifty accounts coming out of Ottawa, and they are too numerous to repeat here, they are a daily happening in Canada today. They are as common as a Canadian sunset.

In spite of all of these overexpenditures and wastefulness of our tax dollars, Mr. Speaker, the Federal assistance to the National Cancer Institute last year was reduced from $350,000 to $250,000 in the year 1970-71. In other words, we can finance somebody to break up a piano but when it comes to cancer research, and the Honourable the Liberal Leader is always talking in this House about research, we can't find $100,000 in Canada.

The British Columbia taxpayers do not find that kind of budgeting, Mr. Speaker, very funny. In fact, they don't have a sense of humour at all when it comes to that kind of budgeting. They will, I'm sure, keep their good sense and ignore the Liberal Leader's budget, which was presented to us a week ago.

I know the honourable Members would miss my references to the Federal Administration if I didn't make some. I do wish to state my very deep concern about where we, as Canadians, are headed in the decade of the 1970's. Last year, I raised some questions about the White Paper on taxation that had no reference as to how much we were going to make, how much we were going to lose, how much we were going to gain in our personal income, how much we were apt to lose, Mr. Speaker, in our personal freedom. I wish the Members would be serious, especially the Liberal Members to whom I'm really addressing this.

You will recall, perhaps, that I termed the White Paper, a Socialist document, last year, and statements and events since have proven this point quite substantially. I want to read an excerpt from the Toronto Telegram which quotes Prime Minister Trudeau in London, that's London, England, on January 13, 1969, and it is this, Mr. Speaker: "The Prime Minister gave his views and his testimony to Canadian university students in the United Kingdom. One of the questions was this: What society would you choose to make Canada; socialist or capitalistic?" Now this was his, Mr. Trudeau's answer, "Labour Party Socialist, or Cuban Socialism, or Chinese Socialism. Socialism from each, according to his means."

And then the questioner said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs — that's the Marxist formula. Would you support that, Mr. Prime Minister?" And the Prime Minister said this: "Yes, in theory, but not entirely in practice. I think in history there have been some small communities which would have done that and I support this and admire it. I do not think it is workable, under present circumstances. There is still a lot of hate and violence and injustice and inequity and racial discrimination, which we shall have to overcome before ever reaching such a state. But if you ask me if it is an ideal, if it is a beacon, something which the world should have, yes I think it is."

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

[ Page 410 ]

Trudeau's writings have been saying, namely, that his ideal of social organization is some form of Marxist Socialism and that his views have not changed since he joined the Liberal Party and became our Prime Minister."

I want to say this to all Members in this House that Canadians everywhere must awaken and realize that the freedoms, the liberties, the way of life that they would preserve, Mr. Speaker, and those liberties that are so often taken for granted, can be lost by apathy, by disconcern, and, Mr. Speaker, by misplaced party loyalty.

The misuse of drugs in our communities, the drug addiction of youngsters in schools, the growing number of young people in the working world, who are using drugs, have grown at an alarming rate. In my address to the Throne Speech, ten days to two weeks ago, I commended the Federal Government for their grant to provide $41/2 million to research the education on drug abuse in Canada.

I am very happy today to speak, on behalf of a Government that has recognized the seriousness of this grave social problem like no other jurisdiction in Canada, to provide the interest on a $25 million fund, which in itself, the first year, in British Columbia, alone, will provide almost one half of the $41/2 million committed by the Federal Government to spend in all of Canada this year. And the remarkable thing about our fund, Mr. Speaker, is that it is perpetual. It will continue to fight these dread diseases. I am not speaking in detail about the fund set up in the Budget for drug education. I am not going to refer in depth to it, so you will not be able to call me out of order, Mr. Member. The remarkable thing about our fund, Mr. Speaker, is that it is perpetual. It will continue to fight these dread diseases. Something that seems to have escaped the honourable Members in the Opposition, both the Socialists and the half-mast Socialists sitting on their left, is that this commitment by this Government to use the $25 million of this fund, along with the $75 million in other funds set up by this Government, making a total of $100 million, will be used for schools and hospital construction. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, does any Provincial Government in Canada use taxpayers' money any better? Can any other Government in Canada provide a fund, use it for the good of the people in building schools and hospitals and still put the interest of the fund into various things, amounting to millions yearly, for drug rehabilitation, for a native Indian fun d, for sports and fitness, for cultural and artistic improvement, for world disaster relief?

No, Mr. Speaker, no other Provincial Government does this, nor can they. Let me say this, no Federal Government does this, nor can they.

It is only because of the sound financial management by this Social Credit Government, by our Finance Minister, that the Province of British Columbia can do so, today, and British Columbians can be proud and I say to you, British Columbians are proud, of this unique accomplishment.

Now, on the subject of drug addiction, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to out record of debate of last year, wherein I brought before the House a statement attributed to the Federal Minister of Health, the statement by the Honourable John Munro, who was reported by the press throughout our Nation as saying, "if we find that a significant minority of the Canadian people smoke marijuana, we would be totally irresponsible if we did not legalize it." The record of our debate shows clearly that my motion of that time was to express the deep concern of this House that a Federal Minister should make such a statement at all and, further, to call on the Minister and the Federal Government to fulfill Canada's obligations in regulating and controlling the use of drugs for any purpose, except those permitted under the single convention of 1961, the Narcotic Drugs Convention.

At that time, and again, recorded in our debates, the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party rose to his feet, in defense of his Liberal Minister, by saying that Mr. Munro had denied ever making that remark. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this caused some consternation in this House, for if, indeed, the remark had not been made, then the motion under debate which I had put on the Order Paper may not have been in order at all.

Following voice of your concern, in this regard, the honourable Liberal Member said this and I refer to page 790 in the record of our debates; "MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister telegraphed me personally denying the accuracy of that report. AN HON. MEMBER: What date? MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, had I known it was required I could have produced it today." Now, after this statement, there followed a lengthy debate in this House…(interruption).

Oh, I'm very pleased to hear that, Mr. Member, because there was a very lengthy statement in this House on whether the motion was indeed valid. In fact, it negated the whole motion itself because we then concentrated on whether or not that motion should have been quashed. The seriousness of the motion was lost in the fact that the Members brought this question into the whole debate.

Now, to put the record straight, Mr. Speaker, I have here the tape recording, the sound track, of the syndicated television programme called "Under Attack," wherein the Federal Liberal Minister did, indeed, make the statement attributed to him by the press across this country (interruption). Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to file this tape with the House and will do so, immediately, after the Honourable the Liberal Leader files the copy of the wire which he said that he had received (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order (interruption).

MRS. McCARTHY: I hope I'll have the opportunity of wearing it just after you speak once again. There was much discussion during the Throne Debate on unemployment, Mr. Speaker, and recently published figures, no matter which one chooses to believe, do nothing to assure us that unemployment in Canada is being solved. I noted that, on the same day that Canadian unemployment and British Columbian jobless jumped, there was a Canadian press story reporting on the 1971 Capital Budget for Central Mortgage and Housing on the same page. It was presented by Robert Andras, the Minister without Portfolio, in charge of housing in the Federal Government, and it noted that that budget had been cut by $152 million.

At a time when the Canadian economy needs housing starts to increase, the Federal Administration has decreased their funds. Mr. Robert Andras, to me, has always appeared to be very aware of the housing needs of the low- and moderate-income family and I'm very disappointed, indeed, to see that the Treasury Board has not backed his policies in this very needed area. Every working man or woman should have the opportunity of home ownership in Canada today.

Last December, Mr. Andras announced a $180 million housing programme for Quebec through Central Mortgage and Housing. I immediately wired Mr. Andras, for I felt that, if the Federal Government was announcing such a flow of

[ Page 411 ]

money to Quebec to generate employment, then, surely, it could not do less for the Province of British Columbia. Taking into consideration that Quebec's population is three times that of our Province, I requested that Mr. Andras' department make $75 or $100 million available to us. I'll read my wire, addressed to the Minister in Ottawa: "I refer to Monday's announcement that the Federal Government will make available $150 million to Quebec for housing in 1971. British Columbia, as the fastest growing Province in Canada, requires a more aggressive building programme just to keep pace with the tremendous growth. The influx of people from other Provinces to British Columbia adds greatly to our high unemployment figure. This high unemployment rate, along with the increase in population, requires action now. Therefore, I would ask that your Government provide from $75 to $100 million to initiate building for low- and moderate income families, senior citizens and handicapped people in British Columbia. Our home acquisition grant and homeowner grant, along with our second mortgage programme, insures maximum building and return for every dollar spent on housing in our Province. In light of our serious employment situation, may I have your confirmation by return that you will consider British Columbia as eligible for the same consideration as was announced for Quebec yesterday."

The Minister's reply of December 24 was very positive and I will read it to you now: "Re your telegram. The 1971 budget for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be announced shortly and you will see that very substantial provision is made for the purposes mentioned in your telegram for the coming year.

I haven't had any indication from Mr. Andras, nor has our Department of Municipal Affairs, as to how the allocation for British Columbia will come about for the $942 million, which was announced in the Vancouver Sun of last week. I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that there are few programmes that have a beneficial effect on a community to match that created by an aggressive building programme. The Economic Council of Canada, in its 1970 Annual Report, has noted that Canada needs at least 21/2 million housing units by 1975 and that just gives our country four more years to catch up, or to adequately house, our people. If we were even to meet that goal, many other attendant benefits would be created. For example, can you think how much furniture, how many refrigerators, how many stoves would be bought by all these people, who would be in new accommodation? Consider all the trades that would be required to serve these homes — plumbers, carpenters, landscapers. These homes would require additional schools, additional hospitals and public services, which all create more jobs. The benefits are endless and the money generated through such a building boom filters throughout the whole community.

Along with easing our unemployment problems, it is necessary that our Province meet the basic needs of housing, of education and medical care for the thousands of citizens who pour into British Columbia from other parts of Canada and from all over the world. Our Province is growing three times faster than any Province in Canada. This factor alone makes it imperative to plan ahead for the influx of even more people in the decade of the 70's.

We should remember, as well, that no other Province can benefit from a Federal mortgage programme as much as British Columbia. British Columbians can obtain maximum benefit for every dollar loaned on a building programme by the Federal Administration by virtue of our home acquisition programme.

So, now, I am calling today on all contractors and builders, all architects, all developers, even all planners, anyone who is at all interested in municipalities, anyone with a plan on the drawing board or any building proposal, to make the decision to begin, now, in 1971. I'm asking anyone who has experienced difficulties with financing, or difficulties with municipal councils in their reticence to zone for townhouses, or difficulties in obtaining conventional loans, to come forward, now in 1971. I will make my office available and I will receive any programme and co-ordinate and assist in any way to get them off the ground.

I am asking that all proposals be presented to my office by March 15. At the same time, I am asking the Honourable Mr. Robert Andras to meet with us in British Columbia to assist in financing, through CMHC, as many of these programmes as possible.

What I'm saying today, Mr. Speaker, to all the building trades and to every person involved in a building programme, "Come forward, now, let's take an inventory of all the plans, all the programmes either under way or hoped for and let's show the Federal Government that we, in British Columbia, have the ideas, that we, in British Columbia, have the manpower, that we, in British Columbia, have the market."

What we require now is the cooperation from the Federal Government to provide a flow of mortgage money through CMHC at reasonable interest rates and to encourage the conventional loans to be channelled into smaller units so that we may have the opportunity of the best housing and building programme in Canada in 1971.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget demonstrates, clearly, the sound fiscal policies of a Social Credit Government, with financial credibility with our own people and our fellow Canadians, with financial credibility in the world market and it reflects the stable business administration of the British Columbia Social Credit Government, which has laid the foundation for an even greater British Columbia, and, in consideration that there will be a Social Credit administration for many years to come, Mr. Speaker, let no one doubt the great future that lies before this great Province of ours.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the Budget Debate in this House and a pleasure to follow the lady Minister without Portfolio as I followed her in the Throne Speech Debate. I should refrain from chiding the Honourable lady Minister, as a gentleman, but I can't refrain from saying one or two things on housing. For example, the lady Minister chided the Honourable Mr. Andras and the Federal Government for their record in housing. My good friend from Burnaby Edmonds has handed me the copy of the interim accounts of the Province of British Columbia up to the end of December of last year, and this honourable Legislature, lady Member, votes for housing — $5 million!

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they spend?

MR. MACDONALD: What did they spend? They spent, for the first nine months of 1970, at that period $1,686,000, and they chide the Liberal Government in Ottawa! Through the years, the story has been the same, that Provinces like Ontario, particularly, and Quebec, to a lesser extent, have taken advantage of the monies made available to the

[ Page 412 ]

Provinces through the Central Mortgage and Housing and this Province has been a laggard. This Province has not taken up the money that was lying there upon the table. Our record as a Province in the matter of housing has been abominable and parsimonious. We don't even begin to spend the money that this Legislature votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: All talk and no action.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a long time since Parliament, as an institution, and I'm going to make a serious speech today, Mr. Speaker (interruption). Is that right, honourable Member? It's a long time since Parliament, in the year 1264, was first summoned by Simon de Montfort, the Earl of Leicester…

In the year 1264, when he summoned two knights from the shires and two burgesses from the burroughs and two citizens from each city. Parliament has gone through many changes in the intervening period, many reforms, changes in procedure. It's come a long way, baby. Yet, sometimes, we wonder today just how relevant Parliament is. Is it, as an institution, retaining its relevancy for the age in which we live? I rather doubt it.

I would like to say, once again, to the lady Honourable Minister without her Portfolio, who spoke, as, she always speaks, against the drug traffic, that she was a member of a committee of this House in the year 1968 and she affixed her signature, and a very charming signature it was, to the report. The report made some very excellent recommendations and those recommendations were for education in the schools. We all know what they are, they're in the Journals.

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

MR. MACDONALD: The committee was to meet and there was to be a research programme undertaken by the Provincial Government, not the bad Liberals in Ottawa but by this Provincial Government. That report has never been implemented. I question the sincerity of the Honourable lady Minister, who makes these great speeches on drugs, when, being a Member of the Cabinet, a Member of the Executive Council, she lacks the influence, or the will, to implement that report.

I do think, and I'm not going to spend any time on this matter, that Parliament, itself, as an institution, has to be brought up to date in modern terms. I really believe that. I think, between the great organs of opinion-making, which is the fourth estate, and the fourth estate has come a long way, too, and between the cabinet, that Parliament is in the crunch. I doubt whether long speeches, such as I'm making today, and the recycling of information, as I will be recycling some information today, as we all do, I doubt, to some extent, whether this is the kind of effective working democratic form that it should be.

I would like to see, in the case of the press because, as I say, including the age slaves who labour as journalists and the newspaper titans and tycoons, that there should be, because this is an important institution of democracy…I agree entirely with those who say there should be a Press Council to protect individuals, to protect the public in its right to know, to protect the working journalist in his freedom to express the story as he sees it. I think in the case of Parliament, itself, that there are ways of making it more effective, that there are long technical matters in today's society, which can't really be effectively and well dealt with on the floor of the House, such as this, in a rather large Assembly and, certainly, not in Ottawa. They should be considered in a committee. The committees of this House should be working. They should be summoning the experts in the various fields, be it housing or drugs or whatever it is, and they should be effectively working and helping to initiate legislation. It shouldn't all be handed down to us from the Cabinet. I think, with that kind of a Parliament that a lot of the partisanship, which is part of Parliament today — the Government proposes, the Opposition opposes and vice versa — can be got away from. Some of that is inevitable and some of it is good. Parliament, probably, is too partisan because we're not seeking to improve society through effectively working committees. I would like to see a special committee of this House spend a whole year on considering the relevance of Parliament, as an institution, today. There is already a committee, but I would like to see it sit through the whole year, to listen to opinions, just as the Federal Government sent the Constitution Committee throughout the country. But this would be to hear the opinions of experts. How can we make Parliament effective and hear from the people, too, and how can we make Parliament a really effective democratic institution?

Now I want to say a word, and I do this with trepidation, Mr. Speaker. I want to give a word of advice, if I may, to the Liberation Front. I do this with trepidation. I don't know what my daughter will say about any remarks I'm going to make today (interruption). To the Liberation Front. Yes, isn't that the Women's Liberation Front? I think frankly this is a great social movement for the emancipation of women. Probably, in its modern stage, it did not begin a few years ago. It began with a great Norwegian world playwright called Hendrik Ibsen who wrote The Doll's House, I think, in the year 1906, but I could be wrong about the year. He had those famous lines in there, where Henrik said to his wife, "Above all else, you are a wife and mother." Nora replied, "Above all else, I am a human being." That was the beginning of a great movement for the emancipation of women…

AN HON. MEMBER: And then along came Wenman.

MR. MACDONALD: …but it has a long way to go (interruption). Not only along came Wenman, but, in the last few months, hanging on to the back of this great movement for emancipation, is what you might call the Yippie fringe.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what effect they have on you, but they frighten me a little bit. This is a great social movement and some of the demands and some of the deportment of the fringe is hurting that movement for the emancipation of women. I think that emancipation, and I agree entirely with my friend from New Westminster, should, today, primarily take the road of advances on the social front. There is the social front and there is the legal front.

The social front is by far, in my opinion, the most important, today — the winning of things, such as day nurseries, to free women either for a job or from the continual hour around-the-clock cares of the home, maternity leave, equal pay, and something decent for the mothers on welfare, who make up such a big proportion, and these are the mothers who are bringing up the children of tomorrow. They form the deserted wives particularly, such a big proportion of our assistance rolls and they are receiving pittances, not up to the level of other Provinces, and told to

[ Page 413 ]

bring up their children on these pittances.

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

Even in the legal fields, you don't, Mr. Speaker, have to look very far to find examples of male chauvinism. I picked up the statutes and in the Change of Name Act, for example, in section 4, if a person is a married man, he may likewise change the given name of his wife but, if a married man, he needs the consent of the wife. If the person is a married woman — now here's the distinction — she is not, during the life of her husband, entitled to change her surname. So all the initiation is left with the man. He can make an application to change his name — the woman can't.

She can, of course, if she's divorced, she's no longer a wife. If she's widowed, she's no longer a wife. If she's separated, she can't change her name. If she's married, she can't change her name. If they are a couple, she can't initiate the application. That's not the largest example of discrimination but it does exist. I know the right to change the name should be there.

Then, there's the matter of abortions. I want to say just a word upon that because, while I support entirely the elimination of the matter of abortions from the Criminal Code — it has no place whatsoever in the Criminal Code of Canada — yet, to be frank with you, I'm a little concerned that there is a stage, in later pregnancy, where abortion may become infanticide, where reverence for life may become euthanasia, or mercy killing. They say, landlords' rights, the right to control your own body, but — landlords' rights, without any regard for the tenant who may be the child. I've said what I had to say in a more serious way about the Women's Liberation Movement. I wanted to say, too, that I'm a little concerned on the part of some of the people. There are boys as well as girls, who are carrying some of the signs. I'm concerned that they're so grim and angry. I'm concerned that they regard all men as the enemy. I'm concerned that they want to wipe out all the distinctions between men and women and dress. I don't want the girls to be dressed like inmates of a Soviet work camp. I know it might be said, even of Robbie Burns, that he was a male chauvinist or a sexist, when he wrote some of his poetry,

"She dresses, aye sa clean and neat,
Both daicent and gentile,
And then there's something in her dress,
Gars any dress look weel."

Robbie Burns was not a male chauvinist. I was glad to see that one of the great supporters of the Women's Liberation, Dr. Elli Maranda of UBC had this to say in the Ubyssey. "Today with the roles of men and women alike moving toward a merging point, " Maranda is quick to point out, "there are differences between the sexes that cannot be forgotten in either the social or professional world," and I say the same. When one of the people making a speech about the rights of women in the French Chamber of Deputies got up and he said that after all there's very little difference between men and women, the whole Chamber rose up and said, "Vive la difference." That's what she's saying, equal but different, feminine and attractive. Mini, midi, maxi and I'll call the taxi. I don't like the blurring of all of the distinctions, and some of that blurring has taken place between the men and the women, the girls and the boys. They used to say that, one poet said,

"And here's the bounding little flea,
You cannot tell the he from she,
The sexes look alike, you see,
But he can tell and so can she."

I think Dr. Elli Maranda is quite right and what we have to support is, don't let the men be the ones to wear the peacock feathers and be cock of the walk. I think the girls should be attractive, too, I think there are some jobs that are, in spite of the great need for equal opportunities and equal pay, there are some jobs that are naturally feminine and some that are naturally male. I don't want to see female strip miners and I don't want to see female bomber pilots (interruption).

I'll be in enough trouble at home.

There's all kinds of exploitations in this world between man and man — economic discrimination, economic oppression, psychic oppression between man and woman, a great deal of it between man and man, between woman and woman, and between women and men. What we have to do is to respect the rights of all human beings, eliminate oppression and discrimination where it exists between human beings, regardless of sex, colour or creed.

I want to say something to the Honourable Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, whom I'm glad to see is in his seat, because I had the pleasure of writing a letter to the Honourable Minister on the question of dental health, particularly of the school children of the Province of British Columbia. I had the pleasure of receiving his reply and, to my surprise, really, because it wasn't marked as a copy, the letter was received by all the dentists of the Province. I hurry to assure the Honourable Minister that I'm not complaining about that. It was a good letter, in many respects, but the letter really points up the scandalous pockets of dental decay, particularly in the matter of school children's teeth that are to be found in the Province of British Columbia. In this letter, for example, the Minister says that, by 1968, there had been an improvement. Only 49 per cent of the teeth of children between the ages of 7 and 15 that were looked at did not require attention. In other words, 51 per cent of those teeth did require attention. He says in this letter, and he refers to the dental survey in Greater Vancouver, that the survey showed that only 8.7, and he used the word, "only," only 8.7 per cent of the pupils was in the category of neglected treatment of dental caries — in other words, needed fillings. That's the average for the Greater Vancouver Health District. But, look at the situation when you turn to the surveys themselves, and, since the Minister was writing to me as the Member for Vancouver East, I think he might have given this information. Neglected treatment of dental caries, it is true for the Greater Vancouver Health Unit, 8.69 per cent was the number needing care — the neglect — but in Vancouver East and parts of Vancouver Centre, because Health Unit No. 1 runs from the northeast to the city, down into Centre, that percentage was 21.66 per cent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, dental decay, dental neglect caries are more than twice as bad in the eastern part of the city of Vancouver as they are in the rest of the city. In the prosperous areas of the city of Vancouver that percentage is down to 6.73 per cent.

The same thing happens when you turn to the figures on teeth needing restoration. In the riding of Vancouver East and down into Vancouver Centre, the number of teeth needing restoration is more than twice as many as the average in the Greater Vancouver Health District. If you turn to the northern reaches of the Province, in the other dental survey, up there, you find figures that are absolutely staggering in the extent of dental decay. I gave the neglected treatment of dental caries figures as an average of 8.9 per cent in the greater Vancouver Health area, in the Cariboo area, 36.02 per

[ Page 414 ]

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

There has to be a crash effort made to do something about the dental health of the teeth of the children of the Province of British Columbia. There has to be something done about dental fees. We have to give equal opportunity for dental care, Mr. Minister, to all of the children of the Province, whether they live in Vancouver East or whether they live in Skeena, or whether they live in Point Grey. Where the need is greater, the care should be greater in the school systems. I'm going to have more to say about this under the estimates of the Department of Health as to what should be done, so that dentists will be available not only in the lower mainland areas but in the far reaches of the Province, such as Columbia riding, Mr. Speaker, and in other parts of the Province. I'm going to have something to say about dental fee increases, but I intend to leave that for another time.

I want to say something, today, that has been raised in the House before but it is something that should give every Member concern. That is the Americanization of the Canadian funeral business. I know I've raised this in the past, and other Members have, but the invasion that has been taking place, whereby two chains of American funeral companies, one is the International Funeral Services of Des Moines, Iowa, and the other is Service Corporation International of Houston, Texas, are continuing to accumulate funeral homes, grave marker establishments and cemeteries in all of the Provinces of Canada, including the Province of British Columbia. We saw last year how four very large funeral businesses in the Province of British Columbia had been taken over by Service Corporation International — Ocean View, Simmons and McBride, Mt. Pleasant, Forest Lawn. We didn't see, at that time, that the profits that these international funeral chains were making out of the people of Canada and out of the people of British Columbia and, now, the second of the two that I mentioned has feelers out to acquire another funeral business in the Province of British Columbia. Negotiations are now in progress by the firm that's known as International Funeral Services. Look at their ad. Here's an ad from the Canadian Funeral Service Magazine, and it's just of last October, "Attention — Funeral Directors," and this is an IFS advertisement. "Are you getting a proper return on your invested capital? A number of funeral directors have found they are not. Have you considered selling your business?" and I'm abbreviating the ad. They have openings for funeral directors. These American firms are coming into the Province of British Columbia, taking over the traditional, usually family-owned, Canadian mortuary service and continuing the name, continuing the tradition and extracting inordinate profits out of the victims, at a time when they can least bargain competently for themselves. There's one widow and, of course, I won't name her, but I'll give the exact figures in my own riding of Vancouver East. Her example shows you how they make up all of these watered profits and profit figures that I will refer to. She went to Mt. Pleasant Funeral Home, which has been taken over by the chain, and she was given the usual sophisticated selling job. She was shown a coffin for $500 or $600, which was a little better than an egg crate and she felt she couldn't bury her husband in that. This was a widow with a total estate of $15,000, hardly a wealthy person. She was sold the second cheapest coffin in that establishment for $824 and the funeral service cost her $487. The clergy received $10 and her total funeral bill was $1,323 even though the family already owned the funeral plot. Thirteen hundred and twenty three dollars, with a discount of $118 for cash, so, perhaps, you should say $1,208 plus $71 for opening the grave at Ocean View, which of course, is also owned by the chain. So it comes to $1,279, if she has the cash to pay it quickly, if not she's on the 7 per cent rate and pays the higher figure and this out of a very small estate.

Look at the profits that these organizations are making. In the July/August issue of the Canadian Funeral Service, International Funeral Services, the first one I mentioned, shows its operating results because they're in the market. They're watching out for new people to sell out their businesses and join the chain. Their net earnings per share of common stock, which, in 1969, were 15 cents, in 1970, were 36 cents, an increase in profit of 140 per cent. Sales away up. Service Corporation International went up from a take of $619,000, in 1969, to $1,100,000, in 1970, a similar huge increase in both sales and profit.

There are gold mines in our cemeteries, Mr. Speaker, and they're being paid for by people who have not heard of the Memorial Society, I regret to say. They are paying money into chains, of which they know nothing, in many cases. The Americanization of the funeral business goes on apace and, surely, if we, as a country, can say anything good for ourselves, Mr. Speaker, surely, we can say that we should be able to attend to the burial of our dead as a Nation, without allowing giant chain organizations to come into the field, take over our mortuary business and give themselves watered stock. This is the way they make their basic profit out of the thing. Service Corporation International's prospectus was for the sale of 350,000 shares of common stock to the public at $14 per share but the promoters, and that's in the fine print, had given themselves stock options to buy the same stock — for example, American General acquired stock options to buy 360,000 common shares of the same company with warrants exercisable at $1.67 per share — this is the stock that is put on the market and sold to the public at $14 per share. I say that the Americanization, we're not against the Americans, but I say that the funeral business, really, should be as the Memorial Society does it, on a nonprofit basis, or done civically or done as our hospitals do it — that profit has no place in the funeral and cemetery business.

I want to say something, Mr. Speaker, about the real tragedy of the last few days and that's the bus thing. British Columbia has come to a crossroads and we've taken the wrong turn. We've taken the turn to practically fighting people off the buses with a stick, cutting back the bus service, encouraging the proliferation of more and more cars on our crowded streets. I say this is one of the great tragedies of British Columbia at this time. The lady Minister, who took her seat, mentioned that it was picayune that the B.C. Hydro should take away the downtowner Sunday pass, or the Sunday Pass, the 50 cent pass. I say it is picayune that this Government, Mr. Speaker, where the responsibility lies, should be starving public transportation at this time.

I say they are showing absolutely no social vision. They are giving, for the subsidy of public transportation, a measly $2 million to Hydro, and you have to compare that with expenditures of, say, $27 million just to build the approaches to a First Narrows bridge to bring more cars into the city of Vancouver. You look at the increase in the car population, which, in 1968, licensed vehicles in British Columbia, 918,000; in 1969, 988,000, an increase of 7.6 per cent, when the population of the Province went up much less than half of that — about 3 1/2 per cent. Yet, we're following a policy,

[ Page 415 ]

Mr. Speaker, of encouraging people to go out and buy an old car because they've got to get to work. How can nurses get to work, Mr. Speaker, in the small hours of the morning? How can shift workers get to and from work, without going to the used car dealers? How can people go to the bingos or to the theatres, when the service has been cutback as drastically as it has? I say that this Government is absolutely oblivious to the real social costs of starving public transportation. Because you put, on the one side, Mr. Speaker, the kind of subsidy that is needed for rapid transit under a Regional Transit Authority, and I don't think it should be under Hydro…I think Hydro regards it as a nuisance, that's obvious. Chairman Shrum says, "Well, we'll get people to work and we'll get them back from work and that's it." I think it should be under a Regional Transit Authority and should be well subsidized. I think that's a saving of dollars, because, on the other side of the ledger, what have you got? You've got money to create more sterile acres of asphalt and blacktop. You've got the fumous clouds of exhaust in the atmosphere. You've got the rising toll of deaths on the highway, which, in the last year, were 542, I think, in B.C., and the accident rate, which rose 20.9 per cent of reportable accidents from 1968-69, up from 58,000 to 70,000. These are all the costs on the other side of the ledger (interruption). I'll just talk a few more out then I'll move to adjourn. You've got the expenditure of these vast sums — $300 million for rapid transit to start in how many years. $200 million for a First Narrows bridge. The Minister has said that we are going to contribute 37 1/2 per cent of the cost of the rapid transit system. But it's an if-y offer, Mr. Minister, it's, "if the Federal Government do this or that, " is it not? (Interruption.) Yes, it's an if-y offer.

I think you should contribute at least 37 1/2 per cent for rapid transit but it shouldn't be on a conditional basis with strings attached to it like that, because I don't see that we're getting rapid transit for many years to come and the thing has been stalled and mired down. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should scrap the expensive First Narrows crossing and use that money to generously fund public transportation. I think we should tax the big cars more than the little ones, to a much greater extent than we do. I think we should build parking bays at the outskirts of our city and have good bus service to enable people to come down. I think we should reduce the fares and not increase them. I think we should increase the downtowner passes and the pensioners' passes. I think that pensioners and people in need, quite frankly, it would be cheap if they had free bus service, cheap compared to the spaghetti of freeways that we're building. I think we should modernize our public transportation bus system and add things such as mini buses. I think we should give a green light to the buses and have "bus only" lanes, so that they could move quickly through the city streets on regular fast schedules. I think we should have things, like pedestrian walkways and overpasses and bicycle paths. Yet, this Government, Mr. Speaker, on this, which is one of the great social issues of our time, has taken the wrong road. They have no vision of the problems of an urban society. They are a hick Government, suffering from rural myopia, needing glasses, ready to spend hundreds of millions on things, such as freeways, and the rest, and bridges and congestion and pollution, and not the few dollars that are needed to give the people of the lower mainland particularly, the kind of fast, comfortable bus service they so badly need. Where there is no vision, the people perish. Nothing could be more true in the field of rapid transit than that, today.

Look at the ad that Hydro puts out. I say you can't blame Hydro because they're an instrument of the Government. They try to blame the union. They start out by saying the new agreement between B.C. Hydro and the Transit Union will add further large increases to the already high transit losses. I'd like to say that the union settlement that the transit drivers got, was less than they deserved. It was less than the National average and they should have been offered a better return, much earlier in the negotiation proceedings, because they have a very difficult job. They have the lives of people in their hands. They're fare collectors, they give friendly advice and they try to work their way through the traffic snarls. Yet, the increase they got was less than the National average. That strike was unnecessary. But, all the way through this advertisement, to Hydro, public transportation is a nuisance, something to be sloughed off, something to be cut back and I say that this is a disgrace. There is no answer whatsoever provided at this time, Mr. Speaker, for the transportation problems of the people, and especially the poorer people, of the lower mainland of British Columbia.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I have one other topic I'd like to mention and that is a question raised by my colleague, the good Member from Vancouver East, who made a speech which was carefully researched in this Legislature a short while ago. He raised a question of principle, which, we, on this side of the House, are not afraid to face, Mr. Speaker, and take to the people of the Province. Now there were, of course, differences, and there are some differences between the situation regarding the then Minister of Highways, in 1968, and the matters raised by the honourable Member, but the principle is exactly the same. That principle is that we, on this side of the House, do not believe that speculative profits from values created by the taxpayers' dollar should be drained off into the speculator's pocket. You may say, Mr. Speaker, that we should not name the people, the new family dynasties of great wealth, that are growing up in the Province of British Columbia but, with respect to that, Mr. Speaker, we say that the people have a right to know. We condemn this Government for continuing to drop a veil of secrecy over the ownership of companies involved in promotions beside the highways of the Province of British Columbia.

The Second Member for Point Grey has placed the amendment before this House to the Companies Act which would let the sunshine in and let the people of the Province know, when public business is being transacted, who the real owners of the company are. Instead, this Government has preferred, as it were, the same method as is in the secret Swiss bank accounts, where the curtain and veil of secrecy is let down.

We say that there should be respect, in the year 1971, as there was years ago, for some of the basic principles of trust and equity which were taken for granted once but, which are, today, greatly abused. Let me read from the judgement of that great American jurist, Justice Cordoza. "Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm's length are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties.

A trustee is held to be bound by something stricter than the morals of the marketplace. Not honesty alone but the punctilio of an honour, the most sensitive, is then the standard of behaviour. As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate." That principle has been enormously abused, and I'm talking not only about the Province of British Columbia but throughout Canada and the United States of America. We say that this Government, and the trends of this Government, should live up to the

[ Page 416 ]

principles of trust and fiduciary relationship, and respect the matters of equity that were once values held dearly by our forefathers. We say it is a simple matter that the profits of land speculation can be returned to the people of this Province and I intend to suggest one vehicle by which that could be done, Mr. Speaker.

As I say, what happened in 1968 is the same, in principle, so far as the policy of this Party stands, as what is being raised today. In 1968, the Provincial Government proposed to name the Yellowhead Highway, that new beautiful highway that turns off at I think Tete Jaune and turns to Jasper. They propose to name it Gaglardi Way. It should be named Gaglardi Way. It has not been named Gaglardi Way but it should be named Gaglardi Way, because believe me, Mr. Speaker, when a traveler, say, with his family, is going to leave the city of Vancouver and take his family up to Prince George or through the Yellowhead to Jasper, he will be paying homage all along those ways to a little group of land speculators. If he wishes to avoid paying homage to those land speculators, it will be as difficult as somebody trying to go through a minefield without a mine detector. If he gets by Langley, he comes to Cache Creek. He may put up for the night in Cache Creek or he may buy a gallon of gas, and when he does, he will be helping to repay, to pay a toll, because this is a toll road, Mr. Speaker. Don't tell us, Mr. Speaker, there are no tolls in the Province of British Columbia. We have toll roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: Political tolls.

MR. MACDONALD: He will be paying a toll to those who have acquired the land and sold the land for gasoline station sites. He will be paying a toll at Kamloops at that junction. He will be paying a toll at Valemount.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget Princeton.

MR. MACDONALD: He will be paying a toll at Blue River. He will be paying a toll at Tete Jaune. He will be paying a toll at McBride. Where he stops for a meal, where he puts up for the night at a motel, where he goes into a shopping centre and where he buys his gas, he will be paying the new millionaires, the ground-floor millionaires, who have been able to make money out of speculation in land beside our highways.

As that traveler staggers on, from one point to another, he will be parboiled, fried, stewed, fricasseed and devilled by the same ground-floor land speculators, and my friends may laugh but it is their children and their children after them who will be paying those tolls. We are told, Mr. Speaker, that the groups involved happen to be just the same people, that this is a coincidence, that this is a free enterprise Province, that anybody could have got into and done the same thing. We are told by the Minister, who is now the Minister of Rehabilitation, "Don't mollycoddle the young," and we agree with that. "Don't mollycoddle the young," the Minister says. Perhaps, a gas station site, perhaps, a housing subdivision, perhaps, a motel subdivision along the highway — don't mollycoddle the young, be modest about it. The facts about the route that I have described are well known, Mr. Speaker. It is stated, and was stated very frankly by the Regional District Planner, C.M. Suri, for the McBride area, who said that the selection of commercial areas has been influenced by the provision of access roads by the Highways Department. It has to be like that. You can't have these rich commercial areas, unless you get the access and unless you get the zoning. That's a public matter and, where the public interest is involved, Mr. Speaker, there should be no suspicion. There should be no cause for suspicion. The highest standards of Government require that these things be above suspicion. It does not matter who the new, dynastic families are. I suppose, we should say to ourselves that we're glad it isn't American capital. But, really, there is a better way in which these profits can be returned to the people.

So I close, Mr. Speaker, by making two suggestions, and one of them I've made, already. That is that there must be no more secrecy attached to the ownership of companies that do public business along the highways of the Province of British Columbia.

The second is that we need a vehicle, by which we can retain, for the people of this Province, the land values that their tax dollars created. I suggest that, as we have the Bank of British Columbia, we should have the Land Bank of British Columbia, modestly capitalized. My goodness, think of the money we've put into the cultural funds and the sports funds and the cigarette funds — ten million dollars would launch this bank and it would make the Bank of British Columbia look sick in comparison to the kind of returns it could make to the people of British Columbia. It should have the powers and all of the people of British Columbia should be shareholders in the Land Bank of British Columbia. It should have power to acquire land, whether it be Crown or private, which is going to be of enhanced value as a result of public expenditures, to acquire the land cheap and to lease it out for gasoline sites and let them pay a rent coming back to the Land Bank of British Columbia. Let the shopping centres return to the people of British Columbia the increased values of that land, which the people of British Columbia have created. Let the restaurants do it. Let there be land acquired for housing, as my friend and colleague said, $160 an acre assessed value land. Why shouldn't that be taken into the Land Bank of the Province of British Columbia and, then, made available, perhaps, to the municipalities, perhaps, to an agency of Government, perhaps, to a home-owner, perhaps, for an industrial estate? A vehicle by which we can safeguard, for the people of British Columbia, their true inheritance, their true inheritance. It's really very simple. They say in Quebec, "maitres chez nous, " "masters in our own house," and we say the same thing here that we should be, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, masters in our own house. We say this land is our land. Let the profits from that land, the profits that are created by the legislation we pass here or the Budget that we are now discussing, let those profits flow back to the people of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take my place in this Budget Debate, before you as your person graces so beautifully the Throne Chair, today.

I'm very pleased that I have this privilege, again, which is my fifth time before this Legislature. It is a wonder and a pleasure to note and to observe the regular thrust and parry that goes across the House, which I do not engage in, but it's a pleasure to watch and see. The brilliant minds in action, the words are spoken, sometimes in jest, sometimes in earnest. I cannot help but wonder at the basis for it all. I wonder when the Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East digs up the matter, again, of the former Minister of Highways and the

[ Page 417 ]

so-called land deals; I thought that was gone and buried, because there was none. It was all a matter of innuendo, attempted assassination by innuendo. When the Honourable Second Member of Vancouver East, who is now doing their regular thrusting, who is so good at it with a hatchet, has the temerity to attack two of the most honourable citizens in the city of Kelowna, the Bennett boys, sons of the Premier…(interruption). I didn't. I'm coming to the point and straight to the point. I'm not beating around the bush like the other half is doing. It's bad to beat around the bush…the temerity of such a ridiculous attack. "What did you say, Mr. Premier?" He said, "I laughed," and well he could laugh. You know when they thought at one time that they'd really assassinated the Honourable the former Minister of Highways, he resigned his position and they said, "We've got him." But they didn't get him for that — that was all innuendo there was no basis. But, unfortunately…(interruption). No, they didn't get him. He got tired of it and resigned.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to the aeroplane?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I'll tell you about the aeroplane. Yes, the aeroplane, that's all you've got. All you accomplished, my friend, was this. Let me tell them, Mr. Speaker, what they accomplished. All they accomplished — they forced the Government to return the only decent aeroplane they had. They turned back that aeroplane, which was the only decent aeroplane this Government had, and they should still have it. A Government, third largest in Canada, a moving corporation, that gets things done — all you accomplished, my friends, was that you made the Government, just by press coverage and pressure, to send back the aeroplane. You're asking our civil servants to fly around in those tin cans over the most hazardous land in the world. That's what you accomplished. The civil servants, some day, should speak to you and say, "What have you done?" That aeroplane, the ones you have, now, are unsafe, completely unsafe (interruption). OK. If I were in power to ground them, I would, because they are safe for…(interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: They are safe only for one thing, fair weather and they are not safe over the mountains of British Columbia. They are completely dangerous. I haven't been an aircraft pilot for the past 35 years but I would not step in the door of that aeroplane and fly to Calgary in the overcast. That's completely dangerous. One of those aircrafts, if one engine stopped, it couldn't maintain more than a 5,000 ft. level over the mountains. They'd all be dead. This is what you accomplished. Another ridiculous thing, I never heard the like in my life…Just listen to this. We had to be so strict, the Government had to be so strict, that if a Minister has an appointment in Revelstoke or Prince George or wherever he goes with the aeroplane that he must, his wife can't go with him. She has to go by bus or train or another aircraft because no one but civil servants and Ministers fly in those craft. How ridiculous can you get? I don't criticize the Federal Government for it, but they fly several 707 jets that cost $1,000 an hour to fly and everybody flies in them. This is that hotheaded attitude of our Opposition, today. Always attacking, never building. I said it before…(interruption). How you blew it! You know, the Premier said, during the last election, "I will tell the people of British Columbia that I intend to give the honourable gentleman Minister without Portfolio, a full portfolio after this election. If you don't agree with me, you know what to do. The Province of British Columbia knows what do do." What did the Province of British Columbia do? Answer: Look at the Floor, swept right around the other side, almost eliminated the Opposition. That is because you do not understand the people will not stand for these assassinations and innuendo. They will not stand for ridiculous charges that have no foundation. You might be applauded in the press and, well, you should be, because the press tells what happens here. But the people, the people think and vote and, my friends, how they voted! That is a result of these innuendo attacks. Surely, by now, you could learn. I'm helping you by telling you all this. I wonder why you don't learn. You're all fine fellows, in a way, but, when you start to think, the people of British Columbia expect you to do something constructive. My Honourable Second Member from Vancouver East, the attack he made today and raked this thing all up, which I wasn't forced to reply to, but I felt I must. What good has that done except deteriorate and hurt and damage? You've already learnt your lesson. Do you want more?

British Columbia is the most vital Province in Canada. Things happen here. The problem that we've got — the same problem in the east, as we have in the Opposition. The same problem here as in eastern Canada. It could be spoken as one word. What is that word, jealousy? They are jealous of the Government. The east is jealous of British Columbia. Let me give you one little example. Two or three years ago, the Federal Government had a Prime Ministers' Conference. I think it was in Ottawa. I think the Honourable the Prime Minister of Canada decided it would be a good idea to put this on TV so the people could see "…What a good job, I, Trudeau, do, because, you know, I've got charisma. When they see me on that TV, do you know what's going to happen? They're going to say we love that man." Well, they put it on TV. What happened? They will never put it on TV, again, my friends. Did you ever see it on TV again"

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, never. Why? Because who had the charisma? Your Prime Minister and all Canada saw the policy of British Columbia, the greatness of the Province. They said, "We'll not do this again because they won't believe what we're writing. Here's someone who tells the facts. This is why British Columbia expands. We can't have this anymore." I often wonder why the CBC has another…and that brings me to the next point — the CBC. Now, I'll say this with respect to CBC as a TV station, I think they're the finest that we have — United States or Canada (interruption). I don't care about them. They never call me out at CBC. Everybody else but me. I don't care about that. I don't have to do any favours for anybody. It's great. Sure. But they are a great station. They have great programming but their brain freezes when they start talking about British Columbia. What happens to them? Jealousy, again. What do you call those Indians up and near the Williston Lake? Are they Wild Grass Indians? Tall Grass.

Well there's a programme that really had a flair, where the poor Indians — and God bless them all — had nowhere to go. They were living down the valley of the river and suddenly a terrible Government flooded the lake. The poor Indians were lifted in body and thrown up on the shore of the lake —

[ Page 418 ]

nowhere to sleep, nowhere to go, nothing to eat, no doctor. What a disaster! Then the camera shows a man standing at the side of the road, thumbing a ride, his arm is broken but he's thumbing a ride. You'd almost imagine a CBC television crew with their electronics and their trucks just happened to be passing when this fellow was thumbing a ride. What a joke!

It gives the wrong impression of British Columbia to the rest of Canada. It is wrong because I could tell you about the Tall Grass Indians. Why, even in my town, there's a lady gathering up cans and bottles and preserves to send up to them, which is very commendable. But what are they going to do with them? They've already got more than they can use. What does it do? It just does more damage. Trying to damage British Columbia and you laugh, Mr. Member. You're entitled to laugh. It sounds funny but it is stupid, it is sad. Let's took at another thing.

I listened to a programme last March and I got livid with…I was just livid, that's all. There were some ecology experts, doctors all, three of them, and they took on after British Columbia and the terrible state of our ecology here, that terrible "Bennett Country." No one cares — the Fraser River is an open sewer. On both sides of the Fraser River — dead fish. Both sides, not one side, both sides. Was this on a local programme? No, it was on the National programme. It was from Ottawa. What do you say to this? There is no way of replying. Everyone in Ontario, when I tell my relatives in Toronto that I live on the banks of the Fraser, they send me condolences now. They just see dead fish on both sides of the river. This is what the people think. Why I ask, why must it be, "Knock down British Columbia" policy? Jealousy, that's all. Jealousy by the Opposition, jealousy by the Federal authorities, but we care not at all. I know we don't, because the purpose of the whole issue of this Government is to continue to do a good job. Let the chips fall where they may. The day will come when they must see, must understand — and that day is here now. But it takes more time. We're waiting, serving our people. Where would the CBC — this is not a vicious attack — I'm just surprised, that's all. I'm just surprised and this bothers me.

Where was the CBC, when the largest senior citizens' home in Canada was opened two weeks ago when I was there, the seventh one I've been to? Where were they when that was opened, when they could show a constructive thing that British Columbia is doing for our senior citizens? Where were they when a $1 1/2 million project, the like of which there isn't anywhere in this country? Where were they? They weren't there, I can tell you. I was there and the gratification of all those present, so thankful that the Provincial Government and the Federal Government and the Lions Club all went together and contributed their money to build this structure (interruption).

Mr. Premier, I'm glad you said that, because I remembered you saying it before. I told them there that day. They asked me to speak…(interruption). Right. They said to me, "Oh, we have a Member here from the Provincial Government, George Mussallem, would you like to say a few words?" You bet, I would. I got up there and I told them. I told them the whole story, Mr. Speaker. I told them that all honour to the Lions Club who went and gathered up the 10 per cent, who received…yes, all honour to them. All honour to the men and women that worked for this thing day and night, all honour to them. I said it was a community effort, all honour to the community. Then I said this, "I was at another senior citizens' home a while ago," and, you know, I told a story, then. I want to tell you, again, because it had no effect. I pointed out, there, as I point out again, that the Provincial Government made a present of $540,000 towards this home, a present, a gift, a total gift. That, I said, made it possible. It couldn't have been possible without that gift, because the Federal Government lends their money to CMHC at a full rate of interest. There is no gift, not one cent, 7 7/8 per cent. When that home is paid for, I pointed out, they would have paid back, instead of $1 million, nearly $6 million and more. I didn't want to work it out, but about $8 million. Believe me, they stood there and took credit. I said there was a Doug Hogarth, a Member for the Federal Government, there, and I turned to him and I said, "Mr. Hogarth, go back and tell your Cabinet that the least they could do is give the money back interest free." He said to me, "We would, we would, but the people of Canada won't." "Well," I said, "Mr. Hogarth, the people of Canada are out here right now. There are about a hundred people there. Let's hear the people of Canada." You've never heard such applause. So I say it again. That is the voice of the wilderness — no one heard, no one cared. These poor people are so — the senior citizens — fine people, but they're so grateful to be in there.

They are grateful to everybody. Who are they grateful to? Only one Government made it possible, and that was the Provincial Government. Do I ever hear you, the honourable Opposition, say anything about it? Not one word, not one word. I never in my life heard anybody try and get on bandwagons, but why don't we hear you say it in between? Well, it is very interesting to see. So I said my words, then, and they realize it. I think we should get the story across more often because there will be many more homes built. Perhaps, if we shame the Federal Government enough they will remove the interest rates — not give away any money. Impossible? Well, it may be impossible, but let's try, Let's keep at it. Let's tell the story continually. I don't understand this "Knock down B.C." policy. I can't understand it.

I shouldn't waste my time or the time of this House talking about it, because we don't care (applause). I thank you. I shouldn't do, but I must do it. I must do it. You know, it makes you feel better when you get it off your chest. It makes you feel better.

There's the Honourable Jack Davis, who runs around the country…

AN HON. MEMBER: Doing nothing.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, he never did anything but knock B.C. all the time. A Member of British Columbia. Does he help, does he lift, does he encourage? No, just knocks all the time. He says, "You know, one of these days I'm going to shut down one of those pulp mills. They're just dumping that effluent in the water." British Columbia…what a horrible way they do. They tell them how much effluent they can put in. They don't tell how much they can't put in. Well, I tell you, you have to be an educated man to understand that statement. I don't understand it. But the ridiculous nature of a policy of a man that spends his time just knocking the Province of British Columbia, his own homeland, is beyond my understanding. I've got to compliment…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, you hear this nonsense but I rather enjoy it. I don't mind it. It's very nice to hear.

[ Page 419 ]

But, you know, I wish I remembered the Minister saying that, but I'd forgotten it. It would have been a fine line to have on here, but I never had it. I'm glad you reminded me. Just for the sake of it, let me say I said it.

I must compliment the Attorney-General on a thing that's so little but it's so important, so little but so important. Amongst his massive duties of his office, it must take him, it must be the least thing of all…But, when this Government put in the Odometer Law, I want to tell him what a great boon it has been for the automobile industry as a whole. I want to tell him that it levelled out the values of automobiles on used car lots to a point where they've become a useful value according to the odometer reading. You know, now, generally, what you've got. You say that your car has gone 80,000, 90,000, 100,000 or 15,000. It has been a good law. It has been a help to dealers and customers alike and I compliment him (interruption). The Honourable Member speaks facetiously, but there is no way we can add water to the product (laughter).

Mr. Speaker, there's one suggestion I'd like to make seriously. Most remarks have been serious, today. I'd like to make a suggestion that the Attorney-General look at another very important facet in the same line. A car gets into a wreck or what we call a "total." The insurance company, or the owner, whatever the case, will say it costs so many dollars to fix it. I can get so many dollars for it as a wreck. Perhaps, it will be cheaper not to fix it, get rid of it. Insurance companies mostly do this and they sell the car to a private buyer, a handyman in a back alley garage. A lot of good men can do jobs with a car and they'll buy these wrecks. I'm thinking of one in particular, right now, that had gone 3,000 miles. Now, that car had an accident total on it of $2,200. The buyer bought this 1970 car for $1,100, which is very cheap for a 1970, but if you add the $2,200 on top of that to what it cost to repair, you have more than the car is worth. Why did he buy it? He bought it to make money, Mr. Attorney-General, and he's entitled to do it, nothing wrong with it. There is something wrong, in a way, but he's within his rights, should I say. He takes that car into his garage, wherever it is. Perhaps, it's the garage of his own home, if he's a handyman. He takes that car, straightens, adjusts, rebends over heat, and that car is almost as bad a wreck when it's finished as when it was started. The only thing — it looks nice, patched up and painted. I recommend that any car that's totalled, Mr. Attorney-General, should have…or any car that has…Let me put it this way, any car with a reportable accident should have it listed or noted on the transfer slip, so when a customer buys the car he knows how many reportable accidents it's been in. Now, this is just the same as weights and measures — the man should know what measure he's getting. The man who buys this car that I'm speaking of has a wreck before he bought it. I think this is very important.

I have something else that disturbs me greatly and now I'll move my attention to the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I'm sorry to have to tell you, but your marketing boards…No, that's not a word. I've run out of control. I can tell you, at this hour, that just a few weeks ago, a man in the town of Mission, who has a small vegetable stand by the side of the road, making a little business to keep himself and his family, goes around buying vegetables wherever he can and sells them in his market. He's allowed to do this, but they restrict where he can buy. This man lives in Mission. He can go as far as Agassiz, on this side of the river, but if he crosses the river and goes to Chilliwack where the vegetables are, he's in violation of the law. Can you imagine anything so stupid — the fact that he goes another mile? There are no vegetables in Agassiz that he wants, but they're in Chilliwack, across the river. Mr. Minister, this man is being an entrepreneur, thought he could just get away with it a little bit, anyway. He's tried it two or three times. It doesn't work, they catch him. Now he's breaking the law. I spoke to you, Mr. Minister, and you, yourself, said you can't understand the marketing boards — they're stupid. Why do you allow this to continue? I say this has to stop. I do not think that there should be any board powerful enough to dictate to the Government what it should do. The most annoying part of it is this, Mr. Speaker. I went to the chairman of the board — I spoke to him over the telephone, I should say. I called on the telephone and I said, "What are you going to do with the potatoes?" There were other things, too, but potatoes were the main. "Ho, ho, " he says, "we're going to give them away to somebody. That will serve them right." I'm telling you, this sneer, this attitude of glee, he was happy that he could do it. I tell you it is seldom I attack anyone on the floor of this House, but that man deserves an attack. He should be out of there.

The Poultry Board is just as bad. I have, in my town, a man by the name of Ted Watson, owner of Blythwood Turkey Farms, who is just making a living raising turkeys and doing a great job. He received a quota, arbitrarily, without warning. I will not bore this House with the details. Suddenly, the board decided he's not going to have that quota. They took him off and here he's got, in cold storage, about 30,000 birds that will be sold at a loss to him. We're not through with this, yet. I say to you, Mr. Minister, that if that board gets away with that, it will be a disgrace against the escutcheon of your office.

The board chairman said to me — his name is Wolfe — said to me with pleasure…(interruption). Wolfe. Not the honourable Member. Now, I don't like doing things like this, but I must. What annoys me, I'll go along to any end to talk, discuss and change and  alter and agree, you know that. But when he said to me with glee, "Huh," he says, "he's not getting away with it" — speaking of Watson.

Now, I tell you, when any man says this, it makes me mad and something has got to be done. I hope it's done, Mr. Minister (interruption). I'm not asking questions now because it gets into details. The Minister knows. He knows what he's talking about. I've got evidence in my desk which I will give you later, Mr. Minister, and I tell you, I ask you from the floor of this House, that something has got to be done for Watson. An honourable man, who served his country through the war, who is practically — well, I shouldn't go into that — I'm not going to mention that. I'm telling you — an honourable man, a family man — who deserves better than this and he must get better than this.

I'm going to tell you another thing, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, something that bothers me greatly. This time, I will have to mention that the villains of the piece are the large stores — Safeway, Woodwards. I'm going to tell you something that will surprise you, perhaps. In my constituency, there is a very large chicken hatching and selling industry, very large. They sell in this area and also in Langley too, Mr. Member. They sell live broilers eight weeks old, 3/4 to 4 lbs. They sell them to a processing plant for 21 cents a pound. The processor takes them, pays the freight on them, packages them, allows for shrinkage to reduce them to when they're ready for the oven, and sells them to the stores — I give approximate figures — for 41 cents a pound. Now, that is

[ Page 420 ]

an approximate figure and that allows the grower about 2 cents a pound profit with which he's satisfied — 2 cents a pound profit. To give you an idea how large this market is, there's over 60 million lbs. of chickens a year sold in British Columbia. It's a big business. The large food stores sell this, exactly the way they get it, for 49 cents a pound. They just sell it. They take the same bird and sell it as a broiler for 59 cents a pound. They'll take an 11 to 14 week old bird for which they pay 42 cents a pound and it's on special at 69 cents a pound. I just saw it today. How can we ever expect to reduce the cost of living, if we're going to permit this thing to happen? How the Minister will correct this, I don't have a clue, but this is a very sad state of affairs. I think it's worthy of this Government's investigation.

All these miscellaneous little troubles, I know, are not very important, but British Columbia continues to become greater and better and finer under the leadership of the best Government in Canada.

A country that will be surrounded by green belts forever. Sometimes, we are sorry about the green belts of the city of Vancouver, the Fraser Valley. Worry no more, my friends. What we've forgotten here — we hear this big noise emanating from the desert country to the south — we need green belts. We forget — we're not down south — we are here in the most lush, most beautiful Province in the world. All around us will be green belts forever. The mountains all over. They're the green belts. It's not the little bit of meadow, we will grow farm produce in there for food. We don't have to have that in grass. Our green belts were created by the Creator in this great Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow my friend from Dewdney, whom I always enjoy. May I always appreciate humour, as he does, as long as I am in this House. I do enjoy listening to him, even though I very seldom agree with him — but that's part of the debate.

I'm sorry my friend from Columbia River is not in his place today, Mr. Speaker. I've done some research over the weekend. Is he coming back? All right, I'll save my little gem for the Member from Columbia River.

I'll move instead to some advice, if I may, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the First Member from Vancouver Centre. This is sort of a record Session because he hasn't won one yet this year. He just continually loses. I must say, though, he also bears the gibes pretty well.

While I'm waiting for the Member from Columbia River, whom, I know, can hardly wait for the results of my weekend research, I want to agree with the Minister without Portfolio who spoke earlier this afternoon about Hydro. I, too, must condemn Hydro for its actions since the strike was settled. Once again, it's simply reaffirmed my conclusion that Hydro long ago has forgotten that its prime purpose is to serve the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, Hydro is not a private business and Hydro must accept the principle that a viable transportation system in our major urban centres is essential to the whole Province.

Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to even imagine how an economy in a Province such as ours, could function properly without an adequate public transit system in Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster and so on. This, in no way, seems to be Hydro's intent or purpose, and I think we had another glaring example of this over the weekend. Service cutbacks in transit service in Vancouver and the lower mainland affect the entire Province. Even more than that, Mr. Speaker, it reminds me that this is the service that has refused to expand since it took over the transportation in the lower mainland. In my own riding, for example, the old B.C. Electric handled the transportation up to the Seymour River and those of you who are familiar with the North Shore know that, since that time, development on the North Shore has spread from the Seymour River right out to Deep Cove and, indeed, beyond. But there still are no Hydro buses east of the Seymour River. They simply refuse to extend their service. They flatly ignore the fact that people live out there and their entire policy has been one of no expansion and, indeed, cutbacks. So I join with that Minister in condemning Hydro's action over the weekend.

But the point must be made, and the Member has stated it well, that Hydro is a product of this Government. It is somewhat astounding to hear the lady minister get up and say, "Bad, naughty Hydro," without accepting any of the blame or responsibility for their actions. This is the Government that established Hydro and it's now this Government's responsibility to tell Hydro that their job, indeed, is to serve the people of the Province and not to cut back service. It is, also, unfortunate and true, Mr. Speaker, that these cutbacks by Hydro affect the senior people of our Province more than anyone else and that is to be regretted.

Mr. Speaker, I see the Member from Columbia River is back. I welcome him back. I wanted to carry on a bit of the discussion that was a debate that was going on from either side of the House during this Budget Debate. As a matter of fact, the debate has been crossing Party lines. I have a colleague to my left, here, with whom I agree and I'm talking about hunting.

The Member from Burrard first raised it and said that hunting should be abolished and I agree with him. The Member from Columbia River says, "No, it's just a great sport." Well, I did some research in my library and I found a poem I want to read to the Member. He may have heard it before but I don't think it will hurt to read it again. This is by Ogden Nash, Mr. Speaker. Ogden Nash wrote:

"The hunter crouches in his blind
'Neath camouflage of every kind,
And conjures up a quacking noise
To lend a lure to his decoys.
This grown-up man, with pluck and luck,
Is hoping to outwit a duck."

I think it sums it up pretty well, far better than I could, Mr. Speaker.

While I'm disagreeing with people, Mr. Speaker, I wish to disagree with another friend, the Member from Langley. I admire the Member from Langley for standing up and saying what he believed to be the future of our Nation, but I wish to stand up and say that I totally disagree with the concept he outlined in this Legislature. I think that Member, Mr. Speaker, despite his years, has failed to realize that the real Canadian character is a sea-to-sea character and will always be so (applause). While you're applauding over there, I say that those who don't see that have succumbed to the parochialism and separatism of Social Credit, because, Mr. Speaker, continually, we have heard Members from that side of the House, in this Session of the Legislature, speaking up in separatist fashion. The Member from Langley's remarks confirm my worst fears. The Canada East and Canada West theory is a step backwards — a hundred years into our past.

[ Page 421 ]

I would be the first to admit, Mr. Speaker, that the values of our Nation have a price and we must be prepared to pay it to keep our Nation as one. I offer some free advice to the Government. If you look in the history of Governments of British Columbia, you'll find that this is not the first Government to attempt to win its way by separatist talk. It's not the first. There have been many Governments in this Province who have taken this step, but, Mr. Speaker, without exception, the people have turned on those Governments and thrown them out of office and they'll do so again.

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to be lengthy, this afternoon, which I know will please the Members. I wish to speak on the Budget. I think, in many respects, it has been well debated. It is not a complicated Budget. The Premier's Address was straightforward and he put it on the line what he was going to do. Many Members have analyzed the Budget very well. The Leader of the Liberal Party was the first to point out the new tax increases on motels and gasoline will not even meet the new fund that is being established, which is a fact that should be realized by those who are going to be paying the shots. Many have shown, on this side, that the tax increases are not, in fact, necessary. The Member for Cowichan-Malahat showed how projections of the Minister of Trade and Industry fly in the face of the Minister of Finance's Budget. If you read the Annual Report of the Minister of Trade and Industry, as that Member pointed out so well, it reads like the document from some other Government, because it, certainly, doesn't match what the Minister of Finance had to say.

Then again, Mr. Speaker, after so many years, why should the Minister of Finance change now? This is a typical Budget, it follows the pattern. The pattern is well established and well known. The Minister of Finance has always taken money from general revenues and put them into little, special funds and, then, in turn, the little, special funds are given to the Crown corporations, namely B.C. Hydro. This is a pattern that is there, consistently, throughout the Budgets of this Minister. Even the Member for Alberni has got the picture. One of the first over there. He's now got the message, he now knows why the Minister of Finance has stayed out of the marketplace. He told us — the interest rates are too high. By saying that, Mr. Speaker, he admitted the advantage of meeting the needs of the Crown corporations out of the little funds that the Minister of Finance has.

AN HON. MEMBER: Teachers' pension.

MR. CLARK: Teachers' pension, Workmen's Compensation pension, Municipal Superannuants' pension, Civil Servants' pension — he's paying them a lower interest rate (interruption). Exactly. The ironic part, Mr. Speaker, is that the Member from Alberni has got the picture, but he doesn't know it yet. It will take another year when he reads his speech back, Mr. Speaker. Then, maybe he'll really understand.

We've got another fund this year, Mr. Speaker, but we'll be discussing that later. One can't help but suggest that the tax increases that are forecast in this Budget and outlined in this Budget, are not really to meet the expenditures of this Budget. They are to create a surplus for a motherhood budget which, perhaps, will come next year or the year after. That, too, is patterned, that's typical, that's in form, the Minister of Finance has done it consistently. It's no surprise, Mr. Speaker.

It leaves one question, though, that taxpayers in this Province should ask. Are the new elements of the Budget, the new fund, is the new fund, worth the tax increase? But further comment on that, too, Mr. Speaker, might better wait until a later date in this Session.

I must emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that there is a glaring lack in this Budget. I spoke about it in my contribution to the Throne Speech Debate and I have no hesitancy in speaking about it, again, with no apology. It is that the glaring gap on intermediate care is still here in British Columbia, despite the flowing words that appear in that Budget. For the elderly people of this Province, it means nothing. I agree with the Member for Oak Bay, whom, I think, deserves the congratulations of this House for doing a very fine research job on the costs of intermediate care and laying the facts before this House. I agree with him, although I, personally, believe that his estimates were somewhat low, at least, low as I envisage the service the Province could provide, because I just don't see a bunch of cold, stark hospitals where we're going to place our elderly. I envisage a whole concept of services that this Province could afford, now, services for the elderly and places for them to live that would include recreation facilities, for example. It would include, certainly, nursing facilities, but to suggest that all people who are chronically sick should be grouped together to spend the rest of their lives with a bunch of other sick people is just a disgusting thought to me. Elderly people are no different than the rest of us. They don't like to be around only sick people.

Is it beyond our imagination for us to conceive of environments for the senior citizens of this Province, where they could be looked after as far as their health needs are concerned but still have a variety that those of us, who are healthy and young, enjoy in our community streets? I think this is within our reach in this Province in this year. I think we need combination services for the elderly. I don't accept the concept of cold, stark intermediate care. Mr. Speaker, if you need a challenge for this Province in this Centennial Year, I still can't think of a better one than this. I can't think of anything that would give a greater boom to our economy than an imaginative programme for the senior citizens of this Province, in terms of residence, in terms of nursing care, in terms of recreation facilities, in terms of social services. Can you imagine anything that would give a greater boost to our construction industry than an imaginative programme presented to the people of this Province? What greater challenge could there be than for communities with resources to get together and answer the needs. Who in this House would not admit that there's nothing more embarrassing to him, as a Member, than the knowledge that, in his own riding, there lives elderly people who are waiting only death.

Besides that, Mr. Speaker, besides the people who would be needed to build these facilities, it would create brand new professions or expanded professions, at least — the people who would be required to nurse, the nurses, if you will, the recreation workers, the social agency workers. Mr. Speaker, I can but repeat what I said in my Throne Speech contribution that I find our Centennial celebrations hypocritical as long as this lack exists in the financial planning of our Province. I cannot celebrate, with any exuberance, the senior citizens, the pioneers, the founders, as long as this situation continues.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the question of municipal taxation as it's outlined in the Budget. We have the apples and oranges graphs, again. They've been there for some time, too. We've got more apples than you have oranges when, really, the taxpayer only has to look at his own municipal tax bill to know whether or not his taxes are going up and how well he's treated by this Province. B.C.'s municipal taxes did

[ Page 422 ]

go up last year, Mr. Speaker, almost all municipalities in the Province, certainly, those in the lower mainland. Once again, as I have every year in this debate, I would point out to the Members the costs in just one constituency on land and what's happened to them. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of any graphs that may exist in the Premier's Budget Address, this is the surest method of determining what's happening on the municipal tax rolls of British Columbia. You take those costs, which are not directly benefited by the land, and you take those costs which do not directly benefit the land, namely health, social welfare and education, and you subtract the Provincial grants. Then, that total you divide by the population. It's that simple and you've got the per capita costs of people services. What's happened to them? Any Member can do it. The municipal treasurer would be happy to give you the figures.

In 1962, in the District of North Vancouver, the per capita costs was $46.78; in 1963, it was $53.18; 1964, it was $58.35; in 1965, it was $59.59; in 1966, $65.50; 1967, $79.27; 1968, $91.20; 1969, $101.29. You can't argue with the figures, Mr. Speaker. Municipal taxes in this Province are going up and the cost of people services is being borne by the municipal landowner. There's been a 100 per cent increase in people service costs to the municipal taxpayer in less than six years, under Social Credit administration. There has been a tax increase every year and, this year, it will be greater than ever by this Budget because, although there is a 5 per cent reduction in welfare costs, there is no increase this year in per capita grants. So I can state, Mr. Speaker, with certainty, that next year, as I table these figures in the Budget Debate, the increase will be even greater. There is another tax increase on land in British Columbia, this year, and it's right in the Budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the question of some concern to me and should be of concern to this House. It involves the Minister of Health. I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, a category of events, during the past year, which, in my opinion, indicated very clearly the incompetence of this Minister. Included in those events, as just one item, was the alleged incident involving this Minister and a Dr. Regehr. It was over a hospital for Clearwater.

Mr. Speaker, although my concern, at the time, was not primarily with the hospital, the more this subject bounces around from various Ministers and various quarters in the Province, the more concerned one must become as to exactly what's happening to the hospital in Clearwater. Unless, of course, the Minister didn't mean what he said in this House the other day, when he said there'll be no hospital in Clearwater. It will be, I think, what he called a diagnostic centre. That's what he said in the House, the other day.

Then his colleague the Minister of Rehabilitation goes up to Clearwater and the story in the newspaper says, "Centre Ready by Fall: Rehabilitation Minister Phil Gaglardi announced an early beginning on construction of a long awaited hospital here." When is a hospital a hospital? What are we being told? What are the people in Clearwater being told? What exactly is it, Mr. Speaker, that has been told us here and is being told to the people of Clearwater? It obviously is not the same thing.

I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that that was not my primary concern when I first raised this topic in this House. My primary concern was, and I want to make this very clear, that a Minister of the Crown, any Minister, would attempt to use his position and influence to put into question the rights of a private citizen to practice his profession in this Province.

That was my concern, and I made that clear and I make it clear again, because I don't think there is any Member in this House, who would not agree with me, that any Minister, by his office, who would threaten such a professional is not worthy of his office.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's given you an answer to that.

MR. CLARK: Yes, he's given us an answer and I intend to deal with it. The first thing the Minister told us is that he tabled a letter, Mr. Speaker, that he had sent to Dr. W.G. McClure, the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. In it, he asked two questions and I would like to deal with them first. The first question he asks of Dr. McClure and the College: "Does a doctor licensed by your College to practice in this Province have the unqualified privilege of engaging the Minister of Health in public debate, in such a manner as to require that this Minister defend the health care policy approved and endorsed by either your College or the Medical Association, without, at the same time, taking upon himself the responsibility for making it clear he also speaks in opposition to an officially expressed view of the College or of the British Columbia Medical Association?"

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister has suggested, by this question, is that doctors or, indeed, any other profession, have some special restriction upon themselves when they choose to enter into political debate with this Minister. I don't accept that, and I don't think this House would want to accept that. If any doctor wishes to engage that Minister in debate, he has every right to do so…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CLARK: …by whatever means he chooses. He has no special privileges and no special rights and, hopefully, in engaging the Minister in debate, he would make his position clear. But he's got no special onus on him to do so.

The Minister went on to ask the second question. "…when, as in the case in point, Dr. Regehr has publicly expressed disapproval of policies stated in my letter, etc, etc,, does your College and the British Columbia Medical Association intend to state publicly that Dr. Regehr's views represent the policies of neither your College nor the British Columbia Medical Association and, further, that my letter referred to above has been endorsed as embodying the official views of your profession?"

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister would have every professional send in his speech first for clearance. Indeed, that's what I think the Minister meant when he stood up and said that, or inferred at least, that I had infringed upon gentlemanly conduct, because I hadn't sent in my speech to be vetted.

New rules for gentlemanly conduct! I don't accept what the Minister has said in his letter to Dr. McClure. The doctors of this Province have as much right as any other citizen to engage in debate on whatever platform they can find with the Minister of Health, if they choose to disagree with his policy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, and I remind you that it was the Minister who raised the question of gentlemanly conduct and honour, the point I had raised, Mr. Speaker, was that the Minister threatened a doctor. It was that simple. Indeed, by threatening this doctor he threatened the entire profession of British Columbia, too. The Minister answered…(interruption). You just listen, my friend. Your profession is

[ Page 423 ]

the one involved. Mr. Speaker, this is what the Minister said to Dr. McClure and this is what he tabled in this House by way of an answer. He said, "At no time have I ever suggested or said that I was going to look into Dr. Regehr's medical competency and see about lifting his license." That's what the Minister said in this House and to Dr. McClure. "At no time have I ever suggested or said that I was going to took into Dr. Regehr's medical competency and see about lifting his license." May I be as clear as possible, Mr. Speaker. That is an untrue statement — tabled in a letter by that Minister in this House. It is an untrue statement. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister said. There is one witness, who could be in this House — the Minister of Rehabilitation — because, at the meeting in question, November 5, 1970, the Minister of Rehabilitation was there and he heard the remark. So was Dr. Regehr. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what the Minister said to Dr. Regehr. He said, and I'll table it. I will give full explanation. Don't worry, Mr. Speaker, I intend to give full explanation as to the document in my hand (interruption).

I will, and I'll table it. I'll be happy to. This is what the Minister said and, then, I'll give him the chance to deny it."I want it very, very plainly understood…"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, please. I think the Point of Order is well taken that the Member should divulge the source of his reading.

MR. CLARK: Certainly. All right, if that will make the Minister happier. This is the transcript, Mr. Speaker, of the meeting. Is that clear enough? (Interruption.) November 5, 1970 (interruption). Transcript (interruption). The Minister's statement. " I want it very, very plainly understood…" (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. What is the Point of Order?

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): We must know if this is a court reporter's transcript, or whose transcript is this of the meeting?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I allege this is a transcript of the meeting.

MR. PETERSON: Well, by whom? A transcript isn't an official transcript unless it's by a court reporter (interruption). Were you there?

MR. CLARK: No, Mr. Minister.

MR. PETERSON: Did you record it?

MR. CLARK: No, Mr. Minister.

MR. PETERSON: Did you tape it?

MR. CLARK: No, Mr. Minister.

MR. PETERSON: We've got enough of these tapes around.

MR. CLARK: Let's be quite clear and stop foggying the issue or clouding the water. We're talking about a statement that a Minister of the Crown made in this House. He said, to continue, Mr. Speaker…

HON. G. McCARTHY (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to a Point of Order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your Point of Order?

MRS. McCARTHY: If a Member in this House can rise and quote a document, with two pieces of paper in his hand, and allege that it was a recording or a record of a meeting and does not give us either the time or place, only gives the date, does not give us the source of the information, anyone can come in this House and give such an…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please (interruption).

MRS. McCARTHY: … and I gave you the proof, too. Mr. Speaker, I think it's a very dangerous procedure that a Member of the House can come in and just give two pieces of paper as so-called evidence of a conversation. Now, I am asking the question, as a Member of this House, an honourable Member of this House, is it a tape-recorded presentation, a transcript that he has given us and, if so, when was it taken and by whom? Is it a printed report of a meeting and, if so, who printed it? Was it recorded minutes and, if so, was the secretary appointed by the so-called meeting to record it? I think that the House has reason to have that sort of information placed before it before, seriously, considering any kind of a statement brought before this House (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. May we have order for a moment, please?

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): On the Point of Order, every Member must take responsibility for his own statements in this House and if he quotes from anybody should give the source of his quotation. Having done so, and the date and time…(interruption). Well, he started it and he takes responsibility for his own statements (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think Members, from time to time, do make statements in this House, some of them are taken from newspapers — they are alleged statements. If the statement is incorrect, the honourable Member, of course, has the opportunity to rise to a Point of Order to correct the statement, to refute the statement, or to disassociate himself from the statement, and may do so at the conclusion of the Member's address.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Member identify, as well as he can, the document he's holding.

MR. CLARK: The document I'm holding is a transcript which I maintain is a transcript of the conversation that took place between the Minister of Health and Dr. Regehr on the date of November 5, 1970, in the presence of Mr. Gaglardi, Dr. Regehr, a Mr. Foote, Mr. G. Smith and Mr. J. Harwood. Mr. Speaker, the document that has fallen into my hands, as so many documents do to Members, is here in evidence, and I will be happy to table it with the House, along with corroborative evidence, if necessary. Let me clear things up, Mr. Minister, so we won't get bogged down here.

[ Page 424 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: …evidence of this as a transcript. I suggest he should do it at the outset, now, if he has such evidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Member cannot submit evidence to the Legislature so much as he can make a statement, which he alleges to be true. Any honourable Member against whom that statement may be made, of course, has the opportunity to refute the statement. Nevertheless, you have the right to say so but I don't think you should leave the impression that it's a matter of evidence before the House.

MEL CLARK: I will let that stand, Mr. Speaker, when I'm finished and give the Minister the opportunity to withdraw. Where was I? What the Minister had said in his letter to Dr. McClure, Mr. Speaker, to refresh the memories of the Members. "At no time have I ever suggested or said that I was going to look into Dr. Regehr's medical competency and see about lifting his license." I suggest what the Minister said to Dr. Regehr was, "I want it very, very plainly understood that no doctor is going to tell me that he's going to leave unless he gets the hospital, because I'm going to start looking at his qualifications and his right to practice in this Province, that's what I'm going to do." "At no time have I ever suggested or said that I was going to look into Dr. Regehr's medical competency and see about lifting his license." Statement to Dr. Regehr, "I want it very, very plainly understood that no doctor is going to tell me that he is going to leave unless he get's the hospital, because I'm going to start looking at his qualifications and his right to practice in this Province, that's what I'm going to do." No withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House I would file this. Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House, I would file a tape recording, which I feel will prove, in the Minister's voice, what he has said.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary, if any?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. Unless he proves the source of the tape, I will not withdraw. He's had a lot to do with tape recorders.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PETERSON: I'm asking him to give us the detail of the tape recording to prove that it is a tape recording of a conversation and, if so, by whom? (Interruption.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CLARK: Don't worry, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Members to please keep order and let the Member proceed with his speech.

MR. CLARK: I'm not worried, Mr. Speaker, by accusations of the Attorney-General. I have, in fact…

MR. PETERSON: I'm not making any accusations.

MR. CLARK: Well, then what was it? (Interruption.) How do you prove a tape is a tape? One tape recording, Mr. Speaker, this is a dub of a tape. The original I have, but the original is in a form that I felt would not be convenient for the House if anyone wanted to play it, so I dubbed it. I taped it. I dubbed it, I duplicated it, whatever you wish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the honourable Member address the Chair and proceed.

MR. CLARK: I'm not hiding anything, Mr. Speaker. The tape arrived on my desk and, because of the statements made by the Minister of Health, I felt I had no other choice but to make this House aware and the people of this Province aware of what had been said. I'll happily, Mr. Speaker, make the original available, too. However, the leave of the House has been denied, so, I'll happily make it available outside the House, Mr. Speaker. There's only one point that I wish to make as a result of this. The other day the Member from Oak Bay asked for that Minister to stand and apologize. Mr. Speaker, today, I ask for him to stand and resign.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Member standing to a Point of Order?

MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm amazed, today, to be in this House and find…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the honourable Member standing to a Point of Order?

MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I am, because I feel that this is the first time that this House has seen the incredible and disgraceful conduct where the Liberal Party is using electronic eavesdropping as evidence and electronic snooping as a presentation, for Heaven's sakes, of a meeting that he alleges took place. Surely, Mr. Speaker, surely, as a protection for everyone who has to hold a meeting anywhere in this building, anyone who is in a committee, anyone who is anywhere doing business for the Government, must be assured that he is not being subjected to a tape recording or electronic eavesdropping in this House (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take my place in the Budget Debate representing the colourful riding of Cariboo. The colourful riding of Cariboo is one of the seven safe ridings referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke the other day (interruption). …it was. I'll have to tell this House that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he makes this statement. He is absolutely correct that the Cariboo riding is a safe Social Credit seat and never will elect anyone from the New Democratic Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Liberals?

MR. FRASER: I'm coming to the Liberals after a while, here.

The people of the Cariboo are independent people and they do not expect the Government to have a hand in all their affairs as the Socialists would like to do. This Social Credit Government has done more for the riding of Cariboo,

[ Page 425 ]

in its 18 1/2 years of office, than all Governments since British Columbia became a part of Canada. The Cariboo riding has tripled in population since 1952 and continues to expand at a rapid pace. Due to the policies of this Government of expanding and improving the highway system, of expanding and extending and improving the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad and supplying an adequate source of power for industry by B.C. Hydro, the central and northern parts of our Province have been made accessible to the other parts of the Province, as well as the world.

We didn't have very much prior to 1952 and you have heard, earlier today, what has happened to the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad. Well, the same thing has happened to our highway system and, of course, B.C. Hydro has taken power throughout the whole central north part of the Province. Without these bold policies of this Government, none of this expansion could have taken place. The citizens of the central and northern parts of British Columbia are fully aware of the achievements of this Government since they came to power, and appreciate it by returning Government Members at every election. They will never buy the pie-in-the-sky balderdash advocated by the New Democratic Party.

The Leader of the Liberal Party in B.C. presented his third annual Liberal budget last week in this House. It has been described in the press as a shadow budget and that is just what it was, because there was more shadow than substance. It took the real Minister of Finance about two hours to present his real, dynamic, progressive, go-ahead Budget, including the bills arising out of it, while it took the Leader of what is left of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, two and a quarter hours to present his phoney budget.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat the statement, "What is left of the Liberal Party in British Columbia." I predict this rump group that represents the Liberal Party in British Columbia will be wiped out at the next Provincial election. I predict this will happen because, when the voters find out that the Liberals in this House have always voted with the New Democrats in opposition to this Government, they will be very unhappy and transfer their votes to this Government. They have been doing this quite steadily over the years, as it already is (interruption). You fellows, be quiet. The Liberal Party campaigns as a free enterprise party and vote in this House with the Socialists. They should hang their heads in shame (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the Budget he presented in the House…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Member is not in his place.

MR. FRASER: for the fiscal year 1971-72. It has only modest tax increases in it but still provides our citizens with an abundance of funds to help them achieve their goals. I was very happy to see the heavy burden of social welfare costs to our municipalities reduced. This will be of great benefit to all municipalities and will have the effect of reducing this very heavy financial burden by 25 per cent, not 5 per cent that was mentioned by the honourable Member from the Liberal Party a few minutes ago (interruption). They got a per capita increase as well as that.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the municipalities can also help themselves by tightening up their own administration on welfare. I am satisfied that we still have people on our welfare rolls who should not be on welfare.

While I am on the subject of municipalities, I would like to offer some advice to all municipal councils in the Province of British Columbia. This year is the year a Census will be taken across Canada by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Every person in every municipality and rural area in British Columbia will be counted. I would recommend to all municipal councils in our Province that they acquaint themselves, now, of the procedures used by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to take this count. I repeat, they should acquaint themselves, now, as these people are organizing, now, to take this count later in the year. I call on every mayor and every alderman in British Columbia to leave their ivory towers and personally go out with these Census takers and be sure that these people take a proper count. I urge all mayors and aldermen to make this their top priority project for 1971. I had personal experience with the Census count in 1966 and, when I checked with the person in charge of the Census count, he did not even know where the municipal boundaries began or ended.

The reason I emphasize this approach, Mr. Speaker, is due to the fact that our generous per capita grants made by the Province are based on the official Census count, taken every five years and, in effect, with, very few exceptions, are used for the calculation of these grants for a further five-year period. Due to the dynamic policies of this Government, our Province and all sections of it, has had a drastic increase in population and I'm sure this will be reflected in the Census taken this year. I predict the per capita grants to our municipalities, in 1972, will increase by an average of 20 per cent, because of the new and more accurate count taken this year by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In the past, municipal councils have not paid enough attention to this important count. When the counts were released, they screamed their lungs out about the way the count had been taken. I say, this is the wrong approach and I cannot urge strongly enough that all municipal councils in the Province immediately take steps to acquaint themselves of the procedures used by the Bureau of Statistics so that they'll be sure they get a proper count. There is no way to get a new count taken, after the Census has been taken. They just have to wait for another five years.

The per capita grants made to our municipalities by the Provincial Government are a very large part of the revenues of the municipalities. In 1964, the Provincial Government made local government grants in the amount of $12,915,000. In 1970, this figure had risen to $46,700,800. Provincial Government financial assistance to the municipalities on a per capita basis has risen very sharply over the years. Financial assistance on a per capita basis to our municipalities, in 1960, was $104.54 per capita; in 1965, it rose to $149.81; and in the year ahead, it will rise to $346.92. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the financial assistance to our municipalities has more than tripled in the past 12 years. It can be said, with pride, that this Government does treat its municipalities better than other parts of Canada.

While I'm on the subject of local Government, I would like to say a few things about a fairly new level of Government, which this Legislature created in 1965. That is the regional level of Government. I fully support the regional level of Government and I would now like to relate some of the advantages of the regional district concept. For the region as a whole, it is an effective means of co-ordinating common

[ Page 426 ]

services between adjacent municipalities and nonmunicipal areas, a government base from which planning for future development may be initiated, a means of providing a united voice and united front for the region in its dealing with other regions and with the Provincial Government, a regional government institution capable of decision-making over and above the confines of restrictive municipal boundaries and local interests. Some of the advantages for the municipalities are a means by which co-ordination can be achieved in the development of greater community works and services, a means of regionalizing services so that benefits and costs may be shared by those who receive this service, whether they be the residents of municipalities or unincorporated areas. In other words, those who benefit, share the costs. This is particularly important in the more rural regions where the municipalities traditionally have been expected to provide community services, such as recreational facilities, without any equitable contribution on the part of a nonmunicipal neighbouring area. Regional districts can act as a borrowing agency for the member municipalities both in regard to water, sewer, pollution control and abatement facilities financed by the Municipal Finance Authority and for other municipal projects, which would otherwise have to be independently financed by the individual municipalities. By utilizing the regional district as the borrowing agency, the municipalities gain the advantage of a larger credit base and the benefits of pooling small borrowings into larger regional borrowings and, thereby, attract a broader and more competitive range of investors.

For the nonmunicipal communities, there is no longer the need for nonmunicipal communities to incorporate as municipalities in order to gain fundamental community services, such as fire protection, water and sewer service. These services can be extended to nonmunicipal communities at their sole expense by the regional district.

For the rural areas, recognition and representation on the regional board, thereby giving the rural people a voice in the affairs of the region and a role in the development in the greater community of which they are a part, a means by which rural areas may be provided with fundamental local services without the necessity of assuming municipal status.

I'm glad to see that the Honourable Member for Kootenay is back in his seat, because I have a few words to say to him. The Honourable Member for Kootenay stated in the House the other day that he did not feel the present system of appointing directors to the regional boards was very democratic. I believe he was referring to the representatives from the municipal councils to the regional board. I want to disagree with the honourable Member, because I feel the present system is very democratic. Any member of a municipal council has already faced the ballot box and is, therefore, not appointed but elected.

Further to this, the municipal council must, by resolution, appoint their representatives to the Regional Board. So, in effect, any representative from a municipal council has been duly elected twice, first from the voters in the city, district, town or village and, then, again, by the municipal council. I strongly disagree with the Honourable Member from Kootenay when he states a further election should take place in the municipality to elect a regional representative. It could happen under this system, that the Honourable Member for Kootenay recommends, that you could get a representative elected to represent the council, who did not have any idea of what the council wishes and would have no liaison, whatsoever, with the council duly elected by the people. I feel the present system of election for all representation on the regional boards is most democratic and does not need changing in any way (interruption). What did you say?

That's right. That's based on voting units. The voting units are fair all the way across the board. Certainly, they are.

The Budget that we are debating puts emphasis on creating new jobs. The Minister of Finance calls for the creation of 25,000 new jobs by October of this year. I want to assure the Honourable Premier that my riding of Cariboo will contribute more than its share of these new jobs during 1971.

I would like to have seen more money voted for highways, Mr. Speaker, because this is the most urgent need in my large riding of Cariboo. As I stated in the Throne Speech Debate, my riding of Cariboo has the largest in milage of roads of any electoral riding in British Columbia. It has 3,500 miles of all types of roads and I feel the total budget of the Department of Highways could all be spent in the riding of Cariboo and it still would have work left to do on the roads in Cariboo.

I am sure the Budget will help to create optimism in our people throughout the Province, and the objective of creating 25,000 new jobs will be surpassed. I was happy that the Minister of Finance provided an extra $15 million for further development of our parks. While I realize that a great portion of this additional allocation for parks will be spent on the lower mainland parks, I trust the Minister of Recreation and Conservation will see that adequate funds are made available for further park development in the interior and northern parts of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Budget without reservation and will certainly vote in support of it.

On the motion of the Honourable W.N. Chant, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House proceeded to the Order, "Public Bills and Orders."

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 1. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill. I think the purpose is fully explained in the explanatory note. It is a uniform section that has been adopted by the Uniform Law Conference. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, it may seem to be a simple amendment to the Honourable the Attorney-General. One of the most serious areas of concern to those, who are in the social agencies and those who are concerned about the problem of maintenance of wives and children, do not regard it so simple that it can go without an explanation or considerable study. Those who are concerned about law, as well as the maintenance of families, should be concerned as well about the aspects of law involved in this simple amendment. You see, what is proposed to be done here is, where a person is a citizen of one particular State in the world, which is acknowledged by an Order in-Council to be a reciprocating State, any orders made or any trial that takes place in that reciprocating State,

[ Page 427 ]

becomes, in effect, a judgement that can be registered in this Province against a husband who has moved here from that other State. That could be any part of the world that the Cabinet deems to be a reciprocating State and passes an Order-in-Council.

There are two difficulties and they're sort of conflicting difficulties. One difficulty is that the person who is named in the order has, really, no way of testing the issues that were before the other State, unless he took the trouble to go over there to fight the case in that State, a very expensive proposition if it happened to be, say, France, Germany, Austria, Australia, or anywhere else.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quebec.

MR. DOWDING: Quebec, yes. So that you have the problem of only one side, really, being heard by the judge, who is supposed to be the judge in the matter. That is, he may hear the wife's story of what she says is the basis for her claim for maintenance, without being able, really, to see or hear from the witness as to the other side of the story. All that can be done, usually, in some cases, is to have a trial in this Province by one judge, and a trial in another Province, for example, in those cases on maintenance orders, and two judges are trying to reconcile two different areas of evidence. How this can be done successfully in law is still a great mystery. We have a problem in law that has to be given a great deal of thought, so it's not quite as simple as the Attorney-General makes out.

The second problem has to do with the fact that the laws in different States vary considerably about how you prove evidence in regard to, say, desertion, or cruelty, or grounds for making a maintenance order at all. For instance, the law in Quebec is quite a bit different from the law in the other nine Provinces. The law in France is totally different in regard to the rights between parents and in regard to guardianship, maintenance and the rest. So, from the legal point of view, this is sort of a catch-as-catch-can solution offered by the Government to have rough and ready justice — the least you can say for it is rough and ready justice — on the question of how you enforce maintenance orders between people who live in different countries in the world.

The only other problem that can concern us is the need of those who are dependent, such as women and children, to be protected by the States concerned, where the State, in which the mother and children reside, has to deal with the plea by the mother for support, and the father is living somewhere else in another country. There is the social aspect that causes concern. There's the additional aspect, of course, that the State, and the citizens of a State, would have to support the mother and children, if there were no provision for maintenance being reciprocal between the States. In this particular aspect of it, I think some concern is how far one State should, in effect, be obliged to enforce the laws of another State. Just how far does a judgement reach?

It has always been the view in British Dominions that the Queen's Writ goes to the extent of our boundaries but that the powers of any other State do not penetrate our boundaries, unless our Courts permit them to do so. In other words, a judgement obtained in the United States, or in any other jurisdiction, would not, of itself, be binding on any citizen of an independent country, such as Canada. When does it become binding? Only if it's treated as if it were a contractual relationship, which can be sued for in this jurisdiction, citing the judgement of another jurisdiction. For us, in effect, to surrender part of our jurisdiction to a foreign country, under foreign law, is a novel proposition that the Attorney-General is providing for us. In a sense, it is an abandonment of sovereignty that has been one of the proudest boasts of independent nations for the last thousand years. In other words, are we going to be bound by the supremacy of the laws of other countries or of our own laws? This is a delegation, in this bill, this is a delegation of authority, by this Legislature, if it's passed, to be bound in subservience to the laws of some other foreign State (interruption). Oh, it is. Obviously the Member hasn't read the bill. There is reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders, which this purports to be an amendment, when, in effect, it's saying a maintenance order made in a reciprocating State (interruption). Well, anyway the Honourable the Attorney-General…(interruption). No, seriously, you're faced with these two problems of maintenance orders from other States and what are you going to do — appeal from what, appeal from the decision to register the judgement here? Are you ever going to get to the merits of the case? Not a bit. It's really of some concern that we consider both conflicting claims. I'm not suggesting that the rights of the mother and the children should be ignored. I think it's very important that, if it be a case of a husband, he should be forced to comply and support his spouse and the children — in a proper case. I agree that there should be an appeal provision. There should be the right of variation of an appeal. I really think that, as with most bills that we get in this House, there's never an attempt to really solve the problem of maintenance orders, themselves.

This bill is very ineffectual in getting to the policing of maintenance orders. For instance, why is it that, when the Government wants to attach the earnings or follow the wage earner, it can do it very well for itself but it never helps the Courts?

How many Members in this House have had complaints from wives, deserted wives, for example, who have had to go on welfare because their husbands cannot be made to pay? Do you think that this type of solution is really solving the problem of their income and their income maintenance? Not a bit. It's just another six months wait for the Courts to go through the ridiculous exercise. It usually ends up trying to chase the husband. He moves to another State. They follow him there. He doesn't even register the judgements and he keeps trying to find States that he can go to where there are no reciprocal provisions. You think you'll solve it with this kind of legislation? Why is it, for example, that this Government doesn't meet with the Federal Government to have some form of following the man through unemployment insurance through his registration under social security? The Honourable Minister says she tried that. Who did you try to convince on that? (Interruption.) You mean the Provincial?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Member please address the Chair.

MR. DOWDING: Well, the Honourable Minister is claiming that she's been trying to follow a procedure that would make it possible for deserted wives to obtain maintenance from their husbands. Now…(interruption). I'm waiting to be convinced by you, but you won't even…You know, Mr. Speaker, I can't get the Attorney-General to show any support for the bill himself. I've been trying my best to evoke from him some idea how he feels about this. Is he in support

[ Page 428 ]

of the idea of maintenance for wives? Does he believe that…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. DOWDING: …husbands should be followed around the country? No. "A quite serious matter for thousands of deserted wives on the welfare roll," says the Honourable the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the House has listened to a reasonable dissertation on the whole matter of maintenance, but we are dealing here with the matter of appeal against the registration.

MR. DOWDING: I realize that.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the subject must be confined far more closely. There's only one section to the amendment.

MR. DOWDING: How can you provide with the provisions, here, for variations of appeal unless you have, for example, some method of reviewing the evidence or reviewing the judgement taken, perhaps, in another jurisdiction? How are you going to do it? It's not set out in the bill. It's all very well to say, as it does in the bill, "…enforcement of variation of or appeal from the registration, confirmation or variation of the maintenance order." How in the world can you vary the maintenance order when you're, really, not dealing injustice, when you merely have a Court of Appeal, in one jurisdiction, dealing, in effect, with the registration and enforcement of an order made in another jurisdiction?

Well, I often have these particular types of orders, Mr. Speaker, and it's a major problem. It really is for your clients to do anything about what's happened somewhere else. Now he can go before a judge, here, or let's say that the Court of Appeal orders a new hearing. What's going to happen? The husband is here. He can go before a family court but the wife is somewhere else in another State and she's not even here to hear what he says. Later on, she reads a transcript, six months later. Then, she goes before another Court and says that the judge who made a finding in his Court is wrong and another judge has to listen to her and never hears the husband. So it becomes a real problem in law to the people involved.

I just point this out because I keep hoping that the Honourable the Attorney-General will solve this problem in a more definitive way than he's attempted to do in this proposal. I can understand why he has seen fit to not try to explain it, because he's really getting outside the field of law and into the realm of speculation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I don't have anything to add to the Member from…(laughter). I want to admit that the very argument presented by the Member is the kind of practical dilemma that social workers are faced with in… Look, the Member has pointed out the legal jungle that this bill will add to rather than subtract from. There are some general questions that I would like to ask the Attorney-General, when he closes the debate, if he could possibly answer. While we're waiting for this legislation to be enforced and, as the Member spoke, there is certainly a timid approach in some areas to this. I know that the Second Member, who is the companion Member of the Honourable the Attorney-General, has met this timidity.

The problem rests. How do you put into legislation a solution to a social problem? How do you do it? How do you say that this kind of maintenance order is, in some way, going to facilitate a better service, through this bill, to the woman and to the children who have been deserted? Now, this is the question that I want the Attorney-General to answer in relation to this bill. We've had this problem plaguing every Member in this House. There is none of us who escapes the phone calls from an irate woman, who has just been deserted by her husband, and a maintenance order has been lodged in a Court, but the husband refuses to follow through on that maintenance order. You have the dilemma — I'm looking for answers. I don't expect the Attorney-General to have all of them, but you have the dilemma of enforcing the Maintenance Act. The husband has deserted one wife, has taken up with an entirely new wife with three or four children left from another husband. When the Court Order comes down, through this kind of legislation, and he's working and supporting the second illegitimate family while he's separated from the first, he says, "The heck with you," goes on welfare and you've got two families on welfare out of a legal jungle, rather than any attempt to solve some basic human problems with the people involved. Now, I think what we have to do…(interruption). Well, I can suggest some things. I will, right now.

First of all, I think it's important to not base the total income requirement of a deserted wife on a hollow Court Order that cannot be enforced. I think it's a mistake to say to the woman that your husband has been ordered by Court to pay you X number of dollars a month, therefore, that's enough to live on, wait till the cheque comes. Then when the maintenance procedure, under this bill, comes into force you find out the husband is months behind in his payments and they go for social assistance. Social assistance can't help them because there is a Court Order in the case. Now, I feel that the way to do this is to separate the whole concept of this bill from the acts that flow from it. Will the Attorney-General tell us that the basis of help to a deserted woman and her children will be on the specific needs she presents to the department, regardless of the maintenance order in the case? We all agree on that, therefore, what is needed is companion, either regulations, or companion legislation, that ensures that a basic human service is provided, regardless of how a woman finds herself in a position of being deserted.

The second thing about enforcing the order, if the husband has picked up with a second family that's been deserted, if he is taking a whole new family off welfare but left another one on, in terms of the original family he deserted, and the implementation of the maintenance order means that he'll put the second family on welfare, then, there needs to be some system where the order should not be pressed (interruption).

Well, I don't know. It's a crazy situation, Mr. Minister, and it's all very well. Look, it's beautiful when you do it in legislation, but it takes all the wisdom of Solomon to figure out how you're going to save the State some money and make the right human decision in the situation you're faced with, Mr. Speaker. There are times when the enforcement of a maintenance order will actually put more people on welfare than take off. That is the tragedy of the kind of serious family breakdown we have.

[ Page 429 ]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the Attorney-General that the philosophy of this bill is essentially one of service to the deserted mother and children and that the enforcement of the maintenance order will be based on a total assessment of the unique situation that exists, rather than a blanket approach to this thing. Some men can afford to pay, others can't, some won't. We need to know how many cases are involved and especially from foreign jurisdiction. In terms of the welfare matter, I'm not saying go easy on maintenance, but I am saying that reciprocal maintenance arrangements, if forced, may cost us more money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've allowed the Member to go on at some length but I do believe you're speaking beside the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Right. I leave those questions with the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Could I ask the honourable Members to stay with the principle of the bill that is before us? While I think it's very difficult to talk about the appeal procedures without discussing the principle of the Maintenance Orders Act, at the same time, I think the bulk of the debate, at least, should be associated with the appeal provision that's provided by this particular amendment.

The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill which deals with the technicalities of appeal. As far as they go, they are certainly acceptable and an improvement over the situation that exists today. Bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, your admonition to provide only for the technicalities of a method of appeal is not, in itself, sufficient, because that, too, creates its own serious difficulties with respect to the enforcement of these maintenance orders by individuals who should appeal to enforce them quickly and without the expense of tedious appeal of provision.

This is the kind of bill that one would expect to find from the Uniform Law Conference, but it fails to take into account the difficulties that arise when a woman obtains a provisional order in the Province of British Columbia and, then, because her husband is in the Province of Quebec, and I have particular knowledge in matters of this kind, she is delayed because of actions which he may take, in some other Court, where she can't go without a great deal of expense. You have the situation of a woman who is deserted in British Columbia, with a family, without funds. She gets a maintenance order. Her problems appear to be resolved. Now, we have a situation where, when the provisional order goes to a reciprocating State, and Quebec is one, that suddenly there's an appeal provision and time goes on and on and on.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when one considers the granting of this right, under legislation of this Province and assuming, as we must, that a similar right is being sought in the other Legislatures of this country, indeed, other Legislatures of other reciprocating States, then it is time for the Government, for the Attorney-General, to consider the wisdom of proceeding only with a technical provision and not concerning himself with the real problem, which this technical provision itself can create. It is a technical bill and Members who have read it and, particularly, the latter portions of it, will also appreciate that it contains an omnibus attempt to amend. The Act specifically provides, and I don't wish to refer to the words, but it talks about that our Act "…shall apply with necessary changes to all of the matters of provisional orders, the confirmation thereof, the variation thereof and the enforcement thereof." So, suddenly, we're confronted with this omnibus type amendment of necessary changes, and it seems to me that when we're considering a bill, even if it's only a technical one, that the Attorney-General and his department, indeed, the Uniform Law Commission, should have concerned themselves with those necessary changes because they lead to another problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member must talk about the content of the bill not on what he feels is omitted from the bill, in speaking to its principle.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for drawing it to my attention. The principle I'm getting at, Mr. Speaker, is the matter of omnibus amendment…To say, in a few words, that various things will happen to our legislation, not spelled out in this bill, which is before us. It leads to all kinds of nonsense by lawyers and judges before the Court. It is this circumstance which this Legislature should do its best to overcome, particularly when dealing with a matter such as a maintenance order, where, certainly, the party most directly involved is the one who is least able, financially and otherwise, to engage the services of lawyers to represent them. Indeed, many people who take advantage of maintenance orders must rely upon the officials of the Court for assistance. When you're suddenly confronted by appeals and other jurisdictions, circumstances are created which are beyond these people and they suffer financially. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is not good enough for the Attorney-General just to say, "Oh the Uniform Law Commission says this is OK, so we'll pass this in principle." You miss the point, Mr. Attorney-General, when you adopt that attitude with a bill as significant as this one is.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, this is one of the very, very obvious reasons why we should have a legislative committee in this House (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: We could stop this kind of i-dotting that we have to do here. Mr. Speaker, the section that this is supposed to come under is section 7A, and section 7 of the Act is the general portion of the Statute dealing with enforcement of orders. What we're talking about here is an appeal, an appellate provision. Now, it seems to me to be a little bit sloppy draftsmanship to find it in this particular section and, secondly, I notice, in the Statute itself, under section 6 and subsections 6a and 6b, appeal procedures are already laid down. I'll read these to the House. Section 6a says this, Mr. Speaker, "…where an order has been confirmed under this section, the person bound thereby has the same right of appeal, if any, against the confirmation of the order as he would have had against the making of the order, if the order had been an order made by the Court

[ Page 430 ]

confirming the order." OK. Well, what happens to 6a? Does it die as a result of this new 7a? Is it in conflict? It seems to me it's rather peculiar. I don't think, perhaps, the amender here has taken a look at the whole of the Statute. Then, under 6b, we find again, Mr. Speaker, reference to appeals. It says this "…where the Court has declined to confirm an order, or a part thereof, or has varied or rescinded same, the person in whose favour the order was made and the Attorney-General shall have a like right of appeal." Does the Attorney-General lose his like right of appeal as a result of section 7? Have we got a duplication of these two sections here? Which section should you use — are you on first or are you on second? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, I think, perhaps, the best thing that could be done, is that this bill should be withdrawn and, perhaps, a little more study put into it to see exactly what these two sections mean. Now, if the House is obviously confused about it…(interruption). Well, I think there's a measure of confusion here, Mr. Speaker. Really and truly, we're going to get in front of a judge, Mr. Speaker, and he's going to say, "What's going on over there? We've got appeal procedures already laid down under sections 6a and 6b and, now, you bring new appeal procedures under section 7a. Am I a 6a person, am I a 7a person, am I 6b?" Where does it stop? Where does it end?

Mr. Speaker, we would not be taking the time of the House for a legal debate, if we happened to have a committee which could investigate these things. I say this, Mr. Speaker, I think the Attorney-General has got to stand up and inform every Member in here what the conflict is between these two sections. Is he a 6a Attorney-General or a 6b or a 7a? Where are you standing on this thing? I think we have to hear from him (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I'm not a lawyer. I've never made any claim to be a lawyer. I'm simply an M.L.A. who, time after time, has been faced with individuals coming to me very concerned about maintenance orders. The judgements have been given in their favour and the seemingly complete inability of any lawyer anywhere to do the right thing by the aggrieved person. I have had mother after mother come to me with a judgement from the Court and she has been able to collect one month, two months or three months, if she's lucky. Then she finds she has no money coming in and she goes to a welfare branch and she asks for help and they say, "Go see a lawyer." They've got the maintenance order and away it goes again. In the meantime, these women and children are going without the money they need. They can't get legal aid, Mr. Speaker. I read this last paragraph here and I ask you to read it, in all conscience. What does it mean to a woman who's in need? What can happen to it in the Courts of Law? We, certainly, can't jump over the borders and there are far too many women left around this Province who become charges on social welfare for the full amount. What does this mean? "Any party to the matter may appeal against the registration or the confirming order against the enforcement thereof, and the relevant provisions of the Wives and Childrens Maintenance Act apply with the necessary changes in respect of the enforcement, of variation of, or appeal from the registration, confirmation or variation of the maintenance order." I don't want a lot of garbage. I want a law that recognizes the rights of the deserted women and children in this Province. I want a law that's enforceable and I don't want the social welfare rolls to have to go through a lot of rigmarole at a cost to the people of this Province. I want the deserted wives and children of this Province to have the protection of the law, a clear law, easily understandable, especially to the lawyers. Please, Mr. Attorney-General, later on, I have another situation related to the same kind of family relationship coming up but, please, give us something that won't get us bogged down in legalese.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's traditional to present Bill No. 1, a bill that's not going to be controversial, in any way. I suppose, if one is to accept the arguments of the Members opposite, this is the first occasion that we're really breaking with tradition. Really, most of the remarks, not all, but most of the remarks that have been made from the opposite side this afternoon, are as relevant to this bill as if I were to speak about tea in China in closing this debate, because this bill, as I indicated at the outset, is a very simple bill, clarifying the right of appeal on the registration of an order. All of these other matters that the Members of the legal profession have been talking about in circles, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, are interesting but are not the least bit relevant to this bill. This applies where an order is made in another jurisdiction for maintenance and, then, the usual case is the husband is working here in British Columbia, so a registration is made against him in our Courts, here. Then the question arose elsewhere about the rights of appeal, a similar provision to this. As I say, this was considered nationally, and the same provision is in Manitoba and it just simply clarifies the right of appeal. Now, if the Members opposite are opposed to a right of appeal and clarifying it, let them not waste the time of this House but vote against this bill.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Messieurs

NAYS — 1

The bill was read a second time and Ordered to be placed

[ Page 431 ]

on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

The Honourable W.K. Kiernan (Minister of Travel Industry) presented the Annual Report of the Department of Travel Industry for the year ended December 31, 1970.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.