1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 395 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act (Bill

No. 5). Mr. Lauk. Introduction and first reading — 395

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill No. 85). Mr.

Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 395

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act (Bill No. 86) Mr.

Williams.

Introduction and first reading — 395

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill No. 50). Mr.

Cummings.

Introduction and first reading — 395

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Macdonald — 395

Mr. Schroeder — 401

Mr. Dent I — 405

Mr. Lea — 415

Reports Interim Financial Report of the Overall Medical Services Plan — 421

Statement Statement by Hon. Mr. Hall on volcanic eruption in Iceland — 421

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

we have a group of students from Sir Charles Tupper High School

accompanied by their teachers; Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Hazel, and Mr.

Hardy. We ask the House now to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the

House, it's an honour to recognize the Bishop of the Diocese of

New Westminster, David Somerville; and the Assistant Rector of

Christ Church Cathedral in downtown Vancouver, Bob Pinn.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the

Members to welcome back to the floor of the House a gentleman

who is well accustomed to the confines of these four walls; a

man who served 20 years as a cabinet Minister of the former

administration, Mr. Kenneth Kiernan.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE ACT

Mr. Lauk moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 51

intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 51 read a first time and referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUPREME COURT ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

85 intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 85 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

Mr. L.A. Williams moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 8 6 intituled

An Act to Amend the

Succession Duty Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 86 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

Mr. Cummings moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 50 intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver

Charter.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 50 read a first time and referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver East.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, this is

a good budget and I intend to support it. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon, Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Where were you the night of 1952 to

1972. (Laughter).

I want to welcome too, Mr. Speaker, Ken Kiernan. We couldn't

use his name when he was sitting as a Member of this House for

many, many years. But we admired his advocacy and his swift

sword and his dedication. And we hope he's not really lost to

the public service of the Province of British Columbia. And I

want to say a word of welcome if I may, to Bishop Somerville,

whom I have had the great pleasure of knowing, very casually

perhaps, over many years. I've formed as much of an admiration

for his literacy and culture as his religious qualities.

I defend this budget, Mr. Speaker, which has been variously

labelled: by the House leader of the Social Credit Party, "a

Social Credit budget;" and by the First Member for Victoria

(Mr. Morrison) yesterday, "a tinker toy budget." I don't know

who their coach is. (Laughter). It has been labelled — I think

we ought to be a little proud of this — by the other Opposition

parties as a "socialist budget." Because…

[ Page 396 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Did you get his name? (Laughter). They

say, Mr. Speaker, that we've done nothing in this budget with

respect to unemployment. I say that the budget has put $64.8

million of new money out into the community in the hands of

those who need it most. If that isn't a stimulus to employment

and to a thriving economy, I don't know what is. We have put in

this budget $10 million into land acquisition, heavily

criticized by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

in respect to one purchase where the area has never been seen

by him.

Yet, this is an investment in the future in a humming

housing industry. It is job creation combined with the federal

moneys which, largely through the same Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), will be made available in this

province. I say this is wealth creation. It is job creation. It

is a provision of decent shelter in the future to the people of

the Province of British Columbia.

I look at a few little words in the Revenue Act which

gives the people of British Columbia, where the need arises and

the opportunity presents itself, the right to be partners in

one of the dynamic enterprises of the Province of British

Columbia. I say that that, too, is potential job creation.

I look at the sections with respect to petroleum royalties

that have been decried on the other side of the House. I say

for too long have the natural resources of the Province of

British Columbia been exploited, with only a pittance going

back to the province. I say that the people of the province — the inheritors of their own natural wealth — are entitled to

more than a mess of pottage.

When I see our natural gas flowing out across our borders

into the great United States of America to be sold in the

American market at scandalously low prices, in terms of

competitive market fuels in Washington, Oregon and California,

I say it is time that someone like the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) began to put a stop to that kind of thing.

For too long have some foreign speculators and profiteers

crossed and crisscrossed this province like predator ants,

leaving nothing behind for the people of this province but

devastation. I say that this budget signals that those days

have come to an end.

I want to say something about a serious subject. (Laughter). That is the visit

of the French warships to British Columbia waters. We should be the first in

British Columbia to extend the cordial hand of friendship to the French people

and to their representatives. Yet I want to make it abundantly clear that the

Government of the Province of British Columbia is unequivocally opposed to the

French nuclear testing in the Pacific. I share the regret of most of mankind

that France, le deuxième pays de tout le monde, should not have joined the nuclear

test ban treaty. I see the proliferation of nuclear weapons and I see the danger

they pose to the human race — the illusion of safety that is presented by a

madcap arms race edging mankind closer and closer to nuclear holocaust.

I trust that we will not fulfill the prophecy of St. John

the Divine: "And behold, a pale horse. And the name of him that

sat on him was Death, and Hell followed after him and power was

given unto them over the fourth part of the earth to kill with

sword and with hunger and death." We've got to do our part,

even though we're only a province, in preventing that slide

into Armageddon. I sometimes think that the missing link

between the lower animals and truly humane, enlightened beings

is ourselves. What we can do as a provincial government to

raise our voice against this kind of nuclear testing and to

stand out clearly against the proliferation of weapons and the

war clouds, we most certainly intend to do.

I want to say something in a lighter vein about the

provincial courts. We're very proud, as I attempt to give some

stewardship to the Legislature of the Department of the

Attorney General, of our provincial Bench. I believe we have in

the gallery — but I haven't been able to pick him out as yet — one of our distinguished provincial judges, His Honour Judge

Nick Mussallem, whose brother has served with distinction — if

only with an occasional lapse of judgment — in this House

(Laughter). I think a lot of us know Nick Mussallem. I don't

know whether it was he or my brother who said that it's better

to know the judge than to know the law. (Laughter).

We're proud of our provincial Bench, even though it has

sometimes been said that judges are only law students who have

earned the right to mark their own examination papers

(Laughter). Our provincial judges, 189 strong, handle 90 per

cent of the matters that come before the entire judicial system

of the Province of British Columbia — criminal, civil, family

and juvenile. They're closest to the people. They're a people's

court.

We seek actively to upgrade the quality of justice in this

province, without criticizing in any way what has gone before.

We have appointed a full-time chief judge of the Province of

British Columbia, to whom I wish to pay tribute because he has

dedicated himself finally to an evaluation of the direction and

supervision of our court system. We want to have better judges

in the sense that they are more legally trained. Again, I don't

say that disparagingly of anyone who is giving service to the

Province of British Columbia, but of our 189 judges some 84 are

now legally trained.

I think, it bears saying again what was said on this point

by Chief Justice McRuer, the former Chief Justice of Ontario,

in his report on civil rights:

"It is an unjustified encroachment on the rights of the

individual that he should be compelled to

[ Page 397 ]

have his rights determined by one untrained in the law, or have

to submit to the alternative of taking his case to a higher court in order that

he may have a decision from a legally trained mind."

So in upgrading the judiciary, we do want to find,

particularly in the hinterland areas of British Columbia, more

dedicated legally-trained judges. I'm glad to say echoes I

began, and which have been begun before with respect to a

second law school in the Province of British Columbia, are

hopefully bearing some fruit. Since when I made this suggestion

recently I was speaking as much to the Treasury benches in this

Government as to the other Members of the Legislature, I would

like to read a letter I received — just summarizing it — from

the acting president of the University of Victoria:

"All concerned of course were delighted with your expression recently

in the Legislature with reference to the need for a second law school in this

province. To this end the University of Victoria, in conjunction with the Victoria

Bar Association, has established a small committee to prepare a report relating

to curriculum, et cetera."

They wish us, as a government, to nominate a member

to that committee, which we will be very pleased to do.

We see here local initiative from the university, the

community, the bar, with public participation. We see a chance,

without a great expenditure of money — because compared to the

medical schools my friend the Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) needs, law schools are

relatively inexpensive. Yet it seems to me that with the

limited stream going through the existing law school, good as

it is, too many are being turned away. It's part of the

democratic rights of young people in British Columbia to have a

chance, if they're qualified, to learn the laws — to learn

about the rule in Shelley's case, for example, if only to grow

up someday and abolish it.

So I hope that that project will proceed with proper

planning and execution and full participation on the part of

the community.

I'd like to say, among other things, that the chief judge is

available in terms of difficult areas in the administration of

justice in the province. He has reported to me in connection

with Port Hardy, where we have had some community problems. I'm

pleased to tell the Legislature that on his recommendation,

Chief Alfred Scow is going to come south from the Prince Rupert

area into the Port Hardy area. Chief Scow speaks the Salish

tongue and I have told the local lawyers, who are far away — I

think they're all in Campbell River if I'm not mistaken — that

learning the Salish tongue in order to practise in Judge Scow's

court will not be all that difficult.

We expect in that kind of court — in that sort of somewhat,

and I don't want to exaggerate, a troubled community — that we

will be able to shortly train the probation officer; that we

will shortly be able to go to the Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley) for assistance in the provision of the

facilities that are needed for a court and supporting services — and that request has already been made — and that we will

have in that area hopefully an Indian court worker. And I want

to say a word or two about that in a moment.

But first, let me just finish off, Mr. Speaker, what I am

saying about the quality of justice in the province and our

objective, which is that no area of the province shall receive

second-class justice. I want to say that the provision of

legally trained judges is a necessity to my mind in terms of

the administration of justice, because otherwise the judge has

to lean for advice upon the Attorney General's Department or

upon the prosecutor or upon the police. I don't think that can

be or can seem to be fair to an accused, I think too, that many of our excellent part-time, non

legally-trained judges of course have to have other jobs. Some

of them are civil servants, and so they represent an arm of

government at one time and a judge at another time and that's

not quite right.

They may be employees of a big corporation in the area and

they represent an arm of the corporation at other times and a

judge when they sit as a judge.

I think we can take experimental areas — a pilot area — and

let's consider possibly the Peace River area where you have

Dawson Creek, Fort St. John; where you have now one legally

trained judge — a very good judge, Levis, with I think it is

six part-time, non-trained judges. Total cost: $53,000. But two

full-time, legally-trained judges, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John,

justices of the peace to assist in the other areas, and some

travelling on the part of the judges and the court. Cost, as I

estimate it: $51,000.

So I think if we have the people, that we can in this way

improve the administration of justice so that the same

standards of justice for all in this province will prevail, not

only as they are at the coast, but as they should be in the

interior, urban and rural areas alike.

Let me say one or two words about legal aid. We have

increased our estimates in this budget for legal aid to $1.5

million, and I will be glad to answer questions in detail on my

estimates. But may I say briefly that we are actively working

on how the expansion of legal aid should take place.

I might list four fields in which we see that expansion at

the present time. The first is the civil field of course, which

has been neglected totally in terms of legal aid in this

province. The second is neighbourhood law offices. I would like

to think that

[ Page

398 ]

in many of the major areas of the province, as we now have

in Vancouver, supported through legal aid funds, that we can

have drop-in legal clinics where people can get a rough opinion

of where they stand — with a company, with their landlord, with

their neighbour, with the law.

You know, I think quite apart from law and the

administration of equal justice, that that's kind of mental

therapy in a community, for poor people who are afraid or who

don't have the funds, to walk up the steps and go into a

lawyer's office, to be able to drop in somewhere and say, "Have

I got a case or not? Or am I away off base?" I like the idea of

the young people who are staffing them. And we should be able

to expand the system of drop-in legal clinics into other areas

of the province.

I'd like to think we could have duty counsel. Duty counsel

are trained lawyers who serve in a very onerous kind of job.

They might be, say, in the Vancouver provincial courts in the

criminal area — where somebody who needs bail in a hurry, or

somebody who doesn't know whether or not he should plead

guilty, or somebody who doesn't know whether or not they should

invoke legal aid — can speak to them informally. He's there on

the doorsteps of the courtrooms and he's available to help them

plan their future legal course and to give them an idea of

where they may stand. I think that may lead in fact to possibly

more guilty pleas on the part of people who sometimes fall — and I have to say this — into the hands of criminal lawyers who

are ready to make a federal case out of what is really a simple

case and charge a big fee — to such an extent that the cure

proves to be worse than the disease. Duty counsel can give that

kind of informal help so that people can have some perspective

of their problem when they're called before a court.

Now finally about the Indian court-worker programme, in which I wish to pay

tribute to the Hon. Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) who has sat

with the groups. He has sat with the Union of Indian Chiefs group and he has

sat with the group for the non-status Indians. He has achieved — and if I've

helped a little bit along the line, I hope I have been able to do so — cooperation

between these two groups. Some programmes have not achieved that. But I want

to say in British Columbia there is full cooperation. I have the letters here

from very excellent people, Fred House, the president of the non-status Indians;

and I think it's Bill Mussell for the Union of Indian Chiefs. They agree upon

the setting up — you'll see something in the estimates to this effect; and there

will be federal money to help us with what is in the estimates, because those

overtures and discussions have already taken place with Ottawa — they have agreed

to set up an independent association or a public society which will administer

this exciting new programme in the administration of justice — including counseling

in the fields of alcoholic, narcotic and drug-prevention; how to use on the

part of an accused person existing agencies such as legal aid, law foundation,

alcoholic and narcotic foundation; to hold work shops in different parts of

the province to allow native people to be more socially, culturally and economically

aware of what their legal and civil rights are.

This programme will have to be geographically limited to

begin with. It will have to be limited in terms of the funds

that we're able to devote to it. It will be experimental. But

if it works, it holds a kind of bright new future in legal

administration in the Province of British Columbia in the areas

of our Indian communities.

Now I want to say something about the speech — and it was a

good speech — of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Brousson) on the question of mortgage interest rates and

bonuses. Let's call it frankly what it is — loan sharking. I

think he raised a point which has certainly been of concern to

me in the last few months. Because nothing hits the poorer,

weaker sections of the community worse than the credit systems

of the society in which we live.

If I can remember Isaiah, "To him who has shall be given; to

him who has not; even that little bit he has shall be taken

away." Maybe that's a true description of capitalism, because

in the credit field you find that those who have get the good

credit rate and the low interest rate. The people who have not — the divorcee, the widow, the poor — have to go back down

through the banks and the trust companies and the mortgage

companies until they finally fall into the hands of a mortgage

broker and they're never quite sure how much interest they're

really paying between the bonus and the stated interest rate.

Sometimes it's 40 per cent.

What we can do in this field we ought to do, and I make

these proposals as to things that are underway. First, there is

registration of mortgage brokers, and the numbers who are now

registered are 284 mortgage brokers, 615 sub mortgage brokers

working for them — mostly reputable businessmen, with

exceptions; with unscrupulous exceptions of people, six or

eight of whom are now under investigation and two of whom have

already had their registration cancelled. And others who keep

within the law — and the law of Canada, Mr. Speaker,

unfortunately is that interest rates are a matter, in terms of

their quantum, of federal jurisdiction.

I'm not going to pass that buck. I intend to be down in

Ottawa. I intend to make sure that that Small Loans Act — which is archaic, which doesn't affect loans whatsoever over

$1,500 and which has not been updated for years and years — that the federal government give attention to that and revise

it so that there will be some broad over-all interest

protection for the people of this country. So we are

[ Page 399 ]

going to enforce the registration sections as carefully as

we can.

Now there is another remedy that we are actively pursuing,

and that is — I think it's

part 4, of the Consumer

Protection Act, where there has been an amendment. Where

somebody who is the victim of a harsh, or unconscionable

transaction or one, to use the added words: "where the

transaction is otherwise inequitable giving the court a broad

equitable jurisdiction", can look at that transaction, and in a

proper case, can rescind the transaction and put it back

together again on a fair basis. We intend — and we have been

examining some of these cases that the Hon. Member spoke about — that the Legal Aid Society shall afford help to those people

who can make a case under that part. We want the law tested. It

was tested some time ago in the case of UNRA versus Modern

Finance. But that was before the amendment to the Act.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, that's good. I hope that's the

case — that the courts will recognize a jurisdiction to right

this kind of usurious wrong which is happening in our

communities. We intend to support cases, and we're looking very

carefully at 10 or 12 cases at the present time and I think

writs will be issued any day now. But I don't say in all of

those cases. And I don't say I'm initiating them. It is not up

to me to go into court on a civil matter and initiate suits.

But I do have the right to advise council and assist. And I

intend to exercise those powers to the fullest.

Then there are the disclosure sections of the Act, which

have not been proclaimed, which are under discussion, and which

offer difficulties in terms of really disclosing true interest

rates, The Hon. Member when he was speaking, spoke about an

interest rate say of 25 per cent, or something, then a bonus.

And I don't think even the Hon. Member gave the rolled-up

effect of that interest rate.

There is a form which is being discussed — in terms of

disclosure — with the mortgage industry, people engaged in this

field. It's so complicated that I can scarcely understand it.

You know, if you want true disclosure, you have to go into

survey costs, legal fees, discount, finders, costs, interest

rates, bonuses, discounts — and we have to find something

that's simple.

I want to see in this form — and I've been actively working on that — a rolled-up

interest rate which would sum the whole thing up in saying, "you're paying so

much interest," and I think we can work that out. But we've got to make that

as simple as possible because too many people sign their documents in blank,

and particularly the weaker, exploited people I've been talking about — they

don't read the mortgage. We could amend this Act to provide that the mortgage

should show the rolled-up rate of interest, not the amount including the discount

allowance. The true interest rate. And that would be an amendment to the Act.

And perhaps my friend should bring in an amendment to that effect.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right, he's going to — that's good.

That's. one thing that can be done. But disclosure is a

difficult matter to bring home to people when they need the

money. A great many of them, even when they have had full

disclosure made to them, need that home and have no other

recourse to any lending institution and they go ahead

anyway.

And that brings me to the final suggestion that I would like

to make in this field.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's working reasonably well. The

consumer protection parts of the Act — in regard to advertising

of interest rates and disclosure in that field — I think it's

working reasonably well.

Another suggestion I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is this. I

want to approach the industry — those who lend on mortgage and

I mean banks, trust companies, mortgage companies, and mortgage

brokers. I want them to set aside a pool of funds, somewhat

like the Assigned Risk Plan in auto insurance as it used to be — where people who need credit and are referred off to mortgage

brokers charging exorbitant rates would be able to apply to

that pool. It may be that there should be legislation requiring

people engaged in this business to provide that kind of

financing to people really in need.

I don't see it as a risk matter really for the mortgage

companies over the whole thing. Maybe their interest rate on

these kind of assigned pool loans would be slightly higher in

terms of a percentage or two of interest than the normal

lending rate. But, that would be nothing compared to the 20,

30, and 40 per cent charged to these people without anywhere

else to go. Therefore, I suggest to the industry that they

voluntarily, if at all possible, look at some kind of pool of

credit lending.

But really in this field we have to look to the Premier of

the Province of British Columbia — to his budget, to his

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). Because if

there are shortages of houses and high costs of land and a

desperate need out there for shelter for a person and his

family, you're going to run into these unconscionable interest

rates. In the field of rentals you might say — the best answer,

perhaps the only answer to high rents may well be vacancies.

And the real answer to exorbitant high interest rates that are

victimizing the people of this

[ Page 400 ]

province, and the other provinces of Canada, is really the

kind of social democracy upon which we're making a small start

at this time in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say something more about the high

cost of land and houses before I sit down — in terms of the real

estate industry — which I think I should give some attention

to. Because I see fairly serious social problems in the realm

of the real estate industry as it now exists. You can start

almost anywhere and you can see something that requires the

consideration of this Legislature, and debate in this

Legislature.

I see the figures for the enrolments in the University of

British Columbia pre-licensing course for real estate salesmen.

The figures are huge — 2,565 enrollees in 1972. And of that

number, 50 per cent failed the course. Of those who go on to

become salesmen, the turnover rate is about 15 per cent per

year. You have to ask yourself whether or not these people are

providing a pool of talented sales labour for the great real

estate combines that are springing up in the Province of

British Columbia. And underpaid talent, if I may say, so. Some

do well, some starve.

But the over-loading of our schools, the turn-over in that

kind of industry, the lack of democratic participation of the

sales force in the industry through the real estate boards — which are made up solely of agents, and shouldn't be made up

solely of agents. The real estate boards like the Vancouver

Real Estate Board, where as I say no salesmen sits on the board — and yet the board acts as a commercial agency, as a judicial

agency with powers of control over its members — and as a quasi

public body, and an employment agency at the same time.

I'd like to say that we should be concerned about the extent of the real estate

commissions that are paid in the Province of British Columbia. You know, they

are 5 per cent, 7 per cent multiple listing, 10 per cent on vacant land or farmland.

Nobody said that there's, any competition involved there. Occasionally you hear

of a rate of 4 per cent on a sale, but I note that in the Province of Manitoba

the commission rate for multiple listing is 6 per cent. In the Province of British

Columbia it is invariably 7 per cent. I note in passing that the Vancouver Real

Estate Board, to which I have made mention, gets 0.5 per cent of the real estate

commission return for the operation of the multiple listing service. And that

0.5 per cent accumulated, up to the end of 1967 only, into a fund — after they

had paid for the service — of $ 710,000. I don't know what it is today — and

that was not returned to the salesmen, I presume that was the money of the agents.

But, I would presume that the multiple listing is lucrative, and I think we,

as a public in this kind of a field have a right to look at the rate of commissions

and see whether they're justified. Because what we're talking about has a lot

to do with the price of land, and has a lot to do with the price of houses.

As I say, I think we have to at least be concerned with the

growing concentration within the real estate industry — the

rise of Block Bros., Wall & Redekop. A.E. LePage from

Toronto took over, first Boultbee Sweet, then Bell-Irving

Realty — very large organizations. We have to be concerned

whether or not, as I say, the salesmen are really being

protected in this kind of an industry. So I say that we should

seriously think in terms of looking at the rate of

commission.

We should be daring enough to be willing to look at the Act

in terms of whether or not a municipality might set up a real

estate exchange of its own. I don't think this would happen on

a wide scale. But if they had that power, then somebody could

drop into their local municipal office. They could take with

them a picture of their house. They could discuss with somebody

there, for a modest fee, what the house should sell for.

Somebody wanting to buy that house would come in and he would

see what the building inspector had said; what the health

inspector had said; what the assessment had been doing, and

what were the comparable market prices in the area. It may be

that the transaction would be thus expeditiously, easily and

cheaply consummated between two citizens of this province.

I think we have to look at the minimum earnings of salesmen

who are going through this course and who go out into the world

in such large numbers, having very little protection in terms

of their employment. I think we should look at bonding too,

because agents, and I'm speaking of the small B.C. agents

increasingly under pressure from the big concerns that I

mentioned — not just salesmen — but agents out there are being

pushed to the wall in many cases.

They have trouble in many cases in getting a bond, and the

provincial law requires them to get a bond. They have to go to

some company, hopefully to get that bond. I think that the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — who is seriously

thinking, according to all the newspaper accounts, Mr. Speaker,

of entering into the field of auto insurance — might consider

whether, under a public statute which requires a bond, there

shouldn't be something offered to those people.

I think we should look at the Act. The Second Member for

Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) raised this point with me the

other day, in terms of whether or not rental services should

have to qualify as agencies before they can provide those

rental services in a community. I wouldn't think so. But at the

moment the Act prevents anybody offering rental accommodation,

or directing people to rental accommodation, unless they are a

registered real estate agent. I doubt very much whether that

kind of a real estate course, and that kind of a qualification,

is necessary for the people engaged in that field.

[ Page 401 ]

Finally, I'd like to say…. oh, for the rental service?

Well, in the case that was referred to me, the charge was paid

by the landlord. It comes out of the rent directly, or

indirectly no doubt — and there should be some control in that

field.

Finally, let me say that in the Province of British Columbia

we have increasingly salesmen, many of them not even British

Columbians, who come into the province to sell Arizona

pasturage, or Texas dry-lands, neatly subdivided. They do not

at the present time, and I think this should be looked at, even

have to sell through a B.C. broker. Now, maybe the prospectus

is all right. But the stories I've heard of the high-pressure

sales methods employed, the slickerism of these salesmen,

putting on dinners — and it is mostly the older citizens of the

Province of B.C. who are attracted by this kind of a retirement

offer. The dinners that are provided free…in one or two

cases, even the hotel was not paid. It's free to the

prospective purchasers of the grassland and to the promoters.

But in some cases the hotel has not been able to catch up to

the people who really were responsible for the bill. We have

boiler room stock promoters who have changed their spots and

are now engaged in high-pressure sales tactics, which I think

are unfair, and over which we in British Columbia should have

some control.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that this budge is simply a small

installment of "maitres chez nous" — of masters in our

own house, We have seen how a giant boulder adamantine against

the sharpest steel, can yet be split down the middle by the

roots of a bush; because the rock was dead, but the root of the

bush was a living force entering, expanding. The policies in

this budget are a living force. They're a little bit of the

blue sky of a bright future for British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

This is a good budget and I intend to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to stand again on

behalf of the constituents in Chilliwack. I don't know how the

rest of the new Members in the House feel but every time you

stand, it feels a little more comfortable in the House.

Eventually, I'm sure that we will grow so accustomed that we

will bring others of our friends with us to sit here.

(Laughter).

I would like to commend the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) for

his quick quotation from the scriptures. Very close, sir. (Laughter). I would

like also to recommend — first I commend then I recommend — that he study the

context of both of those references to find out who is referred to in these

prophetic utterances; and how it is that he and his philosophy and those who,

like him, hold his philosophy fit into that particular description. (Laughter).

By the way, I'm glad to see the good attendance in the House today. I would

like to invite you all to stay for the next 20 or 25 minutes. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: You've scared them out already!

MR. SCHROEDER: I like the Hon. Attorney General's story

about "It's better to know the judge than it is to know the

law." I'm reminded of the gentleman who was going to take out

citizenship, Mr. Speaker, in the United States, the land south

of us. However he was aware that, before he could take out

citizenship in that country, he had to memorize the names in

order of the 30-odd presidents from "day one" to now. He had to

and a few other things.

He was concerned because, you see, he was of Italian

that they came for his review he came before the judge and he

was very apologetic, was the applicant, because he said: I'm a

so sorry, Mr. Judge, because I'm a don't speaka pretty good

The judge looked over the desk at him and he said, "Don'ta

you worry, today you getta your citizenshipa." (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: I want to read that in Hansard .

MR. SCHROEDER: This is the budget speech. In our study of

homiletics they taught us diligently that whenever you stand up

to say anything, always say something nice first. When the

subject matter is the socialist Government's first budget — and

I understand that there is some doubt, Mr. Speaker, from those

who have studied it independently — some think it's a Social

Credit budget, some think it's a socialist budget, others are

not sure. But whatever the case may be, we as an Opposition may

do well to subject that budget to some close scrutiny before we

say anything, nice or otherwise.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Premier (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) who is also the Minister of Finance, believes that

it's a good budget — as we have heard parroted today by the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). In many instances I'd

like to agree. You see, Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that whenever

the Minister of Finance was uncertain as to what direction he

should take in creating this budget, he took the previous

year's estimates, he added a cautious 10 to 15 per cent, and

said, "what a good boy am I."

I'd like to say that that's likely smart. After all, how do

you follow a government who indisputably

[ Page 402 ]

utilized some of the most sound budgetary principles that

exist. Let's face it, Mr. Speaker; any previous administration

that could hand over an economic base upon which anyone can

project a $1.7 billion budget, can't have been all bad.

You know that is true, Mr. Premier, somebody, somewhere has

done something right in the bygone days. I am a little

disturbed at the vacillating attitude that I sensed from the

Members across the floor, which is certainly fast becoming a

hallmark of theirs. I heard the Hon. Minister of Finance say

that we have a sound economic base in British Columbia, but it

is the people of British Columbia that have built this sound

base and not that administration as he pointed across the

floor.

And then not too many breaths later he said, "We have a

debt," which I am not sure he understands, but "We have

a debt in British Columbia." Then, rather than say that

we the people have created that debt, he pointed across the

floor and said, "That administration over there is responsible

for this debt." There is a sort of a dual personality there.

(Laughter). I love you and respect you, Mr. Premier, but I

cannot stand that kind of schizophrenia.

The Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) said, "The

junkets are over." Then I looked at the budget and looked at

the provisions that are made for travel expenses for various

unnamed cabinet Ministers and I can't believe that the junkets

are over. Unless it is, Mr. Speaker, that again we have this

dual philosophy in effect and that maybe they don't mean

j-u-n-k-e-t, maybe they mean j-u-n-k i-t, and that he said

indeed they have looked at the plan of the previous junkets and

said, "No way — we're not going to junk it." Maybe that's what

he is talking about. I don't understand.

But let's look at the budget. It looks to me like there is

some good news in here and it looks to me like there is some

bad news in here, and I want to tell you the good news first.

It reminds me of a story. I think in order to get the

gentleman's attention, I will resort to the story and maybe he

will listen.

In the Second World War there was an unexpected siege of the

German forces which extended to some four or five weeks. They

had been held to the confines of their foxholes and hadn't had

an opportunity to refresh themselves, not even to change their

clothing, Mr. Speaker, and the situation grew rather

risqué.

As a result the commandant of the German forces came one day

and he was as excited as could be. He said, "Gentlemen, today I

have good news and bad news for you — first the good news. The

supply truck has finally made it through and I want you to know

we will have fresh food for dinner tonight, and also we are

going to get a chance to change our clothing. Now, gentlemen,

the bad news. The truck did not have any clothing on it and so

in changing our clothing, Reinholt you will change with Hans, and Hans, you

will change with Helmut."

I want you to know that in this budget there is some good

news and some bad news and I want to give you the good news

first. I am glad we decided to keep the homeowner grant. I am

glad for both aspects of the homeowner grant — both the annual

tax rebate type of homeowner grant and also the home

acquisition thing. No one will dispute the value of this

programme. To see it enhanced by increased benefits, and to see

the increased source funds, does my heart good. Yes siree,

hordes, you did it right that time. Do it again next year I

would say.

Then the Guaranteed Monthly Income Plan is Class A. If I had

it to do over for you I would take another $64 million and

increase the benefits for those over 65, also those disabled,

by another $40 per month. We are going to have to do it right

soon in any case because if I have to listen to the spiraling

inflation report that I heard from the First Member for

Victoria (Mr. Morrison) yesterday, in not too many years the

increase we have given them this past year will be eaten away

by inflation and we are going to have to do something like this

anyway.

I am glad to see the establishment of the Community

Recreational Facilities Fund, and this is great doing. I also

like to see that the stipulations which are normally attached

to this kind of fund are not attached to this fund, and Mr.

Minister of Finance I want to commend you for this. It isn't

part of the written budget speech but it is part of the

Hansard in the actual speech that was given.

These benefits are extended to civic groups and religious

groups and I want to thank you for remembering them as well. I

think there should be no problem in meeting the one stipulation

that says that the facilities shall be available to any and all

citizens of the area.

I am glad to see the extra exemption on the motor fuel for

the fishermen and the farmers. All of this is a step in the

right direction. I agree wholeheartedly with the gift tax

amendment that will release family homes for transfer between

spouses, All this is good and we as an Opposition would be

remiss if we did not acknowledge that. More than that it would

be misrepresentation to say that the budget stinks.

However there are some questions. There is some bad news in

the budget and I think that the first bad news, Mr. Speaker, is

not what the budget says but which, by the way the budget says

it, is not said. It seems to me that there is a design by which

the Minister of Finance either is not certain of what he means

or is trying not to tell it to us exactly the way it is or

perhaps not certain of the way it is.

The first question is this. The first statement on the excerpt over here says

"no increase in general provincial tax rates for people." That might be technically

correct but where does this blatant

[ Page 403 ]

statement fit in with the rest of the budget?

Does the Hon. Minister of Finance have some kind of an insulation that would

keep the people from the effects of any kind of taxation?

Everybody knows that no matter where a regressive tax is

applied it is the consumer who feels the pinch eventually.

Let's take the gasoline tax as an example. When you tax the

petroleum industry at any point the final result of that

taxation becomes clearly posted on all the gasoline pumps all

across British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Not so!

MR. SCHROEDER: Oh no? I'll tell you….

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you been reading Shelford's speech?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you address the Chair?

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, sir. I might suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

I wasn't reading the speeches of a named Mr. Shelford but I was

reading the speech — last year's response to the budget debate

by the then Leader of the Opposition in which he talked of

contingent liabilities and in which he very clearly made me to

understand that he did not understand the words "contingent

liability" let alone its meaning, Because he said, "I went to

my banker today to see whether I couldn't arrange for my

mortgage to be renamed and have it called a contingent

liability because, you see, I don't want to pay the interest

any more."

He is a smart banker. He is a smart banker that says, "No,

there is no way you can rename a direct debt to be a contingent

liability." What the Minister of Finance should learn, and I

hope he does before too many days in office, is that a

contingent liability and a mortgage are two different things.

If I could give the Hon. Minister of Finance a lesson in

contingent liabilities, just as a sort of a parenthetical thing

in the speech today, Mr. Speaker, would you allow me this?

It is more as if the Hon. Minister were to undertake an

enterprise, and did not have the necessary capital funds for

that enterprise. Neither did he have a good enough credit

reference, so that he could borrow from his banker the

necessary funds, and he said to me, "Harv, you have a good

credit rating, you have paid your bills all of your life — how

about co-signing a note with me?"

I think enough of the Minister of Finance to say. "Yes, I would be happy to

do that," and I would co-sign that note with him and I would say that now this

becomes a contingent liability from my point of view. From his point of view

it remains a direct debt. But 1, being the co-signor of that note am not responsible

for that debt unless the Hon. Minister of Finance is in default, and in that

case I become….

Mr. Speaker, you have changed! (Mr. Dent in the chair)

(Laughter). In that case I become responsible for the debt.

Mr. Speaker, now let me come back to the example that I had

begun before I was so rudely interrupted. When you tax the

petroleum industry at any point, the final result of that

taxation becomes clearly posted on all the gasoline pumps

throughout British Columbia.

Here is a given example. This was released by the Standard

Oil Company of British Columbia, who tell us that in the 16

years from 1957 to 1973 there has been a hike in gasoline

prices of 11 cents. There has been a 50 per cent increase in

the government taxes, which taxes undoubtedly were never

intended to have to be paid out of the pockets of the consumer

but it was thought that there was some insulation that could be

erected between the industry and the consumer.

But there it is — the price on the gasoline pumps has risen

in those 16 years from 40.9 cents to 51.9 cents. I know this

is right because there are pumps sitting right outside of my

house. 51.9 cents — an increase of 11 cents. The amount of

money that has been realized by the distributor or the

corporation is 1.4 cents, which is actually the net increase in

the price of gasoline as far as the producer is concerned, but

the poor consumer pays 11 cents more for a gallon of gas that's

only actually worth I cent more. Don't tell me that tax, at

whatever point it is applied to an industry, does not always

come out of the pocket of the consumer.

Another point that is made perfectly clear is that in these

last 16 years taxes on gasoline have risen by 50 per cent, the

price to the distributor only 6 per cent, and now I look at the

budget and it tells me that the petroleum royalties are to be

increased by another 30 per cent. Does this mean that we, the

Government, expect the extra 30 per cent increase in royalties

to come out of the 1.4 cents per gallon increase that is

realized by the Standard Oil Company? It doesn't sound good to

me, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I've got this labeled

here as some of the "bad news" that's in this budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to have the average taxpayer out there go

to sleep tonight believing that he is not going to be touched

by the extra taxation is to let him believe an untruth. I think

that it's bad news in the budget.

Secondly, it seems to me that the Hon. Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) is trying to conceal something in the

announcement about increased corporation taxes. Why does he

say, "The increase is from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, "

saying by innuendo that there's a 2 per cent increase? Why not

tell it like it is? It's 20 per cent. Giving the pill a candy

coating

[ Page 404 ]

doesn't make it any easier to swallow. More than that, it

makes all of us a little uneasy about the rest of the budget.

We look at each of the items with a scrutineering eye and we

say, "Hey, I wonder where the catch is in this one." Could

there be other fine print somewhere in between the lines?

Mr. Speaker, this brings me to a question on the whole

philosophy of corporation taxes. It appears to me that the

socialist concept of corporation control is to see how close

they can come to eradication — I mean complete eradication — of

profits. "Profit" seems to be an ugly word in the vocabulary of

a socialist. Let me say this. If we didn't have profits of the

past, we wouldn't have the development of the past. If we

didn't have the contingent liabilities that we have in British

Columbia today, if we had sat back like we had been encouraged

to do so many times rather than to assume or underwrite the

debt called "contingent liabilities," we wouldn't have

the development in the B.C. Hydro programme and in the railway

programme. We would have not realized the profits and we would

also not have realized the benefits of those profits. We

wouldn't have had the development or the jobs and we would be

seated somewhere precariously close to where we're seated today

on the job issue.

Let me say that if you wish to deny profits, Mr. Socialist,

you must also guarantee losses.

AN HON. MEMBER: They tried it in Saskatchewan and it didn't

work.

MR. SCHROEDER: It should be a blight on the socialist

conscience that they stand back and ogle with a covetous eye

the profits of a successful corporation and leap upon them like

a vulture saying, "Let's take over that corporation." But if a

corporation suffers a loss, you don't find them anywhere

nearby, ready to reassess the tax structure to compensate for

that loss. That would be a rip-off, you know. That would make a

"corporate burn." Never does the socialist remember that, should

he expropriate any corporation, he would become immediately

responsible for its losses. For government-owned enterprises,

the public underwrites losses but for private enterprise, the

same procedure is called a "rip-off."

I just want to know one thing about this whole deal. Why do

we want to squeeze these corporations, be they public or

private? Why do we want to squeeze them out of existence? Why

do we want to increase their tax burden and, at the same time,

increase their operating expense through labour settlements?

Then all the while we're doing both of these things, we talk

about freezing the market price of their product.

It forces that corporation to do one of two things: either they shut down —

by the way, I've got some figures here today about the number of businesses

in British Columbia that have shut down and the cost to the economy of British

Columbia. Here they are here. Now this is just for British Columbia. These are

not Canada figures. These are filed, though, under the federal Bankruptcy Act

and Winding-up Act. They've got nothing to do with the small businesses that

never file bankruptcy but that just cease to exist.

In the 12 months of 1970 there were 195 bankruptcies in

British Columbia, representing unpaid bills of nearly $14

million. That's 1970. In 1971, a 12-month period, bankruptcies

were up to 215 bankruptcies, representing over $20 million of

unpaid bills. In 1972, for a 12-month period, there were 280

businesses that filed bankruptcy, to the tune of $27 million.

Can you see the increase? The increase in the rise of failure

is directly proportional to the pressure that is applied to

those corporations and that is just what I'm talking about here

right now.

I'm further informed that, of new businesses that are begun,

80 per cent fail in the first year. Now why do we want to do

this? It forces them either to quit or, through some advanced

technology, create a more efficient operation. In either

instance — I don't want you to miss this, Mr. Minister of

Finance — jobs are lost. I thought that the reason why we were

all here in the first place — was to create jobs, not to

obliterate them.

I want to ask you — what is so undesirable about a

corporation making a profit? All profits go either to

shareholders, who are people who spend those dividends and

contribute to the economic base, or they go to capital

investment, which creates more jobs. It doesn't sound so bad to

me. In both cases we win. The only time we lose is when profits

are taken out of the country. It seems to me that this is where

we need to apply the controls.

Now let's talk about education. I had intended to go only 20

minutes because the same homiletics instructor that said,

"Always say something nice first," also said, "If you

can't strike oil in 20 minutes, stop boring." But let's talk

about education for just a minute.

We listened to endless debate during the recent election

campaign about the socialists' concern for education. I want to

commend you for it if it's for real. "Education should have a

greater share of the budget dollar," they told me. "A

9.5 per cent annual increase is not sufficient to provide an

adequate learning atmosphere," they said. Yet here in

this budget we get a smaller percentage of the budget pie than

we did last year — nearly a 3 per cent shrinkage.

I wonder how will the teachers out there take to that,

especially when most of the extra dollars that make up this

diminished share are eaten by salary increases. Where does the

better education deal come in, particularly when the hue and

cry out there was: "It's not our salaries that we're worried

about. It's the education standard that we're worried

about."

Here it is. We learn from the report of the B.C. Trustees

Association that over 80 per cent of the

[ Page 405 ]

increase that is given in this budget is going to go to

increased salaries, meaning that even fewer dollars, Mr.

Member, are going to be given to raise the education standard

than last year. I'm wondering if the teachers that helped seat

this Government, how soon they will help to unseat this

Government if we follow that particular course of action.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Better salaries make

better teachers, The Premier told us that.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I heard it in this House — that better

salaries make better teachers. I want you to know that we have

in this House a Premier who voted himself a raise of $5,000 and

I noticed that he isn't one whit better five seconds after he

voted it than he was five seconds before.

I wondered, Mr. Speaker, as I pondered over the budget, why

did the Hon. Minister of Finance design the budget on a

projection of only 10 per cent increase in revenue growth? He

knows full well that the economic base is there. He knows the

econo-activity is presently out there. He knows the economic

activity is presently out there. He knows the surpluses are

there as an insurance against overspending. Yet his projections

are not made on a realistic 13.5 per cent growth. Why? I think

the Premier's been listening. I think the message has come

through. I think there is doubt in his mind as to whether his

policies are being subscribed to. He knows that the business

and the industrial communities are holding back.

They tell you in their Press releases that they are just

holding back. That's not just mining but that's also lumber and

related industries. "We're going to sit back and wait to see

which way the axe is going to fall," they say. He knows

that the business and industrial communities are holding back

out there. Maybe the Premier is right; maybe there cannot be

the normal growth pattern that has been established in the past

years, under a socialist government.

There's doubt out there on the flood plains. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, we're accustomed to benedictions in my

profession, and I have written a special benediction for today.

The Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) will be

interested in this.

And now may the patron saint of all budgets look with favour upon this document;

and by the grace of some miracle, grant the wisdom to administer these directives

however feeble they may be; and to distinguish those that are truth from those

that are hogwash, both now and through this coming year. Amen. (Laughter),

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday

the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

presented an alternate proposed budget to replace the budget

offered by the Minister of Finance (Hon, Mr. Barrett), because

presumably he was not satisfied with the budget that was

brought in by the Minister of Finance.

I suppose if we think in terms of ideals, none of us,

including the Minister of Finance, would be satisfied with any

budget that we brought in. But certainly, given the present

needs and the present circumstances of our province in this,

the year of our Lord, 1973, this is a sound and sensible budget

and we will all support it on the Government side, I am

sure.

MR. CHABOT: Speak for yourself. You're not speaking for

them.

MR. DENT: Mr. Speaker, we're in a hurry. We're impatient. We

want to get on with the serious business of building a

democratic socialist society. I recognize that we cannot

achieve these ideals of our party overnight. But that does not

mean that we have lost our ideals, that we've watered down our

ideals, or that we don't intend to realize them.

We have started on that road and this budget is the first

step along that road.

Now I would like to propose a 1978 budget, you might say — at least this would be my idea of some of the things that might

be in that budget — which would perhaps indicate the directions

in which our present Government may go. I'm sure that if every

Member — certainly on the Government side — did the same thing,

we'd come out with 38 different budgets because all of us have

different ideas as to what we would like to see happen over the

next few years. Therefore, I'm presenting my ideas as to what I

would like to see done over the next few years.

I'll consider it by departments in general terms, Mr.

Speaker, because we cannot discuss specific votes.

First, legislation. I just happened to be out of the House

at the particular moment that he said this, but the Hon. First

Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), who is not in the House,

made some reference to increases in salary or indemnity and

expenses. Well, as applied to backbenchers who come from the

north and the interior, I found this pretty hard to take from

somebody who lives in Victoria. He doesn't have anything like

the kind of problems that most of us have out in the

country.

I just want to describe what's going to happen to me next

weekend, financially, in order to give you an idea of what this

means. I'm going to my constituency, Skeena, on the weekend.

I'll take the plane from Vancouver to Terrace. I'll spend most

of Saturday in Terrace, meeting various people, and then

[ Page 406 ]

proceed on to a social evening in Smithers sponsored by our

party, the NDP, in the evening. Then I'll stay overnight and

return to Terrace. We have our club meeting in Terrace in the

afternoon. Then I'll see a few more people after that and

finally, Monday morning, I'll return to Vancouver and then

Victoria — hopefully to get here in time for the 2 o'clock

sitting.

Now what does this mean to me financially as a backbencher

from that riding? Just in straight dollars and cents it means

this: first of all, to get to Terrace and back it's going to

cost me, at my own expense, $100. That is not what it costs the

Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) to visit his

constituency from this Legislature — or the Hon. Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), to his constituency. He

was looking at me, so I thought I would refer to him. I just

wanted to be sure he was listening.

That only lands me at the airport in Terrace. I keep a

second home in Terrace. I pay rent there as well as paying rent

down here. We get some assistance for that, for which I'm

grateful. But nevertheless there is the inconvenience and the

problem and there is additional financial cost involved.

Then, for the meeting in Smithers, I must proceed to

Smithers by some means of transportation other than my car

since I can't take my car on CP Air. Therefore, I'll have to

take a bus or get a ride with somebody if I can. Probably I'll

take a bus. Fortunately we have a pass, so that will be

covered.

When I arrive in Smithers, I'll need accommodation overnight — special accommodation, maybe a hotel room for $10 or $15 or

so, and meals of course.

Then back to Terrace the next day, again on the bus, remain

in Terrace and then return to Vancouver, and so on.

Now the total cost for me, just for this weekend, will

probably be between $150 and $200 to visit my constituency. The

Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) would not have to

pay any of that money out to visit his constituency. So I

rather resent him suggesting that we're inflationary, that

we're trying to get more money. The fact is that just to keep

up to the costs will be a major undertaking for MLA's from

outside the lower mainland from both sides of the House.

Therefore, for my 1978 budget — taking into account

increased costs for MLA's — I would probably estimate a minimum

figure of $2 million under legislation.

There are other aspects under this

section that I'd like to mention briefly,

and that is that we are in dire need of full-time secretarial assistance. The

volume of mail is somewhat overwhelming. I think that I have 1,000 individual

problems to cope with that have been handed to me — mostly by mail — since I

was elected. I haven't even worked my way through 600 of them yet. I haven't

got to the other 300 or 400; some of them that I've just had to forget about

temporarily until I can look them up and have a go at them.

It's somewhat overwhelming. The volume of letters that have

to be written and so forth is tremendous. And this is not

something that happens just during the session; it happens all

year round. So that I would think it would be no waste of the

taxpayers' money to ensure that the MLA's have adequate

secretarial assistance so that they can do their job on behalf

of their constituents and get through those problems. After

all, these are the people's problems. These are not our

problems we're looking after.

Similarly with office facilities. We now have better office

facilities here but we need them in the constituencies as well.

Again, this is the major expense item — we have to keep files,

the mail has to be all carefully sorted and filed and this

requires some office space. Not everybody has the opportunity

to do it in their homes.

Then, under this section, there's the legislative

committees. I think it's a wonderful thing to see that there's

going to be more money provided — and I don't want to get into

details here, Mr. Speaker, because this will be dealt with

under the estimates — but I think it's a great thing that there

will be more operation of the committees during the periods

between sessions.

I was very impressed with my visit in Saskatchewan last fall

where they make more extensive use of special committees and

standing committees in order to involve the public in the

decision-making process. Democracy is a wonderful ideal but to

realize it, to actualize it, is another thing. Certainly to

actualize democracy means that we must have continuous

communication, not with a handful of people but with all of the

people.

I don't think it's any waste of money at all to have

committees travelling around the province on specific issues,

such as liquor legislation or any other major problems that may

be of concern to the public to get their input, to get their

reaction, to propose legislation, to suggest legislation, to

suggest ideas. So I think that this will certainly be money

well spent and I foresee this money being spent over the next

several years on a regular basis.

Now the Premier's office is the next thing on the budget — and again I can't go into the details of this other than to say

it's indicated in the budget as a fixed amount here. I don't

foresee that it will increase greatly by 1978 but it would

probably level off at a reasonable figure, say around $160,000

or $165,000. This would be the result of normal salary

increases and so on.

I think that the Premier's whole operation is a very modest

one comparable to the Prairies rather than to the larger

provinces, say of Ontario or Quebec. I

[ Page 407 ]

think that this is a very modest budget for the Premier's

office.

I was going to look up the reference — I don't have it at

hand — but I'm standing in a position in this debate that was

held by the former Member for Delta (Mr. Wenman), in the last

House. I'm glad that I can refer to him as the "former Member

for Delta."

However, he made the comment that he didn't think that we

had made a very good choice in selecting our present leader.

These words, as I said, were spoken as the very first words by

the person who had my position in the debate last year. I think

that these words would now come back to haunt him. I think we

made a very good choice. Well we're here anyway as the

Government and I think that speaks for itself.

Agriculture: I think that there should be a tremendous

increase over the next few years in the budget for agriculture.

I was raised on a farm as a boy. It's been my impression from

travelling around the province and talking to farmers that they

have not been getting the kind of consideration that they

deserve from the previous government and now they're beginning

to get more consideration. I look forward to increased

consideration over the next few years by the present

Government.

So I would foresee a budget by 1978 of, say, $25 million for

the Department of Agriculture. I foresee a stable and steady

growth in the agricultural economy of the province.

I say "stable and steady" because as more services become

available to the farmer, as their problems are dealt with in a

more businesslike manner, then gradually there will be a kind

of growth take place which will develop a viable and effective

and very necessary sound, permanent agricultural economy in the

Province of British Columbia, including the Peace River, the

Okanagan, the Fraser Valley and parts of the northwest where

there is an agricultural potential — certainly in the

Kootenays.

There will be a dramatic increase, I hope, in income for the

farmers. They stand practically at the bottom in terms of their

income compared to the rest of the population. The marketplace

concept gives to the strong, tends to favour the strong. Those

that are just plain hardworking and not necessarily strong in

the marketplace are not getting their fair share. The farmers

are just too darn conscientious. They work hard, they do their

best and they figure, "If we just contribute and work hard,

society will reward us." In the kind of marketplace society we

have had functioning over the last few years, this is simply

not so. They don't get rewarded.

But I foresee, as the atmosphere changes and as people are rewarded because

of the contribution that they're making, and the legislation and the assistance

from the Government makes this happen, then I can foresee a steady improvement

in farm income — a dramatic increase in farm income over the next five years.

There will be marketing assistance, research assistance — an increased amount

— I would foresee again over the next five years. By the time we get to 1978,

hopefully this will be more than adequate for the needs of our agricultural

community.

Finally, I also would hope that the agricultural economy

will become integrated with the co-op economy and with the

small business economy. We're dominated at the present time by

large corporations who are in a position to…Well, I can't

use a vulgar term — but to shaft everybody. And they do. They

shaft the farmer, the small businessman, the retailer, the

co-op. Almost everybody is virtually under the thumb of the

large wholesaler and large corporation.

But as this situation changes, then I see an integration of

the agricultural economy with the co-op economy and with the

small business economy. Gradually and hopefully, the large

company will take a weaker position and the rest of the thing

will become a much more cooperative effort. Everybody

generally will benefit, except maybe a few large shareholders

in Ontario and in the United States.

The Attorney General's department: I foresee a drastic

decline in five years in the funding to the Attorney General's

department. I think it's going to be about $48 million

in the estimate in the budget speech here. I would say that $25

million hopefully will be adequate by 1978. The reason

is because there will be reduced court costs: there will be

fewer prisoners incarcerated in institutions; the increased

probation and parole services will have rehabilitated a great

number more of our young people.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They'll cost money.

MR. DENT: They will, but as time goes along there will be

fewer repeaters. Therefore, I see that gradually there will be

a tapering off. First there may be an increase for a few years,

Then there will be a drastic decrease.

There will be, I hope, a general reduction in crime because

as we step up our programmes — in education, in recreation and

so forth — gradually there will be less inclination to crime.

We'll get rid of the root causes of crime. This in turn will

result in fewer costs to the Attorney General's department.

Therefore, I would hope that this will be one department

that within five years will show a decline in its financial

need. In fact, if it declines far enough then it might be

combined with some other department and eliminated altogether,

but I don't think that will happen for some time.

Education: Maybe a budget of about $800 million would be

adequate in 1978 — I thought of putting it higher, but then I

realized that some changes could be made which would perhaps

make it less necessary to

[ Page 408 ]

increase the costs — of which about $450 million would be

general education and $350 million for post-secondary

education.

By that time I hope we will have the best educational system

in North America. It may take us a while to have the best

system in the world because we've got to catch up to such

countries as France, Sweden, Britain, Germany and Japan and so

on. They're all ahead of us in education because they consider

the importance of education to the total needs of the people.

That idea has not been held in British Columbia for some time — that education is really that important. All they think about

is how much it's going to cost.

Now what improvements could we look for in education?

Well, the obvious ones are reduction in the pupil-teacher

ratio, integration with the community — I don't want to rattle

that one off without explaining it a little bit.

It seems to me, as a former teacher, that one of the

problems in education is that it is run with the idea of

getting the kids out of the community for five hours a day at

least, so that they're out of everybody's hair. They can forget

about them. They can go on and do other things for five hours

and they don't have to worry about the kids. They're in this

building and there's some people looking after them. They're

not getting into any trouble. That's the sort of feeling that a

lot of people have towards education.

Education can be much more than that and certainly the first

thing that needs to happen is that it needs to become a part of

the community development and activity. I would see

recreational and educational programmes more integrated so that

facilities can be used both from a recreational point of view

by the community and also by the educational system.

Also, an integration with the working community, so that

young people are moving back and forth within the working

community and gaining experience in the business of becoming

mature adults and taking their place in society as contributors

toward the general commonwealth of the people. There could be a

great deal more integration there than there is now.

Other countries are far ahead of us in this respect. We

still have a separated, segregated system of education — segregated from the rest of the community. We need to get the

educational system back into the general community concern and

welfare.

Also, we need to open up education to all ages so that anybody at any point

could return and complete their education without any great financial difficulty.

As it is now, once a person has a family, they cannot go back into the educational

system. They can't afford it. Yet they may be very promising in terms of their

contribution to society. They may be very bright and have great potential, but

they can't realize February 13, 1973 it because they're in bad financial condition.

Now this has been rectified to some extent by Canada

Manpower and so on, but we've got a long way to go to ensure

that every person, no matter what age they are, can pick up and

continue their education.

We have some students in the Legislature today from City

College in Vancouver, and many of them are in that category.

They're not children or just out of high school. They're older

people who have gone back for further education and in this

case they happen to be mainly native people. Native young

adults, who are completing their education and I think it's

tremendous that this can happen. It's got to be strengthened

and improved.

Then there's another programme that I would like to see

instituted in education. I think the day has gone when we teach

children and adults about the world, by bringing the world to

the student — that is to say, we bring the world into the

classroom through the medium of the voice of the teacher, the

blackboard, film strips, films or whatever. I think that we

should turn it around and we should move toward the direction

of taking the student to the world, as a more effective way of

teaching social studies and of teaching world studies.

I was interested in an item in the paper the other day about

a teacher, together with some students, who were raising some

money in order to get a coastal ferry or boat that they are

going to lease or rent for a trip and they're going to go to

Alaska. And they're going to see Alaska. That's tremendous.

I would like to see the Department of Education by

1978 owning some jet planes, some large jet planes,

and maybe two or three ships. They would take the students on a

regular basis to visit different parts of the world. We would

establish agreements with other countries that our students

could be resident in these countries for periods of time, and

do their studies — say, language studies, and this sort of

thing especially — studying the whole social structure and the

whole cultural nature.

What do we do, what do we have in B.C. now? Or what have we

had? I wanted to show a film about the Eskimos once when I was

teaching, so I ordered a film from the Department of Education

film library. It was supposed to be a film about Eskimos, so

that's fine, it came. It was made in 1932, I think or was it

1934? I've just forgotten. Anyway, it was totally useless for

what we were trying to do. Now it had some value in terms of

understanding what they were like way back then but we wanted a

film to help us to understand what they were doing now. This

film was of no value in that respect — or very little

value.

This is the situation. The films in most cases are either

irrelevant or totally inadequate to what you may be trying to

teach. Once in a while you are lucky and you get one that is

really good, but more often

[ Page 409 ]

it's the other way. Rather than to go into great expense to

get more films, though I think we should do this, we should

start getting a more realistic kind of education by taking the

young person and the adult to these other places of the

world.

Technical and job training. There is the discovery method of

learning, which is somewhat popular now, and there is also the

sort of general liberal ideas of education, which I think are

worth looking at, in terms of general education. But I think

when it comes to job training — when it comes to developing

skills — we have to look at the thing quite differently.

I think one of the outstanding institutions in British

Columbia today is the B.C. Institute of Technology. If I was

ever going to give any credits to the previous government, it

would be for establishing the B.C. Institute of Technology. The

reports that I've got from it are almost all good. The kind of

students that go out seem to be well trained and well prepared

for the jobs that they are going to take. Therefore, their

procedures and their methods of training are sound from that

point of view — from the point of view of job training and the

development of skills. I would like to see more institutions of

that kind.

The Mayor of Smithers, for example — I asked him: "Well,

what are some of the problems? What are some of the things you

would like to have in Smithers?" He said: "Well, we would like

to have an institution built in Smithers like the B.C.

Institute of Technology, so that our young people can really

learn skills and be well qualified to get good jobs. Otherwise

they may be badly qualified and may have difficulty getting

jobs."

I think that education has to be seen in this way. If you

are learning about the world, then let's learn about the world

the best way and go out to the world. If we're learning job

training, let's learn job training and develop some real

skills, some real sense of discipline and what we are going to

do so that we're of some use to somebody. I think this is

extremely important.

In terms of developing our own potential as human beings, we

should be integrated with the community. We should have the

opportunity to develop our talents and our interests. If I want

to paint, I can learn to paint. If I want to learn to write

poetry, I can learn to write poetry, and so forth, so that a

person is developed in his whole being.

Department of Finance: Well, I think a modest increase is

all that's needed there by 1978 — maybe to $40 million. Most of

this would be taken up with increased salaries and benefits.

While we're on the subject of salaries and benefits, I'd just

like to suggest a couple that I hope will be here in 1978.

I hope we'll have a four day week and a three day weekend by 1978 for all government

employees and for all people of British Columbia. We're almost there, and I

think that we should work in that direction very quickly, because it's no longer

necessary to work all the days of the week that we're now working. When the

Lord started out he said, "Six days work and one day rest." Then we went to

the five day week. Now let's go to the four day week and have a three day weekend.

Another thing that I think we should have by 1978 is a

sabbatical every 10 years for all the working people of British

Columbia. That is to say, if they've worked 10 years, then they

should get a full year off with salary. This would open up more

job opportunities too. A sabbatical every 10 years. Now, maybe

we won't get there by 1978, but I say we should aim for it, so

that all the people have a chance to go around and have a look

at the world and do the things they want to do, after they've

done maybe 10 years work. Then, over a period of time we can

gradually reduce that to five years.

"Department of Justice": "What department is that? you ask. Well, it's

a combined department. In 1978 I would foresee that health, welfare, rehabilitation,

day care and Human Rights will be combined in one department and called the

Department of Human Justice.

What is the meaning of the word justice? Maybe we all sort

of assume that we know what it means. That was one reason I was

grateful for studying Greek when I was in the theological

college, because they have some meanings for words that are

very interesting.

In fact, I might point out that Bishop Somerville, David

Somerville, who was in the House earlier this afternoon, was my

professor of systematic theology in my last year of theology

and he was the principal of the college at that time. So I got

to know and appreciate and love that man very much. I might

point out that he is a fine spiritual man and, as has been

pointed out by the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), he is

also a man of culture and humanity in every sense of the

word.

But I want to come back to the meaning of this word

"justice". The Greek word, and I probably pronounce it wrong,

"justice" or "righteousness", depending on how it's used. So

when they talked of the god of justice, they meant the god of

righteousness. And when they talked of a god of righteousness,

they meant a god of justice.

But then justice was looked upon not as something you

receive, nor was it looked on in the strict sense as a legal

thing, but rather it was looked on as something that everybody

was entitled to, and everybody had a responsibility to practice

simultaneously. The whole balance of justice requires that both

things happen — that you receive justice and that you give

justice.

Now, a Department of Human Justice would be a department in

which the people, through their government,

[ Page 410 ]

would ensure that every citizen received justice. They would

be giving justice to the citizens and they would be receiving

justice as citizens. I'll just repeat that. The Department of

Justice would be the means through which justice would come to

all citizens; it would enable everyone to give justice and it

would enable everyone to receive justice. It would include, as

I said, health and welfare, rehabilitation and day care.

Basically it would mean that we would be concerned for the

happiness of everybody in our society, consciously. We would be

consciously anxious to ensure that everyone was as happy as

possible. If they were sick, we would help them to become well,

and provide them with the medical services they required. If

they were lonely, we would try to take away their loneliness.

We would become a friend to them.

This can be done to an extent by legislation. The whole

method of whether we have large urban sprawl or whether we have

small communities can be determined to some extent by

legislation. That determines whether people become lonely or

don't become lonely.

I say that we have a responsibility in that area, to ensure

that there is justice for the lonely, that there are as few

people who are genuinely lonely as possible. To ensure that

everyone is adequately fed and clothed and housed — that's the

responsibility of us all. If they're crippled, they shouldn't

have to go begging. If they're blind, they shouldn't have to

live on a pittance. If they're old and past the age of work,

they should be able to live out their years in dignity. It's

our responsibility to give them justice through this

vehicle.

There was a preacher in the last century named Charles

Finney, and I think he was probably one of the last really

great preachers of modern times. Now there's been a lot of

preachers since, but he was, I would think, one of the

greatest.

He preached a sermon called "Moral insanity." He suggested

that when people become disoriented from each other, when they

become wrapped up in themselves. When they become greedy and

concerned about their own needs, they develop a moral

insanity.

It becomes like a ward that I saw in Riverview Hospital when

I visited there as a theological student, where there were 80

men in this small ward. Their beds were tightly packed

together, and I think they may be still that way. They had a

recreation room where they would go and sit, and a TV and so

on. The thing that struck me about this place was the fact that

practically none of them were talking to each other. There was

very little communication between them. They were each

suffering by themselves, even though they were in a group.

There was an insanity in a sense there. But our nation is becoming like this.

Our province is becoming like this. People are becoming wrapped up in themselves,

in their own needs.

The answer for it is to develop a sense of giving, a sense

of giving justice to others, of bringing happiness to other

people. There is no limit to the potential that we have for

giving happiness to other people.

You know, there was a Pentecostal man who was a patient in

the hospital. Even though he had some problems, admittedly, the

fact was he taught me something in about 20 seconds. He said,

"I want to show you something." There was a man, an immigrant.

was walking along toward us and, when he stopped, this

Pentecostal man went up to him and took ahold of his hand and

put his arm on his shoulder and shook his hand and said, "How

are you today?"

How are you today? And the guy looked at him and he thought

he was crazy. And then suddenly he brightened up and he

realized somebody was taking an interest in him as a person. He

brightened right up and he smiled and he was so happy. We had

made his day.

It's so easy to bring happiness to other people. Much easier

than bringing it to ourselves. And yet, as we become alienated

and isolated, we develop a moral insanity. I would submit that

the motivations of the capitalist system have been primarily

responsible for this. They've developed a sense of alienation

in large urban areas. They've pitted one group against another.

They've done all kinds of things to make people concerned only

for their own needs, for their own status, for the kind of car

they drive, for how big a house they're in and so on.

We need to change all of that. We need to have a spiritual

revival, a moral revival that will cause people to become

interested in one another instead of in themselves.

The question was put by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) yesterday, to me, "What is a legitimate profit?" Well,

in this context I'd like to give my definition of what I

consider to be a legitimate profit.

I would consider a legitimate profit to be what I need to

sustain my family in a decent standard of living and what I

need to be able to give them the best that I'd like to give

them. And then perhaps to have something left over so that I

can help other people.

That's what Paul said. You know what he said when he was

giving advice to a church? He said, "I'd like you to work." Why

would he like them to work? So they would have some money to

give to the people who were in Jerusalem, who were in a famine.

That's why.

I would consider a reasonable profit to be what a person

could make as a reasonable return on what they did, which would

enable them to have a reasonable standard of living and

something so that

[ Page 411 ]

they could assist in helping to build a better

community.

The amassing of money I don't consider to be a reasonable

profit — just for the sake of having more than other

people.

Now transportation. This would include highways and

considerations for railways and so on. By 1978 I would foresee

that we would have an integrated transportation system in B.C.,

fully integrated. It's incredible; it's insane that we should

have a fragmented transportation system, when obviously there's

an interrelation between every kind of transportation.

Consider this: If you are driving up the Fraser Canyon some

day in a snow storm, you may have to drive behind all kinds of

large trucks carrying heavy freight. Now if we had an

integrated transportation system, I'd like to see, all those

big trucks off the highway and onto freight cars. Why do they

have to go on the highway? Why can't they be carried by rail — certainly through the Fraser Canyon?

Under this integrated transportation department or system I

would suggest that there would be three programmes that would

be in operation in 1978. One programme would be a 10-year

programme for highways and roads, built on a province-wide

basis, run by traffic managers, without any politics

involved.

I was in the Cariboo for a while as a church minister and I

used to be amazed when I travelled from one part of my parish

to the other. I'd see them with paving equipment in and they'd

pave two miles of road. Then they would pull it out — and it

would take them two days to pull it out — and they'd go to

another place and they'd put another two miles of road in. Well

obviously it was being done for political reasons. It was being

done to placate a few people here and a few people there and a

few people over there and win a few votes for the government.

Well, I hope we never do that as a government. Because the

waste of time of moving that equipment alone was criminal. And

the cost to the public involved.

We should have traffic managers who understand the problems

of traffic and who specialize in this in the whole of the

province, and who'd take a look at the province and its needs

and then develop an integrated highway and road system. They

would work together with the transportation authority or with

the transportation department. I hope this will come by

Then a province-wide programme of rapid transit is needed. Rapid transit is

not just to move people from Richmond to Vancouver — although that's desperately

needed. I think it should be a province-wide system. You know, we've got a huge

province. We've got all kinds of space. We're loaded with space. We've got so

much land we put it in piles called mountains, or somebody did. But we have

so much space. Why don't we use it? Why do we pack everybody into a small area

down in the lower mainland, or even in the valleys? Why do we stick them in

the large centres like Penticton and Kelowna and some of these other centres

where everybody's rammed in together?

Now you say, "Well, that's because they chose to live

there." I'll suggest one of the reasons they chose to live

there was because of the transportation problem; because of the

problem of getting from one place to another it was handier to

be there. It was less costly to run their car and so on. That's

the reason they live there.

So if we're going to get people to spread out more — and

that's what we should be aiming at — then we've got to have a

better transportation system. We've got to have a better rapid

transit system.

This is an example; this is kind of a dream. I don't know

whether it'll ever be realized, but why not build a tunnel from

Terrace to Vancouver? Now it sounds crazy, doesn't it? But I

don't think it's so crazy when you think about it. Supposing it

connected every inlet all the way up the coast and we

established communities in each of these inlets where nobody's

living now — or almost nobody. People could then move rapidly — they could even have some decentralization of industry and

provide services in those areas.

Then, if people wanted to come to an opera or a ballet or

something in Vancouver, they could climb on the rapid transit

and they could be in Vancouver in maybe an hour or two hours,

without any problem — or three hours.

It would enable us to have people spread out — living in the

more ideal locations in terms of living. It would return a

sense of community and put people back into communities where

they could know each other and get to understand each other and

share each other's burdens and problems. Instead of this huge,

urban, uncontrolled sprawl that we now have in the lower

mainland.

That's just one possibility. We could move out into the

interior more. We could have better systems of moving people,

Or we could perhaps have a publicly owned airline — like the

B.C. Ferries — that would be cheap transportation for people to

come into Vancouver by plane instead of having to pay the high

cost of going by plane as it is now.

This would be a fantastic thing to have.

Then to complement that, we need a fast freight programme

for the whole province, where there are uniform methods of

transporting goods from one part of the province to the other.

One of the biggest obstacles to keeping prices down in the

north and other parts of the province is transportation. The

transportation costs are too high. Now that's because we leave

it to chance — or to the CNR, which is almost as bad.

What we need is an overall provincial programme of

transportation for moving freight, so that we can

[ Page 412 ]

use aircraft and trains and planes and buses and trucks and

everything — all integrated. As I suggested, trucks could be

carried part of the way on trains and part of the way they

could be driven on highways where there weren't any railroads.

Or they could be air-freighted in.

We could develop a system of moving freight that would

revolutionize the cost-of-living factor in most parts of the

province. It would make it much more attractive to live in the

north or in other parts of the country.

So these three things I would hope by 1978: an integrated

transportation system; the 10 year highway and road programme

perhaps; province-wide rapid transit systems and fast freight

programmes for the whole province.

What would this enable us to do? Well, now we can look at

the Municipal Affairs department.

I think we are very fortunate in the Minister we have for

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). I am very impressed with

the Minister ever since I have known him. He is kind of a

quiet-spoken person and I think he is a very good man for the

job. I would like to offer my suggestions over the next few

years about municipal matters.

First of all, once we move in the direction of establishing

a better transportation system — and I think this is essential

to the creation of the kind of municipal programme we want — then we need to move deliberately to decentralize our large

cities and to move the people out of the cities and into

smaller centres throughout the province.

This is not Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany so we don't take

fixed bayonets and drive them out. We don't do that sort of

thing. But we can make it easier for people to live in other

places by having lower costs, better transportation and so on.

But further, we can also ensure that no municipality that's

built is built without adequate services of every kind: lights

and sewers and every convenience that people can have.

Why should they have to do without telephones over on the

west coast of Vancouver Island today? This is 1973. They should

be able to have good telephones no matter where they live.

But if Municipal Affairs would consider looking at the whole

province as the living space for the population of B.C. and

then decide how they can establish new communities so that the

people will like to live there and want to move there, they

will be nice places to live. And yet they will be spread out

and we will get rid of a lot of congestion both in the

transportation system and in the urban areas.

There should be a system worked out so that property tax is about the same

everywhere in the province. Why should one person who happens to live in a community

that has very little industry have to pay a huge mill rate to get the same services

compared to a person who happens to live in a community with a very high industrial

base?

Consider Kitimat and Terrace. Kitimat has Alcan within its

boundaries so they have a very large assessment. The result is

that they can have a fairly low mill rate in order to provide

the services they need to the people of that community.

Move to Terrace. Terrace has practically no industry or very

little compared to Kitimat — low assessment and, therefore, in

order to get the same services they have to pay a higher mill

rate.

This should not be. There should be a system of equalizing

to ensure that nobody gets penalized because they live in this

community or that community as compared to another.

Department of the Environment: Well before I come to

environment, I want to talk about industrial and economic

development. Along with the system of moving people into

different parts of the province, similarly there should be more

decentralization of our industry. Now I am not denigrating

Prince George in that sense. Maybe they might as well have all

the smell in one place, I guess. But I can't see the reason for

having three pulp mills in the same town and having all that

concentration of foul air and what not.

There can be a better system of doing it. Industry can be

better located in relation to population areas so that they

don't have to put up with the smell; they don't have the

congestion on the roads and services and so on. There is no

reason why this cannot be planned adequately. Hopefully, along

with the transportation proposals that I make and along with

the municipal proposals, I would suggest that industry also be

part of that design.

Now I would like to commend the Premier because of his

proposed visit to Europe in order to establish trade. I hope

that he will visit every country in Europe, not just one or

two. I hope that he will then visit the Pacific Rim nations and

visit them all, that he will go to Africa and to other parts of

the world.

Now you say, "Well, why should our Premier hopscotch all

over the world?" Well, if he can establish one trading

relationship for each of these countries, it would diversify

our economy and it would provide a great deal more stability

for the people of British Columbia. I say I am glad that he is

going to take this step, this move. It is long overdue.

The previous Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and trade Minister

(Mr. Skillings) did make the odd trip but they would mostly go

to New York or Paris or London or one of the key centres. I

trust that the Premier will go to many countries, especially

the smaller ones, and establish individual trading

relationships with each one. We can learn something from every

one of these little countries. We can develop trading

relationships with every one. We shouldn't tie ourselves in to

a few big countries like the United

[ Page 413 ]

States or France or Britain. We should diversify our trading

pattern throughout the world.

Also, I am looking forward in the next five years to

increased research and experimentation in developing new

industry in B.C. There is no reason why we can't do what

Holland or Belgium did and that is establish high-quality

manufacturing plants. For example, I understand that the dictaphone equipment that we use here is made in Holland. They

decided one day they were going to try to produce that kind of

thing.

We can do that too. We can sit down and we can decide what

kind of things that we can produce in B.C. We can develop our

own high-quality industries. Why should Switzerland be left to

do this, or Holland or Belgium or some other country? Why can't

we do this here?

The previous administration seemed to think that we are very

good woodchoppers. We are good woodchoppers. We have some of

the best woodchoppers in the world. We have the best chainsaw

operators in the world and I am proud of it. But I think that

we could have good watchmakers and good precision equipment

makers as well. We can diversify our industries and our economy

and have a much greater variety.

I would just put in a pitch for the Hazelton area at this

point. We are desperately in need of industry in Hazelton that

suits the conditions there. Nobody, not anybody, has ever

thought of an industry that suited our conditions because it is

a very unique situation, We have a number of Indian reserves;

the people like living on the reserves. It is beautiful

country; they want to stay there. Why should they be forced to

move somewhere else — like down to Houston or down to Prince

Rupert or something — to get a job? Why can't they live in

Hazelton?

The previous Department of Industrial Development decided

"Well, you can go and get a job in Houston." That is 50 or 100

miles away. "Or you can go to Prince Rupert or Terrace and get

a job. We don't have any jobs for you in Hazelton."

I say that we should try to develop industry that is suited

to Hazelton where people can live where they are and work where

they are, so that you don't have to uproot them and move them

somewhere else.

Big companies move people around like they were sheep. They

establish new operations and they bring people in. I have seen

some of these company towns. I was at Mackenzie and nobody in

the town hardly knew each other for a long time. They had a

turnover of almost 100 per cent in the first year in personnel.

People coming and going constantly, no stability. Because

everybody they were bringing in had been uprooted from

somewhere else.

I say that approach from a social point of view is wrong. We should begin to

try to reshape our industries — even if it means it costs a wee bit more in

some instances — so that people can live where they want to live.

Resources: land, forests, water resources, minerals — they

all should be integrated into one department, the Resources

department. Most of the other provinces have already done

this.

And then the best people in resource management should be

hired to work in this department to ensure that our resources

are managed to the best advantage possible to the people of

British Columbia.

There is no management of resources. There was none under

Social Credit. They would just give the stuff away, give the

stuff away and sell it at cheap prices. There was no thought

for the future — for 20 years from now or 50 years from now — of what our needs would be then. There was the idea of making

the money now.

We need to have managers who will be concerned for our

children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren; who

will ensure that our renewable resources are properly looked

after so they will, in fact, renew. That there is the proper

amount of tree planting and all the rest of it. And that the

nonrenewable resources will not be simply shipped out before we

have even had a look at them, without really producing any

jobs.

On Texada Island they have a little place over there where

they take iron out. It kind of slips out of the country without

anybody really noticing that it is gone. And it is going,

going, gone. Similarly with copper in other places and so

on.

We need to develop our own secondary industries and

processing here, along with this management.

Public Works: I foresee that by 1978 we will finally have a

government building in Hazelton — or at least a place where

people can buy their licence plates without having to go down

to Smithers which is 45 miles and in the middle of winter over

an icy highway where they might be killed, and sometimes they

are.

Why should people have to leave these communities and go way

off to a major centre in order to buy their licence plates.

Why? Because we don't want to spend any money on putting in a

service in that community. There are a lot of communities like

Hazelton around the province where people have to drive long

distances in order to get the minimal services from

government.

Therefore, I would foresee over the next five years that

there would be an expanded programme of attractive government

buildings — not necessarily big ones — but small government

buildings that would provide more services to local people in

their own local areas. It would create jobs to build them, too.

I hope that Hazelton will be one such place. I can name 50

others and that's just one.

Also, under Public Works, I would agree with the Hon. Member

for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) that we need

[ Page 414 ]

to have a plan for Victoria. It's just amazing when you're

driving around Victoria here. You're driving down a street and

you see a sign that indicates a certain government department;

then you're over in another part of town and, in an old

building, you see another government department. The whole

thing is a hodge-podge. It's a mess, I would like to see a plan developed for the integration and

the rationalization of our government offices in the City of

Victoria, so that we will have an attractive, well planned

capital that we will be proud to bring people to — and in which

anybody can find their way around.

Now, if you try to find something in Victoria, it's amazing

that you can find it.

Now the environment. I hope by 1978 we have a Department of

the Environment — before then I trust, but maybe at least by

then. They would have programmes too. They would have a

pollution control programme, well advanced by that time, in

which most of the pollution would have been cleaned up.

I believe it was good news when they decided to put in

secondary treatment for sewage for the greater Vancouver area — or at least for that

section of the greater Vancouver area.

That's a good move. We'll be glad about that years from now,

and it should be done all over the province. Hopefully this

programme will advance to the extent that we don't have any

more polluted rivers or polluted waters by that time — or

polluted air.

Conservation of our wilderness areas and the beauty spots of

the province: This again is a challenge for a Department of the

Environment. Environment is everything around us, and they

should preserve that which is beautiful. You don't see them

stripping trees off Grouse Mountain in front of Vancouver. If

they did they'd have everybody up there with shotguns driving

them off. They have taken small patches at times — a little

development going up the mountainside. But the trees are

there.

The same should be true all over B.C. If you drive from

Kitimat to Terrace, there are desert stretches along the sides

of the highway where the trees have been stripped right off the

ground. There's nothing alongside the road except burnt stumps — beautiful! Burnt stumps along both sides of the highway, done

by man deliberately. It's not beautiful at all. It's ugly.

Well, I hope a Department of the Environment would at least

ensure that a strip 50 yards wide or so along each side of the

highway was preserved, so that the roads would be beautiful — this kind of thing.

Beautification: I would see a Department of the Environment

going into beautification programmes with young people being

employed — well, all kinds of people being employed — to make

our province look beautiful. You know, there's no limit to what

we an do.

You take a housewife, give her a bare house and a little bit of imagination and she'll convert it into

something beautiful — or a houseman for that matter. I've known

a lot of men that have done this; who are their own

housekeepers. I don't refer to a housewife or a house…. A

housewife and a househusband. Okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Homemaker.

MR. DENT: Homemaker…but taking a bare house and turning

it into something beautiful.

This is where I'd like to speak just a word on behalf of the

Portuguese people in my constituency, in Kitimat. You go into

their homes and it's amazing what these Portuguese people can

do with their homes. They can take some of those lousy looking

houses they've got in Kitimat and really make them attractive — really make them attractive. With a little bit of paint and

some imagination, it's amazing what they can do.

I would say let's get some of those Portuguese housewives,

or househusbands, and get them out and let's say: "Here's the

Province of British Columbia. Give us some ideas as to how we

can make this place look beautiful, or more beautiful." I'll

bet you they'd come up with all kinds of ideas.

Then we can put our young people to work making sure that

these things happen. We can make our province so beautiful that

we will be proud to bring people in from outside.

Finally, I just want to finish with recreation and culture.

It is my opinion — I am sure it's shared by other Members of

this House — that in the years to come, recreation and cultural

consideration is going to be one of the major considerations of

government. Perhaps it could well become the most important

department of government — without question.

People are going to have an increased amount of leisure

time. I know people who are afraid of leisure time — they're

afraid of it. They want to work long hours because they don't

know what to do with themselves when they've got leisure time,.

But there will be increased leisure time.

Our young people are gradually going to learn how to use

their leisure time. But this is where we come in as the

government. We must ensure that there are recreational

opportunities for our young people, and that there are cultural

opportunities for our young people, that they can develop.

I want to give a practical example. We built an arena in

Terrace not long ago and it was opened just last fall. Now it

is open for minor hockey and for hockey generally. I don't know

what those young people were doing before they opened that

arena but, man, that place has just been booming ever since.

They just come in there and they're practising at 5:30 in the

morning — hockey. They come in skating whenever they can. They

just love it there. It's a

[ Page 415 ]

tremendous thing for them. They skate around. They breathe

the nice crisp, cold air and they're in good physical condition — all because we've provided a facility for them.

Now what were they doing before? Well, I've seen what some

young people do in their spare time when they don't have any

recreational opportunities, or encouragement to recreational

opportunities. They'll sit in a group on a rug in a house and

they'll smoke pot. They'll just sit there, day after day after

day, and they'll vegetate like vegetables. Or perhaps in front

of a TV the rest of the time — half in front of the TV and

maybe half just looking at each other.

We must provide leadership in getting them out of their

houses, out of these pot dens, out from in front of the

television — and outdoors into good, sound recreational

programmes. Swimming and skiing and skating and every kind of

thing that we can offer. Also, give them access to high quality

cultural events; to symphony, to ballet and to travelling

musical companies and so on — so that get a chance to see other

things and have a look at the world in that way, and become a

part of it.

I'm convinced that it's so important to establish sound

recreational and cultural programmes. We're facing the choice

between going into a kind of spiritual and moral decay as a

failure to do this, or we could do the opposite and practically

generate a new spiritual awakening in people.

One merely has to took at our hockey players on television

in the last two or three weeks to see the direction we've been

going — where the hockey players are appearing in court and

being proud of it. I think that's tragic, really tragic, where

athletes that are so capable and so much looked up to by young

people, can sit in a car on their way to court because they've

committed a criminal offence — and they're happy about it. What

kind of an example is that to the seven and eight and

nine-year-old children in our province? What kind of an

example? I think it's criminal.

Instead of that, if we had proper recreational programmes

everywhere in the province, properly led, we would develop an

atmosphere of good sportsmanship and goodwill and pride in

achievement — and not in something else.

It could become the means — as sports often is — to a mood,

you might say, of goodwill in the population.

The British tradition of good sportsmanship was born on a

playing field. It was born in sport. I think that that carried

over into parliament, and into practically every other aspect

of life. If we can develop sound, well-led recreational and

cultural programmes, we can do the same.

I knew a man in Armstrong once who used to supervise badminton for young people

every week. He said, "Not one of my badminton players has ever been in trouble

with the police." Not one. And he brought in a lot that had never played badminton;

never had anything to do with it, and might never because of their family background.

But he said not one of them, when they became interested in that sport, ever

became again in trouble. Because they had something to take pride in, something

to do, something they could work at and achieve. That's, I believe, what recreational

and cultural achievement can do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I

think that it's only fitting at this point that I throw in a

few remarks about our cabinet, because I think they deserve a

few remarks.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: I'll think that over.

I think that it's wonderful the kind of response that the

backbenchers of the Government are getting from cabinet. They

are responsive to our moods, to our needs, to our requests. It

was only a few minutes ago that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr.

Dent) mentioned that, possibly, we should be digging a tunnel

from the lower mainland to Prince Rupert for rapid transit

purposes.

AN HON. MEMBER: To Terrace.

MR. LEA: To Terrace? Oh, I thought it was Prince Rupert.

Anyway, I'd like to point out how quickly the cabinet acts.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)

immediately went out and phoned the Mayor of Prince Rupert and

said, "Mayor," he said, "we're building a tunnel. We're

digging a tunnel between Victoria and Prince Rupert."

The mayor said, "You can't build a tunnel between Victoria

and Prince Rupert."

He said, "Okay boys," he said, "fill 'er in."

(Laughter).

I'd like to mention one or two points about the budget

speech — or the budget, period. There are one or two points

that I think I should mention I'm not too pleased with as a

backbencher. I also would like to see a more realistic budget

in terms of how much money we're going to get in and how much

money we're going to spend. Although, I think that it's

possibly a little too early in our political career as the

Government in this province to go too far away from what has

been practised and what has been found to be at least

acceptable.

But one or two things make me ponder — for instance some of

the criticism coming from the

[ Page 416 ]

Opposition parties, Mr. Speaker, especially from the Social

Credit — or is it the Socialist Credit Party? Because it seems

that the only criticism they really have about the budget is

that it isn't socialist enough. That makes me ponder.

They seem to be in accord with the figures but they can't

quite come around to the approach that the Minister of Finance

is taking. He's saying, "well, we're going to be a little more

honest this time: we're not only going to say what we are

bringing in, we're going to say what we owe." It's probably

news to many of the people over there in the Social Credit

party, because I believe the former Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Bennett) didn't tell the people of British Columbia, I

don't think he told his cabinet or his back-benchers where we

were financially. I believe it is a surprise to you but try to

bear up.

Now, the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) made a

few points that I would like to comment on. He mentioned the

kind of budget that was created by us and the kind of budget

that was created over the years by the former Minister of

Finance, by their government. I would like to re-emphasize what

the Premier said when he was making his budget announcement — that it isn't one political party or another who makes the

budget, it's the people in this province — and I quite agree

with the Premier. We don't have very much to do with it. All we

do is spend the money that is made by the people.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) threw in

an aside the other day when the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) was speaking and I think it's worth repeating so that

everyone hears it. He agrees. Nobody else does — except me.

(Laughter).

We are always hearing from the Opposition, "a fair return on

your investment." What is a fair profit? Mr. Speaker, nobody

seems to be able to come up with the answer to that question.

Not even the so called "free enterprise" group — because there

is no such thing. You can't say what is a fair profit — there's

no such figure. What is it? Who knows? The Hon. Member for

Vancouver Centre, I thought very appropriately said, "when you

can show to us what an unwarranted increase in wages is, we'll

show you what a fair profit is." And it's that simple.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Twenty per cent for MLA's?

MR. LEA: Is that fair?

MR. WALLACE: No. It's unwarranted.

MR. LEA: Don't take it.

Now, I believe that the former Premier would be not too

proud of the way his people have been acting

I met the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

in the hall and he said, "you brought in a Social Credit

budget." Then they turn around and criticize it.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): We haven't even

spoken yet.

MR. LEA: That was in the hall. That was in the hall.

MR. CHABOT: Do you look through wastepaper baskets too?

MR. LEA: Yes, and you should be ashamed. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEA: Yes, Jim leaves everything around.

Mr. Speaker, many things get around in this House it's by

the underground telegraph system — and I heard that there has

been another cablegram sent from that person who is sailing the

high seas. According to the grapevine he is very pleased with

the budget. In fact he only had one sentence to put in his

cablegram and that was, "Have budget, will travel." So I don't

know when we'll see him. (Laughter).

Now, the Liberal Party's criticism, if it can be ca