1975 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

343 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Correction to Hansard of Tuesday, March 4, 1975.

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Casa Loma purchase. Mr. Bennett —

Public health hazards related to CUPE strike. Mr. Wallace — 344

Teenaged drinking. Hon. Mr. Macdonald answers — 344

Casa Loma purchase. Mr. Chabot — 344

Date of MacDougall document. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 344

ICBC policy cancellations. Hon. Mr. Strachan answers — 345

Filing of Bremer documents. Mr. Gardom — 346

Dunhill purchasing procedures. Mr. Phillips — 346

Budget debate (continued)

Privilege

Accuracy of facts in question period. Hon. Mr. Lauk —

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to join with me in welcoming a large group

of people here today from the Home and School Federation of

British Columbia. I want to particularly express my thanks to

the group I met today in the museum auditorium for the very

beautiful flowers they presented to me, and I particularly want

to thank them for the very positive and constructive discussion

which took place.

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

today we have 40 students from John Oliver Secondary School.

John Oliver was a very prominent Liberal. He was

extraordinary; they used to call him Honest John Oliver, so

that's something for the Liberal Party. They are accompanied by

their teachers, Mr. John Jordan and Mrs. Susan Taylor.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker. A matter was raised yesterday during my absence

from the House on departmental business. I would like a chance

to respond to the matter raised, but I would like to bring this

up tomorrow when I've had a chance to fully review all of the

charges levelled.

MR. SPEAKER: I would say to Hon. Members that I would not

proceed any further on any matter between two Members without

first hearing from both of them on any question which relates

to the subject of privilege.

I think it would be wise at this time for the Hon. Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to publicly correct the

record to the House as to his reference in his remarks

yesterday where he stated: "On February 28, following a series

of questions by myself...." As you know, February 28 was not a question period day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a note

here to do just that. I would like to have the correction to

335-1 of Hansard of yesterday. I inadvertently stated

the 28th. I should have said the 25th, as I corrected on the

copy I gave to you shortly after.

MR. SPEAKER: But it will stay the way it is in

Hansard . It will have to be shown as an erratum.

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. The error certainly was mine.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure there was not any attempt to

deliberately mislead the House. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The error, sir, was entirely mine. I

referred you to it, I believe, immediately afterward and it was

my intention at the beginning of today's proceedings to point

out the error that I made to the House yesterday. Accuracy in

this whole affair, Mr. Speaker, is tremendously important.

MR. SPEAKER: I can see that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to table

a document? This is the memorandum of agreement between Casa

Loma Motel Ltd. and Her Majesty the Queen in right of the

Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

CASA LOMA PURCHASE

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister

of Housing. I asked the Minister a question the other day which

he took as notice. I will ask it again.

Can the Minister inform the House if the Department of Urban

Affairs in Ottawa has indicated that it will withhold federal

funds which form the bulk of the financing for the Casa Loma

project until certain questions with respect to the purchase

agreement and zoning of the property have been answered?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, no such letter or notice has

come across my desk.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What steps has

the Minister taken to ensure that the directors of Casa Loma

will be in a financial position to return the $577,000 received

by them from Dunhill Development on behalf of the people of

British Columbia as a down payment in the event that the

project or the financing for the project does not go ahead?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will

be able to ascertain the answer to that information in the

document I have just tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say, also, that it seems like

[ Page 344 ]

a hypothetical question at the moment and therefore would

not be proper in question period.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Not at all!

MR. SPEAKER: Does it not appear to be a hypothetical

question?

MR. PHILLIPS: Not at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I thought he said "if."

PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS

RELATED TO CUPE STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Minister of Health a question regarding the Victoria

situation with the accumulating piles of garbage and the fact

that there is — I know it is unavoidable — inadequate sampling

of water supplies and inadequate inspection of food

establishments and inadequate supervision of municipal sewage

disposal systems. I wonder how often the Minister is receiving

reports from the department of public health as to the actual

degree of hazard to public health which now exists in the

greater Victoria area.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have

spoken about this subject to departmental officials and have

been led to believe at this point that there is no extreme

hazard. Naturally it is an uncomfortable situation, and one

would wonder what to do about it. In any event, so far nothing

has come across my desk, or come to my attention, that would

lead me to act in any way.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Does

the Minister have any contingency plan — to deal with the fact

that there is an ever-increasing possibility of a serious

outbreak of disease such as food poisoning, and does the

Minister have some personnel available? Should this happen it

would happen suddenly and rather frighteningly. Does the

Minister have some provision to deal with that?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't really think that

there is that much of a hazard, particularly of food poisoning,

that exists presently. But we do have a large branch with a lot

of personnel that are available all over the province, and

naturally people can be moved to do work from the standpoint of

public safety.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Attorney-General wish to answer a

question?

TEENAGED DRINKING

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay drew to my attention a situation in

the Nanaimo area where young people were drinking beer, or were

alleged to have been in beer parlours. It is a matter of

concern to the government, and in terms of the revisions of the

Government Liquor Act that will shortly be brought into this

House, that concern will be expressed as we look at the

penalties, which may not be adequate at the present time, as we

look at the responsibility of the owners or hotel keepers, and

as we took at the responsibility of the bartenders.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask just a quick supplementary, Mr.

Speaker? The statistics available in a national magazine show

that the number of drinkers in high schools has quadrupled and

that the number of teenagers killed in auto accidents has more

than doubled since the age limit for drinking was reduced. In

the provisions that you are discussing, will there be any

thought to putting the age limit backup to 21?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have nothing to say about that at the

present time.

CASA LOMA PURCHASE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Housing regarding Casa Loma. Could he advise

the House whether Casa Loma was purchased subject to rezoning

being approved?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can find

answers to those questions in the documents which I have just

filed.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same

subject, a supplementary to the Minister of Housing. In view of

the failure of the rezoning of the Casa Loma property by

Burnaby council, will the Minister overrule Burnaby council

with respect to the zoning of this property?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that question has already

been answered.

DATE OF MACDOUGALL DOCUMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. Yesterday I asked a question which apparently

the Minister did not completely hear. I would like to ask again

today whether the Minister would confirm that the document

which he tabled in the House on February

[ Page 345 ]

21 was a copy of a document which he received from Professor

MacDougall of Dalhousie University somewhat over a year

ago.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I think there have been two documents filed with the House; one was the copy.

The one most recently filed with the House is the one that I received from Professor

MacDougall. We have no stamp dates on the material. The material was simply

filed in my office and was supplementary material. I might say that that happens

in many instances. Certainly all the material received in my office doesn't

reach my desk; otherwise it would be buried in paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, through you, to the

Minister. May I ask, however, whether the document which did

come from Professor MacDougall came to him or to his office

with the report of Professor MacDougall, which in its turn was

sent to the Minister's office approximately a year ago?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't have an answer to that

question.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Continuing with

reference to this MacDougall report which was paid for by

public funds, and which the Minister refuses to file in this

House, could he at least confirm statements by Mr. MacDougall...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Could he confirm statements by Mr. MacDougall

that that report refers to the so-called secret Hydro committee

and its work in the body of the report? Could he confirm

that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly it never registered with me at

the time of scanning the large report prepared by Professor

MacDougall. I should point out that the report which we did

finance, and which we requested, is about an inch or more

thick. So it's a typical, lengthy, legal academic document.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, if the Members of this House think

that the questions of future strategy in relation to a very

poor treaty should be made public, then they don't understand

what strategy is about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: On another supplementary, could the Minister

confirm that Mr. MacDougall was given access to "secret"

documents of B.C. Hydro and possibly of other Crown

agencies?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I presume the Hon. Member has read

the statements in the press attributed to Dr. MacDougall in

which he indicated these were locked banks of files. He's

indicated that he was advised by personnel in B.C. Hydro that

such data did in fact not exist, that there were no files on a

cost reallocation committee, and that it was in fact by private

investigation by himself, once he had keys to the files, that

he found such a committee in fact did exist.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister whether any

employee of B.C. Hydro or any government civil servant was

assigned to examine any of those files in that locked bank, as

was Professor MacDougall?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't really appreciate the intent or

the full question. Maybe you could elaborate on it further.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Could I ask the

Minister whether or not any civil servants were assigned to go

over the work of Professor MacDougall or, indeed, assigned to

look into that bank of secret or confidential files which were

locked up, apparently, and kept out of the normal circulation

of B.C. Hydro?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly Professor MacDougall's report

has been made available to some senior personnel and has been

reviewed by them, so that has been reviewed by some senior

people in B.C. Hydro. We have subsequently reviewed some files

subsequent to interest in the Legislature.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's reply is not

exactly specific on the question of whether or not one or more

employees of B.C. Hydro or civil servants actually were engaged

in looking through these files, either with the object of

discovering cost and reallocation or any other matter. Was

there any group formed since this government took over to look

through these files?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have only reviewed those files

subsequent to the CBC programme — rather, in fact, subsequent to

the interest expressed here in the Legislature.

ICBC POLICY CANCELLATIONS

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport

[ Page 346 ]

and Communications): Yesterday

the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked me some questions with regard

to ICBC. I am informed by ICBC that ICBC has not cancelled any tenants' package

policies because of an insured person being unmarried and under the age of 30.

I am informed that ICBC has never cancelled insurance of any person who is unemployed.

I am informed that ICBC has never cancelled the insurance policy of anyone who

is unmarried and living common-law.

FILING OF BREMER DOCUMENTS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Education. Throughout last year I asked the Hon. Minister a

number of questions as to whether she is willing to file the

John Bremer contract and settlement documents. Inevitably, the

answer was that the Minister was taking the question at notice.

I would like to ask the Hon. Minister if she feels she has now

had enough notice and is prepared to file the document.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The question probably isn't proper under the

rules.

MR,. GARDOM: I'm asking if she's prepared to file Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You have already asked that question and you

can't continually repeat it.

MR. GARDOM: Last year! I haven't asked her this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much. Is she prepared to file the

John Bremer contract and settlement documents? Yes or no?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is

aware that this particular thing he is discussing — pardon me,

the particular person he is discussing....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That was not an intentional slip. I am

sorry for it.

I want to point out that, as you know, John Bremer is now

taking action through the courts. I believe it should not be

necessary for a discussion and I shouldn't be discussing that

question in the House right now.

MR. GARDOM: I didn't ask the Hon. Minister to discuss

anything. I asked if she is prepared to file the documents. Yes

or no?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Point of

order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to interrupt the

proceedings at this point on the question of a point of order

with respect to two questions asked in this recent session by

the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). In both cases, he

stated that what were purported to be facts were found not to

be facts. You have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the Members who

answer questions purporting to be based on evidence are to be

held responsible for that evidence that they present to this

House. On two occasions he has been proven not to have anything

behind those questions.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a rule of the House, but I point out

that the proper place to deal with it is outside of question

period.

DUNHILL PURCHASING PROCEDURES

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct a question to the Hon.

Minister of Housing. Will the Minister advise the House if

there is any procedure used by Dunhill Development Corp. when

purchasing partly developed housing units to ensure that all

the work charged against the units was actually done on that

particular project?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as

notice.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the

other day I was talking to a group of high school students who

had just left a sitting of the Legislature. They asked me two

questions. One of the first questions was: "Mrs. Dailly, why

are those people on the floor of the House all jumping up and

down for the first 20 minutes?" I explained to them, of course,

as best I could, the purpose of question period and also

pointed out to them that, unfortunately, when I was in

opposition I never had the opportunity for that exercise. I

think it is quite necessary to point out to high school

students the importance of a question period.

The other question which was asked was: "Mrs.

[ Page 347 ]

Dailly, what do you think the purpose of education is?" Of

course that is a question which I'm sure everybody, right

across the world for years, has debated and questioned. I think

all we can each do is do our own thinking on it and develop

what we consider is our philosophy. I simply answered them:

"I think we have a threefold purpose when we are talking

about the goals of education. One is we must give the student

of our province the skills that he or she needs to be

successful in the working world."

I think that is essential. I know that the Member for Oak

Bay is concerned about that.

"Secondly, we must create the right environment through

teachers and administrators in every school, with the

cooperation of their parents, which will provide every student

in our province with the knowledge and understanding necessary

for those students to become responsible citizens in a

democratic society."

I have always felt very strongly that if you want to produce

students who are responsible and humane, then the school system

itself must be humanized.

"Thirdly, of course, and very importantly, we must help each

student to realize his or her own unique potential as a person

and to fulfil that potential."

So it is not that difficult, I think, for us to agree on the

goals of education, but it is in attempting to formulate the

programmes and the structures to meet these goals that we face

controversy. This controversy is not unique to British

Columbia, but right now is raging throughout Canada, throughout

the United States, and throughout many other parts of the world

where schools are always under public scrutiny.

We all know that there are thousands of different opinions

on how best to achieve these goals in education. If a Minister

of Education sat back and made no attempt to analyse the

programmes and the structures of the educational system to

ensure that the millions of dollars spent on education are

being spent for the benefit of those students, that Minister,

whoever it might be, would face and should face criticism.

On the other hand, when a Minister does decide to move and

make changes, as I have done in our education system during the

last two and a half years, criticism is still levelled by those

in our society who do not agree with the changes which were

made. Therefore, in education, whether one takes action or

doesn't take action, the subject of education will always be an

area of controversy.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Hear, hear!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I have attempted to structure certain vehicles to

assist me in developing new policies in education. Now I must be honest with

the House: some of these vehicles have succeeded and some of them have failed.

Some of these structures have been dropped when, in the considered opinion of

myself and my department, trends were apparent which we considered wasteful,

counterproductive or were against the best interests of the students in our

classrooms. It is the nature of politics that the failures in our inquiries

have been headlined in the media,

whereas our positive achievements during the

last two years have been literally ignored, despite the fact that we have issued

numerous press statements — which is our job — to inform the public of what

positive things are taking place.

Now today I want to take the opportunity with the House to

assure them that education in this province is changing and is

progressing along well-defined lines. I certainly can

understand the confusion of some of the Members of this House

and the public when all they read in the papers are headlines

on areas that are completely negative and certainly not doing

justice to the work that is being carried on in the schools in

this province.

Now through policies initiated by my department, in

cooperation with school trustees, teachers and community

groups, some very exciting and positive things have taken place

in the classrooms of our province and will continue to take

place as needs are established and the means are found to

satisfy these needs. I always find it frankly alarming when

Members of the opposition stand up to make generalized

statements such as: "Everything is in chaos and confusion out

there." I ask them to go and visit the classrooms and tell me

if every classroom you visit in this province seems to be in

utter chaos. And I don't think, on travelling around this

province, that you could vindicate that generalization. In

fact, I know you could not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just your department.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Somebody said: Just my department. I'm not

going to elaborate. If my department were in utter chaos, how

would this leadership be being generated to produce this

orderly change we see out in the system?

I want to make it clear that I've operated at all times on

the premise that there are certain basic responsibilities in

education policy that have to be left to the Department of

Education, and there are certain areas of education policy

which we should leave to the local agencies in education. It's

in this framework that I wish to elaborate today to you on what

is going on in education in this province.

First of all, there is the area of functional literacy, an

area which has received much publicity of late, and, I believe,

deserves to. The Member for Oak Bay

[ Page 348 ]

(Mr. Wallace) suggested that a year ago he brought this to

our attention and he sees nothing happening. I want to assure

the Member and others that lots is happening in this area. I am

pleased to inform the House that all the present curricula

related to the language art skills in this province — reading,

writing, spelling — are being looked at by my department to

ensure that there is no neglect of the basic-skill teaching in

any curriculum in this province.

There is no question about it that during the '60s there

were some major changes in the language arts curriculum, some

good changes, but, unfortunately, the stress on verbal

communication and creativity — which is excellent and which we

must maintain — somehow swung completely over, and we have lost

some of the basic-skill teaching. That is why my department is

looking at every curriculum, from kindergarten right through,

with a re-examination to ensure that those basic skills are

going to be taught. I want to say here now that we shouldn't

panic on this, because we do have many teachers in this

province who are using the present curricula to teach the basic

skills, but we must ensure that it's being done by all.

Functional literacy is the goal, but not the only goal, as I

said before. We must always continue to go beyond minimum

levels and move also into the areas of creativity and

scholarship.

Now because of the public concern, which I share, I have

mentioned one thing which we are doing: evaluation of the

curriculum.

Secondly, I have asked to have on my desk by October I a

complete, comprehensive mechanism for the evaluation, on a

provincial basis, of the present standing of B.C. school

students in the basic skills, because we here must generalize

talk from the universities and elsewhere, that the students,

today, are so far behind what they were 10, 20 years ago. We

accept the fact that there are, perhaps, areas there we must

move on, and we're moving on them. But let's, at the same time,

have some good, solid data so that when we continue to move, we

move on a rational, statistical background.

The universities I've met with, the deans of education of

the different universities, and cooperatively with trustees

and teachers...we are working together on this, because we

all share a responsibility in this challenge.

Now, in order to ensure the teacher education, which is

another area in which the public, I think, today has expressed

concern, in order to ensure that it receives the attention it

warrants, we have set up a joint board for teacher education

which has been expanded this year, and is in the process of

becoming a very strong and vital force in this province.

It's composed of the deans of education of the three universities, two representatives

of the B.C. Teachers Federation, two from the trustees, three senior officers

of the department and two citizens from the home and school community, native

Indian, and union representatives. We have a broad spectrum, there, on this

teacher education committee — the joint board of teacher education.

This board has been working very hard. It's a very

perceptive board, and it's already responding to requests to

give priority to developing the teachers who have the ability

to teach basic-skill subjects at all levels. The board is also

working in the area of analyzing programmes in our teacher

training institutions, related to the ability of all teachers

when they enter the classroom to be able to recognize children

who have learning disabilities, and to develop techniques of

good classroom control.

I was rather shocked to find out that in some of these areas

of classroom control the teaching of reading has been, frankly,

neglected, and not given enough focus in the faculties of

education. I am not condemning all the faculties of education

because, I believe, in the '60s there was a trend away from

this and they were responding to it.

But I think that the faculties of education themselves,

today, are now moving to ensure that the teachers who take up a

particular area of primary teaching are certainly equipped with

the basic skills on how to teach children to read.

The other point, of course, is vital and it is one which the

parents of children with learning disabilities are very

concerned about. It is ensuring that every teacher who comes

out — and I want to repeat — at least has the ability to

recognize the child who has a learning disability. The

assurance that every child will leave school with, at least,

functional literacy and that children with special learning

disabilities will be accepted and understood and taught; that

teacher education should be geared to needs, and that classroom

citizenship must appear and be a vital part of the learning

process — these are four areas in which the most general

concern of the public has been expressed to me.

That is why we are moving in cooperation with those

involved in all those areas. There have been suggestions that

the department and the Minister do not listen to the public.

The major changes that have taken place are the result of

listening to the public.

I receive over 2,000 letters a month from concerned and

interested citizens. We also have parents' meetings,

teacher/parent meetings going on in the schools of British

Columbia, and I have reported to me, in my office, the results

of those meetings. We recently established a number of these

meetings with the cooperation of the boards and I'll be

pleased to publish the results of those meetings for all

Members of the Legislature.

They were looking at areas of classroom management,

discrimination, evaluation procedures. I think the Members of

the House would be most interested in what the public, and the

teachers, and

[ Page 349 ]

the students have to say in those areas.

Now, with the biggest budget of any department of

government, the question always comes up: all this money, and

what are we getting for it?

Well, I want to elaborate some of the things that the people

of British Columbia are getting, and the students. First of

all, smaller classes. British Columbia, now, has one of the

smallest pupil/teacher ratios in Canada. Because of the funds

injected by this government since it came into office, over

3,700 new teachers have been added to the public school

system.

The grants given to school boards this year should enable

boards to keep on staff.... And there's no question about this

and I informed them at the time they were drawing up their

budgets — all those new teachers who were hired last year must

be kept on staff, can be kept on staff, and the additional

services required to maintain these teachers in their proper

learning environment will be provided for through our financing

formula.

There seems to be a great deal of misinterpretation about

the budget. People have even suggested to me "you've cut the

budget." There is more money going into education naturally in

the Province of British Columbia today than ever before.

But when it comes to the reduction of the pupil/teacher

ratio, we have simply said that this does not seem a desirable

year to inject 2,000 more teachers into the school system when

school board budgets are coming in at well over 25 per cent and

higher just to maintain normal operating services with the

teachers they now have on staff.

So I have simply said that I don't consider it responsible

to ask the boards to inject 2,000 more teachers into the system

this year. This does not mean the government is not committed

to continue to see the reduction of the pupil/teacher ratio.

This will continue to be done, but it will be paced.

If you move into the classrooms of this province and compare

them to the size of those classrooms three years ago, before we

became government, you cannot help but note the appreciable

improvement in ratio. It certainly has shown a benefit, not

only to the teachers, but the primary purpose of this is what

is it doing for the students. Teachers have told me when I

visited them: "What a difference this makes to us to have a

class this size, now we can give far more individual

attention."

At the same time, I've thrown out the challenge to the BCTF

that they must continue to do their own professional

development with our encouragement and help in the whole area

of instructional skills. Because, I repeat again, the smaller

classes are not a panacea for the best education for all our

children, It must be combined with good instructional

skills.

Now over $90 million was approved by this government last year for classrooms,

laboratories, libraries and gymnasiums to meet expanded services. Next year,

it is estimated $110 million to $120 million will be approved for additional

capital construction projects for the coming year.

Unlike the former government, this government has not

imposed any freeze on classrooms, sites, libraries or

gymnasiums. I have to repeat, as I have done in the last two

years, if the former government had had enough foresight to

approve those sites when the school boards asked for them many

years ago, this government and the public would not be paying

the exorbitant prices they are today.

In addition, an examination is taking place now to see if

the Department of Education can assist the school boards by

speeding up the process from our end of approvals of new

schools. The money has been approved, but we find in many cases

that we haven't been able to keep up the pace of the actual

approvals from our end.

I found it interesting when one of the Members of the

opposition was questioning the great increase in the staffing

in the Department of Education. One area which has certainly

been increased is the whole area of administration where, when

I came into office, I found there were a half dozen people

charged with handling all the capital expense approvals for our

classrooms. It was impossible for those few personnel to get

around the province and do their job.

That is one area which has been beefed up and I know the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), whose own school board has

been criticizing the slowness, would certainly have to agree

with me that if a lack of personnel in our department has

impeded this, we have to add to that personnel.

One of the advances which we have made, and of which we, of

course, are very proud, is in the realm of early childhood

education. I won't go through the kindergarten, I repeated this

for years and in opposition I fought for them. I'm glad to say

that this year we now have every child in this province

serviced by some form of kindergarten programme. Every child.

There are transportation difficulties, et cetera, in some of

the northern areas, but we have encouraged the boards through

innovative ways to provide kindergarten services.

Now what's the value of this, of course? I don't want to go

into a big discussion on the value of kindergartens; I think we

all appreciate their value. But one of the greatest values is

that now we can screen children at that kindergarten age who

may show potential learning difficulties. We already are

involved in over 50 per cent screening those kindergarten

children who can be diagnosed early enough to do something

about what will be potential learning problems. This whole

programme will continue to expand. If we do not catch these

children at those early years, they are the ones who become

[ Page 350 ]

the future educational accidents.

Now we do have many children with special needs in this

province, and when I go on open-lines and talk to Home and

School groups and parents, I find the majority of questions now

are: "What about the child who does have special learning

problems?" Now on their behalf over $20 million was expended

last year by the department for special services to these

children, and our new budget will allow for continued

expenditure in this area.

But there's one thing that does concern me, that's a

tremendous amount of money and I want to continually have a

critical analysis on how that money's being spent and if it is

being spent in the best way possible for the child who has

learning disabilities. This constant analysis of our special

supportive programmes is going on in our department.

Yesterday in the House we heard an excellent speech from the

Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) who pointed out the

tremendous increase in the immigrant student population in

Vancouver city schools, and the problems resulting from that

influx. As stated by the Hon. Member yesterday, 1,860

school system because they have been recent immigrants.

The Hon. Member made an appeal to me, as Minister of

Education, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to

give special consideration to this critical problem. I wish to

assure the Hon. Member and the other Members of the House that

we are going to take two major steps to help in this area.

First of all, I have asked my Deputy, Mr. Fleming, to visit

the Vancouver school board on Friday and, in reviewing their

budget, to discuss with them and make recommendations to me for

special financing to assist the Vancouver school board in this

very critical problem of the number of immigrant children who

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: However, the second step which I am taking

in this direction, as a member and vice-chairperson of the

Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, will be to

recommend to the Council of Ministers of Education that we make

special representation to the federal Ministers involved. After

all, this is the result of federal immigration policy and we

feel that the federal government has a responsibility to assist

these students financially.

I am quite sure the BNA Act does not hold back on here. I know in preliminary

discussions with some of the federal Ministers that I think we can come to some

arrangement. But I intend to make this a special responsibility of mine when

we return to our next meeting of the council Ministers.

The problem of these children with special needs is

supported by many enthusiastic and vitally concerned groups.

Their needs are not confined to Education but cut across the

areas of Health, Human Resources, Attorney-General and, in the

broadest sense, they involve most government departments. I

certainly want to pay tribute to the cooperation of the other

Ministers of government who have established what we call a

human services committee where we meet together to talk about

joint problems and how we can best ensure that children with

special needs are taken care of through the cooperation of all

our jurisdictions.

Last summer the Department of Education, in cooperation

with the BCTF, sponsored workshops at Jericho Hill School to

train teachers and to assist parents in dealing with children

who have reading and language disabilities, poor physical

co-ordination, behavioural problems and failure complexes, all

of which can contribute to a student's lack of progress in

school. The success of Jericho '74 has encouraged our

department to continue financial support for a similar expanded

workshop this summer. I want to encourage the teachers of the

province to attend that workshop.

I was pleased last fall to receive the report of inquiry

into the Jericho Hill School from Professor Ben Chud. Instead

of laying that report on the shelf, as I understand seven

former reports on the school were just left on the shelf by the

former government and others, we have opened up that report to

the public and we are acting on it.

In the last two months my department has had six meetings

with parents, teachers and representatives of organizations for

the deaf and blind to determine the membership and composition

of two local boards which will be set up by April 1. These

boards — one for deaf children and one for the blind — will

advise on the administration and programming of the Jericho

Hill School so that there is parent input.

We have employed Professor Ben Chud as a consultant to the

department to assist in every step of the implementation of the

parts of his report which the government agrees to implement.

He is also assisting Frances Fleming in supportive services to

look into the whole area of setting up a provincial advisory

board for children with special learning disabilities.

I have also established a Minister's committee made up of

native Indians to advise me on the best utilization of

expenditures for native Indian education. The department last

year financed home-school co-coordinators for native Indian

children and will continue to do so. We have also financed a

special programme at one of our universities, and there is also

one in the interior, the college, to

[ Page 351 ]

encourage training of native Indian teachers. The future of

the education of native Indian children is being directed by

knowledgeable and involved people.

Also, as the House knows, the first native Indian school

district, I believe in Canada, the Nishga school district,

located in the Nass River valley, is well underway to its full

establishment. The native Indians of that district have been

working step by step with departmental officials to bring this

district into being.

Now, research and development. We have already been

questioned on the large sums of money placed under the research

and development vote, and I understand. If I were in the

opposition, I would be asking the same questions. There seems

to be a misunderstanding about the use of this money. This

money was voted by Treasury Board to cover all aspects of

research and development in every division of the department,

because, after all, research has to be covered through the

whole spectrum of the department.

The inference which has been made, that it was intended —

that block vote — for the sole use of one division, is not true

and is misleading.

Now let me give you examples of some of the projects funded

last year under this vote so you can have some idea of what

research and development funding is all about. An environmental

education programme to provide 400 public school teachers with

leadership training and safety practices in outdoor

environmental education was financed with a grant of $126,800.

This was so that teachers could attend this workshop, paid by

the Department, and return to their own districts to encourage

environmental education in their own area.

A sum of $25,000 was provided. I'm not going to go through

the whole vote, because you can ask me in detail during

estimates. I just want to highlight some of them to give you a

picture of what is going on in this area under the so-called

establishment of my department. A sum of $25,000 was provided

for the B.C. Native Indians language project and $22,800 to the

B.C. Native Indian Teachers Association. It is our objective to

give financial support to the development of native Indian

language textbooks. We already have in this province one of the

first native Indian dictionaries, produced to promote not only

the native Indian languages in our province but also the

history and the culture of the native people.

The vote also provided funds for two non-departmental

research agencies: the ERIBC received $175,000 and LEARN, the

Laboratory for Educational Advancement of Resources and Needs,

$25,000.

In addition, a large number of important local pilot projects, either initiated

by local school boards or developed in cooperation with local boards and the

community, were financed from this vote. Among these, one of the most important,

in my opinion, was the financing by the department, the assistance given, to

the Cariboo- Chilcotin school district in the area of rural secondary education.

The purpose of this local project was to provide an extension of the existing

rural education programmes to include grades 8 to 10. If successful, of course,

it means that these students will then be ready to enter senior secondary programmes

without having had to leave their own rural home environment at that critical,

sensitive, junior secondary age. The parents in that area have asked for this,

and we are very pleased that we have given and been in the position to give

the money to assist them in this project.

This unique plan, which will save students as much as 100

miles daily in bus travel to junior high schools, is expected

to greatly reduce the dropout rate. The success of this pilot

project, then, could lead to a major provincial policy in this

direction.

Another very exciting community project assisted financially

by our Department is the Pemberton Farm project in the Squamish

School District. The whole basis of this programme is to get

young people back to the farm, working on the farm and actually

appreciating again a farm setting — the work, the animals — and

appreciating the work that has to be done on our farms in this

province. We are hoping to expand these farm programmes across

the province.

But I give full credit to the departmental officials in my

department — Mr. Phillipson, who came to me one day and said:

"This looks like a good programme, Mrs. Dailly, and I hope that

we will be able to support it financially." I'm delighted to

see the progress which this farm programme has taken.

In the Queen Charlottes School District, the department

provided funds for a study of possible solutions of several

educational problems unique to the islands. Another local

project by the department was a learning-assistance programme

in Burnaby.

Time doesn't permit me to go through many other specifically

locally designed projects which have been funded through the

research and development vote. We have increased the vote this

year because the demands for help are in the thousands from

groups all over this province. I think that this is an area

which was sadly neglected by the former government. If we want

to develop provincial policy based on the needs of the

community and the wishes of the community, we must provide

funds to finance local projects to show us if this is the right

way to go.

The purpose, therefore, of increasing that vote was to give

more assistance generally in this area of research and

development.

We are attempting through this system to prove the viability

and benefits of projects in controlled experiments throughout

the system that may prove a decade later to have been

counter-productive. We want to ensure that we do not involve

ourselves in getting carried away with a project that could

[ Page 352 ]

eventually be counter-productive. That's why it's necessary

to have solid research in analyzing them. We want no more

situations like those of the '60s where new systems were

adopted without prior testing and which resulted in subsequent

charges of illiteracy which we are hearing today.

The majority of the projects I have outlined to you are the

result of the dedication and the leadership given to me by

members of my department and departmental field staff.

I wish to say now very clearly in this House that the

blanket condemnation which has been levelled by a small

minority group against these people in my department, has been

insulting, unjust and untrue. Surely the participation by my

departmental staff into the worthwhile project I have just

outlined puts the lie to these accusations. Educational change

and reform are proceeding in this province in an orderly,

rational manner. Educational reform is, and always will be, one

of the most sensitive areas in any government, but it can only

succeed in an atmosphere which is non-threatening and involves

all those who are to be affected by that change. No employee

involved in educational reform in my department can ever assume

that he, she or they, because of their position in research and

development, has the right to proceed autonomously according to

their own predetermined concept of educational change.

Further, I must reserve at all times the right, in

consultation with my departmental staff, to determine as

Minister in which directions change will take place, basing my

decisions at all times on input from the public. The

operational procedures for these changes must also be

maintained under my direction and that of my departmental

staff. The public, I am sure, will agree with me that all

employees of my department must produce more than paper talk

and rhetoric.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): So must the Minister.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The public wants action. Someone said: "So

must the Minister." I accept that, and I think that I have

outlined to you that in the last two and a half years there has

been action in this province.

I am sure that the public also appreciates the fact that it

is the responsibility and the right of the Minister of Deputy

of any government department to evaluate the effectiveness of

their employees under their supervision. If, in their judgment,

any probationary employee is not performing effectively, then

appropriate action should be taken.

Now the problem of the five research officers released last week is related

to their performance as public servants and their action in that role. I am

not going to resort to — nor will I, or any of my departmental officials resort

to — or be sucked into public debate on complaints by certain individuals formerly

on staff. These complaints can be dealt with through a number of processes,

of which the group involved is fully aware. Whatever rights they have, they

should be given every opportunity to pursue them, and their complaints — should

be dealt with in that proper manner.

The cause of education in this province is not served well,

in any positive way, by the airing of individual complaints in

public. As I have said, appropriate processes exist for dealing

with those issues.

I wish to assure the public of British Columbia that we have

had in our own department a full study and investigation of

this question and that 1, and the government, are fully aware

of the facts surrounding the situation, and that the recent

terminations were made with my full approval.

Now turning again to educational advancement, one of the

most exciting programmes which it has been given me to have the

opportunity to initiate is the work-study programme. Now for 10

years or more we have had legislation on our books which

allowed school boards to make special provisions for those over

15 years of age who want to attend school part-time and work

part-time. The work and schooling were unrelated, however, and

only complemented each other by accident. This year we've

changed legislation and regulations to allow students to take

advantage of the new strategy.

I notice the warning light is on and unfortunately I cannot

go into details on the work-study programme, but I will be

pleased to do so during the estimates. This is giving an

opportunity for the potential drop out to get out in the work

field and actually work and have the opportunity to return to

school.

There is much I want to say on higher education, and I can

just briefly, judging by the time, move very quickly into that

and point out to you that the community colleges in our

province are now becoming internationally known. The excellent — we call it recurrent — education: our citizens are making

great use of it. The former government started a regional

college concept. But since we came into the government we have

injected massive sums of money into capital expenditures so

that these colleges could be improved — the core campuses. We

are also moving into innovative ways of delivering service

which may not require as much massive capital expenditure.

We intend, as a government, to cover all of the province. We

do not intend to say, as the former government did: "Let's have

a plebiscite; let's have a referendum. If the people want it,

you can have it."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Let's have a task force.

[ Page

353 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We are moving. Our task force has actually

produced one college, and you will see, Mr. Member, there will

be more produced. When the government is committed to

something, Mr. Member, they act on it; they don't just hurry

and table it as your government did in the past.

In the whole area of universities, I would like to point out

here that we have challenged the universities to move into

innovative programmes. They accepted that challenge. I won't go

into the details on that now. I also want to point out that as

far as financing goes, which we will have much more time to

discuss in the estimates, the per capita cost provided by the

Province of British Columbia to the universities in this

province is one of the highest in Canada. At the same time, we

want to point out that this government believes that no one —

yes, no one — should be prevented from attending institutions of

higher learning because of finances, with the result that we

now have one of the best financial aid programmes in the

provinces of Canada.

I realize my time is up. I just want to assure the public of

British Columbia....

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Turn it off. Turn it off.

MR. SPEAKER: Only with leave of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, right. I wanted to report on the fact

that even though we believe in challenging the universities in

innovative areas, we also respect the fact that universities

must be given assistance for research and in their professional

faculty development. Since we have come into office a number of

new faculties have been encouraged and are moving in the

different universities of this province. We brought in a BCIT

Act which now is operating under a board of governors. The BCIT

continues to be one of our most excellent technical institutes

in this province. Last spring 87 per cent of the graduates

obtained jobs immediately upon graduation. As far as I can

determine, the remainder were employed by the fall.

We have restructured the Department of Education. We have increased within

that department the division of communications, which was sadly lacking under

the former government. This division now, and the money, if you will look at

the vote, that is allotted to the BCIT media centre, means that this government

and this department are serious about moving into the whole area of educational

television, audio/visual and videotape equipment, so that the students of this

province can have use of these materials. When I first came in, I was shocked

that the budget given in that area did not enable the schools to have any adequate

resource to pick up videotape programming particularly.

I mentioned the whole area of the increased sums for

universities, the fact that they do have one of the highest per

capita grants — which we can continue discussing later.

Finally, I want to say that I am very pleased, particularly

as this is International Women's Year, that we have established

a provincial advisory committee on sex discrimination, which is

working very well and which will be moving out into the

province in the future to develop workshops on this very vital

area. This committee is working successfully with the

department.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I simply want to say that despite

the critics, despite the headlines which zero in on negative

aspects, the state of education in British Columbia is

good.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): It is indeed a pleasure to

take my place in this budget debate. I think that the Premier

and Minister of Finance is to be congratulated for bringing in

a budget that is designed for the people of this province.

Improvements in Health, Education and Human Resources all

continue to upgrade the services to our people. I would,

however, like to discuss some of the ways this budget will

affect my constituents. For example, this government has taken

the approach of rational road and highway improvement. In the

past the pattern seemed to be, in my riding, to put down some

blacktop just prior to an election. I am pleased to say that

the Minister and the department have changed that approach and

considered the long-term needs of the riding, while considering

the overall effects of new construction on the environment and

the long-term needs of the specific area. In my riding there is

a five-year plan for the upgrading of major roads. For the

first time, regional boards, municipalities and other

interested groups are asked for their views prior to major road

or highway relocation. I look forward to continued progress in

these areas.

I note with interest the increase in the budget to the

Department of Transport and Communications. A large part of my

riding relies entirely on the B.C. ferry service for passenger

and commercial communication.

There have been improvements in that service, Mr., Speaker,

such as increased scheduling and vessel reconstruction.

However, further improvements are required. For example, it is

my understanding that last year on Route 3 — Horseshoe Bay to

Langdale — there was a 34 per cent increase in traffic volume

over the previous year in that fast-growing area. The Minister

has recognized that problem and is doing something about it

with the construction of three

[ Page 354 ]

new vessels and the purchase of the Queen of Surrey. The

Hon. Minister of Finance spoke in Ocean Falls in his

presentation of the budget. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the

former government was prepared to let that town die — a major

community, serving the central coast, with schools, hospitals,

police protection, libraries and many other services? The

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said that he would

close Ocean Falls because it didn't make a profit. I would ask

that opposition to repeat that statement in Ocean Falls and see

what kind of reception they receive there. But just in case

they forget to tell the people what they said, I guess I'm

going to have to tell them, myself, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: By purchasing Ocean Falls, the Minister and

this government have preserved hundreds of jobs for our people,

and I understand that the corporation is even going to show a

profit for the last fiscal year. That is due to the hard work

and determination of the people in that community.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the people in my riding are

pleased with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources' (Hon. R.A. Williams) actions in recognizing the

difficulties of the small logging and sawmill operator. By

adjusting stumpage rates and increasing the chip price under

the wood products stabilization Act, the independents now have

a fighting chance for survival in this industry dominated by

large corporations.

There is a good reaction, as well, to the announced

programme of making Crown lots available to people for

home-building purposes.

While I am aware that not everything can be done at once, I

would ask that the Minister consider making small holdings of 5

or lo-acre plots of Crown land available for those who wish to

engage in agriculture for their personal needs.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are problems in the mining industry

in British Columbia, but this is a reflection of metal prices

on the world market and the economy throughout the whole

western world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: What are you reading?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All other parts of Canada are having the same

problem in the mining industry that we in British Columbia are

experiencing right now. However, I would like to suggest that

if the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) finds that any

mining corporation is perhaps cutting back in production or

capital spending for political reasons, then the Minister

should consider entering the mining field through a Crown

corporation.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Another area that I ask the government to

look at is aid to the water improvement districts in this

province. I am aware of at least 38 such districts in my

riding, and very nearly every one of them has a financial

problem in maintaining or upgrading their present services to

people. This assistance could be accomplished by

an Act similar

to the Sewerage Facilities Fund Act where the province picks up

75 per cent of the cost over 3 mills, or by amending perhaps

section 53 of the Water Act.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I could go on about our government

programmes, such as Mincome, Pharmacare, aid to recreation,

park acquisition, and the many other new and innovative

measures that have been introduced by this government; but I

will conclude by saying that never in the history of

Confederation has a government done so much for its people in

such a short period of time. Thank you.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I am glad to be in the

House and take

part in the budget debate. There have been

several general statements made about the budget and its

content. The Minister of Finance calls it a job-security

budget. The Members who have already addressed themselves to

the budget have called it an inflationary budget, and I'd like

to remind the government, Mr. Speaker, that if we have been

experiencing inflation in our province it was as a result of

last year's budget. This year's budget is not a catch-up

programme on last year's inflation. Since the budget has an

increase in expenditure of some 50 per cent, it sets a trend in

the thinking of the people of the province that may well lead

to inflation at least half of that figure.

Some others have called it an "iffy" budget. If the federal

government agrees with us, and if foreign markets agree with

us, then we will have certain revenues. If those revenues

accrue then we will share those revenues with other governments

if they will support our position while we are negotiating with

foreign markets for a price which could be realized if we can

gain the market. Some have called it an "iffy" budget.

I would like to say that it's likely a budget of shifting

priorities. The government has given clear indication of what

its No. I concerns are. While they were in opposition they

shouted long and loud. While they were campaigning for

re-election they shouted long and loud what their priorities

were. As we look at the budget today, as we will do in detailed

form a little later, it is clear that the priorities which were

cited are not the priorities of this budget, and so I say that

this is a budget of shifting priorities.

Some have said that it's an honest budget. I shouldn't say

some, I should say one has said that it is

[ Page 355 ]

an honest budget — honest in that it will be expending this

year's revenues this year, rather than expending a total equal

to last year's revenues this year, hoping that our revenues

will increase and produce a surplus.

One individual — I believe it was the Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — called it an honest budget. I

don't know. As you look at the budget itself and as you look at

the final figures in each of the categories, you notice a large

amount of money in each of the divisions called "salary

contingencies" which, when you add up the salary contingencies,

could well be deemed to be that surplus margin that the

government is providing for. Although, in the words of the

Second Member for Victoria, it looks like an honest budget, it

still is continuing on the safe side of budgeting in this item

called "salary contingencies."

I noticed a fun little thing in the budget. The Minister of

Finance, in reading the budget, was a little like a

one-year-old child in the arms of his mother. When you draw

attention to it, it very readily points the finger and says

"ga, ga." It directs attention at other than itself. In reading

the budget, I noticed two phrases very close together. When the

Minister was discussing inflationary problems and unemployment

problems in our province he said: "Oh, it's not really our

fault. Don't look at me. Look over there. It's the lack of

policy at the national level — that's one of the reasons. The

other one is we've inherited this from the previous

administration." I wonder when this government, now it's two

and a half years old in office, is going to learn to take

responsibility for its own actions and stop being like the

one-year-old child in the arms of its mother saying "ga, ga." I

wonder when.

Job security, the Minister of Finance calls it. When I

looked through the budget to find out where the job security

was, I thought that it was most aptly described in the

philosophy of this government in these words: "direct

assistance to people." The people on this side of the House

would never deny anyone assistance who is in need of

assistance, but to believe that we can offer job security

through direct assistance to people is to be misled, because

you have to look at the end from the beginning: if part of it

is good, then all of it is good. If direct assistance to people

means job security, then it would follow that if we could give

all of the people all of their assistance, then everyone would

be secure in their jobs. Yet it is futile to believe that we in

government could ever hope to have enough revenues, gain enough

revenues to offer job security to all of the people in this

province by direct assistance. It's asinine to think this.

Our responsibility in government is to generate enough confidence in ourselves.

We have to generate enough confidence in the private sector so that the private

sector will move by itself, hence generating jobs. That, Mr. Speaker, is job

security. I can't understand how this budget could be titled a job security

budget.

There's an area in the budget that I think is commendable.

The area is under agriculture.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You better take it

out.

MR. SCHROEDER: Perhaps the most welcome development in the

Agriculture department has been the income assurance plan — by

that I mean the most welcome by the farmers out there. It has

meant money in their pockets in this year. You can look on any

scale of incomes and you will see that farm income is up. It's

up proportionately to wages in other sectors, and I welcome it.

It is good.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): In a city riding?

MR. SCHROEDER: In a city riding, yes.

I went to some of the farmers to find out how they felt

about the income assurance plan. I was amazed that in the milk

industry alone there was a small percentage of holdouts, people

who are not involved in the income assurance plan for reasons

that could best be described by fear.

I asked them: "Why not? After all, the programme and funds

are there, You have to milk those cows anyway. Why don't you

get involved in the income assurance plan? At least you would

have a decent income for now."

They said: "Harve, a subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy."

It makes no difference whether you dress it up in an income

assurance plan or what form it takes; it is still a subsidy. A

subsidy is great when you are working from a surplus position

in government spending. But their worry is: what happens to the

source of funds if the government should run into a deficit

position?

Farmers are more cautious than most people. They know that

every day is not a bright day. As a result, they wonder about a

subsidy programme in the event that we should run into a

deficit position.

I notice that there was a revision in last year's budget to

the actual expenditures of some $10 million. This $10 million

undoubtedly represents the number of dollars by which the

income assurance budget was short. This is the number of

dollars that went into the agricultural sector as a subsidy

which was not anticipated at the outset when this income plan

was brought in.

I still think that a better way — whether the product be

milk or apples, whether it be turnips or tomatoes — is to let

the product bring its true cost of

[ Page 356 ]

production on the market. That way we do not get involved in

subsidies; we do not get involved in the administration of

subsidies. In addition to this, I think we need to have some

kind of control which can perhaps not be exercised at the

outset by this government, being a federal matter, but I think

we need to work in the direction of control on competing

imports to ensure that the market of our own products is

secure.

Municipal Affairs. In the Municipal Affairs area I went to

one of the mayors of my area and I said: "Mr. Mayor, how much

do you have to have in a per capita grant in order to balance

your budget this year?" The per capita grant last year was

established at $34.

The mayor said: "The breakdown point in our municipality is

$45 per capita."

He said the costs are rising, which is nothing new to any of

us. He said that unless they can be guaranteed that kind of

revenue, they are going to have to cut back on services or find

some other way to increase taxation.

But in any event, the concern of the mayor was this. He

said: "We are planning now for our budget for this next year.

Our budgets have to be complete shortly." He suggested that

they would have to have all their ducks in a row by the middle

of May. "Yet," he said, "how in the world can we plan

for our expenditure if we have no idea — not the foggiest

notion — what our incomes are going to be? As a matter of fact," they said, "we want to have an answer now."

They are worried about employees in other municipalities who

are asking for wage settlements as high as 46 per cent in one

area. They know that in their own area this could be and is a

probability. As a result, they need to know not only what their

source is going to be but they need to know in what amount that

source is going to come so that they can plan. This uncertainty

of one-third of a future settlement, this iffy thing that I was

talking about a few minutes ago, is not acceptable at all.

Another thing that I must decry is this use of friendly

persuasion to get municipalities to back the government's

position on export of natural gas. Now, whether the position be

right or wrong, the method is despicable. I think that better,

far better, would be to tie the grants to our municipalities to

the net provincial revenue growth rather than give them

one-third of something that will be settled in the future,

which could be one-third of nothing.

I have several areas that I want to cover and I am aware

that 40 minutes is the limit, so I must move quickly to

housing.

One of the priorities this government set is housing. As a

matter of fact, it's so much of a priority that we are going to

establish a Department of Housing, and we've got it.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. SCHROEDER: I remember the day the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald) stood in this House and he stuck out his chest

the size of a sparrow's kneecap, and he said: "For the first

time in this province we're going to inject $100 million into

housing." And it was a good day — everybody pounded their desks

and it sounded real good. It sounded real good until somebody

took a sharp pencil and started to figure out how much housing

$ 100 million is going to build.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): More than your

government would ever build.

MR. SCHROEDER: Let me just remind the Minister of Housing

that our shortfall in housing has come in the recent years, and

that the policy of the former government was not to build

housing on its own but to encourage housing being built by the

private sector, who, by the way, if they become mobilized have

the ability to provide enough housing in this province. If this

government pretends that it can provide enough housing for this

province — impossible.

Let's look at the figures that are in the budget speech

itself. I see the Minister of Housing say: "We produced 2,000

units for rental last year." Well, bully, bully, bully! When we

need 30,000 just to catch up, what does 2,000 units do? Then he

said: "We are going to do more. We've got 15,000 units that are

in the planning stages that are either being constructed or

they're being drawn — they're in the planning stages now —

somewhere — 15,000."

I also noticed in the budget speech that there is a

priority. Their priority is that we're going to be building

units for small families — small families. This is not

apartments, apartments that cost like $29,600 apiece, but these

are family units which will cost in the neighbourhood, I am

guessing, of $50,000 at the very least.

I want to know what this $100 million injection that the

Attorney-General was talking about some time back actually did.

I want to know what the taking over of Dunhill has really done

for the production of housing in our province.

I happen to have the building permits from various areas in

the lower mainland, and these building permits are in dollar

values. They compare the current month — the current month

being December — with the previous month of November. But, more

significantly, they compare with the same month in the previous

year. Let's listen to it. Let's see how much stimulation there

was in the housing segment.

In the City of Vancouver,

whereas in the current month of last year there were

$12.8 million building permits, this year $8.1 million. Burnaby: $4 million

[ Page

357 ]

last year; this year, $2,5 million. Last year in the City of North Vancouver

building permits totalled. $5,222,000. Hang on now — North Vancouver this year,

unless it's a misprint, $527,000 — $5 million reduced to $0.5 million.

In the District of North Vancouver, building permits

totalled $9,451,000 last year in December. This year in

December, $1,452,000 — $9 million down to $1 million. In

Richmond, $6.1 million down to $4.3 million. Surely there must

be one area where it goes up. West Vancouver, $2.1 million down

to less than $1 million.

The total for December — total permits for those areas last

year, $3§.9 million — I might say $40 million. This year

it's reduced to $18 million. That's the stimulation that we

have had via the information given on building permits issued

in these areas. The. total January through December totals as

they compare — $407 million in the previous year, and this year

down to $347 million. That's the kind of stimulation that has

taken place.

I've listened to the Minister stand in this House and say

they have created jobs by being involved in housing. I think

the truth should be known. I think that they have bought

existing operations, they have perhaps hired a few more

administrators, a few appointees perhaps....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: And made $2 million.

MR. SCHROEDER: But let's make no mistake about it, that the

number of people that were involved in building housing before

are still involved in building houses and we are getting no

more housing in the province that we were before. Let us tell

the truth.

I see in the budget speech....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Are you attacking the municipalities for

dragging their feet?

MR. SCHROEDER: I read in the budget speech that "what we're

going to do," Mr. Speaker, "is we're going to provide

housing and housing lots at affordable prices."

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Are you attacking the municipalities?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You do that every day.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, $20,000 is what you now pay for a lot.

If you bargain and if you take the best bidder and if you

happen to know a good contractor, you can now get building done

at $30 a square foot.

If you build a small house which, in my mind, is a kind of a unit that the Minister is talking about in the

section on housing when he talks about a unit for a small

family — I am talking about a two-bedroom, perhaps

three-bedroom, unit.

If you can get that out of 1,000 square feet, 1,000 square

feet at $30 a square foot is $30,000. Add that to the price of

the lot and you've got $50,000, If you can get an 80 per cent

mortgage you have to pay $10,000 down. If you mortgage the full

$40,000 at interest...you can now get it near 10 per cent,

which is fantastic. But at 10 per cent interest you have to pay

annually, at the beginning — before amortization — $4,000 per

year. Taxes estimated on that same piece of property are

approximately $1,200 in my area. So $5,200 a year is what you

have to put into the housing before you have ever paid anything

off on the loan.

If the rule of thumb which says one-quarter of your income

should be the most that you spend for shelter is right, it

means that a person must earn over $20,000 a year to qualify

for this kind of housing.

I know it's the best they can do, and yet he says: "This is

housing and lots at affordable prices." I am waiting to hear

the kind of a plan that this Minister has in mind that is going

to make available to us, the people of British Columbia,

building lots that we can afford. I suggest to you that we

cannot afford this kind of housing.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You are attacking free enterprise

now.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): No, you are.

You're attacking free enterprise.

MR. SCHROEDER: I would like to see cooperation on the part

of the Minister, together with the municipalities, to provide

the kind of housing that still is affordable to young marrieds

and young families in an area in which, I must agree, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, municipalities are dragging

their feet.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Okay.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'll tell it like it is all the way. The

municipalities should be encouraged to accept their share of

the kind of housing that still is affordable.

It's clear that it has to be something of a mobile nature. I

believe that each municipality, my own included, should accept

their share of housing through mobile-home parks. You can still

afford to live in a mobile home when you first start out in

your earning capacity in life. Perhaps if you lay a little by

each year there can come a time when a $50,000 unit may be

affordable. If you can get an appointment with the government

or if you can fall heir to some

[ Page 358 ]

fancy sum somewhere, then perhaps you can afford the $50,000

price. But at least let's get them started in these mobile-home

parks.

They don't have to be forever. I like the idea because the

land is not lost forever. You can put a mobile-home park on to

an acreage. You can recover that land when the mobile-home park

is moved away and that land can be put back into

production.

I think it's a good plan and I would encourage the Minister.... As a matter of fact, I would vote with the Minister on a

plan to create more housing of this kind. I've said this before

in this House. However, I still find very few projects — I

don't mean projects in which the government itself if

participating — but projects that the government has encouraged

at the municipal level, where private financing can go, where

you don't have to take paltry $90 million that you've got in

your department, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Let's go to Chilliwack.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'll invite you to my house for a cup of tea

when you come.

I have to move to education. When this government came to

power clearly one of the priorities was education. Just as I

said municipal revenues should be attached to the revenue

growth of the province, I believe that education likely could

also be attached to revenue growth.

In 1972, when this government came to power, the percentage

of the revenue that was assigned to education was 31 per cent.

When this government came to power they said: "Oh, not enough

money is being spent on education." Not enough money.

In 1973, the next year, with the words still ringing in my

ears that not enough money had been spent the previous year, I

watched very closely as 28 per cent of the revenue was assigned

to education. I said: "Oh, well, I know why it has dropped so

much — it is because we are catching up this year on capital

expenditure. After all, we didn't have enough gymnasia, we

didn't have enough classrooms and we are catching up, and

that's why we have this drop." I am being facetious, of

course.

Then in the next year, 1974, Mr. Attorney-General, it did

drop in percentage of the revenue growth.

All right, here we go. In 1974, the percentage dropped to 25

per cent.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What was the

increase?

MR. SCHROEDER: And then in 1975, the budget that we are

discussing now dropped again to 23.4 of the gross revenue. I

want you to know that that doesn't look like priority to

me.

It doesn't look quite as bad and it hasn't been shunted back quite as far as

the Department of Housing, which was a No. I priority and which has received

some paltry $90 million...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Paltry $90 million! What's $90

million?

MR. SCHROEDER: ...of which $10 million will be used up in

administration and $80 million will be all that is used to put

in incentives for housing. Education is nearly in the same

category.

I notice that the Minister (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) spoke, while

she was on her feet, about quality of education. She's

concerned, as I am concerned, about the quality of education in

British Columbia. We are trying to develop a better quality of

education but we are doing it with our eyes shut to an

alternative which could provide clear new vistas of opportunity

as far as alternatives and quality of education are concerned.

We have shut our minds to the opportunity that there is in an

educational opportunity outside of the public school

system.

I couldn't agree more than when the Minister said: "No

matter what you do, you're going to get criticized. No matter

what plan you come up with, you are going to have those who

oppose the plan." If they didn't when they went to bed, they

will when they get up in the morning because they've changed

their minds, They will disagree with you. You are subject to

criticism no matter what kind of a stand you take. This is the

kind of criticism we will subject ourselves to as long as we

have a single, unified, monolithic system. I think we need to

begin to look.

Whenever you get a new R and D (research and development)

department, Madam Minister, one of the assignments that should

be given to them is: what are the opportunities offered to

British Columbia by that sector now called the independent

schools?

If we can't have agreement in our own system, why not let

another system come side by side with us, offer the

alternatives, and let the people choose between the two? Those

who don't agree with you, let them take the alternative. At

least, let's recognize that alternative and at least provide

operational funding for that alternative.

The Minister has made a sort of general statement that says

the Education department is in a turmoil. Everything is chaotic

in the Education department.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Does daddy

know about this?

MR. SCHROEDER: Certainly that's not true. Certainly there

are areas where the educational department is working. However,

when it comes to the public attention that there are areas of

problem within a department and when those areas of problem are

scrutinized in light of the fact that the student

[ Page

359 ]

that is coming through the school system is not what those

parents expect that student to be, then all of a sudden there

is turmoil, then all of a sudden there is unrest.

I want you to know that people become impatient after two

and a half years of promised direction. Now they see, rightly

or wrongly, that the research and development department was a

hope for a new direction. Now that that particular department

has been put out of commission, they see that they have no hope

of direction. They don't even see a framework on which that

hope can be built. I think the Minister must accept the

responsibility for this vacuum that is created in the minds of

the people who want education. I believe the Minister must be

responsible.

What kind of a screening process is it that will hire 12

people, assign them to a department and, scarcely three months

later, have half of those appointees found undesirable?

Let me just give you a comparative figure, Mr. Speaker, so

you know how bad it really is. Let's take the year — I'm going

to trust to my memory — 1973. It was at a time when we had

22,000 teachers in our province. In that year there were seven

teachers who, for some reason or other, were found undesirable

for their positions and whose appointments were to be

suspended. Seven out of 22,000. Ultimately, four appealed and

were reinstated, and only three were suspended from their

positions. Three out of 22,000. That's out there but here,

within the warm confines of our own department, six out of 12

are found undesirable within a short three-month period.

My question isn't: were they desirable or undesirable? My

question is: what kind of a screening process is there that

allows that kind of hiring? There's got to be a better way.

I had many more things that I wanted to say concerning

education. One of the things that amused me as I read.... I

read a press release and watched the television at the same

time and listened to the Minister say: "I'm going to run my

department. I'm in charge here. I'm the person that's going to

say which way it's going. I will give the directives." Yet I

was reading at the same time, and I couldn't help but laugh,

Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), as I read before my

very eyes: "The Deputy Minister has made the decision, and I

fully concur, about the firing of these five people." I

couldn't understand the two statements when both of them were

coming toward me at the same time.

I have a question about what's going to happen to the

directives in the White Paper. Only two of five have been

enacted, three are sort of in limbo. An informed force — I mean

an informed source.... I just had my nose fixed and now my

mouth won't work. (Laughter.) An informed source says that one

of the persons fired is the one who did the original 359, draft on the White Paper, and I'm wondering what's going to

happen to the directives in that paper now that the author is

fired.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: Oh, it's a question, and I think it's a

natural question. Are we going to continue? Are the other three

directives' directions going to be abandoned?

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, you're right. It happens to Marks all

the time. (Laughter.)

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): The

Attorney-General was right on the mark.

MR. SCHROEDER: I was interested in a short computation which

revealed something to me about the budget priorities. It seems

to me, as I've already mentioned, that one of the priorities of

this government was housing. Another priority was education.

Another one of the priorities of this government was municipal

affairs, cost-sharing with municipal affairs — it was a

priority. One of the priorities was health.

A little quick computation- let me tell you how I got to

these figures. The break-down of the budget for last year

certainly said something to us: it told us what the priorities

of the government were — not so much as you compared the amount

of dollars for each department to the total of the budget,

that's not it. But as we compared it to this year's budget, it

showed us a shift in priorities. As you compared the percentage

increase or decrease in spending in each of the departments, it

is very revealing.

For instance, in agriculture we have an increase of 296.73

per cent — increase. It's welcome, and I want you to know it's

a good plan. Agriculture needed that shot in the arm long ago,

and let's tell the truth: it's a good plan; it's a good

priority.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You're going to vote for the budget.

MR. SCHROEDER: Listen to number two. I've got this on a

scale of 21. Second on the scale is Transport and

Communications — 100.5 per cent. I'm going to go quickly

because my time is short.

Next is Mines. Mines is number three priority — 99.21 per cent. Recreation and

Conservation is number four at 84.69. Can you write fast enough? Number five

is Public Works. Number six is Human Resources. Number seven is Provincial Secretary's

office, Number eight is Legislation. Number nine is Finance. Let me go down

to number 15. Number 15

[ Page

360 ]

is Education. A shift in priorities there, huh? It was supposed to be number

one, two or three, and here it is, number 15, Education — 36.2 per cent. Health

is number 16 — 29.83 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: You want to know what your department was?

Yours is 64.14 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too much for him.

MR. SCHROEDER: Here we go. Labour is number 17 — 24.7 per

cent. Municipal Affairs is next. Number 19 on the scale is

Housing. I don't understand this when we've got a crying need

for housing. We've got enough material lying alongside the

railway tracks between Quesnel and Prince Rupert to build all

the houses we're going to need here for not only this year, but

next. We've got all the nails and hardware; we've got all the

glass; we've got unemployment; we've got people waiting with

hammers in their hands. We have everything set to go and yet we

do not have housing being constructed, and here it is number 19

on a list of priorities.

Number 20 is Economic Development.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Where was it under the Socreds —

50?

MR. SCHROEDER: Look at that. Under the Social Credit Party,

I want you to know people had enough confidence in themselves

to still look after one of the three basic necessities of man —

which are food, clothing and shelter — they were still building

their own shelter for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative, after the review of this

shift in priorities, but to move the motion found in my name on

the order paper, and I'll read it for you: "That Mr. Speaker do

now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of

Supply," be amended by adding the following words:

"But this House regrets that, in the opinion of this House,

the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has failed to

establish budget priorities in such a way as to provide

adequate financial provisions for revenue-sharing with local

government, incentives to stimulate housing and incentives to

develop a greater number of job opportunities in the Province

of British Columbia."

So moved and seconded by the Member for

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. LEWIS: You should be ashamed of yourself. How can you do

that in all honesty?

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): In seconding the non-confidence

motion on the current budget, I want to say one or two things about the effect

of the budget on the constituency which I am privileged to represent.

We know that there are a number of matters which have lain

in abeyance for some considerable time, some because of the

conclusion of studies, others because no particular attention

has been paid to them over the years. I don't exempt the

previous government or any government prior to that government

from not looking at the matter of the Indian cut-off lands.

I did have the privilege of attending a meeting of the union

of chiefs, Indian chiefs, last November 27. I can assure you

that they are not a very happy group of natives, and I have to

sympathize with them because I think there have been some

rather unusual types of procedures taking place in the past

which have eliminated a considerable number of acres of land

from them and not been provided for by other Crown lands.

I don't blame this government, any more than I blame the

previous government that preceded this government, for causing

this problem, but certainly it should be dealt with at this

stage. I understand that certain meetings are taking place, and

I must commend the government for holding the meetings and

hearings with the Indians. Hopefully they are not just hearings

that are a matter of taking up time and excuses for dealing

with the question. It is national as well as provincial, so it

is going to be a complex question. There is no doubt in my mind

about that.

The other matter I want to say something about today is in

regard to the Okanagan water basin. A study that covers a

number of years, and a study being concluded with firm

recommendations.... I understand that as of Thursday of this

week certain documents are to be delivered to the committee

which will authorize them to proceed in carrying out the

recommendations of the Okanagan water basin study, However, I am not yet advised as to what financial

participation is going to be involved or whether it is just a

set of letters patent, which will authorize the committee to

move forward. I have no idea. Because of the magnitude of the

work and the effect it will have as a pilot project, the

results of this study and the results of the actions taken will

be able to be used in other areas — not only in British

Columbia but in other areas of Canada.

I hope that the government is considering substantial

ongoing interest in this project, and certainly assistance by

way of financing, to bring about a successful solution to the

problem of the Okanagan water basin.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's been a very interesting budget to sit

down and listen to and attempt to unravel. It is not because of

the size of the figures, or

[ Page 361 ]

the percentage of increase that has taken place in the

budget in the last two or three years; but it's rather

mind-boggling to the public as to how they realistically

analyse the methods of projecting revenue and expenditure.

This is not an easy situation, because virtually all the

revenue estimates and all the expenditure estimates are surely

a case of guesstimates, as we noted from the budget of a year

ago, and at that time we found that even before the budget had

been passed and while it was in the course of debate, when we

had gatherings out on the outer lawn, other revenues were going

to be needed. They were not included, although the government

knew about them, because their programme asked for a decrease

in the pupil/teacher ratio. This, evidently, was merely taken

on a very casual basis and not considered to be of any real

significance, so it wasn't included in the estimates. And as we

go down through the estimates of a year ago we find that it was

necessary to have revised estimates which showed very, very

substantial amounts of revenue that were finally required.

Better than $707 million is going to be required in

increases. In revising these estimates, I think every

department — outside of, probably, one — had to have increases

in the '74-75 fiscal year, and they are substantially increased

again in the '75-76 fiscal year. This is rather difficult for me

to accept after being here as many years as I have been,

listening to as many budgets, and also being a cabinet Minister

who was well aware of having to carry out a proper

administration and stay within my budgeted estimates, excepting

periods of time in which unforeseen expenditures were required.

I recall one year of a very substantial estimate having to have

a supplementary, and that was in relation to forest fires. We

had a very bad fire year, and the estimates had to be

supplemented, and this is understandable because that is our

No. 1 industry in British Columbia. You must protect the

forests.

As far as revenues are concerned there are. vast differences

in revenues, and we find that every area of revenue, outside of

succession duties and gift taxes, is anticipated to have very

substantial increases in this particular year, even down to the

miscellaneous revenues where it is estimated that we are going

to have about $6 million more from that particular source.

Mr. Speaker, this budget really means very little to my constituency

and the people within that area, for the simple reason that I have a

number of municipalities. If a person wants to play around with the

"iffy" portions of the budget, such as: if an increase in export gas is

granted, and if the price is in excess of $1 per unit, then it's

possible to divide that excess revenue with the municipalities.... This

is an extremely sceptical way of financing a municipality. I can

sympathize with the municipalities for the very reason that they're

attempting to prepare their budgets, presently, on a pretext that they

are going to get something. This has not yet been cleared to the point

where it can be said definitely that there will be an increase in the

export of natural gas which will provide the revenues that these

municipalities are going to require.

Now, there's no question in my mind that government policy

at the provincial level has created difficulties also for the

municipalities in the fact that they're attempting to keep up

with the inflationary trends that are exhibited and generated

by the provincial government. Whether it happens to be

salary-wise, cost-wise or whatever it might be, it's certainly

not helping the situation out one little bit.

This revenue sharing, I would think, should be on a more

substantial basis. It should be covered in by way of revenues

that are on a less sceptical basis of producing.

If, for instance, we find that we must cut off export gas,

as indicated, natural gas to the United States, then we are not

going to have any export price. What are the municipalities

going to do in that particular case?

This is not beyond the realm of possibility because

presently, today, the rate of discovery of natural gas in

British Columbia and the amount of exploration going on is

almost nil — down to a very, very minimum. We need to build up

inventories, whether we have discoveries by way of capped gas

or whether we conserve it in any form we can. Certainly to

assure British Columbia of being able to have a supply of

natural gas in the future, we are going to have to have a

stimulation of discovery.

From there, if we can't get the natural gas, we are going to

have to think in terms of the production of synthetic gases.

This is going to take a certain amount of lead time to get into

the production of synthetic gases, as they have in the United

Kingdom and in other countries of the world. This is the only

other source of energy that I see available, but it will not

come about as long as we have the situation we have today which

doesn't encourage the development and exploration and discovery

of the natural product.

The figures have been worked out in relation to government

spending since March, 1973, to the budget date last Friday.

Between the 1973 budget and the 1974 session, the government

has spent $117,406,416 by special warrant. As I mentioned

previously, special warrants have a place, but certainly only

on an emergency basis. I can't see within my mind how so many

emergencies could occur in such a short time. Granted, special

warrants have been passed in previous years by all and sundry

governments, but we seem to have a proliferation of special

warrants. I wonder about the estimating and the management

involved in the handling of finances. I attach this to no

particular department, but

[ Page 362 ]

government generally.

I think a complete review should take place. Between the

1974 budget and the 1975 session, there is a further

expenditure of $156,583,904 by special warrant. We see a

continuing operation here of special warrants, special

warrants, special warrants. I think these things should be

debated in the House prior to expenditure. If they are not,

they become a matter after the fact; the government has spent

the money. The representatives on both sides of the House, the

backbenchers on the government side and the opposition Members

have not had an opportunity for input into the discussion and

into the wisdom of spending such large sums of money.

I mentioned previously about the cost of government and how

it has risen to astronomical levels. As I have noted in the

printed budget speech, the anticipated — I say anticipated —

revenues are expected to come in within this fiscal year. I

have become perplexed by the fact that we have had a downturn

in the economy.

Where did the downturn occur? We've had a downturn in the

forestry industry, our No. I industry in British Columbia. We

have had a definite downturn in the mining industry, and a

downturn in the exploration and development of petroleum

products and hydrocarbons. Housing is down in the private

sector and hasn't really gained any momentum as far as public

housing is concerned.

Let's take one immediate and local situation that we have

right here in the City of Victoria: the percentage of building

permits taken out in February, 1975, against a similar month

last year were only 10 per cent of what they were a year ago in

the City of Victoria. Those aren't my figures; those are the

figures that were given by the city only yesterday.

Now where is this revenue coming from? We know we have to

have it if we are going to meet the budgetary expenditures,

unless it is anticipated that as the year goes on we start

cutting back — as was indicated last December for the cabinet

Ministers to start to put the thumbscrews down to hold back on

expenditures. I hope that it hasn't affected any of the

programmes, particularly in the field of social services. I

would be very disturbed if I thought that people were going to

be affected.

We know that people are going to be affected. We know that,

because without the resource revenues that are required we are

going to have to look to other sources, namely taxes — and

these are people taxes. We note that it is anticipated that the

property taxes for the next fiscal year, through the revenue

estimates, will be up $23 million. We note that the sales taxes

will be up $480 million. With the downturn in the economy I am

sure people are going to be less anxious to buy. We note that

in the personal income we are going to have an increase of $655

million, We know all about the gasoline tax, and I won't mention it because they have a bill on the order

paper. But there's an increase there from the automobile sector

of $179.5 million. The hotel room taxes will be $8 million.

Liquor tax profits will be up $155 million, and even the

cigarettes are anticipated to provide an additional $23

million.

So the total people taxes will be in the neighbourhood of

$1,523.5 million. This is a total increase in these taxes of

$447 million. Now we can't say that the budget is a people's

budget. We can't even call it a job-security budget, or any

moniker of that nature, for the simple reason that the

government is already budgeting for a decrease from forest

taxes — a decrease of $125 million — and mining is anticipating

a downturn of $6 million. So it pretty well leaves the

budgetary requirements in the area of taxation. I think that

that has been pretty well tabulated.

We mentioned that the fuel taxes — the people taxes which

directly affect people — are up on a staggering scale — and I

don't mean the Richter scale, which is a bit earth-shattering —

while revenues from forestry and mining are dramatically down.

Property taxes are up very, very substantially, by $5 million.

Sales taxes are up. Personal income taxes are up. Gasoline

taxes are up. Hotel taxes are up, and liquor income taxes are

up.

There is one thing on which I must commend the Minister of

Finance. He wasn't so naive this year, as he was last year — in

which he said there would be no increase in taxes to people.

Hardly had he the words out of his mouth when, in the next day

or so, he mentioned that there was going to be an increase in

the price of natural gas.

So this is why it is very confusing, very complex, for the

normal man on the street to attempt to analyse this budget. The

real area, I think, that needs consideration — and I think that

the government is going to be taking another look at this, as

I'm sure they did last year — is that when they look at the

revised budget, which will come in possibly after the

conclusion of this session, at that time, by special warrant,

they will be able to carry out the necessary financing.

Certainly there is no provision within this budget, other

than on a stop-gap measure, for employment. No permanent

solution is evident. I'm wondering in my own mind what we can

anticipate for next year after we have gone through a situation

similar to the one we did in the 1974-75 fiscal year.

If adequate financial provision for revenue — sharing with

local governments could be a reality within this budget with

incentives to stimulate housing by the private sector in hand

with that which is being provided by way of public housing, we

would probably get somewhere near our required housing

requirements. Probably with an accelerated rate, not in one

year, but in the next two years, we would

[ Page 363 ]

probably start to catch up with the demand that is presently

evident here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

For some unknown reason British Columbia seems to be a haven

for people who want to live in the beautiful confines of

British Columbia, but they find no place in which to hang their

hat. Consequently, we have the proposition that we have today

in attempting to improvise by way of housing units which are

not always in accord with local government views on

permanency.

The job opportunities in this province are slipping away

very, very rapidly. They are slipping away to the extent that

we have to have people leave the province to find

employment.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Up to the Yukon. The

Minister of Labour says, "Go to Alberta; go to Manitoba."

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: I wish you boys would just allow me to wind up

here by having a few words to say regarding the mining

industry. I think it is evident to everyone here what is

happening in the mining industry. You can't place the total

blame on the world price of copper because we produce a vast

number of various types of metals: zinc, lead, sulphur and many

other metals — all required within our province but not to the

degree that would make any difference on the world supply,

particularly copper. We produce about 3 per cent; we have no

monopoly, But we have a royalty. This happens to be a

designated mineral. Any other mineral can be designated by

cabinet order. We know this from the legislation that was

passed in the Legislature, regardless of the opposition that

was given to it.

But it was the last straw that broke the camel's back. This

is why we are finding a great number of mines today which have

reached the uneconomic point of operating. Maybe they will not

open up again. This will depend a great deal on the world

market in which they will be able to receive a high enough

price to take care of the revenue that must come off the top of

the pile before they start to take care of production costs,

land taxes and other obligations by way of the royalty

imposition.

It could have been that we could have had a great number of jobs in our mines

that have slowed down and some completely closed out had we not imposed that

a profits tax. This in itself, then, would certainly have kept the mines in

operation. The jobs would be there for our people, and, by way of jobs, a great

source of revenue coming back to the government by way of income tax, by way

of sales tax, by way of regional hospital taxes to help the regional hospitals

so that they don't have to depend totally on revenue from government to meet

their requirements.

There is no question in my mind that our mineral industry is

not going to be buoyant within the relatively foreseeable

future.

We are not going to stimulate the mines to the degree that

they should have been stimulated. It's very questionable if the

investment capital, both in the exploration field of petroleum

and for minerals, will return to this province even after they

do have an assurance — let us use a hypothetical suggestion

-that the royalties will be switched to a profit-tax basis

similar to income tax.

They have committed themselves to other projects outside of

Canada, outside of British Columbia. To divert the capital back

to the province.... It has always taken anywhere from five to

eight years to bring a property into production. Should they

come into production in the new areas in which they have

located mineral deposits and where they have had a more

acceptable political climate to deal with, you are not going to

find this capital coming back tomorrow afternoon. It's

gone.

Until there is a better climate in British Columbia, the

revenues that should have been spent here have gone to

Portugal, they have gone to Australia, they have gone to

Manila, and they have gone to any number of places. It's public

knowledge where they have gone to. Certainly, it is a crying

shame this has ever happened. There was no need for it and we

could have a very viable industry in British Columbia at this

time.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this budget but I support the

amendment. Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is my pleasure to support this amendment.

Unfortunately, though, for the people of this province, this

amendment had to be brought in because there is nothing in this

budget to provide in the long range for the much-needed jobs in

this province.

But I look at this budget, I look at it and I read it, and

this budget is incredible — in its incredibility. Here again

this year, the same as last year, we are presented with a

document that really isn't even a rough guide of probably what

the Minister of Finance plans to spend. We were provided with a

budget last year in this Legislature and, before the budget

speech was even passed, the Minister of Finance was making

changes in it. Some of them were major changes. So really, I

don't know why the Premier even brings down a budget. It's not

even a rough guide of what he intends to do with the finances

of this province. It isn't even a good rough outline, because

he will go ahead and spend exactly where, if and what he wants

to. So I don't know why he....

[ Page 364 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that he is required to speak to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I just want to clarify

something with the Hon. Member. Are you the seconder of the

motion?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm speaking in favour of the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of the amendment then.

MR. PHILLIPS: Were you having a little sleep, Mr.

Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I would just....

MR. PHILLIPS: I told you from the very beginning that I am

speaking in favour of the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I would just ask the Hon. Member to

speak to the amendment.

HON. MR. COCKE: How about having a little regard for the

House? What are you talking about?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the Minister of defence. Why

don't you have a little regard for the House and just pay

attention? You had your chance to speak.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're over there yapping all the time. You

had your chance to speak.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: That Member over there, the Minister of Health...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...is a very important person. They named him

after Martyrhead, Massachusetts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister

not to interrupt the Hon. Member. Secondly, would the Hon.

Member address the Chair and direct his remarks to the

amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder where the Premier is this afternoon. Has he gone to Japan this time

or has he gone to China, St. Louis, Nova Scotia or is he down in South America?

He brought in a budget and he isn't even here to listen to the debate on it.

HON. MR. LEA: He's in South Peace River.

HON. MR. COCKE: Dawson Creek.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was amazed to pick up the newspaper the

other day and to find a full-page ad which says: "Our budget

for the 1975-76 fiscal year has been designed to achieve

greater economic equality and social justice in British

Columbia." A full-page ad in the paper. It goes on to say that

it provides jobs and that it looks after the municipalities.

I'll get to that in a moment, Mr. Speaker.

The taxpayers of this province are being treated like

mushrooms: they are being kept in the dark and being given

large doses of the appropriate fertilizer. And I want to tell

you that this is some of the fertilizer that the people of the

province are being subjected to.

You talk about job security. It's job security for Dunsky

Advertising, not job security for the workers of this

province.

You know, there's a purge going on in the civil service in

this province that makes Stalin look like a piker. It makes

Stalin look like a novice when it comes to purging in the civil

service. I wonder how much job security Tom Machin of ICBC

feels that he has. How much job security does he have? How much

job security did Les Hansel, the Associate Deputy Minister of

Economic Development, how much job security did he have? How

much job security did Jim Kinnaird of the labour relations

department have? How much job security did Stanley Knight have?

How much job security did John Bremer have? How much job

security did the five researchers who were just fired have?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Who fired five?

HON. MR. COCKE: Would you hire all those guys?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, you don't even

have job security in the civil service these days, not with the

purge that's going on around here. No wonder they call it the

fire department.

HON. MR. LEA: Who fired Barrett a few years back?

MR. PHILLIPS: Now listen, Mr. Minister of Highways, why

don't you just pay attention, to your own business? You'll have

the opportunity to speak

[ Page 365 ]

in a little while.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, you go right ahead.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: What happened to Jones?

MR. PHILLIPS: Last year the work force of this province

increased by 58,000 people, according to the Minister of Labour — the work force increased by 58,000 people. But the civil

service increased by approximately 12,000 people. If you go by

the rule of thumb that it takes an average of 7 people to

service every person employed either in industry or, in this

case, it'll be by the government, that figures out to me to be

approximately 84,000 people either hired by the civil service

or required to service those people that are working for the

government. So what we're doing in creating jobs to increase

the products of British Columbia, we're slipping backwards — we're actually slipping backwards. We're not making any

progress at all. We're going backwards.

But who's got to pay for this increased bureaucracy? Who's

got to pay? The taxpayers. What does it say here? It says that

it's a family budget, and that there will be new expenditures

by the Department of Public Works. Well, I'll tell you, is that

any long-range planning? We're spending the taxpayers' dollar

to building edifices to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) to house the new civil service. What are we going to

do in the long range when we build all the buildings we can

build, when the Minister of Public Works has built all his

monuments to house his new bureaucracy? Then what are you going

to do for an encore? What this province lacks is long-range

planning to provide for the increased work force in this

province, and there's not one single shred of evidence of

long-range planning in this budget — not one shred of evidence

of long-range planning.

No, it's all right to spend all this money. It's all right

to provide services for people, but where does the long-range

planning come in? No, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is not a

budget that is going to be job security for the work force of

this province. This is a budget that is leading those who want

to work in this province down the garden path. Down the garden

path, that's where they're being led, and here we spend

thousands of dollars to tell them that it's a job security

budget. Not one shred of evidence in this budget is going to

look after the long-range planning of providing those

much-needed jobs in this province.

There is no job security in the mining industry today in this province, and

there hasn't been any job security in the mining industry in this province since

this socialist group took over. There hasn't been any job security in the petroleum

industry in this province since this group of socialists took over. You talk

about job security — there's no job security in this province.

There's no job security in the home construction in this

province. "We'd bring in a special Department of Housing that's

going to solve all the problems," I'll tell you, Mr.

Speaker, last year was supposed to be one of the greatest

priorities of this government, and they overspent their budget

less than any of the other departments. Oh, yes, the Department

of Housing. We heard great glowing terms about what the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is going to do. What

did the Minister of Housing do? He didn't create one single new

house in the Province of British Columbia — not one single new

house. As a matter of fact, he has driven jobs out of this

province by buying up private enterprise — and certainly once

those job are stopped, they'll never be started again — the

money going out of the province to provide housing elsewhere.

Talk about job security.

I'll tell you, you talk to the people who were involved in

the housing industry about job security. Those jobs are going

a-wanting somewhere else, the same as they are in the mining

industry, the same as they are in the petroleum industry.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Talk about poppycock!

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why I have to support this amendment,

because when you really analyse this budget, when you really

look at it, there is not one shred of long-range planning to

provide the much-needed jobs in this province. And yet the

people of this province are being subjected to large doses of

the appropriate fertilizer to try and tell them that this

budget is going to look after it.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we'd be happier with action from

this government instead of words. We'd be happy if they did

something to restore the confidence in the mining industry.

We'd be happy if they'd do something to restore the confidence

in the lumber industry. Nobody's going to invest in those

industries while that group of socialists is in power. They

play the game and they make their rules as they go along.

No, I'm afraid that I have to support this amendment because

this budget just doesn't provide any long-range planning. We

might be able to employ some people next year by hiring some

more into the civil service, by the Minister of Public Works

building great buildings and by the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Lea), who just two weeks before the budget came down said,

"Oh, no, we don't believe in building highways for those

automobiles...." That's what he said!

Interjection.

[ Page 366 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, he said: "We don't believe in building

highways." Then the budget comes down and the Premier stands in front

of the TV cameras and he says: "Oh, no, we're not going to build

political roads." And where are the roads going to be built?

MR. CHABOT: Three NDP ridings.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we've

come to expect this from this government. We've come to expect it from

this government and the people of the province have come to expect

nothing more. That's why, when you go out into the boondocks today,

talk to the man on the street, and ask him what does he think about the

budget, he says: "So what? That isn't what they'll do anyway."

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I've read this amendment very

carefully and I was almost thinking one way and another whether

I could support it or not, but after listening to the last

three speakers, there's just no way I can support an amendment

like that.

I said one time last year, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes when

I come into this Ho