1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page 7371 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 7371

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 7371

Mrs. Dailly –– 7373

Mr. Davis –– 7376

Mr. Rose –– 7379

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the consolidated financial statements for

the British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ending December 31,

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Human

Resources for 1984-85.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of debate

yesterday afternoon we were talking about the Elk Valley, a particular

area of my constituency, and we talked about the development of

projects and priorities for the community of the Elk Valley since 1979.

As I was saying in debate yesterday, the government of British Columbia

has responded to the needs of the people of the Elk Valley for the

development of roads, schools, hospitals and other means of

transportation. The people of that community are doing quite well, Mr.

Speaker. In fact, the government of British Columbia has spent about

$26 million in Sparwood alone over the course of the past few years.

That is hardly the record of a government which the Leader of the

Opposition would say doesn't provide services for people unless they

vote for it.

Let me say that I've been able to deliver those services to the

people of my constituency because, first, I've been elected by the

people of the Kootenay constituency and, second, because I've been part

of a government team that provides programs and services to all of the

people of British Columbia regardless of the geographic region of the

province in which they live.

The Leader of the Opposition should know, Mr. Speaker, that the way

you develop programs and priorities in the Elk Valley is through the

development of consensus in the community. You can't have three

communities within 20 miles of each other all competing for the same

services and all competing for the same programs. So what we've tried

to do since 1979 is to pull the community of the Elk Valley together in

a way in which they can cooperate with each other, something that the

Leader of the Opposition would give a lot of lipservice to, but when

actually put into reality he's very poor at it.

In 1979 when I got elected, Fernie didn't have any industrial tax

base, and there were three mines outside the community, with two inside

the municipal boundaries of Elkford and Sparwood. Elkford and Sparwood

were making application to have the other three mines included in their

municipal boundaries, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the

MLAs said: "No, we won't give you those three mines unless you come up

with a way in which three communities can cooperate with each other and

share the resource taxes of the mining community." So after a lot of

discussion in the community and a lot of haggling, yes, on the part of

some opponents to the proposal, we finally came up with a solution

where the three communities, in partnership with each other in the Elk

Valley, could cooperate and share an industrial tax base — working

together in the interests of all British Columbians. I don't mind

saying that I provided the leadership for that community to develop

that type of partnership, and it's something that I've carried out over

the course of the past seven years since I've been an MLA.

So it's entrenched, as far as I'm concerned. It is unfortunate,

however, that the Leader of the Opposition would come into Sparwood and

participate in a political debate over the development of a library

facility in that community. I met with the library board in Sparwood

three times, and I told them that they were eligible for grants under

the lotteries program; if they qualified they would be eligible for one

third, up to $400,000. But their project had to have wide community

support, and they had to prove that they were able to raise the other

two-thirds of the money needed in a way that it wouldn't have an impact

on the industrial tax in the area.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What you've got to realize is that every time you put up property

taxes in Sparwood S30 for the private property owner, that costs

$100,000 at the minehead — and at a time when working people and

industry

are struggling to seek new markets for their products to maintain their

existing markets. The Leader of the Opposition would come in for quick

political gain. His inexperience and his lust for power would drive

him. So I met with them, and I made them a commitment that they were

eligible for funding under that formula. I met with them three times

and told them the same thing. They came back and asked: "Well, what

about the Expo 86 legacy fund?" I told them that the Expo legacy fund

was a fund that was set up throughout British Columbia to provide a

unique opportunity for communities throughout the province to

participate in Expo.

With that in mind, I look at the Elk Valley as one community, and I

was hoping that the Elk Valley communities, through consensus, would be

able to look at a program that would be unique for their community and

provide lasting economic development for their community. So I advised

the library board that if they wanted an Expo legacy fund — and it is

true that they may be able to get more money for their project under

the Expo legacy fund — that they would have to compete for it with

other community groups, clubs and organizations in that community in an

effort to stimulate discussion in the community, in an effort to bring

forward ideas that would benefit the total Elk Valley and provide

lasting economic benefit to the community.

That's what I told them, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, I told them

that they were still eligible for grants from the lottery fund, but

what I expected them to do was to gain support for their proposal. They

obviously didn't like that.

The Leader of the Opposition came into Sparwood, trying to divide

the community, Mr. Speaker, to look for political gain. In his speech

the other day he gave great lip service to the need for people

working together — consulting, cooperating and working with each other

to provide benefits for the people of British Columbia. Again, Mr.

Speaker, his words, when put into action, are very small indeed.

It is still my belief that the community of the Elk Valley, because

they have demonstrated their ability to work together down through the

years, will be able to come together and develop consensus in the

community for the development of a unique Expo legacy project that will

provide a major benefit to the community.

[ Page 7372 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The municipality of Sparwood, Mr. Speaker....

[10:15]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is having difficulty

hearing the minister. Would the minister please continue.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, the municipality of Sparwood

gave their list of priorities to the best that the NDP has to offer,

and that is their leader. It's tempting for me, as the MLA for

Kootenay.... I say tempting because I have the list of priorities for

Elkford,

and I have the list of priorities for Fernie, and I have the list of

priorities for every other community in my constituency.

So I say it's tempting for me to sit back and watch the Leader of

the Opposition, who you would suppose is the best of the NDP. It would

be interesting for me to sit back and see how that Leader of the

Opposition now responds to the legitimate requests of the community of

Sparwood on their priority list. I say it's tempting because I want to

continue working with the other communities, whether or not they voted

for me, because they know that I have been able to develop those

programs for them because I've been elected as their MLA and because I

am part of a government team that provides programs and services to all

of the people in British Columbia.

So it will be interesting to watch that Leader of the Opposition now

respond to the people of Sparwood in the way that they expect him to

do, because what he did was divide the community of the Elk Valley in a

way that pitted community against community, and it's unfortunate. Now

when I say it's tempting, it's never been my makeup to do that. I will

continue to work with the people of Sparwood to develop their programs

because I know that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have the ability

to do so, because when I look at the need for services in his

constituency and when I look at the way that he responded in the throne

speech to the need for services in his riding and the options and

priorities that he put forward on behalf of the people of Alberni,

where there is 17 percent of the community out of work.... They will

know, in fact, that he should resign and hang his head in shame,

because he doesn't have the ability to respond to the needs of his

community. Shame on you.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition took great pains to talk

about coal development in British Columbia. I'd like to go back to a

period of time early in the seventies and talk about coal development

in British Columbia. As you are well aware, coal came into its own in

1968 and beyond. In that period of time there was rapid economic

development and expansion in the Elk Valley. Yes, there was a Social

Credit government in the Legislature during those days. There was

concern in the Elk Valley, and indeed throughout British Columbia,

because people could see the need for energy and alternate sources of

energy, and so coal was in abundant supply in British Columbia.

The people of the Elk Valley were looking forward to being able to

participate in economic development in British Columbia and being able

to pay their own way, as it says. To get the coal out of the Elk

Valley, Mr. Speaker, beyond ten million tonnes of coal, some decisions

had to be made on the part of government. You are well aware of the

Crow debate that took place in British Columbia over the course of the

past few years in particular. But in the early seventies it was a major

debate as well.

to change and modernize our western transportation system in a way that

would provide the opportunity for coal companies in southeastern

British Columbia to show reliability of supply to their major customers

to modernize our western transportation system. They weren't meeting

much success. It was then, in 1971 or thereabouts, that the government

of British Columbia proposed the Kootenay and Elk Railway. There was a

lot of controversy about the building of this railway. But, you see, to

get the tonnage out of the east Kootenays in a way that the marketplace

was demanding, there was a need to either modernize the western

transportation system, i.e. the Crow, or to develop an alternative

route. So the government of British Columbia campaigned in the 1972

election on the development of the Kootenay and Elk Railway.

I'd just like to take a little quote from the Fernie newspaper of

June 1972, where it quotes CP Rail as saying that it can handle up to

12 million tons. But it also goes on to say: "Yet repeatedly last

winter the CPR failed despite every sincere effort to handle the

much-needed capacity tonnage being shipped to markets." The government

went out and campaigned in that election to develop the Kootenay and

Elk Railway. Needless to say, the people of the Elk Valley and the

Kootenay riding were disappointed that the government of British

Columbia lost the election, and indeed retained the sitting member, Leo

T. Nimsick, who wound up to be the Minister of Mines for the

constituency and the MLA for Kootenay.

The modernization of our western transportation system did not start

taking place until last year. The Japanese continued to warn British

Columbians and Canadians that they would have to look for an

alternative supply of coal if our transportation system wasn't

modernized, particularly in the early 1970s. Here was a need to get

that modernization underway. In spite of repeated calls for

modernization of railways, the government of British Columbia of the

day sat idly by and didn't do anything to resolve the problem. Instead,

what they were saying about southeast coal development.... In June 1973

the leader of the government, the then Premier, was quoted in the

Fernie newspaper as calling the Kaiser Resources development project in

Sparwood as "'stupid, lousy, terrible,' says Barrett of the Kaiser

operations in the Elk Valley." That's really how the people of

southeastern British Columbia are treated. I know that some members on

the opposite side will remember that quite well, because they were in

cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition couldn't make it to cabinet,

because obviously the Premier of the day didn't have confidence in his

ability at that time. So, Mr. Speaker, that is how we wound up with

another coal development in British Columbia.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that while the government of

British Columbia, and then Leader of the Opposition Dave Barrett, were

talking about coal development and the need to develop coal projects,

particularly in the northeastern part of British Columbia, the member

for Kootenay — again, Leo Nimsick, Minister of Mines — was saying in

response to a question that Elco Mining Ltd. wanted to develop a major

mine north of Elkford in my constituency

[ Page 7373 ]

and that there was going to be help available to them in terms of

infrastructure development and so on. On the same day, the Economic

Development minister for the same government, now second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in the Vancouver Sun , May 30, 1975,

announced that there would be grants available for major economic

development initiatives to develop northeast coal in the northeast

corner of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Well, what do you know? One minister in his

own riding, the Minister of Mines, is saying that there is no money

available to assist an infrastructure development in my constituency

and in his constituency; and on the same day another minister of the

same government would go over to Vancouver and make a major

announcement on development of the northeast coal project.

Here's what another minister in the same government had to say about

it. His name was Nunweiler, NDP MLA for Fort George and Minister for

Northern Development. He hailed the development and said: "It will have

a lot of positive economic effects, including, for example, the

expansion of rail facilities in Prince George, with increased traffic

both on the CN and the BCR, which are going to need expanded switching

yards. They might even explore the possibility of establishing a joint

switching yard. Wow! Elsewhere in the north Nunweiler noted that $95

million would be spent on facilities in Dawson Creek and Chetwynd and

to establish a new town site 60 miles northwest of Chetwynd. I wonder

what they call that town site. Mr. Speaker, that's what the Minister

for Economic Development from the NDP government was saying. Now when

the Social Credit government got re-elected in 1975 it proceeded with

the development. Most of the plans were in place. The only difference

was that the NDP wanted to retain ownership of the means of production,

processing, extraction, distribution and marketing. That is a

philosophy, Mr. Speaker, that is foreign to our government, and we will

never support that concept or that principle of economic development in

British Columbia, and that's why most of us on this side of the House

today....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time, hon. member.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I support the throne speech, Mr. Speaker. I

see a lot of positive things in the throne speech for economic

development and renewal in British Columbia, and I look forward to

further debate on the throne speech as the session continues.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure not only to

take my

part in the throne debate, but to follow my friendly Irish

colleague in this debate. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Labour and I, although sharing the same racial heritage, fortunately

have as much difference philosophically as I'm sorry to say exists in

that part of northern Ireland today. Those differences which he has

just pointed out rather clearly here certainly can be brought into the

general discussion on this throne debate.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Before I get into some of the specifics and my own reaction to this

debate and to some of the comments of the Minister of Labour, I do want

to start off by paying my own tribute to the great social democratic

leader in Canada, Tommy Douglas, whose achievements I know you are all

very much aware of. I particularly want to say that I worked with him

very closely in my own riding of Burnaby North, because he ran there as

a Member of Parliament. I took part actively in all his campaigns. I

think the thing about Tommy Douglas — there's only one thing I want to

say, because so much has been said — is that Tommy Douglas is noted for

bringing in and being the father of medicare and also instigating

further hospitalization in his province, mainly in social development.

The important thing, I think, for most people to remember — and some

forget — is that Tommy Douglas was only able to do that in the province

of Saskatchewan because he had built a sound economic base. Without

that sound economic base, which Tommy managed to develop with his

colleagues out of the period of Depression in the prairies, he would

not have been able to bring in those social programs.

That is about the situation that we face today in the province of

British Columbia. We face a great difference in opinion on how to

achieve all the social programs, the desirable educational

opportunities and a good life for the people of this province, and at

the same time provide and have in position a sound economic base to do

this. That is where the great difference comes between the NDP and the

Social Credit. I have to accuse the Social Credit government of being

an absolute failure at their attempts to provide a sound economic base

in this province.

[10:30]

We listened to the speech from the Minister of Labour, who was

smarting. obviously, from an attack on him — and quite rightly so — by

the leader of this party and others. He spent the majority of his

speech replying to that particular attack, which showed to me quite

clearly that there is no substance, no ability on that side of the

Legislature to really combat the problems of this province today. That

minister who took his seat is also, I understand, in charge of youth,

and yet I didn't hear one word in his speech about the youth of this

province. Not one word. I intend to devote a considerable time in my

speech today to talking about youth, their problems, and some of the

ideas which the NDP have for their success in life, and for the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: It'll be a short speech.

MRS. DAILLY: I always keep to short speeches because I don't

believe in wasting time on a lot of non-essentials. I intend to get

right down to the business of what we're dealing with today under the

Social Credit government of British Columbia.

Sadly, the Social Credit government, in my opinion, has been a

complete failure. The problems they face today are certainly mammoth.

All over the world there are governments faced with great problems;

however, the Social Credit government in B.C. has taken entirely the

wrong route in trying to solve these problems. They have embarked in

the last few years on what they call a restraint program. All we have

to do is to look at what has happened in this province since restraint

came in. We just have to look at the situation in B.C. today after

these years of restraint and say: Where are we? Has the province

improved? Are more and more people working? Has our economic base

been extended? Are our social problems on the downgrade? Are our

youth faced with

[ Page 7374 ]

educational...with increased opportunities for the future? And the

answer, sadly, is no.

The failure of the Social Credit government is obvious, yet we pick

up this throne speech and read that everything is improving in the

province. We even find this throne debate actually talking about taxes

being reduced, and a statement that income taxes in British Columbia

are apparently the lowest, or second lowest, in Canada. Let's look at

some of the facts. In 1975 to 1976, the year that the Social Credit

first took new government, the average tax burden was $1,534 per

employed person in British Columbia; today, the average burden on the

B.C. citizen is $3,859. So much for saying that in the whole area of

taxes this government has done an excellent job for the average citizen.

But let's also took at all the indirect taxes that have been imposed

by the Social Credit government on the people of British Columbia since

they came into office, and they are extensive. The tragedy of these

taxes is that to those in this chamber who are doing very well as far

as salaries go, most of them would seem not that much; but I want to

assure you that the taxes which the Social Credit government has

imposed on the people of British Columbia have hit those who can least

afford to pay the most. As a matter of fact, British Columbia's

policies as laid out by the Social Credit have done something we've

seen happen in other countries which endorse ultraconservative economic

policies: the tragedy of the gap between the poor and the rich becoming

greater and greater. In this province, I think that is one of the

things I find most troubling. In fact, it was difficult trying to put

together this speech, because I personally have never been quite so

troubled about the situation of many of our people as I've been in this

last year.

I have witnessed it in my own office, as many of you have, I am

sure. We have seen what has happened to the person who is on a fixed

income, to the unemployed, to senior citizens, to people who can least

afford to pay for all these increases being imposed upon them by the

Social Credit government. I cannot help wondering about a government

that considers its mandate to be more in the visible, politically sexy,

glamorous spectacles rather than in what they are doing to improve the

average lot of the average citizen.

For instance, let's look at what is happening in the area of

indirect taxes. Take medicare. In 1975 the medical premium was $5 a

month. I know most of you know this, but I think it is important to

repeat this and get it on the record that the medicare premium today is

$18 monthly.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is chuckling across the

way. I know that $18 a month, about $200 a year....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm talking about the average citizen who has to

bear this burden, some of them not working, some of them on fixed

income. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs symbolizes the

arrogance, the out-of-touchness of this government.

Mr. Speaker, if you're working at minimum wage today and you find

out that you've now got to pay $200 a year as a single person — it

works out to $34 a month if you have two children.... It may mean

nothing to that minister and many of the Social Credit members, but it

means a tremendous amount to the person who is already overburdened.

Even worse, by increasing these medicare premiums the Social Credit

government is cutting into and destroying the basic principle that

medicare should be available to all; that there should not be a price

tag on health.

I know the Social Credit will say: "We do not deny people access to

health care." But we are taking away from some of our citizens the

right to feel equal. Some of them have been made to feel as

second-class citizens when it comes to health care because they cannot

afford these premiums. When it comes to going into a hospital today, it

may not mean anything to the people in this chamber to have to pay

$8.50 a day, but I can assure you it does mean something to those who

are on a minimum wage or unemployed. Even if the money is not collected

from them, we know they are going to be constantly reminded that they

owe that money which they are unable to pay. That was supposed to have

been eliminated years ago.

The other thing we have to remember is that everyone in British

Columbia is paying an 8 percent surtax for health care through sales

tax. So when we hear this nonsense from the Minister of Health that you

have to be aware of the cost of health care, therefore you are going to

have to pay more and more, I ask this government: what are they doing

with the taxes they receive now for health care? Is it all going for

health care? That's the question. But we do not have an opportunity,

unfortunately, to get into the books to find out.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this province deserve better. They

deserve the right to health care, to good housing, to full educational

opportunity; but Social Credit social policies, economic programs, do

not give this opportunity to our people.

Emergency visits have also been increased; zero when we were in

government, they're now $10. I know a number of young people who have

needed to go for emergency care and have said: "But I don't have the

money, and I don't want to show up there and have to admit that I have

no money. I don't want to appear to be a pauper." These things have an

effect. Unfortunately, a government that has been in for too long, that

is involved in areas completely remote from these problems, has lost

touch with understanding. They have lost touch with the importance of

looking after the people of this province who need the help.

Mr. Speaker, what does this government believe in doing? They've

told us year after year that everybody must hold the line, must pull in

their belts, wages must be restrained; if we all do that and pull

together, everything will be wonderful and everyone can benefit. At the

same time, they've told us: "We want to get private enterprise moving;

therefore we're going to make certain concessions to private

enterprise." If this is so — and putting aside Expo, which at this time

will benefit, hopefully; but we're concerned about what happens

post-Expo — why have we not seen more and more people employed,

following this program of assisting small businesses and larger

businesses?

Let me quote to you from the Nielsen report, which is very

interesting, considering it has come from a Conservative government. It

is something that I think the ultra-conservative Social Credit

government of British Columbia should pay attention to. I quote from an

editorial in the Province , which in turn is referring to the Nielsen

report: "It should be comforting to most Canadians, who like their

social programs, that the task force does not find them a culprit in

the high cost of running this country." Now isn't that interesting'?

Most Canadians like their social programs,

[ Page 7375 ]

and the task force itself discovered that the social programs are

not the culprit in the high cost of running this country. Yet we have

heard from the Social Credit government of British Columbia in throne

speech after throne speech that those are the areas that are the

high-cost ones. The Nielsen report "lays to rest the old fable about

welfare recipients ripping off the system." I do wish the former

Minister of Human Resources was in her place today. I think it would be

most interesting, and I want to recommend it to her when she returns to

her seat, for her to read the Nielsen report, and to particularly read

the part about welfare recipients. I'll repeat it. It "lays to rest the

old fable about welfare recipients ripping off the system." There is no

evidence, according to the report, that illegal or unwarranted payments

to individuals are occurring to an alarming degree.

Then, the report goes on to say, it's clear that the people working

with Nielsen on this report — this is according to the editorial, and

here's an interesting point — "think that the real corporate welfare

burns are business." This is in a Conservative-funded report. They

acknowledge that "even when incentives are shown to be absolutely

useless, it's almost impossible to get rid of them."

So I would say that the thinking of the Social Credit of British

Columbia.... Their attention should be put on aspects of this report,

because we have been exposed to this kind of thinking by the Social

Credit government, that if you continue to assist only business and

tell everyone else to pull in their belts, everything's going to be

rosy in the province. I think the business people of this province

would tell us that they're more concerned with having consumers showing

up at their businesses with money to spend. That is what this

government has failed to do; it has failed to put money in the hands of

the consumer. That is one of the most condemning factors of the whole

restraint program.

[10:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

One of the most outstanding failures and devastating effects of the

restraint program is its effect on youth. That is the part that I want

particularly to deal with, this area of youth in this province today.

When I looked at this throne speech, I particularly looked at it from

the point of view of: is what's stated in this speech going to help to

improve the lives of the people of this province, particularly our

youth? I go through the speech and really see nothing but platitudes,

rhetoric and nothing specific. I know a throne speech doesn't have to

be specific, but we hope it's signaling something. I see nothing here

that is really going to give any hope to the youth of this province. If

we can't give hope, if we can't create a good environment for the youth

of this province, the tragedy of this province that we see today will

be nothing compared to what it will be in the future. What happens to

the youth of today will affect your future and mine.

A few facts that I think we'd better alert ourselves to....

Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier when I started, the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), who is obviously in charge of youth,

referred to absolutely nothing about the state of youth in this

province today. I am putting into the record something which I think he

should have been addressing with some positive measures.

There are presently over 62,000 young people between the ages of 15

and 24 years who are unemployed in British Columbia. I'm sure that you,

as I do, Mr. Speaker.... When we go out driving, or wherever we go, one

of the tragic things we see in this province is young people hanging

around on street corners, wandering around with nothing to do. They

want to work, but they have no work. I despair when I look at them,

because I see nothing coming forward from this government that can give

them hope that in the next little while they will have work.

There are another 50,000 who are working part-time in British

Columbia, because that's all they can get. Then we have to accept the

fact that there are others who have given up looking and who are no

longer part of the official count, as they stay at home now and live

with parents or friends, or they try to decide what to do with their

future. I know of many young people who are back at home. In fact, it's

become almost a standing joke with many people my age. They say: "Is

your family still with you, or have they come back?" I think we find

many of our friends are once again finding children returning to their

home who in normal times would be off raising families in their own

homes, but they have absolutely no choice. While B.C.'s overall jobless

rate did fall slightly to 12.8 percent last month, it climbed almost a

full percentage point for people between 15 and 24 years of age, and

now remains at 23 percent. Those are the hard, cold facts. We don't see

any of those hard, cold facts in this rosy throne speech. That's why we

in the opposition are debating this speech, and why we are today most

certainly not going to be able to approve it.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what happens to these young people —

the social costs of being unemployed as a young person, the

hopelessness of it. In England, under another Conservative government,

it is said that there are many young people who have never seen work

from the time they left school, and they probably never will. The

tragedy is that when you're out of work from the age of 15, say, to the

age of 24, and you've never held a job in your life, when you've had

to live on the dole, as they call it in England, a certain

psychological set-in takes place, whereby you are unable to face up to

the world and take your place in a normal job situation. A tremendous

amount of therapy and work is going to have to be done on these young

people. But the most important thing is to provide work at the right

age, at the right time.

I would certainly recommend to the minister in charge, and to all

the Social Credit cabinet, that they read very carefully this excellent

report by the Senate Committee on Youth. I happen to be one who doesn't

believe in the Senate, but I must say that I give full credit to the

Senate committee which produced this report, "Youth: A Plan of Action."

Isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment, as I'm talking

to you in the House about youth and their unemployment problems, there

is a very interesting, visible and unusual happening in the House of

Commons in Ottawa. We actually have a senator from the Senate of Canada

who has decided that he will express his concern over youth

unemployment by going on a starvation diet. Some people may say: "Well,

that is not a seemly thing for a senator to be doing." Some people may

not agree with him. But no one can deny the courage of the man who

really, sincerely believes that the program that he helped initiate,

and which was axed by the Tory government, this special youth program —

whose name I never can pronounce, so I'm going to leave it out.... He

is not only expressing his concern over that, but I'm sure he's also

expressing his concern over the sad state of affairs that the youth of

this province — and of the country, in his case — find themselves in.

[ Page 7376 ]

Because there have been no specific reasons given by the

Conservative government in Ottawa for axing this program, one cannot

help wondering if perhaps they are following, unfortunately, in the

footsteps of the Social Credit government of British Columbia, which

tried so desperately to erase any signs of positive things done under

the NDP.

This program that the senator is protesting the removal of was

brought in, of course, under a Liberal government. It does not say too

much for the integrity or the standards of a government today which

would sacrifice the welfare of its citizens for some petty

electioneering. I think that when you start putting your election and

your electoral needs and desires ahead of the true needs of the people

of this province and this country, the country is in a sad state of

affairs. The needs of the people must always come first. We shouldn't

be basing what policies are produced in our province, or in this

country, entirely on moving from one election to the next and on

individual electoral success. Unfortunately the Social Credit

government, now that they are moving into the period of an election,

whenever it may be, again show, in my opinion, a complete lack of

integrity as a government. Every move they're making does not seem to

have any overall plan, except to get elected again. The people who

suffer when governments move towards elections with only one thought in

mind, and that is their own electoral success, are usually the people

of the province who need help the most.

So I pay tribute to the senator. I pay tribute to that senator who

has the courage of his convictions and is speaking for many of the

voiceless youth of this country. I wish him well. I just hope that the

government in Ottawa will not, on the basis of politics and obstinacy,

refuse to make moves in his direction and will restore a much needed

and well-received youth program.

In the report of the task force on youth there are so many excellent

quotes. I don't want to be standing here reading from a book — I know

you'd call me to order, Mr. Speaker — but I would like to just put in

the record a couple of fine quotes from this report:

"The unique nature of youth unemployment showed that

in terms of a cause and effect relationship, unemployment may lead to

certain problems or stem from others.... People who had experienced

unemployment, or that of a close relative, generally experienced lower

self-esteem, lower satisfaction with life and feelings of social

alienation, and they were incapable of controlling their own lives.

Through these psychological factors and their link with unemployment,

it is very easy to see how early experiences with joblessness can lead

to social problems such as alcohol and drug abuse or crime."

If ever we had an example of what joblessness can do, it's that

recent tragic case in another province where young people actually went

on a drinking binge of some — I forget what they mixed but whatever it

was....

AN HON. MEMBER: Methyl hydrate.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, and it was fatal for a number of them.

We accept the fact that the reason for young people going off like

this on these kinds of binges of drugs and drink is deep seated and it

comes down in many cases and in this particular area to hopelessness

and no jobs. This is my plea to this government: if you're going to

have any priorities at all, you must look at your youth.

As a matter of fact, there was a professor of social work from

Regina who stated it very well. He said: "If we do not address the

matter of youth unemployment, what we currently foresee as very much of

an individual problem — of individual hardship and individuals not

achieving their potential — could very well become a collective problem

and not one that is inwardly directed but outwardly directed, and that

could, in the long run, prove to be a very real difficulty in terms of

civil unrest on a large scale."

I think this is the problem, and I'll just conclude with this. You

cannot shove and push aside these problems of youth unemployment and

other social problems in this province. It is up to this government to

address that up front right away and make them their priority. Mr.

Speaker, the throne speech does not show this. It does not show that

this government has their priorities straight at all. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I cannot support it.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, going back a few years I can recall

speaking on two dozen speeches from the throne — 13 federal and this is

now the 11th Speech from the Throne that I'm addressing in this

Legislature. Some have been ill-worded but contained matters of great

substance; others have been easily read and contained little. I'd say

that this Speech from the Throne, this government program for the

coming session, falls between those two extremes.

In talking about big measures, important measures and speeches from

the throne, changes to the Bank Act or introduction of the Canada

Pension Plan, major revisions to Unemployment Insurance and the

introduction of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement in automobiles

were all big, important items. Canada's flag was another item which

resulted in nearly two months of debate in Ottawa. Those were big items

on the government's program for the year — the Speech from the Throne.

[11:00]

In this Speech from the Throne we find a number of items, none of

them of major importance, in my view. But it deals with the principal

problem situation — unemployment. I think we have in this province most

of the laws we need to deal with that problem. It's more one of world

trade circumstances and the psychology of the business community in

this province. With a recovery in world prices for basic materials,

this province's economy will recover. But we already have at the same

time, in the fastest growing and indeed from an employment point of

view the most important sector, the tertiary sector, the makings of a

recovery. In tourism, for example, and retail trade this year — and,

indeed, beginning last year — we have a recovery. With Expo 86 we're

obviously going to have a continued revival in sales and in job

opportunities in the province.

One of our great difficulties and one of the great difficulties in

many democratic countries is lack of flexibility. We can adjust in

periods of growth. During periods of inflation we seem to be able to

move people, to shift our emphasis from one industry to another, to

adjust to changing times. But in periods of recession, in periods when

world trade is in the doldrums, we have great difficulty. We have

little or no flexibility on the downside.

One of the reasons is our price structure — more particularly our

wage structure — and the fact that our large corporations don't adjust

readily, and that our trade unions

[ Page 7377 ]

and their function in our economy resist any downward pressures.

They don't allow for downward change. We don't have that downward

flexibility that is necessary in order to shift our people, our most

important resource, and also money from the less productive, less

enticing occupations to others which are more productive. In the

downturn, in the down trend circumstances, we have real difficulties.

I am basically opposed to wage floors which prevent young people,

untrained, from getting jobs. I am opposed philosophically to a minimum

wage. I am opposed to contractual arrangements in industries which

prevent them from reducing their costs in order to deal with lowering

prices around the world. We lack flexibility. That is one of our main

problems. We don't restructure well in times of recession, in times of

restraint.

Clearly government has been able to hold the line in some areas, but

to hold the line, not adjust downward. There are some — fortunately not

the majority in the province — who are opposed to restraint in

government. We have to have restraint during periods of income decline,

obviously. It's that lack of flexibility and lack of receptivity in

some quarters to dealing with depressions and recessions that is the

basic cause of our economic difficulties today.

In the Speech from the Throne there is reference to some relief in

the area of taxation. I am glad to hear that. Those measures were

announced last year in the budget. I don't agree with the hon. members

opposite who say that we don't have the lowest personal income taxes in

Canada. We are among the lowest and, as far as I can see, the lowest in

the nation. So as far as individual income tax is concerned, our income

taxes are low.

Taxation in respect to business and industry is high in British

Columbia. Our taxes on industry and on business have been among the

highest in this country. The Minister of Finance began a move last

year, a three-year move, for substantially a $1 billion reduction over

three years in taxes paid by business and industry. This will give some

flexibility, some relief to industry and a greater opportunity for

growth industries to hire people to help solve our unemployment problem.

In the area of finance, I was glad to hear that the federal

government intends to designate Montreal and Vancouver as international

banking centres. Presumably there will be some tax and other

concessions in those areas which will facilitate that kind of trade

activity here. We have to take another hard look at our capital tax.

There is a reference in the Speech from the Throne to the removal of

the capital gains tax. It isn't totally removed in British Columbia. It

is punitive in respect to banking. Indeed, we are one of the few

jurisdictions in Canada, and certainly in the world, where there is an

exceptional capital gains tax on banks whose headquarters are not in

this province.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: I'm sorry, capital tax, the hon. member is quite

correct. We have a capital tax on banking. If we wish to go in the

direction of the federal legislation, favouring the establishment of

international banking centres in the greater Vancouver area, then we

should remove our capital tax on banking.

In the area of trade I have always been a strong believer in freer

trade, less protectionism. That, I understand, is the stance, the basic

policy thrust, of this government. Certainly as far as negotiations

between Canada and the United States are concerned, the Social Credit

government supports the movement to freer trade, but we have to make

sure that our own house is in order. We have a number of provincial

measures which are very protectionist.

AN HON. MEMBER: Marketing boards.

MR. DAVIS: We have, as the hon. member says, marketing

boards. But even more obvious to some, we have preferential contractual

arrangements for supplies to government corporations. I note a line in

the Speech from the Throne to this effect: "A computerized network is

being developed to inform public bodies" — presumably B.C. Hydro, B.C.

Ferries, ICBC and so on — "of potential British Columbia suppliers in

order to bring about expansion of production and new jobs for our

people." Well, I think that's fine if it's merely a matter of letting

them know, stating very clearly what the Crown corporation's

requirements are for supplies, for services. But we've also been in the

habit of allowing something in the order of a 10 percent difference in

pricing: if our own supplier makes a bid no more than 10 percent higher

than some supplier outside of the province, be it from Alberta or

Ontario or Washington state, we'll buy in B.C.

I'm glad to report that in the case of SkyTrain we always bought

from the lowest bidder. Fortunately, or perhaps this is complimentary

to B.C. Industry, British Columbians were able to bid competitively in

that case. They were able to bid competitively, for instance, for the

linear induction motor used in all the trains; indeed, for trains in

Ontario and Detroit as well. But they bid competitively, and I believe

we must have a policy of always taking the lowest bid and not giving

preferential treatment price-wise to B.C. suppliers. Give our own

people every opportunity to bid, let them know as far in advance as

possible what the requirement is, give them the benefit of the doubt if

they are new as to their ability to deliver on time, but don't give

them any other preference, because if we do this kind of thing we're

flying in the face of our own statements regarding freer trade. We

should practise what we're preaching in terms of trade policy, and

therefore I am concerned about that particular line which indicates

undue preference in the Speech from the Throne.

In the area of forestry, I note we'll be doubling the taxpayers'

investment in silviculture in the province. I wish the Minister of

Forests (Hon Mr. Heinrich) would give more consideration to private

initiative. I stress private individual initiative in the area of

reforestation. In a number of our eastern provinces, those which were

discovered earlier, much more land, which is Crown forest land in this

province, was privatized. You have many woodlots owned by individuals.

Throughout Europe, much of the wood supply comes from individually,

privately owned woodlots.

We should give serious consideration to a policy whereby, say, any

and all comers, individuals — assuming they perform — can lease

long-term,100 hectares of forest land. This would provide employment

for sons and daughters, young people, in times when no other jobs are

readily available. These areas which are now Crown land, Crown land

that can be broken up readily into small parcels and leased to

individuals, would be better tended, better looked after. There would

be better reforestation, there would be a better timber supply in the

long run as a result of that activity, and in the short run there would

be more employment opportunities within families, within communities in

B.C.

[ Page 7378 ]

Energy. Site C — the construction ahead of time, if you like, of

another large power dam on the Peace River: I'm for it. I would have to

be shown that the economics are right, and when I say economics, that

the costs of construction, including transmission to the border, can be

recovered over time. In those calculations, one has to allow for the

fact that inflation generally rescues hydro projects; an allowance has

to be made for price increases in any economic assessments of projects

of that kind.

There are opportunities there. The NDP were very critical of the

arrangements relative to the Columbia River Treaty. What they missed,

and indeed what many people missed, was the opportunity to bring back

power from the United States after 30 years, and that power will be

available to us to bring back in the 1990s, power roughly equivalent to

the output of Site C. That power is available to British Columbians at

no cost, including no cost for transmission built back to the border.

We have gained the equivalent of Site C free to us for all time as a

result of the Columbia River Treaty,

That was never envisaged by the critics. We have that as a

bargaining card. That power is now being used in the United States; we

can surely use that in part of an overall negotiation to facilitate —

again, if the economics prove out — further construction in the

hydroelectric area in this province. One of the great causes of

unemployment in B.C., certainly in the heavy construction industry, has

been the fact that the largest employer — by far the largest employer

in the province, B.C. Hydro — has downed tools. It used to always have

one, if not two or three, substantial hydroelectric developments

underway, including their major transmission lines, across the

province. Beginning in the early 1980s those projects ceased, one after

another. Currently we have little or nothing underway. We should have a

long-term policy of gradual but continual expansion of power-producing

facilities in the hydroelectric area. Site C, at some stage, would fit

well into those arrangements, and would certainly provide greater

stability in employment in the heavy construction area.

Transportation. I see nothing wrong with toll highways, if they're

new highways opening up new areas of the province. The tolls will be on

for a period of time. The users who will benefit as a result of the

shorter route, the better grades, should pay something for that

opportunity. So I'm for the Coquihalla style of developing new highway

routes to the interior and north of British Columbia. I hope that at

some time a few years hence, the government will see fit to build a

toll highway north from Pemberton into the Chilcotins and on to Prince

George. That would cut many hundreds of miles off the present, more

circuitous highway route from the Prince George area to Vancouver, and

it would also open up a very large area of the province that doesn't

have really suitable highway access now.

[11:15]

Light rapid transit — SkyTrain — has to be extended across the

Fraser River from New Westminster into Surrey in order to tap a large

population. One of the two major population growth areas in the lower

mainland is Surrey, and Surrey has to be connected directly to New

Westminster, Burnaby and downtown Vancouver by SkyTrain. When that

happens, ridership on SkyTrain will increase by at least a third. It

will improve the economics of the system. It will remove a very serious

bottleneck as far as moving people across the Fraser River is

concerned. I would urge that that extension be limited, for the moment,

to Scott Road, and that any additional moneys be used to begin an

extension towards the Coquitlam area, because Coquitlam is the other

major population growth area in the lower mainland. I think the

government must give serious consideration to servicing both of those

areas — Surrey and Coquitlam — in the most efficient manner possible,

and long-term I believe SkyTrain is the most efficient way of moving

people from those growth centres to the rest of the lower mainland.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Under the heading of education, there's reference to a new School

Act. I'm concerned, among other things, with the financial measures

which I believe should be part of a new School Act. I personally

believe that education finance should not be used as an income-leveller

through the province. I think, instead, that the budget should be

broken down by school districts and that the payments to school

districts should be on the basis of student populations, student

attendance, perhaps with variations at different grades, but basically

each school district would receive the same per student allowance as

any other school district. A large school population would attract a

larger sum from the province; a declining school population a lesser

amount. Nevertheless, all school districts would be treated the same.

As it is now, the school district in North Vancouver, the area which I

and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) represent, pay

far more in local school taxes than other school areas. The reason is

that we are assumed, because of higher assessed values of homes, to be

richer. Many of these people who own the homes that are deemed to be

more valuable are elderly. They get no direct benefit from the school

system that they can immediately appreciate, and yet they pay far more

into the educational system. I think that the province, which collects

taxes from the people throughout the province through income and sales

taxes, should distribute the income back to the school district on a

per-student basis, and not weight it against those areas which are

deemed to have more expensive homes and properties.

In the school area I hope that the School Act recommendations will

deal with the matter of local responsibility. I think that the school

trustees should have, and be seen to have, more responsibility locally.

They should be responsible, in the eyes of their electors, for raising

the supplementary moneys that the local community may deem necessary to

supplement the per-student sums paid to the school district by the

provincial government. That should be a process well understood by the

electors. The school trustee elections would become much more relevant,

much more pertinent, as far as electors are concerned. There would be a

better turnout. There would be more intelligent choices made. There

would be greater responsibility on the shoulders of school boards and

school trustees. I think democracy would thereby be better served.

I hope that the School Act will speak to those two areas of finance.

I hope that the new School Act recommended by the committee set up by

the government will come out in favour, firstly, of per-student grants

to the school district; and secondly, in favour of greater local

responsibility for supplementary finance out of local taxation levied

by the elected trustees in the area.

In the area of housing, one device which is used in the United

Kingdom, and to a lesser extent in France and a few

[ Page 7379 ]

other European countries — I think Italy is one —

is absent in North

America. It's referred to generally as reverse mortgages for the

elderly. We don't have the financial and other institutions necessary

to do this, but it is possible, for example, in the United Kingdom for

an elderly couple to enter into one of these arrangements with one of

the local insurance companies whereby they can progressively draw down,

month by month, their equity in their home. That equity will continue

to be paid to them as long as they or their surviving partner continues

to live in the home. Admittedly, there's less left for the children or

others who will inherit their estate, but they can enjoy the product of

their lifetime savings. Often the home, which may be fully paid for, is

their only substantial savings. The home of their savings can be drawn

down to the extent they wish so that they can supplement their pensions

and other income while they're alive.

I think that our governments, provincial and federal, should look

hard at that practice of relieving the income problems of elderly

couples and single elderly occupants of their own homes in their later

years. That would keep some of them, perhaps a goodly number of them,

in their own homes longer. It would also encourage more people to own

their own homes, because they could see that as one way of easing their

income problems in their senior years. So I would urge the government

to consider that arrangement, which, as I say, is common in a number of

European countries, for British Columbia as well.

Under the heading of Intergovernmental Relations, the most current

problem — and I think one of the more serious problems — is the matter

of native land claims. I think members opposite should have more

difficulty with that whole question than those of us on this side of

the House.

Firstly, it assumes that native people, individually and

collectively, are somehow different from the rest of us, which I don't

agree with. Secondly, it assumes that property is extremely important.

I do happen to agree with that. Many of the members opposite oppose the

thought that property should be seen as a right, should be included as

one of the fundamental rights in our Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. They're not altogether consistent when they're urging

substantial property settlements for native people, and at the same

time saying that property is by no means sacred in our value scheme of

things.

I think the native land claims issue has difficulties on many

fronts. First, who is a native? Is it an individual who is a pure

blooded Indian or half native and half otherwise? Where is the line

drawn there? Secondly, assuming that native lands are somehow part of

another nation — another administration distinct from government

administration in this country — what taxes if any are due as a result

of title? Will the native people if they gain title to a substantial

tract of land as a result of agreements with government, owe property

taxes to federal and provincial levels of government? Will they pay

sales taxes on activities carried out on those lands? It seems that the

claims which are being made ignore all these difficulties. Who is

really a native person? What taxes, if any, will be paid to other

jurisdictions? What benefits — health, education, etc. — now enjoyed by

native people will be forgone if native people gain full title and

complete autonomy or substantial autonomy in these areas. It seems that

we're dealing with a much bigger subject than the simple delineation of

land, as if we were extending the area of a park of something of that

nature. It's much more difficult than that.

I think that the federal government's initiative in declaring the

Sechelt band area to be akin to a municipal area is interesting. It

would be one step in the direction of bringing our native people more

into the mainstream of life enjoyed by others in the community by

recognizing reserves, in some measure at least, as municipalities. I

assume that amendments would also have to be made to our Municipal Act.

I would hope that whatever amendments were made would not be

exclusively aimed at our native people, but apply to all of us, and

that therefore this would be part of a process of rationalizing the

very difficult problem of native reserves in our country and making our

native people feel, and indeed ensuring that they become, a part of our

whole community, retaining as much of their own culture and

opportunities as they can but nevertheless being neither discriminated

against or given particular advantages in the process.

I'll conclude briefly, Mr. Speaker. Committees of this House; we

have committees. We strike committees at every session. We rarely use

them. I think one of the reasons now is that a majority of the members

of the House are either on the executive, attached to the executive, or

otherwise employed at the discretion of the Premier. That makes it

impossible to have a meaningful committee system. More on that subject

at another time. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the Address in Reply the Chair recognizes

the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is quite unparliamentary.

MR. ROSE: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you should, perhaps for

the benefit of Hansard , indicate that that wasn't me who was quite

unparliamentary.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'm sorry the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is not

here, because I stayed for his speech, and I thought I'd like to have

an opportunity to reply. I want to offer my congratulations to him, and

I hope that he'll develop into a shining example of what a Minister of

Education should be.

I was a little bit concerned about some of the things he said in his

speech, and I thought I'd better talk initially about some of those

things which, I think, tended to mislead us a little bit — not

deliberately, but I think they left kind of a wrong impression. He said

yesterday that education costs had gone up some 70 percent in six

years. I think he's wrong about that. I think costs have gone up, but,

according to our figures, roughly 60 percent, and at least 25 to 30

percent of that has been due to inflation. To suggest that there has

been a rapid inflation in school costs over the past six years is just

not true. I checked that against total government spending, and I find

that while education has gone up 60 percent, total government spending

has gone up nearly 80 percent. So clearly education is receiving a

smaller and smaller share of the total provincial budget than it did

six years ago. The last figure I saw is that B.C. spends about 15

percent of its GPP on education,

whereas the Canadian average is closer

to 20 percent.

[11:30]

Another thing I would like to say to the new minister, if he were

here, or listening on the squawk-box in his office — and

[ Page 7380 ]

he should get used to the squawk-box, because if he pursues the kind

of policies his predecessor did, there will be lots of squawks — is

that on February 12 the Metropolitan Education Association, consisting

of parents, school trustees and teachers, wrote and asked for a meeting

with the new minister; that is over a month ago. The complaint he gave

to them yesterday was that he just couldn't drop everything in sight

because they happened to show up here on Monday. He snubbed a great

number of people who are very concerned about the future educational

opportunities for their children. I think he made a terrible mistake

there by snubbing them. All he did was underline their suspicion of

what he's up to. I think, if he's going to be consulting, as he

promised to do, he should not confine his talk to discussing

educational matters in safe places like Abbotsford or Chilliwack; he

should also come down into the lower mainland and see what they've got

to say and what their concerns are. So I think that he lost a glorious

opportunity. I think it was rather foolish of him not to do that. So

that really deals with all that.

In my congratulations to the new minister, I guess I have to offer

my condolences to the dear departed one. I don't know why he left,

because the Premier, just last year, had this to say about the new

minister, when I asked him a question in the House. I asked — and I'll

quote from Hansard of February 12 last year:

I wonder if I could ask a question of the Premier.... The Premier

is reported as saying that the Minister of Education had done an

outstanding job, and that he was a model in community relations. I'd

like to ask the Premier whether, perhaps to reward the minister for his

hard work and his good work, he intends to promote the minister to some

sort of high-ranking job, such as B.C. House, before he permanently

destroys the whole education system.

Here's the reply I got:

The Minister of Education is in perhaps the highest priority in the

province now. As Minister of Education he's trying to balance, with

funds from government.... He has the very difficult task of

realistically facing the difficult times of the economy, working with

school boards and trying to make sure our children get a quality

education that isn't measured only in the amount of dollars — but of

course that's a factor.... This minister is already in the top

priority job in this government — education — and will continue to be.

Where did he go? If he has not received a promotion, then it must have

been a demotion, because he was moved from a top-priority job to

Minister of Forests, It was either a promotion or a demotion or it was

a lateral arabesque; it could equally be that.

Something I would like to say about that minister that really

worries me.... I say this with some seriousness. I saw him a moment

ago advising the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). Well,

that's very dangerous, in my view. The reason we have a new Minister of

Education is that the policies of the old Minister of Education were

thoroughly repudiated even in his own document, his own cosmetic

approach to information-gathering called "Let's Talk About Schools."

Then, to make matters worse, what did he do? He went over and was

receiving advice from the old forestry minister. That's an example of

double jeopardy, I would think. If that isn't a dangerous precedent, I

don't know what is.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the number-crunchers, the pollsters,

have told the Premier that there is no chance of the public buying the

ex-Education minister, so he had to remove him. He does that, of

course, with all ministers who are in trouble. You know, you're mad at

the Minister of Health. Well, we have a new Minister of Health. If you

want to get mad close to an election on welfare rates, then we have a

new minister of welfare, and that person is shoved aside laterally, so

you can't attack him, all right? Same with education, same with

forestry, or any place that they were in trouble. Now if you were a

good boy, you got fired. You got out of the cabinet, you didn't cause

any trouble, then you were shifted to the front bench back bench.

That's what happens.

I think the situation was that the Premier decided that there was no

hope there. The leopard couldn't change his spots, so you have to

change the leopard. Anyway, I've told you what the Premier said. He was

going to leave the minister there, almost in perpetuity I assume, like

perpetual care, but a few weeks ago he shuffled them out in his lateral

arabesque.

Pollsters are also very useful, I think, in other matters. I think

they also indicated that the whole question of education is a minefield

for the government. It's a minefield for the Socred government; it's

out there. It may be people aren't marching in the streets the way they

were three years ago about this subject, but it's a minefield.

Here's what the Speech from the Throne said, in part, about

education: "My government will" — and then there was some other stuff

in there — "pursue measures to improve the quality of health and

educational services." I thought we heard all along that education

could be starved for money, about $350 million taken out of the

education budgets over the past three years, if you count inflation,

and still maintain quality. Now here comes the throne speech, which is

really the Premier's speech, saying: "My government intends to improve

the quality of education." It must be in bad shape.

Here he is. I'm pleased that the minister has seen fit to attend,

and I hope he heard the remarks earlier. I offer my congratulations,

and I predicted — or I hoped — that you would be a shining, a

sparkling, example of how a Minister of Education should behave. I also

said I was a little concerned when I saw the former Minister of

Education over there giving you advice, because I think if you want to

take any advice from anybody, he'd be the last one you should take

advice from. He got into all kinds of trouble over there.

Anyway, I think that that line in the Speech from the Throne is an

admission by the government that schools have suffered, and that B.C.

children have become pawns in the political game, the so-called

restraint program — repression program. If you have contradictions like

this all the time, it's no wonder people have difficulty placing a

great deal of confidence in what our Premier has to say. Some people

would nakedly say they don't trust him anymore. But I wouldn't say

that. I know some people would say that, but I'm too gentlemanly for

that.

We've just done a survey of all the school districts that would talk

to us over the phone about their particular problems with the new

framework or with the old framework, the I hope soon-to-be-revised

framework. We talked to 64 out of 75 districts, and they say they need

additional funds for education — some $54 million short. Because they

want to put in a lot of frills? No, just to maintain the status quo.

They don't want any of this gimmicky stuff about Education for

Excellence and situations where, at cabinet's pleasure, they're going

to get enough to run their schools on. They want to be guaranteed that

they don't have to go, cap in hand, to the cabinet just to get a few

bucks, enough dollars to run their schools. I understand as well that

if we go to a recovery budget, which a number of them have submitted,

it's going to cost even more than that — something like $131 million. I

said to them: "Fat chance of that happening." Certainly there

[ Page 7381 ]

should be at least enough to maintain the status quo and not have

the shell game with textbooks and other matters.

You know, 24 of 75 districts are actually receiving a cut this time,

so it's not based on '85 prices at all; it's really '86. Some of the

school districts were late getting their budgets in to the minister. He

said he wasn't going to take after them immediately. He wasn't seeking

confrontation. But why were they late? I think it's worth while

examining that. Not your problem, Mr. Minister. They got their

information three months late. How can they get a budget up when they

don't even know what their mill rate is going to be, which is set for

them? How do they know what Mr. Peck is going to do? We had hints that

his office, his abilities and his powers would be altered, as we see

now from the new bill. We don't know what his awards are going to do to

their budgets, but we do know that they're not even paying increments.

Isn't that outrageous, Mr. Speaker, when you think of it? It's

absolutely outrageous.

The government requires the school boards to bargain with their

teachers and settle by arbitration. Then those arbitrated awards go to

the Compensation Stabilization Commission, and it doesn't matter what

he says. It really makes no difference. Even if he grants the raise,

the minister says to them: "You can have so many bucks, and that's

all." It really breaks the teachers' contract. No wonder they've been

defiant in the past. I expect them to be. Even those who want to

cooperate, even your close friends and fellow card-carriers, although I

can't prove that. Take Mr. Buckley. He's disillusioned. He tried over

months to cooperate. What good did it do him? He got nowhere with

legitimate things. What consultation?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There are some interesting things here. I could talk about the

problems facing the Vancouver boards and the metro boards generally.

Now, though, the fiscal framework, which is inadequate, is beginning to

discriminate against rural areas held by Socred members. That may be

the best thing that could have happened in some instances, because

there's a likelihood, once they get the message, that these things will

be altered. East Kootenay: the total area — I could name the districts,

but I won't because of the time — is short nearly $2 million, according

to our survey; West Kootenays, short $1.5 million; mainline Cariboo,

short $4.5 million; Fraser Valley, short $2.1 million; metropolitan

area, $23 million; south coast, $674,000; for a total of over $50

million. That's a very serious matter.

I can report all the surveys, and I could give you a few little

anecdotes from each of the general areas. But look what's happening.

The schools that said they were able to meet last year's service levels

— and there aren't that many of them — have said they'll do this: they

will use up past reserves and surpluses. If they use up the past

reserves, what are they going to do next year? They are not including

inflation or CSP increases in their figuring. The excellence thing was

supposed to deal at least with non-salaried inflation, but they're not

even considering inflation in their budgets. The ones who have received

more funding than last year because of increased enrolment or were

given extra funding because they have special education programs are

the only ones. I think that that's a very serious matter.

Let's talk about just a few of them briefly here. The board will be

unable in School District 1, Fernie, to maintain services at last

year's service level with the money given to it by the provincial

government. The deficit is projected to be $300,000. The fiscal

framework doesn't recognize increments or salary increases given to the

teachers. They will reduce assessment for non-charitable capital

expenditures by $150,000 to $330,000, and they'll raise local taxes

by about 2.5 mills. In Nelson it's the same story: the board hoarded a

surplus of $500,000 from previous years and will use all of it and

still be $175,000 in the red for next year's operation.

[11:45]

Here's the minister's district, Penticton. I thought he'd be

particularly interested in Penticton, since he comes from Penticton.

The shortfall will be about $200,000, which covers increments but

nothing for salary commitments through CSP or anticipated wage

increases. It is expected the board will send in a needs budget.

Sometimes that's called a non-compliance budget; other times it's

called a recovery budget. Anyway, they can't get excited, because the

mill rate hasn't been set. Framework is the problem, it says. The

message to the government is that it's a very confused and fluid

situation. Of course it's confused and fluid.

Vancouver. What have we got here: the shortfall is either $9 million

or $12 million, depending on what Mr. Peck does with CSP. The

Vancouver board will submit a budget by March 15 with a $12 million

deficit. It will not be finalized, of course, until April 20. Taxes

will rise an average of $85 to $150 per single-family dwelling. That's

not as bad as Maple Ridge. It expects nearly $300, and Kamloops $600,

if there aren’t some changes made. That is not just a small problem.

Let's go over to Coquitlam, the district that I represent along with

my colleague. Shortfall will be $2.5 million, and already cut $2

million last year. So $5.5 million for proper service will raise taxes

by $128 per single-family dwelling. So there we have it. There is the

grim picture.

What is this doing to people? Well, I'll tell you what it does. The

total school district expenditure per pupil has fallen since 1983 and

1984, when it was fifth, to sixth. We are outspent in education by a

lot of have-not provinces. Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and

Ontario all spend more than we do on education, some of them as much as

$500 per pupil per year more, and that's serious.

What's happening to the teachers? I know that it is not popular; the

polls say that we want to spend more money on education, but the public

is a little reluctant to give the teachers that much more. They are not

asking for more. They are asking the government just to obey the law.

The framework drives up the average salary for teachers by its very

nature. If you have no jobs for young teachers at the low end of the

increment scale, and you have all the senior teachers employed at the

high end of the increment scale, your average salary can't help but go

up. Your framework does that to you.

Here's an example of what's happened. In 1979 we had 2,000 teachers

under 26 years of age, or 7.5 percent. Now we've got 377. So the

teaching force is growing older, and those who are employed are

becoming far less numerous. There are no jobs for them. So where are

they going to get jobs? I'll tell you where they are going to get jobs.

They're going to get jobs in California. There are 200 of them down

there now, and there will be more next year when the head-hunters come

up here. Why are they coming up here? Because under proposition 13

about eight years ago they had similar restraint programs. Young people

did not go into teaching, because there was so much teacher-bashing,

and now they've got to import our teachers, because we don't

[ Page 7382 ]

have any jobs for them and B.C....Talk about log exports; our

greatest export is likely to be teachers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How much does your daughter get paid in

California?

MR. ROSE: About the same. My daughter, as far as I know,

receives an equivalent amount in American funds to what she received in

Canadian funds.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Well, what's the difference? It costs the same....

HON. MR. HEWITT: You'd better check it.

MR. ROSE: Well, all right.

MR. REID: Will she come back and work for the same amount

here?

MR. ROSE: She'd work for the same amount if it was

transferred into Canadian funds. Of course she would.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: But you deflect me, Mr. Minister. I think that this

is an unwarranted distraction, Mr. Speaker, and I need to be protected

from.... As a kind of a tyro, I need to be protected from these

hecklers.

What we need, if school boards are going to be properly funded, is

to at least have access to the machinery and commercial and industrial

taxes. That's what they need. The argument is: "Well, why should one

district have all that stuff and another district that doesn't have

anything to tax...?" So we've got rich districts and poor districts.

What we have now is poor districts totally. Why couldn't you give them

a grant in lieu of taxation? If these districts have — and we haven't

seen the legislation again — to go to their own ratepayers, the

residential property holders, and they cannot tax equipment or

machinery or commercial, then that whole increase falls on the

residences, every bit of it, the total amount. That's unfair. You're

lifting taxes from other things and loading them on to the homeowner.

It went up last year by 5 percent — a shift. There's a greater shift,

and if I have the time I could document that with a letter.

But I want to get on to another matter. Mr. Speaker, I'm really

concerned about what's happening — not just to the funding, but funding

is at the root of it. It has come to my attention that somehow as

recently as the middle of....

AN HON. MEMBER: The night?

MR. ROSE: No. As recently as the middle of September or

February, a letter to the secretary treasurers went out with the fiscal

framework, including this: "New funds for a quality curriculum."

There will be Excellence in Education for upgrading the curriculum,

and the minister suggested three priority areas: textbooks and

audiovisual materials, software development, and specialized learning

resources to support course offerings in smaller and remote secondary

schools. But this point: "More districts and better-quality textbooks could be

made available to districts on a per-pupil basis."

What do they do, though? We have here a ministerial document, you'd

think delivered in the dead of night in a brown envelope.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's when you found it.

MR. ROSE: I found it in two places, so it has certain

reasonably wide distribution, I imagine.

What does it say? The ministerial document said: "We once had the

highest per-pupil grant" — or among them — "for textbooks. Now we're

among the lowest." The minister's own document says: "For the last

seven years, textbook funding has not kept pace with inflation. New

curriculum revisions have not met their implementation date. Now the

crunch has come. The 1986 proposed budget of $11.6 million cannot

purchase more than half the new curriculum programs."

What was the proposal from the ministry? The proposal was to spend

$22 million on textbooks. That was supported by that kind of an

announcement that went out with the framework. Suddenly, when the

announcement came for the funds for excellence, that was cut in half.

We've only got $11 million now. Now of course we can't tell precisely

until we see the final budget figures, but if this internal document is

an accurate one, then that is a cut of mammoth proportions. Where did

we get the $110 million for the excellence fund? I think you got $11

million at least right out of textbook budget. That's where you got it.

And on the other hand, you got $54 million more of that $110 million

because you're not paying increments, and you're basing your framework

on costs of not last year but a year ago. That's where I think it came

from.

But back to textbooks: what are the implications? It means you can't

implement the basic programs which are all past their prime for

revision. Science and Technology 11 — forcing students into biology, no

textbooks. Postponement would cause enormous failure rates — no

textbooks. A physics lab manual — no textbooks, because the new

curriculum guide refers extensively to that. I can go through the

others. Math 3, 4, 5 and 6 — new curriculum, but it has to be delayed:

no textbooks. Nothing for music either, because they put in new

materials last year; but non-specialist teachers can't use it, because

they're not going to have the proper textbooks. That's not me saying

it; that's what the ministry says.

What are the recommendations? The recommendations from the ministry

are to restore those funds. That's number one. Give them back that $10

million. What are the alternatives? A rental fee. But do you know what

it says under "rental fee"? "This option has been discussed previously

and found wanting. There are sensitive political implications for extra

taxation, which are worse now after several years of restraint." That's

what they say. Another alternative is: "Postpone program revisions,

which will cause accelerated financial and political attack." You're

darn right it'll cause accelerated political attacks. Then it goes on

to some others, which I have no real time to deal with. It's not just

me that's saying this; it's your own people telling you this.

There was something mentioned about the School Act in this revision.

I'm not going to hold my breath over that. I'll just give you a little

history of School Act revisions, Mr. Speaker. I thought you'd love to

hear about them just as a sort

[ Page 7383 ]

of coda to my speech. Here they are. We're going to have a new

School Act. Apparently there are 13 people appointed by the minister,

not by the players in the game — not the B.C. School Trustees, the

parents or the BCTF, but appointed by the minister, as they appoint

college boards. In 1979 McGeer — I'm sorry, the current minister of

travel and foreign trade — established a committee to do a School Act

revision. He even had researchers and a lawyer from the University of

Victoria. His successor, the current Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith),

shelved McGeer's committee, and kept stating that they had to draft the

act.... He tended to a mandate statement that would be a sort of

preamble to discussion of the act. So he didn't use the work that had

gone before him.

The next one to sit in the school chair was a Mr. Vander Zalm, a

former member of this House and a famous British Columbian. Not too

much applause for Mr. Vander Zalm, please; you're using up my time. He

shelved Mr. Smith's work and talked about a new School Act, and he was

a sort of deregulationist. Now we hear that a former Minister of

Education shelved Mr. Vander Zalm's work and said he would get a new

one.

I see that the light's on; it hasn't quite turned red yet. I'd just

like to conclude by saying that I think the minister has a tremendous

opportunity to do things differently, and I hope he will, because I

think the history of the past three years has been outrageous, if not

shameful.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright

© 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada