1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

55 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 55

Mr. D.A. Anderson (subamendment) — 58

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 58

Mr. McGeer — 62

Mr. Wallace — 66

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 69

Mr. L.A. Williams — 70

Mr. Curtis — 71

Mr. Schroeder — 71

Division on subamendment — 72

Mr. Schroeder — 72

Mr. Chabot — 75

Mr. McClelland — 79

Mr. Gardom — 83

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1974

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned

the debate before the supper hour, I must say I was very pleased to

find that we were to meet again this evening. I frown at the effort by

filibuster to cut down on debate by other Members.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Collusion. The NDP pre-arranged the timing, and you know it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Would you mind taking your place at a later time, Mr. Chabot?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I found that it was curious then that the....

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: This petulant cry from my right, Mr.

Speaker, makes it perfectly clear that the childish effort of the

Social Credit benches to arrange to have filibuster, by way of the Hon.

Member for Peace River (Mr. Phillips), past six o'clock was their

intention. Now, having failed to remember that we unanimously passed a

motion in this House not so long ago to have two sittings a day,

Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays....

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Who was it that wanted to make a deal?

Interjection.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): You'll never win Capilano!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The Social Credit Members apparently have

still not realized they voted for night sittings Monday through to

Thursday. All Members of the House voted in favour of that. It was a

unanimous vote.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we get on with the amendment that is before the House now, please?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, before we do, I'd like to

read a very short note that came down from the gallery. I might add

that it was addressed to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom). It says: "Hi, Chief, we are the retired Pages from

last year (if you can remember us). Hope you will enjoy this session

(we were so bored of it)."

They sign their names, but in the interests of protecting them, I

won't say who they are. (Laughter.) I trust that the Pages we have this

session will not find it quite so boring and will be a little more

impressed with what we do.

Mr. Speaker, the motion we have to debate this evening is the

amendment to the motion in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It

reads:

"But this House regrets that the speech of His Honour

gave further indications that the government intends to place greater

centralized controls upon the people of British Columbia while

neglecting any mention of specific proposals for policy changes in the

social services fields of education and health at a time when there is

growing public alarm with government policy in these fields."

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear the Member to my right say "Right" because that's precisely what this motion is all about.

What they are demanding of the government in this motion is that the

government recognize that the previous policies of Her Majesty's

government, in right of British Columbia, were wrong and they want

policy changes. They don't want you to continue the previous policies

of the Social Credit administration, which unfortunately in a number of

areas you have not got around to changing.

It's perfectly clear from the wording here that what this motion is

all about is it is chastising the government for failure to change its

policies fast enough. It chastises the government for having kept on

with some of those old Social Credit policies because, as they say

quite rightly, there is growing public alarm with government policy in

these fields.

There has been that growing alarm for many years. There was before

the present government took office, there was previously, and it was

that type of concern, in particular in the fields of education and

health, which led this government to take office.

You know, Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day one of the speakers, the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), said the Government are

forgetting what led them into office, what caused them to take office.

But I don't think they have. This type of resolution makes it perfectly

clear to any of the government benches who might be wavering that

they're in office because of the incompetence of the previous

administration. That I think is clear.

Yet, this motion, this amendment, recognizes it. It recognizes that this new Social Credit Party, led by

[ Page 56 ]

Ken Kiernan as president, with Grace McCarthy as

vice-president, and Bennett, the junior edition, as leader — this new

Social Credit Party, recognizing the disastrous policies that they had

before, is now chastising this government for failure to move fast

enough in changing them. I think it's quite a good motion from that

point of view.

I have my reservations about some things this government has done,

in many of the areas where they haven't moved fast enough in changing

the previous Social Credit policies. The two that are mentioned are

education and health, and I'll restrict myself strictly to this

amendment, Mr. Speaker.

First, let's take education. What did we have previously? We had

stop and go in the building of schools. We had freezes on expenditures.

We had the teaching profession up in arms over what they felt was

unfair legislation — Bill 3, the famous Bill 3. We had a

student-teacher ratio which was really a disgraceful thing. We had an

extremely low per capita expenditure on universities, one of the lowest

in Canada. Indeed, for many years, it was the lowest in Canada, when

the Social Credit government was in office.

I would like at this stage to mention some of the things that were

said at that time. A number of statements were made less than two years

ago by Members who are now Members on the government side — Hansard refers here to the former Leader of the Opposition on classroom size:

What about classroom and pupil-teacher ratio in a

classroom, Mr. Speaker? It will all be up next year and the effects of

this bill will be dramatic at that time. Time and time again, when the

Minister of Education (Mr. Brothers) has spoken in this House, he has

talked about the commitment to quality. He boasts about the educational

system in B.C., Mr. Speaker, but the government cannot boast of the

present legislation that we are faced with.

The now Premier goes on to criticize very sharply the

student-teacher ratio at that time, and many other failings in

education. And he was right to criticize it. My only complaint at this

time is my agreement with this motion. I feel that the government has

not moved far enough in changing some of the iniquitous provisions of

the previous government.

I would like to quote the former education critic. Again, it's less

than two years ago, and she said: "Trustees are trying to show

leadership, but the Minister keeps bringing in legislation that

prevents them from having any leadership, and I can assure him he makes

it most difficult for the Members of this House to debate his bills

when he keeps them bringing in amendments," et cetera.

Mrs. Dailly, if I could quote her name, as it's down here in the

book, goes on to say: "We in our party advocate the removal of property

taxation for school purposes, even if the Minister doesn't. It's quite

obvious with the type of legislation," et cetera. She mentions the

tremendous work being done by school trustees and she talks about one

of the richest provinces in Canada, which has the largest classes in

Canada. Again the question of student-teacher ratio. She says: "Already

we have one of the highest student-teacher ratios right across Canada.

Does this government really care?"

Well, I don't think the previous government really did care. I think

the Hon. Lady Minister was correct in her criticisms at that time. I

think that we've seen in this province a failure in this area to

proceed fast enough. We've had, of course, a number of very obvious and

unfortunate occurrences and I would agree with this amendment to this

effect: that the present government has not moved fast enough in the

educational field to change those policies of the previous government.

Now, I have no wish to anticipate debate on estimates. My views are

well known, but I would once more point out that in the educational

field I do not believe that the Premier has demonstrated adequate

confidence in the Minister. The three instances, the Bremer affair, the

student-teacher ratio speech before the school teachers, and thirdly,

the speech to the school trustees on their irresponsibility — in my

mind, these three things, two involving the Minister of Finance, one by

the Premier, have indicated that the Premier lacks confidence in the

Minister, and I think, as I have said before, that this should lead to

changes.

I have no wish to pursue this at this time. All I will say is that

the present government's record in this field is that it has not gone

far enough; it's not gone fast enough in changing the situation that

existed previously and there is no question that in this area we can

support the resolution as it deals with education.

Mr. Speaker, the next subject is the social service field of health.

Well, what did we have previous to this government taking office? What

did we have? Let's face it, they took office just about 18 months ago.

What did we have before? We had tragic shortages in the hospital field.

Chronic care was promised by the Minister of Health, Mr. Martin, I

think in 1958. It wasn't in when he himself wound up in need of chronic

care years later. I think this is an area in which this present

government could do more. But no one should blind themself to the fact

that they came into office; they took over in the Province of B.C. when

the record in terms of hospitals and chronic care was perfectly

terrible.

Medical training is another aspect. We graduate approximately 60 to

65 medical doctors a year. The Foulkes Report says that we need at this

time 152.

Since this government has taken office, the number has gone up from 60 to 65 to 80, I believe,

[ Page 57 ]

which is an improvement.

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): It's now 80.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It is now 80; the Attorney-General tells me it's now 80.

Well, in the short space of time this government's been in office I

think they can take credit for that. They should be congratulated for

that. But it is far from what is needed.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I haven't changed the law school and I intend to do it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, Mr. Attorney-General, I might well

agree but, unfortunately, if I mentioned that I'd be out of order in

this debate. You know what would happen.

But when it comes to medicine and health services, the previous

record of the previous government simply was impossibly bad. The

psychiatric care was a case of constant crisis. The nurses and

technical training were simply not good enough. I'd like to quote

again, Mr. Speaker, from the Hansard

of '72, less than a year ago, about the psychiatric care in hospitals.

I'm quoting the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier. He

talks on page 19:

In our travels as, a caucus to various parts of this province,

Mr. Speaker, we found that there was no coordinated plan of hospital beds for

adolescents who are emotionally disturbed and no plan whatsoever to have beds

anywhere in British Columbia for adolescents who have a drug problem.

He goes on to say that he phoned Kelowna General Hospital,

There are no psychiatric beds for children and there is no programme

out of that hospital or beds for any child who has a drug problem.

He went on to talk about Prince George in much the same way; the same situation apparently existed there.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker — and I can accept the statement made by

the Hon. Leader of the Opposition of that time as being essentially

accurate — that we did not have a good system of medical care in the

Province of British Columbia. Indeed, Dr. Foulkes in his report, much

of which I disagree with.... But at least I can agree with his basic

contention that we simply did not have a rational overall plan for

health delivery in the Province of British Columbia.

To be fair to this government, the government has started to try to

cure some of these things. They have made certain steps in the medical

training I mentioned. In hospitals they're now tentatively — and I

think much too slowly — entering the field of chronic care.

Mr. P.C. Rolston (Dewdney): Home care.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Home care was mentioned. I agree that much

needed to be done and I completely agree with the resolution that the

government has proceeded too slowly in this regard. Nevertheless, in

this instance I think that we should recognize that the government is

departing from previous policies and that this change is very desirable.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett), who has left the room, is not really aware of the hypocrisy

of his resolution. Coming from his party — the party that left the

present government with this situation — to complain about this

government in education and health care, to complain as he did,

pretending that there was no history in this province, that there had

never been a Premier in this province by the name of W.A.C. Bennett,

that there had never been a Social Credit administration in this

province, was really hypocrisy.

Mr. Smith: Do you always live in the past?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The fact is that although....

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Where were you in trying to change the federal policy?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The fact is that even though much remains

to be done, and that even though in this area the government's policies

have not been particularly bold or imaginative, and while they are

basing far too much, I believe, upon the report by Dr. Foulkes, which

has many areas which are questionable, the fact is that previously the

situation was a great deal worse,

Mr. Chabot: You're scared of Gibson.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm glad to see that the Hon. Member

admits that Mr. Gibson will be winning. It's really quite interesting

that the Member for Peace River assumes that he will be in the House

two weeks hence. It's in agreement with his leader. You know, he

originally said he was placing his leadership right on the line in

North Vancouver.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Watch your back, watch your back.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: He took one look at his candidate and

said, "Look, we hope we can come second," and since then he's been

backtracking even further.

You know, I'm glad that the Hon. Member for Peace River, who probably has seen those Social

[ Page 58 ]

Credit polls, knows full well that his leader is

right and Gordon Gibson will be sitting in this group here come two

weeks from now.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that's been put before us dealing with

the failures of the government in the educational health field is

perfectly acceptable to us. We later on will be discussing in much more

detail the things we think the government should be doing in these

areas — the areas where we feel that they have not moved fast enough.

However, let there be no misunderstanding as to what the resolution

means.

The resolution calls for this government to change previous Social

Credit policies, and I think that's right. But so that the resolution

can be perfectly clear to everybody, I would suggest that it be

amended. Indeed, I will propose an amendment, seconded by my honourable

friend from Vancouver–Point Grey, that the following words be added to

the amendment, and it would read, "because such inattention leaves

British Columbia at the mercy of the policies of the former

administration." (Laughter.)

It would therefore read, Mr. Speaker:

"This House regrets that the speech of His Honour gave

further indication that the government intends to place centralized

controls upon the people of British Columbia while neglecting any

mention of specific proposals for policy changes in the social services

field of education and health at a time when there is growing public

alarm with government policy in these fields, because such inattention

leaves British Columbia at the mercy of the policies of the previous

administration."

I so move.

Mr. Smith: Is that the best you can do?

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'll spend my time....

Mr. Smith: Is that subamendment in order?

Mr. Speaker: I have accepted it as being in order. If there's

some point about it that you take exception to and could help me on, I

would be much appreciative. I note in looking at it that it modifies

the proposition for the House.

Now if you look at May at

page 379, the object of an amendment in the effect on debate may be

either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its

acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an

alternative to the original question. Now it must not be a new issue

that evokes a debate on an entirely different subject. It must be

relevant to the main amendment.

I take it that the proposal here is a modification of the amendment.

It is relevant. It appears to be on the same issue. But it limits or

narrows the proposition somewhat, as I read it.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Well, the way I read it, it says it modifies it

because such inattention leaves British Columbia at the mercy of the

policies of the former administration. In other words, there's

limitation of it to that area, as I see it. Do you have any information

on that?

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I may suggest that in the years I've

been in this House that is one of the most shallow amendments that I

have heard.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Well, we can debate the depth of it very soon.

Mr. Smith: We're quite prepared to debate it, seeing as you decide to rule that amendment in order.

An Hon. Member: Is it seconded?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I thought that the subamendments did not need a seconder.

Mr. Speaker: They don't. Just the amendment needs a seconder

when you're dealing with the address in reply to the Speech from the

Throne. So in the circumstance that I've already recognized the Premier

— he was on his feet first — I will....

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm one to abide by the rules of the House.

Mrs. Jordan: Then sit down.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of

speaking today after this motion was initiated by what I consider to be

a powder puff opposition, deliberately stalling the normal process of

today's debate to stop the Liberals and Conservatives from having their

day in court — a meaningless filibuster that had no relevance to the

serious problems of British Columbia. Now all they want to do is clack,

yak, and their new leader isn't even in the House. Their new leader

isn't even in the House tonight on this very debate that he initiated.

Interjections.

[ Page 59 ]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated? Do you have a point of order?

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that you keep the Premier within the terms of the subamendment.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly have drawn it to his attention. But

I point out to the Hon. Members who are shouting that a minute ago they

were doing exactly the same thing with the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson). So it's very difficult to keep everybody in order.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the subamendment...

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, let's.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...and the sentiments expressed by the

Second Member for Victoria. One of the major reasons why the Social

Credit government of the day was thrown out was because of the very

content of the subamendment.

It's because there's politics involved by the opposition that we

have an opportunity to present some counter politics and some real

facts after their shabby performance this afternoon.

It was that government, Mr. Speaker, that caused this headline. I

want to bring it to your attention because I'd like to remind everybody

in this House that that government overruled their own Speaker — the

Speaker of the House, Mr. Speaker — when the Socreds killed the $200

pension vote.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They stopped a vote from taking place in

this very House to give, as the subamendment points out, programmes to

the senior citizens of this province and that programme was actually

delayed by over one year because of the Social Credit overruling the

Speaker in the House at that time.

Now, you live with that on your conscience, I say to you, Mr.

Speaker. At least the Liberals understood that the government of the

day had the opportunity; they are absolutely right in the subamendment

in that respect, because they knew that the former government was the

one that stopped the $22 Mincome programme. And now they have the nerve

to think that the people of British Columbia have a short memory and

say they're blaming us for not helping the people, when they killed the

very programme that they could have pioneered in Mincome. Shame on you!

Do your homework, smarten up, and be a little more logical.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat amusing too to see them

have the nerve to suggest that in the education field they would have

done better. Ask the teachers. Ask the school trustees. Ask the parents

of this province who had to suffer through school freeze after school

freeze after school freeze imposed by that group over there when they

sat here with money in the bank.

Mr. Chabot: You're a dreamer!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Where's your leader? He's back. Oh, I'm

glad to see that. I'm glad to see that because you know, Mr. Speaker,

I'm not sure who's really running the show over there. The speech

content was vintage Dan Campbell (Laughter) — short on facts, heavy on

illogic, and nonsense for reason.

Let's examine, Mr. Speaker, what the products were of this

government's expenditures in the education field. Mr. Speaker, what are

the facts? Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the last year there

has been the largest single year decrease in the pupil-teacher ratio in

the Province of British Columbia since 1916? These are the facts and I

want the people of British Columbia to get the facts — our first year

in office has seen the largest decrease in pupil-teacher ratio in one

year since 1916, and it was this Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) who brought that progress in quietly.

An Hon. Member: More teachers, or fewer students?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, since October 31, 1973,

financial services under this Minister have allowed the province to

hire more teachers. And the student-teacher ratio decreased under her

administration by the ratio of 1.2 students per class, and that amounts

to the largest single year of decrease since 1916.

If you want to condemn that, I'll read the facts to you. In 1970

there was a pupil-teacher ratio of 22.79 per cent under Social Credit;

in 1971 it was 22.43; in 1972, the last year of the ill-famed Social

Credit, 22.68. It was on the rise when we came to office, and within

one year of being in office this Minister decreased that ratio to 21.56

per cent. Now I challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether or not that

will appear in the opposition literature that they spread around this

province.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): What city is that?

Mr. Chabot: Mansons Landing.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the pupil-teacher ratios decreased in 66 — 89 per cent — of the 74 school districts. Eighty-nine per cent of the

[ Page 60 ]

school districts of this province had a

student-teacher ratio decrease under this Minister, who has quietly

gone out and done the job that that government ignored when they were

in government year after year after year.

I respect the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), Mr. Speaker, for

suggesting that we should do more. And I would like to hear from him

what taxes he proposes to raise to spend even more money than this

government has spent. Well, Mr. Speaker, you'll have to wait for the

budget.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): We don't have to wait — we know you're overtaxing.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, and we were underspent by that group.

We have spent money, Mr. Speaker, in education to bring about this

fantastic record and, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you there will be more.

There will be more.

Mr. Speaker, to hear the opposition suggestions that this government

has been neglectful in the education field is sheer nonsense. The facts

prove it.

I don't expect to see a big headline in the Vancouver Sun

tomorrow saying that the student-teacher ratio has dropped its highest

amount since 1916. It might appear on Wednesday (Laughter) under "Help

Wanted for the Opposition," but it won't be the headline in the Vancouver Sun tomorrow. We know that it won't. Maybe the Province will tuck it in under the editorial page. But we know what the story is.

The question of health services, Mr. Speaker. We sat in this House

and the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was quite correct. And his

colleague from Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) was also a part of that same

debate. And what was it, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing in 1972-73 in

the health field? We were discussing at that time a budget of $580

million.

The estimated total expenditure in that field — in health and social

services — under this new government has gone from that $580 million in

one year up to $767 million, Mr. Speaker. And why not? It's the

people's money.

To have the nerve to attack an increase of $187 million, which

includes Mincome, means, Mr. Speaker, not the Liberals but the Socreds

say tonight: "Elect us in North Vancouver–Capilano and we'll fight

against Mincome — not only for the 65s, but from the 60s on to the 65s,

because it's costing too much money." That's what they're saying.

That's exactly their behaviour in this debate. They are threatening the

whole basis of the Mincome programme.

Now what about Pharmacare? Do they say by criticizing the Department

of Health and Welfare services that the expenditures of Pharmacare are

wrong? Is that what they're saying? Of course it is.

You can't interpret it any other way.

Under their chintzy two-bit drug programme they forced the

pharmacists to take ads in our newspapers attacking the government's

programme related to welfare recipients. You remember that — an

unprecedented public move by the BritishColumbia Professional

Pharmacists Society. Certain traits are inherited — I see another empty

seat, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you this advertisement: "Notice to

welfare recipients." It was under Social Credit on June 9, 1960, and

you sat in the House, some of you over there when this hard-hearted

mean programme of yours went into effect. And you've got the nerve to

endorse this motion.

"On April 15, the B.C. pharmacists reluctantly began

charging a dollar fee to partially offset their average loss of a $1.14

on each welfare prescription dispensed. Since that time the B.C.

government Social Welfare department has done nothing towards a

mutually acceptable contract between the pharmacists which would cause

the removal of this surcharge. Welfare Minister Campbell's..."

still around in another role....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's got nothing to do with patronage. He applied for a job and went through a competition — he beat out Gracie. (Laughter.)

"Welfare Minister Campbell's referral of this matter

to the Combines Investigation Branch has only side-stepped the issue,

with no result as yet."

Their answer to the welfare recipients, their answer to this

programme was to attack the pharmacists as a professional group, which

was a pattern of theirs. Then they went on:

"The government has refused to meet with the

pharmacists to negotiate an agreement and to replace the outdated 1954

payment schedule"

This was '59; 13 years later, do you wonder why they were thrown out

of office? And they have the nerve to come here tonight and attack the

Pharmacare programme that they wouldn't even touch themselves, forcing

professional people to take to advertisements.

I am very proud of what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) have done. They have

negotiated with the pharmacists; they have dealt with them on a

professional level. They have introduced a Pharmacare programme that is

universal, and I say to every person 65 years of age and over who lives

in the Province of British Columbia, let it be understood that tonight

Social Credit went on the record against

[ Page 61 ]

Pharmacare — a vote for Social Credit is a vote against Pharmacare, Mr. Speaker!

You come in here with your claptrap, phony.... Mr. Speaker, excuse

me. You come in here with your powder-puff resolutions in a cheap

attempt to block off the Liberals and Conservatives from speaking and

you reap the whirlwind of your own record.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, you can all behave that way. Your leader isn't here to mark your behaviour.

But, Mr. Speaker, what about the homeowner grant?

The empty chair. We're used to that; it is a chronic, inherited trait.

Mr. Chabot: If you want to make political love, then move across the floor.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, one of the losers is getting worried.

Maybe he should have been a winner after all. He had the talent; he had

the skills; he didn't have the money.

And it's nice to have a daddy too. Money and daddy. Not like "mommy and daddy." Get it straight: "Money and Daddy." (Laughter.)

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they may come in and talk about the ordinary

people. It was us who moved the homeowner grant to $235 from $200.

Pharmacare for 223,000 people. They're not going to be fooled by this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad we put the mike in; it smokes out more interesting things than you know.

Mr. Speaker, in our first two months in office — and the Liberal

Member is correct in this — we released $95 million for hospital

construction. The present Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

who sits in this House today attacked the former Minister of Health,

Mr. Loffmark. Mr. Loffmark tried to tell this House, as the spokesman

for the then Social Credit government, that the hospital boards were

"fizzing" with the money. Do you remember that — when you had to bring

in tapes into this House related to the Minister's conversation? Even

the Vancouver Province had to

run front-page stories on those tapes. President Nixon isn't alone.

Tape-recorders have bothered politicians since their invention, Mr.

Speaker. We had a little preview of that before.

Executive assistants. At least we hire competent ones. I'd fire your speech writer after this afternoon.

Mrs. Jordan: Is that a warning to Twiggy?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I can't help those

personal affections with some of my staff members. If you're defending

my staff members, they have skills more than I can confess to, Mr.

Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ah, Twiggy, huh?

Ah, Mr. Speaker, do you know what we did in the mental health field?

We stopped the Social Credit policy of seizing assets from estates of

mental patients. That was a policy of Social Credit. I don't hear the

hotliners screaming about that. Oh, maybe they forgot about it. Or

maybe they didn't know about it. Or maybe they don't like to be

reminded.

The Social Credit policy was to take from the estates of the

mentally ill, seize from the estates with the awesome, swooping powers

of Social Credit. The heavy hand of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Bennett), with his strong jack-boot heels, went in and took $14 a day

from the assets of mental patients. We stopped that iniquitous

programme and they've got the nerve to ask for it back under this

particular amendment. They tried to backdate it five years, Mr. Member,

and by order-in-council. (Laughter.)

You know, the only thing wrong with this amendment is that they

didn't think about what they were writing. They didn't give any

examination to their own history; they thought they were being cute by

cutting out the opposition and clever by getting a little mileage. Only

they were hoisted on their own petard, which is their record.

Yes, they did it by order-in-council. Yes, that's why they sit over there, Mr. Speaker. The people of this province were fed up,

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on. But what's the point?

Mr. Phillips: Right. Try explaining your way out of Bill 71 and Bill 42.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, what's the point? Mr. Speaker,

I don't have any farm that's classified as agricultural property while

it lies close to town.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Explain Bill 71, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, we're not dealing with Bill 71; we're dealing with the subamendment.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You've saved them just in time, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

[ Page 62 ]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when we talked about the whole approach to

welfare and the research carried on by the former Minister (Mr.

Gaglardi). That's when he used to fly down to San Francisco and talk to

somebody down there.

An Hon. Member: That's where he left his heart.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's where he left his heart. Mr. Speaker, you were wrong. As Minister of welfare he never had a heart.

Mr. Speaker, I remember how they did their research. That's what

they're asking us to go back to through this emotion. That's what it

was: emotion, not a valid motion. They asked us to endorse the policies

of a Minister who said he was down in San Francisco doing research. We

phoned the people he said he had visited and they phoned and told us

and said: "No, we never met the guy." He sat in this House and told us

that's how he spent his money. Research on alcoholics — that's what it

was.

And when again that Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.... He has been

in more trouble in this House than anybody I know with that Minister.

Always hitting him with the facts. Shame on you, Mr. Member. Destroying

the whole performance with the facts. Now they've got the nerve to

ignore those facts.

Mr. Speaker, who are they trying to kid? They stand exposed tonight

as the most hypocritical group that has ever sat in this House. And

their performance today indicates that they want to turn back the clock

and go back to the school freezes, to the hospital attacks, to the

welfare services that forced pharmacists to attack them in the paper

and people to beg through that Minister for help. Then they try to wrap

it up in what they call the pork barrel. That's what they had all

right, Mr. Speaker: the pork barrel alliance. Oh, I'm sorry, it was the

businessmen's alliance. And guess who was running that?

Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. I find it most amusing to have this whole

thing come right back on them. And what was their reward for the former

Minister of welfare? He used to say: "I bust my guts out for the good

of B.C." You know what reward he got? They hardly let him in the

convention. They talked about that today. It wasn't rigged, Mr.

Speaker; it wasn't fixed. It was arranged. And that Minister was down

in California while he was being attacked here in this House. When he

came back for some succour from his own party, what happened to him? We

see the manipulation of a political machine that has lost any contact

with reality.

We will not accept the subamendment, although the intent by the Liberals, I

think, is valid. But we will not accept the subamendment because it gives credence

to that hypocritical position taken by the Social Credit Party over there that,

under its regime, did very little for welfare, did nothing for the aged in terms

of Pharmacare or guaranteed incomes, fought with the hospitals right across

this province, allowed school student-teacher ratios to increase, and then has

the nerve to come in tonight with this motion. I reject it, just as I rejected

their political philosophy, just as I rejected their behaviour in this House.

There are times when I'm very proud that we did win the election.

After that performance this afternoon I'm proud for all the people of

British Columbia that they're where they belong: a diminishing force in

this province.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the amendment, making it very clear at the outset....

Some Hon. Members: Subamendment.

Mr. McGeer: Subamendment. And we intend, Mr. Speaker, to support the amendment finally as well.

I think the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), in making

his maiden speech to the House this afternoon, though he raised in my

view quite valid points about the record of the NDP, if he is to start

on a new course in this province then he must divorce himself quite

clearly from the policies of the previous administration. Not one word

from the Leader of the Opposition today, or the man who seconded his

non-confidence motion, that the decision was to be made, that the

Social Credit Party was to be a different and modern party not in any

way linked to the sins of the past — and they were many and they were

severe.

I sat for 10 years in this House under that former Social Credit

administration. When it comes to education, health and welfare policies

I took the trouble to write a book cataloguing what went on during

those years. It's still available for the Minister of Lands and Forests

(Hon. R.A. Williams) at $7.95, Peter Martin and Associates. (Laughter.)

Every year, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. W.A.C.

Bennett), a man not unknown to the present Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. W.R. Bennett), brought forward stern and punishing warnings about

the cost of education in this province. Finally when there was a survey

taken of the deteriorating state of affairs, not commissioned by the

Social Credit administration, but undertaken by a new president of the

University of British Columbia, it revealed a shocking state of

affairs. The president published his report and the response of the

then Minister of Education (Mr. Peterson) and the Premier and Minister

of Finance was that the costs were staggering.

Today we're told that it's the NDP that has failed

[ Page 63 ]

in education. Mr. Speaker, in 1963, 250,000

students signed a petition against the Social Credit government in what

was the finest hour of students in this province. To the credit of the

government, there was some repentance — a new university was built. I

think it a pity that that university turned so viciously on the

government. Nevertheless, the record of neglect was there.

It wasn't just in the area of universities, Mr. Speaker, because at

that time the Diefenbaker government, in what was their finest policy

over the years, was to provide the people of Canada with technical and

vocational schools built at 75 per cent of the cost by the federal

government. The federal government was prepared to spend 50 per cent of

the cost of operating those institutions. The agreement was open-ended.

What was the response of the Social Credit Minister of Education, Mr.

Speaker? The response was: "We don't want to build those schools

because we'll get hung with the operating costs." Something was done

only because a new federal government twice extended the deadline which

allowed for the completion of that programme

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the president of the University of British

Columbia gave up in disgust. The man who followed him resigned after

only six months. He said of government financing of our university

system: "It's completely unrealistic. I think it's far below the level

of financing achieved in other provinces that are not any more, or,

indeed, as prosperous as British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, what was the response of one Minister of the Social

Credit government to that statement at the time of his resignation? Mr.

Gaglardi, who was then, I believe, Minister of Highways, said: "Maybe

we better give it to loggers, or construction men or farmers. We need

people who can make do with what they have without crying." That was

the attitude of the Social Credit administration at that time.

What happened after that? When President Hare resigned from the

University of British Columbia, our operating costs for universities

were the third lowest in the nation. The only provinces that were worse

were those in the Maritimes. Three years later, Mr. Speaker, during the

final years of Social Credit administration, we were last, behind Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, provinces with

resources only a fraction of those of British Columbia. What we were

putting into higher education at that time was half of what Alberta and

Ontario were putting in in operating costs. Mr. Speaker, over a

five-year period, the last five years of Social Credit, in capital

costs it was one-fifth — 20 per cent.

How many people remember, Mr. Speaker, standing in this House under

education debates while the Minister of Education suggested that the

pupils of this province should get their exercise in classrooms?

We were going to do push-ups by the desks in the rooms because there

wasn't enough money to build activity rooms in the schools of British

Columbia.

Mrs. D. Webster (Vancouver South): Shame!

Mr. McGeer: How many remember when the Member for Dewdney,

the Social Credit Member in this House, stood up and said he thought

pupils in this province should be on swing shift because that is the

way his automobile industry operated? The Liberal leader at that time,

(M. Perrault) had to ask that Member who was going to teach graveyard.

That was the attitude to building classrooms of the former Social

Credit Member, and of the former Social Credit administration, because

at a time of record wealth in British Columbia we couldn't build

schoolrooms in this province.

At a time when the federal government was making available, through

the Canada Pension Plan, $100 million a year of funds available for

school and hospital construction, the Social Credit government made not

one penny of that available for the purposes of education or hospitals

in this province until pressure from this opposition and the official

opposition that's now the government persisted year after year after

year in embarrassing Social Credit over its failure to provide even the

fundamentals of classrooms.

I can remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance told the

school board of Vancouver to sell its own bonds. Do you know what

happened, Mr. Speaker? The school board of Vancouver went out and sold

its own bonds, and then the Minister of Finance cancelled the deal.

Even when the school boards were ready to carry the load themselves and

sell the bonds, not through the government financing agency, when they

were that desperate — even then, the former Minister of Finance refused

to allow them to go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't just in the field of education that we had neglect.

I want to tell you what it was like in the health and hospital field when Social

Credit took over from the former Coalition Government. They profited from a

mess in the field of hospital insurance, and I want to warn the NDP, Mr. Speaker,

that that mess in premiums was because the Liberal government, with a good idea

on hospitalization, was unable to administer a plan. Take warning of your mess

in automobile insurance; administration is essential to any programme.

But when the Social Credit government abolished premiums and put the

financing of hospitals entirely on the sales tax, that sales tax went

up from 3 to 5 per cent. How many remember the promise of the former

Premier and Minister of Finance, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, that that 2 per

cent would go for hospital services? Mr. Speaker, the public never saw

that 2 per

[ Page 64 ]

cent. It was diverted for 20 years for other purposes.

How many remember, Mr. Speaker, in 1962 when the Jubilee Hospital in

Vernon went broke? The hospital nearly closed its doors because it

couldn't pay its employees. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because the

B.C. Hospital Insurance owed the hospital $11,000 and it wouldn't pay

up. Even the money that was allotted to hospitals in those days was

held by that former Minister of Health, Mr. Eric Martin.

How many remember, under that Minister — and he was backed by the

Minister of Finance — when they said there would be no hold-up for any

hospitals in this province for lack of funds? This was five years after

the Minister of Finance in an election campaign had promised the public

of British Columbia that we would have a chronic-care programme in this

province. Five years later, the City of Vancouver withdrew $1.3 million

that it didn't put up for its share of a chronic hospital at the

Vancouver General site — in disgust because of the waffling and fancy

dancing of the Minister of Hospital Insurance of the former Social

Credit regime.

That same Minister when the doctors rose in protest — in a way

they'd never done before or since in this province on behalf of the

desperate lack of facilities, the response of the Social Credit

Minister of Health was to send a threatening 500-word telegram to the

Vancouver Medical Association.

When he was badgered in this House, Mr. Speaker, his response to the

pleas for chronic facilities from Members of his own party as well as

our own was that the greedy next-of-kin wanted their inheritance and

they were the ones who were demanding the facilities.

I was here sitting just down the way, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister

of Health stood up, right about where the present Minister is, and

every time he stood up to answer a question Premier W.A.C. Bennett told

him to "sit down and don't answer." It didn't matter whether it was the

opposition Members or the backbenchers who were asking those questions.

I can remember, Mr. Speaker, years when at this time of year you

could go into the Vancouver General Hospital, find all the beds in the

hospital filled, find all the beds in Emergency filled, and find

stretchers down the corridors with letters on the wall — A, B, C, D,

and so on, down to Z. Then they started — AA, BB, CC down to ZZ. Every

single one of those stretchers was taken up by a sick patient who

desperately needed a regular hospital bed. That's what hospital

facilities were like.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic after all of that, that the

man who is now leader of the Conservative Party and a physician stated

at that time that the situation was worse in the City of Victoria. He

was quoted in the press as saying it was the worst in Canada because

"It proves the hell of the mess we're in." I'm quoting, Mr. Speaker.

That same Member less than 10 months later stood on a platform with

the former Social Credit Minister of Health to be nominated to contest

a seat for Social Credit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about welfare. I stood

in this House as well, like many opposition Members, pleading with the

flint-hearted Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) to release funds

to give a little dignity to those who were poverty stricken in this

province and left incapable of caring for themselves, hanging on to

what few threads of life they could and hoping against hope that their

fate wouldn't be to require a chronic hospital bed.

The Minister of Welfare I can remember, the one who probably drafted

this motion, danced around in this House, told us how much they wanted

to give more money and how they were prevented from doing so by the

rules of the federal government — by Ottawa. No number of denials by

the federal government or pleading with the then federal Minister of

health services managed to clarify the situation.

Every statement that the federal government made was clouded by some obscure administrative detail that left the press confused.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't until the new government took over that we

discovered that 98.6 cents out of every dollar for welfare came out of

the federal treasury and all this time the provincial government was

giving only 1.4 per cent — 1.4 per cent! — and was standing in the way

of further federal government expenditures. I don't think we've ever

had in the history of Canada a record of meanness and penury that could

begin to match what went on during those years.

Mr. Speaker, when we went after the man who came in as Minister of

Human Resources (Mr. Gaglardi) we found that he was junketing around

the country at the government's expense. He had no property problems.

No sir, he was down in South Bend, Indiana, making speeches at a

Transport for Christ convention and putting in slips for government

travel for two hotels in the same night — collecting expense money and

at the same time dunning the public of British Columbia and his budget

for junkets to the United States to promote his own personal beliefs.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we came out with our Charter of Rights for the

elderly, the NDP came out with its guarantee of $200 a month — the same

as we did. It is little enough, Mr. Speaker, with this inflation

chasing every dollar that these people have. But it was a substantial

advance and my compliments go out to the Premier and the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). Also, I'm sure, the heartfelt thanks

of thousands of people, elderly people in British Columbia who are

still on the edge of poverty but

[ Page 65 ]

perhaps now aren't on the edge of desperation. I hope the government will continue to be generous.

But you can see, Mr. Speaker, that my indignation runs a little

high, when I stood here for 10 years in the House trying to defend an

economic system that was brought into discredit by the social policies

of a government that had to be the worst and most backward in British

Columbia history and perhaps in the history of Canada.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's why they don't want to go back.

Mr. McGeer: Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Social Credit Party

will change. I hope so. Because as long as that party even sits in this

House — deserves to sit in this House with any representation at all —

it needs to recognize perfectly clearly what its record has been.

We're all aware that during the 50s, 60s and early 70s British

Columbia enjoyed record prosperity. Certainly the former government

provided a framework where people could do their thing and do it well.

But, Mr. Speaker, no matter how good that framework may have been,

there is no justification for a government serving a single day in

office that has the means to do not just good, but its minimum

responsibility in the area of health education and welfare, does not

deserve to be in office one day unless it is prepared to fulfil those

responsibilities.

If you cannot recognize, with the kind of record that the Social

Credit administration gave us, what those deficiencies were — if you

cannot be large enough in heart and broad enough in intelligence to

admit those deficiencies, repent and guarantee to correct them — then

you don't deserve to sit in the official opposition, much less be a

government.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's the spirit of our amendment. I'm sorry that

some Members of the House as individuals have given their indication

that they cannot see their way clear to supporting this amendment. But

despite what individuals have said, no matter how influential they may

be as Members, I hope that everyone will vote their conscience and

recognize that we're merely by supporting this amendment acknowledging

facts.

You know, sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I know that the present Premier sees the backbenchers in a slightly different way.

I'm sure many of the backbenchers have heard that under the former

regime if you said one word of criticism or voted once not according to

the way the Premier said, you got a life sentence to the backbenches.

And maybe you got worse, because there were some.... Where did Stan go?

Where did Don Smith go? Do you remember when he backed the government

down on the gas stations?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: And disappeared like fog in the morning.

Mr. McGeer: And where did Arvd Lundell go? Forgot all about him.

Mr. Speaker, times have changed, and I know the present Premier.

I've sat with him in this House longer than any of you backbenchers. I

know the present Premier has got a lot of admiration for a backbencher

with spunk and a mind of his own. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that he'd

have a sneaking admiration for any of the backbenchers that got behind

this motion. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's non-operative.

Mr. McGeer: I think it is an operative analysis. And I

notice, Mr. Speaker, that some of the backbenchers were listening with

interest, because they may not remember as long as I did. You had to

sit in the House year after year after year and take it, before you

remembered really clearly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said my kind words about the official

opposition, may I address a few remarks to the government? I want you

to realize that I'm not speaking now as the seconder of this. I need to

speak to the main motion as well. So now I'm speaking, if I may, to

some of the spirit of the main motion. So disregard these remarks when

you're thinking about voting for the subamendment. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I think the government could well, as it may have had —

and I sincerely believe that the government has the best possible of

wills in the matter of health education....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I interrupt the Hon. Member

to point out that we're dealing here with the advisability of this

subamendment offered by your group.

Mr. McGeer: Do you want me to speak again, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry, but those are the rules.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to health,

education and welfare. You remember that the subamendment said that the

former administration had really been responsible for the situation.

Now what we have to consider is what the government has tried to do

and succeeded in doing in correcting it, Mr. Speaker. And it's this

matter of correction that has spirited the amendment. Because one thing

the new Members can perceive. You see, they started here in day one,

and they failed to see progress.

[ Page 66 ]

I can understand the feelings of the official opposition, because

they listened to what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

said. And she gave me the strap, you know, for making some suggestions

about the education commissioner. I remember that she gave me a

terrible lashing, but not what you gave to that man — you cut his head

off. Not just the strap. And I think, Mr. Speaker, very seriously that

they're going to pay him more than the University of Victoria paid to

the former president — I'll tell you that. The NDP settlements are

expensive ones, with the public's money.

Nothing, Mr. Speaker — and you know this yourself — undermines

morale of commissioners or civil servants or anybody else trying to do

a job for the government more than to be criticized when they show

initiative and try and do that little something extra.

I hope Hansard is making a careful copy of my remarks, Mr. Speaker,

because people who are sitting trying to do a job, whether it's in the

field of health, in the field of education, in the field of welfare or

the field of human rights are going to be very nervous about showing

any initiative at all in the fields where they're trying to make

progress, because if something goes wrong with this government the

people are not brought in, the problem discussed with them, and some

gentle corrections made. They're taken out in public view on television

before the largest audience in the province and publicly condemned and

subjected to embarrassment and humiliation that shouldn't go with

anyone sincerely trying to do the job, no matter how bad that job may

have been done.

It isn't good enough, Mr. Speaker, even for someone who has been

frankly disloyal to the cause he's been commissioned to do. But I think

the education commissioner, just like the assessment commissioner, was

not only doing his best, but going the extra mile — showing

initiative...

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. McGeer: ...trying to make the kind of progress that we desperately need in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Member would deal with the subamendment.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the subamendment.

How can you make progress in the field of education if the man you hire

as commissioner, the minute he shows some initiative at the behest of

the people whom he was trying to encourage to help him develop a plan,

gets his head chopped off? Mr. Speaker, that kills it. You are never

going to get anywhere.

It doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker. The same goes for the man who was

the best man in social services in the City of Vancouver — he lost his

job because he was good. I don't know what's going to happen in the

field of health, but I could tell you that if we continue to get people

brought in to try and help the government do a job — and heaven knows

they need the help, Mr. Speaker — and we proceed to undercut them

publicly in the way that's been done, the morale of everyone is going

to sink so low that we will have a stagnation in this province, Mr.

Speaker, worse than we had under the Social Credit administration and

that's saying something.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's why I intend first of all to support the subamendment, and then to support the amendment.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, it's been a long day, and I suppose when you're small you get to suck the hind tit. (Laughter.)

Speaking to the subamendment, as the Speaker would like us to do, I

think it's fair to recall why I got into politics in the first place.

Groans from North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) — obviously she's a little

sensitive, and she's a little afraid of what's coming. She knows what's

coming.

I entered politics because of some of the shortcomings of the

policies in this province in 1967 in relation particularly to health

services and the needs of people in the wide scope of the health field.

I'm the first person to admit that I make lots of mistakes. I made

the first mistake of thinking that much could be done at the municipal

level. So I ran for municipal office thinking that was one way in which

a person with some degree of education and experience might contribute.

And I found that where the action is is at the provincial level. And at

the provincial level I chose to run for the party which I considered,

with the exception of the social services, closest to my particular

philosophy at that time.

And there's all the chirping from the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) about me making love to the NDP. Let's get one thing straight:

in terms of social services by government to the individual I am very

close to the socialists' thinking, and I make no apology for that. I've

never said otherwise, and I don't think I ever will.

Mr. Chabot: You'll get a job. You'll get a job.

Mr. Wallace: What the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

hasn't noted or chooses to ignore is that in another area of my

particular political thinking I am poles apart from the socialists in

regard to their dedication to state ownership, to public ownership, of

the resources of this province or of the country. We are poles apart on

that. There's no way, in any conscience, that I could run for or join

the NDP.

Interjection.

[ Page 67 ]

Mr. Wallace: But that is a specific example which does not

conform to the general policy of public ownership. That's right; he

said it himself. You don't even know what he said.

But you see, in typical Socred thinking things have to be absolutely black or white. Anything in the middle and they're lost.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, to speak again to the subamendment: the

social needs in this province were very clear in 1967 and in 1969 when

I ran provincially. The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) seems

to make a great issue of the fact that I condemned or criticized the

hospital crisis in this province in that year and subsequently ran

under the Socred banner. I just say to that Member that surely in any

democracy a person is entitled — I hope entitled — to choose the party

which is closest to his political thinking.

The fact that I was not happy with the Social Credit policies in

health and education and welfare, I don't really think should have

excluded me from seeking to run for that party with the hope — and my

God, was it a forlorn hope — that I might contribute, coupled with the

fact, Mr. Speaker, that I understood that the then Premier of the

province was very interested in my ideas about health services and how

they could be improved. Ha, ha, ha!

I had an hour-long private discussion before I decided to run in

1969 for the Social Credit Party with the then Premier of the province,

who appeared to be all ears to my talk about progressive health care,

intermediate care, the plight of people in nursing homes — and I could

go on and on. It was the only conversation I ever had with that

particular man where, generally speaking, I did the talking and he did

the listening.

Once I got elected I couldn't really get near him to find out

whether he was ready to listen. They're strangely silent down the way

there. They're very silent. They were all chirping a minute ago, but

they haven't got a single word to try to contradict what I'm saying

tonight. Not a word.

Mr. Chabot: Don't be so pious and pompous.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: You're a two-bit phony.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will you retract that statement?

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, I retract that the Premier is a two-bit phony, but he is a phony.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That's contempt of the House. Would you apologize to the House?

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that the Premier is a phony. He made some phony remarks tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Would you kindly apologize to the House?

Mr. Chabot: Apologize for what?

Mr. Speaker: For your conduct.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: You cannot attack another man in the House or

any Member and call him a phony, and then repeat it. And I don't care

who you're talking about.

Mr. Chabot: You never make him withdraw or apologize.

Mr. Speaker: I have on occasion, and I'll do it with any Member. Would you kindly apologize to the House?

What is your point of order?

Mrs. Jordan: In order to break this deadlock, I would respectfully...

Mr. Speaker: I'm waiting for an apology.

Mrs. Jordan: ...suggest that the Speaker recall that the

Premier in his speech made derogatory and insulting remarks about the

leader of our party, his family, his mother and his daughter.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Jordan: And if the Speaker insists on demanding an

apology from this Member, I demand an apology from the Premier. He was

far more insulting.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When a matter touching any Member

comes up, it should be raised at that time. That's the rule of the

House. This matter has come up now. The Hon. Member says he retracts

and then doesn't retract; he refuses to apologize to the House, which

is the one who is really offended, not any individual Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member please withdraw?

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

[ Page 68 ]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Would you proceed with your speech? It applies equally to all Members of the House.

Mr. Wallace: Well, Mr. Speaker, moving right along, I think

we should recall, regardless of the obviously touchy reaction from the

Socred benches, that the basic reason I left the Social Credit Party

was the fact that private Members....

An Hon. Member: That's why you left the Socred benches.

Mrs. Jordan: You're an egomaniac.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

retract that statement that the Hon. Member's an egomaniac? This is

really getting intolerable.

Mrs. Jordan: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member to us in caucus appeared to be an egomaniac.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Opposition by insult.

Mr. Wallace: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the

interruptions, I will attempt to continue to speak to the subamendment.

What is the subamendment? (Laughter.) "Because such inattention" — and

really, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that's a very mild description —

"such inattention leaves British Columbia at the mercy of the policies

of the former administration."

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the government of that day in no way

came close to meeting the obvious urgent need of large segments of our

society, particularly the elderly sick. The question of nursing home

care, the need for the facilities to be provided or standards of care

to be ensured for the citizens requiring care in those institutions or

nursing homes was right at the bottom of the totem pole of priorities

when it came to providing any kind of funds in the budget.

Intermediate care has to be the one outstanding gap in the spectrum

of health services in this province. It is indeed ironic to witness

this death-bed repentance of the Social Credit Party in its amendment

to the motion. I think that the subamendment is most appropriate.

The area of education, I think, should also be clearly recalled.

This province was in a state of ferment because of the attitude of the

government of the day under a Minister of Education who was under the

total dictatorship of Premier W.A.C. Bennett — as was every Minister.

I can remember trying to ask Mr. Loffmark on one occasion to speak

to Premier Bennett about a certain matter. "Oh," he said, "you've got

to be very careful. The Premier's preparing his budget and it's pretty

difficult to say anything to him while he's getting ready for his

budget speech." So the whole air in that party at that time, regardless

of his health and education policies, was one of a closed, dictatorial

of private Members to have any influence whatever on these policies.

I'm not particularly happy, to be honest, with the Foulkes Report,

which is a step towards trying to improve the situation. I think, with

respect, Mr. Speaker, that there are urgent needs right now that have

been existing since 1967, and we don't need studies and travelling

committees and Foulkes Reports and all kinds of inquiry and re-inquiry

and studies and investigations. There's a tremendous job to be done

right now, and there was in 1969. I just say to this House, for

goodness' sake, let's get finished with a lot of this study and

investigation, and inquiry.

Many of the facts and figures and the needs of human beings are

before us here and now. They were before us in the days of the Social

Credit administration — with very particular reference to intermediate

care. I'm quite happy to give credit to that side of the House for the

social reform that has been carried out in the time in terms of Mincome

and Pharmacare and many other measures which the party has done. We

voted for them. I'll try to remain a constructive critic of this

government.

I do have to say that there are many urgent needs not met which

don't require 1,200 pages and a lot of that gobbledegook in the

language it uses and all the folderol of the typical administrative

bureaucrats. People in this province need help tonight — the people in

the nursing homes and the elderly sick. I had phone calls on a hotline

show today telling me about elderly citizens who are malnourished. They

don't even get enough to eat in some of the nursing homes.

Now I say: do we need two volumes and $700,000 and all this

gobbledygook in the report to tell us something that we've known at

least since 1967? That's seven years. I say the time is now for action,

at least in the obvious immediate areas of need.

The Hon. Member across the way knows full well that when we went

around the province to hear for the nth time of this need, we really

found out nothing new. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that in 1969, as in 1974,

there has to be a vehicle, a mechanism, and you just don't barge in

without some planning. But you don't need all this kind of planning of

boards and regional boards and super-duper boards and advisory

committees and Lord knows all what — this endless number of bureaucrats

coming into the system.

[ Page 69 ]

What I'm interested in is quality care for people who have needs,

particularly in the elderly age group, whether it's money to pay for

bread or food or a roof over their heads or drugs as you've provided in

Pharmacare — and more credit to you. But the debate we're having

tonight about health and social services must, I hope, not become a

stalling manoeuvre through the vehicle of the Foulkes Report. I think

that would be a disaster. The tragedy in the Foulkes Report is that it

asks for a total commitment by the cabinet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world — and God knows we don't live in

an ideal world — this might be all right if we're ready to wait 10

years to set up all the structure and find the personnel and get

everything all tickety-boo before you move. That might be all right

when you're fighting a war and trying to win a battle. But the battle

right now is to look after the elderly sick in this province. You have

the money, Mr. Speaker. The government has the money. The Minister of

Finance has admitted we have the money.

I'm just distressed beyond belief to find that maybe we're putting

pipelines before people. That $25 million has a better use in my sense

of priorities than in buying a pipeline. Okay, I want to be a good

Canadian and we want to repatriate the economy; but first things first.

If we're going to stand here and criticize the Social Credit

government for what it didn't do in 1969, I am sorry, but I certainly

have to criticize this government for doing nothing about the nursing

home crises when it can spend $25 million on a pipeline. I just say

that in my system of priorities that kind of money should be used to

correct some of the social service gaps which we're debating tonight.

I talked about education. It's getting late and I think we're all

sick and tired of repetition. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that we

shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're in this House above all

others to meet the needs of individual citizens. If we're not meeting

the most basic needs — food, shelter, health care, hospital care, and I

could go on — then I just ask a simple question: what has happened to

our sense of priorities?

Patriotism is great. I'm a proud Canadian. But I say to this House

tonight, in the light of the government we've had for 20 years which

fell short, I don't know that they ever had the goals that this

government has. That's open to debate and question.

I do believe that in the social field this government has a great

deal to offer this province, but its ideology is blinding it. It's

getting carried away by the feeling — at least I sense they have the

feeling — that they have to prove beyond all doubt to the people of

this province and the rest of Canada that they are indeed socialists,

and socialism means public ownership. I have a serious concern, Mr.

Speaker, that this government is putting ideology in relation to public

ownership before some very obvious urgent human needs which the Premier

has talked about many times.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I only

have one or two words to say. I want to congratulate the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) for a number of the things he said tonight. I

certainly agree with a number of the things that he said. I want to

suggest to that Member that the Foulkes Report was not a stalling

manoeuvre.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When an Hon. Member refers to a matter the door is open at least to reply and that's the general practice.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, I think that this government has

been carrying on a great number of new and innovative practices with

new and innovative procedures since we've been government. If you

really want to have that substantiated, I suggest that not only did the

Member say so himself, but I suggest that you go to the hospital boards

across the province. I suggest you go to the doctors across this

province. You will find from them that we have opened up the floodgates

to a better health care delivery system than has been the case

heretofore; and it will be improved, Mr. Member, and will go on being

improved as long as this government has anything to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, we didn't sit back while that report was being

prepared. We opened up the whole question of hospital financing. We

relaxed the 70 per cent, which was crushing. That 70 per cent situation

was holding hospitals back so far that we have opened up the whole

question of chronic care. We have right now on our plate more in

extended care. We have any number of intermediate care beds on a pilot

basis that we're trying to develop. We have bought a great number of

private hospital beds in order to provide the kind of care that that

Member was suggesting.

I know that there's a concern in the whole area of nursing homes.

We're trying our very best to police this. But, Mr. Speaker, we can't

relent. We can't go back to suggesting that we're going to help those

areas of delivery of care that don't meet the needs of the people of

this province. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate again the Member

for Oak Bay. I want to suggest that the Member for Oak Bay and my

office have any number of discussions about the delivery of care. We in

the Health department will continue to take any kind of advice that's

important and helpful advice that we can get.

I just don't want his last few words to leave this House with the idea that we're sitting on our

[ Page 70 ]

haunches waiting for some report to tell us the

way. The main reason, Mr. Speaker, for that report was to help us

coordinate the activities of our four departments. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that the report has accomplished just that. Thank you very

much.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'd like to

address myself to the subamendment very briefly. We could all in our

experience in this House, whether it be long or brief, call up examples

of the way in which the former administration failed in the areas of

education, health and welfare.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, with candour, that when I first

came to this House I was not as familiar with some of the problems of

welfare as perhaps I am today. I remember the shock and disgust that

overcame me one evening when Members walked out of this chamber to find

in the rotunda, sitting on the floor, mothers, single mothers, some

with their children, who didn't have the money to care for their

children and to provide them properly with clothing and accommodation.

They came to this building in protest.

I can protest against the policies and the programme of the former

administration as it affected them. I remember at first just wondering

what was taking place. And then as we talked to these mothers to find

that their allowance, under the then Minister of Welfare (Mr. Gaglardi)

was such that for the last seven days all they could feed their

children was beans. That's all. To find that if they took a job to try

to improve their lot, to feed their children, they got taken off

welfare. They lost their allowances.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: For showing initiative.

Mr. L.A. Williams: For showing initiative as the Premier

says, to try and raise themselves and their families out of the

desperate grip of poverty. Were their prayers, their requests, answered

by the former administration? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what also

occurred on those nights. In the gallery on the third floor there were

plainclothes members of the RCMP photographing those mothers. Because

it was suspected by the government that they were subversives. That's

the kind of treatment that they received from a Minister of Welfare who

would call those people bums.

That's the only example that I wish to bring to this debate, Mr.

Speaker. But I recall to you and to the other Members, and to the

Social Credit Members, that in 1969 when we fought that campaign in the

fall of that year that government administration which could then smell

the decay in its own party began to promise to the people of this

province some relief from situations such as that, and we got promised

the old age increased pension.

We had recanting by the administration of that day, and if anything

shocks me about this debate here today it is to find that we have

repeated here today a debate, an amendment to the motion introduced by

the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Bennett), and seconded by

one of his foremost spokesmen, quite obviously as a ploy for an

election which is to take place tomorrow.

The hypocrisy of the Social Credit Party's campaign in the fall of

1969 is being repeated on the floor of this assembly this afternoon,

and it's sickening.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the decision as to what will happen in

North Vancouver–Capilano and what Member will come to represent that

constituency is in the hands of the good electors of North Vancouver,

and I ask them to make their choice, and make it fairly. But we don't

have to have this kind of cheap political tactic. It is debasing to

their own candidate, it is debasing surely to their own party, and it

is debasing to politics in British Columbia. And I say, Mr. Speaker....

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would ask if

it's within the priorities of this House to allow a Member to accuse

the opposition, or a group of Members, of cheap political motives. I

think that that Member should be asked to apologize, Mr. Speaker, the

same as you've asked other Members to apologize for allegations which

have been of far less damaging values.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order, I don't recall a single

Member being attacked personally. Generally that is what in a general

application is what is called cheap.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, he's attacking the mover of a motion of amendment on the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand your complaint it is that he's attacking a group or party for cheap political tactics. Is that it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The question is whether it is a personal attack.

If the Hon. Member takes exception to it...but the Hon. Member

signifies that he doesn't. I can't deal with it. Because it is his

personal complaint that usually leads to a ruling.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly meant

no personal attack upon any Member of this House, or of any person who

is responsibly engaged in the political life of the province. It is the

[ Page 71 ]

tactic that is cheap, and it has brought politics in this province into disrepute.

To suggest, as they apparently do, that mid-November of 1973 was the

beginning of a new political party in British Columbia, and to bring in

this kind of amendment here today, is to ask the people of British

Columbia and the Members of this assembly to believe that we have in

this province a party which is prepared to do what the Russians have

done — only they called it de-Stalinization (Laughter). If they are to

suggest what we are having is a de-Bennettizing then all I can say, Mr.

Speaker, is neither the leader of the official opposition (Mr.

Bennett), or the seconder of this motion (Mr. Phillips) in their

comments on the amendment gave any indication of their willingness to

recant from the policies of the previous administration.

When we come to deal with the amendment, I would like to address

myself further to the specific words which the mover and the seconder

have placed before us. But I ask at this stage, Mr. Speaker, that all

Members of this House consider well, how far we have come in 18 months.

Lord knows we've got a long way to go. We cannot erase 20 years of

social inactivity on the part of the government in so short a time.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, my remarks with respect to the subamendment will be brief, and I hope of some help.

I want to comment on the respect I have for the previous Liberal and

Conservative speakers in this discussion this evening — those with more

experience in this House than I. But I must say that for the official

opposition to have selected — of all the issues, of all the matters,

which concern us in British Columbia today, of all the problems and the

shortcomings of all political parties in the past — to have picked out

social services, health and education is hypocrisy, as others have

observed.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, and will remember to my last day how I

shuddered with frustration and rage and anger at Mr. Loffmark, as a

representative of the Capital Regional Hospital District, in an effort

to get going on hospital construction in the greater Victoria area. And

how we were blocked, and stymied, and frustrated, and turned down, and

insulted at every turn. I will never forget that and I will never

forgive Mr. Loffmark for the damage he did — not to the Capital

Regional Hospital District, not to the elected local politicians, but

to the people of the Capital Region area, the people of British

Columbia.

He was a disaster in health and hospital services in British

Columbia, and it will take years to recover, and to have health

mentioned in an amendment today is an insult to the intelligence of the

people of British Columbia.

Where were W.A.C. Bennett's priorities? Well, Mr. Speaker, as a

one-year president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities I thought it

would be courteous and polite to pay a courtesy call on the former

Premier. This was requested. Full 12 months went past, Mr. Speaker, and

no such courtesy call was permitted. No such courtesy call was

permitted. I believe one president of the UBCM was trotted down to

Ottawa as exhibit A in a federal-provincial conference and I felt sorry

for him.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Could he speak Chinese?

Mr. Curtis: It wasn't my turn that year. Wrong guy!

Mr. Speaker, when we try to discuss matters relating to health and

social services — people problems in British Columbia — in UBCM

representations to the cabinet, we were listened to perhaps politely,

but with very little impact.

Then, the Municipal Finance Authority was created. Dollar signs, Mr.

Speaker, dollar signs. And the Municipal Finance Authority decided to

go to the United States market. We'd had trouble seeing the Premier and

his cabinet with respect to problems which concerned local government.

I had never had an opportunity to speak to him as president of the

Union of B.C. Municipalities, even for two or three minutes as a matter

of courtesy. But the MFA was going to New York, in the American market,

and suddenly the reputation of the Province of British Columbia in

terms of dollars, was at stake.

Money, not people. Dollar signs and money. Did we see the former

Premier? We saw him for an hour in his office and then across the

street for lunch, and a lecture on fiscal policies. I think that the

day has been filled, Mr. Speaker, with hypocrisy from the Social Credit

Members which I will not forget.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): I'd like to speak just

briefly, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to the subamendment. I have been

listening for the past two hours, I believe it is, to a history lesson

which I have enjoyed and which I cannot help but feel that in every

regard, Mr. Speaker, has not been entirely accurate.

Mr. H. Steves (Richmond): Did you learn anything?

Mr. Schroeder: However, I would like to say, as a trailer on

what the Member for Oak Bay has said, I believe that every man is

entitled in a democratic society to align himself with a party that he

sees as the closest to his own political persuasion. And I would

believe that that same courtesy would be extended to the Member for

Chilliwack. If that courtesy is extended to this man, then, I would like

[ Page 72 ]

to say to the Members of the House, I am proud to be associated with the Members of

the official opposition, because it is through 20 years of their

administration that we have come in British Columbia to the place where

we are today, where we can even discuss in terms of $1.7 billion per

year in revenues and that kind of expenditures.

I think I would have to believe and I would think that every Member

of the House would have to admit that although there were shortcomings

in administration, and I think I'd be honest in admitting them, I would

have to say that there were areas of administration that were superior.

As a result, we have in British Columbia today a financial position

that allows us to discuss the things that I would hope we would soon

get to in this session here today. I don't make any apologies; I don't

take any responsibility for what has happened in this House heretofore.

Nonetheless, I would like to have the same courtesies extended to this

Member as to every other Member of this House, and I appreciate it

very, very much.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Curtis

NAYS — 45

Hall

Levi

Barnes

Macdonald

Lorimer

Steves

Barrett

Williams, R.A.

Kelly

Dailly

Cocke

Webster

Strachan

King

Lewis

Nimsick

Lea

Chabot

Stupich

Young

Bennett

Hartley

Radford

Smith

Calder

Nicolson

Jordan

Nunweiler

Skelly

Fraser

Brown

Gabelmann

Phillips

Sanford

Lockstead

Richter

D'Arcy

Gorst

McClelland

Cummings

Rolston

Morrison

Dent

Anderson, G.H.

Schroeder

Mr. Schroeder: I'd like to speak now to the amendment. I'd

like to speak to perhaps only one aspect of the amendment in that it is

rather broad. My initial interest is in the field of education and my

remarks will be limited to that one particular aspect.

I think that it is reasonable to observe that in the Province of

British Columbia we have an unrest in the education field that is

growing. I wouldn't say that it has never been here before; I wouldn't

say that it arrived the day the new administration took over. But I

would say that it is here present with us today in a measure not seen

before.

I have been amazed, amused at the same time, at some of the answers

that have been suggested as to why this state of unrest exists in the

education department. I've listened to some as they've tried to lay the

whole thing at the doorstep of the department. Obviously, that's not

the answer. There are some who would lay the entire blame at the

doorstep of a man called Mr. Bremer and obviously that cannot be the

answer because the problem existed long before any of these people were

around.

What is the problem then, what is the basic unrest? You can talk to

the teachers and have them try to explain it. It's difficult for them.

Isn't it, Mr. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston)? You've talked to them

and it's difficult for them to verbalize. It is a problem and you know

it. I'm willing to tell the truth; you tell the truth. The unrest is

there and it's difficult to verbalize.

The teachers see it as a problem that perhaps can be solved just by

pushing one button or by changing numbers on a salary cheque. Or

perhaps by decreasing or increasing the number of students in a

classroom. It surfaces as a plea for higher wages. Even though teachers

have received a settlement of anywhere between 10 and 14 per cent

increase in salaries, the unrest is still there. So obviously, Madam

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, this, although it may be part of

the answer, essentially cannot be the entire answer. What are the

problems?

Working conditions: Someone says we must increase or at least better

the working conditions of the teacher. Perhaps that would quiet the

unrest. And so we say let's give them a little more time away from the

job. Let's go to a semester system rather than the present annual

system where they get two months in the summertime away from the job;

let's go on a quarter system. Each teacher teaches nine months and then

they are away for three months. You talk to the teachers and you find

out that although they cabbage onto the idea, nonetheless, it doesn't

do anything to quiet the unrest that exists. It doesn't appear to be

the working conditions. They may be a part of it. But again,

apparently, they're not the answer.

We wondered, well, maybe what we should do is get the teachers some

teaching help, some teacher-assists, electronic even. Maybe we could

have television as a teacher-assist in the classroom. It doesn't seem

to answer the unrest that's with the teacher. What seems to be the

problem?

I think there's a basic need. I think the teacher has a sense of

unfulfilment in her job and it evidences itself as a plea for higher

wages; it evidences itself as job boredom. I think what needs to be

done is to return to the teacher a sense of value to her job. We

[ Page 73 ]

need to return dignity to the profession, dignity to the teacher and

perhaps dignity to the classroom. The teacher needs to have a sense of

worth, and certainly a sense of accomplishment at the end of a day. How

can this be done?

I think we have subtracted from the teacher this sense of worth by

diluting not only her worth, her value, but also by diluting her

authority in the classroom. I'm not talking only about her sense of

authority as regards discipline, I'm talking about her sense of worth

and authority as a teacher, someone of value in the classroom. Teachers

that I have talked to recently are thinking in terms of early

retirement. Spoke to one just last evening who asked if there was any

way we can drop the age of mandatory retirement so that he can retire

at an early age and get away from it all.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): It has to do with a decent pension.

Mr. Schroeder: If you can tell me what you're going to do with the highway between Straight and McKilgard, I'll listen to you too, sir.

An Hon. Member: He doesn't know where it is.

Mr. Schroeder: I thought that perhaps after four or five

letters and three or four personal interviews, you still wouldn't know

where it was. Lord have mercy on you.

This unrest evidences itself not only in the teachers' attitude but

also in the students' attitude. Again we see in the student a classroom

boredom. That's not the worst. We see it when it's the toughest to

handle, in the form of incorrigibility. The teacher doesn't really know

how to handle it. The tools, the last resort has been removed. It

evidences itself in even more frustration on the teachers' behalf, and

the student seems to push in an increasing way to see where the lines

of restraint are finally going to be at.

It finally shows up in the form of absolute defiance. It shows up in

destructiveness and lo and behold, more and more and increasingly, it

shows up in student drop-outs — 20 per cent is the drop-out rate,

approximately, give or take a point or two. Twenty per cent is the

approximate drop-out rate between grade 10 and grade 11 and again

between grade 11 and grade 12.

Now, you might say that this is due to natural attrition or this is

due to job offers to the students. If you talk to the students, you

find out that it's boredom with the classroom situation. It's obvious

that something must be done in the education field. It's obvious that

it hasn't been done till now, because the problem still exists.

I'd like to be involved in finding the answer. And I would like to

offer my assistance to the Minister in perhaps locating the problem,

discussing it on a rational basis and perhaps coming up with the answer

to the problem, not only for the good of the Minister, because we'd

like to make her job that much easier, not because this Member is

looking for a particular credit in having discovered the answer, but

because the people of British Columbia are involved. I think the future

of British Columbia is involved because if our educational system

declines or crumbles, then what basis do we have for the development of

a future British Columbia?

The performance of the present department — what effect has it had

on the climate of education? We've heard talk recently about

student-teacher ratio. There has been much talk. In fact, the present

administration has made it a priority that the student-teacher ratio

must be decreased. As a matter of fact, we heard a verbal barrage just

a few moments ago from the Premier stating to us how many points of

difference there was between the decrease in student-teacher ratio in

1973 as opposed to, say, 1916 or any other given year.

I'm wondering if we decrease the student ratio to one teacher to 20

students, would that solve the problem that exists in the classroom

atmosphere? I don't think so, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

because the problem that exists in the classroom is an interpersonal

problem and it doesn't matter whether there are 35 students, or 36 as

there are in some classrooms in your area in southern Okanagan. It

doesn't matter whether that be the ratio, or the ratio be 20 to 1, the

problem is interpersonal and that's where the problem needs to be

solved.

I had an interesting conversation with some of the principals of the

schools, both from my constituency, some from Okanagan, some from

Vancouver. I was interested in their answers to this question: What is

discipline like at your school?

The principal from the Abbotsford area said this: "I have been given

twice as much time as I used to have for purposes of administration.

Whereas I used to have so much classroom time, I now only have half as

much classroom time, giving me twice as much time for administration.

And yet it seems to be that I'm only getting half as much work done."

I said: "Now explain this to me."

He said: "Well, the only way I can explain it is to give you an

example. I am spending," he said, "more time with each individual

student when he comes to me with a problem. For instance, a student

came the other day..." This is in junior high, junior secondary, as we

call it. A student had been sent there by the teacher because he had

taken a bottle of some chemical and had spilled it over the carpet in

the classroom. The teacher had tried to discuss it with the student in

reason. The student was not too receptive and so was sent to the

principal's office.

[ Page 74 ]

The principal said he spent over two hours with the student, thought

he had gained some ground, sent the student home. Next day, the student

returns to the classroom, takes the selfsame chemical in the selfsame

container — if not the same one, one similar to it — spills the stuff

all over the carpet again, gets called right back to the principal's

office and the principal said: "Here I go, back to another two-hour

procedure of what I went through yesterday, to accomplish what?"

There seemed to be a problem that is not being answered because it

is a student-to-teacher or student-to-principal relationship and there

needs to be some absolving done in this range.

What has the present department done to help this student-teacher

one-to-one relationship? I'll tell you what they've done: they have

emasculated the teaching profession to the place where the teacher in

utter frustration doesn't know how to deal with the situation. The

student becomes aware that she is frustrated and as a result, nothing

happens. There is no communication between the two. Frustration is the

result. The student goes home frustrated; the teacher goes home

frustrated, and that which we thought was a panacea or a cure for all

ills, namely reducing the student-teacher ratio, really hasn't helped

at all. And taking away from the teacher a final resort in discipline

certainly hasn't helped the situation.

The Minister's disturbed because the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) talked about the strap. "Oh, no, for heaven's sake!

Goodness, not that thing all over again. Is this still an issue? I

can't believe that this can possibly be an issue," she says.

If it were no issue, why was it the first act that the Minister

accomplished after taking office? We haven't seen many bills that

involve education — my work load has been light. But one of the first

things that this Minister considered to be important was the removal of

the strap from the classroom. I'm not saying that the strap, in or out

of that classroom, necessarily was the physical means of the difference

between the communication between student and teacher, but it was the

mental means whereby the communication was taking place.

What has happened to teacher attitude? What's the performance of the

department done to teacher attitude? With this diluted authority, the

teacher is fast losing faith in the administration which they helped to

elect and which they thought by their actions was going to bring some

cure to their problems.

The NDP courted the teaching profession into the election campaign —

promised them they were going to give them fewer students in the class,

going to give them more money to take home. When actually in talking

with the teachers, they weren't really asking for more money.

Better education: if you believe better education comes by giving a

teacher more money, then it would also follow that we have a better

Premier just because we pay him three times as much today as we did

when he started. I don't see the applause too great for that.

What has the performance of the department done to help in this area

of incorrigibility? I suggest that we have promoted it. We have gone to

the classroom with the concept: down with intellect, up with feeling.

And when a student is considering the up with the feeling, do as you

wish, do as you please, do as you think is best — we come up with the

incorrigible student. This administration has promoted this kind of

activity in the student.

What has the performance of the department done in regard to the

effect of the teaching climate with trustees? These are the fellows who

are the team out there on the job. These are the fellows who are

volunteer administrators, if you please. What has the department done?

They've ostracized them. They've insulted them. They have used them as

a scapegoat for their own inadequacies.

An estimated $82 million increase in government expenditure on

education for this next year: that's going to be the increased cost.

When the Minister looked at the increase and compared it with

increases of former years, she said: "Oh, my word, this is impossible.

We're going to have to cut back. We're going to have to go back to the

teachers whom we promised heaven on earth and give them the opposite to

heaven. We're going to have to say to them, 'Oh, oh, we're going to

have to cut back on teaching quality.' We can't do it any more because

we've already committed ourselves on this salary bit. But we're going

to have to have somebody to ride on; we're going to have to have

somebody to be the scapegoat for the whole issue. And the ones who

happen to be the closest and nearest by are the trustees — we'll sock

it to them."

Well, the Minister knew full well that 80 per cent of that increased

expenditure is a direct result of her own edicts in increased salaries

and decreased class sizes — 80 per cent, leaving only 20 per cent of

the total increase the responsibility of the trustees. And yet the

trustees, the school boards, are getting the sock for it.

Does it seem right? It doesn't sound feasible. Doesn't sound like

something the Minister would do. And it certainly doesn't lend to her

credibility, not, I don't believe, with her team-mates on the Treasury

bench. Certainly not with the public. And Madam, if you have made an

error, I say if you have made an error, then why not just let it all

hang out and say: "Okay, I made the error. We're not going to blame the

school boards. We're not going to blame the trustees. Let's put the

blame where it really rests. And it is in the inadequacies and the

inability in fiscal

[ Page 75 ]

terms, in fiscal areas, of the Minister of Education."

What has been the performance of the department with regard to

post-secondary education? And this I think is where I should do a

pantomime on the high-pitched performance we had from the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) a few moments ago.

This is what we've done with post-secondary education: we have spent nearly two years trying to find out what we already knew.

Let me use my area as an example. In 1969, 1970, 1971, and in 1972

we were convinced of one thing: we needed a college in the Fraser

Valley. We had a local association of various individuals from various

walks of life who did the research and who found out what we already

knew, and that was that we needed a college in the Fraser Valley.

Election came, administration changed and one of the early acts of the

Minister of Education was to say: "Nix. We don't accept the people's

word that they need a college or that they want a college. We're going

to take another new look at the whole idea of building colleges, so

we're just going to stop construction, although it's in the midst, and

we're going to appoint a commission."

We appointed a commission. The commission went out to find out

whether or not the people of the flood plains wanted a college. Guess

what they found out. They found out what we already knew — the people

want to have a college. They need a college in that area. What happened

next? The commission said: "Well, let's get a little more feedback.

Let's have some hearings. We'll have some in Chilliwack and some in

Abbotsford and some in Agassiz and some in Hope," and so on and so

forth. And they had them in my hometown. A thousand people showed up at

the hearings where the task force came to find out something they

believed they did not know. When they had heard the thousand people

out, guess what they found out. They wanted a college on the flood

plains; they need a college on the flood plains. Strange that we

haven't heard this before.

Guess what's happened next. We decided to appoint a task force, a

task force to find out what the people really wanted. They've already

heard it four times in various hearings and through various

consultants. Now all of a sudden we have to have a task force. The task

force comes out to do a little more research. They don't want any

public hearings. They said, "Well, we've already heard everything there

is to hear." But the Minister is still not convinced.

I understand that step 6 is that we're now going to have a

plebiscite. We're going to have a plebiscite, and it's going to happen

in the early days of March. And what are we going to find out in the

plebiscite? We're going to find out what we already knew in 1969, that

we want and need a college out on the flood plains. We need a college

out there.

I don't know if she's hard to convince. But I'm saying this: After

all this expenditure, after all this time, when we come back to

building a college and all I hear is just the rumblings, then we're

going to have sort of a dual type thing with maybe two campuses, and

Lord only knows, and He's not talking, how many buildings are going to

be involved. But the original bill for this college was going to be in

the neighbourhood of $8 million, Mr. Member. And we're going to find

out from the plebiscite what we already knew away back there, that

we're going to have the college, but that the cost of it, Madam

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is going to have to suffer the

increases and the spiral of inflation that all the rest of us have been

experiencing. The very buildings that would have cost us $8 million in

1972 are now going to cost us $11 million.

Add to that, my friend, the cost of finding out what you already

knew and I would say, it's no wonder Bremer wouldn't stay. No wonder.

And I think the reason why Mr. Bremer had to go.... By the way, I'd

still like to find out what it's going to cost us to buy his

cotton-picking contract.

Mr. Gardom: One year.

Mr. Schroeder: The reason why Bremer had to go was because it

was a little embarrassing for the Minister of Education to be called

his secretary, because it was Mr. Bremer who was enunciating policy

back and forth throughout the land. I had the occasion and the

privilege to attend some of his hearings. I'm afraid that the reason

Mr. Bremer had to go was because he was getting a little too big for

his britches, and the Minister didn't have britches to fit him at all.

He was, instead of not doing the job, as was suggested by the Minister

of Finance, doing too good a job.

Let me ask you a simple question: How could something that was so

right just eight months ago, be so wrong in January? How could it be?

Could you have been so wrong in your evaluation of Mr. Bremer, Mr.

Premier? Maybe you hired him too quickly. If that's true, you had

better take a look at the rest of the birds you've hired because you

took no more time in evaluating them than you did him.

I think you're in big trouble, madam, I think you're in big trouble.

As a matter of fact, you are an embarrassment to the Treasury benches;

you are a disgust out there to the people. I've been kind to you for

two years, lady, but I've got to tell it to you like it is today. You

are a disgust to the people who are the voters out there. I would

suggest one thing. Why don't you do this: make it light on all of us

and resign. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, with the lateness of the hour I will be as brief as it is possible to be under the circumstances.

[ Page 76 ]

First of all, we should look at the motion that we're presently

debating, dealing with an amendment to the throne speech. It says:

"This House regrets that the speech of His Honour gave further

indications that the government intends to place greater centralized

controls upon the people of British Columbia while neglecting any

mention of specific proposals for policy changes in the social-service

fields of education, health and human resources at a time when there is

growing public alarm with government policies in this field."

I want to assure you that that was a genuine amendment that was

introduced, one dealing with the concerns that have been conveyed to

the Members of the official opposition by the electorate of British

Columbia. And if the Government does not understand that, God bless

that government, because they'll never understand anything.

All we've heard tonight is a series of old backpocket speeches by

some of the Liberal Members over here that I've heard over the years,

some taken back from 1964. They don't understand. All they want to do

with the amendment that was proposed by the official opposition is play

political games. They don't understand that there is concern by the

people of this province on the matter of the critical shortage of

housing, on the matter of health and on the matter of education.

I'm appalled, really, that we've seen such silence in this House

today by those backbenchers who, I am sure, are being told by their

constituents of their concerns in these particular fields. And I'm

surprised, Mr. Speaker, that you have not taken your place in this

assembly and expressed the concerns of the people in your constituency

relative to these fields and the lack of action on the part of that

government in these fields.

I want to tell you, you wait until the people of this province know

and find out that those backbenchers have remained so silent in this

assembly when they appear to be so vocal on the outskirts of this

chamber. Shame on you. You have split personalities, that's what you

have. When you're in this assembly you're afraid to speak out on behalf

of the people of this province relative to these critical areas.

What did you say in Nanaimo; what did you say in Nanaimo? What you

said in secret in caucus you should convey to the people if you have

any concerns relative to health, education and housing. It's quite

obvious you have none because you have remained very strangely silent

here tonight.

We listened to the Premier stand in his place and almost sing, the

pitch was so high, talk about the pupil-teacher ratio. "The best it has

been since 1916, 58 years ago." He failed to tell us where the

teacher-student ratio had been improved. Is he talking about Mansons

Landing way up in northern British Columbia where one family moved out a few months ago and reduced the student-teacher ratio? Is that what you're talking about?

It's quite obvious to me that you have not read the analysis of the

B.C. Teachers' Federation of the improvement and the lack of

improvement on the teacher-student ratio in this province.

Unfortunately, I don't have that report before me. But I've read the

report and it's nothing to brag about. I'm sure they don't say that

it's improved, that it's the best it has been since 1916, 58 years ago.

I don't know where the Premier gets these great statistics which he so

loosely quotes in this assembly in such a high-pitched voice.

I heard the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) just a few moments ago talk about the question of post-secondary education.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Do you want to start the afternoon all over again?

Mr. Chabot: I want to briefly speak on this matter of

post-secondary education because we have in the east Kootenays a

similar experience which they have on the flood plains of Chilliwack,

and that is the matter of a vocational school for the east Kootenays.

In 1972, after considerable research and demand on the part of the

people of the east Kootenays for the establishment of a vocational

school in the southeastern part of British Columbia, a decision was

brought down by the former government, a government which some people

here attempt to lead you to believe was anti-educational — but a

government that made the decision to establish a vocational school in

the east Kootenays in 1972.

What happened when this government came into office, Mr. Speaker?

I'll tell you what happened. Immediately, the decision was made....

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: And you say there was no decision made because

you twisted the facts so much in the Kootenay constituency that you

don't know what the facts are, I'll tell you that, Mr.

former-Member-from-the-Kootenays (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). They've disowned

you in

the Kootenays now, Mr. Member, I'll tell you that.

So the decision was cancelled by this new government because they

were going to research the needs, after the needs had been adequately

researched by the former government. They were going to research the

need for the establishment of a vocational school in the east

Kootenays. So what did they do? They set up one of these task forces

for political friends, headed up by a defeated NDP candidate in the

federal election, Mr. Patterson from Kimberley. They appointed him on

this task force to

[ Page 77 ]

study the needs of post-secondary education for the Kootenays. Yet

that's almost 18 months ago and we're still waiting for a report; we're

still waiting for a report from that great task force.

Now he has a new job: he's one of the 99 new appointments to boards

of review. One of the 99, dealing with assessments on behalf of the

government. How do you expect the people to get justice when you have

nothing but a charade as far as assessment reviews are concerned, when

you have a bunch of political hacks on the boards of review of British

Columbia? How do you expect the people to get a fair break?

The people of the east Kootenays, Madam Minister, are waiting for a

report on the matter of vocational schools. They've waited long enough;

time has come for action in that department of yours. Never mind all

the studies and the examinations of former policies. Get down and bring

us some action. We feel in the east Kootenays that we have a right to

participate in the affairs of British Columbia, and people of the east

Kootenays are fed up waiting for the establishment of a vocational

school.

No wonder there is unrest in the east Kootenays today with the lack

of concern, the lack of consideration on the part of that government

and the lack of consideration and concern on the part of that Minister

who used to represent the Kootenays and no longer does. I don't blame

you, Mr. Minister, I don't blame you for not going back to the

Kootenays. Hide your head in Victoria.

We've heard the Premier talk about class sizes. He certainly doesn't

agree with the statements made by the Minister on the student-teacher

ratio because she talked about the tremendous cost it would incur upon

the Treasury. He talked about $7.5 to $8 million per student. And she

says: "I endorsed the concept. But I'm just one Minister in the

cabinet, and governments have priorities."

The Minister of Education suggests that this is not high as far as

priorities of the government are concerned. She goes on and she says

she reiterated statements that smaller classes are not the cure-all.

She said teacher-training institutions in the teaching profession must

accept the challenge of preparing teachers to use different

instructional methods.

Now that was one of the promises made by that little group over

there over the years. Well, they used to be a little group, but they

still call themselves the party of the little people. I'll tell you

that they're concerned about 38 little people and nobody else, Mr.

Speaker. That's all they are concerned about. I'll tell you, the people

out there are starting to get to know you. They're starting to get to

know all about you.

We've heard over the years about the need of removal of the

education tax from residential property. Oh, it's going to ease the

tremendous burden from the taxpayer. Well, we don't see that in the

Speech from the Throne. You're all talk and no action. All talk and no

action. You'd almost think it would be a financial impossibility to

remove this tax burden of education from residential property.

The only kind of revenue it generates for the government is

something in the neighbourhood of $11 million a year — the equivalent

of approximately $36 per home in the province. Yet they talk about

removing it over a period of five years. Oh, what a generous

government. What a generous government — removing approximately $2

million of taxes from the backs of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Yet they can throw $6 million away for the purchase of Dunsky — was it?

No, Dunhill. They sound so much alike. They all start with "Dun."

No, they can pour the money down the tube at Ocean Falls and things

of that nature. They could remove the tax for education from

residential property in one fell swoop, but they are only going to

stretch it out because it is politically advantageous to that little

non-political group over there.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Better check those numbers.

Mr. Chabot: I said approximately $11 million on residential property. That's what I said. I said approximately....

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: I'm talking about opposition research assistance.

I've listened, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier make erroneous statements on

television about research help. He suggests that it was a new

innovation since this government came to office.

Who hired John Woods? Who created the position of John Woods? You

left the impression with the electorate of British Columbia that there

was never any assistance in the opposition offices prior to your

becoming government. You know that's not true. You know that's not

true. Tell the truth and stop twisting the facts, Mr. Premier. You know

full well that that position was created by the former government and

not through the benevolence of the big brother government over there.

Big brother government has now disposed of...we've heard many times

of the disposal of Mr. Bremer, the genius that they brought up from the

United States — I mean from England via the United States — into

British Columbia to solve all our education problems, and to innovate

new ideas, input, the participation of the students, the teachers and

the trustees into a new melting pot, if you might call it that. That's

why they brought Mr. Bremer in. Oh, it was going to be a great

innovation.

This great man has now been bought off. I finally

[ Page 78 ]

came to the conclusion as to why he was disposed of. One of the NDP

members on a committee on one of his task forces.... Is that what you

call it? So many types of plans, forces and commissions that I have

difficulty keeping track of them. But a Mr. Robinson was very critical

in November of Mr. Bremer, and he said this about Mr. Bremer: Robinson

called for a complete overhaul and this is why he was unhappy with Mr.

Bremer; he called for a complete overhaul of the educational system to

give young people the skills they will need to live in a democratic

socialist society. He felt that Mr. Bremer was falling down in

fulfilling that role or that objective which he felt was so important

to the people of British Columbia.

He goes on. "I think the only hope is to put pressure on the

Minister," said Robinson, who is a member of the New Democratic Party's

standing committee on education. It's a standing committee. It's not a

task force or a study group or whatever it is. It's the standing

committee on education. Mr. Robinson in November told the Minister she

must get rid of Bremer, because he's a dreamer and he isn't fulfilling

the type of socialistic approach to education which Mr. Robinson feels

he should be fulfilling.

Mr. Bremer, after he was dismissed with his pockets full of money,

made some very interesting observations. Mr. Bremer said how always at

those meetings — talking about the meetings with the Minister — he'd

dealt only with the role of the commission and its relationship to the

rest of the Education department, not with his actual firing. It was a

complete surprise, he said. I think it was a surprise to everyone.

He made some other very revealing remarks. "Mr. Bremer said he does

not feel vindictive or bitter towards the government and he doesn't

plan any legal action against it at this time." He said also: "If I

just spoke objectively and fairly about what I saw in the government,

it wou