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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

375 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 375

Mr. D.A. Anderson (amendment) — 383

Mr. L.A. Williams — 383

Mr. Wallace — 390

Mr. Gibson — 393

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 395

Mr. Curtis — 396

Mr. McGeer — 397

Mr. Steves — 400

Mr. Schroeder — 400

Mr. Bennett — 402

Hon. R.A. Williams — 402

Division on amendment — 403

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1974

The House met at 8.30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I was speaking

before dinner on the problems facing the municipalities, in particular

with respect to housing. I talked of the need to have provincial

government assistance to the municipalities so that housing could be

made available by the process of expanding the amount of serviced land

available. This, I think, has been gone over fairly well. I would like

to just finish up on municipalities and then touch on two subjects and

yield the floor.

With respect to municipalities, other than housing, we have, of

course, in the budget a $2 increase, which is a 6 per cent increase,

much the same as last year. In fact, it is identical in amount to last

year, and thoroughly inadequate to meet the needs of municipalities.

I have in my hand an editorial from the Province ,

dated April 18, 1969, and it talks of Mr. Bennett's "$3 insult." That

was the year the other Mr. Bennett, the previous Mr. Bennett, the elder

Mr. Bennett, gave $3 extra per capita to the municipalities, and

everybody was hopping mad, including the NDP opposition.

The editorial reads, or part of it reads:

"In the last session of the provincial Legislature the

government increased its per capita grant to municipal governments by

$3 per head. It was, the Premier indicated,

an act of great generosity."

It goes on to say:

"B.C. municipalities; some of them at least, badly

need extra money. In common with municipal governments across Canada,

they have spending requirements that far outstrip the revenue they can

get from the limited tax source, and their requirements will continue

to grow. Schools, urban renewal, planning, transportation, pollution

control, social welfare — the whole range of urban problems and urban

challenges — are going to come crowding in on Canada in the next two

decades as it continues the trend which is making it one of the most

highly urbanized areas of the world.

"To meet these challenges and to head off the enormous damage

that could be done by bad planning and under-investment in a period of such

rapid urban growth will require enlightened municipal leaders armed with the

freedom to spend the money that they find to be necessary and on the priorities

that they determine to be necessary."

But that is not what we have. He goes on to describe the $30 per person:

"The situation is not only insulting, it is absurd. It

is the result of an archaic constitution that made Canada's cities the

creatures of the provincial governments, and makes provincial thinking

a key factor in the cities' approach to their own problems. Vancouver

cannot build a bridge or a subway or a low-rental housing project or a

school or a hospital or a freeway without the approval of the

provincial government, either because the government has the legal

control or because it has the money the city lacks.

"That is no way to run a country — a country where

most people live in cities, where municipal governments in total now

spend more than provincial governments do. Canada's cities and towns

must be given the constitutional and the fiscal powers needed to meet

their own destinies. After all, this is the 20th century, and it is the

century of the city."

Five years later, there's no real change. We have $34 a head as

opposed to $30. We have a Department of Municipal Affairs whose take of

the provincial budget has declined. We have less ability than even

previously to meet the requirements or urban living, and this

government seems to feel that it is enough. Personally, I feel that

this $2 per capita grant is just ridiculous. The municipal officials,

who are essentially hard-working and responsible people, simply cannot

operate on that basis. For example, this new government has brought in

expenditures which are directly on the shoulders of the municipalities.

In the election in North Vancouver-Capilano, advertising and carrying

out of the registration probably cost $30,000 or $40,000, and this was

to register people who knew they were eligible to vote. There have been

changes in the Municipal Act

concerning eligibility and one can assume that the costs for the

municipalities in the future will be even greater — a new cost forced

upon the municipalities by this government.

I'm glad to see in the gallery Mr. Jim Campbell, the Capital

Regional Board chairman, and would like to quote from a statement by

that fine gentleman about the forcing of extra costs on his

municipality, or at least on the Capital Regional Board, by the

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

Mr. Campbell, in a news release put out on February 6, which arrived

on my desk, stated that it was going to cost a substantial increase in

the mill rate of probably two points. He just feels it is wrong that

the provincial government should be forcing these extra costs on the

municipalities without proper

[ Page 376 ]

consultation and without providing any extra funds

to make it possible for them to meet the costs of the new bus system.

I'm glad that we have extra buses — everyone is — but when the costs

come right down on the municipalities, when they have no real decision

in having these buses, I think the concern of Mr. Campbell is quite

genuine and well-founded.

I would just like to quote a letter he wrote to the Minister that is

quoted in this new release. He says: "I believe it would be useful to

have some discussion on this matter, because I feel sure that without

modification of the proposed financial arrangements, the urban

components of the region will be highly resistant to the assumption of

this responsibility" — in other words, the financial responsibility.

Well, I am glad that Mr. Campbell is in the gallery and I can tell

him that I agree. He's right. The municipalities in a number of areas

are getting new costs forced upon them. While others are disappearing,

such as, for example, the reduction in welfare costs from 15 per cent

back down to 10 per cent, where it was previously, still they have

extra expenses which cannot be met within the financial framework in

which they now find themselves.

The question of court costs. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) is looking as alert as ever. Perhaps Victoria and Vancouver

will benefit from the decision to take over court costs, but many of

the smaller municipalities, as he knows, perhaps unwisely collect more

in fines than they spend on court costs. It is a source of revenue for

itinerant politicians and others who travel through these communities.

The taking over of the court system may well be of no benefit at all in

the financial sense to these communities, although in the case of

Victoria and Vancouver it may be something else.

The uncoordinated timetable of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Levi) has resulted in difficulties, Surrey, for example, is told it

will have to wait six months before this financial burden, which has

been taken off neighbouring communities, will be taken off their

shoulders. Surrey, in my view, is being penalized in comparison with

Vancouver, and I think it is grossly unfair.

As far as Victoria city itself is concerned, or I should say the

Greater Victoria Capital Region, we have a Member of the government

backbench, the only government Member from this area (Mr. Gorst)

suggesting a new capital commission. It seemed to Members on this side

of the House that he was certainly recommending himself for the

position of head of this commission.

The fact is that we don't know whether the government is going to

come forward with such a thing. We don't know who might be put at the

head of it. We don't know what the situation might be. But it is time

we had something cleared up in this area.

We have the government in this city buying land, and there was a

question today in the House by another Member about purchases of land.

We have the government bidding up the cost of land by being in the

market, as they are in a substantial way, and yet we really are not

sure what the Minister has in mind for Victoria, despite questions

about the precinct concept, the Blanshard Street boundary concept, and

all these things.

In my view the government had better decide quickly what it intends

to do, if it intends to set up something similar to the National

Capital Commission, and if it intends to set up a body which will

override the provincial municipal governments. This suggestion has come

forward from the government side. I would think that if they are going

to do that let them come forward with such a body as soon as possible.

Let's not continue the uncertainty in this area that we have because

there is no way that the municipal councils can plan properly, there is

no way Mr. Campbell and his fellow members of the capital region can

plan properly when they don't know whether all their functions and many

of their responsibilities will be wiped out by a stroke of the Minister

of Municipal Affairs' pen.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): They're going to force amalgamation.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all happy.

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

Especially Oak Bay.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps some of the cabinet Ministers

living in Oak Bay have made some sweetheart deal with the municipality

whereby they are going to take care of that area. I don't know whether

they are happy or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't all live on the waterfront. Just some of them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, at this stage anyway, thanks to the Minister

of Housing's (Hon. Mr. Nicolson'

s) speech they are all renovating their

homes to make room for other families to move in, and I know that the Premier

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) has had a little bit of building done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait till those condominiums go up on Wall Street.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're looking forward to having that

Esquimalt waterfront property advertised as a multiple dwelling for

numerous children and dogs. We hope it will be soon, because surely if

it is right for other people, Mr. Minister of Housing, you should start

with your own cabinet. I trust that

[ Page 377 ]

sooner or later you will quell the rumours that are floating around about your own intention to purchase property in Victoria.

Perhaps it's in the Uplands or Oak Bay; I'm not sure. But there is

some worry in the Uplands area that you intend to move in and carve up

the house that you have in mind. I think you should set people's minds

at rest as soon as possible.

The government policy with respect to municipalities is simply to

keep them in the same impossible financial bind they have been in for

many years. At this stage, with the talk of urban development, with the

talk of urban problems, it's one of the most difficult areas of

government. They simply do not have the financial resources as a result

of this new budget just as they did not have it before. They cannot

properly fulfil their responsibilities. I would strongly urge the

government to consider what the municipal officials are saying and

revise their support for them.

We had the NDP candidates running municipally under the slogan of

neighbourhood government. We had the Minister, days after many of their

candidates lost on that slogan — and some won — go right in with

amalgamation of two cities in the Interior. He completely threw out the

very concept and slogan upon which his party had campaigned. It's time

we had a little more clarification from the government as to what its

plans are with respect to municipalities. We judge by the budget. We

see the percentage going to the Municipal Affairs department dropping;

we see the department assuming new responsibilities without the

personnel; and we wonder why this situation exists.

I'd like to spend a short time on a subject which I think is

particularly important at the present time and that is the government's

approach to industry, the government's approach to the direction of our

economy. It was said this budget was really no change from the previous

budget. I believe even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) made

the statement that it was a Social Credit budget with more money in it

than before.

But in this budget we see a change in direction of the government.

We see formalized in a number of areas some of the purchases of

companies, some of the establishment of Crown corporations by this

government.

Mr. Speaker, it's not my purpose here to simply be critical of this

on the grounds that one is free-enterprise and the other is socialism,

We know full well that the previous government purchased B.C. Electric

and attempted to purchase it at a price which the courts thought

thoroughly unfair. We know there are Crown corporations in existence

federally and provincially in every province. But the direction of this

government is one of concern, and I trust that we won't oversimplify

the arguments to the point where the true problems are being overlooked.

We have the government entering fields such as the forest industry

and processing; we have the government entering into housing if the

deal goes through, as I presume it will. We have the government

entering a large number of areas which have traditionally been in the

area of private industry. My hon. friend for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) has listed these purchases, these takeovers.

When the government gets involved in an industry and when it creates

a favoured and special position for itself, it is impossible for

companies in competition to really compete on an equal basis. I know

there has been some dispute as to whether or not the Member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) or the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) was enunciating government policy. But if we take

the Ocean Falls Corporation, they were exempted 200 articles of the Companies Act . This obviously puts them in a preferred position with respect to....

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I wonder whether the Attorney-General, who

seems to doubt whether this gives them a special advantage, actually looked

at the articles of the Companies Act which this company is exempted from. Does

he realize that Ocean Falls does not have an auditing procedure? Does he understand

that other companies have to have their books audited in the prescribed manner

under the Companies Act but Ocean Falls is exempt? Does he realize that?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): The Auditor-General.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We don't have that person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The auditor-general of British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Where is the auditor-general, Mr. Minister

of Health? You talk so glibly about the auditor-general; where is he?

Where is the bill that introduced such a man into our system?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Maxwell Henderson.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it's true that Maxwell Henderson is

the federal Auditor-General and it's true he has a staff of 235 people.

In this province we have nobody who takes his place and no staff to

carry out those functions. In the case of Ocean Falls, you've exempted

this company from any

[ Page 378 ]

audit. Why?

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Ocean Falls is exempted from sections 187,

188, 190, 191 and 192. This is possible public scrutiny of the

corporation. Under

section 192 of the Companies Act ,

for example, it's an offence to refuse to produce certain documents.

Ocean Falls is exempt from this and its directors and its officers are

placed above the law.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We'll just give it to the Legislature; won't that do?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it won't do, Mr. Minister, because as

you know full well, the opportunity for scrutiny at the time does not

occur; it's only much later that we in the Legislature have this

opportunity. So we have the case of Ocean Falls with respect to the Companies Act : it's placed in a superior position.

We know full well it's in a superior position with regard to

financing. The company enjoys a special position; it's in an

advantageous position vis-à-vis other companies in the industry. The

result is, of course, that other companies will find it difficult, in

difficult times, to compete against it. At the present time, sure,

there is plenty of money; it's a profitable situation for the forest

industry. But the situation we're faced with in so many companies is a

preferred government position.

In another aspect of this, there's the case of Plateau Mills. There

the Minister, who seems to think all is well, has placed a district

forester on the board of a single company, Plateau Mills. How is it

possible for the man who is responsible for making sure there is a fair

and impartial treatment of the companies in the area, who often would

be asking for confidential information which would be privileged

vis-à-vis any other company, to fulfil his functions properly when he

is responsible to you and to the owners of Plateau Mills, namely the

public, for the profits of that company?

You cannot have a man in a regulatory role carrying out an

operations function and expect to get away with it on a general basis.

Sure there are exceptions; sure there are exceptional individuals, and

this man is a very fine individual. But you're placing him in an

impossible situation. Not only that, you're placing him in a position

which no other civil servant should be placed in either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Junior is looking better every minute.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can-Cel has had difficulties with respect

to pollution control. Once again, you have a preferred position for a

government corporation with a special ear to the Minister who, of

course, has his reputation bound up in Can-Cel, and who, I'm quite sure

under the circumstances, would find it a little easier to be soft on

Can-Cel as opposed to any other company.

The government reaction is a pretty clear indication that they

realize this can take place. The speech of the Hon. Member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) was probably discussed in caucus and they're disappointed

it came out in public as it did. If government companies are given

preferred positions, in tough times they will inevitably force other

companies to the wall where the government can then pick them up at a

reduced price.

I know it is a difficult concept to get across to the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, but the public has a right to be

protected and to be protected against Crown corporations and public

companies just as much as against private companies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They have a right to have the government,

on behalf of all the people, carry out the regulatory function of

government, holding the reins, making sure they impartially and fairly

and swiftly administer these laws in the public interest. The public is

short-changed and cheated when you get these special relationship

positions where the government on one hand owns the company and on the

other is in the position of regulating the public interest.

Certainly this government knows, from all its commitments over the

years about B.C. Hydro, the need to regulate public enterprise

properly. I don't believe we're going to get it in this province when

we exempt corporation after corporation from the law of the land.

Another example is a pretty classic one because in this case the

entire legislation was wiped out, and that was ICBC. Other companies

engaged in insurance in British Columbia must obey the Insurance Act;

they must obey the law. But there's one exception: ICBC. If ICBC

doesn't have to fulfil the same requirements as the other companies

involved, they're clearly in a special and advantageous position.

The question of discriminatory pricing comes up. ICBC is carrying

out the type of pricing policy which, if carried out by a private

corporation, would put the directors behind bars for two years:

discriminatory pricing. It's discriminatory on the basis of previous

contract which, under

section 28 of the Insurance Act ,

simply should not be permitted. It's just as discriminatory to say that

because some Members of this Legislature are of one colour skin and

some are of another there will be pricing distinctions based on

[ Page 379 ]

that particular and totally irrelevant distinction.

It's absurd that we have a situation, as we do at the present time,

where the government not only condones discriminatory pricing but

boasts about it in terms of the previous contract the person might have

had with another company, now no longer offering insurance.

This is an important point. If you get companies in competition you

will find that the government's regulatory role will be carried out.

But if you get companies owned by the government, protected by the

government, the public interest is not protected.

I'll give you an example of this, Mr. Speaker, another one: Today we

heard the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) say that they were

taking the fire insurance premium costs off the school boards. I think

that was a good suggestion. I understand it's going to alter some other

financial provisions, but she made that point.

Now, in Saskatchewan, when they had a government corporation which

had a monopoly, the insurance was handled by that corporation and the

collegiates in Regina had to insure with the government corporation.

When the government switched — I think it was '65 was the decision on

this — the private companies were allowed to compete against the

Saskatchewan Insurance Corporation. What happened was that the

government's own corporation dropped its premium by 50 per cent; it

halved its premium. Why? It halved it to meet the competition with the

private companies. Still, three of those companies — there were seven

involved — three of them were able to offer a cheaper rate than the

government which was offering its insurance at half the price it had

the year before. That's the type of situation you get into — where you

have a monopoly, where it's not regulated, where the government

operates it for its own benefit and not in the public interest. That's

the situation that we are getting in this province.

I could go on at length on this, but I don't think it's properly

understood by the government and perhaps not by the public at large. If

we enter a situation where the government comes in as it's doing now,

we destroy the regulatory function of government; we destroy the

government as a protector of citizens' rights. There is simply no way

that the government, on a general and consistent basis, will rule

against its own companies. And this has been proved in so many

socialist countries.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we have socialism coming with the NDP so

much as this type of state capitalism. Personally, I find it full of

grief, full of problems, and I would like to see the government turn

away from it. I do not see why it's necessary for this government to

put purchase of pipeline shares, purchase of companies, ahead of the

school children's education. It's their future, and they need money and

they need help in this. Yet we have a government which is purchasing

companies and shares in companies in preference to putting the money

into education or any other area. I'm quite sure that on the government

benches there are a fair number of people who agree with this concept.

Putting money into companies does nothing, as I mentioned earlier

with respect to Dunhill, really does nothing to increase the net wealth

of British Columbians, but it does make a difference to other

government programmes. It makes a serious difference and I think it's

time that the government realizes that giving their company the inside

track and a special position, as they have, simply should not continue.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to get on to the final

section of my speech on

education. We had, today, a speech by the Minister, and I thought she

gave a good presentation. But she was in an impossible situation in

terms of reassuring the parents who were in the audience, or in terms

of reassuring the people on this side of the House. Basically she said

she knew there were all sorts of problems; she realized that the money

was not in the budget, but she said, "Don't worry, you can all come cap

in hand, and programme by programme we will throw a few dollars in the

tin cup that you rattle in front of us."

If this is a budget debate, I'd like to know where the Education

department budget is when not only the Minister in her speech today,

but the Premier himself, the Minister of Finance himself, when he

spoke, said, "Look, this area of the budget is clearly inadequate; this

area clearly won't work. We know you're going to have to come; we know

you won't have enough money; we know we haven't done a proper job in

planning next year's expenses in education. Therefore, I'm telling you

beforehand, don't squeal too loudly yet. Squeal later, then perhaps

you'll get a little extra."

We have a number of disquieting things, Mr. Speaker. We heard from

the Premier that the student-teacher ratio is just great. Yet the

Minister herself tabled a report of the Department of Education in this

House not so long ago which said, and I'm reading from page E-132:

"The net pupil-teacher ratio remained almost exactly

the same from June 1972 to June 1973. In June 1972 it was 22.88

students per teacher. In June 1973, it was 22.86. A difference of .02."

Mr. Speaker, that was the report that she tabled. Since then we've

had other figures given to us — other figures attempting to prove that

really it's not all that bad. Yet we have had the school trustees,

we've had the teachers' association, we've had the information given to

us that the situation is just as bad as has been described.

[ Page 380 ]

This morning I met with a group of PTA-Home and School delegates,

and they talked about class size. I'd like to quote from their brief

about class size. This is the brief from J.W. Sexsmith Elementary

School. The Member who introduced them earlier was our friend from

Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster). On class size they said:

"We feel that no teacher should have any more than 25

pupils in a teaching classroom. Because of the new standards of

individualization in our educational system, we feel the smaller

classroom will accomplish this. At Sexsmith School the highest class

count is our two grade five classes which have 37 pupils each. Our

three grade seven classes have 33 pupils each, and our three grade six

classes have 33 pupils each. In our primary grades, our classes are

smaller. However, we have a definite language problem."

They have a language problem; they have a number of immigrant

children, a fairly large number in the kindergarten and grade one

classes of 89 pupils. Fifty-one of these pupils speak a language other

We have a situation where the students who probably most need a

small class, most need some assistance, perhaps a little special

treatment because of a cultural as well as a language problem, are

being penalized forever in the future because of the fact that they

don't have a decent education at this level. It's simple for us; most

forget that if you take children from families from other parts of the

world who speak a different language at home, you deprive them in the

elementary grades of the type of education they should get, and they

are disadvantaged from that day forward throughout time.

If anything can create the type of divisions within society based

upon racial origin, it's the fact that these students start in our own

system under such a substantial disadvantage. If people are concerned

about racial equality and the brotherhood of man, surely we must

realize that by taking immigrant children, placing them in classes

which are far too large, having teachers who don't have the time to

give them the individual instruction they need, we are definitely

prejudicing their future and we are creating social problems for

ourselves which will exist for decades hence.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Teachers' Federation has given figures on

average class size in B.C. I'd like to mention some of these because

some of them are pretty surprising. They've done a survey and

apparently the Minister's department does not have the information or

at least has not been collecting the information. They put out a report

called "Quality Indicators in Our Schools." It talks of an American

study and it makes reference to the work done by the BCTF in making

this applicable to Canada.

The report, which I have here, doesn't have a date on it so I can't

identify it any more than by saying it is called "Quality Indicators in

Our Schools" and it's put out by the BCTF. It talks about existing

class size in British Columbia standing squarely as a roadblock

preventing satisfaction of these elements of quality education.

The person who is being interviewed, a Mr. Olson who came to the

BCTF summer conference at Naramata in '73, is a consultant, and he

explains his study which is called "Indicators of Quality" which was

researched into 28,000 classrooms in the U.S. As I say, the BCTF don't

have the same type of study in Canada or in B.C., but they've been

trying hard to apply these figures as carefully as they can. Olson

points out:

"The point that is being made about class size is that

as class size increases, the high-scoring instructional styles are

dramatically reduced. One thing we can say is that class sizes

automatically show a positive, almost perfect linear relationship with

quality and process."

He goes on to point out that in B.C. 82.4 per cent of B.C.'s

elementary classes are of poor quality. For 255,000 students in grades

one to seven, only 33,917, or 13 per cent, are in quality class size

situations of 25 or fewer students.

The study is no longer Olson's, it's now the BCTF's: "A BCTF survey

shows that 1,500 classes in the province are in violation of the

class-limit size of 36 students per teacher established by the 1973

Annual General Meeting." That study was done in October of '73, during

this school year.

During the school year we had 1,500 classrooms where there were more

than 36 kids. A BCTF survey which covered about 1,080 out of the 1,168

elementary schools in B.C. revealed that the average reduction in

elementary classes for the last year was only 1.1 students per class,

leaving the size of the average class in elementary schools at 29.4, a

disgraceful standard.

A BCTF survey revealed that 21 school districts actually increased

their class sizes this year. They ask how we could provide quality

education under these conditions.

I look down the list: Vancouver is bad; central Okanagan is bad;

North Vancouver is very bad as is West Vancouver — and there are plenty

of others there. Vancouver is particularly unfortunate because the

worst problems exist in the east end of Vancouver where the classroom

size is even higher than the average in the city.

[ Page 381 ]

It is not right or proper that this continue, especially since we're

in the second NDP budget, especially since it's now a year-and-a-half

since this government took office.

I've got other briefs from the north Surrey teachers, briefs from

the school trustees, briefs from many school districts, including my

own here in Victoria. There is a British Columbia Teachers' Federation

brief on class size and pupil-teacher ratio which was given to the

Minister back in November. The whole survey of the literature we've

been given — and all of us have been given this material — indicates

the situation is so slightly better than before as to be negligible.

The Minister, in her speech today, talked of a 21.5 student-teacher

ratio. The figures were not qualified correctly in that this includes

people who are not teaching; the teachers on that list are people who

are in administration, people who are not actually involved in the

school system, special teachers for music, violin — people of that

nature who come into certain schools for certain classes.

The 21.5 ratio, she said, would be reduced by 1.5 per year. She nods

her head in agreement with me. I approve of that; that's about a 7 per

cent drop per year. It would take not $8 million, as previously

calculated, but a minimum of $13 million extra per year with the

possibility of going up to substantially higher than that. In the

three-year period she is talking about we are basically talking of $36

million, at the absolutely lowest figure, to anything up to $80 million

or even $90 million as the absolute upper figure.

You can't simply take the cost of teachers' salaries and say that's

all the cost there is. You've got their pension plan costs; you've got

training costs; you've the cost that results from more people actually

in the schools.

What beats me is how we can talk about reduction in class size based

on the total-student-to-total-teacher ratio without at the same time

putting more money in the pot. It's ridiculous to say that this is

going to come forward by way of special requests from school boards. It

just proves that as far as education is concerned there is no budget

here at all. It's the old squeaky-wheel theory; the people who come

over here, yell the loudest, exert the most political pressure, have

the best advocates, are the people who are going to get the money.

I have notes here galore about the Minister's speech and what will

happen in cases such as Victoria where people have been responsible and

voted for more money for the school system, as opposed to other areas

which are less responsible. I have great concern as to the school

boards which have done their level best to keep class size down and who

have every likelihood of being penalized, if I heard the Minister's

statements correctly.

The fact is that we simply don't have a policy at all. We have

people coming cap-in-hand. I just ask you, Mr. Speaker: what would

happen if every one of those 20-odd Ministers got up and made the same

speech? "I'm not sure if this will do. In fact, I know it won't do; the

budget is clearly wrong."

All the recreation and conservation people can come and scream at

the Hon. Minister; all the people in Agriculture can come down and howl

for extra funds from the Minister of Agriculture. We would be

barricaded in this building with delegation after delegation after

delegation out there screaming at us. There would be no budget at all.

And as far as education is concerned, there is no budget at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring back Brothers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it's true. I always thought Mr.

Brothers was not the best of Ministers, and I still think the present

Minister is substantially better. But I will say this: unless she's

given the support she needs from the Premier, she really should resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: People call "shame," but I have a whole

series of clippings and I can read them all. One of the greatest ones

is the one that occurred in the early edition of the Sun when

somebody phoned the Hon. Minister in Montreal. The first headline says,

"Dailly Comes to Defence of Embattled School Czar." The next edition of

the same paper which came out an hour later had Dailly saying, "Job of

School Czar Ended."

We've had the Minister encouraging school boards to put forward

better programmes. Rightly she has encouraged them to do so. When they

did so she, of course, called them irresponsible. The school trustees

were naturally hurt by that. I have here the clipping: "Dailly Hits

Trustee Irresponsibility."

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if you don't like what the Minister

said, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams), I don't know. Perhaps it's your hand behind this that she's

not getting the money she needs to carry out her department's

expenditure programmes correctly.

We've got the Minister attacking the school trustees for doing

precisely what she asked them to do. We have the Minister going to a

teachers' meeting and asking for support in persuading the cabinet to

give her the money she needed. This approach was pretty poor; it's a

clear indication that the Minister of Finance did not have confidence

in the Minister of Education. To sum it all up, he, of course, fired the

[ Page 382 ]

one person who was put forward as a catalyst for change — namely, Mr. Bremer.

I'd like to say one or two words on Mr. Bremer. When he was

appointed we questioned the appointment. We questioned it, we thought,

responsibly. We asked what his qualifications were; we asked why a

British Columbian had not been chosen. My hon. friend from Point Grey

did this questioning and he got strips torn off him like nobody's

business by the lady Minister who cut him down by saying that it was

irresponsible, that it was a disservice to education to even question

the qualifications or ask where the degrees came from. Questions like

that were irresponsible; another word used was "disgusting;" "a

disservice to education" was another phrase. Yet, we find in the Vancouver Sun , January 11, "Education Czar a Flop, Says Barrett." Then we have "Mrs. Dailly Coming to Defence of School Czar."

When we asked questions on this, when we asked questions in the

House, we were constantly being told he was doing precisely what he had

been instructed to do. I believe that to be the case. If Bremer should

have been fired, surely the Minister who put her whole reputation on

the line with him should also go. I'm not saying this in any facetious

sense. If the Minister of Education cannot get the funds from the

Minister of Finance which are required for the school system, to honour

NDP campaign promises, surely you should get another Minister in that

cabinet.

I personally feel that she herself has done her best, and I don't

think she has done a worse job than most people over in the cabinet

benches. But she has clearly lost the confidence of the Minister of

Finance. Under the circumstances, I cannot see how we can continue

without a change. Again, it is a distasteful thing that it happens this

way, but I fail to see why the school children of the province should

be penalized for what is essentially a dispute between two Ministers in

cabinet.

The education area is of tremendous importance. I hear someone out

on my left from the NDP backbench shout, "It's a lot of garbage," but I

think its tremendously important. A school year lost or a school year

which is bad from the point of view of the child's education is never

caught up. There's no way you can; there just isn't the time in human

life to do it. If we start people off with a bad education, we're doing

them a grave disservice and we're doing the province a great

disservice. I think it is a tremendously important area. The suggestion

that it is going to be hit or miss, completely ad hoc, people coming

over here and putting a case to the Minister — some of whom are perhaps

not skilled as debaters, not putting such a good case and not getting

money.... That approach is the worst possible one when you're dealing

with children's futures.

I cannot see that this government can claim that in this budget they

have anything but failed in the case of education to put forward a

budget which in any way meets the requirements of the primary and

secondary schools.

The same is true of the universities. The increase of $10 million is

already committed to increases in fixed costs and increases to the

staff of universities, excluding the professional staff. It means that

the possible increase is approximately 1 per cent.

I am going to leave to other Members of my caucus, who know

universities better than I do, to go into the full figures of this, but

we cannot continue, year after year, not to provide equivalent salaries

to our university professors. We cannot continue, or they will go of

course to other jobs — research jobs in federal or provincial

institutions. They will go outside the country; they will go to other

universities.

Now, perhaps the professors, in their brief, were arguing a little

extravagantly, but they claim that there is only half-a-million dollars

extra in that budget for salaries for professors. It means, Mr.

Speaker, if I can put it in different terms, that despite the extra

degrees, despite the extra time at school, the average professor at UBC

will be well past 40 — about 42 — before his salary reaches the same

salary he would be getting had he gone straight into education and been

a secondary school teacher instead of a university professor. It means

that up to that point they would be constantly below the level of

secondary school teachers.

Now, it can be argued that doctorates and MAs are of little value.

It can be argued that university itself is of little value or that it

is doing the wrong thing. But it is pretty clear that if you set up a

system where these people are paid in British Columbia substantially

less than elsewhere, where they have approximately, at the present

time, 1 per cent increases in sight, you are not going to get them to

stay, and they are not going to be doing a good job if they do stay.

Let's face it, inflation has taken place. We know it, we are

contributing to it in government, and there is no way that we can force

a certain group, such as university professors, to bear the brunt, any

more than last year or the year before last we could try and put it on

the shoulders of the teachers in the secondary and primary schools. If

$7 million of the $10 million is needed by the universities to continue

the essential services at inflated prices, a further $2.5 million will

be needed to provide for pay increases already bargained for with their

staff. In other words these are fixed costs, and they have to receive

the money that is available. But, Mr. Speaker, what is left is quite

inadequate to give the faculty salary increases at all in line with

inflation. There is only half-a-million dollars left, which is

equivalent to a 1 per cent salary increase.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

[ Page 383 ]

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) made some cracks the

other day about moonlighting — consulting done by university people — and it is true that some are able to do that. But the bulk of your

There is no way they can moonlight, as perhaps the professor of

economics or forestry or people such as that can moonlight or, I should

say, take jobs outside. It is a real problem which you are ignoring,

and if you continue to ignore it, the universities, both for teaching

purposes and for research, will decline in relative terms to those of

other provinces and other jurisdictions elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I've spoken about these three basic points — first the

direction of the economy, second the total confusion in the municipal

affairs field, aided by the efforts of the Minister of Housing to make

things worse. I have talked of the fact that there is really no budget

here whatsoever for education.

Therefore it is my reluctant duty to put forward an amendment to the

motion that the words "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the

House to go into Committee of Supply" be amended by adding the

following words:

"But this House regrets that in the opinion of this

House the Hon. Minister of Finance has failed to make adequate

provision for the needs of cities and municipalities and for the needs

of the educational system in the Province of British Columbia."

Seconded by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

it is a pleasure to take my place in this budget debate, even though I

do so as a seconder of this amendment to the motion.

Before I direct a few brief remarks — and I assure you that they

will be brief, because I know that other Members of this House wish to

participate in this debate — before I take my place to deal

specifically with the budget and the amendment, I would like to place

before you, Mr. Speaker, and Members of this House, a concern which I

have out of circumstances which arose in this House this afternoon.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), during the

course of his remarks, presented certain information to this assembly,

the nature of which was unknown to me, the accuracy of which I trust is

known to him. But in the course of those remarks he involved the names

of four individuals specifically, and other groups in our society by

generality.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if that Hon. Member has factual

information indicating that the laws of this province have been

breached, then it is his responsibility, not only as a Member of this

assembly, but as a citizen of this province, to place that information

before our chief law enforcement officer, who is the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

I make no comment upon the accuracy of his remarks; that is for him

to judge. But if we have come to the stage in our society when we can

come under the privileges which we have in this House, and make

remarks, accurate or inaccurate....

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. SMITH: The point of order is simply this. The Member for

South Peace River this afternoon, in concluding his remarks, indicated

to the House and everyone who was assembled here that he would be

moving a motion concerning the remark that he made that we should

appoint a royal commission. This is the method that we could examine....

MR. SPEAKER: I think you are making a speech.

MR. SMITH: I'm not making a speech — I'm making a point of

order. The point of order is that if that Member is prepared to get up

and chastise the Member for South Peace River for acting in a correct

manner, he is incorrect in what he is saying, because the Member did

conclude his remarks by asking for a royal commission to be appointed

in this province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for

North Peace River for those remarks as well. I am not chastising the

Member for South Peace River at all. I am suggesting to all of the

Members of this assembly that we have, with the privileges of this

House, a true and solemn responsibility.

In this gallery of this House, we have people who will publish, and

properly so, the remarks that we make here. If those remarks cause

injury, perhaps inadvertently, then it is injury that we can never

recompense. I think that we must concern ourselves in that regard when

we take our places here.

So saying, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a few remarks — and

as I said a few moments ago, I will be brief — in connection with the

23rd Social Credit budget. In 1972 the former Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Bennett) presented his 21st. Last year the present Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) was forced to present the Social Credit

22nd, and obviously this year the present Minister of Finance has

chosen, of his own will, to present the 23rd Social Credit

[ Page 384 ]

budget. I compliment him on it.

We used to be baffled by Bennett — at least the people of this

province were — with fantastic numbers. And now, I regret to say, we

are bewildered by Barrett — truly bewildered by Barrett. I think it is

a major disappointment to the people of this province that we are

bewildered by this Minister of Finance, not only by the sleight of hand

and fancy footwork that he has learned from his predecessor, but

because this year, in what he has announced as the first socialist

budget, he has denied the promise that he made to the people of this

province when he took office in September, 1972.

I remember well the so-called mini-session that we had in the fall

of 1972, and the changed atmosphere that was in this chamber, on both

sides of the House. And I remember the same feeling in the spring of

1973. Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1974, dealing with this budget, it

is obvious that there is no change at all. And that is why the people

of British Columbia are bewildered.

With Mincome and the programmes that this government put forward in

those early days, there was real optimism in this province that with

our fiscal resources this government was going to do something that had

been promised year after year after year by the NDP in opposition, and

by the other opposition parties as well.

But in 1974 it just hasn't happened. Just the numbers are bigger.

Mr. Speaker, I remember sitting in this House when the first $1

billion budget came down. The Minister of Finance of that day stood in

that same place and announced that budget, and all of the Social Credit

backbenchers pounded their desks in glee.

That was the $1 billion budget for the year ending March 31, 1970.

And here we are, scarcely four years later, having the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) stand in that same place and offer us a $2

billion budget — twice as much in four years. That's a rate of increase

compounded at 17 per cent per year on the average.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

If that is to be the pattern we are to have with this government and

this new Minister of Finance, what are you going to do in two years

time, Mr. Speaker — and I say this to all the backbenchers — what are

you going to do two years from now when the budget is over $3 billion?

As one of the astute observers from the press gallery said a few days

ago in the coffee shop — and this is a rhetorical question which I pose

to you all — are you going to take off your clothes and dance in the

street? Pounding the desk won't be good enough when you pass $3 billion

in two more years.

The people are bewildered, because when they look at this budget, in

spite of the large numbers, they say: "What's there for us, the people

of British Columbia?" They recognize today as they have never

recognized before that in spite of all the rhetoric, in spite of all

the promises, it is the people of British Columbia who are providing

these revenues in excess of $2 billion a year for this government to

spend. They look at the compounding annual rate of increase and say:

"In two years where are you going to get the $3 billion? And what are

we going to get for it?"

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: "How are you going to spend it?" the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says. Well, I wonder how you are going

to spend it, because when we talk about aid for people we find that in

education the percentage of the budget being expended this year is less

than last year. In fact, on page 22 of the budget the Minister of

Finance admits that very thing, and he admits it in Social Credit

language. He says: "To ensure a properly planned education system that

is responsible to the needs of a dynamic society" — that's Social

Credit talk — "we're going to spend $567 million."

That is 76 per cent more than was spent five years ago. Seventy-six

per cent more than five years ago, Mr. Speaker, and in four years their

revenues have doubled. Why aren't we spending 100 per cent more than

five years ago? We're not because the government is not fulfilling its

promise to the people of this province to raise the revenues and to

spend them for people services.

Public health services: the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

spoke the other day, and I commended the Minister of Health for the

task he has done in a most difficult department; but on Public Health

services we are spending a smaller percentage of the budget this year

than last.

Mental Health services: a smaller percentage of the budget this year than last.

Highways: a smaller percentage of the budget this year than last.

Human Resources: this is where Mincome is. This is where we are

looking after those disadvantaged people in our community. We're

spending less of a percentage of the total expenditures this year than

last.

How do you explain this to your constituents? Are you baffled by these figures as well?

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Your citizens, your constituents, are bewildered by them. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that when it is fully

[ Page 385 ]

recognized that the majority of the revenues of

this government in the forthcoming fiscal year are coming from the

middle- and lower-income groups in our community, the message will come

home to them loud and clear. The stenographers, the loggers, the truck

drivers and the miners, the store clerks: they're the people who are

bearing the burden of this budget and they are the ones who are being

deprived of the services that they are entitled to expect from this

government.

No wonder they are bewildered, because this is the socialist

government that promised real services to people, to senior citizens.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) spoke the other day, and

spoke very eloquently in connection with the senior citizens, and he

pointed out to your government that in order for you to fulfil the

promise you made to the senior citizens, Mincome right now should be

$250 a month. There is nothing in the budget for them.

Then you've got that group just below the Mincome figure — the

people who have just enough income of their own that they can't qualify

for Mincome. They're in the grasp as well of increasing tax burdens

resulting from increasing costs of living, even though the Minister of

Finance promises that there will be no increase in tax rates.

You can't escape, if you are in that position, the impact of

taxation as a direct consequence of inflation. Mr. Speaker, for these

people what does this government offer? I suggest to you that it offers

a slap across the mouth with the back of the government's hand.

The only reduction of tax of any significant consequence to the

low-income and disadvantaged people in the Province of British Columbia

is to remove the 5 per cent tax on second-hand clothing. That's what

they are saying to the people of this province. If you want to go and

buy second-hand jeans and second-hand shoes, then we'll take the 5 per

cent tax off.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What's wrong with the senior citizens and

the disadvantaged people, those on low income, being able to buy new

clothes tax-free?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Right on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What a sorry situation, this Minister of

Finance...it was damnable that he would offer this tax relief to the

people in British Columbia. "If you have to buy second-hand clothes, I

won't charge you the 5 per cent tax." That's the relief. That's the

kind of treatment for people that this budget promises to the people of

this province.

Other Members have spoken at length with all the statistics. I don't

want to get into the statistics because it is the statistics that

bewilder the citizens of the Province of British Columbia. I listened

last evening to the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) and it was one

of the best speeches I've ever heard in this House, because he talked

about northern development in real terms.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) couldn't have been here to listen, because he

might have learned a lesson. Northern development is meaningless unless

you look at northern development in the terms of people in the north.

MR. WALLACE: Right on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: There is no point in talking about budgets

of $2 billion-plus unless you think about the people who are paying the

taxes and who expect to benefit from the services of the government.

MR. WALLACE: Right on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If you talk about $493,186,000 the average

citizen loses touch altogether. What he wants to see is what the

government is doing for him. All your talk about northern development

means nothing unless you bring it down to concrete terms that the

individual understands.

I'm not going to talk about a lot of these figures, but I want to

talk about some. We've been promised a resource dividend. Mr. Speaker,

I'm a little older than some of the Members of this House — not as old

as some, but older than most.

Resource dividend. Shades of William Aberhart. This is a socialist

policy? Bible Bill, he was the one who was going to give the dividend.

This is straight Social Credit theory we're getting from these people

across the floor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The flat-earth crowd is back again.

HON. G.R., LEA (Minister of Highways): Why are they against it?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Let's have John Tisdalle back here because he understands it.

MR. WALLACE: No, no, never. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Let's look at this so-called resource

dividend. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the resource dividend is

the biggest political flim-flam that has ever been foisted upon the

people of British Columbia. It's not a resource dividend at all. The

Government of the Province of British Columbia is

[ Page 386 ]

going to reach into general revenue, which comes

from taxes, and give back each citizen $30. That's what it amounts to:

$30 a year. How much a month?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): $2.50 a month.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You can't even buy a mickey for $2.50 a

month. (Laughter.) That's what it means to the average citizen. Can you

get a case of beer for $2.50? That's what it means to the average

citizen.

Citizens of British Columbia, your government is giving you a resource dividend that won't allow you to buy a case of beer.

That's what it means in common, everyday, ordinary terms. But before

you think about buying any part of a case of beer, let's look at some

other things that are going to happen.

The Energy Commission of this province held hearings a few weeks ago

by two private companies which distribute natural gas in this province.

They have granted them certain increases in natural-gas rates in the

distribution area. Now, you must all have recognized that one thing was

missing. British Columbia Hydro hadn't made any application before the

Energy Commission. I wonder why? Mr. Speaker, you know why. B.C. Hydro

doesn't have to go before the Energy Commission if it wants to increase

the price of natural gas. It's exempted. A special consideration given

by the government, that government, to B.C. Hydro.

But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's been said in this House

before and I want there to be no doubts about it. The chairman of

British Columbia Hydro has had on his desk for at least three weeks the

recommended rate increases for natural gas distributed by that company,

and those rate increases are as follows: an 80 per cent increase for

industrial rates; 33 1/3 per cent increase for commercial rates; 15 per

cent increase for residential rates.

The only reason that British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority has

not announced those rate increases is because they're waiting for the

playback as to whether or not the 15 per cent increase for residential

natural-gas rates is going to create a political problem for that

government. That's the reason.

But I was going to suggest to you what this means to the resource

dividend. Commercial rates go up 33 1/3 per cent. If you happen to be a

renter in an apartment building that is heated by natural gas and if

your hot water is produced by natural gas, the increase in the

commercial rates will cost you, per suite, $10 to $12 a year. So

slightly more than a third of your resource dividend is going to go to

B.C. Hydro right off the bat for hot water and heat.

That's your resource dividend from the natural gas which everybody

knows belongs to the people of British Columbia, which is purchased by

a British Columbia Crown corporation at the wellhead, transmitted down

a pipeline and sold by another British Columbia Crown corporation in

the lower mainland.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: They've gone up. But they've been allowed

to go up 30 per cent, you see, by the Energy Commission. But here's the

interesting thing. They had to go to the Energy Commission and convince

the Energy Commission they were entitled to that kind of an increase

because of what they were paying for the natural gas they buy from the

British Columbia Crown corporation and their cost of distribution. But

we don't have to have B.C. Hydro go through that kind of an

examination, even though year after year prior to 1974 British Columbia

Hydro has made excessive profits out of the sale of natural gas, even

though the people of British Columbia buying gas from B.C. Hydro have

paid higher rates than any place else on the North American continent.

That's the kind of resource dividend we're getting from our government and our Crown corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: A resource rip-off.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a Member says a resource rip-off. I don't think that's a resource rip-off; I think it's even worse than that.

If a housewife were to come to the Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Ms. Young) and tell her that she had gone into a supermarket and

had found the prices were marked up on the same goods that were on the

shelf the day before, the Minister of Consumer Services would be after

that supermarket like you wouldn't believe. And rightly so. But are we

going to hear from the Minister of Consumer Services when B.C. Hydro

takes the same gas that has been coming down that pipeline month after

month after month and marks it up 15 per cent to the residential user?

Same gas. Are we going to hear that when it's marked up 33 1/3 per cent

for the commercial consumer? Same gas. The industrial user; 80 per

cent; same gas.

I hope the Minister of Consumer Services will dig in her heels here

and say to her government, "Look, we can't have any of these marked-up

prices. I won't stand for it in the supermarkets and I'm not going to

stand for it in the Crown corporations either because that's what hurts

the individual."

You may say, well, sure, those big industries can afford to pay 80

per cent more for their natural gas. Of course they can; no question

about it. Increase it 200 per cent, a Member says. No problem at all;

go ahead and increase the cost of natural gas. If you happen to be

producing some product which is used

[ Page 387 ]

in the housing industry, add the increased cost

onto the price of the product. And it will cost more to build a house.

That's what happens.

So the resource dividend the government is giving to the Province of

British Columbia from all resources is, in fact, a dividend that is

going to be paid for out of the pocket of the individual consumer in

the Province of British Columbia whether he buys gas or not.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You don't believe that!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You bet I believe it. Here's an

entrepreneur. Here's a man who raises chickens and they produce eggs.

He's no peanut-stand operator, Mr. Speaker; he's a true entrepreneur.

I want to deal with this resource dividend thing just one step

further because the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

treated us to a speech the other day that I could scarcely believe. He

made a very good speech when he was talking about matters strictly

within his department. But in the early part of his speech he was a

little bit political and he got talking about the great benefits that

were being derived from the expenditure of public moneys for the

purchase of private corporations.

He didn't have the annual report from Can-Cel but he quoted the Province saying

it was estimated there would be a profit of $12 million. If that's

true, that's a pretty good job; no question about that. But then he

went on to give other statistics, and you all applauded how well these

Crown corporations were doing. You applaud too, because I'll come back

to the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis).

The annual sales of Ocean Falls were $18 million. Are you going to

applaud that? The annual sales of Plateau Mills were $15 million. Next

year's annual sales estimated for Kootenay Forest Products will be $18

million and Can-Cel's annual sales will be $200 million. Isn't that

fantastic? No applause. Even the man who grows eggs....

MR. LEWIS: I don't grow them; the chickens do. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Even the man who owns the chickens who

grow the eggs. (Laughter.) I'll correct that, Mr. Speaker, because I

happen to know the Member very well, and I'll tell you this: even the

man who is married to the woman who runs the hatchery that has the

chickens which produce the eggs.... (Laughter.) Because I know who

works for that family. (Laughter.) Even that man knows you can't tell

anything from gross sales without costs, capital costs, operating

expenses and debt charges. Finally you get down to that nasty little

word: net income.

I use "net income" because I don't like to say "profit" in this

House. That's a socialist word, as a Member on the other side of the

House said the other day.

But even the Member for Shuswap who is in the egg business knows.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams)

regaled us with these figures of gross sales and everybody applauded

like mad. Well, Mr. Minister, I don't think we'd even let you run a

peanut stand.

I don't think we'd even let you run a peanut stand because if you

want to count the peanuts that go out without counting whatever it

costs for you to buy them in the first place, and the cost of selling

them in the second then we are in serious trouble with our resource

industries. That's right, with our resource industries.

The fact of the matter is that all the millions of dollars that

we've put into the acquisition of private rights and industry haven't

produced as yet one nickel. Not one nickel — you should read the

material, Mr. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley); then you'll

understand how much they put in.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that all the money that we

have put in these private resource industries hasn't yet produced us

one nickel, and we're not going to know when it does. This is something

else that should alarm Members of this House. When we're considering

this kind of budget, there's never going to be any item in here for how

much Can-Cel produced for British Columbia, or Plateau Mills, or any of

these other corporations that we have.

Resource dividends will continue to come, Mr. Speaker, from the

pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia. A straight political

pay-off.

You know, the Conservatives in Ontario do it very well. I understand

that they have a renter's grant which is much, much bigger than what

we're promising in British Columbia. And do you know when it comes?

About the 21st of December. A beautiful stroke of political genius.

I hope that our government doesn't at least make this mistake,

because it is so obvious to the people of British Columbia what this

government is doing with this budget, that if they try to make it a

Christmas present too, I'm afraid it's going to dim the lights on all

the trees.

Now, while it is perhaps humorous to speak of these serious matters

in a light way, the fact of the matter is that the people of the

Province of British Columbia are entitled to have from their government

better response than they're getting in this budget. They've waited

through 20 years of Social Credit, hoping that there would be some

better response and they believed that this government was going to do

something about it.

[ Page 388 ]

They gave the promise, but they failed. In two particular areas that

we must deal with, because of the amendment which is now before the

House, they have failed miserably — the treatment of cities, towns and

municipalities, and their treatment of the educational system.

Now, dealing with education first, we have talked for years, and

years, and years about education. There's arguments as to whether too

much is being spent or not on this area of government activity. But as

I said in this House three years ago when we talk about education and

the system of education in this province, we aren't talking about this

year's budget, or next year's budget, or indeed even the budget for the

year after that. We're talking about the future of this province 10 and

20 years hence, which depends upon the young people of our province,

some of whom aren't even in school today.

We as legislators, if we are only content to deal with this next 12

month fiscal period, fail ourselves, fail our province and fail the

future generations that will come after us. If we can't raise up our

eyes and see what the future demands, then we don't have any right to

be on the floor of this assembly.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) spoke the other day, and I have a lot of disagreements with him,

but he recognizes where the future of this province lies.

He talked about northern development and how we must move into that

part of our province, how much we must expand the industries, build new

towns, new communities. But that all requires people with skill as well

as endurance. The skill of those people will depend upon the

educational system that we may start to provide for the students who

will perhaps enter our schools five years from now.

There's no question that if we embark upon a programme at this very

moment, if the Minister of Finance was to say, "I'll give you any

amount of money you want," if we started to embark upon an amended

educational system in this province, we wouldn't get it operating for

at least five years.

So we're talking about the child just born, who will go into

kindergarten or grade one five or six years from now. And it will be

the fruits of that young boy or girl that will decide whether or not

the dream of northern development and of the greatness of this province

will in fact come true.

That's what concerns me when I learn that this year the percentage

of the budget for education is less than last year. This is no

progress. When are we going to start?

The big cry today is class size. I don't blame the B.C. Teachers'

Federation for making this move because there's lots of justification

for this clamour to reduce class sizes. But do you know that if you

were to embark upon a reduced class size programme now, that one of the

things you would have to do in many areas is to provide more

classrooms? Because if you divide the number of children into smaller

groups, you've got to put them someplace. You can't stack them one on

top of the other. And do you also know that if you were to embark upon

a substantially reduced class size, that you'd have to re-train some of

our teachers?

You would also have to convince those who know what to do with a

small class size that it was really happening. This is the problem with

pupil-teacher ratio. It would take two or three years of reduced — significantly reduced — pupil-teacher ratios before the programme would

begin to work in the schools, and any true benefit would be recognized.

So when I criticize this budget for its failure to treat education

properly, I do so because recognizing these delays, to wait any longer

is to place this province and its future in jeopardy. I don't think

that we can stand or sit in this House and discharge our

responsibilities if we recognize that by doing so, we may place the

future of this province and of the young people in jeopardy.

The amendment also speaks of the inadequate fiscal treatment for

municipalities. I'm only going to deal with one aspect of that, and

it's a popular one. That's housing.

I'm sorry the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is not here

but that's not surprising. He's probably out in the corridor giving a

message. Because when he made his speech in the House the other day

outlining his proposals for housing plans for the Province of British

Columbia, he didn't make much sense. I was pleased to read in the paper

that he had gone out in the corridor giving a press conference in order

to explain to the press gallery what he was really talking about and

during that time he indicated that in subsequent days he would further

elaborate on the housing programme.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, quite simple, and the

Minister doesn't seem to have recognized it. In order to build more

housing units — and I don't care whether you like single family houses,

duplexes, fourplexes, apartment buildings, or whatever it is — in order

to build housing units, you've got to have land, you've got to have

material, you've got to have carpenters, plumbers and electricians, and

roofers, and concrete people, and men who know how to put them together

and to get them on the site and go to work.

This Minister, with all of the money that he's been given in this

budget is not one step closer to that goal than he was before the

budget was announced. Not one step closer.

No proposals from him except that he's going to deal with the matter

of serviced land. And that's what brings me to the question of

municipal finance. The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) in

his remarks a few moments ago, talked about the

[ Page 389 ]

problems of servicing land. I want to give you just a couple of brief examples.

In the Municipality of Surrey — and I picked this because it has

been one of the fastest-growing municipalities — Surrey places what

they call an impost charge on the developers of single family dwellings.

The cost of servicing land in Surrey comes down to about $3,000 per

unit. But then you consider the impost charge. For each suite in the

apartment building for park development the municipality charges

$1,295. You add that. For water, and this is just to ensure that there

is adequate pumping capacity, they add $150 per suite. For drainage

they add $300 per suite. If you happen to be located on an arterial

road, a main road, they charge you $200 per suite. But if it is a case

where you require a non-arterial road — a municipal road to be built — they charge you $650 per suite.

All of those costs go on to the unit cost for an apartment building

in the municipality of Surrey. Do you wonder that the cost of housing

is high, because it is exactly the same cost for a single family home

except in the case of park development, and they reduce the costs from

$1,295 to $905.

Now in Langley city there is an impost charge of $500. In Matsqui it

is 10 per cent of the land costs. In Delta $750 per suite for an

apartment. In Burnaby and Richmond there is none. Just to get the land

serviced, with water, drainage and roads, plus the impost for parks,

provides all these costs on a residential per-unit basis. Simply

because due to the niggardly fiscal provisions for municipalities made

by the former administration, and unfortunately continued by this

administration, the municipalities must make these charges or else

their particular communities will become slums.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, who is a

Member from one of the major urban ridings in Vancouver, spoke last

night about the problems that you find in the city of Vancouver, and

how we have to make it a better place to live, with more open space and

more parks. You know, this also applies in outlying municipalities.

Surrey, Richmond and Delta are faced with the same problems, but they

don't have the money to provide it, and they only have one tax base,

and that is the land. The principal tax base, and the greatest demand,

is for residential land, and in order to ensure that they have the

moneys that will enable them to provide the communities in which people

wish to live, they make these kind of charges.

When they make these kind of charges, the cost of the land goes up,

and when you want to build an apartment block or a home, you have got

to pay those costs, and you are going to finance those charges too. You

have got to finance those charges during the time that the building is

under construction and if it is a home, it is six months. You can't

live in it, but you are going to pay the interest for half a year on

these kinds of costs, and then after you move in, year after year after

year.

But if the government, and the Department of Housing, and the

Department of Municipal Affairs would move actively on these matters,

to assist municipalities in the provision of these essential services,

then we could ease the burden of costs on the land, and begin to get

some sense out of our housing crisis. We would help the Minister of

Housing to get on with his job.

The longer we delay the greater will be the crisis, the more of our

people, young people.... I have a daughter who is going to get married

in May. Already she and her fiancé are looking for a place to live.

Already.

They signed up with one of those rental agencies, on the basis that

you pay so much money, maybe they will give you a list of apartments

with some that are available. The Member shakes her head. She's right.

I know what the problem is, though I thought these young people should

understand what the problems are, that are faced by tens, hundreds,

thousands of our young people.

I told the House last fall of seeing a young man, a young woman,

with the want ads, the classified sections of the paper and a handful

of dimes in a telephone booth, trying to find accommodation advertised

in the paper.

Those are the kind of people who are going to suffer. Those are the

kind of people who should be entitled to expect aid from this kind of

budget, and they are not getting it.

As the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) pointed out

the other day, even when we are talking about a $2,172 million budget,

we really know by careful examination that the Minister of Finance is

going to have from this year and next year, another $700 million that

he is not telling us about.

All of this fiscal strength is available to the Minister of Finance

and his department. Why can't we get going? No wonder the people of

British Columbia are bewildered at our inability, in one of the richest

provinces of Canada, to really do a job for them, when they are footing

the bill.

I suppose that in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I might share with you

a thought that passed through my mind last weekend. An event occurred

last Friday in Victoria, when the teachers came over and demonstrated

in front of this building, expressing their concern about education.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) went out and spoke to

them, with the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the

second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and other Members

spoke to the teachers. The Minister of

[ Page 390 ]

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) didn't go out. He

couldn't go out because he was pedaling on a bicycle. There were

pictures in the paper of him taking exercise. He needs it. I don't

criticize the Minister of Finance for that, because I think everyone

should get himself in shape.

But the message is clear. The revenues of the Province of British

Columbia under his control are fat and flabby, and they could be cut

back by some proper tax reductions, and the body politic in British

Columbia would be a lot more healthy.

By the same token, the expenditures that this government proposed to

make could be given some muscle, and municipal affairs and education

are two places to start. A two-fold thrust. Cut back on some of the

revenues and reduce the taxes if need be and put some muscle in those

expenditures, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it is always very difficult to follow the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Couldn't you understand me?

MR. WALLACE: No, there is no difficulty at all in

understanding you, Mr. Member, it is just difficult to match your

pointed logic, your clear reasoning and the fact that in this case you

are right on the mark. And he's a nice guy as well. I will try not to

be repetitive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quite a contrast to his first piece.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I spared myself that experience. But, Mr.

Speaker, in supporting the amendment, and I'll speak particularly with

respect to education, there is no question at all that the record shows

very clearly two things. The first one from the BCTF brief in November

1973, and I quote from page 5: "We consider a significant reduction in

class sizes and pupil-teacher ratio to be the single most important

step your department and local school boards could take to improve the

quality of our schools."

Point (2) on the record is that this was priority No. 1 in the

educational platform put forward by the NDP government in the election

of 1972. As recently as the by-election in North Vancouver-Capilano we

had Diane Baigent repeating clearly in public more than once...

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: You like my accent, eh? You didn't know I speak French.

...repeating clearly on more than one occasion that as recently as a

few weeks ago in conference the NDP had repeated that their No. I

priority in their educational policy was to reduce the number of pupils

in the class.

I don't care how Members of the government care to bamboozle us, or

try to bamboozle us and the public with figures, the fact is that any

reduction in class size has been of the smallest degree as to be

insignificant. Certainly the figures...one single statistic that I

think is worth quoting is from the BCTF brief based on 1,080 schools

out of 1,168 elementary schools which showed that the reduction was of

the order of 0.7, lower than the 30.1 standard in effect six years ago

in 1967.

I would submit that this is such an insignificant reduction as to be

really of no convincing effect compared to the tremendous priority

which the NDP attached to this particular element of education in their

election platform. Certainly any of us who have sat in this House and

listened to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) when she was

in the opposition, and I'm sorry that she is not present in the House

tonight, repeatedly she has, as an opposition Member, pointed out the

extreme importance of reducing class size.

And I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education has come back into the chamber, because in the clipping from the Vancouver Sun

of January 16, 1974, she sounds very defensive in discussing, at a

public meeting attended by 600 citizens, this whole question of the

main priority which the NDP attaches to their educational programme.

Like so many human beings when they are trying to defend their

position, they look backwards, not forwards, and try to argue that

while things are not what they might be, they are a great deal better

than they used to be.

Mr. Speaker, I really don't feel that that is the tone or the theme

which was developed by this government in its 1972 election. The theme

was "elect us and we will give you better health services, we will look

after the people in nursing homes, we will give you a better system of

education, and we, above all, will reduce the number of pupils in each

class."

The Minister of Education is quoted in the Sun of January 16

as saying: "When I started teaching in grade 2 I had 50 children, which

was ridiculous. No teacher can handle 50 children adequately. You just

keep them busy and they suffer for it. Of course no teacher has this

situation today in British Columbia, but that's not to say the

situation is desirable."

Mr. Speaker, that's a very mild, defensive, negative statement

compared to the promise that this government made as a fundamental

pillar on which it asked for the support of the voter in British

Columbia in 1972.

There has been great discussion in this debate on the whole question of local school boards and

[ Page 391 ]

whether or not these school boards have fulfilled

their responsibility both to the taxpayer and to the students and

children attending school in this province. I can't speak of any school

board other than district 61 with which I do have some close

association and information. In that school district, Mr. Speaker, the

teachers, as is their right, negotiated a 10.8 per cent increase, which

amounts to $1.95 million. But the school board of the Greater Victoria

Capital Regional District unanimously decided on a budget which

happened to be 122 per cent compared to the preceding year.

I'm sure that other school districts in this province came to the

same considered conclusion. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the

Victoria School Board spent 12 hours in deliberation on the final

budget presented to them, and they are composed of very responsible

public spirited citizens whose sincerity cannot be questioned. When

citizens of this calibre come forward with a budget which happens to be

122 per cent of last year's and other school boards in the province do

the same, I just don't think it is fair and right that the Minister of

Education should publicly chastise them and state that they are

irresponsible.

The school board has no control whatever over the negotiated

increase in teachers' salaries. The machinery is there; collective

bargaining or arbitration, as the case might be, takes place. We are

all aware of the example in Surrey where the mill rate to meet the

budget, which was considered reasonable by the board of education,

would go from 37 mills to 49 mills. We've heard the Minister of

Education talk today that she would not want an unfair burden to fall

on the taxpayers, and I'm glad this is how she views the situation.

When the Surrey School Board decided that the burden on the taxpayers

locally would be too heavy, they reduced the budget in such a way as to

reduce it from the 49 mills to 42 mills. And we all know the

consequence in terms of the educational system in Surrey which would

eliminate department heads and vice-principals, and increase the

pupil-teacher ratio from 21 pupils per teacher to 24.

The other consequence is that teachers become irate and demonstrative.

We heard the Minister state today that in the last year 1,400

teachers have been added to the system. I notice that the Minister was

very careful to omit mention of how many pupils have been added to the

system. She went further and said that class size is not a panacea — I

would certainly agree with that — and related the whole matter properly

to teacher training and the whole question of the particular teaching

patterns of training and of implementation of teaching methods. I

accept that. But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister went on to say that she was

sending a questionnaire to school boards. I can't quote her exactly,

but the notes I made said that she is seeking details from boards where

local taxation rises above a reasonable level. Certainly the two words

"reasonable level" are exactly what she stated.

This reminds me of the Premier's comment when he talked about

exorbitantly high pupil-teacher ratios. We have this government

waffling and weaseling around, talking about "reasonable levels" and

"exorbitantly high" as though this was a new situation where they

suddenly had a whole lot of investigation to do to find out the facts.

That, Mr. Speaker, was not the attitude they took in the election

campaign of 1972. Oh, no. Nor the stance which the NDP took when they

sat down the chamber two years ago. Oh, no! They knew where the problem

was; they knew what the solution was; and all it needed was more money.

More money in the budget to reduce the number of pupils in a class.

Now, lo and behold, February, 1974, we find this afternoon that the

Minister of Education says we have to have a questionnaire to find out

where the number of pupils in the classroom rises above a "reasonable

level." What is a reasonable level? I won't go back into the figures

and facts of the BCTF brief. We don't need a great deal of information,

more than already exists in this brief and in other areas.

Then, beyond this very unsatisfactory statement that the solution

cannot be dealt with until we have questionnaires, we have the Minister

saying that we must have a system of supplementary grants. Again, Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that all the information and the facts and the

figures and the input from the teachers and the trustees has been

available for some considerable length of time, and it's a shocking

admission of inadequacy in the department that at this late stage in

the game, after all the election promises, that we have to have a

questionnaire to find out what the situation really is,

In fact, one might say in passing also, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister mentioned this afternoon, and again I haven't got the exact

quote, but the words read something of the order that the educational

department is an open department, moving through the province to listen

to the people.

MR. LEWIS: Hear! Hear!

MR. WALLACE: Hear, hear, the Member says. Isn't that what Mr.

Bremer was doing — moving through the province listening to the people?

What kind of doubletalk are we getting in this House, Mr. Speaker, on

education? One statement says that we're moving through the province

listening to the people, and when a highly talented, educated person

appointed for that very job fulfils his role and does his job, we find

again that the promise of this government compared to the performance

shows a striking discord.

But to return, Mr. Speaker, to the question of

[ Page 392 ]

supplementary grants, I always thought that it was

the established tradition of parliament that prior to the beginning of

a session, each department came up with figures which truly represented

the realistic figures which would be needed to meet with the demands of

that department.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the good old days.

MR. WALLACE: The Member says that was the good old days. I

don't know whether it was the good old days or bad old days, but I

always thought that that was something very fundamental to the whole

question of parliamentary budgets, in the same way that we expect free

speech to be basic to parliamentary debate. But we seem to be setting a

new path, Mr. Speaker. We seem to be having a system whereby the

opposition attempts to interpret a budget but, as soon as the

legislators go home, one particular department with a very substantial

share of the total budget starts a whole new system of bargaining with

the school boards across the province.

Mr. Speaker, whether or not the opposition — the 17 opposition

Members — were to vote for or against this budget, certainly in

relation to education, it is a farce. Because the minute we go out of

this chamber at the proroguing of this session, we have the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) who will probably start wheeling and

dealing to spend, I don't know how many millions of dollars, on a very

arbitrary basis decided by the Minister behind closed doors.

Regardless of whether this government, with the figures we now have,

is spending enough money or not enough money on education, regardless

of that point, I think it is insulting, Mr. Speaker, that this

government should ask us as opposition members to approve a certain

amount of money, knowing very well that when we leave this chamber

another very substantial fraction of money will be distributed in an

arbitrary way on the decision of the Minister of Education. I have a

strong feeling, Mr. Speaker, that it will be very much a matter of the

squeaky wheel getting the grease. There's a certain inevitability about

human nature that the person who screams and shouts loudest and longest

gets the greatest degree of attention.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of my personal criticisms and

the reasons I'm trying to put forward for these criticisms, we have the

Minister's own confession in her own words. On December 5, when the

Minister announced an increase in the value of the instructional unit

from $15,520 to $16,900, she is on record as stating that this barely

kept up with the costs of inflation.

Again I suggest that we have contradiction in statements by the

Minister. On one hand she is saying that she is dedicated to reducing

the number of pupils per class. On the other hand, she announces that

the increased instructional unit value merely keeps up with inflation:

the increased salary increases negotiated by the teachers; the fact

that, on the average, school supplies have risen by something in the

order of 15 to 20 per cent; the cost of fuel oil for heating school

buildings and so on, and we needn't go over all that again. The fact is

that on December 5, last year, the Minister out of her own mouth

admitted the fact that she and her cabinet, and the government of this

province, were not making enough money available for education.

We've also had the input from the B.C. Teachers' Federation who felt

that in fair play and justice to different school districts, the

obvious way of approaching the problem was not by this method of

behind-the-door dealings and supplementary grants after the Legislature

prorogued, but by raising the value of the instructional unit to a

realistic level in keeping with the needs of the different school

boards. There's nothing dramatic about that, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, the facts are beyond dispute. If we look at the

record, this government regarded it and stated it and promised it as a

No. 1 priority in education, that it would reduce the number of pupils

per teacher. We have the record which shows the Minister encouraged

school boards to think that more money would definitely be available

for all the various ways in which the educational system could be

improved, including the reduction of the number of pupils per class,

but then when we received the figures from the different school boards

which totalled an increase of $82 million in the provincial budgets, we

had the response from the Minister which has been quoted many times:

namely that boards had to show more fiscal responsibility.

Well, I know this, Mr. Speaker, from the local situation in district

61 that that was a most unfair insult to the citizens who serve on the

school board of district 61. I can't speak for Surrey or Kamloops or

anywhere else, but I know very well the citizens who serve on the

school in the district where I live, and they spend hours and days

deliberating the responsibilities they have in this particular public

duty, and when they come up with a budget that's 122 per cent of last

year, they are being completely honest and sincere with themselves and

with the citizens and the students and pupils of this area.

I think that in that one statement, perhaps, the Minister did more

than in any other of her actions to lose the confidence of the trustees

in this particular area. And judging by the demonstration from Surrey

the other day, I can't imagine that she retains their confidence.

There has been too much waffling from the government benches on the

matter of the fraction of the budget that is being devoted to

education. As I have said before, we have phrases like "reasonable

levels" and "exorbitantly high" and all kinds of

[ Page 393 ]

escape hatches which the Minister of Finance and

the Minister of Education are trying to devise to cover up the fact

that this government has fallen far short of the promises it made to

the parents and the students of this province in the 1972 election.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Where did that nice doctor go?

MR. WALLACE: On my left I hear someone saying where did the nice doctor go.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He's still here.

MR. WALLACE: I don't know what the meaning of the word "nice"

is exactly. But I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: I've got five

children and one of the reasons I often supported that party down there

and still supported them with votes in this House was that I believed

that they said what they meant.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Watch your blood pressure.

MR. WALLACE: I'll watch my blood pressure! Don't you worry about my blood pressure!

I'm saying that these people over there are falling far short of

many of the solid, well-intentioned promises which put them in power.

People in this province believed when they heard them say that health

and education were important and that the previous government had

neglected it.

I'm just saying: Come clean with the people of British Columbia,

admit that you've fallen short. When you have these vast surpluses give

the same rise to elementary schools for the teachers — $30 million — when that's exactly the amount by which wages increased. Who are you

trying to kid? You're not even covering the cost of inflation.

If the nice doctor went anywhere, he got pretty mad because I've

often even been accused of being a socialist because I supported your

ideas and your votes in this House. And as long as you continue to keep

your promise on social reform, Mr. Speaker, I'll support you. But don't

give us doubletalk and tell us at one time that you really are

interested in the people and their education, and the students, and

then come in and give us this kind of budget and wonder why we get mad.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in intervening briefly in this debate I'd like to talk first of all about education.

The characteristic of the budget as it applies to education has been

and still is, but the facts aren't all out on the table. We understand

from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and from the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) that the amount available — the

inadequate amount available — will be increased in various ways. We

aren't, first of all, given any kind of criteria as to how much more

money might be available, as to exactly how it will be done. Later on,

the House receives an intimation that in order to reduce class sizes,

in the case when class sizes are manifestly too high, the Minister will

consider making more funds available.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ad hoc.

MR. GIBSON: This has the transparently unfair result of

discriminating against those school districts that had had the courage

to bite the bullet and raise the taxes locally and already had made

provision for reducing class size.

Today, if I understand it properly in the Minister's statement, she

has moved the goal posts again. She said today that she'd compensate

districts that had raised taxes to lower class sizes when those taxes

were raised above a reasonable level. This is more unclear promises,

more vaguery — if that's a word, like ad hockery....

AN HON. MEMBER: Gobbledygook is the word.

MR. GIBSON: I think the House is entitled to know what the

Minister means by "reasonable level." Just how high does the school

district have to raise its taxes in order to reduce class sizes after

which the Crown will compensate that district? What are the limits? How

high is up?

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made an excellent

statement in his just concluded talk. He said that this makes the

education aspect of the budget a farce. And it does. It's asking for a

blank cheque in education. This Legislature votes on the budget and

then the government, by its own statement, is going to go away and do

exactly what they want.

AN HON. MEMBER: Special warrants.

MR. GIBSON: Special warrants, a blank cheque. Talk about a

Robin Hood budget; this is a call for a Sherwood Forest management

licence. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to Ottawa, you can print your own money there.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister of Finance, last week, adjourned the

House for four days before bringing down the budget, and I wonder if

now he shouldn't adjourn it for another four days and bring down an

amended budget with something clear in it about education.

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

[ Page 394 ]

They'd change it again next week.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister made an implication that teachers

should get back into the classrooms because the class size ratio, of

course, is much higher than the pupil-teacher ratio.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): You've been around Art Laing too long.

MR. GIBSON: But what I wonder is where are these teachers

going to be taken away from, and the duties they're already on. Now,

should they have fewer rest periods? Should professional teachers be

taken off counselling duties? Should professional teachers who are

engaged in administration be taken out of administration, and people

put into school administration who aren't teachers. And if those

teachers leave those areas and go back into the classroom, who's going

to replace them? Somebody else whom you're going to have to pay as well.

Unless you are prepared to be pretty specific about how this is

going to happen, to me this is a will-of-the-wisp; this is a phony

solution, it's not a real solution.

The Minister mentioned in her remarks this afternoon that the

government is taking over the payment of insurance premiums from the

school districts. One of my colleagues said earlier on that this is in

one way an ICBC subsidy. But more than that, I'd ask the Minister, if I

understand this correctly — it's at best a year or perhaps less than a

one-year assistance to any given school district. Because if I

understand rightly, the value of insurance as it applies to the cost of

an instructional unit will be out the year after and, therefore, the

benefit of this is strictly a one-shot deal.

The Minister mentioned that text book rental fees were gone. I

congratulate her very much for that. I draw to her attention another

item — generally speaking school supplies are sales tax exempt. A case

where this doesn't happen is in home economics supplies which in the

case of a family with several children in school.... I know one family

in my riding gave me receipts to the amount of $30 that they had to pay

for home economics supplies, and they had to pay sales tax on that. I

would hope that the Minister might take that as a representation to

look at in a subsequent budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. GIBSON: There was no mention in the budget, Mr. Speaker,

of independent schools in British Columbia. Something like 23,000

children currently being educated completely at the expense of their

parents who are paying taxes as well for the public schools.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Inequable.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, to me it's not right that those

people should pay double taxation. This is a subject that our party has

taken a stand on for many years, and one I hope to come back to in the

Ministers' estimates,

We're told by the Minister that 21.5 is the pupil-teacher ratio at

the current time. Now, I don't know about other districts around the

province, but I know that in my school district — district 44 — the

class size, as distinct from the pupil-teacher ratio, is 30.2. On that

basis I welcome very much the undertaking of the Minister that

pupil-teacher ratios, which she said today would be reflected directly

in class size reduction, will be reduced by 1.5 per year for the next

three years.

A question I have for the Minister though is: Why can't we start

now? Why can't the government guarantee that starting next September

funds will be provided for the school districts of this province to

reduce class sizes by that amount?

I'll speak very briefly about educational research, and I'll commend

the Minister to an extent on that. The situation inside the government

on educational research is a little bit confused. But outside the

government, funds have been provided to the Educational Research

Institute of British Columbia in considerably higher magnitude than in

previous years. This is a good thing. I hope that the Minister will

continue that line of expenditure because it's usual in most lines of

human endeavour to have a research expenditure of several percentage

points of the funds that are being used.

In the Province of British Columbia the funds that are going into

educational research are probably one-tenth of 1 per cent. Even if we

raised it 1per cent, just 1 per cent, that would be much under the

usual average and we would be spending $5 million, which is what

Ontario is spending on the Ontario Institute of Study of Education,

which is perhaps the wrong way to approach it — too centralized. The

route that the Educational Research Institute of B.C. is taking of a

decentralized one is, I think, a better approach. The point is that the

funding should be increased in that area.

Of course, this shouldn't be purely research because there is a lot

of educational research being done on this continent. What is needed is

more appreciation of the innovative projects around British Columbia.

The institute is carrying on a registry of innovative projects around

British Columbia. With evaluation and development, these kinds of

benefits can be made available to school districts all over the

province.

I will speak for a moment about municipal matters. The basic dilemma

of the government here is that it is centralizing at the same time as

it is talking

[ Page 395 ]

about local control. That is because of the

inevitable effect of the power of the purse. The government is holding

all the purse strings and local revenue sources just aren't good enough

to keep up with local needs.

Where are the local funds to come from to give the municipal

councils the kind of autonomy they should have if we really believe in

decentralized government? We have a couple of suggestions: How about

full tax rates when the provincial government makes grants in lieu of

taxes? How about the payment of full tax rates instead of — what is it

— around 50 per cent for...? How about the British Columbia Railway

which pays no taxes at all? — no property taxes.

In my riding if the British Columbia Railway paid normal taxes, that

would be $250,000 to the District of North Vancouver. I think the BCR

should pay those taxes.

On transportation: The GVRD is going to be asked to provide the

equivalent of 2 mills on property. Where are they going to find this

money? They have approached the government with constructive

suggestions on revenue sources; they have talked about taxes on

gasoline and that was denied. They even talked about a tax on

electricity and that was denied.

There have been suggestions from the government that the

municipalities might put an extra tax on water to pay for this

transportation charge, or a tax on parking spaces which is probably a

good idea, but won't yield enough revenue.

What it gets back to, I think, is the need to have a task force

study into municipal financing. They can look at various methods across

Canada and they will find some interesting things. They will find that

Manitoba, in the middle of last year, tied their grants to

municipalities to a percentage of total provincial revenues so that

when provincial revenues go up now, automatically municipal revenues go

up. This is the kind of thing we should be looking at in British

Columbia if we really mean what we are saying about the importance of

local government.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment as moved.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I would, first of all, like to congratulate the opposition on

their efforts in this debate. I know we used to look over the budget,

and so on, and find the weak spots page after page after page, and find

no problem in carrying on a very brisk debate of non-confidence.

I appreciate the fact that the opposition, in this straight debate,

in this budget, have had a difficult time in finding soft spots. What

their speeches have lacked in content, they have made it up in some

fervour.

I can assure you that municipalities have never been so well off in the history

of the province — never so well off; they have never been so happy. Year by

year they will get happier and happier.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: We've had a nice discussion tonight. I think probably everything has been said that you want to say.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Now that we have finished with the serious part (Laughter), I think we should probably get down to some facts.

I won't mention the homeowners grant — the grants that are paid by

the province to the municipality for the benefit of the citizens. I

won't mention that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't mention that. Don't — no, don't mention that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I won't mention this great new move of removing the school tax from land. I'm not going to mention that.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, don't mention that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: However, I would mention the fact that again this year, as in last year, the per capita grant has been increased.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't mention that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I might point out for those of you who are

new here that in 1970 there was no increase in the per capita grant; in

1971 there was no increase; in 1972 there was no increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: Always looking back, always looking back. Why don't you look forward?

HON. MR. LORIMER: In 1973, a great increase.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't mention that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: In '74, another increase and in '75, we'll have to wait and see.

MR. WALLACE: I wouldn't hold my breath.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I will just give you an even dozen reasons why I feel I am unable to support this motion — it was a nice motion.

We have been talking a lot about increases, and mentioning about percentages. Now, percentages are

[ Page 396 ]

not that great a thing to go by because with this

budget when you talk about all these new great programmes that are in — that weren't in before — your percentages are going to vary somewhat.

However, the grants for municipal committees studying boundary

changes have increased from $15,000 to $50,000 — an increase of 300 per

cent.

A great number of municipalities have conducted enumerations for

years and years and years. They paid for it all themselves, they didn't

get any help. Now this year we are going to pay them half of the costs

— $300,000 in the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many municipalities?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Even more. Even more.

Annual grants to the 28 regional districts increased from $7,000 to

$10,000 — 35 per cent. Ten cents per capita extra for every member in

the regional districts who have their regional plans.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the trouble; you won't stick to the facts. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LORIMER: Grants to assist regional districts to acquire refuse disposal sites — $100,000 brand new. Brand new — $100,000.

Welfare costs reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. Millions of

dollars, millions of dollars! Reduction of 33 1/3 per cent. Reduction

of administration costs for Vancouver. Over $2 million in

administration costs being paid by the province. Brand new.

MR. WALLACE: Not in Oak Bay.

MR. FRASER: What about the sticks?

MR. LIDEN: Go back to the sticks.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Number 9: these are just facts, just facts. We just deal with facts here.

MR. WALLACE: Always looking back. Look forward!

HON. MR. LORIMER: The great reduction to the municipalities

in the new system of the taking over of the courts by the provinces — great savings of, probably, $5 million. I don't know what that

percentage is.

Transit: Millions of dollars, millions of dollars going for transit. Services to municipalities.

MR. WALLACE: Not in Oak Bay.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Millions of dollars.

The mover of this motion, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)....

New services are coming into Victoria — millions of dollars coming

into Victoria on transit. The Victoria fleet has been increased by

about 20 per cent in one year. It will be increased by another 30 per

cent next year.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: You know, a few years ago there was the

question of the $1 per capita being earmarked for ambulance services.

So when we take over the ambulance services costs, that's worth $1 per

capita.

The diking tax: it moves from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. And the

federal government will, no doubt, say zero per cent. Just in Richmond

alone that accounts for $1.6 million — that's just in one municipality.

A terrific increase.

That's an even dozen. I'll stop now; there are lots more. I

appreciate the chore of the opposition in moving this motion. I think

it was well done and I think that there were some interesting talks

tonight.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

really can't believe what I just heard from the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). It was the most incredible recital of

non-events in terms of assistance to local government....

HON. MR. BARRETT: What have you got against diking?

MR. CURTIS: No, I've no objection to diking.

How far does the Minister have to reach to justify some of the

points that have been missed in terms of local government and

assistance to local government and the people who pay property taxes,

whether owners or renters?

How high does he have to reach to drag out such things as $7,000 or

$10,000 more for regional district grants? How quickly some of these

Members who have served in local governments in the past have forgotten

the problems. So very little has changed between the former government

and this government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, nonsense!

MR. CURTIS: Well, you can say, "Oh, nonsense," Mr. Premier,

or other words. Turn back to 1958. Shall we take them one at a time?

Would you like to take them one at a time?

Okay, let's examine one of the later examples that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs quoted, with respect to assistance to ambulances. I

think, really, that the move toward standardization of ambulance

service in British Columbia is a good one. But does the Minister really

believe that those municipalities, those cities,

[ Page 397 ]

who had their own high standard of ambulance

service, were able to pay for it with that $1 per capita which was the

subject of...?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Of course not. That's why we're picking it up.

MR. CURTIS: Well then, why did he drag it out, Mr. Speaker, as an example of another assistance to local government in British Columbia?

What about the Vancouver Province in a little item which

appeared in the paper this morning? "Vancouver city seeks to pare $2

million off its 1974 budget." Just listen to the first couple of

paragraphs:

"Almost $2 million must be cut from preliminary

departmental requests if single-family homeowners' tax increases are to

be held at 9 per cent, according to city finance director Peter Leckie."

That is not assistance to municipalities, Mr. Speaker. That is not assistance for local government.

We had a fine, sweet talk today for the Home and School Association

from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). But really it

glosses over so many shortcomings in education in British Columbia and

so many promises which have not been kept or which have fallen short.

Sweet talk, but not too much action!

The motion is a good one; it most certainly is, Mr. Speaker. The

amendment is the one I'm speaking of; it is a good one. It shows that

the great socialist dream in this province has popped. I have pleasure

in supporting the amendment.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I rise

to support the amendment, more in sorrow than in anger. I had thought

that this evening we might have heard a little more than trivialities

and frivolity from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer). I thought we might have heard some defence from the Minister

of Education. I thought that the Premier and Finance Minister might

have had something to say about the first non-confidence motion he's

had to face, that it isn't just the Liberal Members and some of us in

the opposition who are expressing that non-confidence today. It runs

right throughout the province. It's not just because of the unnecessary

attacks on a healthy economy, which seem to be a part and parcel of the

socialist approach to our future.

What it is is a grave disappointment at promises unfulfilled. We

shouldn't rake old ashes in this House. But it is difficult for some of

us who are here and who heard the speeches of these Members when they

were in opposition to hold our tongues at what has gone on when these

same people assumed the high responsibility of cabinet office.

I want to remind some of those Members and the public of British

Columbia of the things they said when the province's first $1 billion

budget was brought down only five years ago. It was that year, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs made his maiden address

to this assembly. He was a newly elected alderman from Burnaby, a

representative of the New Democratic Party from Burnaby and a champion

of municipal rights.

In that maiden address he attacked the provincial government for its

niggardly support of cities and municipalities. That year, as the

Liberal leader has reminded everyone tonight, was the year the then

administration, who loomed so evil in the eyes of that new Member and

his socialist colleagues, increased the per capita grant to cities and

municipalities by $3 — $3 on a $1 billion budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that Minister is telling us, to the applause of

the Minister of Finance and the backbenchers who sit in this House,

what a fantastic thing the government is doing for cities and

municipalities when they give $2 on a $2 million budget. It's sick, Mr.

Speaker. What must the people of this province think when record

resources are available and that man they believed in 1969, on assuming

office, should insult the cities and municipalities to the degree which

he has done tonight? Talking about $35,000 going to $50,000! That sort

of nonsense should have been beneath him and should have outraged and

offended the backbenchers who sit in this House.

He applauded the ambulance benefit. And I suppose people who break a

leg will get a break. But, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this: when that

Minister of Municipal Affairs stood up as a new Member in this House

and gave a speech which was well believed for its sincerity, he was

answered with the defence by the then Minister which should make that

man ashamed of himself tonight.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Despite that better defence I can tell you this: the Social

Crediters, who were never noted for the independence of their

backbenchers, had among their Members people who had the courage to

stand up and speak for the cities and municipalities, even if