[ Page 55 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 55

Mr. D.A. Anderson (subamendment) — 58

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 58

Mr. McGeer — 62

Mr. Wallace — 66

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 69

Mr. L.A. Williams — 70

Mr. Curtis — 71

Mr. Schroeder — 71

Division on subamendment — 72

Mr. Schroeder — 72

Mr. Chabot — 75

Mr. McClelland — 79

Mr. Gardom — 83

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1974

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate before the supper hour, I must say I was very pleased to find that we were to meet again this evening. I frown at the effort by filibuster to cut down on debate by other Members.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

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

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: This petulant cry from my right, Mr. Speaker, makes it perfectly clear that the childish effort of the Social Credit benches to arrange to have filibuster, by way of the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Phillips), past six o'clock was their intention. Now, having failed to remember that we unanimously passed a motion in this House not so long ago to have two sittings a day, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays....

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

Interjection.

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The Social Credit Members apparently have still not realized they voted for night sittings Monday through to Thursday. All Members of the House voted in favour of that. It was a unanimous vote.

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, before we do, I'd like to read a very short note that came down from the gallery. I might add that it was addressed to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). It says: "Hi, Chief, we are the retired Pages from last year (if you can remember us). Hope you will enjoy this session (we were so bored of it)."

They sign their names, but in the interests of protecting them, I won't say who they are. (Laughter.) I trust that the Pages we have this session will not find it quite so boring and will be a little more impressed with what we do.

Mr. Speaker, the motion we have to debate this evening is the amendment to the motion in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It reads:

"But this House regrets that the speech of His Honour gave further indications that the government intends to place greater centralized controls upon the people of British Columbia while neglecting any mention of specific proposals for policy changes in the social services fields of education and health at a time when there is growing public alarm with government policy in these fields."

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

What they are demanding of the government in this motion is that the government recognize that the previous policies of Her Majesty's government, in right of British Columbia, were wrong and they want policy changes. They don't want you to continue the previous policies of the Social Credit administration, which unfortunately in a number of areas you have not got around to changing.

It's perfectly clear from the wording here that what this motion is all about is it is chastising the government for failure to change its policies fast enough. It chastises the government for having kept on with some of those old Social Credit policies because, as they say quite rightly, there is growing public alarm with government policy in these fields.

There has been that growing alarm for many years. There was before the present government took office, there was previously, and it was that type of concern, in particular in the fields of education and health, which led this government to take office.

You know, Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day one of the speakers, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), said the Government are forgetting what led them into office, what caused them to take office. But I don't think they have. This type of resolution makes it perfectly clear to any of the government benches who might be wavering that they're in office because of the incompetence of the previous administration. That I think is clear.

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

[ Page 56 ]

Ken Kiernan as president, with Grace McCarthy as vice-president, and Bennett, the junior edition, as leader — this new Social Credit Party, recognizing the disastrous policies that they had before, is now chastising this government for failure to move fast enough in changing them. I think it's quite a good motion from that point of view.

I have my reservations about some things this government has done, in many of the areas where they haven't moved fast enough in changing the previous Social Credit policies. The two that are mentioned are education and health, and I'll restrict myself strictly to this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

First, let's take education. What did we have previously? We had stop and go in the building of schools. We had freezes on expenditures. We had the teaching profession up in arms over what they felt was unfair legislation — Bill 3, the famous Bill 3. We had a student-teacher ratio which was really a disgraceful thing. We had an extremely low per capita expenditure on universities, one of the lowest in Canada. Indeed, for many years, it was the lowest in Canada, when the Social Credit government was in office.

I would like at this stage to mention some of the things that were said at that time. A number of statements were made less than two years ago by Members who are now Members on the government side — Hansard refers here to the former Leader of the Opposition on classroom size:

What about classroom and pupil-teacher ratio in a classroom, Mr. Speaker? It will all be up next year and the effects of this bill will be dramatic at that time. Time and time again, when the Minister of Education (Mr. Brothers) has spoken in this House, he has talked about the commitment to quality. He boasts about the educational system in B.C., Mr. Speaker, but the government cannot boast of the present legislation that we are faced with.

The now Premier goes on to criticize very sharply the student-teacher ratio at that time, and many other failings in education. And he was right to criticize it. My only complaint at this time is my agreement with this motion. I feel that the government has not moved far enough in changing some of the iniquitous provisions of the previous government.

I would like to quote the former education critic. Again, it's less than two years ago, and she said: "Trustees are trying to show leadership, but the Minister keeps bringing in legislation that prevents them from having any leadership, and I can assure him he makes it most difficult for the Members of this House to debate his bills when he keeps them bringing in amendments," et cetera.

Mrs. Dailly, if I could quote her name, as it's down here in the book, goes on to say: "We in our party advocate the removal of property taxation for school purposes, even if the Minister doesn't. It's quite obvious with the type of legislation," et cetera. She mentions the tremendous work being done by school trustees and she talks about one of the richest provinces in Canada, which has the largest classes in Canada. Again the question of student-teacher ratio. She says: "Already we have one of the highest student-teacher ratios right across Canada. Does this government really care?"

Well, I don't think the previous government really did care. I think the Hon. Lady Minister was correct in her criticisms at that time. I think that we've seen in this province a failure in this area to proceed fast enough. We've had, of course, a number of very obvious and unfortunate occurrences and I would agree with this amendment to this effect: that the present government has not moved fast enough in the educational field to change those policies of the previous government.

Now, I have no wish to anticipate debate on estimates. My views are well known, but I would once more point out that in the educational field I do not believe that the Premier has demonstrated adequate confidence in the Minister. The three instances, the Bremer affair, the student-teacher ratio speech before the school teachers, and thirdly, the speech to the school trustees on their irresponsibility — in my mind, these three things, two involving the Minister of Finance, one by the Premier, have indicated that the Premier lacks confidence in the Minister, and I think, as I have said before, that this should lead to changes.

I have no wish to pursue this at this time. All I will say is that the present government's record in this field is that it has not gone far enough; it's not gone fast enough in changing the situation that existed previously and there is no question that in this area we can support the resolution as it deals with education.

Mr. Speaker, the next subject is the social service field of health. Well, what did we have previous to this government taking office? What did we have? Let's face it, they took office just about 18 months ago. What did we have before? We had tragic shortages in the hospital field. Chronic care was promised by the Minister of Health, Mr. Martin, I think in 1958. It wasn't in when he himself wound up in need of chronic care years later. I think this is an area in which this present government could do more. But no one should blind themself to the fact that they came into office; they took over in the Province of B.C. when the record in terms of hospitals and chronic care was perfectly terrible.

Medical training is another aspect. We graduate approximately 60 to 65 medical doctors a year. The Foulkes Report says that we need at this time 152.

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

[ Page 57 ]

which is an improvement.

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

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

Well, in the short space of time this government's been in office I think they can take credit for that. They should be congratulated for that. But it is far from what is needed.

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, Mr. Attorney-General, I might well agree but, unfortunately, if I mentioned that I'd be out of order in this debate. You know what would happen.

But when it comes to medicine and health services, the previous record of the previous government simply was impossibly bad. The psychiatric care was a case of constant crisis. The nurses and technical training were simply not good enough. I'd like to quote again, Mr. Speaker, from the Hansard of '72, less than a year ago, about the psychiatric care in hospitals. I'm quoting the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier. He talks on page 19:

In our travels as, a caucus to various parts of this province, Mr. Speaker, we found that there was no coordinated plan of hospital beds for adolescents who are emotionally disturbed and no plan whatsoever to have beds anywhere in British Columbia for adolescents who have a drug problem.

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

There are no psychiatric beds for children and there is no programme out of that hospital or beds for any child who has a drug problem.

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

The fact is, Mr. Speaker — and I can accept the statement made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition of that time as being essentially accurate — that we did not have a good system of medical care in the Province of British Columbia. Indeed, Dr. Foulkes in his report, much of which I disagree with.... But at least I can agree with his basic contention that we simply did not have a rational overall plan for health delivery in the Province of British Columbia.

To be fair to this government, the government has started to try to cure some of these things. They have made certain steps in the medical training I mentioned. In hospitals they're now tentatively — and I think much too slowly — entering the field of chronic care.

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Home care was mentioned. I agree that much needed to be done and I completely agree with the resolution that the government has proceeded too slowly in this regard. Nevertheless, in this instance I think that we should recognize that the government is departing from previous policies and that this change is very desirable.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), who has left the room, is not really aware of the hypocrisy of his resolution. Coming from his party — the party that left the present government with this situation — to complain about this government in education and health care, to complain as he did, pretending that there was no history in this province, that there had never been a Premier in this province by the name of W.A.C. Bennett, that there had never been a Social Credit administration in this province, was really hypocrisy.

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

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

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The fact is that even though much remains to be done, and that even though in this area the government's policies have not been particularly bold or imaginative, and while they are basing far too much, I believe, upon the report by Dr. Foulkes, which has many areas which are questionable, the fact is that previously the situation was a great deal worse,

Mr. Chabot: You're scared of Gibson.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm glad to see that the Hon. Member admits that Mr. Gibson will be winning. It's really quite interesting that the Member for Peace River assumes that he will be in the House two weeks hence. It's in agreement with his leader. You know, he originally said he was placing his leadership right on the line in North Vancouver.

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: He took one look at his candidate and said, "Look, we hope we can come second," and since then he's been backtracking even further.

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

[ Page 58 ]

Credit polls, knows full well that his leader is right and Gordon Gibson will be sitting in this group here come two weeks from now.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that's been put before us dealing with the failures of the government in the educational health field is perfectly acceptable to us. We later on will be discussing in much more detail the things we think the government should be doing in these areas — the areas where we feel that they have not moved fast enough. However, let there be no misunderstanding as to what the resolution means.

The resolution calls for this government to change previous Social Credit policies, and I think that's right. But so that the resolution can be perfectly clear to everybody, I would suggest that it be amended. Indeed, I will propose an amendment, seconded by my honourable friend from Vancouver–Point Grey, that the following words be added to the amendment, and it would read, "because such inattention leaves British Columbia at the mercy of the policies of the former administration." (Laughter.)

It would therefore read, Mr. Speaker:

"This House regrets that the speech of His Honour gave further indication that the government intends to place centralized controls upon the people of British Columbia while neglecting any mention of specific proposals for policy changes in the social services field of education and health at a time when there is growing public alarm with government policy in these fields, because such inattention leaves British Columbia at the mercy of the policies of the previous administration."

I so move.

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

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

Mr. Smith: Is that subamendment in order?

Mr. Speaker: I have accepted it as being in order. If there's some point about it that you take exception to and could help me on, I would be much appreciative. I note in looking at it that it modifies the proposition for the House.

Now if you look at May at page 379, the object of an amendment in the effect on debate may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question. Now it must not be a new issue that evokes a debate on an entirely different subject. It must be relevant to the main amendment.

I take it that the proposal here is a modification of the amendment. It is relevant. It appears to be on the same issue. But it limits or narrows the proposition somewhat, as I read it.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Well, the way I read it, it says it modifies it because such inattention leaves British Columbia at the mercy of the policies of the former administration. In other words, there's limitation of it to that area, as I see it. Do you have any information on that?

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I may suggest that in the years I've been in this House that is one of the most shallow amendments that I have heard.

Interjections.

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

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

An Hon. Member: Is it seconded?

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

Mr. Speaker: They don't. Just the amendment needs a seconder when you're dealing with the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. So in the circumstance that I've already recognized the Premier — he was on his feet first — I will....

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mrs. Jordan: Then sit down.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of speaking today after this motion was initiated by what I consider to be a powder puff opposition, deliberately stalling the normal process of today's debate to stop the Liberals and Conservatives from having their day in court — a meaningless filibuster that had no relevance to the serious problems of British Columbia. Now all they want to do is clack, yak, and their new leader isn't even in the House. Their new leader isn't even in the House tonight on this very debate that he initiated.

Interjections.

[ Page 59 ]

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

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

Mr. Speaker: I certainly have drawn it to his attention. But I point out to the Hon. Members who are shouting that a minute ago they were doing exactly the same thing with the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). So it's very difficult to keep everybody in order.

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

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, let's.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...and the sentiments expressed by the Second Member for Victoria. One of the major reasons why the Social Credit government of the day was thrown out was because of the very content of the subamendment.

It's because there's politics involved by the opposition that we have an opportunity to present some counter politics and some real facts after their shabby performance this afternoon.

It was that government, Mr. Speaker, that caused this headline. I want to bring it to your attention because I'd like to remind everybody in this House that that government overruled their own Speaker — the Speaker of the House, Mr. Speaker — when the Socreds killed the $200 pension vote.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They stopped a vote from taking place in this very House to give, as the subamendment points out, programmes to the senior citizens of this province and that programme was actually delayed by over one year because of the Social Credit overruling the Speaker in the House at that time.

Now, you live with that on your conscience, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. At least the Liberals understood that the government of the day had the opportunity; they are absolutely right in the subamendment in that respect, because they knew that the former government was the one that stopped the $22 Mincome programme. And now they have the nerve to think that the people of British Columbia have a short memory and say they're blaming us for not helping the people, when they killed the very programme that they could have pioneered in Mincome. Shame on you! Do your homework, smarten up, and be a little more logical.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat amusing too to see them have the nerve to suggest that in the education field they would have done better. Ask the teachers. Ask the school trustees. Ask the parents of this province who had to suffer through school freeze after school freeze after school freeze imposed by that group over there when they sat here with money in the bank.

Mr. Chabot: You're a dreamer!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Where's your leader? He's back. Oh, I'm glad to see that. I'm glad to see that because you know, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure who's really running the show over there. The speech content was vintage Dan Campbell (Laughter) — short on facts, heavy on illogic, and nonsense for reason.

Let's examine, Mr. Speaker, what the products were of this government's expenditures in the education field. Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the last year there has been the largest single year decrease in the pupil-teacher ratio in the Province of British Columbia since 1916? These are the facts and I want the people of British Columbia to get the facts — our first year in office has seen the largest decrease in pupil-teacher ratio in one year since 1916, and it was this Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) who brought that progress in quietly.

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, since October 31, 1973, financial services under this Minister have allowed the province to hire more teachers. And the student-teacher ratio decreased under her administration by the ratio of 1.2 students per class, and that amounts to the largest single year of decrease since 1916.

If you want to condemn that, I'll read the facts to you. In 1970 there was a pupil-teacher ratio of 22.79 per cent under Social Credit; in 1971 it was 22.43; in 1972, the last year of the ill-famed Social Credit, 22.68. It was on the rise when we came to office, and within one year of being in office this Minister decreased that ratio to 21.56 per cent. Now I challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether or not that will appear in the opposition literature that they spread around this province.

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

Mr. Chabot: Mansons Landing.

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

[ Page 60 ]

school districts of this province had a student-teacher ratio decrease under this Minister, who has quietly gone out and done the job that that government ignored when they were in government year after year after year.

I respect the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), Mr. Speaker, for suggesting that we should do more. And I would like to hear from him what taxes he proposes to raise to spend even more money than this government has spent. Well, Mr. Speaker, you'll have to wait for the budget.

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, and we were underspent by that group. We have spent money, Mr. Speaker, in education to bring about this fantastic record and, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you there will be more. There will be more.

Mr. Speaker, to hear the opposition suggestions that this government has been neglectful in the education field is sheer nonsense. The facts prove it.

I don't expect to see a big headline in the Vancouver Sun tomorrow saying that the student-teacher ratio has dropped its highest amount since 1916. It might appear on Wednesday (Laughter) under "Help Wanted for the Opposition," but it won't be the headline in the Vancouver Sun tomorrow. We know that it won't. Maybe the Province will tuck it in under the editorial page. But we know what the story is.

The question of health services, Mr. Speaker. We sat in this House and the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was quite correct. And his colleague from Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) was also a part of that same debate. And what was it, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing in 1972-73 in the health field? We were discussing at that time a budget of $580 million.

The estimated total expenditure in that field — in health and social services — under this new government has gone from that $580 million in one year up to $767 million, Mr. Speaker. And why not? It's the people's money.

To have the nerve to attack an increase of $187 million, which includes Mincome, means, Mr. Speaker, not the Liberals but the Socreds say tonight: "Elect us in North Vancouver–Capilano and we'll fight against Mincome — not only for the 65s, but from the 60s on to the 65s, because it's costing too much money." That's what they're saying. That's exactly their behaviour in this debate. They are threatening the whole basis of the Mincome programme.

Now what about Pharmacare? Do they say by criticizing the Department of Health and Welfare services that the expenditures of Pharmacare are wrong? Is that what they're saying? Of course it is.

You can't interpret it any other way.

Under their chintzy two-bit drug programme they forced the pharmacists to take ads in our newspapers attacking the government's programme related to welfare recipients. You remember that — an unprecedented public move by the BritishColumbia Professional Pharmacists Society. Certain traits are inherited — I see another empty seat, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you this advertisement: "Notice to welfare recipients." It was under Social Credit on June 9, 1960, and you sat in the House, some of you over there when this hard-hearted mean programme of yours went into effect. And you've got the nerve to endorse this motion.

"On April 15, the B.C. pharmacists reluctantly began charging a dollar fee to partially offset their average loss of a $1.14 on each welfare prescription dispensed. Since that time the B.C. government Social Welfare department has done nothing towards a mutually acceptable contract between the pharmacists which would cause the removal of this surcharge. Welfare Minister Campbell's..."

still around in another role....

Interjection.

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

"Welfare Minister Campbell's referral of this matter to the Combines Investigation Branch has only side-stepped the issue, with no result as yet."

Their answer to the welfare recipients, their answer to this programme was to attack the pharmacists as a professional group, which was a pattern of theirs. Then they went on:

"The government has refused to meet with the pharmacists to negotiate an agreement and to replace the outdated 1954 payment schedule"

This was '59; 13 years later, do you wonder why they were thrown out of office? And they have the nerve to come here tonight and attack the Pharmacare programme that they wouldn't even touch themselves, forcing professional people to take to advertisements.

I am very proud of what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) have done. They have negotiated with the pharmacists; they have dealt with them on a professional level. They have introduced a Pharmacare programme that is universal, and I say to every person 65 years of age and over who lives in the Province of British Columbia, let it be understood that tonight Social Credit went on the record against

[ Page 61 ]

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

You come in here with your claptrap, phony.... Mr. Speaker, excuse me. You come in here with your powder-puff resolutions in a cheap attempt to block off the Liberals and Conservatives from speaking and you reap the whirlwind of your own record.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, one of the losers is getting worried. Maybe he should have been a winner after all. He had the talent; he had the skills; he didn't have the money.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they may come in and talk about the ordinary people. It was us who moved the homeowner grant to $235 from $200.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in our first two months in office — and the Liberal Member is correct in this — we released $95 million for hospital construction. The present Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who sits in this House today attacked the former Minister of Health, Mr. Loffmark. Mr. Loffmark tried to tell this House, as the spokesman for the then Social Credit government, that the hospital boards were "fizzing" with the money. Do you remember that — when you had to bring in tapes into this House related to the Minister's conversation? Even the Vancouver Province had to run front-page stories on those tapes. President Nixon isn't alone. Tape-recorders have bothered politicians since their invention, Mr. Speaker. We had a little preview of that before.

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

Mrs. Jordan: Is that a warning to Twiggy?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I can't help those personal affections with some of my staff members. If you're defending my staff members, they have skills more than I can confess to, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

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

Ah, Mr. Speaker, do you know what we did in the mental health field? We stopped the Social Credit policy of seizing assets from estates of mental patients. That was a policy of Social Credit. I don't hear the hotliners screaming about that. Oh, maybe they forgot about it. Or maybe they didn't know about it. Or maybe they don't like to be reminded.

The Social Credit policy was to take from the estates of the mentally ill, seize from the estates with the awesome, swooping powers of Social Credit. The heavy hand of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett), with his strong jack-boot heels, went in and took $14 a day from the assets of mental patients. We stopped that iniquitous programme and they've got the nerve to ask for it back under this particular amendment. They tried to backdate it five years, Mr. Member, and by order-in-council. (Laughter.)

You know, the only thing wrong with this amendment is that they didn't think about what they were writing. They didn't give any examination to their own history; they thought they were being cute by cutting out the opposition and clever by getting a little mileage. Only they were hoisted on their own petard, which is their record.

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, what's the point? Mr. Speaker, I don't have any farm that's classified as agricultural property while it lies close to town.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh.

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

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

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

[ Page 62 ]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when we talked about the whole approach to welfare and the research carried on by the former Minister (Mr. Gaglardi). That's when he used to fly down to San Francisco and talk to somebody down there.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember how they did their research. That's what they're asking us to go back to through this emotion. That's what it was: emotion, not a valid motion. They asked us to endorse the policies of a Minister who said he was down in San Francisco doing research. We phoned the people he said he had visited and they phoned and told us and said: "No, we never met the guy." He sat in this House and told us that's how he spent his money. Research on alcoholics — that's what it was.

And when again that Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.... He has been in more trouble in this House than anybody I know with that Minister. Always hitting him with the facts. Shame on you, Mr. Member. Destroying the whole performance with the facts. Now they've got the nerve to ignore those facts.

Mr. Speaker, who are they trying to kid? They stand exposed tonight as the most hypocritical group that has ever sat in this House. And their performance today indicates that they want to turn back the clock and go back to the school freezes, to the hospital attacks, to the welfare services that forced pharmacists to attack them in the paper and people to beg through that Minister for help. Then they try to wrap it up in what they call the pork barrel. That's what they had all right, Mr. Speaker: the pork barrel alliance. Oh, I'm sorry, it was the businessmen's alliance. And guess who was running that?

Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. I find it most amusing to have this whole thing come right back on them. And what was their reward for the former Minister of welfare? He used to say: "I bust my guts out for the good of B.C." You know what reward he got? They hardly let him in the convention. They talked about that today. It wasn't rigged, Mr. Speaker; it wasn't fixed. It was arranged. And that Minister was down in California while he was being attacked here in this House. When he came back for some succour from his own party, what happened to him? We see the manipulation of a political machine that has lost any contact with reality.

We will not accept the subamendment, although the intent by the Liberals, I think, is valid. But we will not accept the subamendment because it gives credence to that hypocritical position taken by the Social Credit Party over there that, under its regime, did very little for welfare, did nothing for the aged in terms of Pharmacare or guaranteed incomes, fought with the hospitals right across this province, allowed school student-teacher ratios to increase, and then has the nerve to come in tonight with this motion. I reject it, just as I rejected their political philosophy, just as I rejected their behaviour in this House.

There are times when I'm very proud that we did win the election. After that performance this afternoon I'm proud for all the people of British Columbia that they're where they belong: a diminishing force in this province.

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

Some Hon. Members: Subamendment.

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

I think the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), in making his maiden speech to the House this afternoon, though he raised in my view quite valid points about the record of the NDP, if he is to start on a new course in this province then he must divorce himself quite clearly from the policies of the previous administration. Not one word from the Leader of the Opposition today, or the man who seconded his non-confidence motion, that the decision was to be made, that the Social Credit Party was to be a different and modern party not in any way linked to the sins of the past — and they were many and they were severe.

I sat for 10 years in this House under that former Social Credit administration. When it comes to education, health and welfare policies I took the trouble to write a book cataloguing what went on during those years. It's still available for the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) at $7.95, Peter Martin and Associates. (Laughter.)

Every year, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. W.A.C. Bennett), a man not unknown to the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W.R. Bennett), brought forward stern and punishing warnings about the cost of education in this province. Finally when there was a survey taken of the deteriorating state of affairs, not commissioned by the Social Credit administration, but undertaken by a new president of the University of British Columbia, it revealed a shocking state of affairs. The president published his report and the response of the then Minister of Education (Mr. Peterson) and the Premier and Minister of Finance was that the costs were staggering.

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

[ Page 63 ]

in education. Mr. Speaker, in 1963, 250,000 students signed a petition against the Social Credit government in what was the finest hour of students in this province. To the credit of the government, there was some repentance — a new university was built. I think it a pity that that university turned so viciously on the government. Nevertheless, the record of neglect was there.

It wasn't just in the area of universities, Mr. Speaker, because at that time the Diefenbaker government, in what was their finest policy over the years, was to provide the people of Canada with technical and vocational schools built at 75 per cent of the cost by the federal government. The federal government was prepared to spend 50 per cent of the cost of operating those institutions. The agreement was open-ended. What was the response of the Social Credit Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker? The response was: "We don't want to build those schools because we'll get hung with the operating costs." Something was done only because a new federal government twice extended the deadline which allowed for the completion of that programme

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the president of the University of British Columbia gave up in disgust. The man who followed him resigned after only six months. He said of government financing of our university system: "It's completely unrealistic. I think it's far below the level of financing achieved in other provinces that are not any more, or, indeed, as prosperous as British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, what was the response of one Minister of the Social Credit government to that statement at the time of his resignation? Mr. Gaglardi, who was then, I believe, Minister of Highways, said: "Maybe we better give it to loggers, or construction men or farmers. We need people who can make do with what they have without crying." That was the attitude of the Social Credit administration at that time.

What happened after that? When President Hare resigned from the University of British Columbia, our operating costs for universities were the third lowest in the nation. The only provinces that were worse were those in the Maritimes. Three years later, Mr. Speaker, during the final years of Social Credit administration, we were last, behind Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, provinces with resources only a fraction of those of British Columbia. What we were putting into higher education at that time was half of what Alberta and Ontario were putting in in operating costs. Mr. Speaker, over a five-year period, the last five years of Social Credit, in capital costs it was one-fifth — 20 per cent.

How many people remember, Mr. Speaker, standing in this House under education debates while the Minister of Education suggested that the pupils of this province should get their exercise in classrooms?

We were going to do push-ups by the desks in the rooms because there wasn't enough money to build activity rooms in the schools of British Columbia.

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

Mr. McGeer: How many remember when the Member for Dewdney, the Social Credit Member in this House, stood up and said he thought pupils in this province should be on swing shift because that is the way his automobile industry operated? The Liberal leader at that time, (M. Perrault) had to ask that Member who was going to teach graveyard. That was the attitude to building classrooms of the former Social Credit Member, and of the former Social Credit administration, because at a time of record wealth in British Columbia we couldn't build schoolrooms in this province.

At a time when the federal government was making available, through the Canada Pension Plan, $100 million a year of funds available for school and hospital construction, the Social Credit government made not one penny of that available for the purposes of education or hospitals in this province until pressure from this opposition and the official opposition that's now the government persisted year after year after year in embarrassing Social Credit over its failure to provide even the fundamentals of classrooms.

I can remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance told the school board of Vancouver to sell its own bonds. Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? The school board of Vancouver went out and sold its own bonds, and then the Minister of Finance cancelled the deal. Even when the school boards were ready to carry the load themselves and sell the bonds, not through the government financing agency, when they were that desperate — even then, the former Minister of Finance refused to allow them to go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't just in the field of education that we had neglect. I want to tell you what it was like in the health and hospital field when Social Credit took over from the former Coalition Government. They profited from a mess in the field of hospital insurance, and I want to warn the NDP, Mr. Speaker, that that mess in premiums was because the Liberal government, with a good idea on hospitalization, was unable to administer a plan. Take warning of your mess in automobile insurance; administration is essential to any programme.

But when the Social Credit government abolished premiums and put the financing of hospitals entirely on the sales tax, that sales tax went up from 3 to 5 per cent. How many remember the promise of the former Premier and Minister of Finance, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, that that 2 per cent would go for hospital services? Mr. Speaker, the public never saw that 2 per

[ Page 64 ]

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

How many remember, Mr. Speaker, in 1962 when the Jubilee Hospital in Vernon went broke? The hospital nearly closed its doors because it couldn't pay its employees. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because the B.C. Hospital Insurance owed the hospital $11,000 and it wouldn't pay up. Even the money that was allotted to hospitals in those days was held by that former Minister of Health, Mr. Eric Martin.

How many remember, under that Minister — and he was backed by the Minister of Finance — when they said there would be no hold-up for any hospitals in this province for lack of funds? This was five years after the Minister of Finance in an election campaign had promised the public of British Columbia that we would have a chronic-care programme in this province. Five years later, the City of Vancouver withdrew $1.3 million that it didn't put up for its share of a chronic hospital at the Vancouver General site — in disgust because of the waffling and fancy dancing of the Minister of Hospital Insurance of the former Social Credit regime.

That same Minister when the doctors rose in protest — in a way they'd never done before or since in this province on behalf of the desperate lack of facilities, the response of the Social Credit Minister of Health was to send a threatening 500-word telegram to the Vancouver Medical Association.

When he was badgered in this House, Mr. Speaker, his response to the pleas for chronic facilities from Members of his own party as well as our own was that the greedy next-of-kin wanted their inheritance and they were the ones who were demanding the facilities.

I was here sitting just down the way, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health stood up, right about where the present Minister is, and every time he stood up to answer a question Premier W.A.C. Bennett told him to "sit down and don't answer." It didn't matter whether it was the opposition Members or the backbenchers who were asking those questions.

I can remember, Mr. Speaker, years when at this time of year you could go into the Vancouver General Hospital, find all the beds in the hospital filled, find all the beds in Emergency filled, and find stretchers down the corridors with letters on the wall — A, B, C, D, and so on, down to Z. Then they started — AA, BB, CC down to ZZ. Every single one of those stretchers was taken up by a sick patient who desperately needed a regular hospital bed. That's what hospital facilities were like.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic after all of that, that the man who is now leader of the Conservative Party and a physician stated at that time that the situation was worse in the City of Victoria. He was quoted in the press as saying it was the worst in Canada because "It proves the hell of the mess we're in." I'm quoting, Mr. Speaker.

That same Member less than 10 months later stood on a platform with the former Social Credit Minister of Health to be nominated to contest a seat for Social Credit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about welfare. I stood in this House as well, like many opposition Members, pleading with the flint-hearted Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) to release funds to give a little dignity to those who were poverty stricken in this province and left incapable of caring for themselves, hanging on to what few threads of life they could and hoping against hope that their fate wouldn't be to require a chronic hospital bed.

The Minister of Welfare I can remember, the one who probably drafted this motion, danced around in this House, told us how much they wanted to give more money and how they were prevented from doing so by the rules of the federal government — by Ottawa. No number of denials by the federal government or pleading with the then federal Minister of health services managed to clarify the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't until the new government took over that we discovered that 98.6 cents out of every dollar for welfare came out of the federal treasury and all this time the provincial government was giving only 1.4 per cent — 1.4 per cent! — and was standing in the way of further federal government expenditures. I don't think we've ever had in the history of Canada a record of meanness and penury that could begin to match what went on during those years.

Mr. Speaker, when we went after the man who came in as Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Gaglardi) we found that he was junketing around the country at the government's expense. He had no property problems. No sir, he was down in South Bend, Indiana, making speeches at a Transport for Christ convention and putting in slips for government travel for two hotels in the same night — collecting expense money and at the same time dunning the public of British Columbia and his budget for junkets to the United States to promote his own personal beliefs.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we came out with our Charter of Rights for the elderly, the NDP came out with its guarantee of $200 a month — the same as we did. It is little enough, Mr. Speaker, with this inflation chasing every dollar that these people have. But it was a substantial advance and my compliments go out to the Premier and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). Also, I'm sure, the heartfelt thanks of thousands of people, elderly people in British Columbia who are still on the edge of poverty but

[ Page 65 ]

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

But you can see, Mr. Speaker, that my indignation runs a little high, when I stood here for 10 years in the House trying to defend an economic system that was brought into discredit by the social policies of a government that had to be the worst and most backward in British Columbia history and perhaps in the history of Canada.

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

Mr. McGeer: Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Social Credit Party will change. I hope so. Because as long as that party even sits in this House — deserves to sit in this House with any representation at all — it needs to recognize perfectly clearly what its record has been.

We're all aware that during the 50s, 60s and early 70s British Columbia enjoyed record prosperity. Certainly the former government provided a framework where people could do their thing and do it well. But, Mr. Speaker, no matter how good that framework may have been, there is no justification for a government serving a single day in office that has the means to do not just good, but its minimum responsibility in the area of health education and welfare, does not deserve to be in office one day unless it is prepared to fulfil those responsibilities.

If you cannot recognize, with the kind of record that the Social Credit administration gave us, what those deficiencies were — if you cannot be large enough in heart and broad enough in intelligence to admit those deficiencies, repent and guarantee to correct them — then you don't deserve to sit in the official opposition, much less be a government.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's the spirit of our amendment. I'm sorry that some Members of the House as individuals have given their indication that they cannot see their way clear to supporting this amendment. But despite what individuals have said, no matter how influential they may be as Members, I hope that everyone will vote their conscience and recognize that we're merely by supporting this amendment acknowledging facts.

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

I'm sure many of the backbenchers have heard that under the former regime if you said one word of criticism or voted once not according to the way the Premier said, you got a life sentence to the backbenches. And maybe you got worse, because there were some.... Where did Stan go? Where did Don Smith go? Do you remember when he backed the government down on the gas stations?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, times have changed, and I know the present Premier. I've sat with him in this House longer than any of you backbenchers. I know the present Premier has got a lot of admiration for a backbencher with spunk and a mind of his own. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that he'd have a sneaking admiration for any of the backbenchers that got behind this motion. (Laughter.)

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

Mr. McGeer: I think it is an operative analysis. And I notice, Mr. Speaker, that some of the backbenchers were listening with interest, because they may not remember as long as I did. You had to sit in the House year after year after year and take it, before you remembered really clearly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said my kind words about the official opposition, may I address a few remarks to the government? I want you to realize that I'm not speaking now as the seconder of this. I need to speak to the main motion as well. So now I'm speaking, if I may, to some of the spirit of the main motion. So disregard these remarks when you're thinking about voting for the subamendment. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I think the government could well, as it may have had — and I sincerely believe that the government has the best possible of wills in the matter of health education....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I interrupt the Hon. Member to point out that we're dealing here with the advisability of this subamendment offered by your group.

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

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

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to health, education and welfare. You remember that the subamendment said that the former administration had really been responsible for the situation.

Now what we have to consider is what the government has tried to do and succeeded in doing in correcting it, Mr. Speaker. And it's this matter of correction that has spirited the amendment. Because one thing the new Members can perceive. You see, they started here in day one, and they failed to see progress.

[ Page 66 ]

I can understand the feelings of the official opposition, because they listened to what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) said. And she gave me the strap, you know, for making some suggestions about the education commissioner. I remember that she gave me a terrible lashing, but not what you gave to that man — you cut his head off. Not just the strap. And I think, Mr. Speaker, very seriously that they're going to pay him more than the University of Victoria paid to the former president — I'll tell you that. The NDP settlements are expensive ones, with the public's money.

Nothing, Mr. Speaker — and you know this yourself — undermines morale of commissioners or civil servants or anybody else trying to do a job for the government more than to be criticized when they show initiative and try and do that little something extra.

I hope Hansard is making a careful copy of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because people who are sitting trying to do a job, whether it's in the field of health, in the field of education, in the field of welfare or the field of human rights are going to be very nervous about showing any initiative at all in the fields where they're trying to make progress, because if something goes wrong with this government the people are not brought in, the problem discussed with them, and some gentle corrections made. They're taken out in public view on television before the largest audience in the province and publicly condemned and subjected to embarrassment and humiliation that shouldn't go with anyone sincerely trying to do the job, no matter how bad that job may have been done.

It isn't good enough, Mr. Speaker, even for someone who has been frankly disloyal to the cause he's been commissioned to do. But I think the education commissioner, just like the assessment commissioner, was not only doing his best, but going the extra mile — showing initiative...

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the subamendment. How can you make progress in the field of education if the man you hire as commissioner, the minute he shows some initiative at the behest of the people whom he was trying to encourage to help him develop a plan, gets his head chopped off? Mr. Speaker, that kills it. You are never going to get anywhere.

It doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker. The same goes for the man who was the best man in social services in the City of Vancouver — he lost his job because he was good. I don't know what's going to happen in the field of health, but I could tell you that if we continue to get people brought in to try and help the government do a job — and heaven knows they need the help, Mr. Speaker — and we proceed to undercut them publicly in the way that's been done, the morale of everyone is going to sink so low that we will have a stagnation in this province, Mr. Speaker, worse than we had under the Social Credit administration and that's saying something.

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

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

Speaking to the subamendment, as the Speaker would like us to do, I think it's fair to recall why I got into politics in the first place. Groans from North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) — obviously she's a little sensitive, and she's a little afraid of what's coming. She knows what's coming.

I entered politics because of some of the shortcomings of the policies in this province in 1967 in relation particularly to health services and the needs of people in the wide scope of the health field.

I'm the first person to admit that I make lots of mistakes. I made the first mistake of thinking that much could be done at the municipal level. So I ran for municipal office thinking that was one way in which a person with some degree of education and experience might contribute. And I found that where the action is is at the provincial level. And at the provincial level I chose to run for the party which I considered, with the exception of the social services, closest to my particular philosophy at that time.

And there's all the chirping from the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) about me making love to the NDP. Let's get one thing straight: in terms of social services by government to the individual I am very close to the socialists' thinking, and I make no apology for that. I've never said otherwise, and I don't think I ever will.

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

Mr. Wallace: What the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) hasn't noted or chooses to ignore is that in another area of my particular political thinking I am poles apart from the socialists in regard to their dedication to state ownership, to public ownership, of the resources of this province or of the country. We are poles apart on that. There's no way, in any conscience, that I could run for or join the NDP.

Interjection.

[ Page 67 ]

Mr. Wallace: But that is a specific example which does not conform to the general policy of public ownership. That's right; he said it himself. You don't even know what he said.

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

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, to speak again to the subamendment: the social needs in this province were very clear in 1967 and in 1969 when I ran provincially. The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) seems to make a great issue of the fact that I condemned or criticized the hospital crisis in this province in that year and subsequently ran under the Socred banner. I just say to that Member that surely in any democracy a person is entitled — I hope entitled — to choose the party which is closest to his political thinking.

The fact that I was not happy with the Social Credit policies in health and education and welfare, I don't really think should have excluded me from seeking to run for that party with the hope — and my God, was it a forlorn hope — that I might contribute, coupled with the fact, Mr. Speaker, that I understood that the then Premier of the province was very interested in my ideas about health services and how they could be improved. Ha, ha, ha!

I had an hour-long private discussion before I decided to run in 1969 for the Social Credit Party with the then Premier of the province, who appeared to be all ears to my talk about progressive health care, intermediate care, the plight of people in nursing homes — and I could go on and on. It was the only conversation I ever had with that particular man where, generally speaking, I did the talking and he did the listening.

Once I got elected I couldn't really get near him to find out whether he was ready to listen. They're strangely silent down the way there. They're very silent. They were all chirping a minute ago, but they haven't got a single word to try to contradict what I'm saying tonight. Not a word.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chabot: Apologize for what?

Mr. Speaker: For your conduct.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: You cannot attack another man in the House or any Member and call him a phony, and then repeat it. And I don't care who you're talking about.

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

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

What is your point of order?

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

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

Mrs. Jordan: ...suggest that the Speaker recall that the Premier in his speech made derogatory and insulting remarks about the leader of our party, his family, his mother and his daughter.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Jordan: And if the Speaker insists on demanding an apology from this Member, I demand an apology from the Premier. He was far more insulting.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When a matter touching any Member comes up, it should be raised at that time. That's the rule of the House. This matter has come up now. The Hon. Member says he retracts and then doesn't retract; he refuses to apologize to the House, which is the one who is really offended, not any individual Member.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

[ Page 68 ]

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

Mr. Wallace: Well, Mr. Speaker, moving right along, I think we should recall, regardless of the obviously touchy reaction from the Socred benches, that the basic reason I left the Social Credit Party was the fact that private Members....

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

Mrs. Jordan: You're an egomaniac.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please retract that statement that the Hon. Member's an egomaniac? This is really getting intolerable.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Opposition by insult.

Mr. Wallace: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the interruptions, I will attempt to continue to speak to the subamendment. What is the subamendment? (Laughter.) "Because such inattention" — and really, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that's a very mild description — "such inattention leaves British Columbia at the mercy of the policies of the former administration."

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the government of that day in no way came close to meeting the obvious urgent need of large segments of our society, particularly the elderly sick. The question of nursing home care, the need for the facilities to be provided or standards of care to be ensured for the citizens requiring care in those institutions or nursing homes was right at the bottom of the totem pole of priorities when it came to providing any kind of funds in the budget.

Intermediate care has to be the one outstanding gap in the spectrum of health services in this province. It is indeed ironic to witness this death-bed repentance of the Social Credit Party in its amendment to the motion. I think that the subamendment is most appropriate.

The area of education, I think, should also be clearly recalled. This province was in a state of ferment because of the attitude of the government of the day under a Minister of Education who was under the total dictatorship of Premier W.A.C. Bennett — as was every Minister.

I can remember trying to ask Mr. Loffmark on one occasion to speak to Premier Bennett about a certain matter. "Oh," he said, "you've got to be very careful. The Premier's preparing his budget and it's pretty difficult to say anything to him while he's getting ready for his budget speech." So the whole air in that party at that time, regardless of his health and education policies, was one of a closed, dictatorial behaviour by the Premier and of complete inability and inaccessibility of private Members to have any influence whatever on these policies.

I'm not particularly happy, to be honest, with the Foulkes Report, which is a step towards trying to improve the situation. I think, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that there are urgent needs right now that have been existing since 1967, and we don't need studies and travelling committees and Foulkes Reports and all kinds of inquiry and re-inquiry and studies and investigations. There's a tremendous job to be done right now, and there was in 1969. I just say to this House, for goodness' sake, let's get finished with a lot of this study and investigation, and inquiry.

Many of the facts and figures and the needs of human beings are before us here and now. They were before us in the days of the Social Credit administration — with very particular reference to intermediate care. I'm quite happy to give credit to that side of the House for the social reform that has been carried out in the time in terms of Mincome and Pharmacare and many other measures which the party has done. We voted for them. I'll try to remain a constructive critic of this government.

I do have to say that there are many urgent needs not met which don't require 1,200 pages and a lot of that gobbledegook in the language it uses and all the folderol of the typical administrative bureaucrats. People in this province need help tonight — the people in the nursing homes and the elderly sick. I had phone calls on a hotline show today telling me about elderly citizens who are malnourished. They don't even get enough to eat in some of the nursing homes.

Now I say: do we need two volumes and $700,000 and all this gobbledygook in the report to tell us something that we've known at least since 1967? That's seven years. I say the time is now for action, at least in the obvious immediate areas of need.

The Hon. Member across the way knows full well that when we went around the province to hear for the nth time of this need, we really found out nothing new. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that in 1969, as in 1974, there has to be a vehicle, a mechanism, and you just don't barge in without some planning. But you don't need all this kind of planning of boards and regional boards and super-duper boards and advisory committees and Lord knows all what — this endless number of bureaucrats coming into the system.

[ Page 69 ]

What I'm interested in is quality care for people who have needs, particularly in the elderly age group, whether it's money to pay for bread or food or a roof over their heads or drugs as you've provided in Pharmacare — and more credit to you. But the debate we're having tonight about health and social services must, I hope, not become a stalling manoeuvre through the vehicle of the Foulkes Report. I think that would be a disaster. The tragedy in the Foulkes Report is that it asks for a total commitment by the cabinet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world — and God knows we don't live in an ideal world — this might be all right if we're ready to wait 10 years to set up all the structure and find the personnel and get everything all tickety-boo before you move. That might be all right when you're fighting a war and trying to win a battle. But the battle right now is to look after the elderly sick in this province. You have the money, Mr. Speaker. The government has the money. The Minister of Finance has admitted we have the money.

I'm just distressed beyond belief to find that maybe we're putting pipelines before people. That $25 million has a better use in my sense of priorities than in buying a pipeline. Okay, I want to be a good Canadian and we want to repatriate the economy; but first things first.

If we're going to stand here and criticize the Social Credit government for what it didn't do in 1969, I am sorry, but I certainly have to criticize this government for doing nothing about the nursing home crises when it can spend $25 million on a pipeline. I just say that in my system of priorities that kind of money should be used to correct some of the social service gaps which we're debating tonight.

I talked about education. It's getting late and I think we're all sick and tired of repetition. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're in this House above all others to meet the needs of individual citizens. If we're not meeting the most basic needs — food, shelter, health care, hospital care, and I could go on — then I just ask a simple question: what has happened to our sense of priorities?

Patriotism is great. I'm a proud Canadian. But I say to this House tonight, in the light of the government we've had for 20 years which fell short, I don't know that they ever had the goals that this government has. That's open to debate and question.

I do believe that in the social field this government has a great deal to offer this province, but its ideology is blinding it. It's getting carried away by the feeling — at least I sense they have the feeling — that they have to prove beyond all doubt to the people of this province and the rest of Canada that they are indeed socialists, and socialism means public ownership. I have a serious concern, Mr. Speaker, that this government is putting ideology in relation to public ownership before some very obvious urgent human needs which the Premier has talked about many times.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I only have one or two words to say. I want to congratulate the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for a number of the things he said tonight. I certainly agree with a number of the things that he said. I want to suggest to that Member that the Foulkes Report was not a stalling manoeuvre.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When an Hon. Member refers to a matter the door is open at least to reply and that's the general practice.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, I think that this government has been carrying on a great number of new and innovative practices with new and innovative procedures since we've been government. If you really want to have that substantiated, I suggest that not only did the Member say so himself, but I suggest that you go to the hospital boards across the province. I suggest you go to the doctors across this province. You will find from them that we have opened up the floodgates to a better health care delivery system than has been the case heretofore; and it will be improved, Mr. Member, and will go on being improved as long as this government has anything to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, we didn't sit back while that report was being prepared. We opened up the whole question of hospital financing. We relaxed the 70 per cent, which was crushing. That 70 per cent situation was holding hospitals back so far that we have opened up the whole question of chronic care. We have right now on our plate more in extended care. We have any number of intermediate care beds on a pilot basis that we're trying to develop. We have bought a great number of private hospital beds in order to provide the kind of care that that Member was suggesting.

I know that there's a concern in the whole area of nursing homes. We're trying our very best to police this. But, Mr. Speaker, we can't relent. We can't go back to suggesting that we're going to help those areas of delivery of care that don't meet the needs of the people of this province. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate again the Member for Oak Bay. I want to suggest that the Member for Oak Bay and my office have any number of discussions about the delivery of care. We in the Health department will continue to take any kind of advice that's important and helpful advice that we can get.

I just don't want his last few words to leave this House with the idea that we're sitting on our

[ Page 70 ]

haunches waiting for some report to tell us the way. The main reason, Mr. Speaker, for that report was to help us coordinate the activities of our four departments. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the report has accomplished just that. Thank you very much.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'd like to address myself to the subamendment very briefly. We could all in our experience in this House, whether it be long or brief, call up examples of the way in which the former administration failed in the areas of education, health and welfare.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, with candour, that when I first came to this House I was not as familiar with some of the problems of welfare as perhaps I am today. I remember the shock and disgust that overcame me one evening when Members walked out of this chamber to find in the rotunda, sitting on the floor, mothers, single mothers, some with their children, who didn't have the money to care for their children and to provide them properly with clothing and accommodation. They came to this building in protest.

I can protest against the policies and the programme of the former administration as it affected them. I remember at first just wondering what was taking place. And then as we talked to these mothers to find that their allowance, under the then Minister of Welfare (Mr. Gaglardi) was such that for the last seven days all they could feed their children was beans. That's all. To find that if they took a job to try to improve their lot, to feed their children, they got taken off welfare. They lost their allowances.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: For showing initiative.

Mr. L.A. Williams: For showing initiative as the Premier says, to try and raise themselves and their families out of the desperate grip of poverty. Were their prayers, their requests, answered by the former administration? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what also occurred on those nights. In the gallery on the third floor there were plainclothes members of the RCMP photographing those mothers. Because it was suspected by the government that they were subversives. That's the kind of treatment that they received from a Minister of Welfare who would call those people bums.

That's the only example that I wish to bring to this debate, Mr. Speaker. But I recall to you and to the other Members, and to the Social Credit Members, that in 1969 when we fought that campaign in the fall of that year that government administration which could then smell the decay in its own party began to promise to the people of this province some relief from situations such as that, and we got promised the old age increased pension.

We had recanting by the administration of that day, and if anything shocks me about this debate here today it is to find that we have repeated here today a debate, an amendment to the motion introduced by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Bennett), and seconded by one of his foremost spokesmen, quite obviously as a ploy for an election which is to take place tomorrow.

The hypocrisy of the Social Credit Party's campaign in the fall of 1969 is being repeated on the floor of this assembly this afternoon, and it's sickening.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the decision as to what will happen in North Vancouver–Capilano and what Member will come to represent that constituency is in the hands of the good electors of North Vancouver, and I ask them to make their choice, and make it fairly. But we don't have to have this kind of cheap political tactic. It is debasing to their own candidate, it is debasing surely to their own party, and it is debasing to politics in British Columbia. And I say, Mr. Speaker....

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would ask if it's within the priorities of this House to allow a Member to accuse the opposition, or a group of Members, of cheap political motives. I think that that Member should be asked to apologize, Mr. Speaker, the same as you've asked other Members to apologize for allegations which have been of far less damaging values.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order, I don't recall a single Member being attacked personally. Generally that is what in a general application is what is called cheap.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, he's attacking the mover of a motion of amendment on the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand your complaint it is that he's attacking a group or party for cheap political tactics. Is that it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The question is whether it is a personal attack. If the Hon. Member takes exception to it...but the Hon. Member signifies that he doesn't. I can't deal with it. Because it is his personal complaint that usually leads to a ruling.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly meant no personal attack upon any Member of this House, or of any person who is responsibly engaged in the political life of the province. It is the

[ Page 71 ]

tactic that is cheap, and it has brought politics in this province into disrepute.

To suggest, as they apparently do, that mid-November of 1973 was the beginning of a new political party in British Columbia, and to bring in this kind of amendment here today, is to ask the people of British Columbia and the Members of this assembly to believe that we have in this province a party which is prepared to do what the Russians have done — only they called it de-Stalinization (Laughter). If they are to suggest what we are having is a de-Bennettizing then all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is neither the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bennett), or the seconder of this motion (Mr. Phillips) in their comments on the amendment gave any indication of their willingness to recant from the policies of the previous administration.

When we come to deal with the amendment, I would like to address myself further to the specific words which the mover and the seconder have placed before us. But I ask at this stage, Mr. Speaker, that all Members of this House consider well, how far we have come in 18 months. Lord knows we've got a long way to go. We cannot erase 20 years of social inactivity on the part of the government in so short a time.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, my remarks with respect to the subamendment will be brief, and I hope of some help.

I want to comment on the respect I have for the previous Liberal and Conservative speakers in this discussion this evening — those with more experience in this House than I. But I must say that for the official opposition to have selected — of all the issues, of all the matters, which concern us in British Columbia today, of all the problems and the shortcomings of all political parties in the past — to have picked out social services, health and education is hypocrisy, as others have observed.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, and will remember to my last day how I shuddered with frustration and rage and anger at Mr. Loffmark, as a representative of the Capital Regional Hospital District, in an effort to get going on hospital construction in the greater Victoria area. And how we were blocked, and stymied, and frustrated, and turned down, and insulted at every turn. I will never forget that and I will never forgive Mr. Loffmark for the damage he did — not to the Capital Regional Hospital District, not to the elected local politicians, but to the people of the Capital Region area, the people of British Columbia.

He was a disaster in health and hospital services in British Columbia, and it will take years to recover, and to have health mentioned in an amendment today is an insult to the intelligence of the people of British Columbia.

Where were W.A.C. Bennett's priorities? Well, Mr. Speaker, as a one-year president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities I thought it would be courteous and polite to pay a courtesy call on the former Premier. This was requested. Full 12 months went past, Mr. Speaker, and no such courtesy call was permitted. No such courtesy call was permitted. I believe one president of the UBCM was trotted down to Ottawa as exhibit A in a federal-provincial conference and I felt sorry for him.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Could he speak Chinese?

Mr. Curtis: It wasn't my turn that year. Wrong guy!

Mr. Speaker, when we try to discuss matters relating to health and social services — people problems in British Columbia — in UBCM representations to the cabinet, we were listened to perhaps politely, but with very little impact.

Then, the Municipal Finance Authority was created. Dollar signs, Mr. Speaker, dollar signs. And the Municipal Finance Authority decided to go to the United States market. We'd had trouble seeing the Premier and his cabinet with respect to problems which concerned local government. I had never had an opportunity to speak to him as president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, even for two or three minutes as a matter of courtesy. But the MFA was going to New York, in the American market, and suddenly the reputation of the Province of British Columbia in terms of dollars, was at stake.

Money, not people. Dollar signs and money. Did we see the former Premier? We saw him for an hour in his office and then across the street for lunch, and a lecture on fiscal policies. I think that the day has been filled, Mr. Speaker, with hypocrisy from the Social Credit Members which I will not forget.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): I'd like to speak just briefly, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to the subamendment. I have been listening for the past two hours, I believe it is, to a history lesson which I have enjoyed and which I cannot help but feel that in every regard, Mr. Speaker, has not been entirely accurate.

Mr. H. Steves (Richmond): Did you learn anything?

Mr. Schroeder: However, I would like to say, as a trailer on what the Member for Oak Bay has said, I believe that every man is entitled in a democratic society to align himself with a party that he sees as the closest to his own political persuasion. And I would believe that that same courtesy would be extended to the Member for Chilliwack. If that courtesy is extended to this man, then, I would like

[ Page 72 ]

to say to the Members of the House, I am proud to be associated with the Members of the official opposition, because it is through 20 years of their administration that we have come in British Columbia to the place where we are today, where we can even discuss in terms of $1.7 billion per year in revenues and that kind of expenditures.

I think I would have to believe and I would think that every Member of the House would have to admit that although there were shortcomings in administration, and I think I'd be honest in admitting them, I would have to say that there were areas of administration that were superior. As a result, we have in British Columbia today a financial position that allows us to discuss the things that I would hope we would soon get to in this session here today. I don't make any apologies; I don't take any responsibility for what has happened in this House heretofore. Nonetheless, I would like to have the same courtesies extended to this Member as to every other Member of this House, and I appreciate it very, very much.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6

NAYS — 45

Mr. Schroeder: I'd like to speak now to the amendment. I'd like to speak to perhaps only one aspect of the amendment in that it is rather broad. My initial interest is in the field of education and my remarks will be limited to that one particular aspect.

I think that it is reasonable to observe that in the Province of British Columbia we have an unrest in the education field that is growing. I wouldn't say that it has never been here before; I wouldn't say that it arrived the day the new administration took over. But I would say that it is here present with us today in a measure not seen before.

I have been amazed, amused at the same time, at some of the answers that have been suggested as to why this state of unrest exists in the education department. I've listened to some as they've tried to lay the whole thing at the doorstep of the department. Obviously, that's not the answer. There are some who would lay the entire blame at the doorstep of a man called Mr. Bremer and obviously that cannot be the answer because the problem existed long before any of these people were around.

What is the problem then, what is the basic unrest? You can talk to the teachers and have them try to explain it. It's difficult for them. Isn't it, Mr. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston)? You've talked to them and it's difficult for them to verbalize. It is a problem and you know it. I'm willing to tell the truth; you tell the truth. The unrest is there and it's difficult to verbalize.

The teachers see it as a problem that perhaps can be solved just by pushing one button or by changing numbers on a salary cheque. Or perhaps by decreasing or increasing the number of students in a classroom. It surfaces as a plea for higher wages. Even though teachers have received a settlement of anywhere between 10 and 14 per cent increase in salaries, the unrest is still there. So obviously, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, this, although it may be part of the answer, essentially cannot be the entire answer. What are the problems?

Working conditions: Someone says we must increase or at least better the working conditions of the teacher. Perhaps that would quiet the unrest. And so we say let's give them a little more time away from the job. Let's go to a semester system rather than the present annual system where they get two months in the summertime away from the job; let's go on a quarter system. Each teacher teaches nine months and then they are away for three months. You talk to the teachers and you find out that although they cabbage onto the idea, nonetheless, it doesn't do anything to quiet the unrest that exists. It doesn't appear to be the working conditions. They may be a part of it. But again, apparently, they're not the answer.

We wondered, well, maybe what we should do is get the teachers some teaching help, some teacher-assists, electronic even. Maybe we could have television as a teacher-assist in the classroom. It doesn't seem to answer the unrest that's with the teacher. What seems to be the problem?

I think there's a basic need. I think the teacher has a sense of unfulfilment in her job and it evidences itself as a plea for higher wages; it evidences itself as job boredom. I think what needs to be done is to return to the teacher a sense of value to her job. We

[ Page 73 ]

need to return dignity to the profession, dignity to the teacher and perhaps dignity to the classroom. The teacher needs to have a sense of worth, and certainly a sense of accomplishment at the end of a day. How can this be done?

I think we have subtracted from the teacher this sense of worth by diluting not only her worth, her value, but also by diluting her authority in the classroom. I'm not talking only about her sense of authority as regards discipline, I'm talking about her sense of worth and authority as a teacher, someone of value in the classroom. Teachers that I have talked to recently are thinking in terms of early retirement. Spoke to one just last evening who asked if there was any way we can drop the age of mandatory retirement so that he can retire at an early age and get away from it all.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): It has to do with a decent pension.

Mr. Schroeder: If you can tell me what you're going to do with the highway between Straight and McKilgard, I'll listen to you too, sir.

An Hon. Member: He doesn't know where it is.

Mr. Schroeder: I thought that perhaps after four or five letters and three or four personal interviews, you still wouldn't know where it was. Lord have mercy on you.

This unrest evidences itself not only in the teachers' attitude but also in the students' attitude. Again we see in the student a classroom boredom. That's not the worst. We see it when it's the toughest to handle, in the form of incorrigibility. The teacher doesn't really know how to handle it. The tools, the last resort has been removed. It evidences itself in even more frustration on the teachers' behalf, and the student seems to push in an increasing way to see where the lines of restraint are finally going to be at.

It finally shows up in the form of absolute defiance. It shows up in destructiveness and lo and behold, more and more and increasingly, it shows up in student drop-outs — 20 per cent is the drop-out rate, approximately, give or take a point or two. Twenty per cent is the approximate drop-out rate between grade 10 and grade 11 and again between grade 11 and grade 12.

Now, you might say that this is due to natural attrition or this is due to job offers to the students. If you talk to the students, you find out that it's boredom with the classroom situation. It's obvious that something must be done in the education field. It's obvious that it hasn't been done till now, because the problem still exists.

I'd like to be involved in finding the answer. And I would like to offer my assistance to the Minister in perhaps locating the problem, discussing it on a rational basis and perhaps coming up with the answer to the problem, not only for the good of the Minister, because we'd like to make her job that much easier, not because this Member is looking for a particular credit in having discovered the answer, but because the people of British Columbia are involved. I think the future of British Columbia is involved because if our educational system declines or crumbles, then what basis do we have for the development of a future British Columbia?

The performance of the present department — what effect has it had on the climate of education? We've heard talk recently about student-teacher ratio. There has been much talk. In fact, the present administration has made it a priority that the student-teacher ratio must be decreased. As a matter of fact, we heard a verbal barrage just a few moments ago from the Premier stating to us how many points of difference there was between the decrease in student-teacher ratio in 1973 as opposed to, say, 1916 or any other given year.

I'm wondering if we decrease the student ratio to one teacher to 20 students, would that solve the problem that exists in the classroom atmosphere? I don't think so, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, because the problem that exists in the classroom is an interpersonal problem and it doesn't matter whether there are 35 students, or 36 as there are in some classrooms in your area in southern Okanagan. It doesn't matter whether that be the ratio, or the ratio be 20 to 1, the problem is interpersonal and that's where the problem needs to be solved.

I had an interesting conversation with some of the principals of the schools, both from my constituency, some from Okanagan, some from Vancouver. I was interested in their answers to this question: What is discipline like at your school?

The principal from the Abbotsford area said this: "I have been given twice as much time as I used to have for purposes of administration. Whereas I used to have so much classroom time, I now only have half as much classroom time, giving me twice as much time for administration. And yet it seems to be that I'm only getting half as much work done."

I said: "Now explain this to me."

He said: "Well, the only way I can explain it is to give you an example. I am spending," he said, "more time with each individual student when he comes to me with a problem. For instance, a student came the other day..." This is in junior high, junior secondary, as we call it. A student had been sent there by the teacher because he had taken a bottle of some chemical and had spilled it over the carpet in the classroom. The teacher had tried to discuss it with the student in reason. The student was not too receptive and so was sent to the principal's office.

[ Page 74 ]

The principal said he spent over two hours with the student, thought he had gained some ground, sent the student home. Next day, the student returns to the classroom, takes the selfsame chemical in the selfsame container — if not the same one, one similar to it — spills the stuff all over the carpet again, gets called right back to the principal's office and the principal said: "Here I go, back to another two-hour procedure of what I went through yesterday, to accomplish what?"

There seemed to be a problem that is not being answered because it is a student-to-teacher or student-to-principal relationship and there needs to be some absolving done in this range.

What has the present department done to help this student-teacher one-to-one relationship? I'll tell you what they've done: they have emasculated the teaching profession to the place where the teacher in utter frustration doesn't know how to deal with the situation. The student becomes aware that she is frustrated and as a result, nothing happens. There is no communication between the two. Frustration is the result. The student goes home frustrated; the teacher goes home frustrated, and that which we thought was a panacea or a cure for all ills, namely reducing the student-teacher ratio, really hasn't helped at all. And taking away from the teacher a final resort in discipline certainly hasn't helped the situation.

The Minister's disturbed because the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) talked about the strap. "Oh, no, for heaven's sake! Goodness, not that thing all over again. Is this still an issue? I can't believe that this can possibly be an issue," she says.

If it were no issue, why was it the first act that the Minister accomplished after taking office? We haven't seen many bills that involve education — my work load has been light. But one of the first things that this Minister considered to be important was the removal of the strap from the classroom. I'm not saying that the strap, in or out of that classroom, necessarily was the physical means of the difference between the communication between student and teacher, but it was the mental means whereby the communication was taking place.

What has happened to teacher attitude? What's the performance of the department done to teacher attitude? With this diluted authority, the teacher is fast losing faith in the administration which they helped to elect and which they thought by their actions was going to bring some cure to their problems.

The NDP courted the teaching profession into the election campaign — promised them they were going to give them fewer students in the class, going to give them more money to take home. When actually in talking with the teachers, they weren't really asking for more money.

Better education: if you believe better education comes by giving a teacher more money, then it would also follow that we have a better Premier just because we pay him three times as much today as we did when he started. I don't see the applause too great for that.

What has the performance of the department done to help in this area of incorrigibility? I suggest that we have promoted it. We have gone to the classroom with the concept: down with intellect, up with feeling. And when a student is considering the up with the feeling, do as you wish, do as you please, do as you think is best — we come up with the incorrigible student. This administration has promoted this kind of activity in the student.

What has the performance of the department done in regard to the effect of the teaching climate with trustees? These are the fellows who are the team out there on the job. These are the fellows who are volunteer administrators, if you please. What has the department done? They've ostracized them. They've insulted them. They have used them as a scapegoat for their own inadequacies.

An estimated $82 million increase in government expenditure on education for this next year: that's going to be the increased cost.

When the Minister looked at the increase and compared it with increases of former years, she said: "Oh, my word, this is impossible. We're going to have to cut back. We're going to have to go back to the teachers whom we promised heaven on earth and give them the opposite to heaven. We're going to have to say to them, 'Oh, oh, we're going to have to cut back on teaching quality.' We can't do it any more because we've already committed ourselves on this salary bit. But we're going to have to have somebody to ride on; we're going to have to have somebody to be the scapegoat for the whole issue. And the ones who happen to be the closest and nearest by are the trustees — we'll sock it to them."

Well, the Minister knew full well that 80 per cent of that increased expenditure is a direct result of her own edicts in increased salaries and decreased class sizes — 80 per cent, leaving only 20 per cent of the total increase the responsibility of the trustees. And yet the trustees, the school boards, are getting the sock for it.

Does it seem right? It doesn't sound feasible. Doesn't sound like something the Minister would do. And it certainly doesn't lend to her credibility, not, I don't believe, with her team-mates on the Treasury bench. Certainly not with the public. And Madam, if you have made an error, I say if you have made an error, then why not just let it all hang out and say: "Okay, I made the error. We're not going to blame the school boards. We're not going to blame the trustees. Let's put the blame where it really rests. And it is in the inadequacies and the inability in fiscal

[ Page 75 ]

terms, in fiscal areas, of the Minister of Education."

What has been the performance of the department with regard to post-secondary education? And this I think is where I should do a pantomime on the high-pitched performance we had from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) a few moments ago.

This is what we've done with post-secondary education: we have spent nearly two years trying to find out what we already knew.

Let me use my area as an example. In 1969, 1970, 1971, and in 1972 we were convinced of one thing: we needed a college in the Fraser Valley. We had a local association of various individuals from various walks of life who did the research and who found out what we already knew, and that was that we needed a college in the Fraser Valley. Election came, administration changed and one of the early acts of the Minister of Education was to say: "Nix. We don't accept the people's word that they need a college or that they want a college. We're going to take another new look at the whole idea of building colleges, so we're just going to stop construction, although it's in the midst, and we're going to appoint a commission."

We appointed a commission. The commission went out to find out whether or not the people of the flood plains wanted a college. Guess what they found out. They found out what we already knew — the people want to have a college. They need a college in that area. What happened next? The commission said: "Well, let's get a little more feedback. Let's have some hearings. We'll have some in Chilliwack and some in Abbotsford and some in Agassiz and some in Hope," and so on and so forth. And they had them in my hometown. A thousand people showed up at the hearings where the task force came to find out something they believed they did not know. When they had heard the thousand people out, guess what they found out. They wanted a college on the flood plains; they need a college on the flood plains. Strange that we haven't heard this before.

Guess what's happened next. We decided to appoint a task force, a task force to find out what the people really wanted. They've already heard it four times in various hearings and through various consultants. Now all of a sudden we have to have a task force. The task force comes out to do a little more research. They don't want any public hearings. They said, "Well, we've already heard everything there is to hear." But the Minister is still not convinced.

I understand that step 6 is that we're now going to have a plebiscite. We're going to have a plebiscite, and it's going to happen in the early days of March. And what are we going to find out in the plebiscite? We're going to find out what we already knew in 1969, that we want and need a college out on the flood plains. We need a college out there.

I don't know if she's hard to convince. But I'm saying this: After all this expenditure, after all this time, when we come back to building a college and all I hear is just the rumblings, then we're going to have sort of a dual type thing with maybe two campuses, and Lord only knows, and He's not talking, how many buildings are going to be involved. But the original bill for this college was going to be in the neighbourhood of $8 million, Mr. Member. And we're going to find out from the plebiscite what we already knew away back there, that we're going to have the college, but that the cost of it, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is going to have to suffer the increases and the spiral of inflation that all the rest of us have been experiencing. The very buildings that would have cost us $8 million in 1972 are now going to cost us $11 million.

Add to that, my friend, the cost of finding out what you already knew and I would say, it's no wonder Bremer wouldn't stay. No wonder. And I think the reason why Mr. Bremer had to go.... By the way, I'd still like to find out what it's going to cost us to buy his cotton-picking contract.

Mr. Gardom: One year.

Mr. Schroeder: The reason why Bremer had to go was because it was a little embarrassing for the Minister of Education to be called his secretary, because it was Mr. Bremer who was enunciating policy back and forth throughout the land. I had the occasion and the privilege to attend some of his hearings. I'm afraid that the reason Mr. Bremer had to go was because he was getting a little too big for his britches, and the Minister didn't have britches to fit him at all. He was, instead of not doing the job, as was suggested by the Minister of Finance, doing too good a job.

Let me ask you a simple question: How could something that was so right just eight months ago, be so wrong in January? How could it be?

Could you have been so wrong in your evaluation of Mr. Bremer, Mr. Premier? Maybe you hired him too quickly. If that's true, you had better take a look at the rest of the birds you've hired because you took no more time in evaluating them than you did him.

I think you're in big trouble, madam, I think you're in big trouble. As a matter of fact, you are an embarrassment to the Treasury benches; you are a disgust out there to the people. I've been kind to you for two years, lady, but I've got to tell it to you like it is today. You are a disgust to the people who are the voters out there. I would suggest one thing. Why don't you do this: make it light on all of us and resign. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, with the lateness of the hour I will be as brief as it is possible to be under the circumstances.

[ Page 76 ]

First of all, we should look at the motion that we're presently debating, dealing with an amendment to the throne speech. It says: "This House regrets that the speech of His Honour gave further indications that the government intends to place greater centralized controls upon the people of British Columbia while neglecting any mention of specific proposals for policy changes in the social-service fields of education, health and human resources at a time when there is growing public alarm with government policies in this field."

I want to assure you that that was a genuine amendment that was introduced, one dealing with the concerns that have been conveyed to the Members of the official opposition by the electorate of British Columbia. And if the Government does not understand that, God bless that government, because they'll never understand anything.

All we've heard tonight is a series of old backpocket speeches by some of the Liberal Members over here that I've heard over the years, some taken back from 1964. They don't understand. All they want to do with the amendment that was proposed by the official opposition is play political games. They don't understand that there is concern by the people of this province on the matter of the critical shortage of housing, on the matter of health and on the matter of education.

I'm appalled, really, that we've seen such silence in this House today by those backbenchers who, I am sure, are being told by their constituents of their concerns in these particular fields. And I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that you have not taken your place in this assembly and expressed the concerns of the people in your constituency relative to these fields and the lack of action on the part of that government in these fields.

I want to tell you, you wait until the people of this province know and find out that those backbenchers have remained so silent in this assembly when they appear to be so vocal on the outskirts of this chamber. Shame on you. You have split personalities, that's what you have. When you're in this assembly you're afraid to speak out on behalf of the people of this province relative to these critical areas.

What did you say in Nanaimo; what did you say in Nanaimo? What you said in secret in caucus you should convey to the people if you have any concerns relative to health, education and housing. It's quite obvious you have none because you have remained very strangely silent here tonight.

We listened to the Premier stand in his place and almost sing, the pitch was so high, talk about the pupil-teacher ratio. "The best it has been since 1916, 58 years ago." He failed to tell us where the teacher-student ratio had been improved. Is he talking about Mansons Landing way up in northern British Columbia where one family moved out a few months ago and reduced the student-teacher ratio? Is that what you're talking about?

It's quite obvious to me that you have not read the analysis of the B.C. Teachers' Federation of the improvement and the lack of improvement on the teacher-student ratio in this province. Unfortunately, I don't have that report before me. But I've read the report and it's nothing to brag about. I'm sure they don't say that it's improved, that it's the best it has been since 1916, 58 years ago. I don't know where the Premier gets these great statistics which he so loosely quotes in this assembly in such a high-pitched voice.

I heard the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) just a few moments ago talk about the question of post-secondary education.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Do you want to start the afternoon all over again?

Mr. Chabot: I want to briefly speak on this matter of post-secondary education because we have in the east Kootenays a similar experience which they have on the flood plains of Chilliwack, and that is the matter of a vocational school for the east Kootenays.

In 1972, after considerable research and demand on the part of the people of the east Kootenays for the establishment of a vocational school in the southeastern part of British Columbia, a decision was brought down by the former government, a government which some people here attempt to lead you to believe was anti-educational — but a government that made the decision to establish a vocational school in the east Kootenays in 1972.

What happened when this government came into office, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you what happened. Immediately, the decision was made....

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: And you say there was no decision made because you twisted the facts so much in the Kootenay constituency that you don't know what the facts are, I'll tell you that, Mr. former-Member-from-the-Kootenays (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). They've disowned you in the Kootenays now, Mr. Member, I'll tell you that.

So the decision was cancelled by this new government because they were going to research the needs, after the needs had been adequately researched by the former government. They were going to research the need for the establishment of a vocational school in the east Kootenays. So what did they do? They set up one of these task forces for political friends, headed up by a defeated NDP candidate in the federal election, Mr. Patterson from Kimberley. They appointed him on this task force to

[ Page 77 ]

study the needs of post-secondary education for the Kootenays. Yet that's almost 18 months ago and we're still waiting for a report; we're still waiting for a report from that great task force.

Now he has a new job: he's one of the 99 new appointments to boards of review. One of the 99, dealing with assessments on behalf of the government. How do you expect the people to get justice when you have nothing but a charade as far as assessment reviews are concerned, when you have a bunch of political hacks on the boards of review of British Columbia? How do you expect the people to get a fair break?

The people of the east Kootenays, Madam Minister, are waiting for a report on the matter of vocational schools. They've waited long enough; time has come for action in that department of yours. Never mind all the studies and the examinations of former policies. Get down and bring us some action. We feel in the east Kootenays that we have a right to participate in the affairs of British Columbia, and people of the east Kootenays are fed up waiting for the establishment of a vocational school.

No wonder there is unrest in the east Kootenays today with the lack of concern, the lack of consideration on the part of that government and the lack of consideration and concern on the part of that Minister who used to represent the Kootenays and no longer does. I don't blame you, Mr. Minister, I don't blame you for not going back to the Kootenays. Hide your head in Victoria.

We've heard the Premier talk about class sizes. He certainly doesn't agree with the statements made by the Minister on the student-teacher ratio because she talked about the tremendous cost it would incur upon the Treasury. He talked about $7.5 to $8 million per student. And she says: "I endorsed the concept. But I'm just one Minister in the cabinet, and governments have priorities."

The Minister of Education suggests that this is not high as far as priorities of the government are concerned. She goes on and she says she reiterated statements that smaller classes are not the cure-all. She said teacher-training institutions in the teaching profession must accept the challenge of preparing teachers to use different instructional methods.

Now that was one of the promises made by that little group over there over the years. Well, they used to be a little group, but they still call themselves the party of the little people. I'll tell you that they're concerned about 38 little people and nobody else, Mr. Speaker. That's all they are concerned about. I'll tell you, the people out there are starting to get to know you. They're starting to get to know all about you.

We've heard over the years about the need of removal of the education tax from residential property. Oh, it's going to ease the tremendous burden from the taxpayer. Well, we don't see that in the Speech from the Throne. You're all talk and no action. All talk and no action. You'd almost think it would be a financial impossibility to remove this tax burden of education from residential property.

The only kind of revenue it generates for the government is something in the neighbourhood of $11 million a year — the equivalent of approximately $36 per home in the province. Yet they talk about removing it over a period of five years. Oh, what a generous government. What a generous government — removing approximately $2 million of taxes from the backs of the taxpayers of British Columbia. Yet they can throw $6 million away for the purchase of Dunsky — was it? No, Dunhill. They sound so much alike. They all start with "Dun."

No, they can pour the money down the tube at Ocean Falls and things of that nature. They could remove the tax for education from residential property in one fell swoop, but they are only going to stretch it out because it is politically advantageous to that little non-political group over there.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Better check those numbers.

Mr. Chabot: I said approximately $11 million on residential property. That's what I said. I said approximately....

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: I'm talking about opposition research assistance. I've listened, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier make erroneous statements on television about research help. He suggests that it was a new innovation since this government came to office.

Who hired John Woods? Who created the position of John Woods? You left the impression with the electorate of British Columbia that there was never any assistance in the opposition offices prior to your becoming government. You know that's not true. You know that's not true. Tell the truth and stop twisting the facts, Mr. Premier. You know full well that that position was created by the former government and not through the benevolence of the big brother government over there.

Big brother government has now disposed of...we've heard many times of the disposal of Mr. Bremer, the genius that they brought up from the United States — I mean from England via the United States — into British Columbia to solve all our education problems, and to innovate new ideas, input, the participation of the students, the teachers and the trustees into a new melting pot, if you might call it that. That's why they brought Mr. Bremer in. Oh, it was going to be a great innovation.

This great man has now been bought off. I finally

[ Page 78 ]

came to the conclusion as to why he was disposed of. One of the NDP members on a committee on one of his task forces.... Is that what you call it? So many types of plans, forces and commissions that I have difficulty keeping track of them. But a Mr. Robinson was very critical in November of Mr. Bremer, and he said this about Mr. Bremer: Robinson called for a complete overhaul and this is why he was unhappy with Mr. Bremer; he called for a complete overhaul of the educational system to give young people the skills they will need to live in a democratic socialist society. He felt that Mr. Bremer was falling down in fulfilling that role or that objective which he felt was so important to the people of British Columbia.

He goes on. "I think the only hope is to put pressure on the Minister," said Robinson, who is a member of the New Democratic Party's standing committee on education. It's a standing committee. It's not a task force or a study group or whatever it is. It's the standing committee on education. Mr. Robinson in November told the Minister she must get rid of Bremer, because he's a dreamer and he isn't fulfilling the type of socialistic approach to education which Mr. Robinson feels he should be fulfilling.

Mr. Bremer, after he was dismissed with his pockets full of money, made some very interesting observations. Mr. Bremer said how always at those meetings — talking about the meetings with the Minister — he'd dealt only with the role of the commission and its relationship to the rest of the Education department, not with his actual firing. It was a complete surprise, he said. I think it was a surprise to everyone.

He made some other very revealing remarks. "Mr. Bremer said he does not feel vindictive or bitter towards the government and he doesn't plan any legal action against it at this time." He said also: "If I just spoke objectively and fairly about what I saw in the government, it would be the worst thing I could do to them."

Now, Madam Minister, what did he mean by saying this is the worst thing he could do? Would he show you up for your shortcomings? Is that one of the reasons why Bremer was dismissed? Because he got to know you? He got to know all about you and your policies and lack of policies in the field of education.

I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this was a costly experiment — not only in the matter of taxpayers' dollars, but in the matter of time wasted. We see a tremendous delay, in the introduction of innovation in the field of education today because the committee, as the Minister has said, is going to start all over again in researching the needs for education in British Columbia.

That's the most sad thing about it. It's not the pay-off. It's not the pay-off — the new precedent that has been established relative to firing or the cancelling of contracts for that government — but it's in the delay in the government reaching needed policies in the field of education.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with the House's permission I have a few more words to say, and if they'll accept an adjournment I'll adjourn and continue on tomorrow with my speech.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: We saw the complete breaking of tradition. We saw flippant, irresponsible subamendments accepted in this House, proposed strictly for cheap politics by that Liberal leader — so-called Liberal leader...

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Chabot: ...who won't be here very much longer.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: The Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is getting awfully tired, Mr. Speaker; he doesn't like going beyond 11 o'clock. But if the government insists that I continue, I'll continue. Okay, I'll continue. I want to speak very briefly. I'm not going to go on into the realm of housing. I think it was adequately covered this afternoon.

I do want to say a few words on the question of mental health and how it relates to....

Interjection.

Mr. Chabot: I'm speaking on the amendment at the moment. I'll be as brief as I possibly can. I want to say a few words that concern me dealing with this amendment, and it has to deal with the question of mental health. It is of great concern not only to the constituency that I represent, but of great concern to the constituency of Kootenay as well.

We see a tremendous study undertaken at tremendous cost. It is my understanding that it's something in the neighbourhood of $700,000 — the Minister can correct me if that is not correct — for the Foulkes Report, for new innovations, new directions in the field of health. Yet we see extremely deplorable conditions existing as far as mental health is concerned in the entire southeastern part of British Columbia.

There is growing concern in my constituency. I have a copy of a letter here sent to the Minister dealing with this, and it says here:

"The availability of mental health services is, for all practical purposes, non-existent in our

[ Page 79 ]

area. On the present arrangements the services are only available from Vernon on a very inadequate basis. Residents in need of psychiatric attention must now by appointment travel to Revelstoke for consultation which invariably results in long delays in reporting for treatment. This situation is particularly serious in the case of both elementary and secondary school students requiring help and treatment."

What is expected, as far as psychiatric help in the Golden area in particular, is someone to visit that particular community, a community with a district population of approximately 10,000 with none of these services available.

A student or an individual is expected to travel to Revelstoke in very hazardous winter conditions on the Rogers Pass which is closed for days at a time — expected to travel 90 miles each way from Golden to Revelstoke — 180 miles. There is a complete lack of facilities in the southern part of the constituency as well, in the Windermere district.

We see the same condition existing in the east Kootenay mental health unit, where not too long ago they had professional help. They had a psychiatrist and psychologist, administrator and a psychiatric nurse, administrator-assistant and receptionist. Yet that unit is there without this professional help. Yet we have these very expensive reports and studies, but that's not going to help the conditions that presently exist throughout the southeastern part of our province.

I want to know what the government...not only do I, but the people of the southeastern part of the province, Mr. Minister, want to know what you're going to do to improve the conditions that exist in this part of the province. There are no longer these professional services available in areas such as: Golden; the Windermere district; Creston; Fernie, Alberta; Cranbrook; Kimberley. These are large areas and they need these kinds of facilities.

It makes me say, Mr. Speaker, no wonder Fernie wants out. No wonder Fernie wants to go to Alberta. They have this feeling of alienation. It is being fostered; it is being promoted by this government not only in the field of travel industry but every other related government enterprise.

The Minister, the Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), can tell the people of Fernie that he laughs all he wants when they express their concerns. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I challenge that Minister to go to Fernie and tell those people to their face that he laughs. He'll find out what their reaction is to his attitude — the man who represents, or is supposed to represent, that part of the province, and all he can do is laugh at his constituents.

There is a very genuine lack of concern on the part of that government, Mr. Speaker, on the question of services to the east Kootenays. And there is a feeling of alienation on the part of the people from the east Kootenays because of this lack of consideration. The people of the east Kootenays are waiting for some action from this government on these kind of services. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief as well, but there are a few words that I felt I must say on the debate on the amendment to this throne speech.

The Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) unfortunately didn't understand what the amendment was about when he said that our motion called for some kind of change over former policies. That's complete nonsense, Mr. Speaker, because what we're attacking in this amendment is the static situation by a government of 1974. We're attacking a policy which is in shambles by a government in 1974, not some mystic government in 1916, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that the Members of the government and of the two other opposition parties check their calendars. The Premier and his friends don't even know what year it is. I came here, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this Legislature to represent the people of my constituency, and participate in the ongoing programmes of government.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: In 1974, that's right. And I intend to do that despite the preoccupation with the past of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party and the Members of the government.

I don't hold the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) or the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) or the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) accountable for the terrible scandals of the Liberal Party both federal and provincial, past and present. We don't hold you accountable for those policies.

Mr. Speaker, I expect to be allowed to do the job I was elected to do and I'll do it on the basis of performing my duties on an ongoing basis on policies that need to be ongoing. And it's because those policies in vital areas have come to a halt that we've presented this amendment to the throne speech, and particularly in the area of education.

You know, not much more than one year ago the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, J.V. Smedley, in an article in the B.C. Teacher magazine was hailing the election of this new government for what he called restoring financial responsibility to local school boards. Well, what irony that is today, Mr. Speaker. The new president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, Mr. Pat Walsh, just one year later is, now saying that the trustees have lost confidence in the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

[ Page 80 ]

That's harsh stuff from an association like the B.C. School Trustees Association. I don't ever remember it happening in this province before. But they've found themselves so frustrated because of the lack of policies of this government that he's found it necessary to come out on behalf of all the school trustees of this province and say they lost confidence in the Minister of Education.

That's what we're saying today: that we've lost confidence in the Minister of Education and in this government for its position of no action in the vital needs of this province in 1974.

One, I suppose, could hardly blame Mr. Smedley for being carried away in that article a year ago. He was convinced that the Minister really meant what she said about inviting trustee participation to review education policy, and in particular, education financing. But what a shallow promise that has proved to be.

Some of us at that time didn't share Mr. Smedley's optimism, and we were proved to be correct. On October 26, 1972, I commented in the House that because of the new policies of this government, the changes in the Public Schools Act, B.C., which had been the only jurisdiction in Canada which had education costs under control, would find costs sky-rocketing in the future. We would find that the rich school districts would be provided a better form of education than the poorer districts who once again would be forced back into the situation of scrambling after every dollar they could squeeze out of the department.

I said at that time, Mr. Speaker, that the whole point of the controls on educational spending had been to democratize the educational process and make sure that the so-called have-not districts had the same opportunity for decent education as had the districts of places like West Vancouver and Victoria.

We pointed out at that time that the provision in the changes to the Public Schools Act held an incredible danger to the economy of this province. And the irony was that the school board would not benefit. Most of the increased costs would be eaten up by higher teacher salaries and extra teachers. In fact that's exactly what's happened in that little more than a year, Mr. Speaker.

What else has happened, Mr. Speaker, under the terms of these great new educational policies which we were promised by this great open government? Teacher salaries up this year by an average of 10.8 per cent — again this year, not counting fringe benefits. Only four negotiated settlements in the whole of the province. Despite the Minister's promises that we were now entering a new era of teacher-trustee salary negotiations, only four districts were able to find common ground and were able to come up with negotiated settlements. All the rest, Mr. Speaker, had to go to compulsory arbitration.

The Minister still says that she is not going to deal with the massive problems of salary bargaining in this session. The question we must ask is: when will she face up to the need for action? Next session, Mr. Speaker? New year? Never? When? The people of this province would like to know.

As the British Columbia School Trustees Association has pointed out — which should be to the shame of this Education Minister — there has been no significant legislation in the field of education in the past 16 months. What kind of a record is that for someone who promised progressive policies in education?

What else is happening in education in British Columbia? Well, in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, despite the government's pledge to move in new educational directions, the actual budget for true education is getting less and less in this province as unrestrained fixed costs take up more and more of the school districts' budgets. Most of those fixed costs, of course, are teachers' salaries. But fixed costs in Langley, for instance, are about 90 per cent of the total budget. The real needs of education are getting less and less attention by this government. Because the Minister has failed to come to grips with these realities, fundamental educational problems are being ignored.

Has the class size really been reduced in this province? Well, I can tell you that, thanks to these dynamic new policies that the Premier mentioned earlier, class sizes are not decreasing but increasing in many of the high-growth areas of this province. Surrey, for instance, is faced with budget cuts this year of some $4.5 million from the proposed budget. That's going to mean, according to the school trustees in Surrey, Mr. Premier, teacher-student ratios which are going to have to be allowed to rise to 30-to-1 in some areas and 36 to 1 in others. That's what they're going to be this year under those dynamic new policies of this dynamic new government: 36-to-1.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you resign if you're wrong?

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the Premier had his opportunity. I was really surprised last night when I was watching the Golden Globe awards on TV that we didn't see your shiny face there. After your arm-slapping and histrionic experience tonight, you should have been up for a Golden Globe award or some kind of an award for your performance. And that's all I can call it: a performance in the face of facts.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Will you resign over your

[ Page 81 ]

incredible performance with the Assessment Commissioner of this province?

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, school districts with increasing populations like Langley, which I represent — Surrey, Abbotsford, Delta — are all strangling in their own growth. And because they're locked into the inflationary kind of budget situation which I mentioned earlier — a situation which, incidentally, is not of their own making — the local trustees are not able to provide the improvements in educational techniques that are needed to cope with the modern needs.

Trustees are being forced to cut out programmes today in 1974, not in 1916, Mr. Speaker. They are being forced to cut out programmes that make the difference between a mediocre and an exceptional educational menu. Local boards are being forced to either cut back or go to deficit budgeting and hope to God the Minister will not accuse them of being irresponsible. They are concerned for not only the taxpayer dollar but they are concerned for the education of the children of those school districts.

That was some statement by the Minister, Mr. Speaker. Here were the school boards of this province outlining optimum needs for their school districts, as they are expected to do as good public servants, in their provisional budgets — according to the Minister's direction, I may add — outlining those budgets because of what the Minister had told them to do in the first instance; budgeting for smaller class sizes according, once again, to the Minister's directions; budgeting for those enormous problems of growth, once again on the Minister's directions, only to have the Minister turn around and label them irresponsible. What kind of a statement is that from a Minister who professes to be interested in the education of the youngsters in this province?

If anyone has been irresponsible in this whole mess, Mr. Speaker, it has to be the Minister of Education. It is the Minister of Education who has shown both irresponsibility and incompetence in dealing with the educational problems of a modern British Columbia.

What else is happening, Mr. Speaker, under these dynamic new policies of this dynamic new government? Well, I understand that Chilliwack on the flood plains had to scrap a very progressive conversational French programme because the Minister told them they were irresponsible for spending too much money. They had to scrap that programme from their school curriculum because of this government's policies.

The building manual — which is the manual used to decide whether or not a school district is allowed to have another classroom, the manual that justifies those additional classrooms — still sets classroom sizes at 36-to-1 for elementary schools, 30-to-1 for secondary schools and 60-to-1 for kindergartens. This formula has not been changed since the NDP came to power. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this formula is especially hard on Langley school district. We simply can't keep up with the need because of the burgeoning population of our area.

This kind of formula needs some kind of flexibility built into it to take up the slack in those rapid-growth areas like the one I represent. Just because we reach that magic 36 figure, even though it's way too high, we can't snap our fingers and find another classroom. It takes some time to take up that slack and build that extra classroom.

The population in Langley, and in other areas as well, particularly on the lower mainland, Mr. Speaker, is growing faster than we can build. We need some kind of flexibility from this government and from this Minister.

Busing creates special problems in areas such as Langley because of the rapid growth. Walk limits haven't been changed by this government; walk limits are still set at three miles for secondary students and 2.5 miles for elementary students — 2.5 miles in areas where traffic is building up more rapidly than the arterial highways and streets and roadways can keep up. Yet we're asking elementary school children to walk on those highways and take the chance of being killed because of the inadequate facilities. The municipalities can't afford to keep up with the growth either because of the policies of this government.

The Education department of this government refuses to inoculate itself with any kind of flexibility; it maintains a rigid position in the face of changing times. That just doesn't make any sense. It's a terrible situation in areas where traffic is choking some of these semi-rural roads, and we haven't caught up to that growth yet.

Rigid limits are nonsense again because some areas have sidewalks and some don't. Some have schools which are close together and some of them are more scattered.

The whole point is that the trustees of this province, Mr. Speaker, don't know what to do because of the incredible charges made against them by the Minister of Education. Everything they had been planning for and hoping for in the early parts of this year and last year, everything they had been planning for is now down the tube because of those ridiculous remarks made by the Education Minister.

If only that Minister, Mr. Speaker, had been honest with those trustees and told the school boards, "Well, we're really not going to give you a new deal; we're really not going to let you go out and reduce your class sizes. We're only really speaking for effect." If she had really said that and told the

[ Page 82 ]

trustees that, well, perhaps those trustees wouldn't have had to lose confidence in the Minister of Education. Perhaps they would have understood that the Minister doesn't have any programmes, doesn't have any answers, doesn't know what is happening in her department, Mr. Speaker, and doesn't seem to know what is going on next in this province.

The Minister has visited the districts; I know that. I saw her in Langley two or three times. But she obviously had her eyes closed, or else how could she have possibly labelled those hard-working and responsible trustees as irresponsible?

I'd like to know when the trustees are going to get an apology. I think it's due — and past due — that that Minister apologize to the trustees of this province.

More proof that the department is in a shambles and the Minister doesn't know what is happening from one day to the next is the incredible exercise that we went through with the fantastic Bremer affair. I won't belabour it now because it's been gone over a number of times. But here we have a situation, apparently initiated by a responsible Minister of the Crown, in which one day Mr. Bremer is the fair-haired boy of education, the soul brother of the teachers of this province, the educational genius of this province, and the next day the has-been — someone who talks too much — someone who has been banished to the beaches of Waikiki on $30,000 of mine and yours and the taxpayers of British Columbia. At least $30,000.

But there's a serious question here, and it's been asked by the teachers and others, and that is: what will happen, Mr. Speaker, to the efforts expended by thousands, and I mean literally thousands? The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) told us of 1,000 people at one meeting in Chilliwack alone. What is going to happen to the efforts expended by those thousands of British Columbians who responded in good faith to the directives from the Department of Education to take part in the so-called great new experiment under the Bremer — the dreamer — philosophy?

All of these school districts, I assume — because the school district with which I am most familiar did — had a directive from the Department of Education in which they were told they must hold public meetings in all junior and senior secondary schools in their school districts. In Langley that turned out to be six schools. All districts, I understand, were the same.

The people of the school districts went to all kinds of effort. There was the effort expended by the central staff of the school districts, the effort expended by the staff of the schools which were involved. There was advertising, extensive costs to the school districts, to get people out to take part in this so-called great experiment. There were questionnaires handed out by the school trustees to the people who were in attendance, and those questionnaires were not taken lightly. They were filled out and answered and sent back in to the Department of Education.

But the question is: for what purpose was this heavy, heavy involvement by people in British Columbia? Was it all to no avail? Are all of their efforts going to be thrown out of the window — discarded, just like the education tsar was? What's going to happen to all that material that was sent to Victoria, sent to Mr. Bremer? Is he reading it on the beaches of Waikiki, I wonder? The public was heavily involved and they now deserve some kind of an answer, Mr. Speaker, about where all that effort is going to lead. I know that the trustees, at least the ones to whom I've talked, feel that the whole exercise was one of futility.

I have some other questions I'd like to ask, Mr. Speaker, about educational policy or lack of it in this province: questions like who is Margareta Reid, a new lady who has been imported from sunny Manitoba, as so many of our public servants seem to have been, and who seems to be calling many of the shots on education policy in this province? Is she the new Bremer? We don't know. What is her experience? What are her qualifications? The Minister extolled the qualifications of Mr. Bremer when we questioned them in the first instance, and it seems she was a bit hasty.

Is Margareta Reid another Bremer? What is her influence on the Department of Education? What are the purposes of all of the committees? There's a new one every day being set up that calls the trustees in for their input only to find themselves branded as irresponsible when they give that input. Are these committees just more window dressing, Mr. Speaker?

I have a serious concern that like so many other areas of this government — the farmers, the forest industry and so many people who have a special interest — that this government has been calling on the trustees only to sort of legitimize the kinds of changes that they already have planned, regardless of whether or not there are any committees that will come up with those recommendations or not.

Will the trustees, because they have taken part in good faith in these committee meetings, be now blamed for the kind of education policy that is going to come out, really without any of their input? Is that what's happening? Are the trustees going to be scapegoats for the kind of educational policy that we are going to see in the future?

There's concern as well, Mr. Speaker, that the real people who are making changes in the legislation, if there are to be any changes in legislation, are these new mandarins with whom the Education Minister has surrounded herself.

The trustees want to help, Mr. Speaker. They'd love the opportunity to have some real input in the educational policies of this province. But there's a

[ Page 83 ]

strong suspicion that the Minister isn't listening to the trustees at all. I don't think the same is true on the other side of the fence. I think the Minister pays a lot of attention to the teachers. But they don't really want changes in many of the areas where changes are necessary, in areas like bargaining procedures. Teachers don't want those changes. The Minister is listening to only one side of this question. At least that's the impression that I get. But I must say that education has to be a two-way street. The Minister must not let her biases show so clearly.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak about problems in health care later on in this debate. Suffice to say right now that I would like to commend the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) for rejecting the Foulkes Report, even though, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the apparent waste of close to $750,000 of taxpayers' money so far. I think the Minister was very responsible when he rejected that report publicly.

At any rate, I have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in supporting this amendment submitted by the official opposition based on the unbelievable performance of the Education Minister, her attitudes and assaults on the trustees of this province, and the lack of any kind of on-going education policy in this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would just like to stand on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm referring to standing order 3 and it reads: "If, at the hour of 6 o'clock p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed upon for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m. and the House will continue until 11 o'clock p.m. unless otherwise ordered."

It hasn't been otherwise ordered, and I move adjournment, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files the Annual Report of the Motor Vehicle Branch for the year 1972.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 p.m.