1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1975
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 129 ]
CONTENTS
Afternoon sitting
Routine proceedings
Highland Water Control Act (Bill 22) Mr. Liden.
Introduction and first reading — 129
Point of order Ministerial answers during question period. Mr. Phillips — 129
Mr. Speaker — 129
Statement Details on purchase of Casa Loma Apartments. Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 131
Routine proceedings
Oral questions
Restrictions on research and development branch. Mr. Bennett — 132
Reassignment of research and development staff. Mr. Bennett — 132
Duplication of educational research funds. Mr. Gardom — 132
Harassment of research and development. Mr. Gardom — 132
Daon housing advertisement. Mr. Wallace — 133
Educational Research Institute funding. Mr. Schroeder — 133
China Creek Park development. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 134
Casa Loma Apartment purchase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 134
Government policy on housing purchases. Mr. McGeer — 134
Deadline for school budgets. Mrs. Jordan — 135
Effect of school budgets on mill rates. Mrs. Jordan — 135
Priority of funds for reduction of pupil-teacher ratio. Mr. Fraser — 135
Throne speech debate. Mr. Wallace — 135
Hon. Mr. Hall — 139
Mrs. Webster — 145
Mr. Smith — 149
Statement Correction of facts. Hon. Mr. Lea — 155
Mr. Speaker — 155
Routine proceedings Throne speech debate Mr. Dent — 156
Mr. Schroeder — 161
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1975
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, today we have visiting us the law class from John Oliver Secondary School, which is in the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Margaret Erickson and Miss Judy Dallas, and I would ask the House to welcome them, please.
HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, today we have from that great city-centre riding, Vancouver Centre, representatives of the Strathcona Property Owners Association. Would the House welcome them here today?
HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from Balfour and Nelson we have Mr. and Mrs. Harvie and Mrs. McAdams, and I wish the House would bid them welcome.
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a group of students from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School in the beautiful city of Port Coquitlam.
Introduction of bills.
HIGHLAND WATER CONTROL ACT
On a motion by Mr. Liden, Bill 22, Highland Water Control Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a point of order.
On February 20, in the Legislature, I rose to ask the Speaker on another point of order if we could have the report from the Premier regarding the railway boxcar situation in British Columbia. I asked at that time that the report from the Premier be given outside of question period, because I believe this is the true order of business and I would like to oppose strenuously any attempt by the Minister to give written reports during the oral question period and take up the time of the question period.
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): You don't like the answers, do you?
MR. PHILLIPS: We'll talk about the answers, Mr. Attorney-General.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have an oral question period and its specific purpose is to allow extemporaneous questions and answers, right? The Minister has the right to take a question as notice, but if he chooses that alternative then his reply must come either in written form or by way of a Ministerial statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, do we have some authority on that so I can look at it, please?
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, absolutely, certainly — May.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's what I'm asking for — your citation.
MR. PHILLIPS: May, yes.
MR. SPEAKER: May or must?
MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. May, 18th edition, page 312, order of business, prayers, et cetera, then questions, and then business taken after questions. It says: "Ministerial statements and statements by Mr. Speaker." I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is the practice in Ottawa that is followed that Ministerial statements are given after the question period, and I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is the practice also in Ottawa to allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask certain oral questions after the Minister has made his statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll be glad to look into the point and report back to the House.
MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, if you'd like to adjourn the House for a half an hour while you survey the situation....
MR. SPEAKER: No, I don't think it's necessary because....
MR. PHILLIPS: ...we'd be quite happy to accept your adjournment.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's a recess.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, while you're looking at it, will you please advise the House that if it's not proper to answer the questions in the question period, is it still proper to ask the question in the question period?
Interjections.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's answering the question, and if we can't answer it in
[ Page 130 ]
question period, then will they give us notice to do it on...? I'm sure you'll straighten it out.
MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure I will.
I noticed, Hon. Members, that in England they have a written notice so that they have some warning what the question will be at least a week in advance of its being asked in the House. Then they make an oral reply, in England during question period, and each question is numbered on that notice.
Here we have no notice, and where a Minister is asked a question and doesn't wish to answer that until he has investigated the matter, then he answers on a subsequent day. As to which is the proper procedure, I will address myself immediately and in due course will reply to the request of the Hon. Member.
MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we were given to understand yesterday that the Minister of Housing would be making a statement, a Ministerial statement, prior to today's proceedings.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, of course, under our rules you can only make statements prior to the orders of the day or prior to question period, with unanimous leave of the House.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, surely unanimous leave of the House would be granted to the Minister.
MR. SPEAKER: He has not asked for that.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He has his mike up, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you might recognize him for that purpose.
MR. SPEAKER: First he has to ask me.
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.
Leave granted.
MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Too late, too late!
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, does this time come out of the question period?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
HON. MR. BARRETT: And does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that you ask questions all the way through the question period and then we give answers outside the question period?
MR. PHILLIPS: You know better than that.
Interjections.
HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, is there a written question that the Minister is answering now?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No. Sit down.
HON. MR. BARRETT: So we need to know the ruling, Mr. Speaker, based on that Member's point of order, whether or not this comes from the question period time or not.
MR. SPEAKER: All I can say is that if a Minister asks for leave to make a statement, it is my duty, and I will always do it, to ask the House whether he has leave.
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
If he decides that he wants to make a Ministerial statement and asks leave, that's his decision, not mine. I cannot question his reason for doing so. Therefore, I've asked leave; the leave has been given by the House. Now if he wishes to make a statement, the floor is his.
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Point of order.
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
MR. SPEAKER: I think we're going to have to refer this to a committee. (Laughter.)
MR. CURTIS: A point of order. Would you inform the House whether question period has started counting as of this moment?
MR. SPEAKER: No, I don't think so, because as the Clerk was speaking the order of business, a point of order was raised. In that case, I certainly would not consider this part of question period. So the Ministerial statement is still in the wings waiting.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Even Ministerial statements have to await points of order.
[ Page 131 ]
HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, you have agreed to make a ruling on the matter of answering questions.
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute. The Member for Victoria asked a question yesterday, it is my understanding, and that the Minister is now determining, and you're going to determine whether or not the answer to any question asked during question period should be answered in or out of the question period. I suggest that this....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: My job is to determine....
HON. MR. STRACHAN: You can't have it both ways.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he said that he's making a statement.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: You want it both ways all the time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think my job is fairly simple. I have to determine what is on page 312 of May. Now may we proceed to a Ministerial statement?
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this is in answer to questions that were directed at me during question period. One of the three concerns expressed in the House about the purchase of Casa Loma Apartments at 6077 Kingsway in Burnaby was as to whether the government paid too much for the property. In this connection, the $3,177,500 purchase price for the completed 125-unit building works out at $25,420 per apartment unit, as opposed to Dunhill's estimated replacement costs, exclusive of developer's profits of $29,650. I must stress that this is for completed construction, this cost; and that could be the source of some confusion where people think that we are paying $1 million in excess of what it was offered for, apparently, some months ago. I don't know the details of that offer, I don't, in fact, know whether that exists, but this is for a completed project.
Mr. Speaker, it's evident that the government and the people of British Columbia good value in obtaining senior citizens' apartments for this price. The price we paid for the building works out at 26.23 cents per square foot, including land and full underground parking. I would challenge anyone to build a new apartment accommodation at this price in Burnaby today.
The second area of concern relates to whether or not Casa Loma Motel Ltd. Is receiving a substantial profit on the construction and sale of this property to the government. Based on our examination of the Casa Loma Motel Ltd. financial records, it seems unlikely that Casa Loma will make any profit on the construction, although they will benefit from some appreciation in the value of the land since they purchased the property in 1972.
Another area of concern relates to Casa Loma Ltd.'s possible liability for mechanics, liens that were placed against the property after financial difficulties were encountered in 1974. As this matter is now sub judice, I must limit my comments to telling the House that it is my information that Casa Loma Motel Ltd. had a fixed-price contract with Coast-side Construction Co. Ltd., a general contractor, to complete the project. After regular payments apparently ceased to be made by the general contractor in 1974, a number of mechanics, liens were placed on the property by subtrades and suppliers.
The subtrades as a group retained the services of a Vancouver solicitor, Mr. Bruce MacDonald of Buell, Ellis & Co., to represent their interests. On the basis of the settlement recommended by the solicitor and accepted by the lien claimants, Casa Loma Motel Ltd. agreed to pay $170,000 to have the liens discharged.
Dunhill Development Corp., on behalf of the Department of Housing, sent a letter to Casa Loma Motel Ltd. on December 24, agreeing to enter into a contract to purchase the property. By this date, all the mechanics' liens had been discharged.
Our agreement with Casa Loma is for completion of construction on or before April 15, 1975. Up to now, Casa Loma has been advanced approximately $570,000 by the Department of Housing. In addition, Casa Loma will be paid approximately $450,000 to complete the project. Fifteen per cent of the progress payments will be held back until the building is satisfactorily completed.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind Members of the House that if the government had not stepped in to acquire this property, it would likely still be sitting idle. By intervening, we are putting tradesmen to work — and creating 125 badly needed senior citizens' apartments. In this connection you should note that the British Columbia Housing Management Commission has been flooded with hundreds of telephone calls from senior citizens throughout the Vancouver area seeking accommodation in this project.
MR. SPEAKER: Now may we proceed with question period?
Interjections.
[ Page 132 ]
MR. SPEAKER: I don't think we can start a debate.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: It's not a prerogative. The House gave leave for a Minister to make a statement. It was unanimous leave.
MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I ask for leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition asks for leave to make a statement in response. Shall leave be granted?
Leave not granted.
MR. SPEAKER: Question period.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: A number of Members said "no," and I can't proceed without the consent of the House.
MR. PHILLIPS: Closure, closure!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May we go on with question period?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
HON. MR. BARRETT: We might go back to Social Credit rules.
Interjections.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Education....
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Clerk first call out question period so that we know it's started? (Laughter.)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hurray!
Oral questions.
RESTRICTIONS ON RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Education regarding the research and development division of the Department of Education. Since the firing of Dr. Knight, have there been any restrictions placed on the remaining employees as to speaking engagements or public comment about his division?
HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): It would take me a considerable length of time to discuss....
MR. BENNETT: Just yes or no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
HON. MRS. DAILLY: ...research and development. It can't be answered "yes" or "no." When I am speaking in the budget debate you will find an answer to that question.
HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no? (Laughter.)
REASSIGNMENT OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF
MR. BENNETT: Will the Minister advise the House if any member of the research and development division of the Department of Education has been reassigned to other areas since Dr. Knight's firing? If so, what qualifications are specified for the replacement personnel?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: All that information will be given to you when I speak in the budget.
DUPLICATION OF
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FUNDS
MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the same Minister: it was the statement of Dr. Knight to the effect that there's a duplication of $150,000 of educational research. Is that correct or incorrect?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: That statement is absolutely incorrect.
HARASSMENT OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
MR. GARDOM: It is the statement of Dr. Knight to the effect that the Deputy Minister, Mr. Jack Fleming, has harassed the division staff and created a cloak-and-dagger atmosphere in the department. Is that statement correct or incorrect?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: That is also incorrect. But I will certainly be prepared to elaborate to you and to any others who wish to ask further questions on
[ Page 133 ]
research and development when I discuss it during the budget debate.
DAON HOUSING ADVERTISEMENT
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer Services whether she's aware of this large advertisement by Daon Developments offering the potential owners of townhouses at Quilchena Park in Richmond $50 a month for five years, or $200 a month until February, 1976, under the title of "Daon Inflation Fighters Programme." I'd like to ask the Minister: since this gimmick in fact inevitably increases but does not decrease the cost of the house, would she consider prosecuting the company for false advertising.
HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Trade Practices Act specifically exempts real estate, securities and insurance. Therefore there's some doubt in my mind whether we would be in a position to deal with this matter, but I can certainly check and find out and advise the Member.
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a quick supplementary. Could the Minister tell us, in fact, whether there has been any investigation up to this point on the fact that, really, the facts contradict the advertisement? Has it been brought to your attention whether or not you have the legal authority at this point in time to deal with it? It seems very obvious that they're claiming to make houses cheaper when we all know this gimmick must inevitably make them more expensive.
HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been brought to my attention before now. I appreciate the Hon. Member's bringing it to my attention.
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
INSTITUTE FUNDING
MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): To the Minister of Education: Does the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia receive any public funds through your department?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, they do.
MR. SCHROEDER: When were these grants first begun?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: Those grants were first begun when we came into office and found that the ERIBC, which you're referring to, was foundering because of lack of financing from the former government. We picked up what we considered was a very important, independent research capability, and I'm very pleased to say that we have funded them since we came into office because the school trustees were unable to, and the former government did not wish to.
MR. SCHROEDER: Supplementary. Does the Minister endorse the Sunderland experiment, which was carried out by the ERIBC and which was reported in their official periodical called "Edge" — an experiment which would more appropriately be called an experiment in nudity?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm not aware of the experiment, and I think you must appreciate the fact that the terms of reference are for an independent research institute. I'm not aware at all of those specific funded projects.
MR. SCHROEDER: But you do endorse the programme?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: I am not aware of the programme. Perhaps you'd like to tell me about it.
MR. SCHROEDER: I'd be happy to answer that question.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm afraid that the question cannot be directed to you in that fashion, because you're not responsible for the department of nudity.
MR. SCHROEDER: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker....
MR. SPEAKER: I had recognized the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I will defer to the Hon. Member if he's going to demonstrate what he is talking about. (Laughter.)
AN HON. MEMBER: Take it off!
MR. SPEAKER: Well, certainly. Would the Hon. Member wish to expose further facts?
AN HON. MEMBER: Take it all off!
MR. SCHROEDER: Is the Minister not aware of the experiment as reported in Edge, an experiment which includes everything — touching, feeling, twinking, et cetera — and that approximately $175,000 worth of public funds go into the support of this particular research institute? Is she not aware?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: I have not had an
[ Page 134 ]
opportunity to read that copy of Edge. Secondly, I want to make the point that $175,000 certainly would not have gone for one small project.
CHINA CREEK PARK DEVELOPMENT
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing: may I ask him whether he could confirm that when the government purchased a property at 1040 East 7th Avenue, which is now used for low-income housing, it was involved in a settlement in which the subtrades holding the liens on the buildings in the amount of approximately $78,000 had to accept settlement of their outstanding debts at a total of something like three cents on the dollar?
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, if the Member is referring to a housing development near China Creek Park, I would be willing to check his figures and to supply further comment on them in the next question period.
CASA LOMA APARTMENT PURCHASE
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when he's checking those figures I wonder if he would also check why in his statement he referred to a letter of December 24 between Casa Loma principals and his department and failed to mention the reference made in today's paper by Mr. Paulus of Dunhill indicating that he was approached by the Casa Loma lawyer, Amir Virani, and why he did not give us the date of the approach by the lawyer, Virani, to the Dunhill corporation.
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the very first approach that we ever had was July, 1974.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Oh, big difference!
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I said that, I believe, yesterday. I haven't tried.... But we were not interested in anything as it stood at that time.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The critical question is whether or not the principals in this deal had knowledge of the government's intention to buy at the time they settled those liens. I wonder whether or not the Minister, in his further question to the House, would indicate why he omitted from his statement an elaboration of this rather cryptic remark on page 8 of The Province of today's date in which, "Paulus said the government became interested in the project after Dunhill was approached by Casa Loma lawyer, Amir Virani." The December 24th letter which he brought forward to us in his statement may have little relevance to the preceding negotiations that took place.
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we were not interested in dealing with them until liens had been settled. Liens were settled.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Did they know that?
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Pardon?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Did they know that?
Interjections.
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): When did the Minister of Housing or the government or Dunhill Development first indicate to the developer that they would be interested once the liens were settled? When was that first done?
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that these Members are trying to establish something that might be sub judice, and I...
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
Interjections.
HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...questions to deal with them as honestly as possible.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, there still hasn't been any answer to that, and it is clearly not sub judice. This is a question about the government's action. When did it first indicate this intention to the developers? It's a very simple question and a very important one, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Minister will answer it.
HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'll check it.
GOVERNMENT POLICY
ON HOUSING PURCHASES
MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I will ask the Minister, in view of the latest revelations of the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), whether it is indeed policy....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. McGEER: Would you ask him...to pay attention, please?
MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member
[ Page 135 ]
try to press on?
MR. McGEER: If he listens, he'll be able to follow the debate.
In view of the second circumstance raised by the Liberal leader, is it the policy of the Housing department to indicate to people approaching the government that once they are able to settle with subcontractors at a fraction of the money that is owing to them, the government will then undertake a purchase? That seems to be what is happening.
MR. SPEAKER: Sort of rhetorical, isn't that?
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this government is prepared to build housing for senior citizens and for families, and that is what we are prepared to do. You people there wouldn't have to worry about it because you wouldn't build anything.
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If the Liberals would attend to business....
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
DEADLINE FOR SCHOOL BUDGETS
MRS. JORDAN: My question is to the Minister of Education. In view of the fact that the deadline for school budgets to be in throughout the province was February 15, would the Minister advise the House how many of these proposed budgets in fact are in?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, according to statute they all have to be in, and they are all in. It's according to law. They must be in.
MRS. JORDAN: Every budget from every school district in British Columbia is in.
HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, as far as I know. If they are not, they haven't met their statutory obligations.
MRS. JORDAN: But the Minister is not quite sure whether they are all in.
HON. MRS. DAILLY: As far as I know — but I certainly can get that information for you.
EFFECT OF SCHOOL
BUDGETS ON MILL RATES
MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister aware from perusing these budgets what the effect of the increased cost of education in British Columbia this year is going to be on the local mill rates of the municipalities?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think the Hon. Member has been in this House long enough to be aware that I am unable to comment on that until the Premier brings down his budget speech.
PRIORITY OF FUNDS FOR
REDUCTION OF PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of Education. Today I received a telegram from 200 concerned teachers of School District 28 — their concern being the lack of funds for the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio. My question to the Minister is: does the programme that the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) mentioned have priority over funds for the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio?
HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I consider that an absolutely ridiculous question and not even a fair question.
I want to just refer back and make this point: the ERIBC (Educational Research Institute of B.C.) is also endorsed by the B.C. school boards of this province; it is something which they also support.
Secondly, as far as the pupil-teacher ratio is concerned, I again would suggest that you wait until the budget comes down. There will be further meetings with the school districts of this province re that situation.
Orders of the Day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I assure you I'll be brief, having made several comments last night....
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Didn't hear them — say it again.
MR. WALLACE: One of the Members did not hear the note on which we finished. It was in relation to miniature forms of various commodities — perhaps you can consult Hansard for the exact quote.
To refer briefly to some of the elements in the throne speech, I feel it is regrettable that the throne speech makes so little mention of the Indian people in our province, and of the problems to which we are all somewhat guilty of paying lip service without actually carrying any of the commitments into action.
Now I do know that the throne speech mentions the Babine Forest Products project at Burns Lake, but we believe that the Indian people have a legitimate grievance over land ownership. The Progressive
[ Page 136 ]
Conservative Party believes that existing disputes can best be solved by the combined efforts of provincial and federal governments in fair and frank discussion with the Indian people.
In the field of social services, education and housing we do believe that there are very serious deficiencies in these services — that in health alone, statistics speak for themselves in showing the increased morbidity and mortality among the Indian people, certainly in relation to violent and accidental death. In the estimates and the budget speech we will be raising this issue in more detail.
We would like to commend the government for certain components of the throne speech. We think it is an excellent example we are about to set in relation to our use of surplus food, and the mention of help to ravaged countries such as Bangladesh. We will certainly support that with great enthusiasm in this House when the legislation is introduced.
We like the fact that finally an expropriation Act will be introduced into this chamber. We have had two royal commissions in the last 12 years or so, with very many positive recommendations which we feel.... I served on the committee on the second occasion which reviewed the Law Reform Commission report. I think that at an age and in this era when governments are increasingly interfering in the lives of individuals and taking more authority unto themselves in dealings on land and property acquisition, it is vital that we have an up-to-date expropriation Act. We look forward very much to this bill.
Perhaps more so than any other bill, we look forward to the provincial elections Act which the throne speech mentions will emphasize financing and disclosure. This party has already voluntarily introduced a ceiling on donations to political parties of $200 per year from any source.
We will be introducing a bill from this side of the House which will encompass the basic proposals which we think will bring electoral reform up to date.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that no corporation, no labour union, no society, no federation, no ad hoc pressure group, nor any other society should be allowed to engage financially, whether directly or indirectly, in the electoral process in this province.
We firmly believe that the right to make financial contributions to political parties, to candidates or election campaigns in British Columbia must be confined solely to those individual citizens who are eligible to be registered on the provincial voters list.
We will, in our bill, spell out a ceiling on party spending, both during and between elections. We see no sense in large sums of money being spent for purely political purposes between elections when there is some artificial ceiling placed either on the candidate or on the party during a period of four or five weeks. We believe in disclosure of donations over $100. We believe that this government should follow the federal example and provide a tax credit to the donor against provincial income tax. We also believe that the federal initiative of providing a per capita grant from revenues to each candidate is something which would be well worth following provincially, provided there is the ceiling I mentioned and provided the ceiling is applied not only during elections but also between elections.
I think it should be clear to all citizens, particularly from recent events south of the border, that the whole electoral system can only benefit and regain public confidence by having financing out in the open with some ceiling on spending and disclosure of the sums donated.
We also would say that we approve of the system of some alternative form of balloting, or at the very least we think that the subject should be looked at by some form of neutral inquiry.
I would also just note in passing that we would appreciate the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, giving some commitment on the question of redistribution. The Premier has stated in this House, on one occasion at least, that a commission would be appointed before the end of 1974.
Interjection.
MR. WALLACE: Yes, before the end of the year, Mr. Premier, I asked you that question in question period, and I am sure that this was the answer. I'm not being picayune. Whether it's the end of 1974 or the end of June, 1975, we're not quibbling about, but it is a fact that the question is very much alive in the minds of many people. For the sake of some stability in all parties in the province it would help enormously if there were some definitive commitment as to when redistribution will be done and by what mechanism. If it is to be done by a commission, the sooner the commissioners are appointed, I think, the easier it would be for all four political parties in this province to manage their legitimate business.
I would rather not have taken the time of this House to bring up again the question of the Hydro committee, but, in my opinion, this Conservative Party has to make a statement as to where it stands and what it believes on the evidence presented so far.
I think, unfortunately, there has been a great play on semantics — what one means by the word "secret" or what one means by the word "confidential" and so on. I would like at the outset to say that I think these semantics are irrelevant to the central issue. The central issue, which is clearly documented, is that a committee has been admitted to have existed. The explicit purpose of that committee was to consider reallocation of costs of the Columbia River project at a time when costs were clearly exceeding the
[ Page 137 ]
originally estimated cost.
So that there can be no future problems in the ongoing debate I would like to quote from the memo dated September 20, 1967, from Mr. McMordie to Messrs. Chambers, Gross and Milligan, entitled "Columbia River Project's Cost Reallocation Studies." It reads:
"I wish to confirm that a meeting of the committee appointed by Dr. Keenleyside to study possible reallocation of Columbia project costs is to be held in my office on Monday, September 25, at 2 p.m. The assignment to this committee is described as follows:
"1. Mica and Arrow costs that could be attributed in whole or in part to other projects;
"2. Arrow costs that could be isolated and recommended to the government as area or regional development expenditures by the government itself."
I know I'm telling many Members nothing new in this House because they have been party to this information in the last several days. What I wish is that it be in the record of this House, in Hansard, and I make no bones about that.
Later on we have further documentation, some of which I would wish to quote, to establish beyond all doubt that a committee existed. I don't care whether you call it secret, confidential, sideways, up ways or any other way. A committee was set up and this is what the committee was trying to do. We can debate till Doomsday whether it was right, wrong, or what. But let's not obscure the fact that this committee existed, and we have documentation as to what this committee was discussing.
One of the other documents under the same title reads as follows:
"This paper discusses the pros and cons of allocating some of the capital costs of the Duncan, Arrow and Mica storage projects to other projects. Because the storage provided by these projects determines the output of at least all of the generating plants on the Columbia River main stem, there is a prima facie case for allocating some of the storage costs to those generating plants."
I continue with the next sentence, which is very interesting, I think:
"This argument could be widened to say that the storage costs should be allocated to the generating plants on the Columbia and Kootenay rivers or even to all the generating plants in the whole B.C. Hydro system."
They go on to say:
"It should be appreciated that if an allocation is made:
"a) the basis of allocation would be arbitrary;
"b) it would involve an allocation of the downstream power benefits attributable to the storage projects as well as an allocation to our generation plant outputs."
This is interesting also. Let's get the facts straight on this, Mr. Speaker.
"c) it would not save B.C. Hydro any money overall and would not affect B.C. Hydro's overall cost truly chargeable to generation.
"d) it would enable us to argue that the capital cost of, say, the Mica storage project is less than the actual storage cost by virtue of allocation of some of the costs to other plants.
"e) it would enable us to argue...."
I don't know who they are trying to argue with anyway, but:
"It would enable us to argue that the system cost of generation is lower than true cost by virtue of allocation of storage plant costs to future plants."
They go on to quote.... I think it's taking some time, but I think it's important that this be documented in this House, as an example only. It quotes:
"If we were to assume that the U.S. payments were deficient by, say, $180 million to meet the capital costs and, say, $12 million to meet the annual costs of Duncan, Arrow and Mica, then this deficiency would be chargeable in some proportion against each project. We have already announced, however, that we will have spent over $500 million on these projects by March 31, 1972, and the general public could not reconcile this figure with a figure of $180 million."
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it's very, important that before anybody goes on a witch hunt, or before any varying interpretations are made on this whole matter of this Hydro committee, I want to make it very plain from our party in this House that we believe that a committee existed for the specific purpose which is clearly spelled out in the particular memos that I have quoted from.
The fact is very simple: that some measure of deception or misrepresentation of financial facts was being discussed. Indeed, the sole purpose of the committee was to consider the feasibility of rearranging certain financial facts or, as the minutes state in a euphemistic way, "reallocation of costs."
The matter went further. I have a brief quote from the minutes of the meeting of October 6, 1967:
"The committee discussed whether consideration should be given to allocation of only the deficit or of the total cost of the Columbia projects. The committee agreed that only the deficit should be considered."
Mr. Speaker, when this matter was first raised publicly I made a reaction publicly. While I still believe that there is great reason for people to wonder
[ Page 138 ]
as to many of the unanswered questions, I do regret that I used the word "Watergate" in my public response to the information I had at that time. I retract the particular nature of the meaning of the word "Watergate," which was a criminal act, and many criminal acts. For the fact that I implied the same degree of wrongdoing on this committee, I publicly apologize to this House and I apologize to Dr. Keenleyside.
Beyond that, however, the facts exist — and I have documented them in the House this afternoon — that there are more unanswered questions than there are answered questions.
Because all the documents that have, to this date, been presented deal only specifically with the committee. I would like to know at least the answer to at least three questions.
First of all, was the...?
MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. Would the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) please be seated? He is between the speaker and the Chair.
MR. WALLACE: I would like to know what happened to the recommendations when they left this committee. I would like to know specifically if Dr. Keenleyside took these recommendations to the government, and if he didn't take them to the government, who did?
The third question I want answered is: what did the government do when presented with this whole subject which was the basic agenda of this committee? It has been stated by Dr. Keenleyside that he had the greatest difficulty selling the idea to the government. But with respect, I have to say that he did not specifically make it clear whether, in fact, all or part of the proposals were sold to the government.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of all these unanswered questions, I do believe that we in this House and the people of British Columbia are entitled to have the answers. I would strongly support the proposal already made by other Members in this House that we have a judicial inquiry which should have access to all the documents already available, plus all the others considered necessary.
I regret that we have taken up this much time in my speech on that subject, but I do believe that it's important enough that we can't leave all the unanswered questions hanging in mid air.
I just want to touch very briefly on some of the points on which confusion reigns in the minds of voters in this province, who are often asking what is really the difference between the political parties in British Columbia. I think it might be timely, very briefly, to spell out where the Conservatives stand in 1975 to allow the voters to judge our goals and our principles.
Conservatives traditionally have emphasized the concept of order — I don't just mean law and order; I mean order in society — and we would like to expand it to give it a contemporary meaning. The contemporary meaning of order must include some concept of security for people less fortunate than the majority. Although, in days gone by, I will accept that perhaps some of our efforts and programmes have been less than adequate in that regard, the Progressive Conservative Party in British Columbia stands firm and resolute to provide the maximum degree of security for the disadvantaged, the poor, the sick, and any handicapped individual unable to provide for his or her own needs.
One of the basic subjects on which we argue with the other side of the House resolves around the word "enterprise." Conservatives emphasize the importance of enterprise in order to achieve any of our economic and social goals. Mr. Speaker, once and for all I hope I can get this point across: Conservative in our modern society, and certainly in British Columbia, feels that there must be much more to life than simply increasing the size of the gross national product. We recognize the importance of a healthy economy, but increasing the size of the gross national product is not in itself a sufficient goal in our modern society in the '70s. We Conservatives are indeed concerned about the effects of economic growth — what this does to the environment, the kind of living conditions it creates, and its effect on the countryside and our cities.
Again, I try to make the point very clear that the Progressive Conservative Party in British Columbia does not enshrine private enterprise as the most fundamental principle of the party: nor do we condemn all government interference. The Conservative approach is for government to interfere only where necessary to achieve social and national objectives. We certainly believe in incentives rather than the big stick. It has always been, and remains, important to Conservatives to encourage individual self-reliance. Certainly government red tape and regulation, in our opinion, have gone too far.
Self-reliance and enterprise must always be encouraged, but I am sure the government opposite will be pleased to hear me make the commitment, and I will stand behind it, that our party does not place private enterprise in a central position around which everything else revolves. We recognize the responsibility of government to restrain or influence individual action where this is not in the interests of society, and whether a government should or should not intervene, of course, is always a question of judgment. The Conservative thinking in this province today recognizes the role of government as the regulator of individual conduct in the interests of society.
[ Page 139 ]
These are some of the basic points, Mr. Speaker, which I think it timely to spell out for this House, and I would just close by saying (and we'll have more to say of this in the budget speech) that this province wants neither the economic and social imprisonment by a radical left, nor the wholesale, wide open economic licence or the repressive social neglect of the reactionary right.
There is a progressive majority of people in this province who will no longer wish to be governed by extremes. Our political party regards the individual people of this province as being the root and soul and the cause for us to be here in this House, and I am not referring, Mr. Speaker, to all the flim-flam of politics which we are compelled to indulge in, the writing of the slogans, or the selective spouting off on issues which merely give us political yards on a short-run basis. These are the kinds of manipulative activities of politics that the electorate, rightly, does not trust.
We feel that the NDP manifesto and reactions in combination with some of the outbursts of its members are destructive to good, sound business, and, being destructive to the business interests, they are destructive to the real welfare of every citizen in the province. The other extreme is the Socreds, who are fervently committed to a policy which is good for business. The question is, Mr. Speaker: how good, and for whose business?
The nature of the human appeal that a political party makes expresses its opinion of the individual citizen electorate whose support it is attempting to attract, and the fundamental issue in every election is not just whether the public has confidence in the individual. There are too many appeals to uncertainty, deprivation, the fear of loss, and to a shaking of self-confidence, let alone to greed. These are appeals, Mr. Speaker, to the dark side of human nature from which individuals and societies have consistently struggled to escape.
An appeal to the negative emotions of human nature is the worse disservice that any political party can make because it diminishes a people's sense of values, its positive spirit and its concept of self-worth.
This is a positive province, Mr. Speaker, a province of economic and social and human possibilities, uniquely blessed. It is a province whose inner, deeper instincts, when encouraged to be expressed, are basically decent, creative and good.
HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I've listened to a few throne speech debates since I first came here in 1967, and I'm reminded that we tend, I suppose in this House, perhaps above all other Houses, to feed on each other and use the speeches of yesteryear to justify the actions or omissions of today.
I could read a speech today from any one of the people who used to sit around here which would demolish the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), using the same criteria his father did, the same indices his father used to talk about from this seat over here.
I listened to the speakers, or many of them, from the opposite side who have painted a picture of despair in this province. Yet, you know, they all applauded when the government of the day, which most of them belonged to, used to talk about job production, cheques cashed at the bank in a year, balanced budgets and all that kind of thing.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that by those simple criteria this government over the last two years has done a better job than ever the preceding government did. Certainly, as I look around and I see the job production, the improvement in labour peace and labour standards over the last two years, the better organization and control and production of our forests, the new legislation — I really feel somewhat depressed in a way that the business of exchanging newspaper clippings over the years, if not the decades, is still carried on by the Leader of the Opposition and some of the Liberal Members.
We made some promises over the last two years, and we've kept most of those promises upon which we've started work. ICBC — not mentioned much up to now in this session, not mentioned much. The fact of the matter is that the financial statements will be tabled with you shortly; we're still on-target; we're still only spending from 18 to 20 cents of the premium on administration — a better figure than anywhere else in North America. It was a promise we made, I remember the numerous speeches made, into the small hours of the morning sometimes, by the Minister of Public Works about what could be achieved in that particular area of saving money for the consumers and the motorists of this province.
Participation: we made many promises about participation. Surely nobody will deny that this last two years has afforded the public of this province a greater chance, a greater opportunity, a greater guarantee to become active, to participate in the business of running this province and putting B.C. back on the map where it should have been for many, many years.
Mr. Speaker, we talk about democracy. Never, ever, in the history of the parliaments of this country have so many changes been made in the democratic process to the ultimate benefit of the populace than you've seen in the last two years in this place. So when I hear some of the despair, I really think that it's somewhat hollow and it's just another one of those mirror images of exchanging one newspaper clipper for another — one guy's file for another gal's file.
But you know, I want to speak for a moment or
[ Page 140 ]
two today about how I feel and sit here and appreciate and realize what's going on, as the MLA for Surrey.
Surrey, for the years that I have represented it — 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 in opposition — was a riding that was growing very quickly and continues to grow. It was a riding that I charted on the various debates in this House as being a riding with a great many problems.
If we examine our institutions, if we examine our problem areas, we find that as a school district or as a municipality Surrey was frequently on the top of the per capita list in terms of producing those problems.
Six years I charted in this House government neglect of that growing riding. Whether it was the non-expenditure of funds on flood control and the charade of putting $5 million in the budget year after year for controlling the flooding areas in the southern part of my riding and never spending a penny; whether it was the highway neglect; whether it was the interminable arguments about who pays for level-crossing signalization on the Crown corporation railroads; whether it was the incredible neglect on our caseload figures in social welfare where we unfortunately suffered the highest per capita ratings than anywhere else in the province — I've charted those figures, but the last two years have seen a lot of change — whether you are talking about recreational facilities; whether you are talking about help in sewage treatment; whether you are talking about the signalization of level crossings — and it is going ahead, Mr. Member, although you obviously don't know about it....
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): They don't even know how much they are going to have to pay for it.
HON. MR. HALL: We're going ahead with it and we are saving lives, Mr. Member; that's what we're doing. We believe in getting the job done and arguing later. That's what we're doing. We've got the best formula in this country for paying for those costs, and it will be better.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about the recreational facilities alone in Surrey. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in the last two years to bring that riding up to par in terms of its recreational facilities.
As far as cultural activity is concerned, only just recently many arts councils and community groups in Surrey received assistance from this government at a level that was never received before.
I remember getting letters from the municipal council and reading them in this chamber about the lack of help for that burgeoning municipality.
MR. McCLELLAND: You don't read them now.
HON. MR. HALL: We don't need to because, as a matter of fact, we are doing the job, Mr. Member — and I don't hear you reading them either.
Just the other day $900,000 was granted to Surrey for the sewage facilities assistance Act. Railroad crossing signals: $88,000 has been spent signalizing the three main dangerous crossings in the riding.
MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Ernie, is this an election speech?
HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Member, you must make up your own mind about these debates as to whether you start knocking on doors or not. (Laughter.)
Interjections.
HON. MR. HALL: We're working diligently in the ridings, Mr. Member. I've told some of my friends in Point Grey that now is as good a chance as any to stop the spread of Liberalism and waterfront privilege over there.
HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): There are danger signals in Point Grey.
HON. MR. HALL: Whether we are talking about farm assistance programmes, whether we are talking about the construction of rest areas, for the first time since I've been a Member of this House, Surrey is getting its fair share.
I want to say this too: while all isn't being done that I would like to see done, I think that the records of my colleagues in Human Resources, in Labour, in Forests and Agriculture speak well. I certainly know, having had a full-time office there since 1966, what happens in Surrey and what the complaints are. I can assure you that anybody who feels at all moved to think there is some substance in that despair, in that litany of problems that came from the other side, take my assurances on it: things are looking well south of the river there.
But I want to turn, if I may, to one of the portfolios I have and expand a little bit on some mention in the throne speech of a few items that are my direct concern.
I want first of all to talk about this year and the mention in the throne speech of it being International Women's Year. Our government is committed to the role of real equality in every aspect of life for all citizens of British Columbia. However, we do recognize that there are particular and serious problems faced by women. Accordingly, we have a long-range commitment for assisting women in British Columbia to overcome the various forms if discrimination they face.
We as a government therefore view International Women's Year not as an isolated acknowledgement of
[ Page 141 ]
the problems but as an opportunity to begin to focus on this important area of government responsibility. We have had a number of programmes in existence for a little while; we have more planned which will make some substantial progress this year. It is a fact that the status of women in our province, as in many other areas of life and in many other areas of the country, has been neglected. We are beginning to attack the vast number of difficult problems in a careful, rational and planned manner, and it is one of our priorities.
One of the first things we have done, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is to appoint Ms. Gene Errington as the co-coordinator for International Women's Year. Ms. Errington's first responsibility is to co-ordinate the programmes contributing to improvements in the status of women in British Columbia which are already underway and, more importantly, to work with departments to develop additional programmes to meet the needs that women themselves have identified throughout the province and have expressed to this government in meetings and in consultations.
One of these commitments is the need for full implementation of equal employment opportunities within the Public Service Commission to ensure that government jobs will be available equally to all members of society.
In the area of possible legislative changes: the Department of Labour is reviewing its labour standards legislation; the Attorney-General's department is reviewing all the statutes to search out discriminatory clauses; the cabinet will be considering the recommendation of the royal commission on family and children's law, especially those recommendations concerning matrimonial property, maintenance and the family court.
We're working, Mr. Speaker, to give incentives to the creation of community programmes which will provide an effective long-term improvement in the status of women. The second responsibility of the co-coordinator, Gene Errington, is to work closely with the appropriate community groups throughout the province to obtain for the government a clear understanding of the areas of public concern with respect to the needs of women, to assist the community groups in the development of their own programmes and to assist in the co-ordination of community and government programmes. While carrying out that responsibility, the staff will, through other members of my staff, communicate to the cabinet the concerns and proposals that I mention.
The budget, Mr. Speaker, that we have for the remainder of the year, and hopefully will have from Friday next, will allow for the provision of financial assistance to community groups that carry out worthwhile projects. Emphasis will be on communities outside the lower mainland where facilities, services and information are not so readily available.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the programme is good, is well based. Our government is committed to attaining that real-equality goal in every aspect of life. Our Human Rights Code is the strongest in Canada in prohibiting discrimination. We recognize that women face some serious and specific problems; we're making commitments to take that positive action to overcome the various past forms of discrimination. We view this year as an opportunity to begin to focus on the area of responsibility of this government.
Mr. Speaker, we don't see it as a magic formula for the solution of all the problems, and we don't suggest that our various programmes that will take place this year will represent the sum total of all our efforts to improve the status of women. But we do expect to make substantial progress in the area, so we can achieve a state of affairs to which all British Columbians can be proud.
Another appointment recently, Mr. Speaker, made in my department deals with the area of cultural development. I've not had an opportunity during the past two years to acquaint the House with some of the changes, some of the moves that we're making in this government and in my department as far as this important topic is concerned. I want to bring the House up to date, if I may, by telling them that about a year and a half ago, recognizing a backlog of frustration, recognizing some problems that existed in the cultural community and recognizing a very real upsurge in the interest and enthusiasm of the artistic community in B.C., we did, through the old Cultural Fund, sponsor a two-day conference in Burnaby. That conference was named "Arts Access." The purpose of "Arts Access" was to bring together representatives of the province's artistic community and listen to their aspirations, their hopes, their criticisms, their problems and their proposals for changes in this very important field. We asked for written submissions from concerned organizations and individuals, and scores of briefs were received.
Four major areas of concern were identified just 18 months ago. One was funding of a new arts policy for the province and changes in the methods of distribution of grants. Another area of concern was the status and social conditions of individual artists. A third area was the real concern about arts education. The fourth was: what is the responsibility of the government, and what is the responsibility of the artist to the cultural environment?
Over 1,000 people came to that conference, from all areas of the province — the Peace River, the Okanagan, the northern end of the Island, all over. The free exchange of ideas was evident.
The conference resulted in six basic recommendations:
[ Page 142 ]
We then started to examine those proposals with a view to implementing, where possible, the various resolutions. I should point out that apart from the six basic resolutions there were another 100 detailed proposals. The Cultural Fund provided continuing assistance to the conference people in order to help maintain its operations.
Following that discussion I released, in April, 1974, a paper entitled "Access to the Arts." That paper was distributed widely throughout the province to stimulate discussion and to get people involved. The guidelines were set out to provide access, to involve artists, to eliminate disparities regionally, to create employment opportunities, to support the arts in education, to disseminate information, to distribute grants and to supply sufficient funding to implement the policy.
The most far-reaching proposal that we adopted was that of establishing a regional arts panel which would have the responsibility of providing the services. We then hired somebody to go out and get even more feedback, more concern, more involvement in the community. Then we produced another position paper which, in effect, brought together all the various ideas that flowed from the activities of the previous year.
As a result of those travels and those discussions, we decided, as a government, to go ahead with our basis scheme. Mr. Speaker, in response to all those recommendations, we have appointed the various people and we have appointed an interim arts panel. We have just recently appointed Mr. Fielding as the director involved in the arts board. That board has met a number of times. It has reviewed over 180 applications. It has arranged a number of meetings representing the publishing industry with groups seeking assistance for projects in film, TV, radio and areas which have not been funded or considered heretofore.
I am proud of what we have done in the cultural field. I have had the opportunity over the last two years to meet with other Ministers from other jurisdictions. They have watched what we are doing with a great deal of interest. Some of them fund at a higher level than we do — for instance, Ontario. Some of them have rigid formulas. Mr. Speaker, none of them have the two-way guaranteed access and input that we have put down firmly in a policy form.
Mr. Speaker, the Cultural Fund's endowment was increased from $15 million to $20 million by the budget of last year, increasing the interest generated by the fund by $350,000. Currently the fund generates over $1.5 million interest.
We are also committed to provide a share of our lottery receipts to cultural programmes, and the amounts will be provided from that fund.
Mr. Speaker, I want to report with a great deal of satisfaction that significant changes in our policy have taken place in the last two and one-half years. I believe our accomplishments in this regard have shown that we are moving steadily towards a more comprehensive and people-oriented policy and that the years ahead will truly bear out our promise of providing access to the arts.
I mentioned in terms of funding, Mr. Speaker, that item of the lottery. Many Members will know that we passed, I think almost unanimously — maybe with a couple of dissenters — legislation a year ago. Our first lottery has been held. We have received a net profit in that first draw of $650,000 in B.C. The money will be put in a special fund and will be used to assist recreation and culture in the province.
I should report to you, although a formal report will be tabled in the House, that ticket sales on that first lottery amounted to over $1.5 million. More important than, or equally important as, the $650,000 that accrued to the government was the fact that 450 non-profit agencies throughout the province earned $340,000 for their own good works. Commission to ticket sellers — and I understand just by talking to people and receiving reports that a large number of ticket sellers also turn over their commissions to the non-profit societies that they are working for and are members of — amounted to a further $315,000.
Mr. Speaker, I think that's been a success story. I am committed, as you know, and the House has committed the government, to specific uses of that money and I assure you that will be done.
Mr. Speaker, there is also, I am sure, in most Members' minds some concern as from time to time they read in the newspapers about what is happening in terms of our weights and measures in this province and in this country. We did a year ago pass the enabling legislation to get into metrication. I think it's time I just shared with you a few thoughts and a few reports on what's happening with that particular project because as the public become more and more aware, our Members will become more and more inundated with requests for information, opinions, and maybe some negative criticism.
[ Page 143 ]
MR. WALLACE: How much will it cost?
HON. MR. HALL: That's so beautifully answered in the traditional way, Mr. Member, by saying that that at the moment is a federal responsibility.
British Columbia is giving full support to the federal government programme on metrication announced in the White Paper of 1970 and the metric commission created by order-in-council in 1971.
It's generally agreed by governments in the country, Mr. Speaker, that adoption of a universally understood world-wide measurement language is important. The federal metric commission was established to do that job and to set into operation the System International, the SI Metric System. Under its terms of reference, benefits ought to be achieved at minimal cost if conversion is to be to Canada's best advantage.
The metric commission is to be responsible for furnishing information and liaising with the province. It is also responsible for advising on the need for legislation and so on and so forth. The question we are most often asked is: why we are converting? That is the question which I think is going to be asked more and more. As MLAs are in touch with ridings, I'm sure most of you will realize there is an increased awareness of this.
We are converting to the metric system because of economic necessity. Remember that some 95 per cent of the world's population live in countries either converted to or in the process of converting to metric. In the field of trade and commerce, 80 per cent of the world trade is in the metric system. Many Canadian companies are already exporting in metric to Europe, South America, Asia and Africa. More than 50 per cent of Canadian manufactured products are exported to metric companies.
So there is an urgent need for us to convert, particularly true in British Columbia. Located as we are, we must maintain our position as one of the major trading provinces in Canada, and expand our secondary industries. We must be able to supply goods in the manner in which they are required.
In short, the consumer is always right when you're a trading nation, and most of them have converted to or changing to metric — the U.K., South Africa, India, Australia and so on. Changing to the international system, as agreed to by the general conference, will help meet those problems.
I think you should know the progress which has been achieved already. Mr. Speaker, we're well ahead of timetable in investigating and planning the conversion. The target dates have been approved. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the planning and schedule of conversion by departments, industries or interest groups should be substantially completed during 1976. Implementation has already been started in some departments and will build up to a peak in 1977-78.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, many of our expressions in this House will have to be changed, I am sure, if we get totally metric. I am sure that the support which was given to the enabling legislation will be continued on all sides of the House.
The national target dates are similar to those I've mentioned: after April 1 we will be hearing weather temperatures only in Celsius; in September, rainfall will be reported in millimeters; snowfall, whenever it comes, will be in centimeters. In April the residents of our province will start reading road signs, placed in selected areas, to indicate distances in kilometers. During the month of September, 1977, speed signs and distance signs will be changed.
Progress has been made in introducing the system into schools of our province.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Will there be financial assistance?
HON. MR. HALL: Of course, this is being negotiated. Financial assistance is being negotiated and will have to be available.
[Mr. Liden in the chair.]
I think it would be wrong of me to finish this short report on metric without mentioning our biggest trading partner, the States, because I think many of you know that politicians both in this House and in the federal House have said a lot will depend upon what the States does, and if the States doesn't go ahead it will mean a great deal of difficulty for us.
In the United States, the large multinational companies such as General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, IBM, 3M, International Harvester and so on moving on their own without the benefit of federal law. An American national council, financed by membership subscription, is being formed. It is a mirror image of our own commission. American representatives do attend the meetings of our federal group, and the same close cooperation that exists between those meetings also exists between the Standards Council of Canada and the various American standards associations.
Although the 93rd Congress of the United States did not pass the metric conversion Act which was on their order for the day, it is likely that the 94th Congress will do so. Irrespective of legislative commitment to the metric conversion, the U.S. government, as a matter of policy, is continuing to look at conversion as a growing and desirable fact, and had recently allocated $40 million, be amendment to the Education Act for the promotion
[ Page 144 ]
of the System International Metric System in the school system. The Act authorized $10 million to be spent last year for metric education.
The Department of the Provincial Secretary and the conversion committee here recognize our responsibilities in ensuring the metric conversion as an economical and orderly process, with everybody kept up to date and prepared for the changes. A responsible awareness programme will be required. The consumer must be protected. All the departments mentioned are serving and cooperating in this process.
Mr. Speaker, the process of conversion is that the countries presently converted are being metered by our own people, and I can assure you that we should have a very successful programme.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are left to me, I want to discuss in general form one subject that has been referred to not directly in the House but in comments by some Members outside the House, by some industrial people and by some municipal people. I'm talking about what has happened in the public service in terms of wages, working conditions and others. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) had a question the other day.
I want to preface my remarks by saying that I intend to adhere to the agreement I have with the unions involved not to release the details of settlements until all negotiations are complete. I want to give you the position of our government and answer some of the criticisms that have been made in ignorance, I thank — in mischief by other people — over these last four or five months.
During the 10 years prior to 1973, wage rates in the civil service, now called the public service, were not increased to the same extent as wages determined by free collective bargaining. That is a matter of fact. The result has been that the public service employees, particularly the lower paid, have fallen further and further behind their counterparts outside the public service of the Province of British Columbia. They have fallen behind by comparison with the public service in the municipalities of British Columbia; they have fallen behind by comparison with the federal government employees within the Province of British Columbia.
In 1973, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission went through a quasi-negotiating system and we awarded — and I use that word in its bad, old, paternalistic way — an amount of money because the legislation on free collective bargaining was not law. It had not been passed.
Since then, the Government of British Columbia has now concluded a series of negotiations but has not completed all the negotiations required with a number of components of the public service, as requested by the B.C. Government Employees Union.
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Why can't you release those?
HON. MR. HALL: They're not all complete — the hospital and allied services component, the correctional services component, and so on.
Most features of these agreements vary according to the particular problems, the services and the working people involved, as was shown and laid down in both the Higgins report and the legislation. But some elements are common and some are of considerable public interest.
Upon assuming office in September, 1972, we discovered to our dismay that many people providing essential public services were paid little more than the minimum wage. For example, a forest assistant received the princely sum of $430 a month. A clerk or switchboard operator received $332 a month. September, 1973 — $332 a month. A senior janitor with many years service received $500.
In 1973 an attempt was made to alleviate that condition by providing what is called in labour-management negotiations — in the "language" of negotiations — bottom-end loading, so that the lower-paid workers received higher percentage increases and more of the available money.
Even though we did that to the best of our ability in a difficult situation by this quasi-negotiation, still the lower-paid employees were paid little more than the minimum wage. Even in 1973, after a settlement that some people call generous, some people call inflationary, some people call destructive, some full-time employees of this government qualify — actually qualify — for the drug subsidy programme...
MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame!
HON. MR. HALL: ...an ill-conceived, badly-devised system by the previous government to provide assistance to those who could not afford to buy medically required drugs.
We have people carrying out our own orders, Mr. Speaker, who qualify for that kind of programme. They were...
MR. LEWIS: Progressive Social Credit government.
HON. MR. HALL: ...the hidden faces on the former government's payroll, examples of what has come to be known as the working poor. And to think that we were boasting about billion-dollar budgets, wealthy provinces, no debt, contingent liabilities or whatever it was. All those speeches — you remember. And we had people who were classed by any independent survey as the working poor carrying out our instructions.
All of us believe that the citizens of this province will share the indignation over the fact that a wealthy
[ Page 145 ]
province subsidized its programmes by imposing low wages on its employees. We're sure that the citizens of this province will agree that it's morally indefensible for a wealthy province to pay its public employees poverty wages. It's impossible for the government to continue to provide essential services without being able to recruit dedicated, capable people at all levels of the service.
Interjection.
MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Were you Minister of Labour then?
HON. MR. HALL: The government was experiencing critical staff shortages, particularly in government hospitals. We believe it's essential that these services be maintained and improved.
Those of us who had to wrestle with the problems of ICBC, those of us who know something about Hydro, those of us who know something about the commissions outside the narrow ambit of government know that the public service of British Columbia for years and years has simply been a training ground for private and other public employers. Essential staff at all levels have been lost.
I know the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), in his concern about payment of accounts, will realize that that was part of the problem. As soon as you trained an operator to process the various pieces of information, he or she was gone the first time ICBC, the City of Victoria or a large company was looking for somebody to employ.
We therefore take as a basic principle the device of bottom-end loading. We certainly urge all employers and trade unions to do likewise in following this example of social responsibility to those who are not in a strong bargaining position.
I want to finish by quoting somebody...
Interjection.
HON. MR. HALL: The railroad got a catchup settlement in 1974 that people more qualified than I can refer to. I think you know about that, Mr. ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm making about society and those who work for it was made very clearly by Pope John XXIII in his 1961 encyclical letter on Christianity and social progress, when he said:
"The norms of justice and equity should be strictly observed. This requires that workers received a wage sufficient to lead a life worthy of man and to fulfil family responsibilities properly."
That's been our keynote; that will continue to be the posture and the position of the government, the public service commission and the Treasury Board.
When we're talking about those norms of justice and equity, might I refer you to my earlier remarks by saying that, in my view, after being an observer of this House for many years before I was elected, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, as we stand facing the third budget day in a few days and the end of this debate in a couple of days, that people, activity, justice, fairness and openness in British Columbia have never been in better shape than in 1975 now.
MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I'm very, very pleased to be able to participate in this debate and to follow right on the heels of the Hon. Provincial Secretary. I was pleased to hear what he had to say about the plans that the cabinet and the government are preparing to institute in relation to women in this International Women's Year of 1975. I intend to confine my remarks to International Women's Year.
As you know, the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in 1967 culminated its deliberations in the effort towards a declaration against discrimination towards women. After that, Canada held its own commission under the chairmanship of Mrs. Florence Bird, and each of the provinces set up their own status of women council.
In the intervening years, it's amazing. A remarkable change took place in public attitude to women, showing a rapid change in our social structure. But it really isn't quite as rapid as the public is prepared to accept. A great deal has to be done in the next few years.
I'm sure that every woman in this province is very, very elated that this has been declared International Women's Year, and as many as possible will probably participate in the seminars and events that will take place. But let me say that I don't think that seminars and other events of that kind are sufficient unless we have some way of changing attitudes and certain types of legislation.
I know that this is a federal matter on which I am going to speak right now, but it was about 15 or 20 years ago that divorces in some of the provinces still had to be passed by the House of Commons. It was through long filibusters in the House of Commons that that was finally changed so that it was taken out of the House of Commons committees and put into the courts.
One reason for that was because of our Christian religion. The three things that probably hold back change more than anything else are religion, our cultural background and our general educational system.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 146 ]
Today divorce laws are much more relaxed. As a matter of fact, some divorces which are uncontested have become so easily attainable that they can be had without the use of a lawyer. I think that is a great step forward.
Mr. Speaker, in relation to abortion: we now have laws making abortion available, but this legislation is still so stringent that it is very difficult for women, particularly those in low-income categories, to be able to avail themselves of it through legal channels. In a recent poll taken in one of the federal ridings, that of Comox-Alberni, it was revealed that there is a strong desire to relax abortion laws.
But much more has to be done by way of family-life education. I think that has to be accepted by the home, by the school and by the general community. It's very difficult to put in family-life education if the parents in the community are against it, so the parents must first be educated to that before you can start in educating the children. Unless that is done, we're going to have a constantly increasing rate of illegal abortions which will not be slowed down under other circumstances. For this reason I suggest, as many others have done before me, that abortion must be removed from the Criminal Code.
I'm sure that no woman really desires to go through the trauma of an abortion. Many younger women really have to thank people like Dr. Morgenthaler for bringing this subject into its proper context with the public. In a good Churchillian phrase, never have so many women owed so much to one doctor.
Now I know these are federal matters, but there is also discrimination in relation to provincial matters. One of the things that is still a problem is the fact that our whole system is still inclined to be patriarchal. Women's attitudes, as well as men's attitudes, have to change if we're going to progress more rapidly.
We have to give up the attitude that men are more capable than women. That doesn't mean that women wish to take over the country, but we do want to share in running it. We do want to share in a say as to what is to be done in relation to family living and in relation to what women's place is in society.
[Mr. Dent in the chair.]
I would like to think that every educated man is just as anxious as women to give women their rightful place in society as equals. Most intelligent men, Mr. Speaker, would prefer to have for a marriage partner a woman who is as well educated as themselves.
Florence Bird, chairman of the National Commission on the Status of Women, said that World War I gave women their political freedom and World War II gave them their economic freedom. During both these wars they were drawn into the labour force to be able to free men so that they could enter the armed services. But I would like to say that it was only the introduction of these freedoms, because women were expected to return to the kitchen as soon as war was over.
Due to the commitment of women to the war effort in World War I there also arose the suffragist movement, and an impetus was created by the early socialists, so women were finally enfranchised on the Prairies in 1916, in British Columbia in 1917, and a little bit later than that in the eastern provinces. However, since women first got the vote only 21 women have been elected MLAs in British Columbia, and only three have become MPs. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that two of those three were elected just as recently as last summer.
For the past 10 years, Grace MacInnis has sat in the House of Commons as the first and only woman ever to be elected from British Columbia.
In the early days, the year after women got their vote in British Columbia, Mary Ellen Smith, a Liberal, was elected — in 1918. That was before the CCF was even born. Three years later she became a cabinet Minister, but without portfolio.
In the intervening years, only six women have held cabinet posts, but of these only three have had portfolios, and Nancy Hodges was the one and only women ever to become Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.
The women have fared a little bit better on the municipal level. They've become school trustees, they've become councilors, and some of them have become mayors.
It's interesting to note that in the Third World nations top positions by women have seemed to be more readily available than in other countries. You will note that India, Ceylon (which is now called Sri Lanka) and Israel have all had Prime Ministers who have been women for quite a number of years. Now we are elated with the results of the British leadership race in which Margaret Thatcher was elected on February 11 as the leader of the Conservative Party. We are looking forward also to the campaigns of Flora MacDonald, for the Conservatives in Canada, and Rosemary Brown, for the New Democratic Party, towards national leadership of their parties.
But let's go back to World War II and some of the economic implications. Following that war, many women, under the anti-discrimination clauses in their trade union Act, kept their jobs, and natural attrition had to take place before men could be hired in the positions those women held. Also, women who had been in he services had proved themselves capable as technicians, as mechanics and as administrators and had discovered these talents as very appealing to them. And, of course, there were many women who kept their jobs or returned to the labour market after
[ Page 147 ]
the war because they wanted to help their husbands through university, or to get them established in some business, or they wanted to have a second job because they found that because of the inflation immediately after World War II, where it had previously taken one job in a family to maintain that family, it now took two, if they wanted to remain at the same standard of living as before.There still is imbalance in some areas. Let me say that one of those areas is at the university level. Although more women may attend university today than ever before, I understand that the percentage of women attending university in relation to men is not much higher than it was in the 1920s and 1930s. Most of those who graduate are in arts, education and nursing. What about law? What about medicine, dentistry and commerce?
Here's a breakdown of the UBC faculties today at the undergraduate level — this is the 1975 breakdown. In medicine there are 246 men students and 75 women; law, 543 men, 147 women; dentistry, 134 men, 20 women; engineering, 846 men, 15 women; forestry, 296 men, 32 women; agriculture, 187 men, 149 women; commerce, 1,194 men and 176 women. This breakdown shows that in most faculties the proportion is about four males to one female student, and in some cases the disparity is as great as 10 to one.
Mind you, I don't think that the imbalance can entirely be blamed on the university. Part of it is due to women themselves who do not realize their own potential, their own worth or their ability in being able to aspire to work in those particular professions which have been more or less categorized as professions for men.
However, it's also true that they haven't been guided along these lines. Women will never, Mr. Speaker, have the same opportunities as men in business and in the professions unless they are guided during elementary and high school to aspire for a higher education along the lines where their best talents lie.
Let me say conversely that the same holds true for men. Many boys have been discouraged from taking music, art or nursing because those subjects weren't considered manly enough. Their parents wanted them to become doctors or lawyers or businessmen.
Let's look at the job market in the trade unions. The executive of the B.C. Federation of Labour last year suggested that they hoped at their next convention, or probably soon thereafter, that there wouldn't have to be a separate division for women. They are very conscious of the fact that women should have the same opportunity and the same status within the trade union movement as men.
John Fryer, the general-secretary of the B.C. Government Employees Union, had this to say in the January edition of their provincial newsletter:
"The cynics are already saying that International Women's Year will pass into history with nothing more than token advancement in the area of women's rights. My earnest hope is that the B.C. Government Employees Union will prove the cynics to be wrong by making genuine advances toward equality for women in 1975.
"Is the BCGEU responding to the needs and bargaining goals of its women members? How can the union encourage women to play more active roles in BCGEU affairs?
"It's disillusioning to observe that the trade union movement, traditionally in the vanguard of pressure for social change in many areas, has too often been on the sidelines in the struggle for women's rights. One of the reasons, but no excuse for this, is that many unions have a predominantly male membership. But the BCGEU, with 45 per cent of its members women, has no rationale at all for any more complacency on women's rights issues.
"There is more than social justice at stake in the pressure for full equality for women in the work place and in the BCGEU. As people who pay the same dues as men, women in our union are undeniably entitled to have their aspirations clearly reflected in the bargaining demands made by the union at the negotiating table, and their dues entitle them to take their place at all levels of leadership in their union.
"It is going to take more than pompous resolutions to make equality for women a reality in the BCGEU. There will also have to be changes in discriminatory attitudes held by both men and women, and often traceable to childhood."
Now let us have a look at the professions. How are women actually faring in the professions? European countries seem to be far ahead of us. Statistics Canada for 1971 — that's our latest complete report — shows that in Britain about 25 per cent of the doctors were women; in Canada, only 12 per cent.
In 1969 in France, 20 per cent of the lawyers were women; in Canada only 8.7 per cent of the undergraduate enrolment were women. That was a great improvement over what had happened formerly. In France, 21.9 per cent of the dentists were women, but as late as 1970 only 3 per cent of Canadian dentists were women.
In 1962, 48.2 per cent of French pharmacists were women; in Canada, Mr. Speaker, only 13.3 per cent. I believe we have a lot of catching up to do.
Here's a report from the British Columbia Teachers Federation newsletter for May, 1974. Believe me, again, some astounding statistics. These figures are based on a questionnaire sent out by the B.C. School Trustees Association and the BCTF to all
[ Page 148 ]
school boards in the province. The school districts which replied numbered 72.Although there are over 12,000 female elementary teachers compared to 10,916 male elementary teachers, including administrators, there are only 219 female principals compared to 1,027 male principals in the elementary schools of this province. There are seven female vice-principals compared to 85 male vice-principals; 58 co-coordinators, or assistants to principals, compared to 110 male assistants.
As early as the 1920s and 1930s, Winnipeg had female principals and vice-principals throughout their elementary school system. I won't say that they were all female, but they certainly existed in a fairly equitable ration with males. In the secondary schools, there are 286 male principals and no female principals. There are 288 male vice-principals and only five female vice-principals. There are 905 male department heads and only 163 are female.
It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that this questionnaire reveals is that of teachers who applied for any administrative post in 1972-3, 1,730 were males and only 155 were females. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that women are not aspiring for these positions because in the past those types of jobs were not open to them. I hope that during the next year, during the next two years, or during the next five years, women will take courage into their hands and apply for these jobs and demand that they get equal opportunity with men if their capabilities are such that they can handle the position.
The United Nations bulletin for January and February, 1975, in its first paragraph states: "There's a growing awareness of governments that a healthy, modern society cannot afford the waste of human resources exacted by discrimination on the grounds of sex."
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the media. In Weekend Magazine, February 1, 1975, there are some very interesting statistics concerning CBC in relation to the status of women in the media. I'd like to give you one or two short quotes from it. The first one is: "Though women form 25 per cent of the CBC staff, they represent only 7.5 per cent of management." Further on in the article it says: "Two-thirds of the female staff are stuck in secretarial or clerical pigeonholes with little hope of rising to a higher level." In another area, they said: "In senior management there are 800 men and only nine women." I suggest that, in all probability, the ratio of the other radio and television stations is not much better.
Mr. Speaker, I think that women everywhere — certainly across British Columbia, and probably across Canada — hailed the appointment of Dr. Pauline Jewett to the presidency of Simon Fraser University and also the election of Shirley Carr of Niagara Falls to a top, full-time position with the Canadian Labour Congress. In British Columbia now we have our first female provincial court judge and our first female federal court judge. These appointments are hopeful signs that the winds of change are sweeping across this land in education, in the trades and in justice. We hope these are not merely token appointments.
Mr. Speaker, as late as World War II, parents were still imbued with the myth that higher education would unfit their daughters for marriage and motherhood, but nothing could be further from the truth. Let us hope that this myth is finally being dispelled. I would suggest that today's woman should have all the education she can possibly absorb, realizing that education is a lifelong process. This will not only make her a more interesting and self-reliant person, but will also give her a better opportunity to bring up healthier, happier children, and make her own life more fulfilling.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that post-secondary education be more easily available to women, whether married or single, in the low-income brackets so that they can become as independent as men in relation to caring for themselves and for their children.
There's no reason, Mr. Speaker, why a female, single, head of a family must not have the opportunity to earn just as adequate an income as a man under the similar circumstances. But today this is still not true. There are many female heads of families, whether income earners or on social assistance, who find themselves near or below poverty level. It's a case of opportunity and choice. Once again, as I say, this type of discrimination can take place in reverse.
For instance, during the past two years I think you have all probably seen on television the dramatic stories of two widowers in two divergent regions of Canada who had a great difficulty in getting acceptance of their applications for welfare so they could stay at home to look after their children. It's about time we made our laws more flexible, both for men and for women.
Mr. Speaker, I think special congratulations should go to our Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) for the efforts of his department to open more opportunities for women. I would like to say that in this case I am referring to the day-care programmes which have expanded tremendously in British Colombia in the last two years.
In that period of time we have increased our day-care programme so that there are now approximately 16,000 children in British Columbia in day care and probably half that many again in after-school care. The Human Resources department is working at it so rapidly and demands are so great that they can hardly keep up with getting enough by way of money to be able to pay for the programme,
[ Page 149 ]
yet it is very, very badly needed.This more than any other single factor has made it possible to free women to enter the working world, or to give them some respite from their daily care of children at home. As a preventive measure it may be responsible for reducing psychiatric problems of the mothers and incidences of battered babies.
During Women's Year I hope that women everywhere will make a conscious effort to try to improve their education and training. Mr. Speaker, women in their 30s and 40s have astonished themselves by finding out that they are really capable of adjusting to the discipline of study and continuing in a trade or a profession.
Last summer when pre-university courses were being offered for senior citizens, many in their 70s or 80s found that their capacity for learning had not decreased. Some of them are now continuing in regular winter programmes.
Mr. Speaker, let me turn to some other forms of discrimination against women. What about the single, female head of the family — a mother working to support herself and her children, as the case may be? Why should she find it so difficult getting a mortgage? One woman told me that she was required to get the signature of a man, either her husband, if she could locate him, or her father, for insurance up to 95 per cent of that mortgage. Is she less reliable than the man who probably deserted her and his children? I think the inference is clear, and it's quite insulting to woman.
Other forms of women's rights should also be investigated. Family property in the case of a divorce or of desertion should be considered just that, family property. Probably a new property rights Act should be put forward.
No divorced or deserted woman should have to suffer the pains of being left penniless; now should a man's superannuation be reduced or eliminated at his death unless he has been predeceased by his wife. The woman in the home, the mother, should have just as much right to that pension as the man. Just because she made her contribution through a supportive role as the wife does not mean that she has not contributed just as much as her husband has.
It has been proven over and over again, Mr. Speaker, that, generally, married men carry more responsibility than single men and that they very often live longer, too. This must be recognized by business and by those who work on superannuation benefits. I am happy to say that this has been taken into account in the public service in British Columbia, and that the Provincial Secretary has worked with continued effort on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the message is for everyone — for men and women alike. It should be one of cooperation and positive action rather than confrontation. More can be done through good will and understanding than by the adversary system. I personally deplore the adversary system which seems to be so popular today.
Men must begin to realize that women will no longer be labelled as second-class citizens; they must have equal opportunity. Similarly, women on their part must take a much more positive action in regard to their own worth and capabilities.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) for their initiative in producing the equal employment opportunities programme that Mr. Hall spoke about just a few minutes ago. In a bulletin that was passed to us, the Provincial Secretary said,
"The provincial government is the largest employer in British Columbia. We have an obligation to set a good example in our employment practices."
He mentioned the fact that Ms. Gene Errington is going to be a co-coordinator between the government departments. She will be able to pick out areas where there are possible signs of discrimination so that that can be offset.
The Minister of Labour, Mr. King, stated:
"In order to correct the inequities of the past, we must take affirmative action to restore or otherwise create the conditions of equal employment. That means encouraging government departments to hire women, native Indians, handicapped persons and other groups for a variety of jobs while ensuring, of course, that all applicants are suitably qualified."
Pauline Jewett, too, in her inaugural address at Simon Fraser University, commits herself to programmes of women's studies and to actively search out Canadians, particularly women, for appointments. She also adjured businessmen to open their gates to qualified businesswomen for top executive positions.
As I have already pointed out, Mr. Speaker, much of the anti-discrimination legislation is already there, but it must be more effectively administered and enforced. Business, the media, the professional institutions and the educators must all be prepared to accept women and men as equals and to make decisions in accordance with ability and training and not from the standpoint of sex if the International Women's Year is to be successful.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It is a pleasure to take my place in this throne speech debate. As I start, I would like to reflect very briefly upon the passing of our greatly respected and much admired senior Clerk of the House, Mr. Ned DeBeck. I think he was an inspiration to all of us who have spent some time in this House.
I can recall, as a greenhorn MLA in 1967, having
[ Page 150 ]
the opportunity to participate with other Members of the House in a round-table discussion out at Ned's home. He tried to bring into sharp focus the ideals and the reasons for the parliamentary process. All I can say is that if those of us in this House do not reflect on the advice that he gave us, then it is our own fault, because there was a man who had a great respect for parliament, for the traditions of parliament and what it was all about. Certainly the Province of British Columbia is sorrier for having lost him, but we will all remember him with kindness and with great affection.I have to now turn to what I would term the intemperate tirade that we were subjected to yesterday by the Premier of this province. I think that once again he has proven to all the Members of this House that when he rises on his feet to speak, quite often his statements are inaccurate and, in some cases, untrue. A tirade such as we experienced yesterday is not in the best parliamentary tradition; it makes a mockery of the parliamentary process; it is an insult to the Members of this assembly.
I intend to refer to some of the remarks delivered in this House by the Hon. Premier when he spoke in debate yesterday. So that I won't be accused of misquoting what he said, I'll read an excerpt from the Blues.
The Premier was speaking about the record of a previous administration, in this case the record of the government under Duff Pattullo, a Liberal government. He went on to say that it was a government that he respected and that it was a great success, one great socialist experiment that was a success, conducted by the Pattullo government. That was in the field of oil exploration in the Province of British Columbia. I'll read exactly what the Premier said from the Blues:
Duff Pattullo was the Liberal Premier of this province who had the guts to go ahead and try with some exploration for oil and gas in this province on his own.
Duff Pattullo should go down in this history of this province as one of the most fighting Premiers this province ever had...
I think that's where he should have stopped....one of the most fighting Premiers this province ever had when it came to understanding the importance of natural resources. He was 300 feet short from reaching the first oil well in this province and, God willing, if he had reached it, we would have had publicly owned oil and gas in this province under the Liberals in 1936 — in 1936 Duff Pattullo had the foresight....
Then there's an interjection, and the Premier comes back to someone and says:
Now we'll come back to your yapping in a minute, because we'll deal with how you gave away natural gas to Washington state.
Then there was an interjection from myself which said to the Premier: "Get your facts straight."
I think that's what we expect from the Hon. Premier and Members of this House when they speak in debate on the floor of this House. Get your facts straight, Mr. Premier, who stayed in this chamber for all of 30 seconds and then left. Get your facts straight.
What are the facts of the matter with respect to the socialist experiment by the Duff Pattullo government?
HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Where's your leader?
MR. SMITH: Duff Pattullo? We agree; a man greatly to be admired, a man who had great respect and great vision for the Province of British Columbia — but a man who, by his own admission, made a great and grave error when he became involved in the exploration for oil in the Province of British Columbia. But did he admit that at a time when he should have admitted it, when it was first brought to his attention on the floor of the House? No way. It just happened that the government of the day was in the middle of an election campaign and there was no way that they would bring to the attention of the public that they were squandering hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money.
Let's take a look at the record of the day and see what it has to say about this great socialist experiment in the field of petroleum production. Most of you may have heard of Commotion Creek at one time or another but, for those who haven't, it's in the Pine Pass area, east of the mountains of the Hart Highway.
Commotion Creek was the site chosen by the then Liberal government for an experimental drilling programme in the Province of British Columbia. It's well recorded in the newspapers and the Journals of the day that this experimental programme was entered into by the provincial government of that day.
The first reference I have here comes from The Province newspaper of April 23, 1941. At that time they indicate that the drilling is going ahead but they've run into a little bit of trouble. Apparently the drilling company was able to advance 400 feet into the rock formation and then ran into trouble and couldn't free the drilling equipment they had. They had to abandon that and start the hole all over again. So they did have some tough luck in getting the hole started.
On October 15, 1941, the headline in the daily Province indicates that Premier Pattullo is gambling in the oil business with public funds. I don't intend to go all through the article of that day but I think that capsulizes exactly what was going on at that
[ Page 151 ]
particular time.Remember that in this time an election campaign was bubbling in the Province of British Columbia. By June 20, 1942, the election campaign was over. "Commotion Creek Operations Will Be Abandoned." "Cost to the People of British Columbia $500 Million" — at a time when the total budget for the Province of British Columbia was just over $30 million.
"Commotion Creek is going to subside. After spending half-a-million dollars, the government has decided very reluctantly that the liquid gold which T.D. Pattullo went after five years ago isn't there. Drilling for oil will be closed down."
Interjection.
MR. SMITH: Yes, this is the project which the Premier was so proud of yesterday as the greatest socialist experiment ever conducted before the advent of the NDP as government in this province.
And at the end of the article it says:
"The provincial government will not invest any more of the people's money in chasing this oil rainbow. The federal government and the oil companies will probably avoid the immediate area of operations under the Pattullo plan. Commotion Creek is regarded as a bust."
There's one thing that was certainly true. That is that every oil exploration company has avoided that area for the last 35 years at least. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? The closest producing well to Commotion Creek in the Province of British Columbia is between 50 and 60 miles away. And if they were, as the Premier suggested yesterday, only 300 feet from the pay zone, why wouldn't exploration be going on today? Why wouldn't they have drilled again for natural gas, completed the hole, gone down another 300 feet, and produced that liquid gold, that natural gas that the Premier was so proud of yesterday? But again, Mr. Member, they never produced anything but a dry hole. A dry hole! So I guess he was mistaken again.
On September 9, 1942, there was an article indicating that the B.C. government abandoned its search for oil at Commotion Creek. I think perhaps the most telling newspaper column of all comes from the edition printed March 18, 1943. It's headed up as "Costly Nonsense."
"Debates on Commotion Creek in the legislature confirm our worst suspicions of what a mess this business was. To satisfy a political whim, the Pattullo government got into a wildcat adventure of the wildest kind, lost $600,000 of the taxpayers' money; even yet there is no frank admission of what fearfully unbusinesslike activities were involved. Today Mr. Pattullo merely shrugs his shoulders, declares, 'The people settled with me" — and they did, at the election prior to 1943 — "and regards the matter as a closed incident. Mr. Pattullo enjoyed the thrill of being the magnate of a vast experiment. But the people of British Columbia paid the bill."
But the people of British Columbia paid the bill. That is the extent of the Premier's pride in what he thinks would be a tremendous way for the Government of British Columbia to proceed.HON. MR. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): It's tax deductible.
MR. SMITH: It's a fact, as recorded in the records of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, that that well did spud in in Commotion Creek on June 4, 1940, and that it was abandoned on October 15, 1942, after having spent $600,000 of taxpayers' money on a socialist experiment — $600,000, Mr. Speaker, at that time, was a considerable bite out of the provincial budget of $33 million.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
So let us assume that the Hon. Premier and Minister of Finance decides to embark on the same type of socialist experiment right now. Let's assume, perhaps — because we know what the figures were last year for revenue for the province and expenditures projected — that he had embarked upon this socialist experiment last year. If he had invested the same percentage of available revenue as did Pattullo in 1941, what would it have cost the taxpayers of British Columbia last year? It would have been $43.5 million, Mr. Speaker, for a socialist experiment. And we have to ask: if this is the course the government charts for themselves, if this is their policy, will the government of this day not be just as inclined to cover up and gloss over any discrepancies in the programme so that they can make it look good in the eyes of the public? How much of the expense would be buried on the same type of socialist experiment to pacify taxpayers that one of these days will be going to the polls again?
No, instead of talking about rip-off profits by the petroleum industry, I think the government should concern themselves with programmes designed to help the people of the Province of British Columbia, not squandering the money in an area where they have no expertise. If, by the government's own decision, it is fair to grant Westcoast Transmission a 9.5 per cent return on their investment for transporting natural gas to market, then is it not fair that the industry engaged in the exploration for and the production of natural gas and oil should receive
[ Page 152 ]
somewhere near the same return? There's no company, to my knowledge, actively engaged in the Province of British Columbia where their return is equal to or greater than 9.5 per cent.As a matter of fact, without costing you or me or any other taxpayer in the province a cent directly out of our pockets, the industry has contributed and invested $1.65 billion in the search for natural gas and petroleum in the province. Certainly they have been successful in many cases, but not in the Commotion Creek area, I'll tell you. They have been successful in producing natural gas and petroleum resources for which they have received a total of $900 million in gross revenue.
Out of that they've hired crews and paid their operating expenses. They've provided employment for a vast host of people, directly and indirectly, in the Province of British Columbia. They've paid all their federal and provincial taxes, including royalties and levies and whatever other tax has been levied against them. They've used part of that money to replace obsolete equipment. They've spent a tremendous amount of money at the request of the provincial government to update their equipment to conform to our present-day pollution standards. At the same time, they've been expected to find money for exploration and to pay their shareholders a dividend on the invested capital. It's a record that we should be proud of.
If natural gas is underpriced — and I believe it is as a commodity — certainly we have a right to expect an increase in the price of natural gas. When that agreed-upon price is arrived at, the people who are subjected in the industry to the same inroads upon their pocketbook as everyone else is today as a result of inflation also have some reason to ask the government for a slight adjustment.
What is the record in the petroleum industry this last year as a result — and I say a direct result — of government policy? Seismic exploration is the worst on record, the worst season. It's almost to a close now. The facts are that the number of companies employed in the Province of British Columbia is drastically down from last year.
I have the current figures for anyone who is interested. February 18, 1974: there were 41 drilling rigs available for work in the Province of British Columbia and, out of those 41, 37 were actively in work under contract. This year we don't have 41 drilling rigs left in the Province of British Columbia; we only have 32. The rest have either gone to the Yukon, the United States or to Alberta. They are out of the province altogether. But of the 32 available on February 17, 1975, only 14 are under contract and presently finishing up drilling programmes for this season.
If that is the basis you use for trying to replace the hydrocarbon energies which are being depleted, then we'll never catch up. We are faced with a continually decreasing situation, both with respect to the volume of natural gas available and the revenue available both for the industry and for the provincial coffers.
Why has this happened? I'll tell you why; it's simple. The facts of the matter are these Mr. Speaker. Under the present circumstances, operating under the conditions that the industry has to live with and the statutes that they know have been put into effect during the past two years, no one in the industry or anyone associated with resource development in the Province of British Columbia trusts the NDP, a government that has said "Trust us," and has proven in the light of day to be untrustworthy. You have continuously changed the name of the game at the slightest whim. You have passed regulations and statutes to give to yourselves, as the Members of the cabinet, completely unbridled powers which you can exercise without recourse to this Legislature. This is why industry has dropped off in the Province of British Columbia.
And what is your answer? You've developed your own Commotion Creek to go out and drill another dry hole at the taxpayers' expense and say: "Well, we made another mistake." But how much is that going to cost the taxpayers? If you follow the example set by the Pattullo administration, we may never find out for a long time to come.
Interjections.
MR. SMITH: There's been a campaign conducted against resource industries in this province; there has been a campaign to purposely distort the facts in an attempt to discredit all resource-oriented industries, including the petroleum and natural gas industries. In short, the policies of the NDP exemplify the worst, as often depicted by a character from Li'l Abner, Al Capp's comic strip. We all have heard of him: General Bullmoose.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, who's that?
MR. SMITH: Well, that's one of the characters created by Al Capp. As you recall in Li'l Abner, General Bullmoose appears occasionally and he huffs and he puffs and he blows smoke out of his ears and nose, and then he loudly proclaims....
AN HON. MEMBER: What's good for General Bullmoose is good enough for....
MR. SMITH: That's right. Whatever is good for General Bullmoose is good for you and good for everybody.
Well, this government paraphrases that a little bit. Their attitudes seem to be today that whatever is good for Big Brother government is good for all
[ Page 153 ]
British Columbians.HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): That was General Motors.
MR. SMITH: Unfortunately, in the area of resource development the NDP attitude is exemplified by the cabinet. It could be summed up this way: "First of all, don't bother us with facts. Secondly, don't ask us to practise integrity or fair play in government, and never, but never, ask us to explain how we intend to squander your taxpayers' dollars. After all, our minds are already made up." This is the position that you have held to consistently, and I'll give you credit for that fact. You've held to that position consistently since the 1972 election.
So then the question is: what should be done in the matter of resource-oriented industries in the Province of British Columbia? I'd like to tell you what the Social Credit Party would do as government.
The first thing would be to stop the organized vendetta against the resource industries in the province. The second thing would be to find solutions to the thorny question — I admit a thorny question — of revenue-sharing through consultation, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), not confrontation. The first thing would be to make basic fundamental changes in legislation which would guarantee that the rules of the game would not be changed halfway through, and would be inculcated into the statutes of this province so that industry would know where they stand. The rules would not be changed at the whim of the cabinet Ministers.
We would go a step further. We would give proper recognition to the fact that continued exploration, because of inflation, because of high cost, because of escalated salaries, because of the type of equipment that is used, is a continually costly and difficult business, that probably the easily discovered resources of natural gas have been found, that in today's economy it will be far more costly to find natural gas or oil in the province than it has been in the past, that the discovery rate will probably be less than it has been in the past, and that because of this, and the high cost of operations, the industry has a legitimate case when they come to the government and say: "We want to talk about a problem."
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): How much would you give them?
MR. SMITH: Okay, we are not going to get into a figures game, but I'll tell you this, Mr. Attorney-General. Let the industry meet with the government and show in a concrete manner their costs. Let them show their costs to justify them. But before you get involved in a vendetta against them, at least meet and discuss on a proper basis. Let them prove to you what is fair.
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): What do you think is fair?
MR. SMITH: I'm not going to give you a figure. I do know that the industry feels that the cost of trying to find new gas is over and above what they receive in a return now, and that it costs them more to find it than they are getting in revenue. So obviously there must be a problem that has to be solved. The price should involve sufficient costs for new exploration for new natural gas, because this is what we are most concerned about.
If we are to replenish the decreasing resource reserves that we have presently on flow, then we must find a way of doing it, and certainly it is going to cost more money than it has in the past.
The unfortunate part of it, Mr. Speaker, is that as the resources deplete, the revenue decreases not only for industry but for government as well. You can increase the price which you sell the gas for, but if the production drops off dramatically, even the increase in price will not offset the revenue loss, and this is something that we would apply our minds to in the Province of British Columbia, rather than conduct a campaign by newspaper, which obviously was designed to build a straw man and discredit the resource industries in the province.
The throne speech talks about northern development and what you have done under an NDP government. Well, when you talk to the people who live in the north, they say it's all talk and no action; it's a myth — that the appointment of a Minister Without in charge of northern affairs or northern development has provided nothing in the way of tangible projects. It's not good enough for the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) to skylark around the northern part of British Columbia, dashing hither and yon in a jet, holding meetings. What they want is the translation of those meetings into positive action.
You've talked about programmes; you've indicated that somehow you're going to bring them about. As a matter of fact, when you get exuberant in the north you talk about programmes the size of an elephant that you are going to get off the ground, but the people who live there know you can't even give birth to a mouse. That's about the size of the programme you have launched, in relation to the programmes you have talked about.
What is required in the northern part of British Columbia? There are many problems with newly developing areas: one is the problem experienced by every municipality in trying to provide services — particularly water, sewer, recreation, hospital, all the rest of it — for rapidly growing communities quite
[ Page 154 ]
often with a small tax base available to them.Now, if it's fair to give municipalities a per capita grant, should those grants not reflect the actual need of the community in relation to their particular growth at that particular stage of development? Would it not be fair to allow newly developing communities a larger per capita grant, taking into consideration the fact that in a few years' time they've had to put in all the capital works of water, sewer, streets, recreational facilities and schools, rather than stick the taxpayers that are presently living there with an outlandish tax bill?
I think there's room for improvement in that programme. I think the people of Fort Nelson would be extremely interest to know when they'll receive the benefit of the industrial assessment that should be theirs, and was promised to them by the former administration — that the assessment at Mile 295, where there's quite an industrial complex, and the gas plant at 285 should be available to them to help offset some of the services that they must provide for everyone who lives in that area. It's an ideal example, I think, of a community far removed from any other centre, and which must provide adequate services.
What is your answer to the question — to shut down or ignore the problem that existed when the B.C. Railway went on strike, and let it simmer and bubble for a month, six weeks, before anything was done?
Is your answer to the problem to ignore the fact that the mining industry and the petroleum industry up there were brought to a standstill, and in so doing most of the people who live in Fort Nelson will have to move out of the area and find a new home to live in somewhere else in some other province, and thereby relieve yourselves of a problem? Is that the answer? Not if you really believe what you say when you talk about development in the north, that you're really interested in what's going on in those communities.
For starters, perhaps you could look at some of the things that have been promised. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker — a Social Credit government would look at some of these programmes underway. What's happened to the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson trail? That's something that nobody in government seems to want to talk about these days. That programme was launched, well along, progressing well, and then it died. For what reason? Because no money was appropriated by the Department of Highways to continue the programme. That's why it died, not because there's not a need for it, not because it wouldn't have increased the potential for British Columbia to market goods and services to the North West Territories. As a matter of fact, they're a lot closer to completion than the B.C. government at the present time.
Interjections.
MR. SMITH: They're a lot closer to completion than the B.C. government.
Interjections.
MR. SMITH: The programme was underway on a continuing basis, but funds have dried up and it's been discontinued. Is that any way to go about northern development and increase it?
Interjections.
MR. SMITH: Yes, let's have some action.
There's another area that we would like to see some action in, and that is with respect to the Crown corporation, B.C. hydro. Why isn't the postage-stamp rate for electricity extended to include the people who live in Fort Nelson? After all, they were promised that.
They generate electricity now from a resource produced in their own area — as a matter of fact, practically under their feet in Fort Nelson. Their generating plant uses natural gas — not diesel which has to be hauled in at a great expense for a great number of miles.
Interjection:.
MR. SMITH: They use natural gas. Yet they pay one of the highest rates for hydro of any place in the Province of British Columbia. That should be looked into.
If they are to grow and prosper, the community needs immediate repairs and upgrading to their water and sewer system. We would certainly be prepared to look at that favourably because the cost is estimated to be about $1.5 million. The people who presently live there can not afford to pay outright for that type of capital development, even though they need it badly.
There was a programme started to develop Crown land in the Fort Nelson area, the same as in Prince George. That land was available to people on a basis where they could buy the property and own their own home. You'll never convince anyone in that part of the Province of British Columbia, where the government owns not 95 per cent of the land but 99.9 per cent of the land, that there is any reason to deny them the right to own their own property. We would certainly see that land was available and that mortgages of a low-cost nature were available to the people in the northern part of the Province of British Columbia.
There was a programme underway to establish an experimental farm in that region of British Columbia. It is estimated that there are a million arable acres of
[ Page 155 ]
agricultural land in the Fort Nelson plains. What happened to that? Mr. Speaker, the NDP scuttled the programme. But I ask the government this: how are we ever going to establish the true potential for production of agricultural products in that area unless the government goes in and provides some assistance and capital to an experienced farmer and gets some of the answers to questions that we cannot answer now.We know that there's a large area, similar in size to the Peace River block. We know that the temperatures are approximately equivalent. As a matter of fact, the elevation is lower and the temperatures on the average are higher. Wouldn't it be sound and practical to establish that experimental farm so that potential new farmers in the Province of British Columbia, wanting to settle in that area, would have the expertise and the advice of the Department of Agriculture? It seems to me that it would have been a wise experiment.
These are programmes which a Social Credit government would either reinstate or institute for the benefit of northern British Columbia. This is the direction that we would proceed. We would do a lot more than pay lip service to northern development such as we have seen by the NDP in the past two years.
HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): On a point of privilege. When the last Hon. Member spoke, he gave some misinformation — I know not intentionally. But I don't think I would be fulfilling my duty to the House if I let it go by unnoticed, so I would like to correct that information. It was in regard to the road to Fort Simpson to Fort Nelson and how we had been dragging our feet.
MR. SMITH: Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson.
HON. MR. LEA: Right. The fact of the matter is this. I would like to say that the department and myself have said publicly that we would be at that border any time the federal people are at the border. We would fulfil our obligation to be there.
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Where's your love affair with Ottawa?
Interjections.
MR. SMITH: Just get on with the project.
HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Hon. Jean Chretien when he was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister is entitled to correct a misstatement of something that his department has stated or said. That's as far as that goes; he can't make a speech.
MR. CHABOT: Point of order. The Minister rose on a point of privilege. Is he correcting a statement in a speech or is he making a speech, or is he elaborating on a point of privilege?
MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's a point of privilege; it's a point of order that Members can take to correct a statement attributed to them and their responsibility. It is only that far that can they can go to correct a statement made that is attributed to them.
MR. CHABOT: Well, fine. But, Mr. Speaker, would you advise the Minister of the rules and how he can do it and what the format is? He seems a little confused.
HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think the information is probably just a little more important than the rules.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
HON. MR. LEA: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker — and I don't want to insult your office — but I think that the....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
HON. MR. LEA: When I met with the Hon. Jean Chretien in Ottawa....
MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can go that far, Hon. Member. I think the rule is that you can correct a misstatement....
HON. MR. LEA: Well, I have to say this, Mr. Speaker, to correct the statement.
MR. SPEAKER: But I think the statement you complained about was that you had been dragging your feet. You were wishing to correct that by another statement. I don't know if that is quite in order.
HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I can't correct it unless I say the circumstances to show to the House why it was incorrect.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, may I point out to the Hon. Member that rules do not provide for correcting
[ Page 156 ]
the impressions of other Members? They provide that you can stand up after another speaker and, if he has misstated your position — or some statement of yours, I should say — you can then correct him. But you cannot, in effect, answer this debate with your correction of his false impression.HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, in that case I'd like to take my place in this debate. (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think there has been an order, and I think out of courtesy....
Interjections.
HON. MR. LEA: Would you rather have me correct it?
MR. SPEAKER: I think everyone has the impression that you object to something that was said. I think the next Member who was to be recognized was the Member for Skeena. If you want....
HON. MR. LEA: I bow to your ruling, with the understanding that they do not want to be corrected because the facts wouldn't back up what they said.
Interjections.
MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one thing very clear to the Members of the House: northwestern B.C. is just about as far away from northeastern B.C. as it is from Vancouver. Also, northwestern B.C. is just about as far away from the Cariboo as it is from Vancouver. Yet we've had two MLAs from the other side of the House who have offered expert information on northwestern B.C. The reason I had to do this, Mr. Speaker, is because there aren't any Social Credit MLAs in the northwestern part of B.C., and there won't be either.
I want to refer to the section on northern affairs in the throne speech. I'm not going to read it but I just want to refer you to the fact that the government is taking positive steps to implement a policy of northwest development. It also emphasizes the fact that this has been done with very close consultation and cooperation with the people who are living in the area.
I would refer to the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). The Member for Cariboo talked about northwest development and, as I said, being an expert from the Cariboo, he should know all about northwest development. He said:
I would just like to conclude by mentioning the northwest development. When it was originally announced, I believe in 1973, it would appear that if anything has been done along that line, which has been going on for two years now, we might see some new jobs created. But I really feel that all that was a major press release, and I'm sure that the people who live in the northwest feel the same way. All they have seen is no end of task forces, committees and them committees to investigate the task forces....
And really, nothing has happened, in effect.
That just gives me the right kind of introduction for my speech, which is just a couple of pages long, outlining what's happening in the northwest.
MR. CHABOT: What about the tunnel?
MR. DENT: I just want to begin by outlining briefly some of the decisions that have been made and what has happened as a result of those decisions.
The first decision that was announced to this Legislature on April 2, 1973, was that a corporation to be know as B.C. Cellulose would be set up and would own, on behalf of the people of the province, 79 per cent interest in Canadian Cellulose, which in turn would take over all the debts and assets of Columbia Cellulose and other subsidiaries owned by Celanese Corp. of New York, United States. This decision by the B.C. government returned 22 million acres of forest land to the control of the people of B.C.
I don't consider that nothing. That's just the first thing, and that's certainly not a small thing. It ensured that the pulp mills and lumber mills in northwest B.C. would not be sold out or shut down. This deal was finalized on June 29, 1973, at which time also the Can-Cel board of directors was announced. Just a word about that part of it.
I mentioned, I think it was yesterday, that we have two mills in Terrace, one across the street from the other. One is Pohle Lumber and the other is Price-Skeena Forest Products. One is operating and one is shut down. The one that is operating is owned by Canadian Cellulose; the one that is closed down is owned by the Abitibi Corp., the biggest pulp and paper company in North America, or at least in Canada and probably in North America. Graphically that illustrates the situation.
Kitwanga Lumber is also operating, and the people there continue to be employed. The reload yard at Hazelton continues to be used and the contractors are still hauling in there, so generally the economic activity and the jobs that go with that activity are very much in action, in being. They're happening right now, so this is not nothing, by any means.
Furthermore, there has been about $2 million spent on modernizing the facilities in Terrace alone at Pohle Lumber. Their buildings are much more attractive; they're putting in new facilities; they're modernizing; they're doing many things, and even extending their production to some extent. This is not nothing either — $2 million spent last year by
[ Page 157 ]
Canadian Cellulose at Pohle Lumber alone — and there are other millions that have been spent in Prince Rupert and in other parts of their operation.Now I expect, with the announced results of a large profit for Can-Cel, that additional money will be spent making sure that the working conditions are good for the employees, that they have the best of facilities and that it's the most modern mill possible. Steps will be taken toward pollution control, and so on. That's just the first thing.
On July 17, 1973, the Minister, the Hon. Robert Williams, announced a federal-provincial agreement on freight rates designed to reduce transportation cost for chips hauled along the CN to Eurocan in Kitimat and to Canadian Cellulose pulp mills in Prince Rupert. This decision he called phase two of the northern development programme.
The significance of that should not be underestimated. The viability of the pulp mill at Eurocan and the two Can-Cel pulp mills at Prince Rupert has been sustained, at least to a major part, by that decision. Had that not been done, there is a possibility that Eurocan might have even closed down, but certainly there would have been more serious financial problems. Similarly the mills at Rupert. So again, you can't say that that is a small thing, that it isn't really having an impact on the area right now. This was a step that was taken.
On July 23, 1973, another federal-provincial agreement was announced by the Minister, consisting of, really, two decisions. The first part was the rail agreement; that is, an agreement to build the rail line north from Terrace to connect with the B.C. Rail line at Groundhog.
While that rail line is not yet under construction, there have been a number of studies done to ensure that the impact of the rail line will be fully taken into account and allowed for, that the rights of the native Indian people will be respected and so forth. I expect that rail line — which will be built by the CNR, by the way, since it's a federal government involvement — will be under construction before long, north of Terrace. There has been a step-up in activity, in staking out the line, the route, and so on. We expect that that rail line will soon be under construction.
But I'm very grateful that we were the government when this line was built and that the studies were done first rather than after, which has been the practice with many of the projects in the past. This has been a perennial complaint — that the governments make a decision to build something and, after they've built it, they agree to have a study, and there's no good having a study after the thing has already been built.
The second part of the decision was the port agreement at Prince Rupert. I can't comment too much on that; it's not in my constituency, but, again, activity is taking place there. The programme is being implemented and the port facilities are being enlarged at Prince Rupert. So you can't say that nothing's happening. It is happening.
August 10, 1973: phase four, northwest development programme, was announced by Mr. Williams, namely sawmill expansion programme. This programme would see sawmill expansion at Burns Lake, Houston, Smithers, and possibly Hazelton and Terrace. The main purpose of this programme was to increase the residual chip supply to Prince Rupert pulp mills, as well as the pulp mill at Kitimat. The programme was to begin at Burns Lake.
Well, the Burns Lake mill is just about completed. It's been built — I wouldn't call that nothing. When you build a mill, it's physically there and you watch it under construction — they're pounding nails and they're putting up all the different things they need. That's not nothing. That's something; that's a mill. That's a very expensive mill.
Furthermore, they have brought in programmes for housing; they've brought in programmes to have training for the native Indian people in the area, and many of those young native people are taking training out of our vocational school in Terrace. They're not actually attending at Terrace, but the staff has been hired by the vocational school at Terrace to do the training right in Burns Lake.
Furthermore, one of the key people to operate that mill will be a native Indian from Burns Lake who is about 21 years old. Now that's not nothing. That's one of the most exciting programmes we've had in the Province of British Columbia, certainly in relation to the native population. And they're very excited about it, very excited about the prospect.
However, that's only part of it. There were increased allocations of wood in Terrace which will allow the mills there to expand. At the present time, because of the depressed lumber market, they're not proceeding with that at the moment, but as soon as the lumber market improves you'll see the expansion take place in those mills. In Smithers, as well as the expanded production at Houston. So you can't say that that's nothing. That's activity. It's either been done or about to be done, and certainly it is not nothing.
Again, the government was very determined that local people were going to be consulted and involved in the process. This is being done and is being done in a greatly improved way as each day goes by.
MR. McCLELLAND: How much were they consulted in the Rim Forest Products? They weren't even allowed in the buildings.
MR. DENT: The Rim Forest Products mill is operating at the present time.
Interjections.
[ Page 158 ]
MR. DENT: On May 14, 1974, the Minister of Lands and Forests announced that the Site 1 project on the Peace River had been improved for construction by B.C. Hydro. Now you might ask: what is the connection between the Site 1 project and northwest B.C.? Well, just this: there is a great fear in northwestern B.C. that they would proceed with hydro-electric projects such as Kemano 2 which could have a devastating effect on the ecology of the region if it weren't done in a proper way. It was necessary to do thorough studies before any kind of hydro development took place in the northwest part of the province.
Now these studies were already under way and were intensified in the Peace River area, and the decision was made to proceed with Site 1 as the next step in hydro-electric development in northern B.C.
Furthermore, Peace River power would be taken to the northwestern part of the province by a new high-tension transmission line, which is now under construction. Again, there are men building a high-tension transmission line into northwestern B.C. Anyone driving along the highway can see this line under construction. There's nothing invisible about it; it's physically to be seen. However, I doubt if the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) or the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) even know about this high-tension line. That's probably because they have not been in the northwestern part of the province lately. But it is under construction, and will bring in power to meet increased needs in the northwest part of the province with a minimum of environmental damage.
On September 16, 1974, the B.C. government inaugurated the new dimension programme for native Indians at Burns Lake, as well as direct involvement in the ownership and management of Babine Forest Products of Burns Lake. This programme will include federal-provincial training programmes for native people, for sawmills, housing and so forth.
On October 11, 1974, the Hon. Gary Lauk announced that there would be a study, together with Nippon Kokan KK of Japan, on the feasibility of an integrated steel mill for B.C. One of the sites being considered is Kitimat in my constituency. Again, no decisions were made or have been made in this regard; studies are continuing — the kind of studies that should always go on in anticipation of any possible project. We are proceeding; the government is proceeding very, very carefully. They may not even have a steel mill. Maybe they'll find that it's not the right thing for the province.
But certainly if it is proceeded with, it will only be after the most intensive and careful preparation and study, and Kitimat may not be chosen. Maybe some other part of the province may be chosen. Should it be chosen for a steel mill, the local people will then have to be consulted, will be consulted, as they are being consulted now. Maybe they won't want it, and their feelings will be taken into consideration by the government if that event should happen.
I emphasize the fact that there is nothing being thrust down anybody's throat, but there is study and consideration being given to various types of development, such as a steel mill.
On December 5, 1974 the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) announced the approval of the Burns Lake tree farm licence. It was also announced that the regional district would have representation on the tree farm board. A tree farm licence is also being considered for the town of Smithers, with an expanded resource management concept. Now Smithers isn't too sure whether they want one for sure, but they are certainly interested in it and they're looking at it very carefully, I think there's a good chance that they will finally accept one and that it will be under the expanded concept of a resource management concept. That would mean that the tree farm licence.... Not only would they harvest trees, but they would also manage the other resources within the boundaries of that resource-management tree farm licence.
On January 23, 1975, the Hon. Robert Williams announced the decisions of the ELUC to create seven resource management districts, including the Skeena RMD with headquarters at Smithers. Boundaries for all the resource management departments will now be coordinated, and increased cooperation between the various government departments will be strongly encouraged.
This is a major, important decision for the people of the northwest part of the province. Now the city slickers who are here in the hall today.... Even though I've lived in the city at one time, I think I sort of see them that way more and more; even the Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to me is a city slicker, or the Member for.... Yes, the Member for...well, no, not Dewdney; Dewdney's sort of outside of the city-slicker area — that one million people we regard as sort of like a great big sponge soaking up the resources of the province.
MR. WALLACE: What about Oak Bay?
MR. DENT: And my mother!
However, from our point of view, this is a very important step forward. It will not be appreciated fully by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) because he doesn't have this problem in his riding. But in my riding, when you have the Forest Service in Prince Rupert and the fish and wildlife branch over in Prince George, 500-600 miles away, it creates some problems of co-ordination, needless to say.
MR. WALLACE: Have you heard of a telephone
[ Page 159 ]
up there?MR. DENT: People down here think we're all like one little happy family up there, but we're scattered all over the country. To bring together these departments in the northwest region of the province and to ensure that they're operating within the region in a co-ordinated manner is a very important step forward and will avoid many of the problems which have resulted in the past from lack of co-ordination.
I'd just like to say a few words about some of the groups that exist in the north and their reaction to northwest development proposals. It's worthwhile to begin with the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District and the administrator, Mr. John Pousette. The Kitimat-Stikine Regional District commissioned an economic study of the northwest because it in some ways involves more than the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District.
The report that came out of that study was called the F.L.C. Reed report. It made a number of recommendations. One recommendation made was that a rail line be built, connecting the new B.C. Rail line being constructed to Dease Lake with the CNR line at Terrace. There's a very good reason for that, obviously, and that is so that resources from the northwest part of the province, when they are to be shipped out, will be shipped out through the ports of Kitimat and Prince Rupert rather than being hauled down the B.C. Rail line to Vancouver or Squamish. From our point of view, this is a very important step in maintaining the autonomy of the region and maintaining the unity of the northwest area.
Variations of some of these recommendations were carried out by the Minister, as I mentioned. Needless to say, the members of the regional district board and those members of the municipalities in the area that were familiar with the report were very happy about it. They were very happy to see the government taking steps to implement some of the recommendations of the F.L.C. Reed report.
Furthermore, they weren't merely implemented. They were implemented in an approved version with a new-found cooperation between the federal and provincial governments that hadn't existed to the same extent previously. There was rapid progress because there was determination on the part of the B.C. government to cooperate in a friendly manner with the federal government.
Soon after this the government acquired its interest in Can-Cel. Then there were these other steps that followed in rapid succession, as I've already outlined. When the thing began to unfold, if you viewed it purely from the point of view of a businessman, you might be quite excited about it and looking forward to very quick implementation and development.
But other groups did not feel quite the same way. For example, there is a small group of people in Smithers called SPEC Smithers. Even though they're not a large group, they're a very intelligent group of people; they're very concerned about the northwest and very concerned about their own neighbourhood and area. They make themselves informed. They don't just shoot from the lip but, rather, they have studies. They think and they try to make some rational observations.
They were somewhat alarmed by the way this thing suddenly began to unfold. They saw that it could lead to massive development which could require massive hydro-electric power development, with resulting environmental damage and so on. So they presented a number of briefs to me and sent them to the Ministers involved, expressing their concern. But at all times they offered constructive suggestions and observations. We've maintained a very good working relationship over the last couple of years and many of their ideas and suggestions have been taken note of by the government.
Other groups have sprung up. There is a person who was appointed as liaison officer for northwest development for the Anglican church, Mr. Rev. John Stokes. He issues newsletters quite regularly and expresses his observations of northwest development as viewed from a church point of view. They have a particular interest and concern for the native people to whom they have ministered in that area for many, many years, along with some of the other churches.
The church, or at least this particular person, Rev. John Stokes, has made known his concern to me and to the Ministers involved. Again, there have been many valuable suggestions made which have been taken cognizance of by the people involved.
A group was organized called VOICE. Now VOICE is a group arising out of a labour movement in northwestern B.C. — and that is all of the labour unions, not just some of them. The various councils and labour unions of the mines have created this group called VOICE. The Canadian unions are involved in this. I'm not sure whether CLAC is, but certainly CAISAW is, and PPWC is. There are many Canadian unions involved. This crosses union boundaries and involves all of the labour people.
They have hired a full-time person, I might add, by a grant from the federal government, from the secretariat of the federal government. In fact, the person they hired is the one who was employed by the CNR to do one of their studies in regard to the location of the CNR right-of-way.
Again, they have expressed views. They were the ones that expressed a great concern about a steel mill being put in Kitimat, and even handed out leaflets to the delegation coming in. I'm not saying that I agree with what they did, but certainly they started a debate and that's worth something. They created a lot of public discussion in the region and people have
[ Page 160 ]
phoned in to the open-line programmes, and so on, expressing their views about a possible steel mill. So this group has asserted itself and is promoting public discussion on northwest development.There is a native group, the Northwest Native Development Council, and it also is concerning itself with northwest development. Again, they have shown a high degree of interest in a constructive and intelligent way in northwest development programmes, especially as they would affect native people, but also in other respects as well. I attended one of the meetings, and I must say I was very impressed by these native people and the way that they were taking a look at some of the decisions that had been made in regard to northwest development.
Now all of these groups have banded together and formed a steering committee which is holding a conference in the spring — I think in May — dealing with northwest development. They've also framed a set of pointed, searching questions about development programmes and government decisions that have been made, and have sent them to me and, I believe, to some of the Ministers involved, saying, "Here are the questions — we'd like some answers." They want to be consulted. They want to be informed.
Now the government's response to these grassroots organizations — the native organizations, the church organizations, the labour organizations, chambers of commerce and other existing groups in municipalities — I think is extremely exciting. Having been a part of it, I thought it a really refreshing experience.
The first part was the creation of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat. Now that sounds like a highfalutin' group of technocrats who are going to shove development down people's throats. But in practice, what is meant is that secretariat members, who have been selected for the role in the secretariat because they have a high degree of understanding of the way government departments operate and of the subjects that they are going to study, through specialized training, perhaps, of wildlife, forestry, and that sort of thing, have shown a remarkable degree of interest, compassion and understanding of the people living in the north, have got to know many of them, and have made an extremely good impression.
Also, they have participated in some of the workshops that have been held by the Hon. Alf Nunweiler, Minister of northern affairs. I want to conclude this part by just talking a little bit about what he's done.
Interjection.
MR. DENT: He would probably be too modest.
MR. GARDOM: Fill in that 10 seconds.
MR. DENT: Alf, our Minister of northern affairs, has held workshops now in a number of the communities, including Hazelton and Smithers in my constituency, and the impression that he made was extremely good. He showed a good understanding and a willingness to listen to the problems of the area. In fact, he lived in Smithers for a period of time.
He had with him people from the various departments, including the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, and they received submissions from practically every type of organization, including the municipalities, the snowmobiling clubs, and so on and so on. Everyone was given a good hearing. They were able to enter into question and answer discussion, and the general impression was very, very good. In fact, it was a new watershed of consultation.
You know, I don't think the previous government understood the word "consultation," because many things happened and nobody even knew they were happening until after they were done. They were trying to foist it down their throats, and really nobody had any understanding of what they were all about.
The situation has changed; now there is a great deal of consultation. But there is a further step, of course, that will have to be developed, in my judgment, and that is that we will have to meet the problem of involvement in the decision-making process. I feel, for example, that there are great gaps in the decision-making process. It's not enough for the federal government or the provincial government to make decisions affecting certain areas of the province — even if the people are consulted, it's still not enough. The people need to have some say in the kinds of decisions that are going to affect their lives in a dramatic way. I don't mean to say that it should always be a decisive decision, but rather....
MR. PHILLIPS: We wouldn't want you to make a decisive decision. (Laughter.)
MR. DENT: We need to refine our thinking on this particular point. For example, we have developed areas of jurisdiction between municipalities, regional districts, the provincial government and the federal government.
MR. FRASER: Yes, they're all mixed up.
MR. DENT: When they are going to do something together, sometimes the decisions may be made by the federal and provincial governments, sometimes by the municipalities. Over a period of time, though, they've managed to work out certain arrangements and ways of making the decision together.
Similarly, other groups need to be brought in. For example, the native people are very rarely involved in
[ Page 161 ]
the decision-making process, even though a decision may directly affect an Indian reserve. I think that they need to be involved in some way, either through the regional district or in some other way, so that they can have a part or a say in decisions affecting their part of the country — their particular area.I've been excited by the way the government has taken on this whole matter of consultation, this whole matter of involving people, in a very fresh way, and has made such good progress. I'm very confident that we will see the level achieved where the people who are in the area and those who are charged with the responsibility at the provincial, federal or regional district level will all be working together in real harmony.
Already we're almost there. There are still many doubts in many people's minds, and there's still a great deal of work to be done, but we've come a long way. The government has accepted its responsibility in a very excellent way in northwest development in northwest B.C.
MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, although there are only a very few minutes left before closing time, I will seek to put all of my remarks into this 25-minute segment.
They tell us whenever you get up to speak to a group, Mr. Speaker, or for that matter to the assembly in the House, that you should always seek to find something nice, something good and something you agree with and talk about it first. I think that I would like to commend the designer of the layout for the opening speech as it's in its printed form here. I would like to commend whomever's concept it was to put it into outline form. It appeals to me, particularly to that homiletic discipline that I have in which we speak normally from an outline form. It makes the speech very easy to analyse and I think it is a good innovation. I'd like to see it continued.
My remarks today are going to be limited to a few sections of the opening speech. Basically, I'm interested in one of the briefest sections, and that is the one clearly outlined "education."
In the Speech from the Throne, education doesn't get a great deal of consideration — six and a half lines or so, if you put them all together — and it doesn't really say what direction we are planning to take, which is something that we have been waiting for. Not only the people of British Columbia but the people in various departments have been waiting for some direction.
But the Speech from the Throne does indicate where the priorities of the department lie, at least in the mind of the person who forwarded the information to His Honour. First and foremost are construction costs; secondly, pupil-teacher ratio; and thirdly, the alleviation of the tax burden. Those are the three areas about which the department is concerned. I'd like to address myself to these three, then to some which do not appear in the throne speech.
This government has been in power for two full years — we are moving into the third year. When they arrived on the scene, when they talked in terms of capital construction, expenditures, they talked in terms of a catch-up programme. In the first year in which they were here they spent $39 million in capital construction, which was considerably less than was spent in the previous year, in which year we were accused of having run behind.
Fifty-five million dollars was spent in 1972; $39 million was spent in the year 1973. Some recognition must go to the year 1974 in which some $85 million was spent in capital construction. It's always fun to interpret these dollars into actual services. Although $91 million or $85 million may sound like a lot more than $39 million, which was the expenditure the year before, we notice that out of the $85 million spent, there were only, new construction, 751 actual classrooms. There were some 51 gymnasia. Although it looks impressive when you see it on a piece of paper, when you think of it in terms of increased enrolment in the next student population in the province, it just little more than covers facility for the increased enrolment.
We had an increased enrolment of 11,893 students over the two years, You can do a fast computation yourself, Mr. Speaker, at, say, 30 students per classroom; it would let you know how many classrooms that would require. So the actual alleviation, in terms of extra classrooms to decrease the number of students per classroom, is not really that impressive.
I notice, too, that there is no emphasis on vocational and technical training. I would like to suggest to the government that this is the route we need to take a really long look at. We all know about classroom boredom, and it would be nice if we could eliminate it altogether. But it does exist, I imagine, from first grade through 12th grade. But it is interesting to note that it is most concentrated at approximately the ninth grade level.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we need to address ourselves to providing alternatives so that students at the eighth grade level can begin designing or redesigning their plans so they can go into a classroom situation which best suits them and which fits their interests. I think we should increase....
Interjection:.
MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, you mentioned the magazine, Mr. Attorney-General. I want you to know that there is a discrepancy in the magazine itself — the pictures that are associated with the material on
[ Page 162 ]
paper are clearly not associated with the material in real life. The pictures are there only for layout purposes, and I mean that in an editorial sense. Therefore, any association of the pictures with the material is erroneous.There is also a short clip in the middle which is a story, a fictitious story. Although it fits into the general layout of the story, it shouldn't be construed as being part of the material, and, as such, the whole article can be very misleading. Indeed, even though I have read the entire article, the entire set of articles, as it turns out to be, I was clearly misled.
Even the photographs, which are superimposed, are not part of the experiment, and the pictures were not taken at that experiment. So, although the editor would seem to clearly endorse the entire happening, nonetheless it should be clear that at Summerland the happenings which are pictured did not take place. I would like to make that very clear. No way would I like to mislead the House.
Coming back to the material we were discussing: I think we need to provide for the students at the eighth grade level more opportunity for diversion. I think we need to provide an opportunity for them to choose — shall we go into the vocational and technical field or shall we stick with the academic field?
I was pleased to get the report from the Minister of last year's activities of the department and notice the enrolment figures. This has nothing to do with the attendance figures.
Now the enrolment figures in the various grades levels: at grade 6, 45,500; at grade 7, 45,700; in the eighth grade, 47,700; at the ninth grade, still 45,700; and that's where the dropouts occur, so that when we get to the tenth grade the enrolment is only 41,000, a drop in addition to 4,000 in enrolment.
I think that we need to consider a greater emphasis on varied opportunity. I think that not only should we provide classrooms in which vocational and technical instruction can take place — and I think we need to make the student aware that this option is available to him and perhaps make out of those 4,000 who have dropped out more suitable citizens, certainly more productive citizens — we need to provide a greater opportunity for diversity, and I believe it needs to be injected at the eighth grade. I'm aware of the fact that it's there now and that you can take industrial arts and that you can take home economics but, nonetheless, I think that a greater emphasis needs to be made there.
Also, I notice that there is no emphasis, no mention, no allowance or no provision for independent schools in the throne speech. There is not even as much as a word said that there are not only alternatives available in the kinds of education within our system, but it doesn't mention the fact that there are alternatives available, and welcome alternatives available, beyond our system. No emphasis, or no provision at all for independent schools. No recognition of the fact that there are 136-plus schools in operation under the independent banner. No mention of the fact that there are in excess of 22,000 students who are being taught, at their own expenditure, outside of our educational system.
I think that we need to draw to the attention of the House that these schools are in existence for reasons other than the ones that we have ordinarily considered. We have ordinarily considered that the reason we have independent schools is because of, perhaps, a religious bias, or maybe because of a cultural conclave — they want to get together in their own little cultural comfort units — but I think that we need to finally recognize that independent schools exist because real people are seeking real alternatives. They're someone who wants to have the structured as opposed to the non-structured. There are those who want the open class as opposed to the restricted class. There are those who would sooner have the traditional than the progressive, and vice-versa. There are those who would like to have the competitive rather than the non-aggressive. There are those would sooner have a greater emphasis on the academic than on the vocational, and vice-versa.
Now it goes without saying that if we have a monopolistic system these alternatives cannot be brought to bear, certainly not as easily as with an alternative system, because if it is unilaterally decided that the system which we have shall be structured, as opposed to non-structured, then where does it leave the people who would prefer a non-structured atmosphere, or vice-versa? It seems to me that in a society as aware as our society is, and certainly with a government as progressive as our government is purported to be, it seems to me that we could consider this alternative structure which would provide for that much of a greater density in education in British Columbia.
I'm not saying that the mechanics of working out that kind of a programme are that simple. I'm not saying that it could be done in one year. I'm not even saying that recognition could take place in one year. I'm not saying that funding should or would or could take place in one year, but I think we should be past the place in our education system where we will shut our eyes to 22,000 students who are presently receiving their education outside of our system, at their own expense, at a direct saving to us.
I would like to direct the attention of the Minister again, Mr. Speaker, to this problem in the province. I would like to direct her attention to the fact that other provinces have already taken a step toward recognition; some even provide funding. I think that we in progressive British Columbia should consider a positive step toward recognition and funding of these
[ Page 163 ]
people in the independent school system.MR. ROLSTON: Have you changed your policy on that?
MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, I have. I have not changed my policy, no.
MR. ROLSTON: I mean your party.
MR. SCHROEDER: I want you also to notice that there is very little excitement in the throne speech for universities.
The universities are wondering what prominence they are going to enjoy in the scope of the educational system in British Columbia. They want to know what extensions there are going to be regarding reciprocal enrolment provisions with other universities in Canada.
After all, in a society where things begin to move a little more quickly and in a society where we in progressive British Columbia would like to at least keep pace, I would like to suggest to the Minister that she consider expanding the reciprocal agreements with other universities so that our own students, having gone through secondary school and now ready for their university education, could choose to go to other universities on a reciprocal agreement and so that we could send equal numbers from our university to the University of Saskatchewan and have as many coming from there to here. I know that it does exist, and I know that the numbers are very small and limited. It's amazing to think that as few as three students could be enrolled in an entire faculty in another university on a reciprocal basis. I think it's a good idea; I think it's a good suggestion. I'm sure the Minister will give it consideration.
I know that our universities are waiting for Friday when
they will catch their first glimpse of what their grants, or
non-grants, are going to be for the new year. They are waiting
to see how big the shortfalls are going to be.
Not only that, they are concerned because they have to raise a portion of their financing from independent sources as it is. There are certain areas of private industry and the private sector which give them research grants. The people in charge of financing at the universities need to know as early as possible where they are going to stand in this next year. Are they going to have to go for increased financing? After all, they don't have the same access to immediate funds as do the public schools that are immediately attached to the municipalities.
Can I move readily to that? The school district budgeting is also one major concern. Although this will best be debated a little later on after the budget has been brought down, I would like to draw to the Minister's attention that the 1.74 student-teacher ratio reduction which is talked about in the throne speech is really not indicative of real progress when you talk in terms of how many students are in a classroom.
As a matter of fact, a 1.74 reduction in the student-teacher ratio makes very little sense to the classroom in Vernon that I visited recently with 36 students in the class. Thirty six students: one classroom. This was at the elementary level.
I would also like the Minister to consider in the student-teacher ratio a reversal of the traditional concept that elementary students are more readily educated in larger groups than are secondary students. I believe that most educators would agree that the formative years in a child's life are likely the years one through six in the greatest concentration, and then the younger years beyond age of six.
Therefore, I think that the Minister should give great consideration to having the lowest student-teacher ratio at the elementary level and having the larger classes in the secondary classes. Certainly in post-secondary there's no limit to what a class size can or shall be.
The municipalities and the school boards are scratching their heads today because they agree with the Minister on the reduction of the student-teacher ratio; they're in agreement with the Minister in her ambitions to have a 1.5 student teacher reduction in each of three years. But this year they are wont to give up that particular goal because they cannot get the funds. At least, it has been indicated to them this early that funds are going to be withheld, even the funds that were designated under last year — special funds to be sure. But even the special funds will not be available this year. They are in a quandary as to what they are going to do with teachers they've already hired.
I'm pleased to announce that in my own school district, the school board is pressing on with their goals, which are the same as the Minister's goals, to reduce the student-teacher ratio again, hopefully by another 1.5. But it has meant a mill rate increase for the taxpayers in our area of some 10 mills.
This leads me in just a moment to the third paragraph in the throne speech in which the Minister has said that they wish to continue the long-term policy of alleviating the burden of rising educational taxes.
But before I go into that, let me just say that I believe again that here is an instance where the Minister has made a commitment based on idealism with not enough regard for the projected costs. I think, if I can use an old word that comes very easily out of my vocabulary, that the sin here is in the promising of the continuity. There was a promise of the continuity that in each of the three consecutive years the decrease in the student-teacher ratio was to be 1.5. The boards had geared up for that particular
[ Page 164 ]
programme, and now the whole thing has been messed up for them. I think that the sin in the entire thing is not the goal, because it's a worthy goal. It's not in the idealism, because the Minister, Mr. Speaker, has all kinds of idealism, and God bless her for it — if it weren't for idealism we'd be a stagnant. The sin here is in the promising without projected costs....HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Why don't we end on that very nice note?
MR. SCHROEDER: Okay.
Mr. Schroeder moves adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.