CONTENTS

Statement Correction to Hansard of Tuesday, March 4, 1975.

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Casa Loma purchase. Mr. Bennett — 343

Public health hazards related to CUPE strike. Mr. Wallace — 344

Teenaged drinking. Hon. Mr. Macdonald answers — 344

Casa Loma purchase. Mr. Chabot — 344

Date of MacDougall document. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 344

ICBC policy cancellations. Hon. Mr. Strachan answers — 345

Filing of Bremer documents. Mr. Gardom — 346

Dunhill purchasing procedures. Mr. Phillips — 346

Budget debate (continued)

Privilege

Accuracy of facts in question period. Hon. Mr. Lauk — 379

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming a large group of people here today from the Home and School Federation of British Columbia. I want to particularly express my thanks to the group I met today in the museum auditorium for the very beautiful flowers they presented to me, and I particularly want to thank them for the very positive and constructive discussion which took place.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, today we have 40 students from John Oliver Secondary School. John Oliver was a very prominent Liberal. He was extraordinary; they used to call him Honest John Oliver, so that's something for the Liberal Party. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. John Jordan and Mrs. Susan Taylor.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A matter was raised yesterday during my absence from the House on departmental business. I would like a chance to respond to the matter raised, but I would like to bring this up tomorrow when I've had a chance to fully review all of the charges levelled.

MR. SPEAKER: I would say to Hon. Members that I would not proceed any further on any matter between two Members without first hearing from both of them on any question which relates to the subject of privilege.

I think it would be wise at this time for the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to publicly correct the record to the House as to his reference in his remarks yesterday where he stated: "On February 28, following a series of questions by myself...." As you know, February 28 was not a question period day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a note here to do just that. I would like to have the correction to 335-1 of Hansard of yesterday. I inadvertently stated the 28th. I should have said the 25th, as I corrected on the copy I gave to you shortly after.

MR. SPEAKER: But it will stay the way it is in Hansard. It will have to be shown as an erratum.

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. The error certainly was mine.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure there was not any attempt to deliberately mislead the House. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The error, sir, was entirely mine. I referred you to it, I believe, immediately afterward and it was my intention at the beginning of today's proceedings to point out the error that I made to the House yesterday. Accuracy in this whole affair, Mr. Speaker, is tremendously important.

MR. SPEAKER: I can see that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to table a document? This is the memorandum of agreement between Casa Loma Motel Ltd. and Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

CASA LOMA PURCHASE

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of Housing. I asked the Minister a question the other day which he took as notice. I will ask it again.

Can the Minister inform the House if the Department of Urban Affairs in Ottawa has indicated that it will withhold federal funds which form the bulk of the financing for the Casa Loma project until certain questions with respect to the purchase agreement and zoning of the property have been answered?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, no such letter or notice has come across my desk.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the directors of Casa Loma will be in a financial position to return the $577,000 received by them from Dunhill Development on behalf of the people of British Columbia as a down payment in the event that the project or the financing for the project does not go ahead?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will be able to ascertain the answer to that information in the document I have just tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say, also, that it seems like

[ Page 344 ]

a hypothetical question at the moment and therefore would not be proper in question period.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Not at all!

MR. SPEAKER: Does it not appear to be a hypothetical question?

MR. PHILLIPS: Not at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I thought he said "if."

PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS
RELATED TO CUPE STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question regarding the Victoria situation with the accumulating piles of garbage and the fact that there is — I know it is unavoidable — inadequate sampling of water supplies and inadequate inspection of food establishments and inadequate supervision of municipal sewage disposal systems. I wonder how often the Minister is receiving reports from the department of public health as to the actual degree of hazard to public health which now exists in the greater Victoria area.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about this subject to departmental officials and have been led to believe at this point that there is no extreme hazard. Naturally it is an uncomfortable situation, and one would wonder what to do about it. In any event, so far nothing has come across my desk, or come to my attention, that would lead me to act in any way.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Does the Minister have any contingency plan — to deal with the fact that there is an ever-increasing possibility of a serious outbreak of disease such as food poisoning, and does the Minister have some personnel available? Should this happen it would happen suddenly and rather frighteningly. Does the Minister have some provision to deal with that?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't really think that there is that much of a hazard, particularly of food poisoning, that exists presently. But we do have a large branch with a lot of personnel that are available all over the province, and naturally people can be moved to do work from the standpoint of public safety.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Attorney-General wish to answer a question?

TEENAGED DRINKING

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay drew to my attention a situation in the Nanaimo area where young people were drinking beer, or were alleged to have been in beer parlours. It is a matter of concern to the government, and in terms of the revisions of the Government Liquor Act that will shortly be brought into this House, that concern will be expressed as we look at the penalties, which may not be adequate at the present time, as we look at the responsibility of the owners or hotel keepers, and as we took at the responsibility of the bartenders.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask just a quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker? The statistics available in a national magazine show that the number of drinkers in high schools has quadrupled and that the number of teenagers killed in auto accidents has more than doubled since the age limit for drinking was reduced. In the provisions that you are discussing, will there be any thought to putting the age limit backup to 21?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have nothing to say about that at the present time.

CASA LOMA PURCHASE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Housing regarding Casa Loma. Could he advise the House whether Casa Loma was purchased subject to rezoning being approved?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can find answers to those questions in the documents which I have just filed.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same subject, a supplementary to the Minister of Housing. In view of the failure of the rezoning of the Casa Loma property by Burnaby council, will the Minister overrule Burnaby council with respect to the zoning of this property?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that question has already been answered.

DATE OF MACDOUGALL DOCUMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Yesterday I asked a question which apparently the Minister did not completely hear. I would like to ask again today whether the Minister would confirm that the document which he tabled in the House on February

[ Page 345 ]

21 was a copy of a document which he received from Professor MacDougall of Dalhousie University somewhat over a year ago.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I think there have been two documents filed with the House; one was the copy. The one most recently filed with the House is the one that I received from Professor MacDougall. We have no stamp dates on the material. The material was simply filed in my office and was supplementary material. I might say that that happens in many instances. Certainly all the material received in my office doesn't reach my desk; otherwise it would be buried in paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, through you, to the Minister. May I ask, however, whether the document which did come from Professor MacDougall came to him or to his office with the report of Professor MacDougall, which in its turn was sent to the Minister's office approximately a year ago?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't have an answer to that question.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Continuing with reference to this MacDougall report which was paid for by public funds, and which the Minister refuses to file in this House, could he at least confirm statements by Mr. MacDougall...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Could he confirm statements by Mr. MacDougall that that report refers to the so-called secret Hydro committee and its work in the body of the report? Could he confirm that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly it never registered with me at the time of scanning the large report prepared by Professor MacDougall. I should point out that the report which we did finance, and which we requested, is about an inch or more thick. So it's a typical, lengthy, legal academic document.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, if the Members of this House think that the questions of future strategy in relation to a very poor treaty should be made public, then they don't understand what strategy is about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: On another supplementary, could the Minister confirm that Mr. MacDougall was given access to "secret" documents of B.C. Hydro and possibly of other Crown agencies?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I presume the Hon. Member has read the statements in the press attributed to Dr. MacDougall in which he indicated these were locked banks of files. He's indicated that he was advised by personnel in B.C. Hydro that such data did in fact not exist, that there were no files on a cost reallocation committee, and that it was in fact by private investigation by himself, once he had keys to the files, that he found such a committee in fact did exist.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister whether any employee of B.C. Hydro or any government civil servant was assigned to examine any of those files in that locked bank, as was Professor MacDougall?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't really appreciate the intent or the full question. Maybe you could elaborate on it further.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Could I ask the Minister whether or not any civil servants were assigned to go over the work of Professor MacDougall or, indeed, assigned to look into that bank of secret or confidential files which were locked up, apparently, and kept out of the normal circulation of B.C. Hydro?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly Professor MacDougall's report has been made available to some senior personnel and has been reviewed by them, so that has been reviewed by some senior people in B.C. Hydro. We have subsequently reviewed some files subsequent to interest in the Legislature.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's reply is not exactly specific on the question of whether or not one or more employees of B.C. Hydro or civil servants actually were engaged in looking through these files, either with the object of discovering cost and reallocation or any other matter. Was there any group formed since this government took over to look through these files?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have only reviewed those files subsequent to the CBC programme — rather, in fact, subsequent to the interest expressed here in the Legislature.

ICBC POLICY CANCELLATIONS

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport

[ Page 346 ]

and Communications): Yesterday the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked me some questions with regard to ICBC. I am informed by ICBC that ICBC has not cancelled any tenants' package policies because of an insured person being unmarried and under the age of 30. I am informed that ICBC has never cancelled insurance of any person who is unemployed. I am informed that ICBC has never cancelled the insurance policy of anyone who is unmarried and living common-law.

FILING OF BREMER DOCUMENTS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Education. Throughout last year I asked the Hon. Minister a number of questions as to whether she is willing to file the John Bremer contract and settlement documents. Inevitably, the answer was that the Minister was taking the question at notice. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister if she feels she has now had enough notice and is prepared to file the document.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The question probably isn't proper under the rules.

MR,. GARDOM: I'm asking if she's prepared to file Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You have already asked that question and you can't continually repeat it.

MR. GARDOM: Last year! I haven't asked her this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much. Is she prepared to file the John Bremer contract and settlement documents? Yes or no?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware that this particular thing he is discussing — pardon me, the particular person he is discussing....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That was not an intentional slip. I am sorry for it.

I want to point out that, as you know, John Bremer is now taking action through the courts. I believe it should not be necessary for a discussion and I shouldn't be discussing that question in the House right now.

MR. GARDOM: I didn't ask the Hon. Minister to discuss anything. I asked if she is prepared to file the documents. Yes or no?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to interrupt the proceedings at this point on the question of a point of order with respect to two questions asked in this recent session by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). In both cases, he stated that what were purported to be facts were found not to be facts. You have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the Members who answer questions purporting to be based on evidence are to be held responsible for that evidence that they present to this House. On two occasions he has been proven not to have anything behind those questions.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a rule of the House, but I point out that the proper place to deal with it is outside of question period.

DUNHILL PURCHASING PROCEDURES

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Housing. Will the Minister advise the House if there is any procedure used by Dunhill Development Corp. when purchasing partly developed housing units to ensure that all the work charged against the units was actually done on that particular project?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the other day I was talking to a group of high school students who had just left a sitting of the Legislature. They asked me two questions. One of the first questions was: "Mrs. Dailly, why are those people on the floor of the House all jumping up and down for the first 20 minutes?" I explained to them, of course, as best I could, the purpose of question period and also pointed out to them that, unfortunately, when I was in opposition I never had the opportunity for that exercise. I think it is quite necessary to point out to high school students the importance of a question period.

The other question which was asked was: "Mrs.

[ Page 347 ]

Dailly, what do you think the purpose of education is?" Of course that is a question which I'm sure everybody, right across the world for years, has debated and questioned. I think all we can each do is do our own thinking on it and develop what we consider is our philosophy. I simply answered them:

"I think we have a threefold purpose when we are talking about the goals of education. One is we must give the student of our province the skills that he or she needs to be successful in the working world."

I think that is essential. I know that the Member for Oak Bay is concerned about that.

"Secondly, we must create the right environment through teachers and administrators in every school, with the cooperation of their parents, which will provide every student in our province with the knowledge and understanding necessary for those students to become responsible citizens in a democratic society."

I have always felt very strongly that if you want to produce students who are responsible and humane, then the school system itself must be humanized.

"Thirdly, of course, and very importantly, we must help each student to realize his or her own unique potential as a person and to fulfil that potential."

So it is not that difficult, I think, for us to agree on the goals of education, but it is in attempting to formulate the programmes and the structures to meet these goals that we face controversy. This controversy is not unique to British Columbia, but right now is raging throughout Canada, throughout the United States, and throughout many other parts of the world where schools are always under public scrutiny.

We all know that there are thousands of different opinions on how best to achieve these goals in education. If a Minister of Education sat back and made no attempt to analyse the programmes and the structures of the educational system to ensure that the millions of dollars spent on education are being spent for the benefit of those students, that Minister, whoever it might be, would face and should face criticism.

On the other hand, when a Minister does decide to move and make changes, as I have done in our education system during the last two and a half years, criticism is still levelled by those in our society who do not agree with the changes which were made. Therefore, in education, whether one takes action or doesn't take action, the subject of education will always be an area of controversy.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Hear, hear!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I have attempted to structure certain vehicles to assist me in developing new policies in education. Now I must be honest with the House: some of these vehicles have succeeded and some of them have failed. Some of these structures have been dropped when, in the considered opinion of myself and my department, trends were apparent which we considered wasteful, counterproductive or were against the best interests of the students in our classrooms. It is the nature of politics that the failures in our inquiries have been headlined in the media, whereas our positive achievements during the last two years have been literally ignored, despite the fact that we have issued numerous press statements — which is our job — to inform the public of what positive things are taking place.

Now today I want to take the opportunity with the House to assure them that education in this province is changing and is progressing along well-defined lines. I certainly can understand the confusion of some of the Members of this House and the public when all they read in the papers are headlines on areas that are completely negative and certainly not doing justice to the work that is being carried on in the schools in this province.

Now through policies initiated by my department, in cooperation with school trustees, teachers and community groups, some very exciting and positive things have taken place in the classrooms of our province and will continue to take place as needs are established and the means are found to satisfy these needs. I always find it frankly alarming when Members of the opposition stand up to make generalized statements such as: "Everything is in chaos and confusion out there." I ask them to go and visit the classrooms and tell me if every classroom you visit in this province seems to be in utter chaos. And I don't think, on travelling around this province, that you could vindicate that generalization. In fact, I know you could not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just your department.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Somebody said: Just my department. I'm not going to elaborate. If my department were in utter chaos, how would this leadership be being generated to produce this orderly change we see out in the system?

I want to make it clear that I've operated at all times on the premise that there are certain basic responsibilities in education policy that have to be left to the Department of Education, and there are certain areas of education policy which we should leave to the local agencies in education. It's in this framework that I wish to elaborate today to you on what is going on in education in this province.

First of all, there is the area of functional literacy, an area which has received much publicity of late, and, I believe, deserves to. The Member for Oak Bay

[ Page 348 ]

(Mr. Wallace) suggested that a year ago he brought this to our attention and he sees nothing happening. I want to assure the Member and others that lots is happening in this area. I am pleased to inform the House that all the present curricula related to the language art skills in this province — reading, writing, spelling — are being looked at by my department to ensure that there is no neglect of the basic-skill teaching in any curriculum in this province.

There is no question about it that during the '60s there were some major changes in the language arts curriculum, some good changes, but, unfortunately, the stress on verbal communication and creativity — which is excellent and which we must maintain — somehow swung completely over, and we have lost some of the basic-skill teaching. That is why my department is looking at every curriculum, from kindergarten right through, with a re-examination to ensure that those basic skills are going to be taught. I want to say here now that we shouldn't panic on this, because we do have many teachers in this province who are using the present curricula to teach the basic skills, but we must ensure that it's being done by all.

Functional literacy is the goal, but not the only goal, as I said before. We must always continue to go beyond minimum levels and move also into the areas of creativity and scholarship.

Now because of the public concern, which I share, I have mentioned one thing which we are doing: evaluation of the curriculum.

Secondly, I have asked to have on my desk by October I a complete, comprehensive mechanism for the evaluation, on a provincial basis, of the present standing of B.C. school students in the basic skills, because we here must generalize talk from the universities and elsewhere, that the students, today, are so far behind what they were 10, 20 years ago. We accept the fact that there are, perhaps, areas there we must move on, and we're moving on them. But let's, at the same time, have some good, solid data so that when we continue to move, we move on a rational, statistical background.

The universities I've met with, the deans of education of the different universities, and cooperatively with trustees and teachers...we are working together on this, because we all share a responsibility in this challenge.

Now, in order to ensure the teacher education, which is another area in which the public, I think, today has expressed concern, in order to ensure that it receives the attention it warrants, we have set up a joint board for teacher education which has been expanded this year, and is in the process of becoming a very strong and vital force in this province.

It's composed of the deans of education of the three universities, two representatives of the B.C. Teachers Federation, two from the trustees, three senior officers of the department and two citizens from the home and school community, native Indian, and union representatives. We have a broad spectrum, there, on this teacher education committee — the joint board of teacher education.

This board has been working very hard. It's a very perceptive board, and it's already responding to requests to give priority to developing the teachers who have the ability to teach basic-skill subjects at all levels. The board is also working in the area of analyzing programmes in our teacher training institutions, related to the ability of all teachers when they enter the classroom to be able to recognize children who have learning disabilities, and to develop techniques of good classroom control.

I was rather shocked to find out that in some of these areas of classroom control the teaching of reading has been, frankly, neglected, and not given enough focus in the faculties of education. I am not condemning all the faculties of education because, I believe, in the '60s there was a trend away from this and they were responding to it.

But I think that the faculties of education themselves, today, are now moving to ensure that the teachers who take up a particular area of primary teaching are certainly equipped with the basic skills on how to teach children to read.

The other point, of course, is vital and it is one which the parents of children with learning disabilities are very concerned about. It is ensuring that every teacher who comes out — and I want to repeat — at least has the ability to recognize the child who has a learning disability. The assurance that every child will leave school with, at least, functional literacy and that children with special learning disabilities will be accepted and understood and taught; that teacher education should be geared to needs, and that classroom citizenship must appear and be a vital part of the learning process — these are four areas in which the most general concern of the public has been expressed to me.

That is why we are moving in cooperation with those involved in all those areas. There have been suggestions that the department and the Minister do not listen to the public. The major changes that have taken place are the result of listening to the public.

I receive over 2,000 letters a month from concerned and interested citizens. We also have parents' meetings, teacher/parent meetings going on in the schools of British Columbia, and I have reported to me, in my office, the results of those meetings. We recently established a number of these meetings with the cooperation of the boards and I'll be pleased to publish the results of those meetings for all Members of the Legislature.

They were looking at areas of classroom management, discrimination, evaluation procedures. I think the Members of the House would be most interested in what the public, and the teachers, and

[ Page 349 ]

the students have to say in those areas.

Now, with the biggest budget of any department of government, the question always comes up: all this money, and what are we getting for it?

Well, I want to elaborate some of the things that the people of British Columbia are getting, and the students. First of all, smaller classes. British Columbia, now, has one of the smallest pupil/teacher ratios in Canada. Because of the funds injected by this government since it came into office, over 3,700 new teachers have been added to the public school system.

The grants given to school boards this year should enable boards to keep on staff.... And there's no question about this and I informed them at the time they were drawing up their budgets — all those new teachers who were hired last year must be kept on staff, can be kept on staff, and the additional services required to maintain these teachers in their proper learning environment will be provided for through our financing formula.

There seems to be a great deal of misinterpretation about the budget. People have even suggested to me "you've cut the budget." There is more money going into education naturally in the Province of British Columbia today than ever before.

But when it comes to the reduction of the pupil/teacher ratio, we have simply said that this does not seem a desirable year to inject 2,000 more teachers into the school system when school board budgets are coming in at well over 25 per cent and higher just to maintain normal operating services with the teachers they now have on staff.

So I have simply said that I don't consider it responsible to ask the boards to inject 2,000 more teachers into the system this year. This does not mean the government is not committed to continue to see the reduction of the pupil/teacher ratio. This will continue to be done, but it will be paced.

If you move into the classrooms of this province and compare them to the size of those classrooms three years ago, before we became government, you cannot help but note the appreciable improvement in ratio. It certainly has shown a benefit, not only to the teachers, but the primary purpose of this is what is it doing for the students. Teachers have told me when I visited them: "What a difference this makes to us to have a class this size, now we can give far more individual attention."

At the same time, I've thrown out the challenge to the BCTF that they must continue to do their own professional development with our encouragement and help in the whole area of instructional skills. Because, I repeat again, the smaller classes are not a panacea for the best education for all our children, It must be combined with good instructional skills.

Now over $90 million was approved by this government last year for classrooms, laboratories, libraries and gymnasiums to meet expanded services. Next year, it is estimated $110 million to $120 million will be approved for additional capital construction projects for the coming year.

Unlike the former government, this government has not imposed any freeze on classrooms, sites, libraries or gymnasiums. I have to repeat, as I have done in the last two years, if the former government had had enough foresight to approve those sites when the school boards asked for them many years ago, this government and the public would not be paying the exorbitant prices they are today.

In addition, an examination is taking place now to see if the Department of Education can assist the school boards by speeding up the process from our end of approvals of new schools. The money has been approved, but we find in many cases that we haven't been able to keep up the pace of the actual approvals from our end.

I found it interesting when one of the Members of the opposition was questioning the great increase in the staffing in the Department of Education. One area which has certainly been increased is the whole area of administration where, when I came into office, I found there were a half dozen people charged with handling all the capital expense approvals for our classrooms. It was impossible for those few personnel to get around the province and do their job.

That is one area which has been beefed up and I know the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), whose own school board has been criticizing the slowness, would certainly have to agree with me that if a lack of personnel in our department has impeded this, we have to add to that personnel.

One of the advances which we have made, and of which we, of course, are very proud, is in the realm of early childhood education. I won't go through the kindergarten, I repeated this for years and in opposition I fought for them. I'm glad to say that this year we now have every child in this province serviced by some form of kindergarten programme. Every child. There are transportation difficulties, et cetera, in some of the northern areas, but we have encouraged the boards through innovative ways to provide kindergarten services.

Now what's the value of this, of course? I don't want to go into a big discussion on the value of kindergartens; I think we all appreciate their value. But one of the greatest values is that now we can screen children at that kindergarten age who may show potential learning difficulties. We already are involved in over 50 per cent screening those kindergarten children who can be diagnosed early enough to do something about what will be potential learning problems. This whole programme will continue to expand. If we do not catch these children at those early years, they are the ones who become

[ Page 350 ]

the future educational accidents.

Now we do have many children with special needs in this province, and when I go on open-lines and talk to Home and School groups and parents, I find the majority of questions now are: "What about the child who does have special learning problems?" Now on their behalf over $20 million was expended last year by the department for special services to these children, and our new budget will allow for continued expenditure in this area.

But there's one thing that does concern me, that's a tremendous amount of money and I want to continually have a critical analysis on how that money's being spent and if it is being spent in the best way possible for the child who has learning disabilities. This constant analysis of our special supportive programmes is going on in our department.

Yesterday in the House we heard an excellent speech from the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) who pointed out the tremendous increase in the immigrant student population in Vancouver city schools, and the problems resulting from that influx. As stated by the Hon. Member yesterday, 1,860 elementary school children cannot read English in our Vancouver school system because they have been recent immigrants.

The Hon. Member made an appeal to me, as Minister of Education, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to give special consideration to this critical problem. I wish to assure the Hon. Member and the other Members of the House that we are going to take two major steps to help in this area.

First of all, I have asked my Deputy, Mr. Fleming, to visit the Vancouver school board on Friday and, in reviewing their budget, to discuss with them and make recommendations to me for special financing to assist the Vancouver school board in this very critical problem of the number of immigrant children who cannot speak English.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: However, the second step which I am taking in this direction, as a member and vice-chairperson of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, will be to recommend to the Council of Ministers of Education that we make special representation to the federal Ministers involved. After all, this is the result of federal immigration policy and we feel that the federal government has a responsibility to assist these students financially.

I am quite sure the BNA Act does not hold back on here. I know in preliminary discussions with some of the federal Ministers that I think we can come to some arrangement. But I intend to make this a special responsibility of mine when we return to our next meeting of the council Ministers.

The problem of these children with special needs is supported by many enthusiastic and vitally concerned groups. Their needs are not confined to Education but cut across the areas of Health, Human Resources, Attorney-General and, in the broadest sense, they involve most government departments. I certainly want to pay tribute to the cooperation of the other Ministers of government who have established what we call a human services committee where we meet together to talk about joint problems and how we can best ensure that children with special needs are taken care of through the cooperation of all our jurisdictions.

Last summer the Department of Education, in cooperation with the BCTF, sponsored workshops at Jericho Hill School to train teachers and to assist parents in dealing with children who have reading and language disabilities, poor physical co-ordination, behavioural problems and failure complexes, all of which can contribute to a student's lack of progress in school. The success of Jericho '74 has encouraged our department to continue financial support for a similar expanded workshop this summer. I want to encourage the teachers of the province to attend that workshop.

I was pleased last fall to receive the report of inquiry into the Jericho Hill School from Professor Ben Chud. Instead of laying that report on the shelf, as I understand seven former reports on the school were just left on the shelf by the former government and others, we have opened up that report to the public and we are acting on it.

In the last two months my department has had six meetings with parents, teachers and representatives of organizations for the deaf and blind to determine the membership and composition of two local boards which will be set up by April 1. These boards — one for deaf children and one for the blind — will advise on the administration and programming of the Jericho Hill School so that there is parent input.

We have employed Professor Ben Chud as a consultant to the department to assist in every step of the implementation of the parts of his report which the government agrees to implement. He is also assisting Frances Fleming in supportive services to look into the whole area of setting up a provincial advisory board for children with special learning disabilities.

I have also established a Minister's committee made up of native Indians to advise me on the best utilization of expenditures for native Indian education. The department last year financed home-school co-coordinators for native Indian children and will continue to do so. We have also financed a special programme at one of our universities, and there is also one in the interior, the college, to

[ Page 351 ]

encourage training of native Indian teachers. The future of the education of native Indian children is being directed by knowledgeable and involved people.

Also, as the House knows, the first native Indian school district, I believe in Canada, the Nishga school district, located in the Nass River valley, is well underway to its full establishment. The native Indians of that district have been working step by step with departmental officials to bring this district into being.

Now, research and development. We have already been questioned on the large sums of money placed under the research and development vote, and I understand. If I were in the opposition, I would be asking the same questions. There seems to be a misunderstanding about the use of this money. This money was voted by Treasury Board to cover all aspects of research and development in every division of the department, because, after all, research has to be covered through the whole spectrum of the department.

The inference which has been made, that it was intended — that block vote — for the sole use of one division, is not true and is misleading.

Now let me give you examples of some of the projects funded last year under this vote so you can have some idea of what research and development funding is all about. An environmental education programme to provide 400 public school teachers with leadership training and safety practices in outdoor environmental education was financed with a grant of $126,800. This was so that teachers could attend this workshop, paid by the Department, and return to their own districts to encourage environmental education in their own area.

A sum of $25,000 was provided. I'm not going to go through the whole vote, because you can ask me in detail during estimates. I just want to highlight some of them to give you a picture of what is going on in this area under the so-called establishment of my department. A sum of $25,000 was provided for the B.C. Native Indians language project and $22,800 to the B.C. Native Indian Teachers Association. It is our objective to give financial support to the development of native Indian language textbooks. We already have in this province one of the first native Indian dictionaries, produced to promote not only the native Indian languages in our province but also the history and the culture of the native people.

The vote also provided funds for two non-departmental research agencies: the ERIBC received $175,000 and LEARN, the Laboratory for Educational Advancement of Resources and Needs, $25,000.

In addition, a large number of important local pilot projects, either initiated by local school boards or developed in cooperation with local boards and the community, were financed from this vote. Among these, one of the most important, in my opinion, was the financing by the department, the assistance given, to the Cariboo- Chilcotin school district in the area of rural secondary education. The purpose of this local project was to provide an extension of the existing rural education programmes to include grades 8 to 10. If successful, of course, it means that these students will then be ready to enter senior secondary programmes without having had to leave their own rural home environment at that critical, sensitive, junior secondary age. The parents in that area have asked for this, and we are very pleased that we have given and been in the position to give the money to assist them in this project.

This unique plan, which will save students as much as 100 miles daily in bus travel to junior high schools, is expected to greatly reduce the dropout rate. The success of this pilot project, then, could lead to a major provincial policy in this direction.

Another very exciting community project assisted financially by our Department is the Pemberton Farm project in the Squamish School District. The whole basis of this programme is to get young people back to the farm, working on the farm and actually appreciating again a farm setting — the work, the animals — and appreciating the work that has to be done on our farms in this province. We are hoping to expand these farm programmes across the province.

But I give full credit to the departmental officials in my department — Mr. Phillipson, who came to me one day and said: "This looks like a good programme, Mrs. Dailly, and I hope that we will be able to support it financially." I'm delighted to see the progress which this farm programme has taken.

In the Queen Charlottes School District, the department provided funds for a study of possible solutions of several educational problems unique to the islands. Another local project by the department was a learning-assistance programme in Burnaby.

Time doesn't permit me to go through many other specifically locally designed projects which have been funded through the research and development vote. We have increased the vote this year because the demands for help are in the thousands from groups all over this province. I think that this is an area which was sadly neglected by the former government. If we want to develop provincial policy based on the needs of the community and the wishes of the community, we must provide funds to finance local projects to show us if this is the right way to go.

The purpose, therefore, of increasing that vote was to give more assistance generally in this area of research and development.

We are attempting through this system to prove the viability and benefits of projects in controlled experiments throughout the system that may prove a decade later to have been counter-productive. We want to ensure that we do not involve ourselves in getting carried away with a project that could

[ Page 352 ]

eventually be counter-productive. That's why it's necessary to have solid research in analyzing them. We want no more situations like those of the '60s where new systems were adopted without prior testing and which resulted in subsequent charges of illiteracy which we are hearing today.

The majority of the projects I have outlined to you are the result of the dedication and the leadership given to me by members of my department and departmental field staff.

I wish to say now very clearly in this House that the blanket condemnation which has been levelled by a small minority group against these people in my department, has been insulting, unjust and untrue. Surely the participation by my departmental staff into the worthwhile project I have just outlined puts the lie to these accusations. Educational change and reform are proceeding in this province in an orderly, rational manner. Educational reform is, and always will be, one of the most sensitive areas in any government, but it can only succeed in an atmosphere which is non-threatening and involves all those who are to be affected by that change. No employee involved in educational reform in my department can ever assume that he, she or they, because of their position in research and development, has the right to proceed autonomously according to their own predetermined concept of educational change.

Further, I must reserve at all times the right, in consultation with my departmental staff, to determine as Minister in which directions change will take place, basing my decisions at all times on input from the public. The operational procedures for these changes must also be maintained under my direction and that of my departmental staff. The public, I am sure, will agree with me that all employees of my department must produce more than paper talk and rhetoric.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): So must the Minister.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The public wants action. Someone said: "So must the Minister." I accept that, and I think that I have outlined to you that in the last two and a half years there has been action in this province.

I am sure that the public also appreciates the fact that it is the responsibility and the right of the Minister of Deputy of any government department to evaluate the effectiveness of their employees under their supervision. If, in their judgment, any probationary employee is not performing effectively, then appropriate action should be taken.

Now the problem of the five research officers released last week is related to their performance as public servants and their action in that role. I am not going to resort to — nor will I, or any of my departmental officials resort to — or be sucked into public debate on complaints by certain individuals formerly on staff. These complaints can be dealt with through a number of processes, of which the group involved is fully aware. Whatever rights they have, they should be given every opportunity to pursue them, and their complaints — should be dealt with in that proper manner.

The cause of education in this province is not served well, in any positive way, by the airing of individual complaints in public. As I have said, appropriate processes exist for dealing with those issues.

I wish to assure the public of British Columbia that we have had in our own department a full study and investigation of this question and that 1, and the government, are fully aware of the facts surrounding the situation, and that the recent terminations were made with my full approval.

Now turning again to educational advancement, one of the most exciting programmes which it has been given me to have the opportunity to initiate is the work-study programme. Now for 10 years or more we have had legislation on our books which allowed school boards to make special provisions for those over 15 years of age who want to attend school part-time and work part-time. The work and schooling were unrelated, however, and only complemented each other by accident. This year we've changed legislation and regulations to allow students to take advantage of the new strategy.

I notice the warning light is on and unfortunately I cannot go into details on the work-study programme, but I will be pleased to do so during the estimates. This is giving an opportunity for the potential drop out to get out in the work field and actually work and have the opportunity to return to school.

There is much I want to say on higher education, and I can just briefly, judging by the time, move very quickly into that and point out to you that the community colleges in our province are now becoming internationally known. The excellent — we call it recurrent — education: our citizens are making great use of it. The former government started a regional college concept. But since we came into the government we have injected massive sums of money into capital expenditures so that these colleges could be improved — the core campuses. We are also moving into innovative ways of delivering service which may not require as much massive capital expenditure.

We intend, as a government, to cover all of the province. We do not intend to say, as the former government did: "Let's have a plebiscite; let's have a referendum. If the people want it, you can have it."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Let's have a task force.

[ Page 353 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We are moving. Our task force has actually produced one college, and you will see, Mr. Member, there will be more produced. When the government is committed to something, Mr. Member, they act on it; they don't just hurry and table it as your government did in the past.

In the whole area of universities, I would like to point out here that we have challenged the universities to move into innovative programmes. They accepted that challenge. I won't go into the details on that now. I also want to point out that as far as financing goes, which we will have much more time to discuss in the estimates, the per capita cost provided by the Province of British Columbia to the universities in this province is one of the highest in Canada. At the same time, we want to point out that this government believes that no one — yes, no one — should be prevented from attending institutions of higher learning because of finances, with the result that we now have one of the best financial aid programmes in the provinces of Canada.

I realize my time is up. I just want to assure the public of British Columbia....

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Turn it off. Turn it off.

MR. SPEAKER: Only with leave of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, right. I wanted to report on the fact that even though we believe in challenging the universities in innovative areas, we also respect the fact that universities must be given assistance for research and in their professional faculty development. Since we have come into office a number of new faculties have been encouraged and are moving in the different universities of this province. We brought in a BCIT Act which now is operating under a board of governors. The BCIT continues to be one of our most excellent technical institutes in this province. Last spring 87 per cent of the graduates obtained jobs immediately upon graduation. As far as I can determine, the remainder were employed by the fall.

We have restructured the Department of Education. We have increased within that department the division of communications, which was sadly lacking under the former government. This division now, and the money, if you will look at the vote, that is allotted to the BCIT media centre, means that this government and this department are serious about moving into the whole area of educational television, audio/visual and videotape equipment, so that the students of this province can have use of these materials. When I first came in, I was shocked that the budget given in that area did not enable the schools to have any adequate resource to pick up videotape programming particularly.

I mentioned the whole area of the increased sums for universities, the fact that they do have one of the highest per capita grants — which we can continue discussing later.

Finally, I want to say that I am very pleased, particularly as this is International Women's Year, that we have established a provincial advisory committee on sex discrimination, which is working very well and which will be moving out into the province in the future to develop workshops on this very vital area. This committee is working successfully with the department.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I simply want to say that despite the critics, despite the headlines which zero in on negative aspects, the state of education in British Columbia is good.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): It is indeed a pleasure to take my place in this budget debate. I think that the Premier and Minister of Finance is to be congratulated for bringing in a budget that is designed for the people of this province. Improvements in Health, Education and Human Resources all continue to upgrade the services to our people. I would, however, like to discuss some of the ways this budget will affect my constituents. For example, this government has taken the approach of rational road and highway improvement. In the past the pattern seemed to be, in my riding, to put down some blacktop just prior to an election. I am pleased to say that the Minister and the department have changed that approach and considered the long-term needs of the riding, while considering the overall effects of new construction on the environment and the long-term needs of the specific area. In my riding there is a five-year plan for the upgrading of major roads. For the first time, regional boards, municipalities and other interested groups are asked for their views prior to major road or highway relocation. I look forward to continued progress in these areas.

I note with interest the increase in the budget to the Department of Transport and Communications. A large part of my riding relies entirely on the B.C. ferry service for passenger and commercial communication.

There have been improvements in that service, Mr., Speaker, such as increased scheduling and vessel reconstruction. However, further improvements are required. For example, it is my understanding that last year on Route 3 — Horseshoe Bay to Langdale — there was a 34 per cent increase in traffic volume over the previous year in that fast-growing area. The Minister has recognized that problem and is doing something about it with the construction of three

[ Page 354 ]

new vessels and the purchase of the Queen of Surrey. The Hon. Minister of Finance spoke in Ocean Falls in his presentation of the budget. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the former government was prepared to let that town die — a major community, serving the central coast, with schools, hospitals, police protection, libraries and many other services? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said that he would close Ocean Falls because it didn't make a profit. I would ask that opposition to repeat that statement in Ocean Falls and see what kind of reception they receive there. But just in case they forget to tell the people what they said, I guess I'm going to have to tell them, myself, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: By purchasing Ocean Falls, the Minister and this government have preserved hundreds of jobs for our people, and I understand that the corporation is even going to show a profit for the last fiscal year. That is due to the hard work and determination of the people in that community.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the people in my riding are pleased with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources' (Hon. R.A. Williams) actions in recognizing the difficulties of the small logging and sawmill operator. By adjusting stumpage rates and increasing the chip price under the wood products stabilization Act, the independents now have a fighting chance for survival in this industry dominated by large corporations.

There is a good reaction, as well, to the announced programme of making Crown lots available to people for home-building purposes.

While I am aware that not everything can be done at once, I would ask that the Minister consider making small holdings of 5 or lo-acre plots of Crown land available for those who wish to engage in agriculture for their personal needs.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are problems in the mining industry in British Columbia, but this is a reflection of metal prices on the world market and the economy throughout the whole western world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: What are you reading?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All other parts of Canada are having the same problem in the mining industry that we in British Columbia are experiencing right now. However, I would like to suggest that if the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) finds that any mining corporation is perhaps cutting back in production or capital spending for political reasons, then the Minister should consider entering the mining field through a Crown corporation.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Another area that I ask the government to look at is aid to the water improvement districts in this province. I am aware of at least 38 such districts in my riding, and very nearly every one of them has a financial problem in maintaining or upgrading their present services to people. This assistance could be accomplished by an Act similar to the Sewerage Facilities Fund Act where the province picks up 75 per cent of the cost over 3 mills, or by amending perhaps section 53 of the Water Act.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I could go on about our government programmes, such as Mincome, Pharmacare, aid to recreation, park acquisition, and the many other new and innovative measures that have been introduced by this government; but I will conclude by saying that never in the history of Confederation has a government done so much for its people in such a short period of time. Thank you.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I am glad to be in the House and take part in the budget debate. There have been several general statements made about the budget and its content. The Minister of Finance calls it a job-security budget. The Members who have already addressed themselves to the budget have called it an inflationary budget, and I'd like to remind the government, Mr. Speaker, that if we have been experiencing inflation in our province it was as a result of last year's budget. This year's budget is not a catch-up programme on last year's inflation. Since the budget has an increase in expenditure of some 50 per cent, it sets a trend in the thinking of the people of the province that may well lead to inflation at least half of that figure.

Some others have called it an "iffy" budget. If the federal government agrees with us, and if foreign markets agree with us, then we will have certain revenues. If those revenues accrue then we will share those revenues with other governments if they will support our position while we are negotiating with foreign markets for a price which could be realized if we can gain the market. Some have called it an "iffy" budget.

I would like to say that it's likely a budget of shifting priorities. The government has given clear indication of what its No. I concerns are. While they were in opposition they shouted long and loud. While they were campaigning for re-election they shouted long and loud what their priorities were. As we look at the budget today, as we will do in detailed form a little later, it is clear that the priorities which were cited are not the priorities of this budget, and so I say that this is a budget of shifting priorities.

Some have said that it's an honest budget. I shouldn't say some, I should say one has said that it is

[ Page 355 ]

an honest budget — honest in that it will be expending this year's revenues this year, rather than expending a total equal to last year's revenues this year, hoping that our revenues will increase and produce a surplus.

One individual — I believe it was the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — called it an honest budget. I don't know. As you look at the budget itself and as you look at the final figures in each of the categories, you notice a large amount of money in each of the divisions called "salary contingencies" which, when you add up the salary contingencies, could well be deemed to be that surplus margin that the government is providing for. Although, in the words of the Second Member for Victoria, it looks like an honest budget, it still is continuing on the safe side of budgeting in this item called "salary contingencies."

I noticed a fun little thing in the budget. The Minister of Finance, in reading the budget, was a little like a one-year-old child in the arms of his mother. When you draw attention to it, it very readily points the finger and says "ga, ga." It directs attention at other than itself. In reading the budget, I noticed two phrases very close together. When the Minister was discussing inflationary problems and unemployment problems in our province he said: "Oh, it's not really our fault. Don't look at me. Look over there. It's the lack of policy at the national level — that's one of the reasons. The other one is we've inherited this from the previous administration." I wonder when this government, now it's two and a half years old in office, is going to learn to take responsibility for its own actions and stop being like the one-year-old child in the arms of its mother saying "ga, ga." I wonder when.

Job security, the Minister of Finance calls it. When I looked through the budget to find out where the job security was, I thought that it was most aptly described in the philosophy of this government in these words: "direct assistance to people." The people on this side of the House would never deny anyone assistance who is in need of assistance, but to believe that we can offer job security through direct assistance to people is to be misled, because you have to look at the end from the beginning: if part of it is good, then all of it is good. If direct assistance to people means job security, then it would follow that if we could give all of the people all of their assistance, then everyone would be secure in their jobs. Yet it is futile to believe that we in government could ever hope to have enough revenues, gain enough revenues to offer job security to all of the people in this province by direct assistance. It's asinine to think this.

Our responsibility in government is to generate enough confidence in ourselves. We have to generate enough confidence in the private sector so that the private sector will move by itself, hence generating jobs. That, Mr. Speaker, is job security. I can't understand how this budget could be titled a job security budget.

There's an area in the budget that I think is commendable. The area is under agriculture.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You better take it out.

MR. SCHROEDER: Perhaps the most welcome development in the Agriculture department has been the income assurance plan — by that I mean the most welcome by the farmers out there. It has meant money in their pockets in this year. You can look on any scale of incomes and you will see that farm income is up. It's up proportionately to wages in other sectors, and I welcome it. It is good.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): In a city riding?

MR. SCHROEDER: In a city riding, yes.

I went to some of the farmers to find out how they felt about the income assurance plan. I was amazed that in the milk industry alone there was a small percentage of holdouts, people who are not involved in the income assurance plan for reasons that could best be described by fear.

I asked them: "Why not? After all, the programme and funds are there, You have to milk those cows anyway. Why don't you get involved in the income assurance plan? At least you would have a decent income for now."

They said: "Harve, a subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy."

It makes no difference whether you dress it up in an income assurance plan or what form it takes; it is still a subsidy. A subsidy is great when you are working from a surplus position in government spending. But their worry is: what happens to the source of funds if the government should run into a deficit position?

Farmers are more cautious than most people. They know that every day is not a bright day. As a result, they wonder about a subsidy programme in the event that we should run into a deficit position.

I notice that there was a revision in last year's budget to the actual expenditures of some $10 million. This $10 million undoubtedly represents the number of dollars by which the income assurance budget was short. This is the number of dollars that went into the agricultural sector as a subsidy which was not anticipated at the outset when this income plan was brought in.

I still think that a better way — whether the product be milk or apples, whether it be turnips or tomatoes — is to let the product bring its true cost of

[ Page 356 ]

production on the market. That way we do not get involved in subsidies; we do not get involved in the administration of subsidies. In addition to this, I think we need to have some kind of control which can perhaps not be exercised at the outset by this government, being a federal matter, but I think we need to work in the direction of control on competing imports to ensure that the market of our own products is secure.

Municipal Affairs. In the Municipal Affairs area I went to one of the mayors of my area and I said: "Mr. Mayor, how much do you have to have in a per capita grant in order to balance your budget this year?" The per capita grant last year was established at $34.

The mayor said: "The breakdown point in our municipality is $45 per capita."

He said the costs are rising, which is nothing new to any of us. He said that unless they can be guaranteed that kind of revenue, they are going to have to cut back on services or find some other way to increase taxation.

But in any event, the concern of the mayor was this. He said: "We are planning now for our budget for this next year. Our budgets have to be complete shortly." He suggested that they would have to have all their ducks in a row by the middle of May. "Yet," he said, "how in the world can we plan for our expenditure if we have no idea — not the foggiest notion — what our incomes are going to be? As a matter of fact," they said, "we want to have an answer now."

They are worried about employees in other municipalities who are asking for wage settlements as high as 46 per cent in one area. They know that in their own area this could be and is a probability. As a result, they need to know not only what their source is going to be but they need to know in what amount that source is going to come so that they can plan. This uncertainty of one-third of a future settlement, this iffy thing that I was talking about a few minutes ago, is not acceptable at all.

Another thing that I must decry is this use of friendly persuasion to get municipalities to back the government's position on export of natural gas. Now, whether the position be right or wrong, the method is despicable. I think that better, far better, would be to tie the grants to our municipalities to the net provincial revenue growth rather than give them one-third of something that will be settled in the future, which could be one-third of nothing.

I have several areas that I want to cover and I am aware that 40 minutes is the limit, so I must move quickly to housing.

One of the priorities this government set is housing. As a matter of fact, it's so much of a priority that we are going to establish a Department of Housing, and we've got it.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. SCHROEDER: I remember the day the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) stood in this House and he stuck out his chest the size of a sparrow's kneecap, and he said: "For the first time in this province we're going to inject $100 million into housing." And it was a good day — everybody pounded their desks and it sounded real good. It sounded real good until somebody took a sharp pencil and started to figure out how much housing $ 100 million is going to build.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): More than your government would ever build.

MR. SCHROEDER: Let me just remind the Minister of Housing that our shortfall in housing has come in the recent years, and that the policy of the former government was not to build housing on its own but to encourage housing being built by the private sector, who, by the way, if they become mobilized have the ability to provide enough housing in this province. If this government pretends that it can provide enough housing for this province — impossible.

Let's look at the figures that are in the budget speech itself. I see the Minister of Housing say: "We produced 2,000 units for rental last year." Well, bully, bully, bully! When we need 30,000 just to catch up, what does 2,000 units do? Then he said: "We are going to do more. We've got 15,000 units that are in the planning stages that are either being constructed or they're being drawn — they're in the planning stages now — somewhere — 15,000."

I also noticed in the budget speech that there is a priority. Their priority is that we're going to be building units for small families — small families. This is not apartments, apartments that cost like $29,600 apiece, but these are family units which will cost in the neighbourhood, I am guessing, of $50,000 at the very least.

I want to know what this $100 million injection that the Attorney-General was talking about some time back actually did. I want to know what the taking over of Dunhill has really done for the production of housing in our province.

I happen to have the building permits from various areas in the lower mainland, and these building permits are in dollar values. They compare the current month — the current month being December — with the previous month of November. But, more significantly, they compare with the same month in the previous year. Let's listen to it. Let's see how much stimulation there was in the housing segment.

In the City of Vancouver, whereas in the current month of last year there were $12.8 million building permits, this year $8.1 million. Burnaby: $4 million

[ Page 357 ]

last year; this year, $2,5 million. Last year in the City of North Vancouver building permits totalled. $5,222,000. Hang on now — North Vancouver this year, unless it's a misprint, $527,000 — $5 million reduced to $0.5 million.

In the District of North Vancouver, building permits totalled $9,451,000 last year in December. This year in December, $1,452,000 — $9 million down to $1 million. In Richmond, $6.1 million down to $4.3 million. Surely there must be one area where it goes up. West Vancouver, $2.1 million down to less than $1 million.

The total for December — total permits for those areas last year, $3§.9 million — I might say $40 million. This year it's reduced to $18 million. That's the stimulation that we have had via the information given on building permits issued in these areas. The. total January through December totals as they compare — $407 million in the previous year, and this year down to $347 million. That's the kind of stimulation that has taken place.

I've listened to the Minister stand in this House and say they have created jobs by being involved in housing. I think the truth should be known. I think that they have bought existing operations, they have perhaps hired a few more administrators, a few appointees perhaps....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: And made $2 million.

MR. SCHROEDER: But let's make no mistake about it, that the number of people that were involved in building housing before are still involved in building houses and we are getting no more housing in the province that we were before. Let us tell the truth.

I see in the budget speech....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Are you attacking the municipalities for dragging their feet?

MR. SCHROEDER: I read in the budget speech that "what we're going to do," Mr. Speaker, "is we're going to provide housing and housing lots at affordable prices."

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Are you attacking the municipalities?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You do that every day.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, $20,000 is what you now pay for a lot. If you bargain and if you take the best bidder and if you happen to know a good contractor, you can now get building done at $30 a square foot.

If you build a small house which, in my mind, is a kind of a unit that the Minister is talking about in the section on housing when he talks about a unit for a small family — I am talking about a two-bedroom, perhaps three-bedroom, unit.

If you can get that out of 1,000 square feet, 1,000 square feet at $30 a square foot is $30,000. Add that to the price of the lot and you've got $50,000, If you can get an 80 per cent mortgage you have to pay $10,000 down. If you mortgage the full $40,000 at interest...you can now get it near 10 per cent, which is fantastic. But at 10 per cent interest you have to pay annually, at the beginning — before amortization — $4,000 per year. Taxes estimated on that same piece of property are approximately $1,200 in my area. So $5,200 a year is what you have to put into the housing before you have ever paid anything off on the loan.

If the rule of thumb which says one-quarter of your income should be the most that you spend for shelter is right, it means that a person must earn over $20,000 a year to qualify for this kind of housing.

I know it's the best they can do, and yet he says: "This is housing and lots at affordable prices." I am waiting to hear the kind of a plan that this Minister has in mind that is going to make available to us, the people of British Columbia, building lots that we can afford. I suggest to you that we cannot afford this kind of housing.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You are attacking free enterprise now.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): No, you are. You're attacking free enterprise.

MR. SCHROEDER: I would like to see cooperation on the part of the Minister, together with the municipalities, to provide the kind of housing that still is affordable to young marrieds and young families in an area in which, I must agree, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, municipalities are dragging their feet.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Okay.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'll tell it like it is all the way. The municipalities should be encouraged to accept their share of the kind of housing that still is affordable.

It's clear that it has to be something of a mobile nature. I believe that each municipality, my own included, should accept their share of housing through mobile-home parks. You can still afford to live in a mobile home when you first start out in your earning capacity in life. Perhaps if you lay a little by each year there can come a time when a $50,000 unit may be affordable. If you can get an appointment with the government or if you can fall heir to some

[ Page 358 ]

fancy sum somewhere, then perhaps you can afford the $50,000 price. But at least let's get them started in these mobile-home parks.

They don't have to be forever. I like the idea because the land is not lost forever. You can put a mobile-home park on to an acreage. You can recover that land when the mobile-home park is moved away and that land can be put back into production.

I think it's a good plan and I would encourage the Minister.... As a matter of fact, I would vote with the Minister on a plan to create more housing of this kind. I've said this before in this House. However, I still find very few projects — I don't mean projects in which the government itself if participating — but projects that the government has encouraged at the municipal level, where private financing can go, where you don't have to take paltry $90 million that you've got in your department, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Let's go to Chilliwack.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'll invite you to my house for a cup of tea when you come.

I have to move to education. When this government came to power clearly one of the priorities was education. Just as I said municipal revenues should be attached to the revenue growth of the province, I believe that education likely could also be attached to revenue growth.

In 1972, when this government came to power, the percentage of the revenue that was assigned to education was 31 per cent. When this government came to power they said: "Oh, not enough money is being spent on education." Not enough money.

In 1973, the next year, with the words still ringing in my ears that not enough money had been spent the previous year, I watched very closely as 28 per cent of the revenue was assigned to education. I said: "Oh, well, I know why it has dropped so much — it is because we are catching up this year on capital expenditure. After all, we didn't have enough gymnasia, we didn't have enough classrooms and we are catching up, and that's why we have this drop." I am being facetious, of course.

Then in the next year, 1974, Mr. Attorney-General, it did drop in percentage of the revenue growth.

All right, here we go. In 1974, the percentage dropped to 25 per cent.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What was the increase?

MR. SCHROEDER: And then in 1975, the budget that we are discussing now dropped again to 23.4 of the gross revenue. I want you to know that that doesn't look like priority to me.

It doesn't look quite as bad and it hasn't been shunted back quite as far as the Department of Housing, which was a No. I priority and which has received some paltry $90 million...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Paltry $90 million! What's $90 million?

MR. SCHROEDER: ...of which $10 million will be used up in administration and $80 million will be all that is used to put in incentives for housing. Education is nearly in the same category.

I notice that the Minister (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) spoke, while she was on her feet, about quality of education. She's concerned, as I am concerned, about the quality of education in British Columbia. We are trying to develop a better quality of education but we are doing it with our eyes shut to an alternative which could provide clear new vistas of opportunity as far as alternatives and quality of education are concerned. We have shut our minds to the opportunity that there is in an educational opportunity outside of the public school system.

I couldn't agree more than when the Minister said: "No matter what you do, you're going to get criticized. No matter what plan you come up with, you are going to have those who oppose the plan." If they didn't when they went to bed, they will when they get up in the morning because they've changed their minds, They will disagree with you. You are subject to criticism no matter what kind of a stand you take. This is the kind of criticism we will subject ourselves to as long as we have a single, unified, monolithic system. I think we need to begin to look.

Whenever you get a new R and D (research and development) department, Madam Minister, one of the assignments that should be given to them is: what are the opportunities offered to British Columbia by that sector now called the independent schools?

If we can't have agreement in our own system, why not let another system come side by side with us, offer the alternatives, and let the people choose between the two? Those who don't agree with you, let them take the alternative. At least, let's recognize that alternative and at least provide operational funding for that alternative.

The Minister has made a sort of general statement that says the Education department is in a turmoil. Everything is chaotic in the Education department.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Does daddy know about this?

MR. SCHROEDER: Certainly that's not true. Certainly there are areas where the educational department is working. However, when it comes to the public attention that there are areas of problem within a department and when those areas of problem are scrutinized in light of the fact that the student

[ Page 359 ]

that is coming through the school system is not what those parents expect that student to be, then all of a sudden there is turmoil, then all of a sudden there is unrest.

I want you to know that people become impatient after two and a half years of promised direction. Now they see, rightly or wrongly, that the research and development department was a hope for a new direction. Now that that particular department has been put out of commission, they see that they have no hope of direction. They don't even see a framework on which that hope can be built. I think the Minister must accept the responsibility for this vacuum that is created in the minds of the people who want education. I believe the Minister must be responsible.

What kind of a screening process is it that will hire 12 people, assign them to a department and, scarcely three months later, have half of those appointees found undesirable?

Let me just give you a comparative figure, Mr. Speaker, so you know how bad it really is. Let's take the year — I'm going to trust to my memory — 1973. It was at a time when we had 22,000 teachers in our province. In that year there were seven teachers who, for some reason or other, were found undesirable for their positions and whose appointments were to be suspended. Seven out of 22,000. Ultimately, four appealed and were reinstated, and only three were suspended from their positions. Three out of 22,000. That's out there but here, within the warm confines of our own department, six out of 12 are found undesirable within a short three-month period.

My question isn't: were they desirable or undesirable? My question is: what kind of a screening process is there that allows that kind of hiring? There's got to be a better way.

I had many more things that I wanted to say concerning education. One of the things that amused me as I read.... I read a press release and watched the television at the same time and listened to the Minister say: "I'm going to run my department. I'm in charge here. I'm the person that's going to say which way it's going. I will give the directives." Yet I was reading at the same time, and I couldn't help but laugh, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), as I read before my very eyes: "The Deputy Minister has made the decision, and I fully concur, about the firing of these five people." I couldn't understand the two statements when both of them were coming toward me at the same time.

I have a question about what's going to happen to the directives in the White Paper. Only two of five have been enacted, three are sort of in limbo. An informed force — I mean an informed source.... I just had my nose fixed and now my mouth won't work. (Laughter.) An informed source says that one of the persons fired is the one who did the original 359, draft on the White Paper, and I'm wondering what's going to happen to the directives in that paper now that the author is fired.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: Oh, it's a question, and I think it's a natural question. Are we going to continue? Are the other three directives' directions going to be abandoned?

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, you're right. It happens to Marks all the time. (Laughter.)

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): The Attorney-General was right on the mark.

MR. SCHROEDER: I was interested in a short computation which revealed something to me about the budget priorities. It seems to me, as I've already mentioned, that one of the priorities of this government was housing. Another priority was education. Another one of the priorities of this government was municipal affairs, cost-sharing with municipal affairs — it was a priority. One of the priorities was health.

A little quick computation- let me tell you how I got to these figures. The break-down of the budget for last year certainly said something to us: it told us what the priorities of the government were — not so much as you compared the amount of dollars for each department to the total of the budget, that's not it. But as we compared it to this year's budget, it showed us a shift in priorities. As you compared the percentage increase or decrease in spending in each of the departments, it is very revealing.

For instance, in agriculture we have an increase of 296.73 per cent — increase. It's welcome, and I want you to know it's a good plan. Agriculture needed that shot in the arm long ago, and let's tell the truth: it's a good plan; it's a good priority.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You're going to vote for the budget.

MR. SCHROEDER: Listen to number two. I've got this on a scale of 21. Second on the scale is Transport and Communications — 100.5 per cent. I'm going to go quickly because my time is short.

Next is Mines. Mines is number three priority — 99.21 per cent. Recreation and Conservation is number four at 84.69. Can you write fast enough? Number five is Public Works. Number six is Human Resources. Number seven is Provincial Secretary's office, Number eight is Legislation. Number nine is Finance. Let me go down to number 15. Number 15

[ Page 360 ]

is Education. A shift in priorities there, huh? It was supposed to be number one, two or three, and here it is, number 15, Education — 36.2 per cent. Health is number 16 — 29.83 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: You want to know what your department was? Yours is 64.14 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too much for him.

MR. SCHROEDER: Here we go. Labour is number 17 — 24.7 per cent. Municipal Affairs is next. Number 19 on the scale is Housing. I don't understand this when we've got a crying need for housing. We've got enough material lying alongside the railway tracks between Quesnel and Prince Rupert to build all the houses we're going to need here for not only this year, but next. We've got all the nails and hardware; we've got all the glass; we've got unemployment; we've got people waiting with hammers in their hands. We have everything set to go and yet we do not have housing being constructed, and here it is number 19 on a list of priorities.

Number 20 is Economic Development.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Where was it under the Socreds — 50?

MR. SCHROEDER: Look at that. Under the Social Credit Party, I want you to know people had enough confidence in themselves to still look after one of the three basic necessities of man — which are food, clothing and shelter — they were still building their own shelter for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative, after the review of this shift in priorities, but to move the motion found in my name on the order paper, and I'll read it for you: "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply," be amended by adding the following words:

"But this House regrets that, in the opinion of this House, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has failed to establish budget priorities in such a way as to provide adequate financial provisions for revenue-sharing with local government, incentives to stimulate housing and incentives to develop a greater number of job opportunities in the Province of British Columbia."

So moved and seconded by the Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. LEWIS: You should be ashamed of yourself. How can you do that in all honesty?

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): In seconding the non-confidence motion on the current budget, I want to say one or two things about the effect of the budget on the constituency which I am privileged to represent.

We know that there are a number of matters which have lain in abeyance for some considerable time, some because of the conclusion of studies, others because no particular attention has been paid to them over the years. I don't exempt the previous government or any government prior to that government from not looking at the matter of the Indian cut-off lands.

I did have the privilege of attending a meeting of the union of chiefs, Indian chiefs, last November 27. I can assure you that they are not a very happy group of natives, and I have to sympathize with them because I think there have been some rather unusual types of procedures taking place in the past which have eliminated a considerable number of acres of land from them and not been provided for by other Crown lands.

I don't blame this government, any more than I blame the previous government that preceded this government, for causing this problem, but certainly it should be dealt with at this stage. I understand that certain meetings are taking place, and I must commend the government for holding the meetings and hearings with the Indians. Hopefully they are not just hearings that are a matter of taking up time and excuses for dealing with the question. It is national as well as provincial, so it is going to be a complex question. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

The other matter I want to say something about today is in regard to the Okanagan water basin. A study that covers a number of years, and a study being concluded with firm recommendations.... I understand that as of Thursday of this week certain documents are to be delivered to the committee which will authorize them to proceed in carrying out the recommendations of the Okanagan water basin study, However, I am not yet advised as to what financial participation is going to be involved or whether it is just a set of letters patent, which will authorize the committee to move forward. I have no idea. Because of the magnitude of the work and the effect it will have as a pilot project, the results of this study and the results of the actions taken will be able to be used in other areas — not only in British Columbia but in other areas of Canada.

I hope that the government is considering substantial ongoing interest in this project, and certainly assistance by way of financing, to bring about a successful solution to the problem of the Okanagan water basin.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's been a very interesting budget to sit down and listen to and attempt to unravel. It is not because of the size of the figures, or

[ Page 361 ]

the percentage of increase that has taken place in the budget in the last two or three years; but it's rather mind-boggling to the public as to how they realistically analyse the methods of projecting revenue and expenditure.

This is not an easy situation, because virtually all the revenue estimates and all the expenditure estimates are surely a case of guesstimates, as we noted from the budget of a year ago, and at that time we found that even before the budget had been passed and while it was in the course of debate, when we had gatherings out on the outer lawn, other revenues were going to be needed. They were not included, although the government knew about them, because their programme asked for a decrease in the pupil/teacher ratio. This, evidently, was merely taken on a very casual basis and not considered to be of any real significance, so it wasn't included in the estimates. And as we go down through the estimates of a year ago we find that it was necessary to have revised estimates which showed very, very substantial amounts of revenue that were finally required.

Better than $707 million is going to be required in increases. In revising these estimates, I think every department — outside of, probably, one — had to have increases in the '74-75 fiscal year, and they are substantially increased again in the '75-76 fiscal year. This is rather difficult for me to accept after being here as many years as I have been, listening to as many budgets, and also being a cabinet Minister who was well aware of having to carry out a proper administration and stay within my budgeted estimates, excepting periods of time in which unforeseen expenditures were required. I recall one year of a very substantial estimate having to have a supplementary, and that was in relation to forest fires. We had a very bad fire year, and the estimates had to be supplemented, and this is understandable because that is our No. 1 industry in British Columbia. You must protect the forests.

As far as revenues are concerned there are. vast differences in revenues, and we find that every area of revenue, outside of succession duties and gift taxes, is anticipated to have very substantial increases in this particular year, even down to the miscellaneous revenues where it is estimated that we are going to have about $6 million more from that particular source.

Mr. Speaker, this budget really means very little to my constituency and the people within that area, for the simple reason that I have a number of municipalities. If a person wants to play around with the "iffy" portions of the budget, such as: if an increase in export gas is granted, and if the price is in excess of $1 per unit, then it's possible to divide that excess revenue with the municipalities.... This is an extremely sceptical way of financing a municipality. I can sympathize with the municipalities for the very reason that they're attempting to prepare their budgets, presently, on a pretext that they are going to get something. This has not yet been cleared to the point where it can be said definitely that there will be an increase in the export of natural gas which will provide the revenues that these municipalities are going to require.

Now, there's no question in my mind that government policy at the provincial level has created difficulties also for the municipalities in the fact that they're attempting to keep up with the inflationary trends that are exhibited and generated by the provincial government. Whether it happens to be salary-wise, cost-wise or whatever it might be, it's certainly not helping the situation out one little bit.

This revenue sharing, I would think, should be on a more substantial basis. It should be covered in by way of revenues that are on a less sceptical basis of producing.

If, for instance, we find that we must cut off export gas, as indicated, natural gas to the United States, then we are not going to have any export price. What are the municipalities going to do in that particular case?

This is not beyond the realm of possibility because presently, today, the rate of discovery of natural gas in British Columbia and the amount of exploration going on is almost nil — down to a very, very minimum. We need to build up inventories, whether we have discoveries by way of capped gas or whether we conserve it in any form we can. Certainly to assure British Columbia of being able to have a supply of natural gas in the future, we are going to have to have a stimulation of discovery.

From there, if we can't get the natural gas, we are going to have to think in terms of the production of synthetic gases. This is going to take a certain amount of lead time to get into the production of synthetic gases, as they have in the United Kingdom and in other countries of the world. This is the only other source of energy that I see available, but it will not come about as long as we have the situation we have today which doesn't encourage the development and exploration and discovery of the natural product.

The figures have been worked out in relation to government spending since March, 1973, to the budget date last Friday. Between the 1973 budget and the 1974 session, the government has spent $117,406,416 by special warrant. As I mentioned previously, special warrants have a place, but certainly only on an emergency basis. I can't see within my mind how so many emergencies could occur in such a short time. Granted, special warrants have been passed in previous years by all and sundry governments, but we seem to have a proliferation of special warrants. I wonder about the estimating and the management involved in the handling of finances. I attach this to no particular department, but

[ Page 362 ]

government generally.

I think a complete review should take place. Between the 1974 budget and the 1975 session, there is a further expenditure of $156,583,904 by special warrant. We see a continuing operation here of special warrants, special warrants, special warrants. I think these things should be debated in the House prior to expenditure. If they are not, they become a matter after the fact; the government has spent the money. The representatives on both sides of the House, the backbenchers on the government side and the opposition Members have not had an opportunity for input into the discussion and into the wisdom of spending such large sums of money.

I mentioned previously about the cost of government and how it has risen to astronomical levels. As I have noted in the printed budget speech, the anticipated — I say anticipated — revenues are expected to come in within this fiscal year. I have become perplexed by the fact that we have had a downturn in the economy.

Where did the downturn occur? We've had a downturn in the forestry industry, our No. I industry in British Columbia. We have had a definite downturn in the mining industry, and a downturn in the exploration and development of petroleum products and hydrocarbons. Housing is down in the private sector and hasn't really gained any momentum as far as public housing is concerned.

Let's take one immediate and local situation that we have right here in the City of Victoria: the percentage of building permits taken out in February, 1975, against a similar month last year were only 10 per cent of what they were a year ago in the City of Victoria. Those aren't my figures; those are the figures that were given by the city only yesterday.

Now where is this revenue coming from? We know we have to have it if we are going to meet the budgetary expenditures, unless it is anticipated that as the year goes on we start cutting back — as was indicated last December for the cabinet Ministers to start to put the thumbscrews down to hold back on expenditures. I hope that it hasn't affected any of the programmes, particularly in the field of social services. I would be very disturbed if I thought that people were going to be affected.

We know that people are going to be affected. We know that, because without the resource revenues that are required we are going to have to look to other sources, namely taxes — and these are people taxes. We note that it is anticipated that the property taxes for the next fiscal year, through the revenue estimates, will be up $23 million. We note that the sales taxes will be up $480 million. With the downturn in the economy I am sure people are going to be less anxious to buy. We note that in the personal income we are going to have an increase of $655 million, We know all about the gasoline tax, and I won't mention it because they have a bill on the order paper. But there's an increase there from the automobile sector of $179.5 million. The hotel room taxes will be $8 million. Liquor tax profits will be up $155 million, and even the cigarettes are anticipated to provide an additional $23 million.

So the total people taxes will be in the neighbourhood of $1,523.5 million. This is a total increase in these taxes of $447 million. Now we can't say that the budget is a people's budget. We can't even call it a job-security budget, or any moniker of that nature, for the simple reason that the government is already budgeting for a decrease from forest taxes — a decrease of $125 million — and mining is anticipating a downturn of $6 million. So it pretty well leaves the budgetary requirements in the area of taxation. I think that that has been pretty well tabulated.

We mentioned that the fuel taxes — the people taxes which directly affect people — are up on a staggering scale — and I don't mean the Richter scale, which is a bit earth-shattering — while revenues from forestry and mining are dramatically down. Property taxes are up very, very substantially, by $5 million. Sales taxes are up. Personal income taxes are up. Gasoline taxes are up. Hotel taxes are up, and liquor income taxes are up.

There is one thing on which I must commend the Minister of Finance. He wasn't so naive this year, as he was last year — in which he said there would be no increase in taxes to people. Hardly had he the words out of his mouth when, in the next day or so, he mentioned that there was going to be an increase in the price of natural gas.

So this is why it is very confusing, very complex, for the normal man on the street to attempt to analyse this budget. The real area, I think, that needs consideration — and I think that the government is going to be taking another look at this, as I'm sure they did last year — is that when they look at the revised budget, which will come in possibly after the conclusion of this session, at that time, by special warrant, they will be able to carry out the necessary financing.

Certainly there is no provision within this budget, other than on a stop-gap measure, for employment. No permanent solution is evident. I'm wondering in my own mind what we can anticipate for next year after we have gone through a situation similar to the one we did in the 1974-75 fiscal year.

If adequate financial provision for revenue — sharing with local governments could be a reality within this budget with incentives to stimulate housing by the private sector in hand with that which is being provided by way of public housing, we would probably get somewhere near our required housing requirements. Probably with an accelerated rate, not in one year, but in the next two years, we would

[ Page 363 ]

probably start to catch up with the demand that is presently evident here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

For some unknown reason British Columbia seems to be a haven for people who want to live in the beautiful confines of British Columbia, but they find no place in which to hang their hat. Consequently, we have the proposition that we have today in attempting to improvise by way of housing units which are not always in accord with local government views on permanency.

The job opportunities in this province are slipping away very, very rapidly. They are slipping away to the extent that we have to have people leave the province to find employment.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Up to the Yukon. The Minister of Labour says, "Go to Alberta; go to Manitoba."

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: I wish you boys would just allow me to wind up here by having a few words to say regarding the mining industry. I think it is evident to everyone here what is happening in the mining industry. You can't place the total blame on the world price of copper because we produce a vast number of various types of metals: zinc, lead, sulphur and many other metals — all required within our province but not to the degree that would make any difference on the world supply, particularly copper. We produce about 3 per cent; we have no monopoly, But we have a royalty. This happens to be a designated mineral. Any other mineral can be designated by cabinet order. We know this from the legislation that was passed in the Legislature, regardless of the opposition that was given to it.

But it was the last straw that broke the camel's back. This is why we are finding a great number of mines today which have reached the uneconomic point of operating. Maybe they will not open up again. This will depend a great deal on the world market in which they will be able to receive a high enough price to take care of the revenue that must come off the top of the pile before they start to take care of production costs, land taxes and other obligations by way of the royalty imposition.

It could have been that we could have had a great number of jobs in our mines that have slowed down and some completely closed out had we not imposed that a profits tax. This in itself, then, would certainly have kept the mines in operation. The jobs would be there for our people, and, by way of jobs, a great source of revenue coming back to the government by way of income tax, by way of sales tax, by way of regional hospital taxes to help the regional hospitals so that they don't have to depend totally on revenue from government to meet their requirements.

There is no question in my mind that our mineral industry is not going to be buoyant within the relatively foreseeable future.

We are not going to stimulate the mines to the degree that they should have been stimulated. It's very questionable if the investment capital, both in the exploration field of petroleum and for minerals, will return to this province even after they do have an assurance — let us use a hypothetical suggestion -that the royalties will be switched to a profit-tax basis similar to income tax.

They have committed themselves to other projects outside of Canada, outside of British Columbia. To divert the capital back to the province.... It has always taken anywhere from five to eight years to bring a property into production. Should they come into production in the new areas in which they have located mineral deposits and where they have had a more acceptable political climate to deal with, you are not going to find this capital coming back tomorrow afternoon. It's gone.

Until there is a better climate in British Columbia, the revenues that should have been spent here have gone to Portugal, they have gone to Australia, they have gone to Manila, and they have gone to any number of places. It's public knowledge where they have gone to. Certainly, it is a crying shame this has ever happened. There was no need for it and we could have a very viable industry in British Columbia at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this budget but I support the amendment. Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is my pleasure to support this amendment. Unfortunately, though, for the people of this province, this amendment had to be brought in because there is nothing in this budget to provide in the long range for the much-needed jobs in this province.

But I look at this budget, I look at it and I read it, and this budget is incredible — in its incredibility. Here again this year, the same as last year, we are presented with a document that really isn't even a rough guide of probably what the Minister of Finance plans to spend. We were provided with a budget last year in this Legislature and, before the budget speech was even passed, the Minister of Finance was making changes in it. Some of them were major changes. So really, I don't know why the Premier even brings down a budget. It's not even a rough guide of what he intends to do with the finances of this province. It isn't even a good rough outline, because he will go ahead and spend exactly where, if and what he wants to. So I don't know why he....

[ Page 364 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that he is required to speak to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I just want to clarify something with the Hon. Member. Are you the seconder of the motion?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm speaking in favour of the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of the amendment then.

MR. PHILLIPS: Were you having a little sleep, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I would just....

MR. PHILLIPS: I told you from the very beginning that I am speaking in favour of the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I would just ask the Hon. Member to speak to the amendment.

HON. MR. COCKE: How about having a little regard for the House? What are you talking about?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the Minister of defence. Why don't you have a little regard for the House and just pay attention? You had your chance to speak.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're over there yapping all the time. You had your chance to speak.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: That Member over there, the Minister of Health...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...is a very important person. They named him after Martyrhead, Massachusetts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister not to interrupt the Hon. Member. Secondly, would the Hon. Member address the Chair and direct his remarks to the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder where the Premier is this afternoon. Has he gone to Japan this time or has he gone to China, St. Louis, Nova Scotia or is he down in South America? He brought in a budget and he isn't even here to listen to the debate on it.

HON. MR. LEA: He's in South Peace River.

HON. MR. COCKE: Dawson Creek.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was amazed to pick up the newspaper the other day and to find a full-page ad which says: "Our budget for the 1975-76 fiscal year has been designed to achieve greater economic equality and social justice in British Columbia." A full-page ad in the paper. It goes on to say that it provides jobs and that it looks after the municipalities. I'll get to that in a moment, Mr. Speaker.

The taxpayers of this province are being treated like mushrooms: they are being kept in the dark and being given large doses of the appropriate fertilizer. And I want to tell you that this is some of the fertilizer that the people of the province are being subjected to.

You talk about job security. It's job security for Dunsky Advertising, not job security for the workers of this province.

You know, there's a purge going on in the civil service in this province that makes Stalin look like a piker. It makes Stalin look like a novice when it comes to purging in the civil service. I wonder how much job security Tom Machin of ICBC feels that he has. How much job security does he have? How much job security did Les Hansel, the Associate Deputy Minister of Economic Development, how much job security did he have? How much job security did Jim Kinnaird of the labour relations department have? How much job security did Stanley Knight have? How much job security did John Bremer have? How much job security did the five researchers who were just fired have?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Who fired five?

HON. MR. COCKE: Would you hire all those guys?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, you don't even have job security in the civil service these days, not with the purge that's going on around here. No wonder they call it the fire department.

HON. MR. LEA: Who fired Barrett a few years back?

MR. PHILLIPS: Now listen, Mr. Minister of Highways, why don't you just pay attention, to your own business? You'll have the opportunity to speak

[ Page 365 ]

in a little while.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, you go right ahead.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: What happened to Jones?

MR. PHILLIPS: Last year the work force of this province increased by 58,000 people, according to the Minister of Labour — the work force increased by 58,000 people. But the civil service increased by approximately 12,000 people. If you go by the rule of thumb that it takes an average of 7 people to service every person employed either in industry or, in this case, it'll be by the government, that figures out to me to be approximately 84,000 people either hired by the civil service or required to service those people that are working for the government. So what we're doing in creating jobs to increase the products of British Columbia, we're slipping backwards — we're actually slipping backwards. We're not making any progress at all. We're going backwards.

But who's got to pay for this increased bureaucracy? Who's got to pay? The taxpayers. What does it say here? It says that it's a family budget, and that there will be new expenditures by the Department of Public Works. Well, I'll tell you, is that any long-range planning? We're spending the taxpayers' dollar to building edifices to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) to house the new civil service. What are we going to do in the long range when we build all the buildings we can build, when the Minister of Public Works has built all his monuments to house his new bureaucracy? Then what are you going to do for an encore? What this province lacks is long-range planning to provide for the increased work force in this province, and there's not one single shred of evidence of long-range planning in this budget — not one shred of evidence of long-range planning.

No, it's all right to spend all this money. It's all right to provide services for people, but where does the long-range planning come in? No, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is not a budget that is going to be job security for the work force of this province. This is a budget that is leading those who want to work in this province down the garden path. Down the garden path, that's where they're being led, and here we spend thousands of dollars to tell them that it's a job security budget. Not one shred of evidence in this budget is going to look after the long-range planning of providing those much-needed jobs in this province.

There is no job security in the mining industry today in this province, and there hasn't been any job security in the mining industry in this province since this socialist group took over. There hasn't been any job security in the petroleum industry in this province since this group of socialists took over. You talk about job security — there's no job security in this province.

There's no job security in the home construction in this province. "We'd bring in a special Department of Housing that's going to solve all the problems," I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, last year was supposed to be one of the greatest priorities of this government, and they overspent their budget less than any of the other departments. Oh, yes, the Department of Housing. We heard great glowing terms about what the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is going to do. What did the Minister of Housing do? He didn't create one single new house in the Province of British Columbia — not one single new house. As a matter of fact, he has driven jobs out of this province by buying up private enterprise — and certainly once those job are stopped, they'll never be started again — the money going out of the province to provide housing elsewhere. Talk about job security.

I'll tell you, you talk to the people who were involved in the housing industry about job security. Those jobs are going a-wanting somewhere else, the same as they are in the mining industry, the same as they are in the petroleum industry.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Talk about poppycock!

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why I have to support this amendment, because when you really analyse this budget, when you really look at it, there is not one shred of long-range planning to provide the much-needed jobs in this province. And yet the people of this province are being subjected to large doses of the appropriate fertilizer to try and tell them that this budget is going to look after it.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we'd be happier with action from this government instead of words. We'd be happy if they did something to restore the confidence in the mining industry. We'd be happy if they'd do something to restore the confidence in the lumber industry. Nobody's going to invest in those industries while that group of socialists is in power. They play the game and they make their rules as they go along.

No, I'm afraid that I have to support this amendment because this budget just doesn't provide any long-range planning. We might be able to employ some people next year by hiring some more into the civil service, by the Minister of Public Works building great buildings and by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), who just two weeks before the budget came down said, "Oh, no, we don't believe in building highways for those automobiles...." That's what he said!

Interjection.

[ Page 366 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, he said: "We don't believe in building highways." Then the budget comes down and the Premier stands in front of the TV cameras and he says: "Oh, no, we're not going to build political roads." And where are the roads going to be built?

MR. CHABOT: Three NDP ridings.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we've come to expect this from this government. We've come to expect it from this government and the people of the province have come to expect nothing more. That's why, when you go out into the boondocks today, talk to the man on the street, and ask him what does he think about the budget, he says: "So what? That isn't what they'll do anyway."

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I've read this amendment very carefully and I was almost thinking one way and another whether I could support it or not, but after listening to the last three speakers, there's just no way I can support an amendment like that.

I said one time last year, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes when I come into this House I feel like instead of coming through the door, I came through a looking glass into never-never land. This is one of those days. It's obvious from the last three speakers' comments that they haven't read the budget. If they had, they couldn't possibly have taken the tacks that they have. They must have somebody doing their research — I think they found the mad hatter, either that or the March hare. One of the two must have been doing to research to advise them to take the position today that they have on this budget.

The amendment reads that the criticisms are against municipal aids — more revenue-sharing with the municipalities in the province. I remember last year when the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) stood in this House and listed 12 — and then one extra for a baker's dozen — separate things that have been done in one and a half years by this New Democratic government for the municipalities that that bunch would never do, and had been asked to do for years and years by the municipalities. They never did. There's only a $4 increase in the municipal per capita grant, certainly, but when you add the $4 to the miserable amount that they were giving to the municipalities, it amounts to approximately 20 per cent. Even in these days of inflation it's a good increase in the per capita grant.

Welfare costs are reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent, a 33-1/3 per cent savings for the municipalities in that area alone. Mr. Member, if you want to check those figures, I'd advise you to do it yourself and not get the adviser that was advising those three Members. He was obviously a long way off.

We have taken over the cost of the operation of he courts in the municipalities. The burden has been taken from them for all legal costs and operation of ours, which is certainly an excellent savings for hem in that case.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You heard it yesterday, but it never sinks in. You've got to keep firing and firing right between the eyes, because bullets by your ears are never noticed.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): There's nothing between their ears to stop hem.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: It's like getting the attention of a mule with a two-by-four.

The Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act has been spoken of before, but apparently the official opposition never listens, as usual. In the time of their administration, under the Act they had for aiding municipalities with sewerage costs, they paid out about $250,000. In one year following the amendments of this government, over $5 million was paid out to aid the municipalities — and they have the nerve to come in here and criticize this government for not helping municipalities.

Fifty per cent of the cost of enumeration is taken away from the cost to the municipalities in their operation.

So is one-third of the capital cost for municipal recreation facilities.

In the City of Kamloops alone there are five recreation facilities that we probably would not have now if that government had stayed in power, because they certainly wouldn't have made any funds available. And they were built by people. A lot of people worked on them, and jobs were had, wages were earned, and there is staff working in them now and drawing wages.

The final thing is from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke): the ambulance service. Ambulances never did run for nothing under Social Credit, They always cost the municipal governments. And was there any aid from that government to help them with their ambulance costs? Not that I can remember. There never was. But now that they are in the opposition, these holier-than-thou people, this government does nothing to aid municipalities.

Now I know there are four or five more things, but in the time since the amendment was tabled in the House I didn't have a chance to dig them out.

You know, they want more sharing of revenue with the municipalities. In the budget it says that

[ Page 367 ]

there will be a one-third sharing of the net increase in income from natural gas. One of our few friends in the media, who write in The Vancouver Sun, said in her column, of course, that we were promising nothing because we have nothing as yet. But the Premier announced when he returned from Ottawa after the conference with the federal counterparts that at the meeting in April, next month, they would be looking favourably on an increase in the export price of natural gas, and I take that to be a pledge from the federal government. There is going to be an increase. I have no doubt about it and I am sure the official opposition has no doubt about it. At $1.35, a 35 cent increase, this will be somewhere in the region of $8 per capita to the municipalities. If it goes to $1.95, it should be approximately a $19 to $21 per capita increase to the municipalities.

Granted, that's a promise, but this is where the official opposition can't understand what is going on in British Columbia today. British Columbia has a government that keeps its promises. They don't just make them and then save them for the next election after they get in. Look over the pledges made in 1972, when this government was elected, and see how many have been carried out and how many are in the process of being carried out.

We're being criticized for the housing, They say that we should bring in more incentives to have more houses built. There were a few incentives brought in by that previous government. I'll agree there were — such as the homeowner grant and the home acquisition grant. Have we done away with them? We've increased them. We've increased all grants for homeowners and home acquisition, assisted with taxes, assisted with rents, improved in every way on the previous government, plus bringing in a Ministry of Housing to supplement the private industry. There was never any intent at any time that we would build all the houses, or that that Minister would build them all in the province. It was a supplement to assist in an area where private industry was stumbling.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Well, don't take my word for it. Let's go to one of our well-known press people, Maury Gwynne, writing in The Victorian on November 25:

"At a time in our province's history when housing accommodation is as rare as hen's teeth, Nicolson's department has managed to create or help to create some 2,259 units of housing, and has either under construction or on the drawing boards another 14,823 units.

"Over and above that, 2,216 residential lots and 931 spaces for mobile homes are either under development or in the planning stage. Already developed in residential subdivisions are 1,005 lots and 96 mobile home pads — not a bad record for a department that's only been around for one year."

One year, 12 months. Compare that with any home-building stimulation that they had. It makes the amendment that they are proposing absolutely facetious.

"British Columbia has the highest growth rate of all of Canada. We are growing at a rate of 3.4 per cent a year. We also have a monumental housing crisis, again the worst in Canada."

And now we get to the little hooker — and it's not a happy hooker, either.

"But the best the province can do in dealing with Ottawa is to borrow money at 10.75 per cent, while Mr. Turner in his budget is gaily making money available to private developers at 8 per cent."

A disgrace! An absolute disgrace, Mr. Speaker.

I think that's all I'll say about housing, but on the job incentives and on the economy of the province, which apparently, according to the last three speakers, is just going completely down the tube, they are forgetting completely the history of the last couple of years of investment. It's right in the budget, but it is obvious that they didn't read the budget.

Capital investment was up 16 per cent in 1974 — and there's no indication as yet that it is going to slack off in 1975 that I know of, or that any of the other Members know of.

Industrial manufacturing risk capital, the hardest money to get, is up 29 per cent, and the British Columbia farmers' income up 25 per cent, which is one of the few things that the previous speaker referred to and thought was all right. I assume by that that he must come from a country riding.

The parity bond debt was reduced from $179 million a year ago to $149 million now. There is enough money in the old sock to cover it if it should be necessary.

We should provide greater job opportunities. Of course, everything should be done to provide job opportunities in a time of employment such as we have with a soft international timber market, housing slacked off in the United States and probably not liable to pick up until the next election because that is the way those so-called free enterprisers operate. They will bring in a massive housing programme just before the next presidential election there.

No one likes unemployment. No Member in this House. No one in this province. It is too severe right now. But, if it were down to even 5 or 10 per cent of the present rate, it would still be a serious matter of concern and a concern of everyone in this House. It is my opinion that there are many things in the budget that will stimulate employment with the ongoing confidence of the investors that they showed last year

[ Page 368 ]

in the government of this province and in the people of this province.

There is only one time I can think of when the people didn't seem to be very concerned about unemployment and, in fact, I think they were a little happy about it. That was in August, 1972, when 28 Social Credit Members became unemployed. I don't think there were too many people in the province concerned about that. I think there are probably, from the performance so far in this term, going to be a few more unemployed after the next election.

One member who is not going to have to worry about employment will be the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) because he has finished his three-year apprenticeship. I am sure any department store in town will hire him for a floorwalker.

MR. McCLELLAND: That is sick.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There is extra money in Forestry. So, we heard the previous speaker say all of this money is going for administration. That is not the way I see it. That is not the way I heard the budget read. The extra money in Forestry will be for extra reforestation, more nursery workers, and a larger system of tree nurseries. Reforestation has been ignored a lot in the past. There has not been enough of it done. This budget is going to provide for more of it. There is no way you can get those seedlings into the ground unless you transport them and unless somebody plants them and walks over the hillsides putting them in the ground and looking after them.

Those people, Mr. Member, are employed. They are working, Extra people getting salaries. There is an extra $15 million shown over and above the increase in the Forestry budget for employment alone in that industry, for badly needed work. Badly needed work such as thinning and slash cutting and burning that has been ignored for far too long in this province.

We heard someone speak about the monuments the Highways Minister is building to himself. How many jobs does the building of one bridge, such as the one at the foot of Knight Road in Vancouver, or the new Clearwaters bridge in my riding on No. 5 Highway create?

Not only does it provide a service, not only does it provide better transportation for trucks and cars, but it stimulates employment by other industries and business settling in the area when you have a decent transportation problem. People are working in the cement plants. The iron workers are tying up the reinforcing steel. The carpenters are building the forms. That is employment. Certainly it is not the best kind of employment when the government has to provide as many jobs as it does in a time of slack-off in the economy in some of the sectors of the province's business and industry. But there has to be a certain amount of pump priming done in the bad times. It can be eased off in the good times.

They talked about our inflation problem. If you relate that to job opportunities, let's take the extra money for the B.C. Rail. What should we do? Stop the extension to Deese Lake so that we can save a little money and fight inflation by not wastefully squandering dollars? What about the jobs that are on that line to build it? What about the more and more jobs that are going to come in that area as people move in once there is transportation for industry and business?

I've just listed a few, Mr. Speaker, and I won't try and wander around on various other subjects. I think I stuck to the three: the housing, the aid to the municipalities, the greater job opportunities, trying to show those people that their amendment cannot be supported by the Members in this House. I am very surprised if all their Members will support it. However, we will have to wait for that time.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): It gives me great pleasure to stand up here and speak against the amendment. The reason I would like to do it is very simple. It is because all you have to do is to look at the cover of this budget. You see two small children running through meadowland, park, and you realize that this is a budget for people.

When you looked at the old budget covers from the old government, there was a building with no people around. It was always things. It was always things. They are running down to join the NDP club, Mr. Speaker. That is what they are doing.

It is always nice to get back to the Legislature and see the opposition in action. It was even nicer to watch them in action and hear them in action before we got into the Legislature. I knew that when we got in here this time, there were going to be different attitudes over there. I just knew that from following the news media, especially in the Social Credit Party. I knew there would be a change of makeup over there, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has proved that time and time again. Every time he goes on television, there is a change of makeup. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister to confine his remarks to the amendment.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh! I am, Mr. Speaker, because they've said they would like to amend this to job security, and I'm looking after Dan Campbell.

Speaking to the amendment, which I am doing, as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) knows. He's never wandered. He knows I am.

[ Page 369 ]

MR. CHABOT: Right on, right on.

HON. MR. LEA: But I look at what happened to the opposition before we got in here. They were telling everyone in this province that when we arrived here with the budget, we not only would have spent all the money that we took in but we would probably be in debt. It was rather nice to look across and watch smiles go to slight frowns, go to frowns, to complete anger and frustration when the Minister of Finance said we would have a surplus of many millions of dollars.

What about the budget? I haven't been in the House that long — two budgets. But every time I've heard before the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) say — he used to say it to the Social Credit Party when they were the government — "Why don't you bring in an honest budget?" He said it to us. Then we did it and now he's mad. It's hard to understand. No, I should say he's angry. He's not mad.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: But I cannot understand that. For the first time in my memory a budget has come into the House that says: here is the expected amount of revenue we're going to take in and we're going to spend it, and they coincide. All of a sudden the Liberal Party apparently isn't happy with that kind of honest budgeting.

Now, the amendment says, in effect, that this is an inflationary budget and will not create jobs. It is, I think, indicative of the way we're handling the financial end of this province. We're trying to create jobs for British Columbians and to keep the money here to reinvest in British Columbia.

The old style was short-term financing by the old government. You know what they would do; they'd say; "Look, things are politically bad out there; we have to create a few jobs." So in the meantime, in order to create some jobs, they would siphon off, at hardly any cost at all or any charge at all to the American corporate structure, all of our natural resources. They would create some jobs, but they'd be darned expensive jobs.

We feel that we can keep that money in British Columbia, reinvest it in British Columbia, create more jobs, and keep a lot of that money here to supply social services in this province, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is doing and as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is doing. Almost every department is doing it. The A-G is doing it through his Justice Development Commission.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Right on.

HON. MR. LEA: Right. Social services for people. The money should be reinvested in this province.

What happens under the old conventional wisdom and economic theories practised by the former government when you do that? Look at Can-Cel — or Col-Cel before it was Can-Cel. They said that it didn't create jobs; it kept jobs. What was happening to the people who invested in that company from British Columbia and from Canada? What happened to the revenue that should have come out of that company? They didn't make money for years — they said. But if you examine it just a little closer you'll find that that company wasn't doing that badly even back then, except that they were selling their products, which was allowed by the former government, to a subsidiary of Celanese in the United States at a deflated price. They, of course, were making the money down there. What happened is that the Canadian stockholders weren't paid a dividend and there were no taxes because they weren't making any money.

That's what they're asking us to do now to create jobs: allow those people to invest in our province without taking any precautions to see that we're getting an even break on the returns from those natural resources. We say it's not good enough. We also say that the people of British Columbia say that it's not good enough to see that kind of rip-off that's been going on in our resources sector for years and years and years.

Now what do they say? What do they really say? They get up and say: "You're not spending enough money, Mr. Minister." When they get to individual departments, they say: "Spend more money." Let's see what happens over there when they get to my estimates on roads. Spend more money in each department, but let's keep the budget down because it's inflationary. Can't do that. You can't have it both ways.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, we don't want it both ways, Mr. Member, we don't want it both ways.

MR. CHABOT: Dunsky was hungry.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I'll tell you, that's the kind of research they do, because it didn't even go through Dunsky. Good research.

MR. CHABOT: I had the answers, didn't I?

HON. MR. LEA: I never tried to hide anything in my department.

Now, how do we create jobs? Do we create jobs with the help of the federal government? I think we should get help from the federal government to create jobs. But I've noticed in the last cabinet shuffle that

[ Page 370 ]

they had in Ottawa, the only Minister they left in British Columbia was the Minister of National Revenue (Hon. Mr. Basford).

I don't know whether we in British Columbia should like that. You know, old Ron just collects the money, but we don't seem to get any of that money coming the other way. We start looking at the tariff system out of Ottawa, the freight rate structure out of Ottawa, and we see two areas that, in my opinion, were specifically designed to keep central Canada rich and in full employment, and keep the west broke and no employment. It seems to me that the Liberal Party in the Province of British Columbia should get on the hot-line down to Ottawa and say: "Look, we're not getting a break down here. Let's change a bit of the legislation; let's change the freight rate structure and the tariff system so that we can get secondary industry going in this province and, indeed, throughout all of western Canada."

It's a bit of dual responsibility, in my opinion. When we have the federal government suppressing the economy in the west, it's pretty hard for any government out here to create secondary jobs. I believe that all Members of the House should be pressing their MPs, no matter what political stripe they are, to get those kinds of policies changed in Ottawa so that we can have a healthy economy out here to supply social services to our people.

Now I don't think that's going to happen. We can pressure all we want, Mr. Speaker, but when all the votes are contained in Ontario and Quebec, I think the old federal government will just tell us to lump it. They don't need the votes out here to win, and we're not going to get very much. But I think it's worth trying.

How has the money been spent? That's the big question that's always being asked on the other side. And they say: "Is it employment-creating?" You know, the recreation grant — the one-third grant to build recreational complexes — is, in effect, an employment-creating programme. That isn't what it's designed to do, but one of the spin-off economic benefits is that it is.

MR. CHABOT: Mostly volunteer.

HON. MR. LEA: In my riding in the last year: $1 million in recreational grants. That means that $3 million has been spent, if it's a one-third grant, for curling rinks, work on the ski hill, work to build a museum, a community hall in Sandspit. And all of those projects created jobs. They created money in that local community that's going on and turning the dollar over and over. So it's good.

You know, they don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that you can put money into social programmes, programmes that bring social betterment in our province, and create jobs at the same time. All they can really see is giving their friends, the big corporate structure, the benefit of everything and hoping that they'll come down on mothers' march day and give us $10,000 for this out of the generosity of their hearts.

You know the big campaigns; the company comes down and says: "Here we are." It's our money they're giving us. That's all it is — if they give it at all. I believe that that's a poor way to run a province. I think that the way to do it is to provide social services that are job-creating, such as the one in this Minister's department, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). It does a dual purpose, and I think we need more of those kinds of dual-purpose policies.

Now what do the Social Credit say they would do in order to create jobs? They haven't really come up with anything. All they have said is: "Get some money in here; give it to the companies somehow. That will create jobs." They say: "Now if we were back in, I'll tell you the kind of spending we would do." They say: "We would increase Mincome." Of course, they'd fail to say that they wouldn't have brought it in in the first place. They say: "We'd do better with Pharmacare." Of course, they'd fail again to say that they wouldn't have brought it in in the first place. Day care.... These are social services, and I believe that history will prove that the Social Credit Party, when they were government, didn't care the least little bit about the social services to people. The only time they did it was when they were politically forced into it to keep the vote. We bring it in between elections, just after elections, before elections. That's the kind of party it is.

MR. LEWIS: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: An election party.

HON. MR. LEA: Now the Liberal Party: first of all, we know that they could run the province better; we heard their leader say so at UBC. He said, "We've all got degrees. The whole House should have degrees." Then we could all sit around with our degrees and tell those little people down there, those stupid little workers and those stupid little businessmen, how to run the country.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Stupid little Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, now I'll tell you, this Minister of Highways has never paid horses, like the federal government did on their payroll. Did they all have degrees, Mr. Speaker? Did it take an accountant to figure that out, that they should pay horses that were marked down as people?

AN HON. MEMBER: It took a general to figure

[ Page 371 ]

that out.

HON. MR. LEA: It took a general, eh? — a liberal-appointed general. Now I guess that's the way they would like to run it, the Liberal Party — that they would sit in here with their academic degrees, handing down edicts from their higher-learning degrees.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: No, it's not a shame. I think there should be a few of you in the House. Five's enough.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): What part of the amendment?

HON. MR. LEA: What part of the amendment? I'm talking on the same one as the Member for Peace River spoke on, the same amendment. But you know, it boils down to this, Mr. Speaker, if you're talking about creating jobs....

MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't given us a bareface fact yet.

HON. MR. LEA: Well there are other barefaced things, and we've got lots on the other side of the House. It boils down to this, how do you create jobs? Do you do it by giving your friends in the corporate structure a great deal of tax incentives, it's called? Syncrude is really an incentive. Is that how you do it? Do you say you won't have to pay for taking the logs, you won't have to pay for taking the ore from mines? As a matter of fact, if you take it — as the former government did — they said: "We'll give you two cents a pound subsidy for copper, it's not worth very much. Not only will you take it for free, we'll pay you to take it."

MR. GIBSON: And take half the profits.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, half the profits! How much money did they pay in income tax? What of the oil companies, a lot of money? Not a lot of money, eh? That's what they say, we should take our revenue as a government in taxes from the taxable income. The only thing is that the federal government, when they're figuring that out with their friends, there is no taxable income.

MR. GIBSON: We should levy our own corporation tax.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, well. So the federal government policy is wrong is it? What about your party in Ottawa? Wrong? The fact of the matter is you can't divorce yourself from the Liberal Party. They're doing it down there.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): They're not doing it; they're doing us.

HON. MR. LEA: So what we're saying is that in order to create jobs, let's keep the money in British Columbia and reinvest that money in British Columbia, but let's get our money out of the natural resources. The federal government again has said, and I'd like to hear the opinion of the Social Credit party on this....

MR. CHABOT: I'll tell you on that. It's diminished.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Well if it's diminished, Mr. Speaker, where did we get all that money they say we spent ill-advisedly?

MR. PHILLIPS: Taxes from people.

HON. MR. LEA: Ahhh! Well, it boils down to this, Mr. Speaker, really what it boils down to is that over there they say: "Give everything to the companies and maybe there'll be a few spin-off benefits for people." We say that is not good enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: Casa Loma!

HON. MR. LEA: Oh! Barney Danson will tell you about Casa Loma.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the taxpayers' money, what about Dunhill?

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister address the Chair, please?

HON. MR. LEA: I'm trying to, Mr. Speaker. Now, one of the questions that's been asked is to the Social Credit party, the Liberal party and the Conservative party, how much is natural gas worth? Know what they say? "We had a good contract before, 32 cents, that was good."

MR. PHILLIPS: Normally it only takes you about two minutes to tell us all you know.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, if I told all I knew, Mr. Speaker, it would only take two minutes and if I told all I knew and all he knew, it would still only take me two minutes.

So where are we going with this budget? You

[ Page 372 ]

know, where we're going, is we're going to supply services to people by selling the resources of this province at a fair price to industry and to the export market.

You know, I don't blame those other parties for being angry at that kind of policy, Mr. Speaker, because first of all, it's job creating, by keeping that money here, reinvesting in this province, and politically, they don't want us to create jobs. Politically, they don't want us to.

Secondly, if they're going to serve their constituents, it's their job to come in this House and ensure that we do not tax and we do not charge those companies anything, because our constituents basically are the people. Their constituent, basically is the big corporate structure and when it comes right down to it, you cannot serve two masters and that's why I believe that the people of British Columbia will see through the whole thing over there and decide to put a people's government back in. I think this budget is going to be the instrument to put this party back in power for a long time. And that's why they don't like it.

MR. GIBSON: Name the date!

HON. MR. LEA: May 26, I think, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It seems to be the countdown to May 26, Mr. Speaker. That's very, very obvious, not only from the budget, but certainly from the many remarks of all of the Hon. Members of the government when they've been speaking both on the throne speech and the budget speech. You can see that they're going to enshrine their Hansards and take them back to their ridings and say, "This is what we've done," And this is certainly the account that is coming before this House from every Member that speaks.

But the amendment, Mr. Speaker, to plagiarize a quotation, is a far, far better thing proposed by the opposition than the political roulette route that has been offered by this government. I can assure the Members of the opposition in this House that we have every intention of supporting the amendment, and the government's political roulette route is really nothing more than a very patently obvious albeit artful attempt at political blackmail.

I'd say surely the NDP and all of the people that they have in their accounting house — all of these economic alchemists that they brought into this province — must hear very, very clearly the outcries of the municipalities of their very great need, patent and urgent that it is, for revenue assistance, Their cries are more shrill today in the province than they have ever been.

The demand for the services the municipalities have to provide are by law mounting daily, their costs are escalating like Topsy and are compounded by, I'm afraid, the fear of their being suckered into the same kind of percentage increases that this government has seen fit to pay its political appointees.

This government has set the tempo and the municipalities are being forced to play the tune but they don't have the funds to pay the piper. Once again we're back to this age-old hassle: the municipalities are without revenues and they're without any effective or practical mechanism of raising revenue. So what are they doing? One thing they're doing is scaring the britches off the landowners — what britches they may have left — by threatening 25 per cent and indeed higher increases of taxes this year.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Thirty per cent, according to the Hon. Member for North Vancouver, in his riding. Can anyone say that that is creating economic or governmental stability in the Province of British Columbia? It certainly is not.

But the policy of these Monte Carlo-ites over there, or the Coquitlam croupier (laughter), who doesn't seem to be in his seat at the time, is once again to play fast and loose with a very critical situation, ignore a need and set up a "good guys–bad guys" scenario and play political roulette with all of the municipalities of this province, which in their turn have the duty and the responsibility to service the specific needs to the extent that they have that responsibility to all of the citizens in the province.

All of this is confrontation politics. True, it's confrontation politics revisited, and there's a new twist, but it's still confrontation politics. The new twist is by nominating not only in the first act, but long before the curtain ever goes up, the people of Canada as the possible villain. As I said, what a scenario is being developed by the Premier of this province for election purposes, and nothing more than for election purposes.

To utilize one of the phrases used by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who is not in his seat, "Maxi-WAC" was pretty good at these kinds of scenarios, but I tell you that in this particular field comparing him to the present Premier is like comparing Louisa May Alcott to Tennessee Williams. (Laughter.) The pathos in the plot is just this — it's from the viewpoint of John Q. Citizen, the timorous taxpayer, the fellow who's looked upon as "expendable Joe," but he's inexpendable Joe.

Once again the taxpayer sees all of the governing processes, most of which are beyond his comprehension and interest because he's so mind-boggled by the complexities and enormity of

[ Page 373 ]

government, and he sees these government processes scrapping and fighting and scratching and biting over his tax dollar with never any overall tax reduction to him — just increases, increases, increases. That's wrong, and this budget should have provided a great deal for tax deductions, but that's a matter which I'll be discussing later on during the budget debate. I'm restricting myself now to this motion which is before the House.

All these competing governments want from the taxpayer can be summed up in two words: more and less. They want more money from him and they offer less freedom to him for paying it. The three levels of government are constantly playing Monopoly, not with their money — no way. They're playing Monopoly with his. For all practical purposes, once that taxpayer has left the polling booth, the only part he's allowed to play in the game is "put up the dough." It's more and more and more every time the markers move around the board. That has become at the very least an annual ritual now.

First of all we find that he's visited by Mr. Trudeau, and he takes what he wants and the fellow pulls out his pocket and transfers what's left into the second pocket. Then he gets a visitation from the Premier of this province and he takes what he wants. The taxpayer takes the little bit left, puts it in another pocket and lie pulls out his second pocket. Then there comes a knock on the door from the mayor and he takes what he wants....

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): What's in the breast pocket?

MR. GARDOM: The mayor takes what he wants and then there's not too much left and he puts it in the last pocket.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please relate his pockets to the amendment?

MR. GARDOM: I certainly will. Soon, Mr. Speaker, what's left in the last pocket is gone, too, because this poor taxpayer is too big to cry and it hurts too much to laugh. So he pulls it out and he blows his nose and hopes for something to turn up. But this is all he's left with, once he's gone through the levels of government. Is that a good thing?

Dickens didn't really know, I don't think, just how prophetic he was being when he said that he was hoping for something to turn up. That's what the taxpayers in this province are hoping for today: something better to turn up. The infamy of competing tax systems must be one of the very worst consequences of an interdependent and a totally integrated society.

But these people over here are compounding the problem by not decreasing demands upon the B.C., taxpayers' dollar but increasing those demands, and daily. What we need is a brand new philosophy for the cities and the municipalities in this province. They have got to be looked upon not as creatures of the senior government but as partners. I'd say that in this province, in fact in the whole country for that matter, what we need is a complete and continuing — and I really emphasize the word "continuing" — review of federal, provincial and municipal taxing powers and responsibilities. I don't think the taxpayer is getting value under any circumstances.

The Plunkett report in British Columbia a few years back was a real breakthrough and it came to very earth-shattering conclusions. It said — and it was a very correct statement — that the British Columbia government was avoiding its constitutional responsibility for the assumption of municipal costs. That conclusion was reached under the former administration too, and that conclusion is just as valid today as the day it was written, if not more so.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Everyone knows the direction population is taking in this country: two-thirds of it is now urban, and it is contemplated by the end of the century that 7 or 8 out of 10 people are going to be living in urban areas. They've got to be serviced and the urban areas must be given the tools to be able to do the job.

I would suggest six points, Mr. Speaker.

1. We have got to have a complete reform and the revision of our municipal, provincial and federal taxing powers and tax-sharing arrangements. As I said, this has got to be a continuing committee of Canada.
2. We have got to have an acceptance by this provincial government of the fact that the philosophy for municipalities and cities has got to be one of a partner to the provincial government, with much freer rein and guide over their own destinies, both in taxation and in planning, than they have ever had before. They are not supposed to be creatures of the provincial government. In my view and in my estimation they are supposed to be partners — and make no mistake of that.
3. I would suggest — and this government can do it and it can be done in this session by the Minister of Finance just snapping his fingers — let's, for goodness' sake, ensure that every single municipal bond in this province can be provincially guaranteed.
4. In order to try to help to end the capital shortage that is facing municipalities and the difficulties they have in raising money, for goodness' sake, say that this government, to the extent that it can if the federal government won't go along with you — and I would say that the federal government should go along with you and this should be a policy

   [ Page 374 ]

   right across this country — grant income tax relief to the purchasers of the municipal bonds so they would receive their interest income tax free in their own hand. You would find a source of capital here for the municipalities and, at the same time, bring lasting benefit to the community.
5. Let's, for goodness' sake, once and for all, have it become the law of this province that municipalities shall receive the equivalent of full taxes on all provincial government and Crown corporations within their borders. Let that be the law of this province. The provincial government is a bad citizen today from a taxpaying point of view, and so are the Crown corporations — make no mistake of that fact. This, regrettably, is a fact of life, but it is a very clear fact of life in this province, Mr. Speaker, and it is very wrong.

Take a look at Hydro. It doesn't pay general purposes tax on its equipment in the streets; it doesn't pay business tax; it doesn't pay hospital purposes tax. We find the B.C. Rail exempt from municipal taxes. Well, the CP pays and the CN pays, or makes grants in lieu thereof, as does the National Harbours Board. The Liquor Control Board doesn't pay business tax. The ICBC doesn't pay business tax.

I can give you one statistic — and I wish I had them for the rest of the province. In the City of Vancouver this amounted to over $500,000 in 1973 that it was shortchanged by the provincial government and from taxes that it would otherwise have received out of the private sector. I gainsay that would come very close to three-quarters of a million dollars, if not over that, for this particular year.

6. What we should be doing for the municipalities is to index their per capita grants to provincial revenue and let the municipalities in the province be treated fairly. You're treating them unfairly. They're put in the same position as poor little Oliver, having to grovel up to the front of the class to try to get a little more soup, always coming cap in hand, What we should be stopping in this province are these cap-in-hand policies which have so long been practised in British Columbia.

Just look at the inequities. In 1970 the per capita grant was $30; in 1970 the budgeted provincial income was $1,165 million. In 1972, two bucks more — big deal! — per capita grant went up to $32 from $30, a 6.5 per cent increase. But the provincial budgeted revenues were estimated at $1,722 million, up 46 per cent. So, the provincial government takes in 46 per cent more revenue and it permits 6.5 per cent revenue to go to the municipalities and somebody says this is a fair ball game. That's absolute nonsense!

In 1974 a second two-buck increase. They're two-bucking the municipalities to death, this government. Up to $34 from $32. That constituted a 13 per cent increase from the 1970 figure. But, wow!

Let's take a look at provincial revenues — estimated $2,177 million, an 88 per cent increase from 1970. Eighty-eight per cent more money to the provincial government and per capita grants up 13 per cent; and these people say they are playing a fair ball game.

Look what's going on now! It's still $34, a 13 per cent increase from 1970 to the municipalities of this province and the Coquitlam croupier comes in with a budget estimated revenue of $3,223 million, a 175 per cent increase. A 175 per cent increase to the provincial coffers and, in your munificence, still a 13 per cent increase from 1970 to the municipalities and to the cities. And you can say that this is a fair ball game?

Nearly 14 times the increase to the province over the increase to the municipalities. You've come up with this shell game. There is no certainty in this Ottawa project at all. It's election bait stuff. But the municipalities have a crying and a demanding and an urgent need and they should not become a part of a political football in this province. They should receive a fair return which they are not getting from this government and the best way, the only fair way to do it on a continuing basis, is to tie these per capita grants right into provincial revenues. If they go up, the municipalities will have the benefit of increases; if they go down, they will suffer the benefit of decreases as would the provincial government. Anything else is really and truly just political blackmail.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transportation and Communications): On the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I hadn't expected to speak in this debate until later but I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this amendment put by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which talks about revenue-sharing with local government, incentives to stimulate housing and a greater number of job opportunities.

I was the Leader of the Opposition for some considerable time and I think in view of the position in which they find themselves, I would have been reluctant to move a motion of this kind in view of their record and the situation as it exists.

Aid for municipalities — here's a headline in the Victoria Times reporting on the budget: "Twenty million dollars more for B.C. Municipalities." Twenty million dollars....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: "Homeowner Grant Costs Increase." More money for the homeowner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's the headline.

[ Page 375 ]

And as for my friend who just sat down: "Taxes Still Among Canada's Lowest." There's a fair presentation of what the budget was and its impact as a whole. But they want it both ways continually. Yes, I'll come to you in a minute, my friend.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They talk about hiring all these civil servants. Yes, yes, we have hired civil servants and the fact that we hired civil servants allowed the speedup of the construction industry. For instance, I can show you letter after letter, year after year, where we asked for more building inspectors in the province.

I got complaints from construction company after construction company when Big Daddy was sitting here and he would not allow the districts to have more building inspectors, with the result that job after job was held up for three, four and five months. In some areas we have doubled the number of inspectors and speeded up the whole construction process.

We had to hire people to do that. We had to hire people to solve the problems you left, because, unlike your ship when it was still over here — your ship was tied up at the wharf, our ship is going full steam ahead into the future. That's the difference. That's the difference. In case after case you'll find that we hired these civil servants in order to speed up the economy and provide jobs for people, because in case after case.... What the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) said the other day is another example of how we are prepared to move to speed up the construction industry of this province. I would think that when you talk about creating jobs, in view of your record that was brought to the attention of this House just a few months ago by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).... Your record of 90 sawmills a year during every year in which you were in office, of 90 sawmills a year closing down — that was your average. Ninety sawmills a year, all over the province. Is that a record to be proud of?

MR. BENNETT: I know what the figures are.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But look what happened after we became the government. The number of sawmills in operation increased. The number of sawmills in operation increased. That is not a twist. These are the figures. Year after year, an average of 90 sawmills a year — that is your proud record. My friend, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, brought in a bill that caused some of the few sawmills that had closed down to reopen.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why aren't the ICBC figures in the budget? Because you are still cooking them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. To how many businessmen has the Leader of the Opposition suggested that they not go ahead with planned expansion or reopening until after the next election? I have information that you have.

MR. BENNETT: Table it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't have to table it. I am telling you, Mr. Leader....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Would both Members please tell me what the objection is? What is the point of order?

MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Transportation and Communications made a charge that the Leader of the Opposition was encouraging business not to expand in this province. I ask him to withdraw. That is not true. I take it as a very serious charge, because no one is more concerned about the economy of this province than I am...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: ...and nobody would do more to create employment for our people....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On the point of order, I think the Hon. Member must know that it is not a point of order. You cannot take over the floor to make a speech countering what another Member is saying. If he says something about you, you are entitled to complain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He did.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I asked him a question. I asked him a question. I said: "To how many businessmen has the Leader of the Opposition suggested they not go ahead with planned expansion until after the next election?" You say not. All right, if he does, he does. He said not.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is all clarified.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is a member of your party in my constituency. His name is Herb

[ Page 376 ]

Doman. He told me that when he announced that planned expansion in Cowichan Bay, you came to him and suggested that it was the wrong time to be announcing that planned expansion in the Province of British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hooray!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A member of your party. That is what he told me...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...that you suggested to him that this was not the best time to be announcing planned expansion. That is why I asked you the question. You can have it out with Herby. You can have it out with Herby.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Betrayer!

MR. BENNETT: The Minister is lying....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not lying! I'm telling you what Herb Doman said to me!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Leader of the Opposition withdraw his statement, the statement that the Minister was lying?

MR. BENNETT: All right, the Minister is lying now.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, please.

MR. BENNETT: That is not a correct statement. I refuse to accept that Minister making those charges in this House against me. If he cares to come out in the corridor, I would be pleased to listen to his statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member give an unconditional withdrawal, please?

MR. BENNETT: I will withdraw it and deal with it later. I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I named the name of the man who told me what you had said.

MR. McCLELLAND: In this House. You don't have the nerve to say it outside the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Certainly, in the House. That is what I am here for, sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I stand up in this House and I am debating in this House. That's right.

Let's look at this book. They talk about jobs. And they talk, generally, about squandering money: "Squandering money; big budgets."

I want to ask the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot): here's the budget — Canal Flats Skating and Curling Club, $50,000; supplementary, $80,000....

MR. CHABOT: All in volunteer labour.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is not volunteer money. That is real money: $130,000.

MR. CHABOT: How many jobs did it create? How many jobs did it create?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That means about $300,000 — almost $400,000 — in Canal Flats, which is not a big city. Small town, that's right. But there were jobs there created by the stimulation of that in particular.

Let's go to Fort St. John: recreation complex, $114,000; arena, $108,000; ski club — new tow and renovating the hill — $3,000; the kids' arena, supplementary, $79,000; all-season activity arena, $24,000.

Tell the carpenters who worked on these jobs that it was money squandered. Tell the carpenters and the plumbers and the bricklayers that it was money squandered.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where are the ICBC figures? You're cooking them up.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Kelowna! Kelowna! Kelowna! Kelowna! Kelowna!

There'll be an annual report tabled in this House, according to law. Now you're accusing the chartered accountants. I'm responsible, and I have to table an annual report, and I will table that annual report. That's my responsibility and it will be tabled.

Kelowna. Lounge area for pool — $33,000; enclosure and cover for pool — $68,000; arena — $318,000. That was a million-dollar job.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Tell the carpenters in Kelowna and the plumbers and the stonemasons that that was money squandered, that we shouldn't have done it. Tell the people of Kelowna that you are against that pool and that arena. Arena supplementary — $15,000. Look at the long list for Kelowna, all money that created jobs and provided local facilities. Tell the people.

[ Page 377 ]

MR. GARDOM: How much is ICBC in the red? How much is ICBC in the red?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Langley. My friend from Langley (Mr. McClelland). Recreational complex — $25,000. Arena, curling rink, recreational office complex — $333,000. A million-dollar job. Plumbers, carpenters, pipe fitters — the whole thing. Tell them it was money squandered, that it didn't create any jobs. Curling rink. Douglas Hall in Langley, right down the way. Was that money squandered and wasted?

Lumby. Oak Bay — $294,000 for an arena; $304,000-for a six-sheet curling rink. There are two $1 million jobs that create a lot of work and draw up facilities to the community.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right, you have. But these people are saying that was money squandered, that it should never have been spent. It's an indication of "spending gone wild, " I think is the phrase he used.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I didn't say that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's where it was going — to create jobs and provide local facilities.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Peachland. Osoyoos — multi-purpose arena. Summerland, Merritt and Vancouver — a long list of jobs created in Vancouver through that particular programme.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Hartley is going to talk about ICBC. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That isn't Hartley's department; that's Jack Radford's department. That's the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) — he handles that one. You don't even know which department.

MR. CHABOT: One per cent of the budget.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But it's promoted and sponsored on the local level.

I want to point out, too, that in this budget — you talk about creating jobs and meeting needs — in one area alone, because of a policy this government adopted to pay the full capital cost for regional colleges, in Nanaimo, Malaspina college covers that central part of the island. That's an $11 million job, a job-creating facility of $11 million dollars in one project — all coming out of this budget that you tell me you're going to vote against and that you're being critical of here. How many jobs will that one college building create? Hundreds and hundreds of jobs. That's in here; that's what you would be voting against. Job after job after job in that same way.

HON. MR. COCKE: They can't read.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many new jobs in the mining industry this year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There have been mines closed down but I find one of them saying, "We need 60 cent copper to make even a slight profit on the operation." Here's a news report I have. Lornex said the same thing: the price of copper was responsible.

But you go down the list that the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) listed on the various provincial government items where we have helped take the load off the municipalities. The sewerage facilities. You go into Lake Cowichan. I'll go into Lake Cowichan and tell them that we should not have had that programme because you said we did nothing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you still trying to be Premier?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm quite happy where I am.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why do you speak when he's out of the House then?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Why didn't you move the amendment yesterday? Then I could have spoken yesterday.

You tell the people of Lake Cowichan that they should not have that sewerage facility. As a matter of fact, without that particular legislation, they wouldn't have been able to afford it. So it has done two things: it has met a local need and will provide jobs for some people in the Lake Cowichan area.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Under that old sewerage bill you had — and I have the figures given to me by the village council — it was financially impossible for that community to provide a sewerage facility. But that's because of this government providing the jobs and meeting the needs.

Since we became the government, the shipyards of this province are busier than they have been since the Second World War — so busy that we have to schedule every ship in at a specific time for refit. That's how busy they are. And we intend to keep the jobs there and keep them busy.

I could go on down the line, but I think I've made

[ Page 378 ]

my point that this is an amendment that really doesn't register very much. They just simply have not read the budget.

MR. PHILLIPS: How come you get so excited about it, then?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, certainly I get excited. I'm excited about this province. I wish you were, instead of this doom-and-gloom stuff all the time that you get. I suggest to you as an opposition that it's time you adopted the traditional attitude of the opposition. Be critical, yes, but accept some responsibility. Right now you're acting as an irresponsible, incapable, incompetent, unworthy opposition.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I feel that I just have to get up and speak on this motion, because it's of great concern to the people of the province. If they weren't concerned before they heard the former leader of the NDP and now the Minister of Transport and Communications, they should be now. I have never heard such a bunch of claptrap since I came to the House, and I've heard a lot from all sides.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You're never in here when your Members are speaking, are you?

MR. BENNETT: The Minister talks about creating employment in Kelowna, because the government fulfilled its role in giving some of the money back to the taxpayers or to the municipalities. But I remember, when I first came to this House in 1973, that he stumbled and fumbled trying to explain why a British Columbia carpet manufacturing plant in my constituency didn't get a job order when it was within 5 per cent of the low bid. It took me months to find out, Mr. Speaker. It took me months to find out, and he finally admitted that they made a mistake. We did have a British Columbia preference of 5 per cent — if an order was within 5 per cent. But he neglected, as the Minister, to explain this to the ICBC, and jobs were lost to British Columbia. The order was placed with a firm from Montreal.

That was how this Minister met his responsibility in the first session I saw in the House. We know how he creates jobs and how he helps the working people of this province. A considerable order was lost and considerable jobs were not provided because this Minister didn't make sure that B.C. products were used.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Who owns that company now?

MR. BENNETT: The Minister's asking me who owns the company. I don't know if it's the role of government to pick and choose who the owners of companies are, as to why they will do business or won't do business. I would hope the Minister isn't suggesting that you had a motive for not selecting that company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: I think it's despicable that you're suggesting that you didn't deal because you didn't like the owner of the company; you didn't like someone that owns part of the shares. No wonder you're not needed!

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: I heard what you said. You're willing to politically penalize a company, a British Columbia company, and the workers because you don't like who owns the shares, or some of the shares, in that company.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: I'll be pleased to report that to the workers of Westmills and others in this province that may suffer loss of contracts that they have to be careful that some of the owners are sympathetic to that Minister before the plants they work for can get jobs. We're concerned about jobs for everyone in this province — not just people who may support our party but who support all parties, because they're all British Columbians. And first and foremost, we're concerned in all British Columbians having the opportunity to work.

Now the motion before the floor, Mr. Speaker, is dealing with three areas which we think are important and are left out of this budget in British Columbia: financial aid to municipalities, lack of housing and unemployment. I think we can relate all three areas together because there are significant programmes, significant initiatives that government can make to help to resolve all three areas. It's significant that municipalities today discourage the construction of housing because they do not have the financing to meet the cost of expansion, allowing the construction facilities to take place within their boundaries.

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on!

MR. BENNETT: It's significant, Mr. Speaker, that lack of financing for municipal governments is one of the main problems whereby municipal governments are discouraging the construction of houses. I think that we have to take a look at the financial aid and the financial participation of municipal governments within the framework of the tax revenues available

[ Page 379 ]

within this country.

Now I know we've had per capita grants and per capita grants have been around since prior to '68 on a sliding scale up to $24. After that they were evened out at $25 to every resident, and we had increases to $28, to $30, up to $32. I hate to correct the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) who gave a tremendous speech, but the $2 raise was in 1973, not 1972.

I think we all must appreciate now, particularly at a time when the senior governments are looking for more money from resource revenue and we have a conflict developing, that perhaps the discussion shouldn't just be the federal government and the provincial government fighting over their allocation. It should include participation and discussion of local government, local government which wasn't anticipated when this country and the BNA Act was set up.

I think all of us must realize that some of the pioneering work done within the framework of discussing revenue-sharing has already been done by the Province of Ontario and not, as claimed in the budget that was presented to this House with the iffy promise of some revenue-sharing, that British Columbia would be first. In fact, an approach has already been made by the Province of Ontario well in advance of the iffy approach of this government.

Rather than looking for areas to take the credit, why don't we take a look at solving the problem? Why don't we take a look in any succeeding revenue-sharing conference that would take place between levels of government at inviting the municipal governments to participate in that conference? The federal government's revenues on a 10-year average have grown between 15 and 16 per cent annually compared with provincial revenues that have grown between 10 and 11 per cent annually — except in prosperous British Columbia where, for some years now, they've grown at 25 per cent. Compare that with our poor municipal governments whose average growth rate on a 10-year average has only been 4 per cent.

You can easily see that one level of government is left out of the growth rate in the growth of revenues in this country. Yet this is the level of government that has been called upon to solve many of the problems directly related to people. This is the area of government that is called upon to provide land for housing, services to people, sewage service, water services and to deal with people on a day-to-day basis. Yet this level of government isn't adequately sharing in the growth and prosperity in this country.

They need the money. They do not have any other way of receiving revenue except by the land tax and the per capita grants as they're handed out willy-nilly. They were before and they are still being handed out in this province. I think it's time we realized that we need a more specific formula. We need a greater commitment as to how these municipal governments will receive and be guaranteed financing on a continuing basis and not by political whim.

HON. MR. LAUK: Like your father did?

Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I raised an issue on a point of order, and I realize it may have been incorrect during question period. I wish to raise the issue again as a point of privilege at this time.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider May, 18th edition, page 323 and 324. I'll paraphrase:

"The facts on which a question (in question period) is based may be set out briefly, provided that the Member asking it makes himself responsible for their accuracy (of the facts so stated.)"

In addition:

"Where the facts are of sufficient moment the Speaker has required (in the past, from time to time) prima facie proof of their authenticity."

The reason I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to that citation is that there was an incident involving the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) questioning the Minister of Education on a publication involving nudity. He didn't even read the publication, but he asked the question in question period.

Two incidents of questions in question period involving the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), one in which he suggested that juveniles are being housed in the Empress Hotel at public expense. He alleged facts in couching his question; he did not hold himself responsible for those facts.

Secondly, he asked a question during question period of the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) with respect to ICBC. Today we found that those facts were incorrect.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the honour and the credibility of all of the Members in this House, that some kind of imposition by the Speaker during question period, holding the questioner responsible for those facts at the time, is warranted.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll take a look at the question on a point of privilege. I did say yesterday, when a question on that subject was raised, "If it proves on investigation that they are not correct, then they must bear the obloquy of that statement." That still, I think, is the rule of parliament. But I'll give it a closer look and report to the Members I hope tonight

[ Page 380 ]

or tomorrow.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) drawing to my attention that I referred to 1972 as one of the per capita tax increase years, whereas, in fact, it was 1973 and 1974. I'd like Hansard to make an appropriate notation.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I'll see that that is done. I'm sure it wasn't deliberate. (Laughter.)

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) was kind enough to point out that a question on the order paper was misdirected.

Mr. Curtis withdrew question 72 standing in his name on the order paper.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presented the annual report of the B.C. Board of Parole for 1974.

Hon. Ms. Young presented the first annual report of the Department of Consumer Services.

Mr. Speaker presented the fifth report on the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.