[ Page 1139 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Gasoline Tax Act (1948) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill M 206) . Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 1140

B.C. Professional Foresters Act Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill M 207) Mr. Kempf.

Introduction and first reading –– 1140

Oral questions

Lending of mailing lists. Mr. Skelly –– 1140

Inaccessible Human Resources office in Sidney. Ms. Brown –– 1140

The Raymond Lee Organization of Canada. Mrs. Jordan –– 1141

Salary of executive assistant. Mr. Lea –– 1141

Proposed amalgamation of vegetable marketing boards. Mrs. Wallace –– 1142

Aid for Vietnamese children. Ms. Sanford –– 1142

Future use of Brannan Lake. Mr. Stupich –– 1143

Statement

Negotiations on maritime boundaries. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1143

Mr. Barrett –– 1144

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Executive Council estimates.

On vote 5.

Mr. Cocke –– 1144

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1147

Mr. Cocke –– 1149

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1150

Mr. Barber –– 1151

Mr. Skelly –– 1155

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1160

Mr. Skelly –– 1162

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1162

Ms. Sanford –– 1163

Ms. Brown –– 1163

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1170

Ms. Brown –– 1171

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1175

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It is with great pleasure and honour that I introduce to this House a very distinguished public servant who is with us today. Seated on the floor with her husband Dr. Isaak Tischler and son Fred Tischler is Dr. Blunvi Tischler, medical director of Woodlands school in New Westminster.

Dr. Tischler has worked at Woodlands on behalf of the provincial government for the past 24 years. During that time she has conducted research into several areas of mental retardation which has earned her an international reputation. In recognition of her outstanding contributions in this very important field, Dr. Tischler will be honoured by the American Association on Mental Deficiency in Denver, Colorado, on May 18. The association, which is the only recognized international interdisciplinary professional and scientific organization dealing with mental retardation in 22 countries, has selected Dr. Tischler as the winner of its 1978 research award on mental retardation. It is an honour seldom bestowed upon a Canadian, and Dr. Tischler is only the second Canadian in the association's 102-year history to receive the award.

Dr. Tischler has conducted outstanding research on biochemical disorders, chromosome aberrations, rare and new syndromes, and new drugs during the past 24 years. Her more than 35 scientific publications have made such an impact that Dr. Tischler has increased the knowledge of scientists throughout the world and has changed the lives of many, many retarded people of the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to have such an outstanding British Columbian with us today.

It is now my pleasure to announce to the House that in recognition of the work Dr. Tischler has accomplished on behalf of the people of the province and the scientific community at large, the provincial government has undertaken to establish a graduate fellowship in biochemical genetics in the name of Dr. Bltmq Tischler.

While details of the Dr. Bluma Tischler Fellowship have still to be finalized, I know all members of the House will agree that this is a most appropriate action for the government to take. I would invite all the members of this House to meet Dr. Tischler at a reception in her honour which will be held in the Ned deBeck lounge at 2:30 this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I would now ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to Dr. Bluma Tischler and her family.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to just say a few words to express our appreciation to the Doctors Tischler - both Dr. and Mrs. Tischler have been outstanding British Columbians. Since coming to this province they have given of themselves not only in their professional field, but in private service as well. I think that too should be recognized, and I hope that the Tischlers enjoy another 120 years of service to the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Seated in the gallery today is Dr. Herbert Watson, a Victoria psychiatrist who nominated Dr. Tischler for this outstanding award, and with Dr. Watson is his wife. They will accompany Dr. Tischler to Denver for the award ceremony. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, 93 students from Churchill Secondary School in Vancouver South are going to be in the galleries today - half of them are in now, the other half will be here at 3 o'clock. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions to make today. I would like the House to welcome some distinguished visitors: the Cuban ambassador, His Excellency Mr. Joaquin Mas-Martinez, and Mrs. Mas-Martinez; Mr. R. Rivas, the economy counsellor of the embassy, Ottawa; Mr. A. Vera, the trade commissioner, and with them, their interpreter, Mr. Hernandez. They are in the Speaker's gallery, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

I would like to ask the House to give a very special welcome to some special people who'll be serving on behalf of British Columbia this very special bicentennial year. In the next few months, and starting today, we will have the tour guides who are taking their place for the first time this year as student and auxiliary help to our regular tour guides. They are in the gallery today to receive the welcome and the appreciation of all members of the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two gentlemen from New Zealand: Midshipman Jim Routledge and Midshipman Eric Riordan, both from the frigate Warkato. It is their first visit to Victoria and I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

[ Page 1140 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, may I just add my word of welcome to that of the Provincial Secretary to Senor and Senora Mas-Martinez, who were in my office just an hour ago discussing such wonderful things of joint interest as Cuban rum.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a very good friend and constituent of mine who is seated in your gallery, Mr. Ed Betker from Kamloops.

Also, if I may, from the suburb Central Point near Medford, Oregon, are Mr. and Mrs. Art Ellis and their two children. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery today are two good friends of mine from the Ladysmith area of my constituency. They are active members of my own particular political party and also active members of the East Indian community. I would like the. House to joint me in welcoming Sucha Hair and his wigd Kardel Hair.

Introduction of bills.

GASOLINE TAX ACT (1948)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M 206, Gasoline Tax Act (1948) Amendment Act, 1978, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

THE B.C. PROFESSIONAL FORESTERS

ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

On a motion by Mr. Kempf, Bill M 207, The B.C. Professional Foresters Act Amendment Act (1978) , introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

LENDING OF MAILING LISTS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Travel Industry, and I note that she has a special smile for me today. Does the ministry obtain mailing lists from other government ministries and agencies for tourist promotion purposes?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The different ministries do share lists. If it's to do with economic development, at times we do.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary: are these lists made available to other agencies such as the Canadian government office of tourism for travel promotion purposes?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not that I'm aware of Mr. Speaker.

May I just add that the special smile is always given to all people in British Columbia by British Columbians.

MR. SKELLY: I'm aware of that, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it doesn't go aver all that well, but....

MR. SPEAKER: State your question, please.

MR. SKELLY: I'm wondering if the minister is taking as a supplementary my request for information as to whether those lists go to other offices, such as the Canadian government office of tourism.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to make inquiries of my office. If the member has some reason to believe that is so, perhaps he could give me further information outside the House.

MR. SKELLY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, it's come to my attention that the Canadian government office of tourism is using mailing lists of non-resident sports fishermen coming to British Columbia to encourage those sports fishermen to travel to Quebec. I'm wondering if her ministry is aware that these lists of non-resident fishermen in British Columbia are being forwarded to CGOT to promote tourism in Quebec.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I'm very definitely not aware of that, but I'm certainly going to look into it now that you've raised the question.

INACCESSIBLE HUMAN RESOURCES

OFFICE IN SIDNEY

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , for whom I always have a very special smile.

Since it was brought to his attention on April 30 that the Human Resources office in Sidney has such steep stairs that it is not possible for handicapped people to go to that office, I'm wondering if the Minister of Human Resources has done anything since that date about building a ramp or moving the office

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, certainly

[ Page 1141 ]

the office referred to by the hon. member is a good example of the type of office accommodation we should not make available for the provision of the services we provide in that it is certainly not accessible to people who are handicapped. We have made a decision that from here on in we will do our very utmost to find locations that are far more accessible than that. I'm sorry for the situation that exists in Sidney. It came about because no other accommodation could be found at the time. However, we are well aware of it and we certainly intend to take other actions in the future.

MS. BROWN: I have been notified by the Sidney office that they are now making home visits to people who are handicapped rather than have them try to hurdle those stairs. I wonder if the minister would let us know what the additional cost to the ministry is as a result of the decision to keep on using that office in Sidney rather than moving it to an office that handicapped people would find more accessible.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think perhaps that question would require some further investigation. Undoubtedly there are offsetting factors, but in any case I don't think it is the cost that should concern us here. I think these people should have every opportunity to visit those offices like anyone else.

THE RAYMOND LEE

ORGANIZATION OF CANADA

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to address my question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) .

MR. LEA: Surprise!

MRS. JORDAN: Well, it is a surprise. I first saw this problem brought up on an American television programme two weeks ago. While I was researching to see if it applied to Canada, I heard it on the radio last night, and this is why I am drawing it to the minister's attention this morning.

The problem involves a company which is known as The Raymond Lee Organization and who advertise in British Columbia. They direct their ads to would-be and genuine inventors. They promise they will provide assistance in obtaining patents for good ideas and also assistance in marketing inventions.

I understand that this company does not follow through with its commitments, and I'm asking the minister if he is aware of this problem, if he knows if this company is advertising in British Columbia, and if there is anything that can be done at the provincial level to make people aware of what is possible fraudulent action on the part of this company.

HON. MR. MAIR: I had some advance notice of the problem that the member raises. I have asked my ministry to look into this. Because I don't want to pass judgment in the House - or outside the House for that matter - on a business in British Columbia without giving it every opportunity to be investigated and looked into, I will take the question as notice and report back to the House as soon as possible.

SALARY OF EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. An order-in-council was passed on April 20,1978, putting in place a ministerial executive assistant to the minister by the name of Clair B. Erroll. The order-in-council does not lay out any salary range for this person. So we can bring our patronage list up to date, I wonder if the minister could give us the salary of this person.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there is a salary schedule for executive assistants. He'll be paid the usual salary for executive assistants.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, there is a range in which a ministerial assistant can be placed, and there are different salary ranges within the spectrum of the range.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, there aren't.

MR. LEA: Yes, there are.

I have two questions on supplementary. What is the specific salary of Clair B. Erroll? Also in the order-incouncil it says that the person having this job should be one requiring special professional, technical or administrative qualifications. I'd ask the minister for the specific salary and the special professional, technical and administrative qualifications of this person.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm rather surprised that the member for Prince Rupert is not familiar with the salary of executive assistants. He se to change the position's designation as he speaks. Originally he asked for the salary of my executive assistant, and

[ Page 1142 ]

then he changed the position description to ministerial assistant, trying, I guess, to play games with the position as it is.

The position is not a position of a ministerial assistant. It's plain and simple an executive assistant to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. The salary is identical to the salaries of other executive assistants, which is $19,500 a year, and his qualifications are adequate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Is that all?

MR. LEA: On a supplementary, I would like to know if the qualifications, which are adequate, would be adequate for any other minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: They would be superlative for you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is not acceptable.

PROPOSED AMALGAMATION OF

VEGETABLE MARKETING BOARDS

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The terms of reference of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture provide for a review of and recommendation on the impact of marketing boards on producer income and consumer cost. On April 28 the minister issued a press release, announcing another detailed study on the proposed amalgamation of the Interior and Coast Vegetable Marketing Boards.

As he has had no recommendation on this subject from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, can the minister tell the Legislature who proposed the amalgamation?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The amalgamation was suggested by my ministry to the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board and the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board last year after the difficulty that was incurred by the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board.

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplementary, could the minister tell me whether or not the interior and coast boards agreed with this proposal at that time?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Both boards agreed that they would look at this concept of one vegetable marketing board for the province as opposed to two. The study that's under way is looking at the mechanics of such an amalgamation, and both groups will certainly be kept informed.

MRS. WALLACE: Does this action of the minister in proceeding with another study indicate his lack of confidence in the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. As I said, this deals with the mechanics of such an amalgamation. The ministry has to function on an ongoing basis. The study, according to its terms of reference, is basically looking at the future of agriculture in this province. It is the long-term view that the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture will be presenting to this Legislature.

MRS. WALLACE: On another supplementary, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the minister has indicated that he has a study underway now to implement something, while at the same time the agriculture committee is preparing to bring in a report on the general direction he should be taking - we've spent nearly $1.5 million, and to date we have only filed one two-page report and two studies - does this mean that any further studies are simply a waste of time and that the minister is not prepared to act on those recommendations?

MR. SPEAKER: This appears to be rhetorical.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to the study reports and the final report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I feel very strongly that the work they have done will be of great benefit to the agriculture industry in this province.

AID FOR VIETNAMESE CHILDREN

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Provincial Secretary. In view of the fact that the now-defunct committee on medical aid for Vietnamese children was in the decision-making process with respect to the distribution of the moneys allocated by this Legislature, could the minister advise us when that motion will again be introduced so that the committee can complete its work?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any fund of money that was voted by the Legislature or left to this government to disburse. As to the committee, it met during the last session. I believe it has met since this session and I will confer with the past chairman of the committee as to its dispensation in the future.

[ Page 1143 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the Provincial Secretary realizes that the committee is defunct as a result of the new session, and that the resolution has to be reintroduced. I'm asking how quickly that can be reintroduced so that we can distribute those moneys.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, again I remind the member for Comox that there isn't any money in a little sock put away anywhere to disburse. I will take the rest of her question as notice.

FUTURE USE OF BRANNAN LAKE

MR. STUPICH: My question is to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Representations have been made by at least two groups, the steering committee for the better use of Brannan Lake and the marine gardens association, to a number of ministries and ministers. I'm wondering whether the Minister of Recreation and Conservation is personally aware of these representations. Have they filtered up through the department?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware in any detail of these and certainly I will inquire as to their existence.

MR. STUPICH: When the minister is inquiring, I would appreciate it if he would find out whether or not his ministry is working up any kind of a presentation to the cabinet committee that is looking at the possible uses of Brannan Lake.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, from September, 1977, until early April, 1978, continuous and complex negotiations to settle issues related to maritime boundaries and fisheries were undertaken between Canada and the United States. Canada was represented in these negotiations by Ambassador Cadieux and the United States by Ambassador Cutler. All during these negotiations the province of British Columbia, although not part of the negotiating team, has put forward to the Canadian government a detailed provincial position designed to obtain a better deal for Canada on the fixing of the boundaries and reciprocal fishing arrangements. In other words, my government throughout has been applying pressure on the Canadian government to be sure that west coast fishing interests were not being traded off for east coast fishing interests.

It became apparent by March of this year that these long-term negotiations were not going to be successfully concluded in time for the 1978 salmon fishing season. As a result, the Canadian and the United States governments on April 11,1978, concluded an interim reciprocal fisheries agreement for 1978. One of the provisions of this agreement would be to permit Canadian salmon trollers to fish off the Washington coast for a distance of 54 miles greater than what was provided by the interim agreement of 1977. 1 will ask permission to table with the House later a copy of the substance of the interim reciprocal fisheries agreement embodied in a communique of the Ministry of External Affairs, dated April 12,1978.

The Washington Trollers Association in Washington state have now challenged the validity of the agreement on technical grounds, and succeeded in getting an interim injunction last Friday in Seattle. The basis on which the injunction was granted was that the agreement had not been confirmed by appropriate legislation through the U.S. Congress and therefore was invalid insofar as it attempted to allow citizens of another country to fish within the U.S. 200-mile zone. The court decision is being appealed and will be heard by an appeal court in San Francisco on Thursday or Friday of this week.

The effect of the decision is viewed with great concern by the government of British Columbia. Provincial fisheries officials are meeting with federal fisheries officials in Vancouver this afternoon. My deputy minister, Mr. Mel Smith, has been in contact with the deputy Canadian negotiator, Mr. Lorne Clark, this morning, expressing my government's concern and urging that effective action be taken forthwith to restore some measure of equity to fishing arrangements on this coast.

At least three possibilities appear open to resolve this matter: (1) The successful appeal before the appeal court in San Francisco this week. (2) Early congressional approval to the interim fisheries agreement. There is some indication from Ottawa this morning that such approval might be expected within a week. Failing this, (3) the taking of retaliatory action to preclude such U.S. fisheries off the Canadian west coast as will restore equity to reciprocal fishing arrangements.

I've telexed the Prime Minister and also the federal Minister of Fisheries, expressing the provincial government's concern. I'll ask to table a copy of that Telex also. I've also asked that British Columbia be fully informed

[ Page 1144 ]

and consulted on appropriate Canadian action, and I've underscored the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table the two documents mentioned.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to express our appreciation to the Premier on behalf of the opposition and, hopefully, fishermen in this province. It's well to remember that prior to these interim agreements, Canadian fishermen had rights right down to northern California and that we have lost those rights because of a federal government that has, as the Premier pointed out, perhaps put us in a position of trading off east coast fisheries for west coast concessions.

There is one thing that I would like to ask the Premier, and hopefully he'll be able to handle it. If we had a direct British Columbia observer at the appeal hearing rather than just relying on the representatives from Ottawa, I think it would be very worthwhile so that a direct report could be made back to British Columbia by an observer from this province.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 5: executive council, $753,760 -continued.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Premier, as president of the executive council, is in charge of government policy by the very nature of his office. We've been very disappointed with the seeming input of public concern in terms of government policy. This weekend, however, I had an opportunity to find out that we're not the only ones concerned about government policy in this province. I spent the entire weekend visiting with the B.C. School Trustees Association in Prince George. That visit was one that was very revealing. It was revealing in this way: the government has somehow or another lost contact with people who could give them some very useful information. I charge that the Premier, in his position as I outlined, is certainly probably more responsible than anyone for this loss of contact.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm talking in terms of just exactly what the concerns were up there. There were 400 or 500 people who were directly involved in the education of our children in this province, either as school trustees or as superintendents or secretary-treasurers of districts. And what was the word around there?

They said that they weren't being listened to by this government. Naturally, most of their ire was directed at the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . But they also had a great deal to say about overall government policy. I charge this: the government is responsible for having dumped the burden on the local taxpayers, and that was the chief concern at that conference. As president of the executive council, the Premier of this province has let it happen. As a matter of fact, I charge he's made it happen. He's dumped that cost on them in order to try to make his government look good.

What have we seen, Mr. Chairman? We have seen mill rates go up from 26 mills in 1975 to 39 mills in 1978. That's an increase of 50 per cent and I hold the Premier totally responsible for that kind of activity. I hold the Premier responsible for the government policy in this province, no one else. He's the czar. He makes it all happen and we can certainly tell by the way the rest of that government bows to his every whim and will.

Mr. Chairman, not only are we faced with this increase.... Every one of those trustees was talking about it. Everywhere I went it was on the lips of everyone. Most of them said: "Yes, we want some autonomy but we don't want to pick up the whole bill." They said that in every constituency that you people in the back bench represent, because most of them were there. Only the hon. member for Victoria wasn't represented in terms of his school district; he was there but the Victoria area was not represented, because they've opted out of BCSTA. But all the rest of them were there and they were saying that they have been let down by government policy.

Not only were we faced with that but we were also faced with a committee doing assessment at the sane time. And the assessments in that same interval have gone up 20 per cent. You know, I made a mistake when I reported on this matter in the budget. I made a mistake. I added the two together. I said that that increase therefore was an aggregate of 70 per cent. But that's not correct because when you put them together and use the influence of one on the other, it is actually worked out - and you'll find it when you get your tax notices -at 78 per cent. It's a 78 per cent increase dumped on the local taxpayers by the Premier of this province and his executive council.

[ Page 1145 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You're all mixed up.

MR. COCKE: I'm not at all mixed up. Do you know where I was hearing it? I heard it from the Cariboo, I heard it from the north, I heard it from the south, I heard it from everywhere in this province. When you go home, Mr. Minister of Public Works and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , I challenge you to go and talk to your people involved in this particular area and come out unscathed. I just challenge you to go up and argue this point. You won't argue it in your constituency. Every time you're asked a question, you evade it like poison, as you always do.

Mr. Chairman, I've watched him waffle around and slither in his constituency, and I will certainly understand him if he slithers a bit on this one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, hon. member, you could relate that to vote 5. We are on the Premier's estimates.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I am relating it to vote 5. What we are faced with here is government policy. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if the Premier isn't responsible for government policy, then who is in this province? We know no one's in the driver's seat giving good earnest kinds of direction, but for those who are responsible, we have to bring it up at the appropriate time. And this is the appropriate time for this particular situation to be brought up.

Mr. Chairman, you can talk to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) about this matter; you can talk to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) about this matter. But it is the First Minister who's in charge of the executive council, who is the chairman of the executive council, who is the president of the executive council, and it is the executive council that makes the decisions in terms of policy in our province. Can I say more?

As I said, there has been a 50 per cent increase - dumping on the mill rate, dumping onto the taxpayers - but in aggregate, when you consider that together with the assessment, what's happened is a 78 per cent increase.

Mr. Chairman, I should stay on the lower mainland. Let me take you for a little bit of an adventurous ride.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What would they do? The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is consistent. He's talking about scalping. You know, that went out with the Holocaust, Mr. Member. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read you a wire from the First Minister's own constituency. I'm sure that the Premier had a wire that was identical. But in any event, this is what Mayor Hugh Clark of Peachland - nicely situated right in the Premier's back yard -has to say about this government's dumping of responsibility:

"I would like to take this opportunity to express disbelief at what is happening in our community."

Those are the kinds of words which I heard every hour that I attended that BCSTA convention.

. For the past two years, our provincial government has been asking all people in our province, and particularly governments at all levels, to maintain a tight control over unnecessary spending. We in our municipality have tried to carry out this programme by holding our employees within the prescribed guidelines, cutting back on our road programme, abandoning plans for proposed recreational buildings. We have limited services previously performed by road crews for snow clearing and for senior citizens' driveways, eliminated grants-in-aid for charitable purposes, and exercised restraint on all levels.

"All of our people were prepared, even though it represented some sacrifices, to understand our position and, although all did not agree, they accepted. Now, when we are attempting to do the same to another government department by insisting they show the same restraint, we are told by the provincial government, who put the programme into action, that we are breaking the law. We did not, in fact, refuse to pay the 10.95 per cent required, but we did refuse to pay the additional 17 per cent until just cause and reason could be shown for this increase.

"We would like to know who, in fact, is responsible for this situation."

As an aside, Mr. Chairman, I say this Premier is responsible.

"We have a right to expect an answer to this from you before May 15,1978, when our budget will receive final reading. If, in fact, the responsibility lies with the school board, we would like your support in our stand."

Mr. Chairman, they know perfectly well that it's falling on deaf ears with that Premier.

"We have a right to expect an answer to this from you, as a member of the opposition, before May 15,1978, when our budget will receive final reading."

[ Page 1146 ]

Well, I'm afraid I'll have to say to the mayor of Peachland that we can't take responsibility for what this government policy has done to that particular municipality.

"But if the fault lies with the provincial government's shifting of the financial debt" - and that's exactly what has happened - "we would like to have reasons behind placing this debt on the shoulders of the homeowners of small communities.

"Signed, Mayor Hugh Clark."

lie wasn't the only one. "Peachland Fights School Tax." "Vernon Fights School Tax." "Coldstream Fights School Tax." Everywhere in the province, Mr. Chairman, people are fighting school tax.

I said before about this whole question how much I appreciated Cliff Adkins approach. Cliff Adkins, who was up until yesterday the chairman and the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, took a very responsible position over the last year of his tenure. That responsible position, that rather quiet position to begin with led him finally to exhibit his disgust in the government by saying that by raising the BMR. by 2.25 mills, the government has chosen to increase local property taxes for school purposes by almost 16 per cent - that was this last year - and the provincial government has seen fit to increase its share of school funding by only 3.7 per cent. What he means by that, Mr. Chairman, is that this government is not taking its responsibility seriously. They are trying to look good on the backs of the people of the province. They are trying to look good by making the school boards look bad. If there was anything that I found on my visit to Prince George, it's that there is real, deep and abiding resentment to this First Minister and to his government for their policy around this question.

Adkins, that rather mild-mannered man, went on to say finally say that this government is playing politics with the budget at the expense of education and the local taxpayer in our province, and I couldn't agree more.

Where do we stand in education? Is it that we are spending so darned much money on education in our province? Are we No. I in Canada? Are we No. 2 in terms of our contribution to education? Are we Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 in terms of our contribution? Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that we are No. 10 out of 10 in our contribution to education in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a shame.

MR. COCKE: It is a shame. British Columbia ranks at the very bottom of all 10 provinces in terms of total education expenditure per capita of the labour force, as a percentage of personal income and as a percentage of gross provincial product. That Premier of this rich province makes policy that even makes their pittance, their participation smaller percentage-wise. No, Mr. Chairman, there is no way that the Premier should get of the hook in this matter.

I would like him to stand in this House today and answer these questions: When are you going to change your policies? When are you going to be honest with the taxpayers in our province? You are not being honest with the taxpayers in our province right now. You are making them carry a burden that is unseemly and you're making them carry a burden to make yourself look good. Mr. Chairman, that is not at all fair to the people in our province.

Will the Premier stand up in this House and talk to us in terms of government policy, in terms of what has happened and in terms of what changes they might see in the future? People are angry - not only the mayors, not only the trustees. But wait until those folks get their new bill.

This government is the government that when in opposition went around the province -including the Premier - saying that they were going to keep school taxes down. It has never skyrocketed on the order that it has today. It has never gone up like it has gone up in the last two and a half years. It's gone up to the extent that people cannot afford this government and people cannot afford that First Minister.

The government talked about fiscal responsibility. I tell you right now that it is fiscal irresponsibility to do the kind of things that this government is doing to the people of our province. It's fiscal irresponsibility for this government to spend $90,000 to $100,000 to send out a circular to everybody in the province, making it look like a little bit of a tabloid or a newspaper, telling it all, when they do not tell anything they don't want to tell. It's an insult to the press. It's a PR stunt.

Why don't they start spending money where they should? Why don't they educate people properly and participate in education the way they should, instead of trying to educate the public by laying a message on them at the expense, again, of the public? I guess they believe in the old Goebbels' theory that if you say it often enough, people will believe it. The only thing you're going to have a hard time convincing people that you're taxing to death at the local level is that you're a

[ Page 1147 ]

responsible government.

Wandering about as I did, listening to people as I did, listening to people who wore a "Work with Bill" button last time around, talking to them, and then hearing them say: "I am resentful. I'm fearful that the longer we keep this government where it is, the worse off we're going to be. I'm resentful because they're blaming it on me back home...." I don't blame them. If I were a local politician, elected by my peers in my own municipality, and if my peers in my municipality were coming up to me and blaming me for what I know is the responsibility of a provincial government, I would be thoroughly resentful, as would any member in this House.

Mr. Chairman, that's the way they're feeling. Go out and talk to them this weekend. I understand they had a big meeting somewhere in Vancouver. If you had $12.50 or thereabouts, you could go to that meeting. And under those circumstances, having paid your $12.50 allowed you to ask a question of any minister or any member, but not of the Premier. He was nowhere to be seen.

I didn't see him up north, he didn't accompany....

MR. SKELLY: He heard there was a question period.

MR. COCKE: He didn't accompany the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) up there. The hon. Minister of Education was marvellous. He answered questions in Prince George by dancing the whirling dervish, but no, the Premier wouldn't even go to that $12.50 fete.

Mr. Chairman, yes, the First Minister finds it difficult to answer questions publicly; yes, he has difficulty going out and talking to ordinary people in our province. We know all that but we ask one question of the First Minister: When is he going to start talking to this House? When is he going to start answering questions here? Many questions have gone unanswered and those questions that haven't gone unanswered have gone answered to the extent that he's not really willing to give of himself to any great extent in this House in terms of information. We want some questions answered.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye!

MR. COCKE: We know when we get to your portfolio there is no possible way we can get an intelligent answer to an intelligent question, but we are at least'hoping for something with the First Minister. He's your boss and you sure know it well.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the First Minister to give us an answer in terms of government policy, in terms of dumping on the local taxpayers. It hasn't only been in this area; it's been elsewhere. They're getting tired of it. When are you going to start being candid with the local taxpayer? When are you going to let them at least have a fair deal?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, responding quickly to education, I don't know if it's the intention of the opposition to do each minister's estimates under my vote but I'm willing to deal with the topics. In regard to education, education costs have been of concern to the taxpayers of this province for some years. They know full well that they pay the bill. Whether they pay it through the municipal tax roll or whether they pay it in general provincial taxation, it still becomes their obligation.

The illusion that somehow the provincial government has money from some source other than the taxpayers - it was proven to be just that by the experience we had by those legislators who didn't recognize that and spent a lot of money they didn't have. I've talked to Mayor Hugh Clark from Peachland in my constituency. We had quite a talk on the telephone before he sent any telegram. He's quite aware, as is the member for New Westminster, that in public school education we are now at a stable population level. The high growth years have ended but education at that level, though, continues to accelerate in cost, and this is of concern to the taxpayer. The information just passed to me by the Minister of Education indicates a 76 per cent overall increase in the last four years while school populations have stabilized and in many areas are going down.

We also know that the actual control of the school budgets at the public school level is not with the provincial government; they're negotiated on behalf of the local taxpayers of the school districts - in my case school district 23 - by local school trustees whom they elect. That is so local people have control and direction of education. The provincial government now provides a core curriculum that must be taught. The provincial government provides additional funding, but a part of the funding for that is collected on the local tax bills, and always has been. The local people have control over the expenditures of the public school system through their board of trustees. They're the people who negotiate labour contracts, make the decisions at the local level and, to a large measure, create the

[ Page 1148 ]

final cost of education.

It's a problem we're concerned about in many areas, and the letters I get from taxpayers mostly indicate that they can't understand why these costs are going up while in many areas the school population is dropping. They question their trustees.

The member for New Westminster mentions the school trustees' convention, and I would also mention that I would have attended that. I did attend two meetings in Vancouver, one an open forum of our party at which there was no $12.50 registration fee. I did respond to a number of questions. He's wrong again, as are his colleagues who were making their usual brilliant asides while he was speaking. I also was available at a dinner at which I spoke, and for which the tickets were at a premium, because everybody wanted to attend. But I also would have appreciated the opportunity to attend the school trustees' convention.

I have held, at their request, a number of meetings with the trustees of school district 23 in my own area of South Okanagan. I've met with the local teachers a number of times and with groups of representatives at their request, dealing with education, and I've brought their viewpoints and concerns back to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

Let me make one thing perfectly clear to this assembly: the Minister of Education has my full confidence, as do all the ministers of this government. They have been charged within this government with the responsibility of carrying out and initiating the responsibilities that would reflect their mandates to provide educational services or health services - whatever. And, yes, as a government we bear the collective responsibility and I, as the First Minister, will accept for those areas in which criticism can be levelled.

But I do say that within Education we share the responsibility for education with the local school trustees and the local level. We share the responsibility for education with boards of governors of universities, because all of us are aware of the separation of administration content that the universities want from political influence in government.

I point out, as the Minister of Education has said, that we've had these increased costs, these increased allocations of funds and budgets over these last few years, which have been a 76 per cent increase. These budgets are presented to the provincial Ministry of Education by the school boards and they have struck their budgets. They have had some control. At the same time, education has grown in cost. For many services there will never be enough money, I suppose, and the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , who has the responsibility for dealing in sums of money for this government, from time to time has to deal with the requirements of various ministries within the amounts of money the taxpayers can send.

For the first time the Education budget has gone over $1 billion, and that's a lot of taxpayers' money. Along with Health, those are the two budgets that now exceed $1 billion, where just a few years ago, I believe in 1970 or 1971, the total provincial budget %us just $1 billion. Today we have Education, one responsibility, one service to which this government contributes which is receiving $1 billion from the provincial budget. So while there may never be enough money on at least three levels - the provincial level, the school trustee level and those administrators and governors in the post-secondary education level - they are charged with the collective responsibility of delivering an educational opportunity within affordable limits of their tax base. That's the difficult way in which we must balance our measure of contribution.

I think the Minister of Education has raised his concern over the rising cost with the declining or zero growth in the school population, and he has mentioned that to trustees, but he made a further commitment to local control when he was at this convention over the weekend.

So, Mr. Chairman, education is very much a continuing priority of the government and quality of education is a concern for us. Most of us here have either educated our children or have children within the system and have concern for the quality of that education. We're also concerned because all of our taxpayers must pay for it.

I know my local school trustees are concerned through discussions I've had with them. They are not trying to relieve themselves of their obligation. They recognize that the budgets are under their control at the local level. So we have debates such as those at the trustees' convention, where they had a very close vote about whether teachers who have a vested interest in education should be allowed to run and be school trustees. I believe there was a one-vote differential. This type of debate creates this kind of question and this kind of debate at the teachers' convention, as expressed out there, because a large part of the cost the trustees must deal with and negotiate is teachers' salaries. That is a large and growing part of the cost of providing an educational service. They have this under their control. The provincial government doesn't do the bargaining; it's under the control of the school trustees.

[ Page 1149 ]

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure when we get to the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) estimates, I, along with the rest of this assembly, look to hear some of the details. But yes, that minister is operating with budgets that have been sent to him. He's tried to bring a measure of accountability and responsibility to education which has led many of the trustees who have spoken to me and many educators of reputation to tell me that they share my belief that this is the best Minister of Education this province has ever had.

And to those who question, remember, you wait for years to feel and see the results of educational policies - the 12 or 16 years of education depending on the courses, or 14 in the case of two-year courses, that our children may take. It's years before we see the results - and sometimes never. Sometimes the results aren't obvious until after you're elected.

But, Mr. Chairman, on the serious topic which the trustees have, I'm sure, addressed themselves to, I know municipal councils are concerned because they provide the billing activity in which schools do their local assessment. One of the problems would be, if you want to make the province fully accountable, that you would lose that local measure of direction and control if all the budgets came from the province. We all know how important local input is and the involvement of local citizens in directing those early years of education. The involvement of parents would be awfully remote to remove all the financial responsibility for directing of parents education to the provincial government. So that is why, in effect, we have this partnership arrangement and why we have local school trustees.

I guess one of the things that really concerns us is the poor voter turnout at the local level when they're electing school trustees. Perhaps many people don't feel the importance of the responsibilities of a trustee. We have very little public interest when i t comes to electing trustees and participating in discussions of the issues that surround education and costs at the local level. We only have the concern when they're presented with the bills.

So, Mr. Chairman, just to cover those remarks made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , education will be a continuing priority. This Minister of Education has earned a measure of respect that has led many trustees and educators to term him the best Minister of Education this province has ever had. It's an opinion I share.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'll just continue for a moment or two. First I want to assure you that we're not discussing the Education estimates. We will discuss the Education estimates in detail when we come to the Education estimates.

We are now talking about a tax policy that comes from the executive council of our government. I didn't ramble around touching on everything, as the Premier did. I talked specifically about this particular situation. I didn't even mention how high the people in this province hold the Minister of Education in terms of regard. But I did say that the people are getting tired of getting bilked by this government because of their tax policy.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the things that I want to tell you about: when the Minister of Education was in Prince George, what did he tell the trustees when they started to howl about the participation of the provincial government in educational expense? Do you know what the Minister of Education said? I listened to him very carefully. He said as follows: "I got all out of the government that I could." Therefore it is the First Minister's responsibility; it is the government's responsibility and the executive council's responsibility. The Treasury Board denied the Minister of Education what he asked for, I'm sure. I believe that he's an honourable gentleman and I believe that he would have asked for a better participation from government than what he got. While they might admire him for some of his feats of excellence over the years....

Mr. Chairman, they do not admire him as being the great white knight getting participation from the provincial government in their problems.

The First Minister, by inference, has said in this House: "I want teachers' salaries to go down." By inference he says that the only way you can control this whole question is to bring those salaries down. Shame on him for making that kind of an inference. The teachers are important people in our communities giving leadership in terms of education.

I asked some of the trustees in the Prince George region: "How much control have you got over your budget?" I asked that question of Cariboo - and I'm sorry the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is away: "How much control have you over your budget?" The Premier says they've got control. They said of a $9 million budget, they have flexibility of $200,000. How much difference does that make? There is very little control indeed. Those costs are set. Once having been set there is no way around it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word

[ Page 1150 ]

about this whole question of autonomy. I just think that is the greatest smokescreen this government has ever raised. Give them autonomy - soak it to them and give them autonomy. Give them autonomy and let them take the blame for what is going on in terms of taxation.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that while the public schools in this province have had a 9 per cent increase in budget in the last year, this government - even having dumped as much of their responsibilities as they have - still have a 9.8 per cent increase in their budget. What are we talking about?

MR. NICOLSON: More - it's 20 per cent.

MR. COCKE: It's a basic 9.8 per cent, but a lot more. I agree with the member for Nelson-Creston. When you've siphoned off a great deal of your responsibility you look better. Not only have they siphoned it off into the Crown corporations around - that is the Buildings Corporation and others - but they are siphoning it off directly onto the taxpayers. Local taxpayers pay the shot and the school trustees take the blame, and all in the name of autonomy. What absolute rubbish we talk.

The minister talks about local control. They don't need to pay 60 to 70 per cent - and in my school district they pay 92 per cent - in order to show that they have some autonomy. Believe me, they've got very little. We've had more centralization of decision-making around education since this government came to power than we've ever seen. The Minister wants to make all the decisions and hasn't got time to make them and so, therefore, they are often bad ones. He is laying it onto the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman.

Incidentally, I smiled. You know that question period meeting that the First Minister went to over the weekend? That was a party affair. Oh, he said that. Well, I'm glad he owned up to that. I'll go and answer questions anytime on that kind of....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't even show up at your own party.

MR. COCKE: Why don't you go out and talk to the public? That was the question I asked you. Why don't you go out and talk to the people? Socreds - those that are left in your party -naturally will be relatively favourable.

Mr. Chairman, he is a runaway Premier. I suggest to him: go to a public meeting, go and talk to the trustees all aver this province. Listen to what they have to say about where we're going. We used to cry in opposition before about the amount of the contribution of the old Socred government to education, and we're getting back to those exact same dark days. We used to be No. 10 in Canada in those days. They're bottom-liners, all of them, and we're going right back down that same old dark tube. I think it's most unfortunate that the Premier will not listen to what the public out there are telling him. I just want to tell the public it's his fault, it's his fault, it's his fault.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just to correct, because the member for New Westminster, through inadvertence, has fallen into the same trap as his colleagues. He said I said I wanted teachers' salaries to go down. Now when we check the Blues you'll find out that that is an incorrect statement. I have not said that.

MR. COCKE: By inference.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't tell me what I said. The people here heard what I said. They also have a chance to witness you now in your capacity as one who would arrive at your own conclusions and try to attribute statements to others, Mr. Member for New Westminster, through you, Mr. Chairman. That is an exercise in education in itself - to view you and your colleague and see how you carry on your responsibilities.

Secondly, we have not tried to put blame on school trustees. They're an elected official, as we are and as you are. What you accept when you run is a responsibility to do a job, and yes, I accept responsibility for decisions.

MR. COCKE: You said they have local control.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They accept responsibility for decisions and they do have a large measure of responsibility. The education of our children is a major responsibility. You know, that's why I like where the Minister of Education has put the emphasis - on quality of education, to make sure our children actually learn something. You know, it's been a long time since we've heard that. He wants them to actually learn something , in our schools and come out with a measure of skill that enables them to participate in society.

The members here can question, if they want to have the budget debate again, because we've been through the minister's budget debate and the minister's estimates, but quite frankly the emphasis this year - there is an emphasis -has been on the continuance of basic services to our people. But there is a pressing need that the emphasis this year should be on jobs and job creation, so those who have already

[ Page 1151 ]

gone through the school system have something to do.

I would say yes, one of the things government must do from year to year is emphasize those areas of immediate need without threatening immediate services. Yes, it would be nice to spend as much as everyone would like in every service area. This year we have tried to meet in all areas as a government facing those hard choices that the taxpayers haven't got.... They don't want to send a lot of money to government; they want more discretionary income in their own hands.

Those taxpayers are the people I talk to and listen to daily, weekly; they are the people of B.C. The member for New Westminster's only concern is that I don't talk to NDP people, but they're getting harder to find. I even notice in the federal poll that they're finding them harder to find there as the provincial party continues to affect their federal chances, and their support is declining.

MR. LEA: Your new federal leader's going to get them, I'll tell you that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Prince Rupert, without authorization for the floor, has said that my new federal leader doesn't have any support. I'll take a further opportunity to tell this assembly again that this party is separate from all the federal parties (laughter) by convention and by membership -not by my choice, but by theirs. Our party in this assembly are many people who vote various ways in the federal election. In fact, a large number of those who support us provincially have - and do, I suppose - support the NDP federally. They find the same difference between that provincial group and their federal party that they find within their other provincial parties and governments as led by Alan Blakeney where the differences between them are so marked, and the contrast so great, and the lack of responsibility so much indicated, that we even have them criticizing policies that Alan Blakeney brings in in Saskatchewan.

Alan Blakeney took off succession duties. He's a respected NDP Premier and he took off succession duties in Saskatchewan, and they attack it here. But when Alan was out, I didn't hear them attacking the Premier of Saskatchewan when he was speaking the other day for that policy. No, they went and tried to reflect in his glory and his responsibility by sharing the same platform. That's what many of them do in a number of other policies. I'm sure he would feel more comfortable with me than he would with you, I'll tell you that.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is the one who in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, told us how he made up facts and he tipped the whole thing. Anyhow, I wanted to make that point on Education and on the statements the member for New Westminster tried to attribute to me.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, as well as simply being boring in his endless boring replies to questions framed by the opposition, the Premier has also indicated over and over again that he's a notoriously bad judge of character. Today he was talking about the character and the high esteem in which he holds the Minister of Education. That this Premier is a bad judge of character is a matter of public record. Not one but two of his appointees have fallen into some disgrace in this last year, and presumably more are on the way as the Premier continues to defend his leadership position in that coalition. That the Premier is a bad judge of character is known to everyone who looks at the benches, and even the Speaker's chair from time to time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I would like to read to you some general restrictions on debate on supply:

"Regarding the general conduct of debate on supply, may it be observed that remarks of conduct of servants of the state made in the estimates containing salary must be restricted to the official conduct. Estimates do not afford the proper opportunity for discussing from which House of parliament a minister should be chosen, or whether he should be in the cabinet or not, or which minister should represent the government in respect to the estimates under consideration."

Now I would like you to keep your discussion specifically to vote 5, if we can, within the realm that vote 5 has already gone. But we must not discuss which particular ministry or who you think should represent one particular ministry. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm continuing within the realm of the debate that has already occurred and referring in particular to the comments by the Premier that he has, as he put it, "full confidence" in the Minister of Education. He's had full confidence in another minister or two in times past and we saw what happened to them.

Now if the Premier had bothered to attend the BCSTA convention in Prince George over the

[ Page 1152 ]

weekend as I did, as my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) did, and as my colleague from Burnaby (Mrs. Dailly) did, he would have learned what we learned on Friday night when it came time to test the respect and high esteem in which the Minister of Education is held - the Premier's appointee - by the British Columbia School Trustees Association. The Premier cared and chose not to be at the BCSTA convention. He felt it was more important apparently to attend staged Socred spectacles than to listen to the serious and high debate carried on by members of the BCSTA in Prince George.

Anyway, if he had bothered to be there he would have observed that on a vote - an annual and traditional vote - carried by the BCSTA to determine whether or not the Minister of Education should be named honourary president of the BCSTA, the usual procedure was not followed. For the first time in memory the ordinary promotion of the Minister of Education to that honorific post was not stated. In fact the recommendation of the executive was challenged on the floor-and for the first time in memory the BCSTA, on a standing vote, determined whether or not this Minister of Education, in whom the Premier says he has such confidence, was worthy of that office. Well, surprise, surprise! On a standing vote, a third and more of the trustees at the convention voted to deny this honorary position to that Minister of Education. They did it because they do not share the opinion of the Premier that this is the best Minister of Education British Columbia has ever seen. Quite to the contrary, they hold the opinion that this is the most centralizing, bureaucracy bound, elitist Minister of Education this or any other province has ever seen. And they voted clearly, they voted apparently, they voted publicly. Where was the Premier? At a staged Socred spectacle in Vancouver

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

They also said they want a full-time Minister of Education, and so do we. They said they want a full-time Minister of Education, one who is not devoting his services to patching up ICBC, having done the damage he did in the first place by doubling and tripling the rates. The trustees of British Columbia, as I learned and as my two colleagues learned this weekend, are very angry with this Premier and his government. They're angry with Social Credit for a number of perfectly good and obvious reasons. They're angry, first of all, because they've been deceived time and time again by Social Credit. They were deceived into thinking that the Premier meant it when he took out an advertisement on December 8,1975, saying that he believed in community control of education.

What did the Premier say on that occasion? Reading from an advertisement headed "Bill Bennett's Way", holding a couple of children in his arms:

"Better education for children through policy set by local school boards, parents and teachers."

He went on to say in the paid advertisement: "Too many things are taking place in our schools today which we don't understand or respect. Let's stop the experimenting and get back to the specifics of learning" -whatever that means. "Education is really an extension of the learning processes which begin in the home. It's time to re-store dignity and authority to the classroom teacher, time to teach the fundamentals which will establish pride in achievement and pride in our country.

"Social Credit will move control of education closer to the community. We will expand the community college programme and revitalize the role of universities in preparing students for the future. On December 11 vote for better education in B.C. Vote Social Credit."

And underneath the smiling, shaved picture of the Premier:

"Social Credit, a new way to work together."

The trustees are angry because they've been deceived by this Premier. They were deceived by these advertisements. They were deceived by the policies of coalition which, once in power, has betrayed every significant promise they made to promote education in this province. Social Credit campaigned on promises, and so did the Premier, of community control of education. What a joke that promise has become, when you look at what they have done to the governments of community colleges in this province. You may remember, Mr. Chairman - you probably voted for it - that particular Act that they brought in last year to amend the Community Colleges Art. What did they do in that case and what have they done in every other case when they've had the choice? The Premier has insisted that democratic control at the community level be removed from that area of public governance and returned instead to the bureaucracy which he controls. The trustees are deceived and they are angry because they were deceived by this'Premier. They are angry because they were deceived about the question of the property tax as well. Social Credit promised that they would reduce the

[ Page 1153 ]

Cost Of public education to the taxpayer in this province. Instead, they have increased that cost over and over again; they've done so every year in off ice. Next year they will do it again if they are given the chance.

The mill rates are up. The Premier, in a typically clever ploy, has managed to increase those mill rates by refusing additional provincial participation and allowing a situation to occur that would see the school districts themselves blamed for what the Premier himself has done. The trustees are angry because they were deceived on a second count: the property taxes are up for the purposes of public school education; Social Credit promised they would go down.

Thirdly, they have managed, in this typically malevolent way, to shift the blame from where it really lies here at the Treasury Board, for which the Premier is responsible, out to the local authorities.

Just as an aside, take a look at the Assessment Act. The Assessment Act was so designed to see the [illegible] for the increase in assessments being shouldered by the municipal councils which are not the authors of the Assessment Act. Sure enough, in my own riding in the city of Victoria, the city council has discovered itself in the unhappy position of implementing legislation which they did not write, in order to try and defend provincial policies which they do not support. The Assessment Act was cleverly designed to shift the blame for increasing municipal taxation from where it really lies here on the desk of the Premier to where it should not lie - there on the desks of members of city councils and municipal councils across British Columbia.

Under Social Credit the people of British Columbia have been overtaxed, overcharged and overgoverned. They are overtaxed whenever they can be. They are overcharged every time they turn around. And they are overgoverned by one of the most centralist, heavy-handed, bureaucratic machines that this or any other Premier has ever created in his own office.

I want to talk about a taxation issue for which the Premier is responsible. I want to talk about the nature and the principle of the property tax itself as a device for raising revenue. I want to emphasize from the beginning that I am speaking for myself. Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking for my own party, although I will be alluding to actions taken by the government during the previous administration. I am speaking for myself.

As you are well aware, under the previous administration one of the most significant break throughs was the establishment of a five-year programme to remove altogether the burden of the school tax from the regimen of the property tax. Our government felt, wisely and properly, that property itself should not be the generator of significant revenues for the purposes of school tax. Our government brought in a five-year plan and were well into the second year of that plan - before the election occurred and we were booted out - to do just that and to do what the people of British Columbia clearly wanted. The NDP was into a five-year programme which this government has reversed and which that Premier has attacked and repudiated.

The property tax is itself a very curious and archaic device. The property tax derives, as I understand it from my own studies, from the 15th century in England, when it was determined that it was wise and appropriate to use the nature and the question of property itself as being a generator of funds: one wouldn't tax wealth or the income from it; one wouldn't tax inheritance - certainly under this government that would never be done - or the income from that. But rather one would set aside, in a largely artificial way, this asset called property and tax that for some very specific purposes. In the British system of doing things, the property tax itself is fully 450 years old, as I'm informed.

The property tax has some very curious and archaic roots and, in my personal judgment, some disreputable origins. I hold the opinion that the property tax should not be the generator of significant revenues for the purposes of public education. There are a number of reasons for that. Firstly, it tends to penalize those persons who through hard labour, sacrifice and through their own income and wit have made a major investment in their own property.

I'm talking generally about a single piece of property that a man and wife hold together for the purpose of sustaining their marriage, their family and their place in the community. Personally, I don't understand why that earned and respected place in the community should be taxed and taxed again for school purposes. For the third time, let me say that I am speaking for myself and not necessarily for my own party.

The property tax, in my personal opinion, is an obsolete tax. It derives from conditions present 400 and 500 years ago that nowadays increasingly is an awkward and indefensible position. The property tax itself, at best, can justify taxation being expended on questions of sewers, of roads and of very specific and very narrowly judged and based and applied services to property, period - no more, and preferably much less. The property tax is, in

[ Page 1154 ]

my personal judgment, an obsolete and archaic tax which increasingly and hopefully will go out of the window.

The way to make it go out of the window is to start with that area of taxation mostly clearly unfair and inequitable. What, Mr. Chairman, does a school tax have to do with property tax? What, in any thoughtful or logical way, should be the relationship between those two taxes? What position of policy should this Premier take in regard to the use of the property tax for raising school or any other revenues?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if you could verify for me, Mr. Chairman, if we have moved on to the Minister of Finance's estimates, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , in dealing with property taxes. I suggest that the member be brought to order.

MR. BARBER: I am in order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, the discussion you are engaging in at the present time could best be discussed under the Education minister, but we are now on vote 5, if you could bring these remarks back. We should not be discussing legislation at this point.

MR. BARBER: I'm talking about policy for which the First Minister is personally responsible, Mr. Chairman. The Premier, as love read into the House, took out advertisements talking about what he would do in education were he to become Premier. He did, and now we're talking about what he's done. I think that's fair. These are his words, not mine, that I've referred to. I am discussing an important principle, however, of public policy, for which the First Minister is uniquely responsible. I'm trying to do it in a not very partisan way. I'm talking about the nature of the property tax as the generator of revenue for any public purpose, and I think that's fair. I think that's reasonable, and I propose, further, to relate that to the conduct of the Premier in his own office. If you'll bear with me, I'll be there very shortly.

In as non-partisan a way as possible, and speaking personally, it seems to me that we should have a statement from this Premier about the extent to which he holds in merit, if at all, the whole nature of the property tax. The property tax serves not just education, as the Chairman knows; it serves other purposes as well. However, at the moment this opposition is choosing today to ask questions of the Premier regarding his responsibility for the whole framework, the whole concept, the whole avenue of public education. It's the Premier who tells us that his government has committed more than $1 billion this year to education in British Columbia. I accept that from the Premier. It's perfectly true. The estimates say so.

What I want to hear from the Premier is what he anticipates about the future of those moneys that shall be generated for the purposes, among others, of public education in British Columbia. It's an important debate. It's also not a terribly partisan debate, and that alone should be cause for some refreshment and some attention.

In my personal judgment, the most appropriate source of revenue fairly gathered by the Crown is the progressive income tax levied against individuals and corporations. The progressive income tax, more equitably than any other - far more equitably than the property tax - tends to be able to assess real worth and real ability to pay. There are a lot of other taxes that aren't fair at all. The least fair one, for which the Premier is also responsible, is the sales tax. That, surely, is the harshest and most unfair and most improper tax of any on the books. It's the tax we never raised when we were in power. It's the tax that we never used for political purposes for two years in order to create the appearance of surplus and two years later to create the appearance of popular support.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the other socialist countries?

MR. BARBER: We're talking about British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But you want to make it socialist, so tell us what you'd do.

MR. BARBER: This opposition is committed unanimously to the principle of fair and payable taxation. This government is committed, through its actions, to principles of taxation that are clearly unfair and unpayable. The Premier himself, on many occasions two years ago, defended what he did to the sales tax as somehow progressive and responsible. Two years later he turns around and admits that it was not so, that it was wrong, and that it should have been reduced. Sure enough, it went down the 40 per cent that he had raised it just two years earlier.

There are important questions of local control, of local determination and of local sen

[ Page 1155 ]

sitivity when one talks about education. Those questions are usually reflected in two forms: one is tax, the mill rate, the ability of a local board, democratically elected to assess the people who elect it taxes for some public purpose - specifically we are talking about educational purposes. And there's the other question of sensitivity to public goals and aspirations. On both questions, this Premier has failed to provide answers that make any sense at all. The only sense they apparently make is the sense he's trying to make - putting the opposition to sleep with his boring replies.

There are two significant questions that must be addressed by this Premier. First, through what instruments - the more fair the better - should public moneys be generated for public purposes? It's my personal submission that the property tax is basically obsolete, ill-advised and improper as a generator of significant revenues for educational purposes - pure and simple. The Premier as the First Minister and the man more influential than any other on Treasury Board, is the one who has to answer this question.

Second, we want a commitment from this government in action, and not just in its nonsensical propaganda taken out of the last election, that it actually believes in local control of public schools, of colleges and, indeed, of universities. We've never had a Minister of Education more elitist, more committed to a bizarre and hopefully inherited -i.e., not publicly assumed - position on secondary education in this province than the one we presently suffer under. A third of the trustees at the BCSTA convention, at their first session, voted to deny the Minister of Education the honorary post of honorary president of the BCSTA. They did it because they don't have any confidence in the Premier's choice. Neither do we.

We don't have any confidence in the Premier's actions. They've overcharged and overtaxed for everything for the last three years. We don't have any confidence in the Premier's ability to understand that you can't run a province like you run a hardware store. If the Premier tried to overcharge his customers at his hardware store as he's overcharged his citizens in British Columbia, the same result would inevitably occur: the hardware store would go broke and the customers would go elsewhere. That's what's happened in British Columbia. That's what would have happened in the Premier's hardware store. You can't overcharge and overtax for everything endlessly.

There are some very specific taxes that have very, very limited application, if any - and I refer to the property tax for public school purposes. We want, from the Premier, something other than these endless windstorms signifying nothing about the question of fair taxation for educational purposes and the fair, decent, democratic right of local people to make decisions that should be made locally and nowhere else. This government is a centralist government. It's a government obsessed with bureaucracy and committees and internal structure. It is obsessed with bureaucracy and red tape at every level. It is a government that has created new Crown corporations, new agencies, and new commissions to serve its bureaucratic design and to serve its political purpose, which is basically to avoid political responsibility for decisions they themselves have taken. We'd like some answers to these, among other questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY: I'll gladly defer to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, if he's willing to answer those questions.

I would like to proceed to a different issue, one that's more closely related to the minister's area of responsibility - he can get a little shut-eye now - in particular, energy, and the Premier's response to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) a few days ago, when the member for Mackenzie was talking about the 500-kilovolt Cheekeye to Dunsmuir powerline. The Premier mentioned that he was looking into an alternative to that and, in fact, that he had allocated something like $90,000 for a study of a gas line to Vancouver Island. The indication we got, from reading the Blues and from reading the press, was that that was one of the alternatives you were looking at. Perhaps the minister could clarify that when he stands up in the House to respond to these questions. Who is doing the study? When was the money allocated? What routes are proposed?

The Premier is probably aware that there are studies available from a previous time, back in 1972. It seems that whatever this minister or this government becomes involved in, it's just rehashing what his father did several years ago - and in a less satisfactory way. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague for Vancouver East drew the House's attention to a hearing of the Public Utilities Commission back in 1972 when Westcoast Transmission, or one of their subsidiaries or outgrowths, Malaspina Gas Company - which was at that fine headed by Dan Ekman, the former Premier's former executive assistant - proposed a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island that would have cost $95 million. It would have come down Bute Inlet, I believe, to Powell River, and

[ Page 1156 ]

then across the Strait of Georgia to Vancouver Island.

I'm wondering what routes are being considered. Hydro at that time proposed one that would cost $45 million and it would cross from Huntingdon down across, through Tsawwassen, to the southern end of Vancouver Island. A $45 million investment would be required in 1971 or 1972. So what studies have been done? What studies is the Premier referring to and who will be doing those studies at a cost to the people of $90,000?

Again, this is not really what we should consider an alternative to a 500-kilovolt line. In fact, it may cost just as much, or possibly more, to ship energy through a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. I realize there is a surplus now as a result of government policy, but what happens when the gas runs out? The Premier has told the House that a former government left the young people of this province saddled with debt. What's going to happen when the gas runs out, when that surplus is gone and we're holding something like maybe $200 million to $300 million worth of pipeline through which nothing can flow but water? We're looking for serious alternatives on Vancouver Island, and gas at this point doesn't appear to be a serious alternative.

The minister seems to be plagued with a real problem in that he lacks leadership and lacks innovation. We would like to see the minister, especially in his new post as energy minister since he sacked the previous one, willing to look at real alternatives on Vancouver Island. There is leadership coming from other areas of Canada as far as non-nuclear, non-centralized, non-multinationally dominated electrical generating and transmission technologies. There are new innovations coming from across Canada, but British Columbia seem to be last in this regard.

I can remember when the minister was up making a speech, when he was feeling a little better before his estimates were really underway, and he said that when he took over there was chaos in the government of this province. He cited an article by a Liberal hack, academic Paul Tennant, which was full of inaccuracies, but I imagine Mr. Tennant sent him a copy of the article with the appropriate phrases underlined. I believe Tennant even mentioned in his article that the NDP acquired six pulp mills, which was just one of the inaccuracies in that article.

But when we took over this government in 1972, we didn't even have a Ministry of Transport. There wasn't even a Ministry of Transport in the province of British Columbia. There was no agency to co-ordinate transportation policy in the province. As a matter of fact, the Premier talks about setting up an office of intergovernmental affairs. The CRTC never held hearings out in British Columbia because we didn't have an agency here that dealt with communications. The CTC never held hearings in British Columbia because there was no department of government at that time concerned with transportation.

The National Energy Board didn't hold hearings in British Columbia because there was no authority in British Columbia to deal with energy until my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) set up the B.C. Energy Commission and drew the attention to the federal government that this provincial government under the NDP was concerned about transportation co-ordination and policy, was concerned about communications and communications policy, was concerned about energy policy and, in fact, set up the authorities to deal with those issues right here in British Columbia.

The Premier was pretty lucky compared to the NDP government when we took office. But, of course, the Premier has been fairly lucky all along. There has always been someone there to back him up. We provided those energy agencies, we provided the transportation coordinating agencies, and we provided the communications co-ordinating agencies that he was able to inherit like he's inherited everything else. Then he criticizes us for the chaos. You should have been there in 1972, Mr. Premier. It, would have been disgusting.

On this gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, the minister has promised a study of this gas pipeline as a possible alternative. Are we just going back to the Dan Ekman proposal to connect William Lake to Vancouver Island through Powell River, or are we going to the former in-house B.C. Hydro proposal of 1971 to connect Huntingdon to Vancouver Island, but at a grossly inflated rate?

I'd like to see this minister get on with the job of encouraging energy alternatives. I'd like to pass on some pictures that perhaps the minister could take a look at before he gets up to respond, pictures that indicate what other areas are doing in the way of developing solar alternatives. The pictures I am sending over to the Premier are pictures of a subdivision being developed by the city of Denver in co-operation with the United States government, a subdivision based on solar energy for space and hot water heating. President Carter this year has given something like $100 million in research funds to solar energy alternatives. I note that the Premier is looking at the pictures now. It's a new housing subdivision in Denver, Colorado, where the sub

[ Page 1157 ]

division is based on solar energy for space and water heating, with tax assistance and outright grants from the federal government of the United States.

Also the central bus depot in Denver, Colorado is entirely solar space and hot-water heating. President Carter has offered to give $100 million to solar energy research in the United States. So solar power is really getting a push down in the United States.

The Premier takes a lot of credit for setting up an auditor-general in the province of British Columbia - someone else to look after the books - and we, of course, went along with the proposal for an auditor-general. But the first time we ever had an opportunity to examine the office of the auditor-general, and to question her, was last week in public accounts committee. She saw her job as making sure that government departments are spending the money as the money was allocated, and doing a good job of spending the money without any misallocations and that kind of thing.

But in the United States, the Office of Management and Budget has a comptroller-general who audits programmes as well, to find out how cost-effective those programmes are. In the field of energy, they look into whether it's worthwhile to go into nuclear power, or whether that's a bad expenditure of government money, and they look into natural gas pipelines, for example, as opposed to developing energy conservation and this type of thing. And they decide whether that's the best expenditure of public money, and come out with reports such as this. Every person in the United States is entitled to receive this report, every member of Congress, every person connected with the government.

In fact, Mr. Premier, an individual member of the Legislature can initiate a report through the comptroller-general's office to see whether a programme is the most effective allocation of government money or not. Perhaps, when we're considering expanding the auditor-general's office, we should look into this type of thing.

Already the Office of Management and Budget and the comptroller-general of the United States have identified solar heating as one of the most cost-effective alternatives to the centralized form of energy generation and energy transmission that we now have in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: This technology, Mr. Chairman, is available right now. If that member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) would like a copy of this report, I'll make it available to him, and if he'd like to challenge the Office of Management and Budget of the United States, then let him go down there and do it. He says the technology won't be available for 35 years. The city of Vancouver, right now, is involved in an energy conservation programme that is already saving them tens of thousands of dollars - under the leadership of Alderman Mike Harcourt, who is known to some members opposite...

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: ... and supported by the whole city council. The NDP is on the side of saving money when it comes to saving energy, and preventing the construction of nuclear plants, dams like the Revelstoke Dam, and this type of thing. We're for the most cost-effective programmes, the programmes that save money for the people of this province without sacrificing services to people.

In April, 1976, a report was done Governor Michael Dukakis of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - a northern state with a climate similar to that of B.C. - called "The Use of Solar Energy for Space Heating and Hot Water; Technical Description; Economic Feasibility; Implications for the State." I'll quote a few sections from this report:

"With widespread adoption of solar power, Massachusetts citizens could cut their collective fuel bills by $120 million annually by 1985.

This is using existing technology.

"Furthermore, solar energy has vast potential for new job opportunities - and the minister talks about this being a job creation budget - "especially in plumbing, construction, research and development areas. It's very difficult to put a figure on the job potential of solar energy, but it's safe to say that, by 1985, more jobs could be available from solar power, directly or indirectly, than from offshore oil and new nuclear construction combined."

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm in the process of doing that, Mr. Member.

I would recommend it to anyone in this Legislative Assembly, in terms of saving on hydro-electric bills and in terms of the potential for saving on the cost of construction of new dams and transmission facilities. I would encourage everyone in this Legislative Assembly and in fact everyone in the province

[ Page 1158 ]

to look into the option of energy conservation and solar space and hot water heating. The problem is that most citizens don't have the opportunity to make the money available for the initial capital investment. And the reason for that is that the government doesn't provide the incentive for energy conservation, the necessary financial incentives and taxation incentives, and they don't provide the necessary incentives for solar heating that, according to this report, are required if governments are to go into this area of energy management.

Let's look at the potential for job creation in solar energy use and the potential for government savings. This is a government that is supposed to be concerned about the bottom line. I'll read from page 55 of this report and make it available to the new Minister of Energy if he wishes to have it.

"Reducing expenditures within the state on fuel by $120 million annually has strong economic implications. Even if an equivalent sum is spent on solar equipment and installation, the majority of these expenditures are made within the state rather than being exported to energy corporations elsewhere. Spending these funds within the state should increase local production and could result in 11,000 local jobs. The job opportunities created by solar use would cover many fields but would be particularly concentrated in construction and manufacturing."

Looking at realistic scenarios for energy use over the next 20 years, the report produced by the Governor of Massachusetts indicated:

" If 50 per cent of all buildings used solar energy by 1995, at least for hot water use, 600 million gallons of oil or the equivalent in gas or electricity could be saved yearly, retaining $480 million in the state, resulting in 32,000 jobs. Although these figures are hypothetical, they reflect the type of benefits that are probable should solar energy use begin now. "

The idea is that these programmes should begin now in order for us to reap the maximum benefits from solar energy technology and in order for us to minimize the economic impact that is going to take place in this province as a result of the increasing costs of centralized generating and electrical production technology.

So other states are leading, other provinces are leading. Out of $553,000 allocated for solar energy home demonstration projects, B.C. has collected something like $30,000 up to

March, 1978. The reason is that we don't have an office of energy conservation in this province. We don't have a minister who's concerned about energy conservation, not even as concerned as the city of Vancouver, which under the direction of Mike Harcourt has developed an energy conservation programme in that city.

Let's just look at what they've done in one single project, and that is in providing and saving energy in their library system in Vancouver. They installed some additional controls and a heat exchanger in the library. They aim to shut the plant down on off hours rather than have a 24-hour operation, and to make use of wasted steam and condensate. The saving in electricity is $8,793 from May to November, a decrease of the projected expenditure of approximately 20 per cent. There's a saving in steam of $6,850 for a three-month period, a decrease in projected expenditure of approximately 49 per cent.

So the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that we have examples of leadership in energy alternatives elsewhere in the country, in other states. of North America, even in the city of Vancouver, but no leadership from this provincial government. There is nothing available from the provincial government except in the form of advice, and very little of that as well. I believe the city of Vancouver approached the B.C. Energy Commission to ask them for advice. They talked to a person, Peter Gillespie, who is the expert in the Energy Commission on energy conservation, and he's their building expert, but the fact is that he said he was the only person available and it doesn't look like there's any increase in staff under this present government.

So what we need is a little energy. Yes, we need that from this present government plus a little leadership from the government to develop those energy alternatives. It's one thing to spend 16 hours a day working in your office, hidden from the public - and the Premier mentioned one time that he's even working at cocktail parties. That's part of his 16-h hour-a-day job. But he's always hidden from the public. What we need is a little energy, a little initiative, a little leadership to develop these alternatives rather than going back to the same tired old clichés, the $90,000 study to bring Dan Eckman and Malaspina Pipelines Ltd. back, just like your dad did in 1972, and try it on the public again. Now it's going to cost four times more than it did then.

I would also like to talk a little bit about the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. There was an order that came down last year under which the CTC ordered that the Esquimalt and Nanaimo

[ Page 1159 ]

Railway could shut down their operations. We members of the New Democratic Party on Vancouver Island supported the Premier when he appealed that decision, took it to the supreme court and attempted to make a case in the supreme court against discontinuing the line. We support the government for doing that. But again, it is a problem of coming in too little and too late. The only alternative isn't court action in this case. I wonder if the Premier has approached the CPR's management and the management of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway to try to keep this line going for the benefit of the tourist industry on Vancouver Island and for the benefit of the economy on Vancouver Island. The minister seemed to be willing to introduce the case into the supreme court, and I think it's mainly because of the public relations value of that referral, but it doesn't preclude discussion of operation of the line with the CPR, and I am pleased to see that the CTC ordered the CPR to continue until June 30 of this year. So we have very little time left to attempt to salvage the operation of that line.

In 1970, Mr. Chairman, the E & N requested closure of the passenger service along that line. They tried to shut it down and they were ordered by the CTC to do a number of things -that is to upgrade the service, to keep stations and shelters in good repair and to provide sufficient accommodation for people on the passenger train. They were also instructed by the CTC to do a marketing survey to discover what the marketing potential of that line was. Now the CPR went through the motions of doing some of those things. They put a little paint on some of the stations, they hired janitors to clean up the washrooms and they rebuilt the station platforms in Nanaimo, for example, that have been rotting since about 1883. They did a few things but they didn't do that marketing survey. Has the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) done anything in the way of a marketing survey to determine whether the line has any potential at all as part of the economy of Vancouver Island and what potential can be developed to keep that line running? Definitely the CPR isn't interested in keeping the passenger service running unless it can get a subsidy from the federal government, and there is a likelihood that that subsidy is going to come down.

When I attended the CIC hearings in Courtenay, the CPR admitted that they'd done almost no promotion of the line. Yet railways are extremely sensitive to even the most minimal amount of promotion. Every intervenor in the hearings has indicated that every railway service in Canada is extremely sensitive to promotion. Just the creation of the Canadian national red, white and blue fare days - certain fare reductions for certain classes of citizens - has increased utilization of CN's passenger rail service. Just the announcement on Vancouver Island that the E & N is going to shut down on June 30 has increased the utilization of the railcar service to the point where it is running to capacity and on some days over-capacity - they've had to turn people away. Has the Premier or the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) approached the Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway management to attempt to keep this line going, to attempt to get joint promotion schemes going to keep the E & N line open? Is the Premier interested in getting a little press play out of a court case or is he really interested in keeping the Esquimalt & Nanaimo line going?

When he talked to the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) did he say: "Okay, Lyle, here's a chance for you to get a little needed publicity because it looks like you're going down the tube in the riding. Do the 'don't let the whistle stop' campaign. We're going to give you a little money for some posters. You can take time off your job out at the nursery there and you can travel around the Island and generate a real campaign, build up some votes and some press coverage. It's better than flying in a helicopter up to Triangle Mountain." So it looked like the Premier was just getting involved in a court case to develop a little press play rather than having any real intention to keep that line running. The fact that the line was going to be closed drew people's attention to the fact so much that the line now is running close to utilization -in fact they've had to turn people away.

There is also the potential, west of Victoria here, for a commuter service on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway line. It is estimated that something like 88 per cent of the people who commute into the major cities in Canada can be diverted to rail transport and be taken out of their cars. We haven't done the study -we've had some people look into it for us in a cursory way - because we can't afford that kind of research on this side, Mr. Chairman. We can't afford that kind of research on this side because not too much money is available to us, as the member for Burnaby (Mr. Veitch) pointed out. He was sacrificing $20,000 a year, he told us. Oh, did I shed a tear. He was the guy who voted.... Mr. Chairman, you'll recall who voted for and against the 10 per cent reduction in the salaries.

But the people who have volunteered that research to us indicate that something like 800

[ Page 1160 ]

people would be available to use that commuter service if it was established with the assistance of the provincial government. That's 800 people taken of the highways and put on a rail service. Imagine the improvement in that rail service that would result with that increased number of passengers, all short-haul passengers. It's a very effective means of utilizing that rail service. Has the Premier, as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, done anything to contact the CPR to try to develop a commuter service that would serve the western suburbs of Victoria and help bring those people into Victoria, rather than having the kind of traffic jams we have on Highway 1 and Esquimalt Road and those places?

I think the CPR wants a subsidy, of course, for the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. They're not planning to shut it down; they want a subsidy for it. The fact is that right now there are no subsidies being paid on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo system, but we on Vancouver Island, on a population base, pay $10 per capita for the subsidies that are being paid for rail services in other parts of Canada, and in exchange we get about $1 per capita from the other people in Canada. So we're paying out $10 for every $1 we get back and yet our services are being allowed to deteriorate.

MRS. WALLACE: Take a dollar, give a dime.

MR. SKELLY: Take a dollar to give a dime; CPR operates almost like Social Credit.

Mr. Premier, what have you done to contact CPR, aside from the court case, to try to develop a promotional system for the Esquimalt and Nanaimo passenger service? What about ski developments up-Island - and I'm thinking of Forbidden Plateau, Green Mountain, Mt. Arrowsmith? Have you done anything to try to promote ski developments on the Island, through you or through the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , to try to get the train utilized for ski promotions, just like they're doing now on the BCR - $14 for a trip from Vancouver up to Whistler Mountain? What have you done to try to encourage that kind of development on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway? Have you been in touch with the Nanaimo Heritage Society that's trying to get an old-fashioned passenger service developed? What are you doing to assist them? Have you been in touch with the municipalities who would like to keep that service going because of the intermunicipal service that's provided by the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway? More important, have you been in touch with the CPR at all to try to negotiate improvements in the service, to do a study of commuter services and to do a study of the marketing of that service on Vancouver Island?

We don't need the press coverage that you can get with a court case; we don't need the extra press coverage you can get for one of your sagging backbenchers. What we do need is a minister who is concerned about keeping that service going on Vancouver Island. Mr. Premier, I'm asking you: have you been in touch with CPR to keep that service going for the benefit of the people on Vancouver Island?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Alberni mentioned a number of things. He particularly talked about energy conservation. Nobody is against energy conservation, so I'm glad he's on the side of conservation. The other day I did answer in the House some questions concerning solar energy. Perhaps you weren't here that day and perhaps you would like to refer back to the Blues in which I talked about the money that's being allocated on a three-year programme to the Energy Commission - how one of their programmes will be an undertaking to demonstration projects on solar energy, heat pumps, et cetera. I am aware, having personally visited - not as Minister of Energy, but as the Premier - the solar energy housing which is manufactured in British Columbia and which is shown in the Delta area. With the representative from that company we looked at installations in the house. It's supplemental to existing heat; it could never heat a home by itself. It's supplemental in this area because of the limited sunshine and solar energy units under existing technology.

We have in other areas, with more dependency and less options, a more immediate problem, an opportunity that their studies and that technology will be available to us. We're not out to duplicate at great cost the studies undertaken elsewhere. Part of the continuing mandate, then, of the Energy Commission is the monitoring of that research.

Yes, it's one of the numbers of energy options that are being looked at. I've often said that British Columbia has a number of energy options available to us. What we're looking at, then, is future options, and what we're looking at is what we must do to provide energy today. As such, that $2,200, 000 over a three-year period has been given to the Energy Commission for that.

Now when I mentioned the $90,000 the other day, it was in relationship, again, to Treasury Board having just passed this - the study to be undertaken by the Energy Commission. Again, they were to look at all studies because, in fact, the economics have changed,

[ Page 1161 ]

and to look at that area and new demands and the changing cost or value of natural gas -whether this would be an acceptable option today. It's an option that must be looked at when we're looking at those numbers of ways in which energy could be provided on Vancouver Island. There is a growth rate projected that demands that some action be taken. So that has just been done, as I announced the other day. That has been released by Treasury Board, as I mentioned, and I'm sure if you weren't here, your colleagues told you that that was done.

With regard to the E & N Railway, I must say the first thing you've got to do is save the railway. There's no sense not taking the approach to save the railway, and then starting to cry around afterwards. The thing is to prevent it from going away.

Now I've got to say I'm surprised at the member attacking the government for taking the matter to court and stopping it.

MR. SKELLY: Read the Blues. I supported that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's trying to say that by taking that approach somehow it's political. That's what he said. You know, he's trying to say that's political. Well, I've got to say that certainly it's our access through the courts....

MR. SKELLY: That's a fib.

HON. MR. BENNETT: your chance to speak, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. You had your chance to speak.

MR. BARBER: Don't tell fibs.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's the member, Mr. Chairman, who admitted in this House that he made up his own facts.

MR. BARBER: I admitted that you made up facts.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can still remember that. It was a very revealing day in the Legislature.

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, let's talk about the E & N, because again, forgetting the political connotation the member for Alberni tried to put on why the government acted or didn't.... It's impossible for him to even talk about a transportation function without trying to make it political. You know, one of the difficulties in getting anything done is that the member doesn't think in terms of the public need, he thinks only in terms of NDP 24 hours a day.

MR. SKELLY: Answer the questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know if what the members just mentioned this Saturday about him.... But I do know this: the actions taken were to make the E & N Railway responsible and maintain the service. We took that and we're fighting it in the courts. We've taken a number of actions in those areas that have been supplemented. Let me right now give credit to the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , because the people up and down the line don't talk about the member for Alberni, they don't talk about the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , they don't talk about the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , they talk about the Lyle Kahl committee and what it's done to save that railway. I get letters praising the Lyle Kahl committee and the Lyle Kahl "Save the E & N" committee. The Lyle Kahl committee has been a great instrument for public information in rallying the support of the people to our cause. The Lyle Kahl committee has been a very important part of the concerted attack.

I understood the member for Alberni in his remarks thought there was something wrong with the member for Esquimalt working in a nursery. I'm sure that member's quite proud of the fact that he works in a nursery. Maybe the member for Alberni thinks that might be too hard, but that's honest work. I'm sure the member's proud to be able to do that type of work and I'm sorry the member for Alberni thinks there's something wrong with that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the member asked about the E & N Railway. We have had the service maintained because of government action. The legal case is under the direction of my deputy, Mel Smith, who is also our director of constitutional law. He has been directing, with his very able staff, the appeal and the case that British Columbia is presenting. Now we believe that service will be maintained and the number of mechanisms open to us will be maintained.

The member asked if I ever talked to the CPR. I've had them in my off ice a couple of times and, among other things, the E & N Railway was discussed. It's because we don't agree at the present time that we have to maintain the service that we have to go to court. They quite obviously have a different opinion. But we are working on all fronts to maintain that service and to have it provided in the future. E & N Railway has an historic commitment through its various ownerships to this province. I know my own great-uncle worked on that railway all of his life. It was his life's work and he lived and worked on that line, so I have a fond memory of that railway

[ Page 1162 ]

with my own relatives who worked on it.

MR. LAUK: Was he a Pinkerton?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, he was an engineer. Again, the member for Vancouver Centre may think that that work is something to be attacked. I say he's proud to have worked on that railway.

Mr. Chairman, we'll save the E & N and I want to publicly thank now, on behalf of all the people, the Lyle Kahl committee for the work they're doing.

MR. SKELLY: Just a bit of a response to the Premier's political response. He mentioned that he had met twice with the management of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway and had some disagreements with them. What has he done to promote the service? One of the reasons why the E & N Railway says they have to get out of the service is that they're losing money on it. The fact is that they're not even losing as much money as they pay two directors of their corporation and, in fact, the economics of the railway would probably be improved if they sacked those two directors, get the E & N going and make a profit on it.

But what is the Premier doing? What did he offer the E & N to assist them in going? Did he offer joint promotions? Did he offer co-ordination between E & N schedules and the ferry service? What kind of offers have you made to the CPR to keep the railway going? Now I don't want another political response. I've heard enough of that claptrap. I just want answers to the questions. What have you done for joint promotion?

Now the minister says that the E & N touches a soft spot in his heart - I'm glad there is one. We've never been aware of it in this Legislature before, especially under programmes that serve the people of this province - economic programmes that keep the people working. But the E & N does touch a soft spot, and we're glad to hear that because it's one avenue that we have to the Premier to try to keep jobs on Vancouver Island.

Now he said he was concerned about the E & N through various ownerships and the government has worked through various ownerships to try to keep this railway going. One of the things that the 1956 Sloan royal commission did was to recommend that the government of the day buy up the Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway land grant. It's interesting that they recommended that the province go into debt for a bond issue of $100 million and to buy up the Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway land grant. That was the value of the land and the timber at the time, according to the Sloan royal commission. What his father did was to fudge his way through the next few years to allow the CPR to dump all that land that they owned, that they got tax free and cost free from the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada. They allowed it to be dumped into hands of companies like MacMillan Bloedel, like Weldwood, like Rayonier, like Crown Zellerbach, Pacific Logging and other front organizations, to the point that they gave away all that land in exchange for shares in those corporations. They tightened the CPR control over the economy of Vancouver Island, but we lost control of keeping that railway going as a result. With that land, we could have kept the railway going. All it required at the time, according to the Sloan royal commission, was the issuance of $100 million in bonds and the purchase of that land from the CPR. Your father refused to do it.

What we're asking for here.... We support the court case. The Premier's going to try to twist this around again, but I'd like to get this straight, Mr. Chairman. We support fighting the CPR in court and in every way possible to keep that line running. We did it as private caucus members. We appeared with Mel Smith in Courtenay and in every centre where the hearings were held. My colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) introduced the question as to whether it was even constitutional to have that case heard before the railway transport committee. We did a tremendous amount of research and a tremendous amount of work to try to keep that railway going but now, as usual - too little, too late. The Premier comes in and tries to make a little political hay out of a court case.

What we want is more action than that. We want you to talk to the CPR. We want you to get involved in joint promotions with the CPR to keep that line running. The best way to do it is to increase its potential to make money, and that's through joint promotions, joint scheduling and the encouragement of a commuter service to the western communities. What have you done? What have you proposed to the Canadian Pacific to try to keep that line going?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we're out to save the CPR, and I've met, as I said, a number of times with CPR, not with the particular management there, but I've met with the CPR top officials and a number of times they've been in my office.

I tell you, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) made a very funny statement. He said: "What did you offer them?" I'm not going to

[ Page 1163 ]

offer the CPR anything. I didn't offer them any of the people's money and I didn't offer to kick the "censored" out of them either, as was discussed in this Legislature a few years ago.

MR. SKELLY: What did you offer to do?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I challenged their responsibility to uphold an agreement that was made and has been carried by that railway under the original land grant that was given it by the people to the first company, the Dunsmuirs and others.

MR. SKELLY: Your daddy sold us out on that, and you sold us out on the rest of it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There was an obligation that went along to the CPR to maintain that service and to look to their obligation that that railway has. I didn't offer them anything. The member for Alberni suggests we should offer them something. What sort of deals would you offer?

MR. SKELLY: What did you offer to do?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm surprised at the suggestion, because the CPR has had enough from the people of B.C. Now we want them to live up to their agreements. We'll make sure they live up to their agreements through the courts or whatever action. We ' '11 make sure they live up to those agreements.

MS. SANFORD: On this subject of the E & N, I was interested to hear the Premier compliment the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) for his involvement in keeping open the passenger service on the E & N Railway. I think the Premier has forgotten that the interest that MIA has shown in the E & N Railway is a very recent one. He did not even attend one of the hearings that were held on Vancouver Island with respect to the possible closure of that line and the possible abandonment of passenger service on the E & N Railway. The Premier has forgotten, Mr. Chairman, that he wasn't even there. Nor was the Premier, nor was any other elected member of the Social Credit Party present at any of those hearings with respect to the E & N Railway - not one. Those hearings went on for days and days and days, and there was not one elected representative from that government to participate or to sit there and observe those hearings.

The other thing is that the Premier at this stage is supporting the work of the MLA for Esquimalt. One of the things that that MIA is proposing is that Via Rail take over the passenger service. Now that's hardly having the CPR live up to its obligations that the Premier is outlining this afternoon. I wonder if the Premier would clarify for us whether or not he means that the CPR will live up to its obligations or that in effect this government will accept the recommendations of the MIA for Esquimalt and have Via Rail take over the passenger service on the E & N Railway. I would like to have that clarified for us this afternoon.

There's one other matter, Mr. Chairman, on the E & N Railway. The member for Alberni has just pointed out to us that the one-quarter of Vancouver Island which was given to the company as a land grant has been sold off. Following the Sloan commission in 1956, those lands were sold off. Mr. Chairman, the Premier on several occasions has stated to the press and in the media that what should happen is that the CPR or the E & N give back those lands if they're not going to live up to their commitments of providing a service on Vancouver Island.

Now what land is the Premier talking about? What lands is he referring to? Does he mean the right-of -way on which the E & N track now lies? There are no other lands owned by the E & N. Now that's a great, flamboyant statement by the Premier to the press, saying if the E & N doesn't live up to its obligations it should give back the land. But I don't think the Premier even knows that the E & N doesn't have any more land. The only thing it has is the right-of-way. Is he suggesting that the E & N give the right-of-way and the rail line to the government and have the government operate the rail line?

But really, I'm surprised that the Premier would go around the province, making state ments about giving back land that the company doesn't have any more. Or is he talking about the company buying back the land that it sold off and then giving it back to the government? I would like some clarification on that as well.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the Premier on the election of his new federal leader, who has committed himself to fighting abortionists, homosexuals and bankers. I think that he certainly seems to have put bankers in their right place at this point. He missed car dealers.

Interjection.

[ Page 1164 ]

MS. BROWN: No, he's totally opposed to women's rights. I think that he certainly sounds like a good Social Crediter, there's no question about that.

In December, 1975, on page 18 of The Vancouver Sun, the Premier ran an ad which said: "Governments should do things for people, not to people." I think that the patronage list, which has been read in this House on more than one occasion, indicates that in some respects this government has certainly lived up to that commitment which they made. They have certainly done some things for some people, but they have certainly done some things to people, too, and to most of the people in the province. I think the list read in this House by the previous Minister of Labour, the member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) , about the number of jobs lost as a result of the Premier's policies is certainly one instance of things he's done to people.

Because there are all kinds of lists floating around about things that this govern-ment has done to the people of the province, what I would like to do is to read another list I've entitled. "The cutback, cut-off, wipe-out list." It's really three lists in one. It's the list that deals with cutbacks, cut-offs, and wipe-outs. I want to explain to you the difference.

Mr. Chairman, on the cutback list I included services that received the same amount of money they received last year. In fact, they represent a cutback because they didn't take into account the inflation factor. On the cut-off list I included those services that received less money than they received last year but are still continuing to limp along. Of course on the wipe-out list I'm referring to those services that have received no money at all; they have been wiped out and no longer exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will these items that you are covering be under vote 5 or will they be under other votes in the estimates? If they are on vote 5, this is the time to discuss them - or on vote 67, for that matter -but if they are in other estimates, perhaps they would be better canvassed when the appropriate minister is up.

MS. BROWN: This list, Mr. Chairman, comes under vote 5. It deals with the administration of the Premier's office. Included on this list are the things done to the people which came about as a result of the Premier's policies and the Premier's decisions as president of the executive council. As you know, the Premier has the ability to hire and to appoint people to his cabinet. And, as we have learned through the former Minister of Energy, Transportation and Communications (Mr. Davis) , he also has the ability and the right to f ire people from his cabinet. And as we saw through the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , he has the right not to fire those people if he doesn't want to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I quoted earlier from the authorities that estimates do not afford the proper opportunity for discussing "from which House of Parliament a minister should be taken, or whether he should be in the cabinet or not." That is from "Relevancy in Committee of Supply, " page 741 of Sir Erskine May. I would appreciate it if we can keep it relevant.

MS. BROWN: I was merely explaining to you, Mr. Chairman, why this list is relevant and why it comes under vote 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, hon. member, you discussed whether or not certain people should be in the cabinet. That is not appropriate for discussion.

MS. BROWN: No, no. What I discussed was that the Premier as chief of the executive council has the right to make those kinds of decisions. Therefore, as chief of the executive council, he has to be held responsible for the policies of his government. The policies of his government resulted in a large number of cutbacks, cut-offs and wipe-outs of services to the people of this province.

I have put together a very short, partial list of these cutbacks, cut-offs and wipeouts. I would like to share them with you, Mr. Chairman, and with the members of this Legislature. I want to start in the Vancouver area because, of course, that is the area which I represent.

1. 1 want to talk about the cutbacks of funding to the Pender YWCA, the one that deals primarily with immigrant services in this province.
2. 1 want to talk about the cutback of funding to the Federated Anti-poverty Group -again, another decision made by this government in terms of where it's going to take funding from.
3. 1 want to talk about the cut off of funding to the Homebound Handicapped Society -again, another reflection of the policy of this government.
4. 1 want to mention Intersection. Intersection is a crisis centre located in Surrey and which, one would have thought,

   [ Page 1165 ]

   would have had the support of the minister who is the member for that area. However, as a result of the policies of the minister whose estimates we are discussing under vote 5, funding to Intersection was cut off for the 1977-78 year. Although we hope the government is reviewing it, there has been no indication that that service is going to be reinstated.
5. is in the cutoff of funding to the West End tenants' advisory and the Grandview tenants' advisory groups.
6. In 1976 the Minister of Health, as a result of the policies of this government which is headed by the minister whose vote we are now discussing under vote 5, halved the funds for the proposed $20 million emergency centre at Vancouver General Hospital. Mr. Speaker, again that same department, which again reflects the policy of this minister who we are discussing under vote 5, eliminated the ambulance services that were introduced by the New Democratic Party when we were the government and thus proved to be useful to the people not just of the Vancouver area but of the province as well.
7. is the cutback on the training of the crew for the ambulance services.
8. is the cancelling of the training program- for paramedical personnel throughout this province.
9. All of these are a reflection of the policies of the government which are headed by that minister whose vote we are now discussing under vote 5.
10. is the decision that all tenants and senior citizen housing projects managed by the B.C. Housing Management Commission will now have to pay for their own cablevision. This is another service cutback by that government headed by the minister whose vote we are now discussing under vote 5.
11. is the cutoff of people from Mincome who had assets in excess of $2,500.
12. is the cutoff of comfort allowance of people living in special services buildings who had assets in excess of $500.

None of these services could have been cut back, cut off or wiped out except with the express knowledge and support of the minister whose vote we are now discussing.

13. No. 13 is the cutoff of services to single, unemployed men in receipt of UIC benefits.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, this appears to be an abuse of privilege of this House by enumerating a series of concerns that the member for Vancouver-Burrard has which could be better discussed under the appropriate ministers. If we're going to allow this to continue, I think we should give the estimates of each and every ministry to the Premier for debate. Or is it going to be deemed that once this debate has pressed on and come to its conclusion all the estimates are passed? I think that we're abusing the privileges of the House.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on that same- point of order, I would suggest that the Premier is the president of the executive council, and the policy is his and that of the executive council. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) certainly does make a good point when he says maybe others could handle his estimates better than he could. But in any event, what the member for Burrard is doing is attacking the Premier in his own particular area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On your point of order, hon. member, we have been on vote 5 since May 1 without interruption in this House. It seem to me that while the Premier is ultimately responsible for the actions of the members of the executive council, it would be appropriate if somehow we could draw the fine line between what is to be discussed in the ministerial estimates and what can be discussed in the estimates of the Premier. If wee're going to continue this line and go through every single minister and the opposition spokesman for each ministry using the fact that the Premier has ultimate responsibility to discuss their points, then we will be on vote 5 for some time.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just for your guidance, it's been a very long-standing tradition in the House in the 16 years that I've been here for estimates that such matters as we've discussed this afternoon are never covered under the estimates of the First Minister for the reasons that are outlined by the Minister of Mines. But I would suggest that careful note be kept of these debates in Hansard so that when we do get to the individual ministers those particular aspects of the debate are not repeated. We could be here all year just repeating the same things to different individuals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is very well taken, hon. member. We have kept somewhat of a record here of some of the subjects that have been discussed and it is hoped that at such time as we do get through this vote, we won't rehash exactly the same situations when the next votes come up.

MS. BROWN: I will continue with my list

[ Page 1166 ]

because, as I said, this list deals with the cutbacks, the cutoffs and the wipe-out of services that have happened in this province as a result of the policies of that government headed by the chief of their executive council, the minister whose estimates are being discussed under vote 5.

14. No. 14, Mr. Chairman, deals with the recent release of the draft policy of the Ministry of Human Resources to deal with the cutbacks in family counselling. I intend to talk about that in more detail later on so I'll just itemize it as No. 14 and go on.
15. as to do with the cutbacks of public transportation throughout the province but in particular in the Vancouver area in terms of the bus service.
16. deals with the reduced sailings of ferries throughout the province.
17. No. 17 is the cutback in funds for the development of the Prince George Regional Hospital, thereby delaying the expansion of that hospital for three to five years.
18. Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing specifically with cutbacks in services. I'm hoping that I'll have an equally long list when it comes to cutbacks in taxes but I have my doubts about that.
19. Mr. Chairman, the withdrawing of the programme on the study of sexism in the educational system was something that was allowed to happen as a direct result of the policies of that government - which continues to downgrade women - and with the express support of the minister whose estimates are being discussed under vote 5.
20. is the decision not to give any funding to the B.C. Home and School Federation this year despite the fact that they have a long tradition in service to the children of this province.
21. is the cutback in special-aid grants in education. Only six grants were given out this year while in the previous year there were 18 grants. We anticipate that next year there probably won't be any - this despite the excessive mill rate increases in those districts hardest pressed for funds. Since two thirds of of last year's grants are not being allocated this means that some districts will have to either cut services or raise their taxes even higher to carry out the same service that they had before.
22. is the fact that direct grants to school districts are only up by 4.6 per cent -this despite the fact that we are operating with an inflation factor of somewhere between 7 and 9 per cent. That comes under the category of cut-off rather than wipe-out.
23. no increase in the homeowner grant for those people under the age of 65. One of the things that the New Democratic Party tried to demonstrate when it was government was that people between the ages of 55 to 60 and 60 to 64 also suffered hardships. Whenever any policy was introduced that assisted people at the age of 65 - whether it was cost-sharing or not - we'd try to pick up the tab and extend those services to people 60 to 64 with a view to even lowering that to age 55. This government, Mr. Speaker, again, has not increased the homeowner grants for anyone under the age of 65.
24. again the Education budget. We find that the kindergarten to grade 12 sector of the Education budget has only been increased by 4.6 per cent - again, not taking into account that we are dealing with an inflation factor of somewhere between 7 and 9 per cent.
25. The Ministry of Education - which is under the express direction, I am sure, of the Premier of this province, whose estimates are being discussed under this vote - is beginning to cut back on all of its support on administrative staff. The services department is being cut by four positions, the public school department is being cut by 21 positions and the post-secondary department is being cut by 10 positions. All of these are a direct result of government policy which is to cut back services to people. The person responsible for that decision, Mr. Chairman, is the Premier of this province, the chairman of the executive council, whose vote is being discussed under vote 5 of these estimates.
26. The West End Adult Care Programme for Handicapped at present is operating on loans because its funding has not been received. It has not even received word as to whether it is going to get any funding or not.
27. The Women's Place in Campbell River has had its funding cut.
28. The alcohol recovery centre in Courtenay has had its application for funding rejected. It's another indication of the policy of this government which, despite the fact that alcoholism is the fastest-growing drug in this province which is being abused, is taking money out of alcohol and putting $14 million into a heroin-abuse programme when we see that the abuse of heroin is decreasing and the abuse of alcohol is increasing. The Courtenay recovery centre has had its application for funding rejected.
29. the Port Hardy day-care group again had its funding cut of f . We find again that the government and the Premier talk about the importance of children in this province, and about the importance of the family, yet over and over they make funding decisions which

    [ Page 1167 ]

    penalize that particular group of people.
30. and, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you that this is just a very abbreviated list, which I certainly intend to update from time to time as the estimates proceed in the next few weeks.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It's simply this, that much of the debate this afternoon, and the points that are being raised by the hon. member who had the floor before I rose on this point of order, are completely irrelevant to the estimates of the Premier and his salary vote. The member has just indicated not only the intent of abusing this House by raising this matter at this time under the wrong estimate, but also the intent to completely recanvass these items again under specific ministers when their votes come UP -

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the debate is irrelevant, that it is out of order, and that it should not be permitted under the minister's estimates which are presently before us.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, the first member for Vancouver-Burrard is merely trying to point out to the Premier, during his estimates, that the policies that the executive council are adopting are bringing about hardship through every aspect of government -every department of government and every branch of government. She's merely using these points as an illustration to the Premier to show him how his overall policy and his handling of the fiscal measurements in this province are really bringing havoc in every department of government, and to the services to people. They are perfectly admissible.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, the hon. member mentioned a particular item -I think it was No. 15 - that she wanted to have clarification on. It was to do with parental contributions, as proposed in a policy paper circulated by staff.

I've waited for four question periods. The member had the opportunity to raise it; I could have explained it. My estimates are coming up soon. She doesn't need to raise it now. I would like the opportunity to respond. I would suggest you rule her out of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the opposition benches to allow me at least the privilege of hearing the points of order. I cannot decide on what is a point of order if the Leader of the Opposition is shouting "order" in my ear the whole time. I was courteous enough to listen to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) make his point of order; I listened to the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , and I listened to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . Please be seated while I'm speaking on the matter.

It is incumbent upon the Chair to listen to all points of order. Some of the points of order made in this House - in fact, most of the points of order - are not points of order at all. However, I am bound to listen to them.

The member for North Peace River has a very excellent point, that the matters being canvassed at this time are matters which would be better discussed under the specific ministries involved.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, members should, in discussing a point of order, refer to standing orders, or May or Beauchesne, but not make speeches. When it becomes obvious, one-third of the way into the comments, that there's not a point of order, they should be called to order. That's my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I were to follow your suggestion, I think we could rule out almost every point of order the minute the member stands.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that, when I'm discussing services to people, the member for North Peace River raises a point of order saying that that's irrelevant under the Premier's estimates. I cannot think of anything more relevant.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, every member of this House has an opportunity and an obligation to bring points of order before this House when we consider the rules of the House are being abused. I consider that the rules of the House are being abused by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard and I think it is my right and my duty to bring that to the attention of the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Your point is very well taken.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the member for North Peace River that, if someone is abusing the rights of this House, he does have a right to bring that to the attention of the Chairman. What I am referring to is that he would consider a discussion of the cutbacks of services to the people of this province as an abuse of the rights of this

[ Page 1168 ]

House. Someone has to tell the Premier %hat's going on in his government. He obviously doesn't know. I hope he's taking notes of these lists, Mr. Chairman, because obviously he doesn't realize that all of the ministers surrounding him have been cutting off, cutting back and wiping out services to people of this province.

I know that the Minister of Human Resources has been sitting on his seat dying to get a question about his new policy, which is to force every person in this province to pay for every service that they get. I know he's sitting in his seat dying to be the Premier, but you're not the Premier yet, Mr. Minister, and I'm not discussing your vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, hon. member, you could relate to me how the aspirations or the alleged aspirations.... Perhaps you could relate that to vote 5, which would be very appropriate at this time, but only insofar as it affects the Premier's vote.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact I had planned to do just that. I will put my list aside for a few minutes and explain to you that I believe that the Premier of the province, the First Minister, should at least know a couple of things. He should know that on January 30,1975, The Province newspaper carried an article with a headline reading: "Vander Zalm Maps Route: 14LA - Cabinet Post -Premier."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sure the Premier has a copy of the newspapers or I'm sure that his office gets the newspaper. But I cannot relate that to vote 5; you must relate that to me.

MS. BROWN: I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, it relates to vote 5 because he's in jeopardy of having his job wrested away from him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is irrelevant under vote 5, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have it not only in English but in Dutch that that member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: In any event, it's irrelevant hon. member. We are here to discuss vote 5.

MS. BROWN: Under vote 51 think the Premier should know that he's in clear and imminent danger of losing his job to the Minister of Human Resources, who on August 4,1976, in a Netherlands newspaper stated: "I definitely see the possibility of one day becoming Premier of British Columbia."

SOME HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: It says here - and my Dutch is not very good, so I'll put it into English:

"He has made it as Minister of Human Resources in British Columbia, that piece of land between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific, that land that is as big as Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands together. However, will Bill Vander Zalm, who at the age of 12 emigrated with his brothers and sisters to Canada, be completely satisfied with this? 'I definitely see the possibility of one day becoming Premier of British Columbia, ' said Vander Zalm, who at present is vacationing with his wife Lillian and his 11-year old daughter Lucia in Holland and staying at the Holiday Inn in Leiden.

"Those are self-assured words for the 42-year-old Dutch-Canadian who more or less by accident became involved in politics. However, once he had become involved ......

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. I must ask if you wish to canvass under another vote or more appropriate vote. I believe you're becoming facetious at this time and I will ask if you will direct your comments to vote 5, which is the vote we're on right now.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to return to the list of cutoffs, but before I do so, I want to say just a couple more words to the Premier under vote 5 about the jeopardy that he sits in or stands in as a result of the Minister of Human Resources' ambition to one day become Premier of this province himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, under Committee of Supply we are to discuss the administrative responsibility of the executive council. I would ask that you relate this to administrative responsibility.

MS. BROWN: Okay. How can he administer his department when he has little footsteps behind him, tripping, tripping, trotting, trotting, breathing over his shoulder, wanting to take over his job? How can he?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Rosemary, I'm safe. Those wooden shoes make more noise than your running shoes do. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's only fair that since I have a different perspective on the minister than the Premier does, I

[ Page 1169 ]

should share my perception with him. I can see what the minister is doing; the Premier can't. His back is exposed. He has to sit there wondering what is happening to him, but I can see and that's the reason that I want to share my perception with him.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Your contribution is tremendous; your contribution is fantastic. It really contributes to the debate.

MS. BROWN: Listen very carefully, because this, Mr. Premier, is to you under vote 5:

There was a young man from Surrey
Who was in a hurry
To get to the top of the pack.
So he sat in his place with a smile on his face
And his eyes on his leader's back.
But his leader would duck and his leader would dive,
He would dodge, he would slide, he would rattle.
He was a man on the run
Who was under the gun
And would never stand still for a battle.
But the young man from Surrey despite his great hurry
Was a hunter of exquisite patience.
And he'd be ready for that occasion.
And the Leader, he ducks,
And the leader, he dives,
He slides, he dodges, he rattles,
While two seats behind,
Just biding his time,
A man prepares to do battle.
Soon the leader grows wan,
Soon the leader grows pale,
And his mind, it is filled with hating,
For he knows of that place
Where with a smile on his face
A patient man sits waiting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Author! Author!

MR. CHAIRMAN: That certainly is very amusing, but it's not on vote 5.

MS. BROWN: Yes it was.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to my list. No. 32 on the list of the cutbacks, cutoffs and wipeouts. I don't know whether I mentioned the cutbacks in physiotherapists and speech therapy for the Royal Columbian Hospital, the St. Paul's Hospital, VGR and other hospitals in the lower mainland.

The Vancouver School Boards health budget for 1978 has been cut back by $60,000. This means that 200 fewer children in this province will receive dental services in the Vancouver schools. That's No. 33 on the list of cutbacks, cutoffs and wipeouts.

No.32 is the inadequate payment by government for welfare patients and private hospitals. Again, we find that a number of these hospitals are being forced to close down.

No. 33 - cutbacks again in hospitals. The Lions Gate Hospital was forced to close down 33 of its beds on March 1. Thirty-two more beds were forced to be closed down in September of last year.

No. 34 - the Grandview private hospital closed its doors.

No. 35 - the planned $40 million expansion program- for St. Paul's Hospital was rejected by the government. In fact, a decision of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) served to reduce the bed capacity for St. Paul's altogether by 120 beds.

No. 36 - the health centre for children. We're being told a beautiful new children's hospital is being built, yet the space put aside for research for that hospital is woefully inadequate. If the Premier would like to read The Vancouver Sun of Tuesday, April 25,1978, on page 13, he will see that the state ment is made that the space allocated to research for the new children's hospital is minimal and insufficient for the development of a first-rate institution. That again constitutes another cutback as a direct result of the policies of that government and certainly as a direct result of the policies of the Premier, whose estimates are being discussed under vote 5.

No. 37 - cutbacks in legal aid services to the province. Certainly I agree that this is something that we will be discussing under the estimates of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . I'm merely bringing it, as I said before, to the attention of the Premier, because I do not believe that the Premier knows what is happening in this province. In any event, he must be held responsible for it.

No. 38 - $5 million cut from the operating costs of Riverview Hospital, $5 million from people who cannot defend themselves, who can't come in here and speak on their own behalf.

No. 39 - we're continually hearing from that government aver there about how important the family is. Even their new national leader in his acceptance speech talked about how important the family was, and said he was going to strengthen the family by getting rid of abortionists, homosexuals and bank managers.

Mr. Chairman, despite that, we find that this government has cut off funding or cut back on funding....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. Your time under standing orders has expired. Please take your seat.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the members are concerned with all aspects of the government, and I will be asking the ministers responsible to respond in detail to your questions by list. I now have the answers, though, that I'd like to start reading -the programmes of government you started asking about.

Under Human Resources we have the achievement centres for the handicapped. This may take quite a while. Assistance is provided to registered, non-profit societies or agencies which operate programmes designed to improve the qualify of life for handicapped people over school-leaving age. These types of achievement centres have evolved....

I certainly don't want to waste the time of members with a long, detailed report of these programmes. I'm sure that the members opposite only realize that their tactics impact on everybody's opportunities to visit their constituencies. But in the interests of information I am willing to deal in every programme. So if you'll allow me to continue, Mr. Chairman, not only will I ask the ministers responsible to respond in detail to questions asked in detail that may also come up in their estimates, but because members are eager to get that information rather than wait for the normal order of estimates, but I'll ask then to try and respond and perhaps table those answers in the House.

Now I recognize this is a sincere attempt by the opposition, as the press has written over the last week, to show the detailed research and the extent of the opposition. The high quality that they represent has been well chronicled, particularly as compared to the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) , who doesn't have the benefit of $80,000 contracts with former members. So I'm willing, because they're having difficulty with their research, to come to their assistance and read out the number of programmes that are available.

The last member was concerned with Human Resources, so I'd like to read the Human Resources programmes to her. If you are going to get into lists, you must deal with the lists of positive programmes that are available to people from government. This government has moved into a number of areas in providing increased services, expanded services and increased rates for those in need that should be added to any list that the opposition provides. And also the services of government perhaps are not well understood by all of the people of this province. Perhaps they have MLAs who are unfamiliar with the services that are available in their area. Perhaps their NLAs might be more interested in opposing and playing down the services of government than they are in actually helping the people in their area in identifying those services.

In this government, we've made a number of positive changes, and I can take the time in the House to go through ministry by ministry. Or I can, as we are attempting to do, deal directly with the people finding out about those services in a positive way. We're sent here to represent the people in providing services, and MLAs are paid substantial amounts of money in their constituencies to provide constituency services to tell the people and help them with those services.

One thing we have in government, Mr. Chairman, which we all must recognize is that each government has the opportunity to increase those services if the economy is well managed. Each government can, with a healthy economy, increase those services because there'll be money to government. We have under active consideration hospital construction in this province to a degree that wasn't available before. To criticize, then, the fact that these actions are finally being taken I find funny from a government in which hospital construction was not one of its notable efforts and notable accomplishments during their term.

Again, in support services for people, a number of new programmes have been introduced, a number of programmes have been made more accountable. These are all available to the members. If we're going to get into lists, we could go on forever. I have enough respect for this House not to waste the time of members, knowing how important their constituencies are to them. But we have to help those MLAs who are not familiar with the number of programmes. We produce programme directories which do outline easily and clearly for those who have had difficulty in understanding the number of areas in which government does provide help that are available. They also know that the ministries this year have new programmes in their estimates which will identify new areas to supplement these programmes which will come up during their estimates.

Now I can perhaps take in an unofficial way concerns expressed in this debate as notice and send those questions in a detailed way to the ministers to get detailed responses and answer them in my estimates. I can either file them in the House, or verbally, which would take time from the House. But quite frankly, the idea of estimates is to deal directly with

[ Page 1171 ]

the minister responsible. Yes, the government as a whole has a responsibility for policy but, quite frankly, I would hate to take the time of the House in trying to take those measures which will allow some time now. I can take as notice all the questions that have been asked and I'll bring back the answers as quickly as I can. I could outline and read from the directories all of the programmes of government but that would only waste the members' time and my time, Mr. Chairman, because they already have access to this material. It would only waste the public's time who are expecting us to get on with the people's business.

Now I don't know how much detail the members would like me to deal with in regards to individual ministries. If they want to do it under my estimates, I will take all those questions as notice and bring....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. Premier. I am afraid that the Chair is not going to tolerate your taking on the responsibility of answering all the questions put forward to you that should be better discussed under individual ministries; otherwise the entire session will be taken up with your estimates. Specifically we are on vote 5 and on vote 67, and I have page H-21 of the estimates, which lists the things which come under your office, and page H-95 of the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications. Those are the areas that we should be canvassing at this time. I would ask that all hon. members consider that when they rise in their places to discuss the Premier's estimates.

MS. BROWN: I'm certainly glad that the Premier is not going to be discussing the estimates of other ministers because he obviously doesn't know anything about what is going on in those two departments. He stands up to defend the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , tells us about the great programmes that have been introduced and could only list two. I mean, is that the best he can do?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll go on if you want, but it's going to waste everyone's time.

MS. BROWN: If that's the best that he can do, the minister is in more serious shape than I anticipated. And he couldn't have listed two worse ones, because your government, Mr. Chairman - through you to the Premier....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you want them all? It's your choice, if you want me to do them all....

MS. BROWN: You've had your turn, and you'll probably have it again tomorrow and the day after and the day after that and the day after that, too.

However, there is one group in this community which, as a result of that government's policies under that Premier, has been used and abused almost more than any other, and that's the handicapped people in this province. If he had treated the handicapped people nearly as well as he treats the people who die in this province and leave estates of more than a quarter of a million dollars, then he'd have something to talk about. But they've had more of their services cut than almost any other group. Right here in the city of Victoria, Mr. Chairman, the Society for the Recreation of Handicapped People were told to go cap in hand to the municipalities and get their recreation there. They were cut off, cut out, wiped out - that's what they were. The last thing that that Premier should do is to stand up and try to defend the actions of the Minister of Human Resources. He is the worst Minister of Human Resources this world has ever seen, bar none. And to stand up and read a list of services - those are fronts for services that don't exist anyway. But he is going to have to deal with defending himself when his estimates come up.

All I'm trying to do, Mr. Chairman, through you, is bring to the attention of the Premier some of the cutbacks, the cutoffs and the wipe-outs of services that have happened in this province since he took over as Premier of the province. That's all I'm trying to do. I am not asking him to defend those actions, because he can't. They're indefensible. He cannot defend them.

Mr. Chairman, I was at No. 40 when the light went on - the Langley Family Services Association. This from a government that speaks at great length about its commitment to the family yet does everything that it can, through its Ministry of Human Resources and other ministries, to cut off services to families which could help families stay together and cut back on the disintegration and the deterioration of families.

No. 41. The Grandview Recreation Society had its funding cut.

No. 42. The Association for Concerned Handicapped had their funding cut, and the Premier dares to stand up and try to defend that Minister of Human Resources. If he weren't a runaway, duck-and-dive, dip-and-hide Premier, he would have gotten rid of that Minister of Human Resources a long time ago - but I'm not going to discuss that issue under his vote.

Mr. Chairman, if you just took one area -

[ Page 1172 ]

the Cowichan-Malahat area - and separated it out from the rest of the province, you'd find that this government has cut back in the number of public health nurses available to that area. There is no child psychologist; they've cut that back. They've cut back on their speech therapist. Their hospital staffing is down to a skeleton state. They've wiped out the crisis line. They've cut back on the number of Human Resources case workers they have. There is less money there for regional parks in that area and, of course, that has gone hand-in-hand with higher tax costs which have accrued as a result of the Assessment Act. They have taken away the farm tax category from senior citizens and others who are not able to produce the prescribed amount of produce that they have to in order to qualify, despite the fact that people have lived all of their lives on that farm as farmers. That's the kind of heartless, ruthless, gutless kind of thing that that Premier is responsible for.

I'm not being facetious, Mr. Chairman, and I'm certainly not making any jokes with that Premier, because this is serious business. I didn't even mention the resources boards right across this province. I didn't even mention the direct.... Where was that Premier hiding when that resources board went through? It seems to me that he ran away during the whole debate on the resources board for one period of time, and was hoping that the debate would come up before he got back. We waited until he got back so that for once in his life, he had to sit down and live through one of the decisions that he made - that runaway Premier, that rundown government that he's got aver there, destroying this province that he inherited and took over in 1975.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier that I was going to talk about the cutback - or the fee-for-service - that people in need of counselling in this province are now going to have to deal with as a result....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Excuse me, but it took me a minute to find the quotations here. On page 456 of the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May, in discussing maintenance of order during debate, it says: "Good temper and moderation are characteristics of parliamentary language." The words "gutless, " "heartless" and several other words that you used are hardly parliamentary language.

MS. BROWN: Heartless?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, if you, in good temper and moderation were to review the

Blues, I'm sure that "ruthless" is a word that you wouldn't consider to be very parliamentary. So please confine your debate to the standard procedures of the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I really would like to thank you very much for that piece of advice and I'm wondering - I have a couple of other words here which I put together to describe the Premier - if you'd let me know whether they're on the list or not. "Shirker, "

If it if"slinks away, skedaddles, " weaves." "ducks, " "dives...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. You asked me for a statement and you did not afford me the courtesy of listening to the reply. Anything that is offensive is not parliamentary and I leave it to you to decide in your own mind whether it would be offensive if those words were being used against you or any other hon. member of this House. I'm sure, if you reflect upon that, you'll find no difficulty in coming to a decision on what is parliamentary or not parliamentary.

MS. BROWN: I must confess I'm having some difficulty finding words to describe a Premier who I really do believe is heartless, but if "heartless" upsets him I will withdraw the word. I also do believe he is gutless, but if that upsets him I will also withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must stop you at this point. You are very well aware of the rules of the House which say that we cannot say by one method something which we have been refused to say by another method. I must ask you to come to order on those grounds and carry on your discussion in a temper of good debate rather than trying to skate around the issue by using those words in another way. Please continue.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to read one short letter from somebody who is suffering as a result of some of the decisions made by that government that shows an absence of heart. It says:

"Dear Mrs. Brown:

"I, like many more, receive a disability pension. I am 65 years old and I receive a silicosis pension. For GAIN for elders, or Mincome, we are allowed to keep the first $50, and the balance will be classed as income and knocks many of us off Mincome. This does not come off the GIS or the old age pension. The above-mentioned $50 has been around for a long time. Don't you think that this $50 should at least go up

[ Page 1173 ]

as much as the inflation of the last five years or at least as much as our Hydro rates? I think we should be able to keep at least $70 before it comes off our Mincome. "

There isn't any point, Mr. Chairman, in referring this letter to anyone except the Premier. In the final analysis, he is the one who has to make the kinds of decisions that will be reflected in....

HON. MR. BENNETT: What date is it?

MS. BROWN: April 27.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I haven't received it from you yet.

MS. BROWN: NO. This is a letter that cane to me.

MR. BENNETT: You said you were going to refer it to me. You didn't send it.

MR. CHAIRMAN. Order, please. Conversations across the floor must go through the Chair.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Most members send urgent letters immediately.

MS. BROWN: In responding to Mr. Gillis, from whom I received this letter, I explained to him that the Premier's estimates would be coming up for debate and at that time I would discuss with the Premier the fact that, as a direct result of his policies, we have had increases in Hydro rates and in other rates that affect old-age pensioners and that, of course, a second look should be taken at that $50 exemption. Here is a man who is on silicosis pension and who, despite the ( increases in cost of living and the inflation is still stuck with that $50 exemption. V bringing it to the Premier's attention despite the fact that he has now turned his back o me.

Mr. Chairman, what I also wanted to talk about at ' this time is the decision being mad by the Minister of Human Resources to discus the whole concept of fee for service for people needing social services in this province. Does the Premier approve of this? Doa, the Premier consent? Because I believe in the final analysis the Premier is going to have t be held responsible for any decision mad about this. The Ministry of Human Resource has been circulating a draft policy statement for discussion which says: "The income rates will apply to all ministry services, except for the initial assessment by social work, staff, and direct protection services as noted above."

Now I'm asking the Premier, Mr. Chairman, through you, if the Premier believes that all of the services to people in need in this province should be income-tested. Should everybody have to go through an income test before they can have counselling service for child abuse, alcohol, delinquency problems with children, family disintegration? There are a number of services in this province which are already income-tested - the homemaker service, the daycare services. But this paper which is being circulated at this time by the Minister of Human Resources to his regional staff is for discussion about making all services except the initial assessment and the protection of children services income tested. I would like to know whether the Premier, as the first officer, supports this concept.

I want to assist him, because I don't want him to make any rash decisions knowing that he knows very, very little about what is going on in his ministry, the Ministry of Human Resources. But there was an editorial in the Times or The Daily Colonist....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the editorial in the Times tonight.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I knew you would have read that one, Mr. Minister of Mine Closures. You always do a very good job of that. But there was an editorial in the Times and I'm sorry, I thought I had a copy of it with me here but I cannot find it at this time. I will make it available to the Premier. It deals with the whole business of the high rate of family breakdown in this province and the fact that the people who suffer most.... Here it is. It says: "Putting a Price Tag on Childrens' m Rights." It's The Province. Mr. Speaker, it e wasn't The Daily Colonist or the Times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps I could k remind you we're in Committee of Supply. It's * the Chairman that you should be addressing * rather than the Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I keep elevating you. I'm sorry. I have a sense that you are probably nearly as ambitious as the Minister of Human Resources, but I'm sure you're not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's an attack on the Chair t and I must ask you to withdraw it.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw. Of course, no one could be as ambitious as the Minister of Human

[ Page 1174 ]

Resources. I know that. I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In any event, hon. member, it's improper to make any kind of statement about the Chair, as you are well aware.

MS. BROWN: I was about to say that I consider the Chair very fair and very nice to deal with, but I'm not allowed to make any statement about the Chair so I withdraw that too.

HON. MR. McGEER: You're always breaking the rules.

MS. BROWN: No, .on the contrary, I'm bringing things to your attention, Mr. Minister of Education. I'm sorry you were out of the House when I was going through the list of services cut off by your ministry, but the Premier now knows and I'm sure that he will pass it on to you.

On May 5,1978, on page 13 of the Vancouver Province, there was an article that said:

"One out of every five or six marriages in North America breaks down in divorce and countless others become arenas of interminable conflict. The real victims -the children. The family which is or should be his security seems to be foundering under the pressures of modern life. How can the children be protected? For the B.C. Human Resources ministry this question, in many ways the most serious sociological issue of our time, is a matter of dollars and cents. The ministry has just drafted an incredible new policy under which families in distress will have to pay before getting counselling help from government agencies."

Mr. Chairman, I am reading this, through you to the Premier, because it is important, I think, for the people of the province to know whether the Premier of this province agrees with a policy that places services to children, services to families in this province on a footing of dollars and cents.

And, as this editorial says, in many ways this is the most serious sociological issue of our time. Nobody argues with that; nobody argues about the importance of the family in our society or, in fact, the kind of threat that the family is continually under in our society. What we do take issue with is that that government, headed by that Premier, is permitting the Ministry of Human Resources to place services to the family on a basis of dollars and cents.

It goes on to say, Mr. Chairman:

"Family counselling covers a wide range of problems, such as alcoholism, child abuse, financial irresponsibility, delinquency and so on - the very problems creating the family breakdown in which the child becomes the most helpless victim. Yet the ministry intends to reduce counselling by putting a price on it that many families will either be unable or unwilling to pay."

And I think that what we have to talk about is the "unwilling, " because I think there are some things that the Premier doesn't know because he's never had experience in this field. Of course, one doesn't expect the Premier to know everything. The Premier thinks he knows everything, but one doesn't expect the Premier to know everything.

Mr. Chairman, he's never been a social worker like me; he's never had to work with people who needed counselling; he's never had to work with people who needed services. I don't know how to run a hardware store and I don't make any apologies for that. I think the Premier should take into account the fact that I do have some kind of experience and that he can benefit from it, as the Minister of Human Resources should be able to benefit from it. In fact, what we find, Mr. Chairman, is that a number of these families that are going through a process of disintegration have to be convinced that counselling is going to be beneficial to them, that often when a social worker is called into a family as a result of the child turning up in school all covered in bruises because of being beaten by one or the other of the parents, the social worker has to convince the family that counselling is important. At the point where the family agrees to accept counselling; if the social worker then has to turn around and say, "But before you can have any counselling, I'll have to have some information about your income and your debts, " at that point the family may decide that it is unwilling to accept any counselling.

Mr. Chairman, the same thing applies with a family that is having problems with an alcoholic parent or even an alcoholic child.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry to have to call you to order again, but again this matter would be much better discussed under the Ministry of Human Resources. You're getting into specific details. On vote 5 we should be discussing the Premier's responsibility as it pertains to the executive council and not details of the Minister of Human Resources. Please continue.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to bring some information to the attention of the

[ Page 1175 ]

Premier in view of the fact that this is a discussion paper. It has not yet become legislation, it's not yet become regulation, it's a paper which has been submitted to the regional directors for discussion. I feel that the Premier still has an opportunity to have some input into what happens to this particular concept, as to whether it should be accepted by the Minister of Human Resources or whether it should not be. That, surely, is part of the Premier's responsibility as the First Minister of the province. It is not a detailed discussion of the Ministry of Human Resources. We're not discussing the details of the programme; we're discussing whether the Premier supports this programme and whether this programme should be allowed to continue or not.

HON. MR. MAIR: You've got Vander Zalm in a trance.

MS. BROWN: That's okay, Mr. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) . It really makes little difference that the Minister of Human Resources sleeps through this, because he's not in control anyway. It's the Premier who makes the decisions, and it's the Premier to whom I am speaking - through you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not speaking to the Minister of Human Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether the Premier would like to respond to me as to whether he supports this concept, whether he is in favour of a fee-for-service being tacked on to the counselling services which families receive in this province or not ' or whether he is going to use his good offices as the First Minister, as the chief of the executive council, to have this paper withdrawn, cut off the discussion on it, and take a philosophical stand for once, Mr. Chairman, on the side of the people of the province and, in particular, of those people who are unable to defend themselves or to talk for them elves.

Mr. Chairman, in any event I would also like to discuss the comments made by the Premier about his commitment to the guaranteed annual income. He made this in November, 1976, and he has not repeated any of those commitments. I'm wondering whether he's changed his mind, whether he has thought better of it and he's no longer committed to the concept of the guaranteed annual income, and whether he would be willing to make a statement at this time one way or another.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'll take the extremely detailed list of it that have been brought up, and during the supper hour and tomorrow - whatever time it takes - I'll work on providing some of the detailed answers to the detailed questions.

The member asked me about the guaranteed annual income. The member would know that guaranteed annual income, to be effective, can only be brought in on the national level. The fact that at national conferences and with my colleagues, it has not gained full endorsation, is not.... We were the only government in Canada to put forward such a paper to my colleagues, and that paper is in distribution amongst the other 10 provincial Premiers and the national government.

I an awaiting eagerly the first endorsation. Perhaps the Premier of Saskatchewan, who who has remained silent on it until now, would be the first to endorse it. But as yet - and he's had that paper for about a year - he hasn't come forward endorsing his commitment to providing equity amongst Canadians that I'm committed to. I know that he, as a position of his government, would want to be amongst the first. So I know the member for Vancouver-Burrard will certainly urge upon her colleague from another province, who is the only NDP government still surviving in this country....

We share the distinction of being one of the two strictly provincial governments in this country. That's the only association we have with the PQ, although I understand the party opposite shares with them their socialistic principles. On that they share common ground, and that's where we disagree. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.