[ Page 7371 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 7371

Throne Speech Debate

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 7371

Mrs. Dailly –– 7373

Mr. Davis –– 7376

Mr. Rose –– 7379

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the consolidated financial statements for the British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1984.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources for 1984-85.

Orders of the Day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of debate yesterday afternoon we were talking about the Elk Valley, a particular area of my constituency, and we talked about the development of projects and priorities for the community of the Elk Valley since 1979. As I was saying in debate yesterday, the government of British Columbia has responded to the needs of the people of the Elk Valley for the development of roads, schools, hospitals and other means of transportation. The people of that community are doing quite well, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the government of British Columbia has spent about $26 million in Sparwood alone over the course of the past few years. That is hardly the record of a government which the Leader of the Opposition would say doesn't provide services for people unless they vote for it.

Let me say that I've been able to deliver those services to the people of my constituency because, first, I've been elected by the people of the Kootenay constituency and, second, because I've been part of a government team that provides programs and services to all of the people of British Columbia regardless of the geographic region of the province in which they live.

The Leader of the Opposition should know, Mr. Speaker, that the way you develop programs and priorities in the Elk Valley is through the development of consensus in the community. You can't have three communities within 20 miles of each other all competing for the same services and all competing for the same programs. So what we've tried to do since 1979 is to pull the community of the Elk Valley together in a way in which they can cooperate with each other, something that the Leader of the Opposition would give a lot of lipservice to, but when actually put into reality he's very poor at it.

In 1979 when I got elected, Fernie didn't have any industrial tax base, and there were three mines outside the community, with two inside the municipal boundaries of Elkford and Sparwood. Elkford and Sparwood were making application to have the other three mines included in their municipal boundaries, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the MLAs said: "No, we won't give you those three mines unless you come up with a way in which three communities can cooperate with each other and share the resource taxes of the mining community." So after a lot of discussion in the community and a lot of haggling, yes, on the part of some opponents to the proposal, we finally came up with a solution where the three communities, in partnership with each other in the Elk Valley, could cooperate and share an industrial tax base — working together in the interests of all British Columbians. I don't mind saying that I provided the leadership for that community to develop that type of partnership, and it's something that I've carried out over the course of the past seven years since I've been an MLA.

So it's entrenched, as far as I'm concerned. It is unfortunate, however, that the Leader of the Opposition would come into Sparwood and participate in a political debate over the development of a library facility in that community. I met with the library board in Sparwood three times, and I told them that they were eligible for grants under the lotteries program; if they qualified they would be eligible for one third, up to $400,000. But their project had to have wide community support, and they had to prove that they were able to raise the other two-thirds of the money needed in a way that it wouldn't have an impact on the industrial tax in the area.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What you've got to realize is that every time you put up property taxes in Sparwood S30 for the private property owner, that costs $100,000 at the minehead — and at a time when working people and industry are struggling to seek new markets for their products to maintain their existing markets. The Leader of the Opposition would come in for quick political gain. His inexperience and his lust for power would drive him. So I met with them, and I made them a commitment that they were eligible for funding under that formula. I met with them three times and told them the same thing. They came back and asked: "Well, what about the Expo 86 legacy fund?" I told them that the Expo legacy fund was a fund that was set up throughout British Columbia to provide a unique opportunity for communities throughout the province to participate in Expo.

With that in mind, I look at the Elk Valley as one community, and I was hoping that the Elk Valley communities, through consensus, would be able to look at a program that would be unique for their community and provide lasting economic development for their community. So I advised the library board that if they wanted an Expo legacy fund — and it is true that they may be able to get more money for their project under the Expo legacy fund — that they would have to compete for it with other community groups, clubs and organizations in that community in an effort to stimulate discussion in the community, in an effort to bring forward ideas that would benefit the total Elk Valley and provide lasting economic benefit to the community.

That's what I told them, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, I told them that they were still eligible for grants from the lottery fund, but what I expected them to do was to gain support for their proposal. They obviously didn't like that.

The Leader of the Opposition came into Sparwood, trying to divide the community, Mr. Speaker, to look for political gain. In his speech the other day he gave great lip service to the need for people working together — consulting, cooperating and working with each other to provide benefits for the people of British Columbia. Again, Mr. Speaker, his words, when put into action, are very small indeed.

It is still my belief that the community of the Elk Valley, because they have demonstrated their ability to work together down through the years, will be able to come together and develop consensus in the community for the development of a unique Expo legacy project that will provide a major benefit to the community.

[ Page 7372 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The municipality of Sparwood, Mr. Speaker....

[10:15]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the minister. Would the minister please continue.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, the municipality of Sparwood gave their list of priorities to the best that the NDP has to offer, and that is their leader. It's tempting for me, as the MLA for Kootenay.... I say tempting because I have the list of priorities for Elkford, and I have the list of priorities for Fernie, and I have the list of priorities for every other community in my constituency.

So I say it's tempting for me to sit back and watch the Leader of the Opposition, who you would suppose is the best of the NDP. It would be interesting for me to sit back and see how that Leader of the Opposition now responds to the legitimate requests of the community of Sparwood on their priority list. I say it's tempting because I want to continue working with the other communities, whether or not they voted for me, because they know that I have been able to develop those programs for them because I've been elected as their MLA and because I am part of a government team that provides programs and services to all of the people in British Columbia.

So it will be interesting to watch that Leader of the Opposition now respond to the people of Sparwood in the way that they expect him to do, because what he did was divide the community of the Elk Valley in a way that pitted community against community, and it's unfortunate. Now when I say it's tempting, it's never been my makeup to do that. I will continue to work with the people of Sparwood to develop their programs because I know that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have the ability to do so, because when I look at the need for services in his constituency and when I look at the way that he responded in the throne speech to the need for services in his riding and the options and priorities that he put forward on behalf of the people of Alberni, where there is 17 percent of the community out of work.... They will know, in fact, that he should resign and hang his head in shame, because he doesn't have the ability to respond to the needs of his community. Shame on you.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition took great pains to talk about coal development in British Columbia. I'd like to go back to a period of time early in the seventies and talk about coal development in British Columbia. As you are well aware, coal came into its own in 1968 and beyond. In that period of time there was rapid economic development and expansion in the Elk Valley. Yes, there was a Social Credit government in the Legislature during those days. There was concern in the Elk Valley, and indeed throughout British Columbia, because people could see the need for energy and alternate sources of energy, and so coal was in abundant supply in British Columbia.

The people of the Elk Valley were looking forward to being able to participate in economic development in British Columbia and being able to pay their own way, as it says. To get the coal out of the Elk Valley, Mr. Speaker, beyond ten million tonnes of coal, some decisions had to be made on the part of government. You are well aware of the Crow debate that took place in British Columbia over the course of the past few years in particular. But in the early seventies it was a major debate as well.

The government of British Columbia wanted the government of Canada to change and modernize our western transportation system in a way that would provide the opportunity for coal companies in southeastern British Columbia to show reliability of supply to their major customers abroad. They attempted to get the support of the government of Canada to modernize our western transportation system. They weren't meeting much success. It was then, in 1971 or thereabouts, that the government of British Columbia proposed the Kootenay and Elk Railway. There was a lot of controversy about the building of this railway. But, you see, to get the tonnage out of the east Kootenays in a way that the marketplace was demanding, there was a need to either modernize the western transportation system, i.e. the Crow, or to develop an alternative route. So the government of British Columbia campaigned in the 1972 election on the development of the Kootenay and Elk Railway.

I'd just like to take a little quote from the Fernie newspaper of June 1972, where it quotes CP Rail as saying that it can handle up to 12 million tons. But it also goes on to say: "Yet repeatedly last winter the CPR failed despite every sincere effort to handle the much-needed capacity tonnage being shipped to markets." The government went out and campaigned in that election to develop the Kootenay and Elk Railway. Needless to say, the people of the Elk Valley and the Kootenay riding were disappointed that the government of British Columbia lost the election, and indeed retained the sitting member, Leo T. Nimsick, who wound up to be the Minister of Mines for the constituency and the MLA for Kootenay.

The modernization of our western transportation system did not start taking place until last year. The Japanese continued to warn British Columbians and Canadians that they would have to look for an alternative supply of coal if our transportation system wasn't modernized, particularly in the early 1970s. Here was a need to get that modernization underway. In spite of repeated calls for modernization of railways, the government of British Columbia of the day sat idly by and didn't do anything to resolve the problem. Instead, what they were saying about southeast coal development.... In June 1973 the leader of the government, the then Premier, was quoted in the Fernie newspaper as calling the Kaiser Resources development project in Sparwood as "'stupid, lousy, terrible,' says Barrett of the Kaiser operations in the Elk Valley." That's really how the people of southeastern British Columbia are treated. I know that some members on the opposite side will remember that quite well, because they were in cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition couldn't make it to cabinet, because obviously the Premier of the day didn't have confidence in his ability at that time. So, Mr. Speaker, that is how we wound up with another coal development in British Columbia.

It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that while the government of British Columbia, and then Leader of the Opposition Dave Barrett, were talking about coal development and the need to develop coal projects, particularly in the northeastern part of British Columbia, the member for Kootenay — again, Leo Nimsick, Minister of Mines — was saying in response to a question that Elco Mining Ltd. wanted to develop a major mine north of Elkford in my constituency

[ Page 7373 ]

and that there was going to be help available to them in terms of infrastructure development and so on. On the same day, the Economic Development minister for the same government, now second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in the Vancouver Sun, May 30, 1975, announced that there would be grants available for major economic development initiatives to develop northeast coal in the northeast corner of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Well, what do you know? One minister in his own riding, the Minister of Mines, is saying that there is no money available to assist an infrastructure development in my constituency and in his constituency; and on the same day another minister of the same government would go over to Vancouver and make a major announcement on development of the northeast coal project.

Here's what another minister in the same government had to say about it. His name was Nunweiler, NDP MLA for Fort George and Minister for Northern Development. He hailed the development and said: "It will have a lot of positive economic effects, including, for example, the expansion of rail facilities in Prince George, with increased traffic both on the CN and the BCR, which are going to need expanded switching yards. They might even explore the possibility of establishing a joint switching yard. Wow! Elsewhere in the north Nunweiler noted that $95 million would be spent on facilities in Dawson Creek and Chetwynd and to establish a new town site 60 miles northwest of Chetwynd. I wonder what they call that town site. Mr. Speaker, that's what the Minister for Economic Development from the NDP government was saying. Now when the Social Credit government got re-elected in 1975 it proceeded with the development. Most of the plans were in place. The only difference was that the NDP wanted to retain ownership of the means of production, processing, extraction, distribution and marketing. That is a philosophy, Mr. Speaker, that is foreign to our government, and we will never support that concept or that principle of economic development in British Columbia, and that's why most of us on this side of the House today....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time, hon. member.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I support the throne speech, Mr. Speaker. I see a lot of positive things in the throne speech for economic development and renewal in British Columbia, and I look forward to further debate on the throne speech as the session continues.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure not only to take my part in the throne debate, but to follow my friendly Irish colleague in this debate. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and I, although sharing the same racial heritage, fortunately have as much difference philosophically as I'm sorry to say exists in that part of northern Ireland today. Those differences which he has just pointed out rather clearly here certainly can be brought into the general discussion on this throne debate.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Before I get into some of the specifics and my own reaction to this debate and to some of the comments of the Minister of Labour, I do want to start off by paying my own tribute to the great social democratic leader in Canada, Tommy Douglas, whose achievements I know you are all very much aware of. I particularly want to say that I worked with him very closely in my own riding of Burnaby North, because he ran there as a Member of Parliament. I took part actively in all his campaigns. I think the thing about Tommy Douglas — there's only one thing I want to say, because so much has been said — is that Tommy Douglas is noted for bringing in and being the father of medicare and also instigating further hospitalization in his province, mainly in social development. The important thing, I think, for most people to remember — and some forget — is that Tommy Douglas was only able to do that in the province of Saskatchewan because he had built a sound economic base. Without that sound economic base, which Tommy managed to develop with his colleagues out of the period of Depression in the prairies, he would not have been able to bring in those social programs.

That is about the situation that we face today in the province of British Columbia. We face a great difference in opinion on how to achieve all the social programs, the desirable educational opportunities and a good life for the people of this province, and at the same time provide and have in position a sound economic base to do this. That is where the great difference comes between the NDP and the Social Credit. I have to accuse the Social Credit government of being an absolute failure at their attempts to provide a sound economic base in this province.

[10:30]

We listened to the speech from the Minister of Labour, who was smarting. obviously, from an attack on him — and quite rightly so — by the leader of this party and others. He spent the majority of his speech replying to that particular attack, which showed to me quite clearly that there is no substance, no ability on that side of the Legislature to really combat the problems of this province today. That minister who took his seat is also, I understand, in charge of youth, and yet I didn't hear one word in his speech about the youth of this province. Not one word. I intend to devote a considerable time in my speech today to talking about youth, their problems, and some of the ideas which the NDP have for their success in life, and for the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: It'll be a short speech.

MRS. DAILLY: I always keep to short speeches because I don't believe in wasting time on a lot of non-essentials. I intend to get right down to the business of what we're dealing with today under the Social Credit government of British Columbia.

Sadly, the Social Credit government, in my opinion, has been a complete failure. The problems they face today are certainly mammoth. All over the world there are governments faced with great problems; however, the Social Credit government in B.C. has taken entirely the wrong route in trying to solve these problems. They have embarked in the last few years on what they call a restraint program. All we have to do is to look at what has happened in this province since restraint came in. We just have to look at the situation in B.C. today after these years of restraint and say: Where are we? Has the province improved? Are more and more people working? Has our economic base been extended? Are our social problems on the downgrade? Are our youth faced with

[ Page 7374 ]

educational...with increased opportunities for the future? And the answer, sadly, is no.

The failure of the Social Credit government is obvious, yet we pick up this throne speech and read that everything is improving in the province. We even find this throne debate actually talking about taxes being reduced, and a statement that income taxes in British Columbia are apparently the lowest, or second lowest, in Canada. Let's look at some of the facts. In 1975 to 1976, the year that the Social Credit first took new government, the average tax burden was $1,534 per employed person in British Columbia; today, the average burden on the B.C. citizen is $3,859. So much for saying that in the whole area of taxes this government has done an excellent job for the average citizen.

But let's also took at all the indirect taxes that have been imposed by the Social Credit government on the people of British Columbia since they came into office, and they are extensive. The tragedy of these taxes is that to those in this chamber who are doing very well as far as salaries go, most of them would seem not that much; but I want to assure you that the taxes which the Social Credit government has imposed on the people of British Columbia have hit those who can least afford to pay the most. As a matter of fact, British Columbia's policies as laid out by the Social Credit have done something we've seen happen in other countries which endorse ultraconservative economic policies: the tragedy of the gap between the poor and the rich becoming greater and greater. In this province, I think that is one of the things I find most troubling. In fact, it was difficult trying to put together this speech, because I personally have never been quite so troubled about the situation of many of our people as I've been in this last year.

I have witnessed it in my own office, as many of you have, I am sure. We have seen what has happened to the person who is on a fixed income, to the unemployed, to senior citizens, to people who can least afford to pay for all these increases being imposed upon them by the Social Credit government. I cannot help wondering about a government that considers its mandate to be more in the visible, politically sexy, glamorous spectacles rather than in what they are doing to improve the average lot of the average citizen.

For instance, let's look at what is happening in the area of indirect taxes. Take medicare. In 1975 the medical premium was $5 a month. I know most of you know this, but I think it is important to repeat this and get it on the record that the medicare premium today is $18 monthly.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is chuckling across the way. I know that $18 a month, about $200 a year....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm talking about the average citizen who has to bear this burden, some of them not working, some of them on fixed income. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs symbolizes the arrogance, the out-of-touchness of this government.

Mr. Speaker, if you're working at minimum wage today and you find out that you've now got to pay $200 a year as a single person — it works out to $34 a month if you have two children.... It may mean nothing to that minister and many of the Social Credit members, but it means a tremendous amount to the person who is already overburdened.

Even worse, by increasing these medicare premiums the Social Credit government is cutting into and destroying the basic principle that medicare should be available to all; that there should not be a price tag on health.

I know the Social Credit will say: "We do not deny people access to health care." But we are taking away from some of our citizens the right to feel equal. Some of them have been made to feel as second-class citizens when it comes to health care because they cannot afford these premiums. When it comes to going into a hospital today, it may not mean anything to the people in this chamber to have to pay $8.50 a day, but I can assure you it does mean something to those who are on a minimum wage or unemployed. Even if the money is not collected from them, we know they are going to be constantly reminded that they owe that money which they are unable to pay. That was supposed to have been eliminated years ago.

The other thing we have to remember is that everyone in British Columbia is paying an 8 percent surtax for health care through sales tax. So when we hear this nonsense from the Minister of Health that you have to be aware of the cost of health care, therefore you are going to have to pay more and more, I ask this government: what are they doing with the taxes they receive now for health care? Is it all going for health care? That's the question. But we do not have an opportunity, unfortunately, to get into the books to find out.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this province deserve better. They deserve the right to health care, to good housing, to full educational opportunity; but Social Credit social policies, economic programs, do not give this opportunity to our people.

Emergency visits have also been increased; zero when we were in government, they're now $10. I know a number of young people who have needed to go for emergency care and have said: "But I don't have the money, and I don't want to show up there and have to admit that I have no money. I don't want to appear to be a pauper." These things have an effect. Unfortunately, a government that has been in for too long, that is involved in areas completely remote from these problems, has lost touch with understanding. They have lost touch with the importance of looking after the people of this province who need the help.

Mr. Speaker, what does this government believe in doing? They've told us year after year that everybody must hold the line, must pull in their belts, wages must be restrained; if we all do that and pull together, everything will be wonderful and everyone can benefit. At the same time, they've told us: "We want to get private enterprise moving; therefore we're going to make certain concessions to private enterprise." If this is so — and putting aside Expo, which at this time will benefit, hopefully; but we're concerned about what happens post-Expo — why have we not seen more and more people employed, following this program of assisting small businesses and larger businesses?

Let me quote to you from the Nielsen report, which is very interesting, considering it has come from a Conservative government. It is something that I think the ultra-conservative Social Credit government of British Columbia should pay attention to. I quote from an editorial in the Province, which in turn is referring to the Nielsen report: "It should be comforting to most Canadians, who like their social programs, that the task force does not find them a culprit in the high cost of running this country." Now isn't that interesting'? Most Canadians like their social programs,

[ Page 7375 ]

and the task force itself discovered that the social programs are not the culprit in the high cost of running this country. Yet we have heard from the Social Credit government of British Columbia in throne speech after throne speech that those are the areas that are the high-cost ones. The Nielsen report "lays to rest the old fable about welfare recipients ripping off the system." I do wish the former Minister of Human Resources was in her place today. I think it would be most interesting, and I want to recommend it to her when she returns to her seat, for her to read the Nielsen report, and to particularly read the part about welfare recipients. I'll repeat it. It "lays to rest the old fable about welfare recipients ripping off the system." There is no evidence, according to the report, that illegal or unwarranted payments to individuals are occurring to an alarming degree.

Then, the report goes on to say, it's clear that the people working with Nielsen on this report — this is according to the editorial, and here's an interesting point — "think that the real corporate welfare burns are business." This is in a Conservative-funded report. They acknowledge that "even when incentives are shown to be absolutely useless, it's almost impossible to get rid of them."

So I would say that the thinking of the Social Credit of British Columbia.... Their attention should be put on aspects of this report, because we have been exposed to this kind of thinking by the Social Credit government, that if you continue to assist only business and tell everyone else to pull in their belts, everything's going to be rosy in the province. I think the business people of this province would tell us that they're more concerned with having consumers showing up at their businesses with money to spend. That is what this government has failed to do; it has failed to put money in the hands of the consumer. That is one of the most condemning factors of the whole restraint program.

[10:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

One of the most outstanding failures and devastating effects of the restraint program is its effect on youth. That is the part that I want particularly to deal with, this area of youth in this province today. When I looked at this throne speech, I particularly looked at it from the point of view of: is what's stated in this speech going to help to improve the lives of the people of this province, particularly our youth? I go through the speech and really see nothing but platitudes, rhetoric and nothing specific. I know a throne speech doesn't have to be specific, but we hope it's signaling something. I see nothing here that is really going to give any hope to the youth of this province. If we can't give hope, if we can't create a good environment for the youth of this province, the tragedy of this province that we see today will be nothing compared to what it will be in the future. What happens to the youth of today will affect your future and mine.

A few facts that I think we'd better alert ourselves to.... Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier when I started, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty), who is obviously in charge of youth, referred to absolutely nothing about the state of youth in this province today. I am putting into the record something which I think he should have been addressing with some positive measures.

There are presently over 62,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 years who are unemployed in British Columbia. I'm sure that you, as I do, Mr. Speaker.... When we go out driving, or wherever we go, one of the tragic things we see in this province is young people hanging around on street corners, wandering around with nothing to do. They want to work, but they have no work. I despair when I look at them, because I see nothing coming forward from this government that can give them hope that in the next little while they will have work.

There are another 50,000 who are working part-time in British Columbia, because that's all they can get. Then we have to accept the fact that there are others who have given up looking and who are no longer part of the official count, as they stay at home now and live with parents or friends, or they try to decide what to do with their future. I know of many young people who are back at home. In fact, it's become almost a standing joke with many people my age. They say: "Is your family still with you, or have they come back?" I think we find many of our friends are once again finding children returning to their home who in normal times would be off raising families in their own homes, but they have absolutely no choice. While B.C.'s overall jobless rate did fall slightly to 12.8 percent last month, it climbed almost a full percentage point for people between 15 and 24 years of age, and now remains at 23 percent. Those are the hard, cold facts. We don't see any of those hard, cold facts in this rosy throne speech. That's why we in the opposition are debating this speech, and why we are today most certainly not going to be able to approve it.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what happens to these young people — the social costs of being unemployed as a young person, the hopelessness of it. In England, under another Conservative government, it is said that there are many young people who have never seen work from the time they left school, and they probably never will. The tragedy is that when you're out of work from the age of 15, say, to the age of 24, and you've never held a job in your life, when you've had to live on the dole, as they call it in England, a certain psychological set-in takes place, whereby you are unable to face up to the world and take your place in a normal job situation. A tremendous amount of therapy and work is going to have to be done on these young people. But the most important thing is to provide work at the right age, at the right time.

I would certainly recommend to the minister in charge, and to all the Social Credit cabinet, that they read very carefully this excellent report by the Senate Committee on Youth. I happen to be one who doesn't believe in the Senate, but I must say that I give full credit to the Senate committee which produced this report, "Youth: A Plan of Action." Isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment, as I'm talking to you in the House about youth and their unemployment problems, there is a very interesting, visible and unusual happening in the House of Commons in Ottawa. We actually have a senator from the Senate of Canada who has decided that he will express his concern over youth unemployment by going on a starvation diet. Some people may say: "Well, that is not a seemly thing for a senator to be doing." Some people may not agree with him. But no one can deny the courage of the man who really, sincerely believes that the program that he helped initiate, and which was axed by the Tory government, this special youth program — whose name I never can pronounce, so I'm going to leave it out.... He is not only expressing his concern over that, but I'm sure he's also expressing his concern over the sad state of affairs that the youth of this province — and of the country, in his case — find themselves in.

[ Page 7376 ]

Because there have been no specific reasons given by the Conservative government in Ottawa for axing this program, one cannot help wondering if perhaps they are following, unfortunately, in the footsteps of the Social Credit government of British Columbia, which tried so desperately to erase any signs of positive things done under the NDP.

This program that the senator is protesting the removal of was brought in, of course, under a Liberal government. It does not say too much for the integrity or the standards of a government today which would sacrifice the welfare of its citizens for some petty electioneering. I think that when you start putting your election and your electoral needs and desires ahead of the true needs of the people of this province and this country, the country is in a sad state of affairs. The needs of the people must always come first. We shouldn't be basing what policies are produced in our province, or in this country, entirely on moving from one election to the next and on individual electoral success. Unfortunately the Social Credit government, now that they are moving into the period of an election, whenever it may be, again show, in my opinion, a complete lack of integrity as a government. Every move they're making does not seem to have any overall plan, except to get elected again. The people who suffer when governments move towards elections with only one thought in mind, and that is their own electoral success, are usually the people of the province who need help the most.

So I pay tribute to the senator. I pay tribute to that senator who has the courage of his convictions and is speaking for many of the voiceless youth of this country. I wish him well. I just hope that the government in Ottawa will not, on the basis of politics and obstinacy, refuse to make moves in his direction and will restore a much needed and well-received youth program.

In the report of the task force on youth there are so many excellent quotes. I don't want to be standing here reading from a book — I know you'd call me to order, Mr. Speaker — but I would like to just put in the record a couple of fine quotes from this report:

"The unique nature of youth unemployment showed that in terms of a cause and effect relationship, unemployment may lead to certain problems or stem from others.... People who had experienced unemployment, or that of a close relative, generally experienced lower self-esteem, lower satisfaction with life and feelings of social alienation, and they were incapable of controlling their own lives. Through these psychological factors and their link with unemployment, it is very easy to see how early experiences with joblessness can lead to social problems such as alcohol and drug abuse or crime."

If ever we had an example of what joblessness can do, it's that recent tragic case in another province where young people actually went on a drinking binge of some — I forget what they mixed but whatever it was....

AN HON. MEMBER: Methyl hydrate.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, and it was fatal for a number of them.

We accept the fact that the reason for young people going off like this on these kinds of binges of drugs and drink is deep seated and it comes down in many cases and in this particular area to hopelessness and no jobs. This is my plea to this government: if you're going to have any priorities at all, you must look at your youth.

As a matter of fact, there was a professor of social work from Regina who stated it very well. He said: "If we do not address the matter of youth unemployment, what we currently foresee as very much of an individual problem — of individual hardship and individuals not achieving their potential — could very well become a collective problem and not one that is inwardly directed but outwardly directed, and that could, in the long run, prove to be a very real difficulty in terms of civil unrest on a large scale."

I think this is the problem, and I'll just conclude with this. You cannot shove and push aside these problems of youth unemployment and other social problems in this province. It is up to this government to address that up front right away and make them their priority. Mr. Speaker, the throne speech does not show this. It does not show that this government has their priorities straight at all. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support it.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, going back a few years I can recall speaking on two dozen speeches from the throne — 13 federal and this is now the 11th Speech from the Throne that I'm addressing in this Legislature. Some have been ill-worded but contained matters of great substance; others have been easily read and contained little. I'd say that this Speech from the Throne, this government program for the coming session, falls between those two extremes.

In talking about big measures, important measures and speeches from the throne, changes to the Bank Act or introduction of the Canada Pension Plan, major revisions to Unemployment Insurance and the introduction of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement in automobiles were all big, important items. Canada's flag was another item which resulted in nearly two months of debate in Ottawa. Those were big items on the government's program for the year — the Speech from the Throne.

[11:00]

In this Speech from the Throne we find a number of items, none of them of major importance, in my view. But it deals with the principal problem situation — unemployment. I think we have in this province most of the laws we need to deal with that problem. It's more one of world trade circumstances and the psychology of the business community in this province. With a recovery in world prices for basic materials, this province's economy will recover. But we already have at the same time, in the fastest growing and indeed from an employment point of view the most important sector, the tertiary sector, the makings of a recovery. In tourism, for example, and retail trade this year — and, indeed, beginning last year — we have a recovery. With Expo 86 we're obviously going to have a continued revival in sales and in job opportunities in the province.

One of our great difficulties and one of the great difficulties in many democratic countries is lack of flexibility. We can adjust in periods of growth. During periods of inflation we seem to be able to move people, to shift our emphasis from one industry to another, to adjust to changing times. But in periods of recession, in periods when world trade is in the doldrums, we have great difficulty. We have little or no flexibility on the downside.

One of the reasons is our price structure — more particularly our wage structure — and the fact that our large corporations don't adjust readily, and that our trade unions

[ Page 7377 ]

and their function in our economy resist any downward pressures. They don't allow for downward change. We don't have that downward flexibility that is necessary in order to shift our people, our most important resource, and also money from the less productive, less enticing occupations to others which are more productive. In the downturn, in the down trend circumstances, we have real difficulties.

I am basically opposed to wage floors which prevent young people, untrained, from getting jobs. I am opposed philosophically to a minimum wage. I am opposed to contractual arrangements in industries which prevent them from reducing their costs in order to deal with lowering prices around the world. We lack flexibility. That is one of our main problems. We don't restructure well in times of recession, in times of restraint.

Clearly government has been able to hold the line in some areas, but to hold the line, not adjust downward. There are some — fortunately not the majority in the province — who are opposed to restraint in government. We have to have restraint during periods of income decline, obviously. It's that lack of flexibility and lack of receptivity in some quarters to dealing with depressions and recessions that is the basic cause of our economic difficulties today.

In the Speech from the Throne there is reference to some relief in the area of taxation. I am glad to hear that. Those measures were announced last year in the budget. I don't agree with the hon. members opposite who say that we don't have the lowest personal income taxes in Canada. We are among the lowest and, as far as I can see, the lowest in the nation. So as far as individual income tax is concerned, our income taxes are low.

Taxation in respect to business and industry is high in British Columbia. Our taxes on industry and on business have been among the highest in this country. The Minister of Finance began a move last year, a three-year move, for substantially a $1 billion reduction over three years in taxes paid by business and industry. This will give some flexibility, some relief to industry and a greater opportunity for growth industries to hire people to help solve our unemployment problem.

In the area of finance, I was glad to hear that the federal government intends to designate Montreal and Vancouver as international banking centres. Presumably there will be some tax and other concessions in those areas which will facilitate that kind of trade activity here. We have to take another hard look at our capital tax. There is a reference in the Speech from the Throne to the removal of the capital gains tax. It isn't totally removed in British Columbia. It is punitive in respect to banking. Indeed, we are one of the few jurisdictions in Canada, and certainly in the world, where there is an exceptional capital gains tax on banks whose headquarters are not in this province.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: I'm sorry, capital tax, the hon. member is quite correct. We have a capital tax on banking. If we wish to go in the direction of the federal legislation, favouring the establishment of international banking centres in the greater Vancouver area, then we should remove our capital tax on banking.

In the area of trade I have always been a strong believer in freer trade, less protectionism. That, I understand, is the stance, the basic policy thrust, of this government. Certainly as far as negotiations between Canada and the United States are concerned, the Social Credit government supports the movement to freer trade, but we have to make sure that our own house is in order. We have a number of provincial measures which are very protectionist.

AN HON. MEMBER: Marketing boards.

MR. DAVIS: We have, as the hon. member says, marketing boards. But even more obvious to some, we have preferential contractual arrangements for supplies to government corporations. I note a line in the Speech from the Throne to this effect: "A computerized network is being developed to inform public bodies" — presumably B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries, ICBC and so on — "of potential British Columbia suppliers in order to bring about expansion of production and new jobs for our people." Well, I think that's fine if it's merely a matter of letting them know, stating very clearly what the Crown corporation's requirements are for supplies, for services. But we've also been in the habit of allowing something in the order of a 10 percent difference in pricing: if our own supplier makes a bid no more than 10 percent higher than some supplier outside of the province, be it from Alberta or Ontario or Washington state, we'll buy in B.C.

I'm glad to report that in the case of SkyTrain we always bought from the lowest bidder. Fortunately, or perhaps this is complimentary to B.C. Industry, British Columbians were able to bid competitively in that case. They were able to bid competitively, for instance, for the linear induction motor used in all the trains; indeed, for trains in Ontario and Detroit as well. But they bid competitively, and I believe we must have a policy of always taking the lowest bid and not giving preferential treatment price-wise to B.C. suppliers. Give our own people every opportunity to bid, let them know as far in advance as possible what the requirement is, give them the benefit of the doubt if they are new as to their ability to deliver on time, but don't give them any other preference, because if we do this kind of thing we're flying in the face of our own statements regarding freer trade. We should practise what we're preaching in terms of trade policy, and therefore I am concerned about that particular line which indicates undue preference in the Speech from the Throne.

In the area of forestry, I note we'll be doubling the taxpayers' investment in silviculture in the province. I wish the Minister of Forests (Hon Mr. Heinrich) would give more consideration to private initiative. I stress private individual initiative in the area of reforestation. In a number of our eastern provinces, those which were discovered earlier, much more land, which is Crown forest land in this province, was privatized. You have many woodlots owned by individuals. Throughout Europe, much of the wood supply comes from individually, privately owned woodlots.

We should give serious consideration to a policy whereby, say, any and all comers, individuals — assuming they perform — can lease long-term,100 hectares of forest land. This would provide employment for sons and daughters, young people, in times when no other jobs are readily available. These areas which are now Crown land, Crown land that can be broken up readily into small parcels and leased to individuals, would be better tended, better looked after. There would be better reforestation, there would be a better timber supply in the long run as a result of that activity, and in the short run there would be more employment opportunities within families, within communities in B.C.

[ Page 7378 ]

Energy. Site C — the construction ahead of time, if you like, of another large power dam on the Peace River: I'm for it. I would have to be shown that the economics are right, and when I say economics, that the costs of construction, including transmission to the border, can be recovered over time. In those calculations, one has to allow for the fact that inflation generally rescues hydro projects; an allowance has to be made for price increases in any economic assessments of projects of that kind.

There are opportunities there. The NDP were very critical of the arrangements relative to the Columbia River Treaty. What they missed, and indeed what many people missed, was the opportunity to bring back power from the United States after 30 years, and that power will be available to us to bring back in the 1990s, power roughly equivalent to the output of Site C. That power is available to British Columbians at no cost, including no cost for transmission built back to the border. We have gained the equivalent of Site C free to us for all time as a result of the Columbia River Treaty,

That was never envisaged by the critics. We have that as a bargaining card. That power is now being used in the United States; we can surely use that in part of an overall negotiation to facilitate — again, if the economics prove out — further construction in the hydroelectric area in this province. One of the great causes of unemployment in B.C., certainly in the heavy construction industry, has been the fact that the largest employer — by far the largest employer in the province, B.C. Hydro — has downed tools. It used to always have one, if not two or three, substantial hydroelectric developments underway, including their major transmission lines, across the province. Beginning in the early 1980s those projects ceased, one after another. Currently we have little or nothing underway. We should have a long-term policy of gradual but continual expansion of power-producing facilities in the hydroelectric area. Site C, at some stage, would fit well into those arrangements, and would certainly provide greater stability in employment in the heavy construction area.

Transportation. I see nothing wrong with toll highways, if they're new highways opening up new areas of the province. The tolls will be on for a period of time. The users who will benefit as a result of the shorter route, the better grades, should pay something for that opportunity. So I'm for the Coquihalla style of developing new highway routes to the interior and north of British Columbia. I hope that at some time a few years hence, the government will see fit to build a toll highway north from Pemberton into the Chilcotins and on to Prince George. That would cut many hundreds of miles off the present, more circuitous highway route from the Prince George area to Vancouver, and it would also open up a very large area of the province that doesn't have really suitable highway access now.

[11:15]

Light rapid transit — SkyTrain — has to be extended across the Fraser River from New Westminster into Surrey in order to tap a large population. One of the two major population growth areas in the lower mainland is Surrey, and Surrey has to be connected directly to New Westminster, Burnaby and downtown Vancouver by SkyTrain. When that happens, ridership on SkyTrain will increase by at least a third. It will improve the economics of the system. It will remove a very serious bottleneck as far as moving people across the Fraser River is concerned. I would urge that that extension be limited, for the moment, to Scott Road, and that any additional moneys be used to begin an extension towards the Coquitlam area, because Coquitlam is the other major population growth area in the lower mainland. I think the government must give serious consideration to servicing both of those areas — Surrey and Coquitlam — in the most efficient manner possible, and long-term I believe SkyTrain is the most efficient way of moving people from those growth centres to the rest of the lower mainland.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Under the heading of education, there's reference to a new School Act. I'm concerned, among other things, with the financial measures which I believe should be part of a new School Act. I personally believe that education finance should not be used as an income-leveller through the province. I think, instead, that the budget should be broken down by school districts and that the payments to school districts should be on the basis of student populations, student attendance, perhaps with variations at different grades, but basically each school district would receive the same per student allowance as any other school district. A large school population would attract a larger sum from the province; a declining school population a lesser amount. Nevertheless, all school districts would be treated the same. As it is now, the school district in North Vancouver, the area which I and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) represent, pay far more in local school taxes than other school areas. The reason is that we are assumed, because of higher assessed values of homes, to be richer. Many of these people who own the homes that are deemed to be more valuable are elderly. They get no direct benefit from the school system that they can immediately appreciate, and yet they pay far more into the educational system. I think that the province, which collects taxes from the people throughout the province through income and sales taxes, should distribute the income back to the school district on a per-student basis, and not weight it against those areas which are deemed to have more expensive homes and properties.

In the school area I hope that the School Act recommendations will deal with the matter of local responsibility. I think that the school trustees should have, and be seen to have, more responsibility locally. They should be responsible, in the eyes of their electors, for raising the supplementary moneys that the local community may deem necessary to supplement the per-student sums paid to the school district by the provincial government. That should be a process well understood by the electors. The school trustee elections would become much more relevant, much more pertinent, as far as electors are concerned. There would be a better turnout. There would be more intelligent choices made. There would be greater responsibility on the shoulders of school boards and school trustees. I think democracy would thereby be better served.

I hope that the School Act will speak to those two areas of finance. I hope that the new School Act recommended by the committee set up by the government will come out in favour, firstly, of per-student grants to the school district; and secondly, in favour of greater local responsibility for supplementary finance out of local taxation levied by the elected trustees in the area.

In the area of housing, one device which is used in the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extent in France and a few

[ Page 7379 ]

other European countries — I think Italy is one — is absent in North America. It's referred to generally as reverse mortgages for the elderly. We don't have the financial and other institutions necessary to do this, but it is possible, for example, in the United Kingdom for an elderly couple to enter into one of these arrangements with one of the local insurance companies whereby they can progressively draw down, month by month, their equity in their home. That equity will continue to be paid to them as long as they or their surviving partner continues to live in the home. Admittedly, there's less left for the children or others who will inherit their estate, but they can enjoy the product of their lifetime savings. Often the home, which may be fully paid for, is their only substantial savings. The home of their savings can be drawn down to the extent they wish so that they can supplement their pensions and other income while they're alive.

I think that our governments, provincial and federal, should look hard at that practice of relieving the income problems of elderly couples and single elderly occupants of their own homes in their later years. That would keep some of them, perhaps a goodly number of them, in their own homes longer. It would also encourage more people to own their own homes, because they could see that as one way of easing their income problems in their senior years. So I would urge the government to consider that arrangement, which, as I say, is common in a number of European countries, for British Columbia as well.

Under the heading of Intergovernmental Relations, the most current problem — and I think one of the more serious problems — is the matter of native land claims. I think members opposite should have more difficulty with that whole question than those of us on this side of the House.

Firstly, it assumes that native people, individually and collectively, are somehow different from the rest of us, which I don't agree with. Secondly, it assumes that property is extremely important. I do happen to agree with that. Many of the members opposite oppose the thought that property should be seen as a right, should be included as one of the fundamental rights in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They're not altogether consistent when they're urging substantial property settlements for native people, and at the same time saying that property is by no means sacred in our value scheme of things.

I think the native land claims issue has difficulties on many fronts. First, who is a native? Is it an individual who is a pure blooded Indian or half native and half otherwise? Where is the line drawn there? Secondly, assuming that native lands are somehow part of another nation — another administration distinct from government administration in this country — what taxes if any are due as a result of title? Will the native people if they gain title to a substantial tract of land as a result of agreements with government, owe property taxes to federal and provincial levels of government? Will they pay sales taxes on activities carried out on those lands? It seems that the claims which are being made ignore all these difficulties. Who is really a native person? What taxes, if any, will be paid to other jurisdictions? What benefits — health, education, etc. — now enjoyed by native people will be forgone if native people gain full title and complete autonomy or substantial autonomy in these areas. It seems that we're dealing with a much bigger subject than the simple delineation of land, as if we were extending the area of a park of something of that nature. It's much more difficult than that.

I think that the federal government's initiative in declaring the Sechelt band area to be akin to a municipal area is interesting. It would be one step in the direction of bringing our native people more into the mainstream of life enjoyed by others in the community by recognizing reserves, in some measure at least, as municipalities. I assume that amendments would also have to be made to our Municipal Act. I would hope that whatever amendments were made would not be exclusively aimed at our native people, but apply to all of us, and that therefore this would be part of a process of rationalizing the very difficult problem of native reserves in our country and making our native people feel, and indeed ensuring that they become, a part of our whole community, retaining as much of their own culture and opportunities as they can but nevertheless being neither discriminated against or given particular advantages in the process.

I'll conclude briefly, Mr. Speaker. Committees of this House; we have committees. We strike committees at every session. We rarely use them. I think one of the reasons now is that a majority of the members of the House are either on the executive, attached to the executive, or otherwise employed at the discretion of the Premier. That makes it impossible to have a meaningful committee system. More on that subject at another time. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the Address in Reply the Chair recognizes the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is quite unparliamentary.

MR. ROSE: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you should, perhaps for the benefit of Hansard, indicate that that wasn't me who was quite unparliamentary.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'm sorry the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is not here, because I stayed for his speech, and I thought I'd like to have an opportunity to reply. I want to offer my congratulations to him, and I hope that he'll develop into a shining example of what a Minister of Education should be.

I was a little bit concerned about some of the things he said in his speech, and I thought I'd better talk initially about some of those things which, I think, tended to mislead us a little bit — not deliberately, but I think they left kind of a wrong impression. He said yesterday that education costs had gone up some 70 percent in six years. I think he's wrong about that. I think costs have gone up, but, according to our figures, roughly 60 percent, and at least 25 to 30 percent of that has been due to inflation. To suggest that there has been a rapid inflation in school costs over the past six years is just not true. I checked that against total government spending, and I find that while education has gone up 60 percent, total government spending has gone up nearly 80 percent. So clearly education is receiving a smaller and smaller share of the total provincial budget than it did six years ago. The last figure I saw is that B.C. spends about 15 percent of its GPP on education, whereas the Canadian average is closer to 20 percent.

[11:30]

Another thing I would like to say to the new minister, if he were here, or listening on the squawk-box in his office — and

[ Page 7380 ]

he should get used to the squawk-box, because if he pursues the kind of policies his predecessor did, there will be lots of squawks — is that on February 12 the Metropolitan Education Association, consisting of parents, school trustees and teachers, wrote and asked for a meeting with the new minister; that is over a month ago. The complaint he gave to them yesterday was that he just couldn't drop everything in sight because they happened to show up here on Monday. He snubbed a great number of people who are very concerned about the future educational opportunities for their children. I think he made a terrible mistake there by snubbing them. All he did was underline their suspicion of what he's up to. I think, if he's going to be consulting, as he promised to do, he should not confine his talk to discussing educational matters in safe places like Abbotsford or Chilliwack; he should also come down into the lower mainland and see what they've got to say and what their concerns are. So I think that he lost a glorious opportunity. I think it was rather foolish of him not to do that. So that really deals with all that.

In my congratulations to the new minister, I guess I have to offer my condolences to the dear departed one. I don't know why he left, because the Premier, just last year, had this to say about the new minister, when I asked him a question in the House. I asked — and I'll quote from Hansard of February 12 last year:

I wonder if I could ask a question of the Premier.... The Premier is reported as saying that the Minister of Education had done an outstanding job, and that he was a model in community relations. I'd like to ask the Premier whether, perhaps to reward the minister for his hard work and his good work, he intends to promote the minister to some sort of high-ranking job, such as B.C. House, before he permanently destroys the whole education system.

Here's the reply I got:

The Minister of Education is in perhaps the highest priority in the province now. As Minister of Education he's trying to balance, with funds from government.... He has the very difficult task of realistically facing the difficult times of the economy, working with school boards and trying to make sure our children get a quality education that isn't measured only in the amount of dollars — but of course that's a factor.... This minister is already in the top priority job in this government — education — and will continue to be.

Where did he go? If he has not received a promotion, then it must have been a demotion, because he was moved from a top-priority job to Minister of Forests, It was either a promotion or a demotion or it was a lateral arabesque; it could equally be that.

Something I would like to say about that minister that really worries me.... I say this with some seriousness. I saw him a moment ago advising the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). Well, that's very dangerous, in my view. The reason we have a new Minister of Education is that the policies of the old Minister of Education were thoroughly repudiated even in his own document, his own cosmetic approach to information-gathering called "Let's Talk About Schools."

Then, to make matters worse, what did he do? He went over and was receiving advice from the old forestry minister. That's an example of double jeopardy, I would think. If that isn't a dangerous precedent, I don't know what is.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the number-crunchers, the pollsters, have told the Premier that there is no chance of the public buying the ex-Education minister, so he had to remove him. He does that, of course, with all ministers who are in trouble. You know, you're mad at the Minister of Health. Well, we have a new Minister of Health. If you want to get mad close to an election on welfare rates, then we have a new minister of welfare, and that person is shoved aside laterally, so you can't attack him, all right? Same with education, same with forestry, or any place that they were in trouble. Now if you were a good boy, you got fired. You got out of the cabinet, you didn't cause any trouble, then you were shifted to the front bench back bench. That's what happens.

I think the situation was that the Premier decided that there was no hope there. The leopard couldn't change his spots, so you have to change the leopard. Anyway, I've told you what the Premier said. He was going to leave the minister there, almost in perpetuity I assume, like perpetual care, but a few weeks ago he shuffled them out in his lateral arabesque.

Pollsters are also very useful, I think, in other matters. I think they also indicated that the whole question of education is a minefield for the government. It's a minefield for the Socred government; it's out there. It may be people aren't marching in the streets the way they were three years ago about this subject, but it's a minefield.

Here's what the Speech from the Throne said, in part, about education: "My government will" — and then there was some other stuff in there — "pursue measures to improve the quality of health and educational services." I thought we heard all along that education could be starved for money, about $350 million taken out of the education budgets over the past three years, if you count inflation, and still maintain quality. Now here comes the throne speech, which is really the Premier's speech, saying: "My government intends to improve the quality of education." It must be in bad shape.

Here he is. I'm pleased that the minister has seen fit to attend, and I hope he heard the remarks earlier. I offer my congratulations, and I predicted — or I hoped — that you would be a shining, a sparkling, example of how a Minister of Education should behave. I also said I was a little concerned when I saw the former Minister of Education over there giving you advice, because I think if you want to take any advice from anybody, he'd be the last one you should take advice from. He got into all kinds of trouble over there.

Anyway, I think that that line in the Speech from the Throne is an admission by the government that schools have suffered, and that B.C. children have become pawns in the political game, the so-called restraint program — repression program. If you have contradictions like this all the time, it's no wonder people have difficulty placing a great deal of confidence in what our Premier has to say. Some people would nakedly say they don't trust him anymore. But I wouldn't say that. I know some people would say that, but I'm too gentlemanly for that.

We've just done a survey of all the school districts that would talk to us over the phone about their particular problems with the new framework or with the old framework, the I hope soon-to-be-revised framework. We talked to 64 out of 75 districts, and they say they need additional funds for education — some $54 million short. Because they want to put in a lot of frills? No, just to maintain the status quo. They don't want any of this gimmicky stuff about Education for Excellence and situations where, at cabinet's pleasure, they're going to get enough to run their schools on. They want to be guaranteed that they don't have to go, cap in hand, to the cabinet just to get a few bucks, enough dollars to run their schools. I understand as well that if we go to a recovery budget, which a number of them have submitted, it's going to cost even more than that — something like $131 million. I said to them: "Fat chance of that happening." Certainly there

[ Page 7381 ]

should be at least enough to maintain the status quo and not have the shell game with textbooks and other matters.

You know, 24 of 75 districts are actually receiving a cut this time, so it's not based on '85 prices at all; it's really '86. Some of the school districts were late getting their budgets in to the minister. He said he wasn't going to take after them immediately. He wasn't seeking confrontation. But why were they late? I think it's worth while examining that. Not your problem, Mr. Minister. They got their information three months late. How can they get a budget up when they don't even know what their mill rate is going to be, which is set for them? How do they know what Mr. Peck is going to do? We had hints that his office, his abilities and his powers would be altered, as we see now from the new bill. We don't know what his awards are going to do to their budgets, but we do know that they're not even paying increments. Isn't that outrageous, Mr. Speaker, when you think of it? It's absolutely outrageous.

The government requires the school boards to bargain with their teachers and settle by arbitration. Then those arbitrated awards go to the Compensation Stabilization Commission, and it doesn't matter what he says. It really makes no difference. Even if he grants the raise, the minister says to them: "You can have so many bucks, and that's all." It really breaks the teachers' contract. No wonder they've been defiant in the past. I expect them to be. Even those who want to cooperate, even your close friends and fellow card-carriers, although I can't prove that. Take Mr. Buckley. He's disillusioned. He tried over months to cooperate. What good did it do him? He got nowhere with legitimate things. What consultation?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There are some interesting things here. I could talk about the problems facing the Vancouver boards and the metro boards generally. Now, though, the fiscal framework, which is inadequate, is beginning to discriminate against rural areas held by Socred members. That may be the best thing that could have happened in some instances, because there's a likelihood, once they get the message, that these things will be altered. East Kootenay: the total area — I could name the districts, but I won't because of the time — is short nearly $2 million, according to our survey; West Kootenays, short $1.5 million; mainline Cariboo, short $4.5 million; Fraser Valley, short $2.1 million; metropolitan area, $23 million; south coast, $674,000; for a total of over $50 million. That's a very serious matter.

I can report all the surveys, and I could give you a few little anecdotes from each of the general areas. But look what's happening. The schools that said they were able to meet last year's service levels — and there aren't that many of them — have said they'll do this: they will use up past reserves and surpluses. If they use up the past reserves, what are they going to do next year? They are not including inflation or CSP increases in their figuring. The excellence thing was supposed to deal at least with non-salaried inflation, but they're not even considering inflation in their budgets. The ones who have received more funding than last year because of increased enrolment or were given extra funding because they have special education programs are the only ones. I think that that's a very serious matter.

Let's talk about just a few of them briefly here. The board will be unable in School District 1, Fernie, to maintain services at last year's service level with the money given to it by the provincial government. The deficit is projected to be $300,000. The fiscal framework doesn't recognize increments or salary increases given to the teachers. They will reduce assessment for non-charitable capital expenditures by $150,000 to $330,000, and they'll raise local taxes by about 2.5 mills. In Nelson it's the same story: the board hoarded a surplus of $500,000 from previous years and will use all of it and still be $175,000 in the red for next year's operation.

[11:45]

Here's the minister's district, Penticton. I thought he'd be particularly interested in Penticton, since he comes from Penticton. The shortfall will be about $200,000, which covers increments but nothing for salary commitments through CSP or anticipated wage increases. It is expected the board will send in a needs budget. Sometimes that's called a non-compliance budget; other times it's called a recovery budget. Anyway, they can't get excited, because the mill rate hasn't been set. Framework is the problem, it says. The message to the government is that it's a very confused and fluid situation. Of course it's confused and fluid.

Vancouver. What have we got here: the shortfall is either $9 million or $12 million, depending on what Mr. Peck does with CSP. The Vancouver board will submit a budget by March 15 with a $12 million deficit. It will not be finalized, of course, until April 20. Taxes will rise an average of $85 to $150 per single-family dwelling. That's not as bad as Maple Ridge. It expects nearly $300, and Kamloops $600, if there aren’t some changes made. That is not just a small problem.

Let's go over to Coquitlam, the district that I represent along with my colleague. Shortfall will be $2.5 million, and already cut $2 million last year. So $5.5 million for proper service will raise taxes by $128 per single-family dwelling. So there we have it. There is the grim picture.

What is this doing to people? Well, I'll tell you what it does. The total school district expenditure per pupil has fallen since 1983 and 1984, when it was fifth, to sixth. We are outspent in education by a lot of have-not provinces. Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario all spend more than we do on education, some of them as much as $500 per pupil per year more, and that's serious.

What's happening to the teachers? I know that it is not popular; the polls say that we want to spend more money on education, but the public is a little reluctant to give the teachers that much more. They are not asking for more. They are asking the government just to obey the law. The framework drives up the average salary for teachers by its very nature. If you have no jobs for young teachers at the low end of the increment scale, and you have all the senior teachers employed at the high end of the increment scale, your average salary can't help but go up. Your framework does that to you.

Here's an example of what's happened. In 1979 we had 2,000 teachers under 26 years of age, or 7.5 percent. Now we've got 377. So the teaching force is growing older, and those who are employed are becoming far less numerous. There are no jobs for them. So where are they going to get jobs? I'll tell you where they are going to get jobs. They're going to get jobs in California. There are 200 of them down there now, and there will be more next year when the head-hunters come up here. Why are they coming up here? Because under proposition 13 about eight years ago they had similar restraint programs. Young people did not go into teaching, because there was so much teacher-bashing, and now they've got to import our teachers, because we don't

[ Page 7382 ]

have any jobs for them and B.C....Talk about log exports; our greatest export is likely to be teachers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: How much does your daughter get paid in California?

MR. ROSE: About the same. My daughter, as far as I know, receives an equivalent amount in American funds to what she received in Canadian funds.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Well, what's the difference? It costs the same....

HON. MR. HEWITT: You'd better check it.

MR. ROSE: Well, all right.

MR. REID: Will she come back and work for the same amount here?

MR. ROSE: She'd work for the same amount if it was transferred into Canadian funds. Of course she would.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: But you deflect me, Mr. Minister. I think that this is an unwarranted distraction, Mr. Speaker, and I need to be protected from.... As a kind of a tyro, I need to be protected from these hecklers.

What we need, if school boards are going to be properly funded, is to at least have access to the machinery and commercial and industrial taxes. That's what they need. The argument is: "Well, why should one district have all that stuff and another district that doesn't have anything to tax...?" So we've got rich districts and poor districts. What we have now is poor districts totally. Why couldn't you give them a grant in lieu of taxation? If these districts have — and we haven't seen the legislation again — to go to their own ratepayers, the residential property holders, and they cannot tax equipment or machinery or commercial, then that whole increase falls on the residences, every bit of it, the total amount. That's unfair. You're lifting taxes from other things and loading them on to the homeowner. It went up last year by 5 percent — a shift. There's a greater shift, and if I have the time I could document that with a letter.

But I want to get on to another matter. Mr. Speaker, I'm really concerned about what's happening — not just to the funding, but funding is at the root of it. It has come to my attention that somehow as recently as the middle of....

AN HON. MEMBER: The night?

MR. ROSE: No. As recently as the middle of September or February, a letter to the secretary treasurers went out with the fiscal framework, including this: "New funds for a quality curriculum."

There will be Excellence in Education for upgrading the curriculum, and the minister suggested three priority areas: textbooks and audiovisual materials, software development, and specialized learning resources to support course offerings in smaller and remote secondary schools. But this point: "More districts and better-quality textbooks could be made available to districts on a per-pupil basis."

What do they do, though? We have here a ministerial document, you'd think delivered in the dead of night in a brown envelope.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's when you found it.

MR. ROSE: I found it in two places, so it has certain reasonably wide distribution, I imagine.

What does it say? The ministerial document said: "We once had the highest per-pupil grant" — or among them — "for textbooks. Now we're among the lowest." The minister's own document says: "For the last seven years, textbook funding has not kept pace with inflation. New curriculum revisions have not met their implementation date. Now the crunch has come. The 1986 proposed budget of $11.6 million cannot purchase more than half the new curriculum programs."

What was the proposal from the ministry? The proposal was to spend $22 million on textbooks. That was supported by that kind of an announcement that went out with the framework. Suddenly, when the announcement came for the funds for excellence, that was cut in half. We've only got $11 million now. Now of course we can't tell precisely until we see the final budget figures, but if this internal document is an accurate one, then that is a cut of mammoth proportions. Where did we get the $110 million for the excellence fund? I think you got $11 million at least right out of textbook budget. That's where you got it. And on the other hand, you got $54 million more of that $110 million because you're not paying increments, and you're basing your framework on costs of not last year but a year ago. That's where I think it came from.

But back to textbooks: what are the implications? It means you can't implement the basic programs which are all past their prime for revision. Science and Technology 11 — forcing students into biology, no textbooks. Postponement would cause enormous failure rates — no textbooks. A physics lab manual — no textbooks, because the new curriculum guide refers extensively to that. I can go through the others. Math 3, 4, 5 and 6 — new curriculum, but it has to be delayed: no textbooks. Nothing for music either, because they put in new materials last year; but non-specialist teachers can't use it, because they're not going to have the proper textbooks. That's not me saying it; that's what the ministry says.

What are the recommendations? The recommendations from the ministry are to restore those funds. That's number one. Give them back that $10 million. What are the alternatives? A rental fee. But do you know what it says under "rental fee"? "This option has been discussed previously and found wanting. There are sensitive political implications for extra taxation, which are worse now after several years of restraint." That's what they say. Another alternative is: "Postpone program revisions, which will cause accelerated financial and political attack." You're darn right it'll cause accelerated political attacks. Then it goes on to some others, which I have no real time to deal with. It's not just me that's saying this; it's your own people telling you this.

There was something mentioned about the School Act in this revision. I'm not going to hold my breath over that. I'll just give you a little history of School Act revisions, Mr. Speaker. I thought you'd love to hear about them just as a sort

[ Page 7383 ]

of coda to my speech. Here they are. We're going to have a new School Act. Apparently there are 13 people appointed by the minister, not by the players in the game — not the B.C. School Trustees, the parents or the BCTF, but appointed by the minister, as they appoint college boards. In 1979 McGeer — I'm sorry, the current minister of travel and foreign trade — established a committee to do a School Act revision. He even had researchers and a lawyer from the University of Victoria. His successor, the current Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), shelved McGeer's committee, and kept stating that they had to draft the act.... He tended to a mandate statement that would be a sort of preamble to discussion of the act. So he didn't use the work that had gone before him.

The next one to sit in the school chair was a Mr. Vander Zalm, a former member of this House and a famous British Columbian. Not too much applause for Mr. Vander Zalm, please; you're using up my time. He shelved Mr. Smith's work and talked about a new School Act, and he was a sort of deregulationist. Now we hear that a former Minister of Education shelved Mr. Vander Zalm's work and said he would get a new one.

I see that the light's on; it hasn't quite turned red yet. I'd just like to conclude by saying that I think the minister has a tremendous opportunity to do things differently, and I hope he will, because I think the history of the past three years has been outrageous, if not shameful.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.