1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9467 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill M209). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading –– 9467

Oral Questions

Inland Natural Gas. Mr. Macdonald –– 9467

Salary of Expo '86 management consultant. Mrs. Dailly 9467

Jem Productions. Mrs. Dailly –– 9467

Release of dangerous offenders. Mr. Levi –– 9468

Export of electricity. Mr. D'Arcy –– 9468

VDT operators. Ms. Sanford –– 9468

Job creation in B.C. Ms. Sanford –– 9468

School Services (Interim) Act (Bill 89). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9469

Mr. Lauk –– 9470

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 9473

Mr. Gabelmann –– 9476

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9478

Mr. King –– 9480

Mrs. Jordan –– 9481

Mr. Skelly –– 9484

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 9486

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, today is

a fine day in the British Columbia Legislative Assembly because one of

the fellows who is known to you, the president of the press gallery,

Mr. Charles LaVertu, is today celebrating a birthday. I'd ask all

members to join with me in wishing our best to M. le président.

Introduction of Bills

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

On a motion by Mr. Howard, Bill M209,

Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1982, 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

INLAND NATURAL GAS

MR. MACDONALD:

In the absence of the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Smith), I ask the

Premier this question, with a very short three-stage

preamble.

Last

February Jim Anderson and Ben MacDonald, fair-haired friends of the

government, took over, without putting up a dime, Inland Natural Gas ––

93 percent control. Recently they began to take over Trans Mountain,

using Inland's treasury and the banks. The third unexpected development

is that the Bronfman boys, Peter and Edgar, are now moving in to take

over both Inland and Trans Mountain. Since Inland is applying before

the Utilities Commission at Kelowna for an increase in the rate of

natural gas, will this government intervene in time — as it failed to

do during that takeover period — and make clear their position that

there should be no increase whatsoever in the price that Inland Natural

Gas charges its customers while it is the object of these international

capitalistic playboys? If it is so rich that all of these people are

after it, why should the people of B.C. pay more? Will you intervene?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll take the question on notice for the minister.

MR. MACDONALD:

A supplementary question...a new question, totally new. Does the

Premier know that that hearing for a rate increase — commercial,

residential and business — was scheduled to begin in Kelowna today?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: My final question: does the government not have a position

at this time? Are you going to wait until it's too late, sleeping at the

switch and doing a little shadow boxing, as happened the last time? Do you

have a position, or are the boys going ahead on schedule?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I've taken the question as notice. Quite often that member

gets away with making highly political, volatile and incorrect

statements when framing his questions. It makes it very difficult to

have an orderly question period when that member continually,

flagrantly, uses the period for that type of statement.

SALARY OF EXPO 86 MANAGEMENT

CONSULTANT

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Provincial Secretary. Yesterday, when I asked you to

confirm the fact that Mike Burns had received approximately $258,000 —

over a quarter of a million dollars — for acting on behalf of Expo, and

apparently was also a former Social Credit campaign manager, you

implied that the answer to that question would be brought back to me

and to the members of the House quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forthwith.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, forthwith. Could we now have the answer.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I used the word "forthwith." "Forthwith," to

me, means almost immediately. Under the circumstances, and in view of

the fact that I must determine that information from officials in my

ministry, I'm almost positive that I didn't use the word "forthwith." I

probably suggested to the member that I would attempt to secure the

information as quickly as I possibly could retrieve it. I don't know

whether the information is held in the books or in the computer;

nevertheless I'll retrieve that information, because I know that the

member is anxious to get it as quickly as possible. Under the

circumstances, I will attempt to expedite securing that information so

that I'll be able to bring it back to the House for the member as

quickly as I possibly can.

JEM PRODUCTIONS

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, as the Provincial Secretary is not able to answer my

former question quickly, I wonder if he could therefore answer a

question which he took on notice several weeks ago. That is the

question regarding Mr. Dave Brown and Jem Productions. At that time,

several weeks ago, I asked the minister if he would tell the House what

the cost is to the taxpayer of the Socred propaganda film clips which

are being made through the auspices of Jem Productions, using the

equipment provided by the people of British Columbia. What is the cost?

You took that question as notice several weeks ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with that question because the

question is based on a false premise. First of all, the member wants to

know the cost of the Socred TV clips. There are no clips being made. If

there are clips being made, they're not Socred propaganda or Socred

press clips.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a final

supplemental. Apparently clips were made. and used by Social Credit

ministers, using the same message as appears in the brochures which

have gone out to the people of B.C. through delivery and in other

[ Page 9468 ]

forms.

Can the minister explain to us why the same partisan pitch was being

used in the media centre here, at taxpayers' expense, as that of JEM

Productions in the media centre here?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not aware of any political clips being made in the media centre by government information services.

RELEASE OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

MR. LEVI:

A few days ago I asked the Attorney-General a question of a

crime-prevention nature. He admitted later that he misunderstood the

question. I'd like to put it to him this way: is the minister prepared

to give an undertaking to the House that he will approach the

Solicitor-General of Canada and ask the Solicitor-General to make sure

that all provincial authorities, particularly this one, are informed

beforehand of the impending release of dangerous criminals, so that the

authorities in this province will be aware of what kinds of problems

they might be facing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Following

the question that was posed by the hon. member some days ago on the

same subject, I took action to communicate directly with the

Solicitor-General in that regard. Meetings are being convened between

the commissioner of corrections for the province of British Columbia

and the director-general of the federal organization to ensure that

that kind of communication in fact takes place.

MR. LEVI: What can I say? The minister has finally acted.

EXPORT OF ELECTRICITY

MR. D'ARCY:

On page 10 of the recent Socred election catalogue, published at great

expense to taxpayers, the Minister of Energy declares that the Socreds

have a program to export electricity to the United States. Can the

minister table studies showing where in the United States these

electricity export markets are, and what price can be reasonably

expected?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't accept the first

premise. I think the member is aware that interrupted short-term

electricity exports have taken place and have been sold in the United

States. No such sales would take place, of course, without a review by

the Utilities Commission. I will certainly make a fuller and more major

statement on that subject at a later date. The member knows that sales

do take place and have taken place. He also knows that there is a

review process in this country, set up by this government and this

province, to ensure that any energy exports are to the benefit of the

public of British Columbia. It does exactly the opposite to what he

believes — that is, they keep jobs in British Columbia; they don't

export them.

MR. D'ARCY: The question was not about past electricity export policies.

The question was regarding the statement by the minister, published under his

signature and paid for at taxpayers' expense, where he says that he has

an aggressive marketing program for new — not existing — electricity export markets.

Can the minister tell us where — in Washington, Mexico, California, Florida,

Fiji, Korea — these electricity export markets are, and at what price?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think I answered the question, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly make public further information along that line.

VDT OPERATORS

MS. SANFORD:

I would like to welcome back the Minister of Labour and pose a question

to him. In view of the widespread concern about the increasing

revelations of miscarriages and abnormal births amongst operators of

video display terminals, has the minister decided to make the necessary

changes to the Employment Standards Act to ensure that VDT operators

have the right to transfer to other work, without loss of pay or

seniority, during the term of a pregnancy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: All legislation in British Columbia is continually under review to see if it can be improved.

MS. SANFORD: Has the minister decided to take any action whatsoever on this serious issue?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think the first question and answer suffices for the second.

MS. SANFORD:

The only assumption I can make from that is that the minister has

decided to take no action. Everything is under review at all times, and

therefore no action.... It's not good enough.

JOB CREATION IN B.C.

MS. SANFORD:

I've another question for the minister on another topic. Ministry of

Labour figures show that 85,000 jobs have disappeared from the province

over the last year, which would seem to indicate that there are no more

jobs in the province today than there were when this government took

office in 1979, some three and a half years ago. Can the minister

confirm the forecast of the Employers Council of B.C. that we are

retreating to the 1979 level of employment, which means that in net

terms this government will have created no new jobs for the province of

B.C. during their present term in office?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I've never heard such nonsense in my life. The record of this

government in creating jobs is better than that of any other government

in the history of British Columbia. If that timid little opposition

would stop hiding and get out and support the kinds of programs, like

northeast coal and B.C. Place and the natural gas programs in British

Columbia, which are creating jobs in British Columbia today — 6,000

people working on northeast coal right now, 450 on B.C. Place,

thousands and thousands of new jobs that that timid, petty little

opposition opposes....

MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to introduce Motion 29, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

[ Page

9469 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion on the order paper

— number 33 — that deals with an emergency debate on unemployment. I

ask that the rules be suspended and the House proceed immediately to

Motion 33.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

As acting House Leader, Mr. Speaker, I move to proceed to public bills

and orders. I call second reading of Bill 89, School Services (Interim)

Act.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

It gives me pleasure to move second reading of the School Services

(Interim) Act. As you know, Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier and I

met with representatives of the BCTF and the BCSTA with regard to

restraint in education. In many ways the meeting was a tremendous help

in allowing us and them to air the issues. However, there was

considerable disagreement in the positions expressed by the two

organizations. As an example of that, the BCTF argued at the meeting

that restraint measures should not apply to education, while the

trustees indicated very clearly that they agreed with the need for

restraint but wished to be assured that education was not being singled

out in the process.

I've had our officials double-check the

figures, and they have assured me that even with the July restraint

measures, school budgets will increase by 15.9 percent over last year,

well ahead of other areas of provincial spending, which have increased

by an average of 8.5 percent. I commend the school districts that set

out to come forth with various resolutions fairly early on, after

having been advised by my predecessor. They did the very best they

could in many places in coming forth with their recommendations. We

also commend those teachers who sat down with their school boards and

in many instances agreed to give up at least several of the

professional days in order to accomplish the necessary savings and the

savings that those school districts agreed were necessary as their part

and involvement in restraint which was so much needed in all parts of

the world, including Canada and, in particular, British Columbia. They

did recognize that all sectors had to support the restraint program.

It's not just a matter of talking about restraint; each of us must

participate in some way to bring about the desired results.

We know that in the private sector there are natural constraints in that if

business is down, obviously then the private sector has to make certain moves

or take certain actions to make sure they can be viable and continue in producing

whatever it is that they produce as an industry or business. Only in doing so

will they survive and continue to provide the jobs and the economic activity

so badly needed at this time. We've seen great examples by the private sector

in many parts of the province. The most publicized was the sawmill in Quesnel,

where the operators and the employees agreed very early on that some action

had to be taken if the people were to continue working. After a number of meetings,

they agreed that the employees would take a 10 percent rollback, and when things

picked up again, and the markets were as viable as we hope they'll be soon,

they could then return to receiving the amount of pay they had previously received.

But those people in the private sector, at 100 Mile House, certainly took that

initiative, which we've seen in many parts of the private sector in many

parts of the province. Again, they're all to be commended for that.

have seen similar examples in the public sector, or with those the

public sector deals with. The example of the various groups involved in

health services, the example of the BCGEU in their negotiations, and

their willingness to recommend to their membership an avenue or an

approach which recognizes restraint, is also commendable. It's

certainly encouraging to see that the BCSTA has also recognized the

need for restraint and will do whatever they can for their part to help

make it workable and have it come about at an early date.

was also agreed at the meeting that there was obviously some need for

legislation to resolve the situation, although the agreement was

lacking in that there wasn't unanimity with respect to how this could

best be brought about or what such legislation should contain.

Therefore I'm very pleased to move second reading of this particular

bill, because it certainly provides the school districts the means of

implementing the restraint required. It also allows the teachers to

participate in this restraint program, to save jobs and to ensure that

education in British Columbia for our students, our pupils, will remain

intact and continue on as healthy as it has been.

Mr.

Speaker, what is needed, certainly, is that all of us consider this and

resolve the issue in a calm manner. In spite of the initial protests in

each of the affected areas, I believe all but one major group signed up

voluntarily in the government's restraint program. This legislation

will certainly afford everyone the opportunity to bring about a good

resolution not only for 1982 but also for 1983. The agreements that

we've seen take place in the private sector and those that have taken

place with those groups that deal with the public sector — I mentioned

the health people and the BCGEU — have not always been easy to secure,

because it goes against long-established practices that date from more

buoyant economic times. But agreement has been secured, and it has

convinced me that British Columbians do wish to cooperate in a program

of economic recovery.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This

legislation will restore confidence and certainty to our public

education system. Future generations will evaluate our society in terms

of the men and women we develop. The legislation that is being

introduced here today is designed, as I mentioned earlier, to maintain

the quality and diversity of educational services available to the

students of this province.

The legislation will also give

additional management flexibility to school boards and ensure that

layoffs will not be necessary in the 1982-83 school year. I'm sure that

all the professionals and other staff involved in the educational

system will breathe a little easier, Mr. Speaker, knowing that we've

taken this initiative to provide that type of security. In these times

of high unemployment, we must do everything possible to ensure that as

many of our people as possible are working. This is why the principle

of job-sharing has been fundamental to our restraint program from its

inception. By taking a little less now, teachers, as well as other

public sector employees, will be in a position to ensure that as many

of their colleagues as possible are kept working.

We will be

asking teachers to make a small contribution to restraint by agreeing

to two measures: first, that they forgo being paid on some of the days

that they do not actually teach,

[ Page 9470 ]

and

agree where necessary to undertake professional development and

training on their own time; secondly, that teachers and school boards

agree to shorten the school year by five days, without reducing the

hours of instruction and without affecting the quality of education

available to our youngsters. We will leave the flexibility to local

school boards to achieve these legislative goals, but I should note

that a maximum of six non-teaching days in the first term and an

average of 13 minutes per day additional instruction in the second

would be sufficient to meet these targets.

Although some

would advocate that we not apply restraint in education, and in fact

have opposed the restraint program in its entirety, proposing that we

borrow to pay today's bills, I believe that teachers wish to

participate along with other British Columbians in our program of

economic recovery, and will agree to this contribution as a means of

preserving jobs and services. I should note that these measures are

similar to the proposals of the BCMA executive to give back some $30

million to preserve essential health services, and that on average the

contribution is equivalent to a rollback of this year's 17 percent

increase by 4 percent.

I want to make it clear, however,

that we are not asking teachers for a rollback and that the salary base

in future negotiations will not be affected. Over the past four years

teachers have had significantly higher settlements than BCGEU members.

For example, as you know, the executive of the BCGEU has recommended to

its membership that they endorse a significant contribution to economic

recovery. In good times, past levels of settlements may have been

reasonable. In difficult times such as we now face, the people of B.C.

need the cooperation of our teaching professionals if jobs and services

are to be preserved.

I am hopeful that school boards and

local teacher federations will quickly implement these measures so as

to restore a measure of order and confidence to our public education

system. It gives me pleasure to move second reading.

MR. LAUK:

This bill is a cynical, crass, political bill. It's designed to give

the appearance of settling "the education issue," but in fact

exacerbates it and is deliberately designed to create more chaos and

demoralization in the education system.

I want to direct a

remark to the Premier of the province, who's escaping now. I wonder if

he remembers that on December 1, 1981 he made several speeches in this

chamber. I want to bring them to his attention; they're short quotes.

As you know, the Premier is seldom in the House, and he seldom speaks

here, but at that time he did say: "All members of this House and

political parties are going to have to live, and perhaps some of them

die permanently, on the things they have said and committed to."

MR. SKELLY: He said that?

MR. LAUK: You better believe it.

the same day, the Premier of British Columbia said: "Northeast coal and

British Columbia Place will pay for itself. It will not threaten the

programs that you expect from government." I wanted to remind the

Premier of that commitment which he made in this chamber just a short

while ago.

On April 13 of this year the then Minister of

Education stated in this chamber, when he was bringing in the first

intervention cuts into the education program: "The other option would

have been to underfund the system, produce cuts in programs and effect

major school closures and layoffs, but that would have destroyed a

number of the positive and cherished gains of the past and would have

impacted upon the lives and futures of children." I adopt that

statement wholeheartedly. I am going to use that statement as the

fundamental building block of the remarks I am going to make about this

bill.

He went on to say: "There are other features in the

principles of this bill which I commend to the Legislature. I have

underlined that the bill provides for significant new funding of $75

million, with a commitment for a further $175 million next year." May I

remind you that the Premier of the province said it very well: "The

members of this House are going to have to live, and some of them die"

— politically, I think he means — "on the things they have said."

the same debate the former Minister of Education went on to say: "The

interim act" — and I'm only talking about the first intervention into

education funding in this province — "sensitively addresses the

interests of children, teachers, school boards and taxpayers, who still

count in this province." I take it from the fourth intervention by the

new Minister of Education that teachers, school boards and taxpayers

don't count any more in this province. "It does so," he says, "by

giving students access to soundly funded educational programs and

policies, and prevents school boards and schools from becoming the

enemies of the taxpayer." Shall we go on, Mr. Speaker?

May 27 of this year — a short while ago — the financial wizards over

there, the people who couldn't even foresee four months into the future

— it was less than three months.... Are you telling me they didn't know

what their circumstances were on May 27, 1982, when a little more than

three months later they decided to make another — the third —

intervention into the education system? It is recorded in Hansard

that on May 27 the Premier said: "What we've said is that all of the

public sectors have the guidelines. The provincial government, the

municipalities, the school boards and the hospital boards have a

responsibility and an opportunity to negotiate what's fair in this fair

climate."

Why have they chosen this time to bring in this

bill? The bill proposed does not achieve what the government claimed to

be its purpose. The government argues that it will protect against

teacher layoffs and protect school programs for children on a fair and

equitable basis. It is suggested that this bill will try to undo the

demoralization and chaos caused not only by the Minister of Education

but also by the government's inconsistency and contradictory education

policy over the last year. I've outlined to you the several

interventions and confusions that were injected into the system.

Let's

point out something more. On September 17 of this year the following

statement purports to be the minister's statement. He can get up and

deny it, but it comes from a news release quoting "the Hon. William

Vander Zalm." They don't sound like his words. We know he's been

developing policy unofficially on hotlines, in extemporaneous speeches

and quips. This news release of September 16 — a few days ago — said:

"Expenditure reduction plans have been received by or

are on the way to the Ministry of Education from 74 of the 75 school

districts, in compliance with restraint orders from the ministry. 'Of

those reporting, to date 52 have filed plans complete enough to be

analyzed,' said Mr. Vander Zalm. 'It is satisfying for me to note that

in 25 of those school districts the

[ Page 9471 ]

necessary savings have been made without teacher layoff proposals.'"

The last paragraph of the press release states:

"'I

am impressed with some of the creative solutions advanced by a number

of the districts,' says Mr. Vander Zalm. 'I certainly do appreciate the

unselfish manner in which trustees have reduced their indemnity and

some administrators have taken a voluntary rollback in salary and so

on. I particularly commend those teachers who have accepted the

seriousness of the economic situation and have worked out solutions

with the boards.'"

The contradictory and

inept policies of the government have been applied on an ad hoc and

inconsistent basis since February of this year. In the last six weeks

the Minister of Education has announced changes in policies over

hotline programs and in extemporaneous speeches, so that parents and

children, trustees and teachers have been demoralized and confused. The

overwhelming evidence leads to the unacceptable conclusion that this

process was deliberately designed to achieve those ends. That being so,

the government succeeded. The people of this province can no longer

trust government, and in particular can no longer trust the minister at

his word, or the sincerity of this proposed legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the last statement imputes a personal reflection on

another member's honour. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw any

imputation of dishonourable motive to another member of this House.

MR. LAUK:

I am not saying that as an attack on the minister directly. I'm talking

about the contradictory statements and saying that the minister's word

can no longer be trusted by the people of the province of British

Columbia. That's not unparliamentary; that is to do with the role of

the minister, his statements on policy and his retraction of statements

on policy in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

member, you have reflected on the word of another member of this

Legislative Assembly. I will ask you to withdraw that statement.

MR. LAUK:

I won't withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that I mean

no improper motive on the part of the minister, nor do I reflect upon

his honour in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

I'm sure that we can maintain that position during the rest of this

debate. All hon. members are aware of our parliamentary rules and

improper reflections on another member.

MR. LAUK: The

provisions of this bill add to the chaos and demoralization that I just

mentioned. School boards have been sitting down with teachers across

the province to try to fulfil their perceived duty to achieve the

cutbacks imposed on them in as fair and equitable a manner as is

possible under the circumstances. I report that in almost all cases the

school boards and the teachers achieved this goal. On the eve of

settling these matters on a district-by-district basis the government

now makes its fourth intervention in a dictatorial and centralized

fashion, and once again has created chaos and demoralization. They have

deliberately provoked, in a blatant and reprehensible manner, both

teachers and trustees across the province. So where settlement was

imminent, it may no longer be possible.

The second point I

wish to make is that the stated purpose of this bill is a fair and

equitable solution to current education funding. The ordinary

definition of "fair" can be stated to include the concept of justice.

The government argues for the need in bad economic times for cutbacks.

Yet the only area where the government is making drastic cutbacks is in

the education system — nowhere else. All other public sectors are

receiving increases — including Crown corporations, with an increase in

their user charges and fees of 6 percent, and including civil servants.

It is only the education system that is being asked not only not to

take an increase but to take a cut. That will be perceived,

particularly by teachers but also by parents and trustees, to be unjust.

Similarly,

for this bill to be equitable, all of us must see that cutbacks and

so-called restraint is applied to all sectors of government

involvement, not just to the education sector.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

I would like to deal with that with the minister just leaving the

chamber. I understand that in my absence, Mr. Speaker, he made a sleazy

attack on me in committee. He knew he could make it when I wasn't

there. I'd like to get him in committee on that very soon.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order.

MR. LAUK:

He's a school principal, and he has joined for the pure motive of power

and ignored the education system that brought him to this stage in the

first place.

The third stated purpose, I take it, is the

protection of education programs for children. The bill does not

address the serious cutbacks and elimination of programs already made

across the province. In special-education programs, in particular

courses or other legitimate school activities, these cutbacks have been

made. There is no provision in this bill to protect that which has

already been eliminated in the past several weeks and months as a

result of this government's insensitive and drastic action. In

addition, the bill does not guarantee the implementation of existing

programs — for special education or other programs. I'll explain why.

Section

153(l), which is the addition to the School Act in this bill, states

that the minister shall have the power to consent or not if the board,

because of money, requests to cut back special-education programs. Yet

the

section itself includes the phrase, "special-education programs

established under the regulations." Anyone even incidentally aware of

the education system knows that most special-education programs are

programs established by boards themselves. A strict reading of that

section, therefore, indicates that no protection will be in place for

those programs and that boards may be forced to cut those programs. So

section 153(

l) becomes really deceptive. It is designed to give the

appearance of protection for special programs, but it in fact does

quite the opposite. It is clearly a politically drafted bill. If

there's sincerity in protecting special-education programs, let them

say so in the bill, because we don't trust the Minister of Education —

nobody in the province trusts the Minister of Education.

[ Page 9472 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My wife is offended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will come to order.

MR. LAUK:

The fourth stated purpose of Bill 89, as I understand it, is that the

government will prevent termination of teachers and other personnel.

I'll retract the statement "other personnel" — on my fifteenth reading

of the bill. We'll just say that they're moving to protect the

termination of teachers. The Minister of Education has so conducted

himself in the past six weeks that the mere statement that such

terminations will require his consent is not only irrelevant, but

simply not acceptable to this Legislature or to the people of this

province. The bill, while purporting to provide job security, has

placed school boards in a catch-22 situation. Although terminations in

the strictest definition of that term may not be made, many school

districts will still be in the position of not being able to pay

teachers' salaries in the face of these increasing cutbacks. Even with

the reduced school year and the elimination of part of the teachers'

payroll achieved, many school districts will not have sufficient funds

to maintain current programs and current complements of teachers in the

districts.

The government may argue that

section 3 of the

bill will allow them to dip into their non-shareable capital funds.

Non-shareable capital funds are funds that are raised by the school

boards; there is no contribution from the provincial government. It

suffices on that issue to point out that many school districts have no

such funds, and have no means by which to get them either through

taxation or the provincial government. Now I've heard a rumour — we're

hearing one story from the Deputy Minister of Education and another

story from the Minister of Education; but I've heard a rumour, so I'm

not going to label the deputy minister or the minister — that these

special non-shareable capital funds.... If they're not available in

school districts, there may be an order for a provincial levy next

spring, raising homeowner taxation on the backs of homeowners to

provide non-shareable capital funds.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Just one moment, please. The Chair is well aware of what the hon. first

member for Vancouver is probably concerned with, and it concerns me as

well. There have been many personal reflections during this debate upon

other members of this House. These reflections have emanated from both

sides of this House. I must advise you that these are most

unparliamentary and will not be accepted. We are on Bill 89, School

Services (Interim) Act. We are all aware of what proper parliamentary

debate is. I will remind the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

and all other members that personal reflections are not allowed.

MR. LAUK:

As I was saying, the

section with respect to the prevention of layoffs

is again deceptive. Superficially, it seems to be the case, but it

places school boards in a catch-22 situation. The Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) intervened with a cross

comment. He laughed as if I were sowing the seeds of distrust; he

suggests that I'm sowing the seeds of distrust. I argue that the

government, through its inconsistent policies and, its unfair and

inequitable treatment of the education system, has sown the seeds of

distrust. They shall reap what they have sown.

If the rumour

is correct that there will be a provincial levy and a mill rate

specially designed to raise homeowner taxation.... You can't do it on

industrial and commercial anymore. That's been confiscated by the

government of British Columbia — $800 million that no longer goes to

education. It's the story of broken promise after broken promise, of

political deception by a government of the province of British Columbia

and the people who are in the education system. They shall reap what

they have sown.

It suffices to point out that at this stage,

however, the school districts that don't have non-shareable capital

funds and no means by which to get them, either through taxation or

from provincial funding — and there are many of them — are going to be

left in the catch-22 situation of trying to ask for cutbacks in some

other area they can't find. The minister can fold his arms, placing the

school district in that catch-22 situation, and play God with the

future of an entire generation of school children.

There are

other points I wish to raise that may be of concern to the chamber on

this bill.

Section 5 of the bill is very complex, and I'm sure shall be

dealt with in great detail in committee. I say it's deliberately

complex and confusing. Reading the plain words and meaning of

section 5

— and they may not intend this because I have not heard them say so

straightforwardly — I reckon that some teachers can lose up to 17

working days' pay in the 1982-83 school year. The press and the

official statements have indicated up to 11. This is either sloppy

draftsmanship or political dishonesty in the representation of the

impact of this bill.

Section 5(

l) says there will be no paid

non-instructional days during the 1982-83 school year. That equals five

days' pay. If everyone has their pencils out, put five down on the

page. Subsection (2) says subsection (1) will not apply if there is an

agreement between teachers and school boards for a specific number of

non-instructional days: an agreement, by the way, that in many cases is

unachievable, because that agreement must be to achieve drastic budget

reductions to comply with the government's directives. As I have

already said, if that agreement cannot be made, subsection (3), the

penalty section, says the teachers will lose an additional six days'

pay. If one adds those 11 days to the additional time required for a

teacher to be in the classroom, as imposed by

section 4, which I am

told means the five working days, that is 17 days in total.

is conceivable then that through no fault of their own teachers and

trustees in some districts will be sacrificing 17 days' pay. If they

didn't intend that, that's what the bill says. There is no

qualification. If my learned colleague, who is a member of the bar,

will kindly turn to

section 5, we can deal with this in committee. I'm

sure that if the government does not intend 17 days, they can make the

appropriate amendment. If you look at

section 4, it says five days —

that's five days off the top. You're expanding that silly nonsense of

12 minutes a day; I don't know what that means. Does that mean they all

hang around the washroom or the locker bay and whistle, or do the

teachers get everybody to wash the erasers? I don't know what the 12

minutes are for. If you know the blocking system and how they set up

their courses in high schools, even in elementary schools, this is

ridiculous. Nobody's fooling anybody about the 12 minutes. I think they

really got the 12 minutes from the time they took to consider

[ Page 9473 ]

the drafting of this bill.

Section 4 says five days — no disagreement?

Section

5 says: "There shall be no paid non-instructional days during the

1982-83 school year." That's six days, including the administrative

day; that's off the top, there are none. Subsection (2) says if there's

an agreement.... Okay, eliminate that. If there's no agreement then

subsection (3) applies; that's the six days' penalty. That's six more

days, which adds up to 17. Now if by saying there are to be no paid

non-instructional days that is to be a statement of policy, and if

subsections (2) and (3) were the operative sections, you should have

said so. That's what they call legislative drafting. But when you draft

legislation in the hallways to plug political holes as soon as you hear

from Decima Research about how you're doing out there with the folks,

that's the kind of sloppy legislation you get.

It also

should be pointed out that this government has argued, both when they

were in opposition and since 1976, for the sanctity of private

contracts. A few days ago this government moved a motion to include

property rights in the Canadian constitution and gave glowing but

hypocritical speeches to that end. Yet they are now willing, with a

stroke of the pen, to confiscate the property rights of individuals —

those rights enshrined in private contracts. Ask yourselves what that

does to the foundation-stone of the free-market system: a person's word

is their bond; a contract is sacrosanct, in order to make our very

economic and social system function. It's down the tube. This

section

is carefully designed to alleviate any legal intervention by the courts

of this land to enforce private contracts. "This act supersedes private

contracts," it says in

section 2, and it alleviates liability for

contracts under

section 6 of the act.

Now what is the

problem with the Minister of Education and the government of this

province? Why are they picking on the education system? They've got

provisions for printing money in the basement coming before this House.

They are borrowing money and getting into further debt in the northeast

coal project and in B.C. Place. They are getting into debt upon debt in

this province. They do not cut back on their ministerial travel. They

are spending $100,000 on glossy campaign pamphlets. Why are they

attacking the education system of this province? For two years in this

House, the New Democratic Party opposition moved motions in the debate

on the budget that would have restrained ministers, that would have cut

back ministers by $192 million in total. What did we do? We didn't

eliminate their travel budgets. We didn't eliminate their advertising

budgets. We asked them to cut them back to 1980 levels, and they

refused. They'd sooner take it off the backs of a whole generation of

kids in this province; that's their approach to restraint.

But

I think there's also another motive, and I want to deal with that right

now with the Minister of Education. I'm going to quote both the

Premier's statements and this minister's statement, when he was not the

Minister of Education, from a short while ago, June 1982. On June 9,

1982, the Premier of this province stood in the House and said: "Do you

realize that the quality of education our children are getting in the

public schools today is being questioned?" He used that as his basis

for supporting increased aid to independent schools, in June 1982.

What about the minister? In Hansard , June 9, 1982 — little did we know then that before long the fox would be guarding the chickens — Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm said:

In speaking to this particular vote, I would not only support

it but also wish that perhaps it could be a whole lot more....

That's a 40 percent increase to independent schools this year.

I'm

looking to the day when a far greater portion of the total cost of

education, in independent schools might be provided through the tax

collection mechanisms of the government.... I would wager anyone here

that chances are, by and large, that the level and type of education

they received would be far superior in those independent schools....

That is, to that received in the public education system.

Perhaps

the most damaging aspect of this bill, certainly in the long term, is

placing in the hands of an erratic and dictatorial minister absolute

power over the educational system. The bill places all school districts

in this province under trusteeship. The people of British Columbia

don't trust or accept the word of this single most powerful trustee,

who has no commitment to public education — none! No thought for its

future and no wisdom to understand the critical importance of education

in a democratic society. For these reasons, we oppose this bill and

make this solemn prediction: if a provincial election is held shortly

and this government is returned to office, no provision of this bill

will be worth the paper it is printed on. In storm trooper fashion, the

government will then make its fifth intervention into the public

education system.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

The

bill is a cynical, crass attempt to plug political holes, to enable the

government to go to the people, under the guise of having settled "the

education issue." The New Democratic Party has committed, as its number

one priority, to preserving, maintaining and enhancing the educational

system in this province. It is our solemn duty, and our only real

responsibility to the next generation of British Columbians. They must

be ready to take their places in a complex, technologically advanced

and uncertain world, and I will not be the one to take away their

preparation for that onerous task. I will not be the one to destroy

their chance of survival. I will not preside over the destruction of

public education in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The Education critic has offered, I presume, his legal and technical

interpretation of the various sections of the act and has reached

certain conclusions, based upon his financial acumen. The second

reading of the bill gives us an opportunity to speak on the principle

of what the act is attempting to accomplish.

I listened with

interest to the statements made by the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) with respect to our public educational system. We

talk about the reduction of professional days — or non-instructional

days, as they are technically referred to. I think it's important that

the citizens of our province understand what a non-instructional day

is; I presume most parents do. Parents who still have youngsters in

school would be familiar with the notes brought home, saying "No school

on Wednesday," or whatever; "It's a professional day." What it means to

the taxpayers in the school district, of course.... It's a day that

instructors take advantage of to improve their skills, to hear lectures

and to have seminars to further improve their skills as teachers and

instructors. It's well worthwhile to engage in that activity. The

question in the minds of many people is whether they should be paid for

the upgrading of their skills. Many professionals in our society

constantly engage in upgrading

[ Page 9474 ]

their

skills by attending seminars or professional days, and they frequently

do it on their own time or even on weekends. This bill suggests that

eliminating these non-instructional days is one method by which school

districts can assist themselves in balancing their budgets and meeting

the restriction guidelines which were produced for them. I really feel

that most taxpayers and parents will not be offended that

non-instructional days shall perhaps not be paid for for a period of

time.

The second part of it suggests that during the second

half of the school term next year the number of instructional days be

reduced by five. But the hours of instruction remain intact. It has

been said that this averages out to about 12.8 minutes a day. That is

instructional time. We are advised that the average instructional time

for teachers is five hours a day. It means that they would be required

to instruct for approximately 5 hours and 13 minutes a day.

Many

school districts have modified their own timetables to accommodate the

needs of their areas. There is preparation time, which is employed by

teachers and instructors in schools now. There is supervisory time, and

various other aspects of their working day that may be considered

non-instructional. The people who know best how to resolve what could

appear to be a dilemma to some are those people responsible for the

management of those individual schools, who fully appreciate whatever

aspects may be unique to their schools. I have no hesitation in

believing that the people who manage the schools — be they the

principals or whoever else — have the capability and management skills

to see that it can occur with no interference in the youngsters' normal

school day. There may be a number of methods employed at the local

level to accommodate the requirements of the bill.

As you

know, Mr. Speaker, many organizations of people in British Columbia

have been asked to take

part in the restraint program. To the surprise

of many in our province, I think, these people have come forward and

said that, yes, they will take part. Not long ago, I asked members of

the British Columbia Medical Association if they would consider

modifying their fee

schedule to accommodate the restraint program. The

BCMA executive advised me that, while they did not believe in rolling

back their fee schedule, they would recommend to their members that

they give back $30 million, the equivalent of the requested rollback.

Their recommended action indicated that they recognize that we're in a

recession. They recognize that the taxpayer has a limited capacity to

pay, and they also recognize that they're part of this province and

that they, too, have a leadership role to play in trying to battle the

recession. Now whether they will convince their members to agree to

their recommendation is yet to be seen. Other professional

organizations have gone along as well.

In the education

world, school boards were asked to develop methods whereby they could

achieve the savings required. I believe that 50 of the 75 school boards

were able to report to the Ministry of Education that they had achieved

savings under the guidelines. The balance apparently have problems. I

have been speaking to some school trustees with respect to what they

previously saw to be the problem. The most common report to me was that

they felt they did not have the legislative authority to make certain

changes which could accommodate the restraint program. I was told by

representatives of the Richmond School Board that if the provincial

government would provide them with the authority, they would be pleased

to accommodate the figures under the restraint program. I spoke to them

again last night about this bill.

Mr. Speaker, a technical

person may argue the bill in that narrow technical way, but I don't

think we can avoid the principle of the bill, which in its simplest

form is providing a mechanism whereby school districts, in conjunction

with those employed by them — or on their own, if agreement cannot be

achieved — have the mechanism to stay within the guidelines and assist

in the restraint program across British Columbia. The school teachers

will be asked in the second half of this term to provide 25 hours or

five days of instructional time without compensation.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that you and most members of the House are personally

acquainted with a number of teachers, and I'm sure everyone has been in

communication with teachers over the past while. I am not familiar with

many teachers in my municipality of Richmond who are not prepared to

take

part in a restraint program. I've heard from them directly that

they are prepared to take part. They feel that they, representing their

profession, have a role to play in the leadership aspect of our

society, along with professionals such as doctors, other health

professionals and other persons in our society. Some teachers have

advised me that they are offended by what they believe is the image

some people believe of teachers — that they are greedy, that they are

interested in pay and holidays but not in their profession. They're

upset, and I don't blame them for being upset, because many of the

teachers — most that I know — are very dedicated to their profession.

We must at all times consider who benefits from our education system.

Some of the first to benefit, we hope, are the youngsters who attend.

The

critic was speaking about our education system being undermined,

destroyed and a few other things. We're talking about five

instructional days, of which none is lost as far as the hours go. We're

talking about the non-instructional days, which as far as I know do not

benefit the children in instruction, since they are not in school. We

talk about reducing the school year by a few days. If any members here

went through the school year this year, on one of the instructional

days — the first day of school — my children were there 40 minutes, on

average. Part of the instructional days are the last week in June

before they are turfed out.

MR. LAUK: No, that's a half-day.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

My youngsters averaged last June, I think, about an hour a day in their

schools, if they were required to go at all. Some were out on June 23

and some on June 27. Some children right now are not required to be in

school beyond 1:30 in the afternoon. To suggest that the education of

the children is going to be undermined by reducing the term by five

days, when the time is not lost on instruction; when right now, from

school board to school board and from school to school, you will see

different schedules and different hours.... I can provide for you, Mr.

Speaker, days where students are receiving perhaps three hours of

instruction on a regular basis, some are receiving even less. We may be

charitable and call spares and other so-called subjects instructional

time. We talk about what's happening to the children because for some

reason there's going to be a catastrophe if the year is reduced by five

days. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the teachers who work

can provide those children with that instruction in five days less than

the school term is now with no ill effect. I would

[ Page

9475 ]

suggest

that the capacity of the youngsters to learn and the capacity of the

teachers to teach is adequate to compensate for any slight modification

of the school term.

I don't know which teachers some of the

members of the opposition speak to, unless it's to themselves, but the

teachers I speak to believe not only in the capacity of their students

to learn, but in their capacity to teach under whatever conditions may

be there. I'm not underestimating the professionalism or capacity of

our teachers, nor am I underestimating the capacity of the students to

learn.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill were a revised School Act,

I would offer a great deal more comment about our school system

generally. But I think we're restricted somewhat to just what this act

provides. I would suggest that the modification of the school term by

the time mentioned in this bill is not endangering the education of our

children.

MR. LAUK: You are.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Well, that funny little member over there, Mr. Speaker, with his silly

comments and his mathematical genius about banks going broke and other

ridiculous statements; this master of economics, finance and now,

education; this person, who every day of his life is in communication

with schools, with teachers, with trustees, with students, and knows it

all, is now going to tell us that this bill is threatening the

education of our youngsters.

MR. LAUK: What are you upset about?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I'm upset because you are so ill-informed and malinformed, and because

you attempt to twist and to put the fear of God into the students and

parents of this province. That's what I'm upset about.

MR. LAUK: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver-Centre.

MR. LAUK:

I rise under standing orders, on a point of order. Under standing

orders, the word "twist" is an unparliamentary expression. My speech is

recorded. If the minister wants to respond to it, he can, but to use

unparliamentary words like "twist...." I ask the minister to withdraw

the word.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I speak to the hon. first

member for Vancouver-Centre: I must say that his words to the hon.

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) were rather pointed. He drew out

that conversation, and the Chair would prefer to ignore those remarks.

MR. SKELLY: It's an unparliamentary word; that's all there is to it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not recognize it as an unparliamentary word.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized for the moment, under standing orders?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On what point is the first member for Vancouver-Centre

rising?

MR. LAUK:

On the point of order that an unparliamentary expression was used. I'm

not going to pursue it, Mr. Speaker, but when one member brings that to

the Speaker's attention, the Speaker must do his duty.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Yes, but I have not heard anything that I consider unparliamentary.

I've considered unparliamentary several words prior to that by both

sides, and I prefer not to recognize either one of them.

MR. LAUK: You're going to ignore them, then. Well, then, so will I, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, to complement it further, if it offended the member, I withdraw. I didn't mean it to be offensive.

am very concerned — as the member asked why — after speaking with

parents and others that there is the possibility of fear being

expressed, by people who are deliberately attempting to spread fear,

that parents in our province may feel that their youngsters' education

will be seriously eroded. I do not believe that to be the case, and I

think that during a time of recession, during a time of restraint, all

of us as citizens of this province have an obligation to take part. I

believe that the vast majority of those employed in our school system

are prepared to play their role. Times are difficult. The methods of

resolution are not simple. Our school system is very, very complicated

— further complicated by the independence, to whatever extent, of the

school districts.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

believe that this bill is an attempt to resolve the matter, at least

for the time being, to take away some of the uncertainty, and to permit

school trustees to accommodate the requirements of the restraint

program. I believe that with consideration by everyone involved it can

be achieved, and I think it will be achieved. A great deal, of course,

depends on how those involved — be they parents, students, instructors

or others — would like to see it resolved, or whether they would like

to see it resolved at all. I don't think it's asking too much to ask

those engaged in education to take

part in the restraint program; I

don't think it's too much at all. I strongly believe — at least in the

Richmond area that I represent — that the teachers in Richmond and

those employed by the school district are prepared to assist in this

program of restraint in government spending.

So I reject the

alarm that is being offered by the critics of this measure. I reject

what they see to be a serious attack on the education system. The

complications of this bill may not be understood by a large number of

people and may be misunderstood by others; but I believe the intent

will assist greatly in resolving what seems to be a situation in our

school system that otherwise may never be resolved.

I know that members of the Teachers Federation, School Trustees Association

and others involved in education have had, and I believe will have, meetings

with representatives of the provincial government to try to resolve some of

the outstanding issues. I strongly believe that a spirit of cooperation rather

than confrontation is the only method by which we in the province are going

to overcome some of the effects of recession without unnecessarily or inadvertently

affecting the level of services to the citizens. I speak strongly in support

of Bill 89.

[ Page

9476 ]

MR. GABELMANN: The Minister of Health laments the fact that

the education system is complicated. He yearns for a day when things

were simpler than they are now. He yearns for a day when he and his

colleagues could simply issue an order and it would be obeyed

throughout the province. He says that the "difficulties" that exist in

the school system are "further complicated by the independence of the

school districts" — what little independence they have left now. What

we obviously have is yet another step in the dismantling and disbanding

of a school system that is based on local autonomy, one that allows

parents and the public in communities in this province to make some

decisions about their own children's education that have some relevance

to their own communities. What the Minister of Health laments, together

with his colleague the Minister of Education, is the fact that that

means that some control is taken out of the hands of the centralist

Socreds in Victoria.

There are two things that are clear in

my mind that make me proud today to be a New Democrat. One is that we

happen to believe that the greatest resource this province has is its

children. That sets us aside from the Socreds. Clearly and

unmistakably, another major division between us is that we believe

education should be controlled and run at the local level, by local

people and not by the minister and his staff here in Victoria.

have an education system in this province that is in utter chaos this

year. It has had directive after directive from the government, from

one minister and now from another, month by month, telling boards to do

something different than they did the month before. Approvals that were

granted early in the year by the previous minister were changed a few

months later and then changed again and now changed again. How does the

minister and his government think that school boards are going to be

able to operate a functional education system in their districts? They

can't when they have to spend all their time responding to yet another

ministry directive or yet another piece of legislation.

What

section of this bill does anything for any child's education in this

province? What

section of this bill improves or enhances or even

protects the education system in this province? Not one word in this

bill has anything to do with better education. The only reason we have

this bill, concocted in the Premier's office on the weekend, is that he

can't find an election issue. We get one bill after another. Hopefully,

the Premier thinks to himself, one of these bills will trigger an

election issue so he can start those buses that are already rented

running. That's what it's about. There's nothing in here for education.

The

minister and his colleagues say there is something in here about

restraint. The boards and the teachers were dealing with restraint.

Most of them had created solutions, arrived at solutions. The others

were close to solutions, some of which were going to be reached last

night, until they heard the news of this bill yesterday afternoon.

Those proposed solutions went out the window.

The bill is

not an education bill; the bill is a political bill. It is not even an

economic bill. If the government had its economic priorities straight

they would say, even in these times of restraint, that $60 million is

not too high a price to pay to preserve an education system in this

province. The fundamental issue at stake is that boards have entered

into contracts with their teaching staff, legal, binding contracts

which, as the Premier would say, like a shake of the hand, one never

goes back on. He would say: "When I shake hands on something, that's

it. There's no going back on that." Yet the Premier is prepared to go

back on this handshake.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN:

Yes, a signed contract, but that's not the major point, in my view. The

bill is not an education bill. The earlier Minister of Education, when

asked for various amendments to the School Act a couple of years ago,

in effect said: "I don't want to bring in piecemeal amendments to the

School Act. I want to consider the legislation and then bring in a

comprehensive amendment to the whole act." Instead, what do we have?

Earlier this year, a piecemeal amendment which takes away from local

boards in many districts the power to raise most of their money. Now we

have another piecemeal amendment which is totally contradictory to the

stated public intention of the former minister. Why do we have it?

Because the government is desperate for a political issue and they

think — they're wrong — this might provide one for them.

The

bill is different things to different people. For the Premier it is a

political bill designed to give him a political weapon; for the

Minister of Education it is just one more step on the way to his

coveted county system. The Minister of Education wants to take away

from this province any authority that local people have to run

education. He wants to centralize it and create new elected bodies in

newly designed areas of this province that would be responsible not

just for municipal affairs, but for other functions, including

education — on the side. He says it wouldn't be too onerous a task for

them because all the decisions would be made at the minister's desk

anyway. So why do we need local government?

If the Minister

of Education has another motive, it is clearly to make sure he can

destroy the public education system — I say that directly, and I mean

it — so that he can go back to his coveted, private education system

where everybody can be taught by the Dutch Reformed Church, or by

whatever other group of private educators he would prefer taught

children in this province. That's the motive behind this bill. Why else

would the minister and his government do everything they can to destroy

the education system in this province?

MR. RITCHIE: Are you against the Dutch?

MR. GABELMANN: I cited one example of one group.

Nothing

in this bill is good for children, or does anything for children. All

it does is create further tension, further stress, further uncertainty

— and less education. The Minister of Health tried to argue that you've

got the same block of time: if you add 12 minutes a day it equals five

days at the end of the year. And so it does — quantitatively. But what

does it do qualitatively to the education system? What does it do to

the quality of education when teachers don't know from one day to the

next whether they're going to have a job, as they haven't had all year

long, and don't know now about next year? This is this year's bill;

this is to get you through an election. When the election is over we'll

get a bill which takes that away, and the teachers will lose their

jobs. That's the design; that's the goal. What kind of security is

there in classrooms today when both teachers and students know that

every month we get a new direction, a new bill and a new

[ Page 9477 ]

instruction from the ministry and the minister? What's next month's instruction going to be?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's wrong with independent schools?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

One moment, please. I'll ask the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley

(Mr. Ritchie) not to interrupt or interject. There will be appropriate

time for all members to speak during this debate.

MR. GABELMANN:

Another good thing about being on this side of the House is that I

believe in public education. I believe the public knows best about

education. I don't believe that small groups, private sectors or the

minister know best. I think parents know best.

I want to

talk about what the education system is like this year, now, in my

riding, as a result of the activities of the government — further

complicated and threatened by this legislation. We have home economics

classes in high schools with nothing to do except theory, because there

is no food to prepare. Why? No money. The government would rather spend

$60 million on interest payments to B.C. Rail than put it into

education. So what happens in a home economics class? No food to

prepare. It's kind of tough learning how to cook when you haven't got

any food. That's a reality in the high schools in my riding. Field

trips are cancelled — totally absent this year. The kids in logging

communities in northern Vancouver Island know that when they go out of

grade 12 they are going to go to work in the bush — if they can get a

job. They're not going on to further their education elsewhere. They

can go into the bush with their teacher who specializes in forestry

matters and do various things and learn some of those things. Those

programs are cancelled. What kind of an educational system do we have

when that reality exists in this province?

I want to deal

specifically with

section 10 of this bill, the special-education

section. Last year in one district in my riding there were 40

special-education teachers; this year there are 17. And the bill says

you are going to protect special education. Those 17 teachers are

available 25 hours per week. Last year there were 40, many of whom were

on a longer program. Yet the minister said in his press release and in

the bill that he's going to protect special education. It so happens

that some of the money for those programs came out of the CHANCE

program, which was cut back and eliminated for the most

part in that

district. Also, some of the money for those special-education programs

came out of locally raised funds, which were expropriated by the

earlier legislation this year. Yet we have this high-sounding sentence

in this bill which says that a board shall not reduce services under a

special-education program established under the regulations. Last year

in that district there were 40 people; there are 17 this year. That's

not a reduction, eh?

Let me describe to the House the effect

of that kind of restraint — that's the $60 million we're talking about,

and that's the earlier legislation taking away the tax base. In one

school in my riding a kindergarten teacher with more than 20

five-year-old kids in her class had a special-education support-staff

worker last year. This year she does not, and will not, as a result of

this bill. Among those 20 kids one has Down's syndrome — what we used

to call mongolism — and another has cerebral palsy. How does the

minister, or his government, expect that teacher to cope with 20 active

five year-olds, one of whom has cerebral palsy and another Down's

syndrome, with no support staff whatsoever? Yet the money goes into the

roof for the stadium, into northeast coal, into B.C. Rail and into

various grants to the government's friends, through programs like TIDSA

and others. Can you imagine what it did to that teacher when she heard

about this bill yesterday? What did it do for her and her kids this

year? Not a damn thing. How do you think that woman and her colleagues

are going to be able to get through the rest of this year, offering

quality education, not the quantity education which the Minister of

Health talks about? I'm not concerned about how many minutes they

teach; I'm concerned about how effective they are when they are

teaching.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In my

riding there's a class in a logging camp, with kids in more than one

grade. In this logging-camp situation, where there is more than one

grade in the class, one teacher has 18 kids in her class, age 8 to 12.

One of the kids has Down's syndrome — this is another example of a

Down's syndrome case; it's not the one I referred to earlier; this

child is older. She is expected to teach 18 kids age 8 to 12, who are

obviously in various grades, in a logging-camp situation without any

assistance whatsoever, despite this act and

section 10. She is also

expected to cope with a child with Down's syndrome. What kind of

priorities has this government got? Why, when that is happening in this

province, is a stadium in Vancouver for professional sports more

important? Where are the priorities?

There's another class

in another community in my riding, Mr. Speaker, where a teacher who,

because, included in her class.... And I agree with inclusion in the

class of educable, mentally retarded kids, because the principle of

integration is good. But when you put kids who are mentally retarded

into the mainstream class, as we should, you must then make sure that

the teacher has the assistance and assistants to make sure he or she

can cope with the class. I've got one classroom where the teacher has

no recess or lunch hour because she must spend the whole time with this

one mentally retarded kid, because the kid can't be off by himself.

There is no special-education program to assist that teacher. What

happens to the education of those other kids in that classroom, or does

the government care? It doesn't.

In another community in my

riding, one that's well known in this province — and I've heard this

from both the teachers and one of the parents — one of the kids is so

badly retarded that when they withdrew the special-education teacher

the child could no longer go to school. I keep saying "kids," and some

of my colleagues prefer that we use the word "children." They're

interchangeable, in my mind. The child is educable; the child could be

educated and has been educated. This year, because there is no

assistance in that class, that child is at home not being educated. If

ever there were crimes against humanity; if ever there was a need for

Amnesty International to spread its wings and look at us once in a

while and at what we do in this province.... Cases like this, I think,

merit a wee bit more public attention than they've had. If ever there

was a cause or if ever there was a reason why this gang should be

thrown out of office, these are the reasons why.

[ Page 9478 ]

Mr.

Speaker, every teacher, every principal and every person involved in

education knows that some kids are slower than others and some kids

need additional help. In one high school in my riding last year, 140

kids were in a program of catching up, in terms of communication skills

teacher, with an assistant, was able to provide this kind of remedial

work for 140 kids. This year, despite this bill, despite

section 10,

and despite all of the claims by the government that they're not

cutting back in special education — that they won't allow that to

happen — there are only 80 kids taking advantage of that particular

program. So what happens to the other kids? They sit at the back of the

class and they don't learn. Because the classes are too big, the

teacher is not able to spend the extra time that's required for that

child. Then the Minister of Health talks about the quantity — how many

minutes they are being taught. What matters, as I said before, Mr.

Speaker, is that there is some quality.

In one district in

my riding a speech aid therapist was not rehired. We've got one

therapist, with a caseload of close to 400 kids. In that same district

the hearing-impaired teacher was not rehired this fall. It's in

microcosm in my riding, all as a result of the government's failure to

find a measly $60 million to make sure that education could be funded

at the same level as it was last year.

Mr. Speaker, we are

entering a technological, computerized age, which requires that

education begin to deal with the changes that are occurring in society.

In recognition of that one of the districts in my riding purchased some

computers. Then they said to the teachers' association: "There is a

ten-hour program that's required to teach you to be able to use the

computer to then in turn teach kids how to use these computers." There

are two of them in that district. The teachers and the trustees sat

down together and said, okay, we will take advantage of the

professional days for the teachers that will be required for this

particular program, and we will share, so that the teacher can take

that ten hours of training partly on school board time and partly on

their own time — donated time. Keep in mind that people have to come in

for two or three hours — and in some cases it's longer, because they

have to come by boat from outlying schools for professional days, not

for the computer program. Therefore you need to do it in the day; you

can't do it in a evening program.

They agreed that they

would do a ten-hour program and would share the cost of that program

between the teachers and the trustees. Those professional days are now

ended as a result of the government's failure to fund education

properly. No teachers are being trained to use these computers, so the

computers are sitting idle. I don't mind that so much, but it's typical

Socred economics. It doesn't matter if the expensive machines don't

operate and aren't used. What really bothers me is that the kids aren't

having the opportunity to be able to learn to understand computers in

that particular district as a result of the denial of a professional

day. Is that what the government is trying to achieve? Is that where

its priorities are?

There has been $120,000 raised by

parents in my riding to hire special-education teachers to partially

fill the void created by the absence of provincial funding. It so

happens that these parents are native Indians. It so happens that

they're to fill the void for native Indian programs. That shouldn't

matter, but it so happens that they are. The money is raised in four

different bands. Why should it be necessary for parents to go out and

raise, on their own, money that is earmarked for other purposes so they

can hire special-education teachers to help their kids, hopefully, to

get through the school system?

I'm not going to say any

more, other than that I hope and pray that the writ is dropped today or

tomorrow so we can have an election in this province and restore some

normalcy to our education system.

HON. MR. SMITH: I

rise in my place in support of this bill. Listening to the remarks of

the two members who have spoken on the other side, I found it very

difficult to know whether they're against or in favour of the bill.

Indeed, we understand from listening to them that they invented caring

about children and that they alone are the ones who have a thought for

people and people issues in education. The record, of course, is very

different from that. This bill preserves quality of education while

effecting restraint.

I heard speeches about how special

education was going to suffer and has not been protected. The minister

very clearly under this bill, under

section 10, has the power and duty

and has made the commitment to protect special education. What could be

clearer than that? Spending on special education in this province this

year, with two levels of restraint brought in by government, is still

up over 19 percent over what it was in 1981. Mr. Speaker, $108 million

was spent on special education in this province this year. New programs

were developed this year. Regional resource centres were opened and

funded. Programs all over this province were preserved under restraint.

These members opposite refuse to acknowledge that, and make speeches

along the lines that special education and the needs of children with

special needs are going to suffer under restraint. It is tommyrot.

The

legislation brings about a rational solution to the very difficult

problem of trying to restrain budgets in the middle of a budget year.

It's a problem which a number of school boards have valiantly wrestled

with over the past couple of months. Many of them have been able to

make arrangements with their teachers and staff; some have not, and

some have made arrangements that have faded away. What this bill does

is to provide a fair framework for those school boards to conclude

their arrangements. They have until October 15 to complete their

arrangements. If they don't complete their arrangements or are unable

to do so, then there is a formula there for non-instructional days,

namely six, for which the teachers will not be paid in the calendar

year 1982. There are no non-instructional days under the bill for the

year. That is true. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk),

the opposition critic for Education, tries to indicate that there may

be some 17-day payback. That is not the way I read the bill, Mr.

Speaker. I read the bill as meaning that paid non-instructional days

disappear during the school year, and those six non-instructional days

become instructional days. The teachers will not be paid for those six

days if no agreement is made in the district. But in districts where

agreements are made before October 15 the only non-instructional that

is required to be specified and not paid for is a minimum of one. They

will not lose another six non-instructional days' pay, or a total of

17, as the member suggested.

It's a maximum penalty of six

days in 1982, and then in the second term in 1983, across the board, in

all school districts, five instructional days' pay is given back. Those

five instructional days shorten the school year to end on June

[ Page 9479 ]

23,

but no instructional time is lost, because the minister has expressly

preserved instructional time in this bill. I noticed also there was

some pooh-poohing of the ability of school districts or schools to

manage the instructional time of 25 hours, which would have to be made

up during the year. There was some kind of laughter that maybe with the

block system this would be ridiculous and couldn't be done. But there

are many ways of managing the add-on of that time during the school

year for elementary school classes. It may well be very convenient

simply to add on 13 minutes to each school day. At the junior secondary

levels it may well be that each block period will be lengthened by two

or three minutes, or it may be that an extra block will be added on one

day a week.

There are a whole range of solutions for dealing

with the making up of that 25 hours. It can be managed by dedicated

educators, and they will do so. The bill is not centralistic. It leaves

solutions to school boards. It respects agreements that have already

been entered into in a number of districts, and it gives all school

boards until October 15 to work out an agreement with their staff. So

the six-day payback solution in

section 5 will not apply in those

districts, but the unique solution with a one-day payback will apply.

It's

important that this bill does preserve teaching jobs, because where

some school boards have brought in proposals to meet their budget

restraint levels, those proposals have contained layoff proposals.

Under our system, unfortunately, the teachers that get laid off are the

young teachers, with not very much tenure or experience, and they are

the first ones that go. Often they are the most enthusiastic and the

most vital. These teachers will keep their jobs and will continue

teaching.

Another feature of this bill which the minister is

to be commended for is a

section in which he allows school boards

additional flexibility. For instance, administrators who are now on

term contracts may be a superintendent of instruction or have some

title like that. An individual on a term contract doing that at

present, under the old legislation, can't be moved during the term of

his contract. Under this bill these administrators will be capable of

being moved to another job, including being put in the classroom to

teach, if there's a vacancy. That can occur without a loss of salary to

them, and will allow them to be used more flexibly and to be used to

fill positions that become vacant without hiring an additional teacher.

So there is quite a bit of flexibility. There is also the flexibility

that allows the non-shareable capital

section of the budget.

certainly concede the observations that were made by the member for

North island (Mr. Gabelmann) that some districts don't have

non-shareable capital. That is correct. But for the opposition critic

to suggest in this House that this minister and this government have

some plan to raise some additional levy or tax from property tax to

deal with the lack of a non-shareable capital account in some districts

is a preposterous suggestion and one suggestion that is designed to try

and promote fear and uncertainty. It was this government, earlier in

the year, that designed a fairer, new financial formula which

alleviated the burdens of property tax and prevented increases in some

50 out of 75 school districts, which would have been major had that

legislation not been introduced. The minister has been very wise in

building flexibility into this bill to assist school districts to meet

their problems. He's very wise and he's to be praised for having built

in provisions to protect teachers' jobs and special education.

the debate, some comments were made about independent schools and the

attitude of the government towards the public education system.

Arguments were made that this bill represents a reduction, a cutback.

Two measures of restraint in education were brought in during the

original fixing of school board budgets, one to reduce provincial

funding by $29 million, and another to reduce it by $60 million. These

were brought about by an economic condition which is not unique to

British Columbia but common to the entire world, and particularly to

parts of North America. Even with those reductions, the budgets of

school boards in this province are still up approximately 16 percent

over what they were last year. That is a real cutback, isn't it? There

are places in North America and the United Kingdom where reductions in

social services, because of the economic crisis, have brought about

actual 10 and 15 percent reductions in spending over the previous year.

In this province, our government decided to continue vigorous support

of social services, including education. The support in increased

funding that was given to education this year was remarkable, even with

the two restraint programs, in a year of rapidly declining revenues and

economic stagnation internationally,

So the funding has been

up considerably this year, even with the restraint. As the minister

said in his opening remarks, to ask teachers and administrators to take

a number of days in the school year to a maximum of 11 — and for some

it will not be 11 because of arrangements that have been made with

their boards — to bring about a reduction in income which could amount

to something between 4 and 5 percent at most is surely not too great a

sacrifice to ask once, and once only, of that professional. We have had

similar requests to and responses from the health profession. Members

of this Legislature have taken reductions of 10 percent. Many of our

neighbours and the neighbours of school teachers are not working, or

are working in the private sector, with four- and three-day weeks, when

their spouses have been laid off. All over this province there are

people who cannot work because of stagnation in the international

economy, because the lumber industry is depressed, and for a variety of

market reasons. It is surely not too much to ask that this sacrifice be

made once, evenly and fairly, in a way that will not erode their bases

for next year. It is not a rollback.

Indeed, many teachers

expected, as a result of the restraint program, rollbacks to be

introduced this year. A number of boards had negotiations concerning

rollbacks. This is a payback and it is a fair way of doing it. It's a

way that will preserve programs. To say that this bill does not help

children and does not help education.... The members opposite simply do

not care to address the facts. They believe, along with the president

of the B.C. Teachers Federation, that the quality of education is

measured only by the quantity of the lolly, and if you reduce the

lolly, if some reduction is required in teachers' salaries, the

profession that received increases this year of over 17 percent plus

increments — and there is a once-only reduction by way of a payback for

11 days — then the quality of education is going to suffer. That

argument will not wash with the public of this province.

The

quality of education is no more determined solely by the quantity of

the dollars than is the quality of life determined by the cost of

living. The quality of education in this province is determined by the

dedication that teachers have, and have demonstrated in the classrooms

of this province,

[ Page 9480 ]

and

which parents who are involved in education have. I am confident that

their involvement and dedication is going to continue, despite the

chaos and confusion that may be spread around this measure, and despite

attempts of people, for political gains, to try to obscure the true

purpose of this bill, which is to bring about harmony to preserve jobs

and programs, and to bring about a measured level of restraint for only

a period of emergent funding. That is the purpose of this bill. The

minister is to be congratulated; I urge you to support it.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I've listened with great interest to the debate this far.

I'm not sure who made the most perceptive comments, but certainly the

former Minister of Education, who just took his seat, indicated that

the matter is a highly complex one. I certainly have some difficulty

following it.

I'm not quite sure what the distinction is,

what that refined and very narrow technical distinction is which he

draws between a "payback" and a "rollback." Perhaps his legal mind can

spring like a steeltrap and make that

interpretation to the House,

because certainly I don't appreciate the relevance of that rather inane

illustration that the minister used.

I think the other

perceptive thing that was said came from the Minister of Education

himself when he introduced the bill. I listened to him very carefully

and jotted down some of his observations. At one point, Mr. Speaker, he

said: "This bill will restore certainty and security to the education

community." Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the question: who

destroyed the certainty and security of the education system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The NDP.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, we have had that minister, who is a disaster looking for a

place to happen, juggled out of his former portfolio because he

developed it at crossed swords with the Premier, and I think as penance

the Premier imposed him on the education community and knew that, with

his traditional diplomacy, he would not survive long in that role

either.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The other

remark the minister made was: "We have to restore a measure of order

and confidence to education." Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask: who destroyed

order and confidence in the education system in this province? None

other than that government.

My colleagues have said it very

clearly. I am not going to belabour the point very long, but it is

clear that what we are debating here is a matter of priorities, which

clearly separates the Socreds from the New Democratic Party opposition.

We place a higher priority on the public education system in this

province than does the government. We say that our priority would be

proper funding for the education system, which would honour contracts

of a private nature and which would recognize the independence and

autonomy of local school boards as being duly authorized to enter into

those contracts. We see that as a higher priority for us — even if it

costs $60 million — than would be the allocation of $1.5 billion of the

taxpayers' money to the northeast coal rat hole for the benefit of

another country, to create jobs offshore. Mr. Speaker, we say that

education is a higher priority for us than the construction of a

football stadium in the city of Vancouver. As much as I am a football

fan and as much as I enjoy professional athletics, I happen to believe

that the security, maintenance and integrity of the public education

system in this province should take precedence over professional

athletic playpens. So it is a matter of priorities, isn't it?

also happen to feel that some of those ministers on the other side,

some of those people with the profligate ways, might curb their

appetite for Pouilly Fuissé wine at the public expense, might curb some

of their visitations to Broadway shows, might curb some of their

expensive tastes for dining in expensive restaurants at public expense.

I say that that money would go a long way to meeting the special needs

of education in this province. Indeed, the opposition in this

Legislature over the last two years has moved to trim fat from that

government's budget to the tune of $178 million in ministerial

expenses. Oh, they didn't believe in restraint then, Mr. Speaker. They

opposed every amendment to cut those funds and that fat from their own

expense accounts. But here they are talking about restraint for the

public school system. They're being very reasonable now, aren't they?

They're applying with a heavy hand.... That minister is notorious for

his statement to the welfare people of this province that they go get a

shovel. We know about his tender mercies. He's applying the same kind

of intolerant, stupid philosophy with respect to public education in

this province. Make no mistake, this is the thin edge of the wedge.

want to deal with three concerns that I have about this bill. I want to

tell the House that I have talked to the educational community in my

riding, in Revelstoke and Salmon Arm, both on the school board side and

on the teacher side and among parents. The majority consensus was —

there wasn't total agreement; there were some who thought, "Well, we

don't yet altogether understand the bill — number one, this bill breaks

private contracts. And it does, indisputably. There is some irony here.

Just a couple of weeks ago the Premier, in shouting the praises of how

he did business as a little merchant in Kelowna, said: "Oh, we don't

need to deal, like those city slickers do, with contracts and legal

jargon. When you're in business in Kelowna a handshake is your bond."

But a private contract negotiated between a legally constituted

committee of school trustees and their professionals is no longer

sacrosanct. It's not as good as a handshake, eh? It can be wiped out

with a piece of legislation such as this, without a bat of the Social

Credit eye, without a flutter or any qualm of principle over there.

It's the same government that, I remember, back in 1975, when my former

colleague Bob Williams made alterations to the Pacific National

Exhibition board of directors.... You should have heard the debate that

went on in this House about: "How dare that terrible socialist

interfere with the sanctity of a private contract!"

Under

section 2 of this bill the statutory authority is given to this

government to override a contract of any kind. Private contracts are no

longer valid in the province of British Columbia; they can be

overridden with a statutory stroke of the pen by this government.

There's no respect for private contracts. If that is the measure of

respect this government holds for the sanctity of private contracts,

then I say to you that no contract in the province of British Columbia

is safe, whether it be a small business contract, whether it be a

corporate contract, or relates to the mineral field or the forest area,

or whether it's with the professional employees of the government

itself. What a precedent to set! They come in here with

[ Page 9481 ]

the

most brazen of faces and ask the opposition and the people of British

Columbia to accept that this kind of an attack on the sanctity of

private contracts is good for the education system. Some handshake!

There he is. Maybe a handshake meant something to Colonel Sanders in

the old days, but not today. There's the Premier who is presiding over

the destruction of private contracts in the province of British

Columbia. So much for his handshake. I want to tell you that his

father's handshake meant something. He was indeed a man of principle.

When he gave his word, whether or not there was a handshake, he stood

by it. But here, in law, is disrespect and disregard for private

contracts. There is no way they can wiggle, slither or dive out of that

responsibility. It's not good enough to run down the hall ahead of the

reporters. This government is going to have to answer directly for this

attack on the sanctity of private contracts.

The other area

I worry about is the continuing move toward centralization which this

bill carries on — that is, the removal of authority from local,

democratically elected boards and agencies. This minister who is now

the Minister of Education was previously the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Everyone in this province knows that he made an attack on

regional district boards. He said: "I want to get rid of them. I'd like

to set up a county system." We have a county system south of the

border, where the political administrations appoint their own deputy

sheriffs and hacks at various municipal levels — who used to be

democratically elected. Is that what the minister wants? In this bill

he is certainly removing the authority and autonomy of local

democratically elected boards and centralizing that with the ministry

in Victoria. It's a direct attack on the democratic process at the

community level. It's a direct attack on the autonomy of local school

boards, hospital boards and so on.

The final area I'm

concerned about is the chaos that has been caused in the education

system. In Salmon Arm, School District 89, the school board and

teachers sat down and negotiated, and the teachers had agreed to give

up three instructional days. Yesterday afternoon they were sitting

down, preparing for the signing of that agreement. Half an hour before

they were to sign that agreement, which would have brought them within

the financial guidelines dictated by this centralist government from

Victoria, they were advised that a new bill had been introduced in the

Legislature which directed them in an arbitrary fashion to act in a

certain way and which dictated what would happen with professional

non-instructional days. They withdrew from the agreement they were

prepared to sign yesterday. I'm advised by the representatives of the

school board and the teachers' association that they are now meeting

and there is some question, because of the arbitrary interference by

this government, whether or not they will be prepared to go ahead with

that amicable agreement they had negotiated. The observation made to me

by both the supervisory staff and the teachers was: "How do we plan

when conflicting statements keep coming out of Victoria, when the

goalposts are constantly changed and when we get arbitrary dictums from

the minister, not consultation and cooperation?" The other observation

made was that superintendents of instruction are so busy trying to

react to the conflicting policy statements emanating from Victoria that

they have little time to deal with educational programs for the

children within their district.

So the minister's comment

was accurate. He gave us a glimpse and admission of what has happened

when he said: "This bill will restore certainty and security." He's

admitted that he's destroyed that certainty and security. He's admitted

that there is no measure of order and confidence any more after

education came under his tender care just a couple of weeks ago. That's

the state of affairs. This bill does absolutely nothing to achieve any

of those goals. It's born of political cynicism. It was developed for a

political purpose. I just hope that, contrary to what the Minister of

Education said about his boss when he said, "My colleagues have no

guts" — do you remember the Minister of Education saying that a couple

of weeks ago? — the Premier finally musters the intestinal fortitude to

dissolve this parliament and go to the people so these kinds of

questions can be tested before the electorate of B.C.

MRS. JORDAN:

I think the debate as put forth by the opposition today has to be the

weakest ever and perhaps a new position for them in this House. They've

talked about such things as: "thin edge of the wedge. " Call in Amnesty

International" and "gross inhumanity." Mr. Speaker, the last member

just spoke about the sanctity of a contract. Then he related this to

the PNE board and the actions of the former Minister of Forests under

their government, a man whose lack of respect for the sanctity of the

contract was legendary in this province. Our government is very much

attuned to the sanctity of the contract, but our government is also

very much aware of the realities of the day, not only in British

Columbia but also in Canada and the rest of the world. I would remind

that hon. member that history has shown us that when there are extreme

circumstances such as we're experiencing in Canada and the world today,

and in our province today, the sanctity of a contract, if one sits

solely on that as one's philosophy, will mean nothing if in fact there

is not the wealth or the ability to meet the needs of the contract.

This is not a direct attack on the sanctity of a contract. The

teachers, the school boards, the administrators and the public of this

province realize it.

As was said before, it is absolute

tommyrot to suggest that this is a direct attack on school boards, a

direct attack on teachers and a direct attack on education. I would

suggest that that is what the debate from the NDP has been today. If I

were a teacher, if I were an administrator, if I were a member of the

public in this House and heard the content of their debate today, I

would be insulted. There are many people out there today who realize

that what is being said by the opposition is in fact an insult to the

abilities of teachers, administrators and school boards to deal with

responsibility and reality in the classroom as well as outside. They

understand that the circumstances within which we are working today,

whether it's in British Columbia, other provinces in Canada or the

world, are extreme and that the world has not seen for many years,

except in areas behind the Iron Curtain and areas of the Third World.

For North America and western society, they are realities which most

people are willing to deal with, recognizing that we have come through

an amazing period of prosperity and benefit to all. The majority of

people — the teachers, the school boards, the administrators — are

prepared to do their fair share in dealing with that reality. A direct

attack on the school boards, centralization of administration.... What

absolute nonsense!

The members from the opposite side forget

that there has been a good deal of dialogue taking place in this

province between teachers and school boards at the local level in order

to try to resolve what is a reality in life: financial difficulties for

all concerned. The school boards and many teachers, at

[ Page 9482 ]

their

own level, asked that word be sent to the government that legislation

be adjusted so that they, in their wisdom and their willingness to be

part of the team and meet the concerns of maintaining a high standard

of education, with the objective of maintaining jobs in this province,

could have the type of legislation needed, so that they could have a

framework within which they could work. That's what Bill 89 does.

The

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) embarrassingly regaled the

House with concerns in his area. I'm sure there are concerns — very

real concerns. But I wonder what that member has done in his area to

assist in the solving of those problems and concerns. Certainly his

debate here, if that's what he's saying there, would not contribute to

the solution of their problems. My suggestion to them is that they get

a new MLA who is positive, who understands, who doesn't demean

voluntarism, who doesn't demean the teachers, who doesn't demean the

effort of people to work together with the highest of principles — and

that is to assist each other.

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows

for adjustment at the local level and continuing dialogue in the future

to solve some of the other complex issues that the educational system

is facing today. This bill preserves jobs. This bill preserves

educational services. This bill preserves special education. It is fair

to the teachers, who are only being asked to bear their fair share

along with other British Columbians. What is equally important is that

it is fair to the students and to the taxpayers. I think it's shocking

the way the NDP opposition during this debate — and I'm sure many

people will be shocked — have tried to paint teachers and

administrators as being fragile, insecure people, suggesting they're

incompetent and not able to shoulder responsibilities and the realities

of life outside the classroom. I'm sure many of the school boards will

be concerned to know that the NDP have suggested in their debate that

teachers and administrators are fragile, insecure, incompetent and not

able to shoulder the responsibilities and realities of life. The

teachers and school boards knew what this was all about before this

legislation was ever introduced. Over 43 of the 75 school boards in the

province had already arrived at a way of adjusting to meet the economic

needs of today. They are the ones that asked for this legislation. This

will assist other school boards in doing the same thing.

What

solution is the NDP offering? The member for North Island suggested

that $60 million would be the solution to the economic problems of

today. He said that no price was too high — if I quote him correctly.

Even in this time of restraint, $60 million is not too high a price.

Removing $60 million from this year's budget still allows for a 15

percent increase in the budgets to the school districts of British

Columbia over last year's budget. This means that some $1.5 billion per

year is available for the Education budget this year — the second

highest budget in the government. First is the health budget. That $1.5

billion from a more than $7 billion budget is in fact a very fair share

to be made available for education, and underlines the importance that

this government places on the quality and availability of education for

all parts of this province.

If you listened to Mr. Broadbent

yesterday on television, you'll know what the NDP answer is. He said on

Jack Webster's show that if he were the Prime Minister of Canada today

he would print more money. He would borrow his way into further debt;

he would borrow and print his way into further economic chaos. If the

$60 million was borrowed, as the NDP suggest, to forestall the

shortfall this year, what would it do? It would go towards a 17 percent

wage increase, instead of a 15 percent wage increase. It would go

towards paying teachers for six days of non- instructional work and it

would go to make up five days' pay. I'm sure the teachers themselves

would say that as much as they would like to have those benefits, they

recognize that in today's economy, $60 million outlined and spent the

way the NDP would borrow to pay it would really not do anything to

increase the quality of education in this province.

The

members opposite said that teachers were afraid for their jobs. How

misleading of him, when he attacks this bill, in trying to pose that

question. This bill in fact does what is necessary, with the

cooperation of the teachers and the school boards, to ensure that they

do have jobs this coming year. While the minister has no authority to

bring in legislation to relate to the rest of the workers in the school

system, we are very sure that the school boards and the teachers will

want to see that other people in the school system also maintain their

jobs and have their opportunity to take

part in assisting the rest of

British Columbia at this difficult time. You have to create wealth

before you can share wealth. You have to create wealth before you can

develop the type of social services and educational services to which

we all aspire. They just don't seem to believe that you can't go on

printing money forever. There has to be labour, productivity, marketing

and the return for effort, to create the wealth to undertake what we

want to do.

Bill 89, which aids in the school endeavours to

assist, isn't in isolation from anything else within the province. Our

government has embarked, even in these difficult economic times, and is

leading Canada in job creation. They are leading Canada in capital

investment, they are leading Canada in paving the way for future

revenues to ensure that we do maintain a high standard of education in

this province. I don't need to go into the details, but right at this

time — as I mentioned, even in these difficult economic times — we have

such major developments as northeast coal, where approximately 5,000

people are working today. Where would they be working, and what wealth

would they be creating if that project wasn't going ahead? It's a

project, may I remind you gently, that the NDP have not supported. The

Amphitheatre and B.C. Place in Vancouver — more jobs and more capital

creation, not just for today but for the future. You can't live on

philosophy, eat philosophy or provide jobs on philosophy. You can only

do it through production. The new industrial sites in many communities

in this province, where they didn't have the opportunity to be

competitive with other parts of Canada and even other parts of British

Columbia, have secured new industries, new capital investment and new

jobs, not just for today but for future revenues.

The

government is embarked on an aggressive marketing program for B.C.

products in new market areas, all job creating and revenue-producing.

These are the areas which produce revenue to provide educational

services. It is these areas that will produce the revenue, not only for

today but for tomorrow. It is these areas that build the confidence of

the economic community to look at British Columbia as an area to

invest. It's these areas that develop the personal confidence in

individuals to work in British Columbia and to plant their homes here.

It is these areas that will provide the wealth for tomorrow to assist

in maintaining our high standards of education. These areas are

creating jobs today here in British Columbia. They are providing the

dollars for this program.

[ Page 9483 ]

Along

with this we have the restraint program. I don't want to go into the

details again, but this restraint program is part of the economic

recovery program and part of the refining of our priorities and

spending so we get maximum value for our dollars at all levels of

government. It is part of the refining of our methods so that we are

efficient in British Columbia in government, in Crown corporations, in

local governments, and, yes, in the health-care and educational systems.

there is anything shameful about that, then I ask what your idea of

construction, production and benefits is. We're proud in British

Columbia, and British Columbians are proud to take

part in an overall

program which is a framework for restraint during these difficult

times. British Columbia is the only province that is doing this. If you

compare what is happening in other provinces, you see absolute

rollbacks, wage freezes, cutbacks in services and cutbacks in budgets.

This has not happened to British Columbia.

We see other

provinces and countries singling out certain groups of people. This is

not happening in British Columbia. Our program in restraint and

economic development is the fairest we've seen anywhere in the world.

It is as fair as you can possibly make it in the complexities of

today's governmental process and economy. It is flexible. It has been

brought about with as little disruption as possible, and it has

maintained a free collective bargaining environment. There is room in

our restraint program for adjustments to see that those on the lower

end of the income scale have the opportunity for a slightly larger

margin of increase than those on the higher end of the economic or

remunerative income scale.

The opposition should be praising

our Premier. They should be giving him credit for the way in which he

has strongly but sensitively called upon the best of the people of

British Columbia as human beings — called upon them to recognize that

we have had good times and have benefited, but that now there's a time

to readjust our priorities and join together and work to solve our

problems. He's done it with a minimum of disruption in our economy with

respect to the rights of the labour unions, the professions and the

taxpayers. The Premier has kindled a new understanding on the part of

the people of British Columbia and a willingness to work together and

share. It's a new understanding of what the realities of life are and

how to deal with it, not to look for giveaways but to reject giveaways;

to look for arguments with substance, to look for the truth, to look

for constructive suggestions and to look for those with the ability to

stand firm and make those constructive suggestions work.

Our

restraint program has cut government costs. It has cut Crown

corporation costs. It has limited rate increases for next year on all

Crown corporations. All are doing their share to keep our funding as

efficient and productive as possible.

In debating this bill,

let's not forget what the situation is in British Columbia in the

educational system compared to other parts of Canada. There are schools

in some other provinces in our country where they still have dirt

floors. I think the teachers would be proud of the fact that in British

Columbia the average teacher salary of September 1982 was $33,934

compared to the average salary in 1981, which was $28,516. This

reflects the negotiated increase of 17 percent plus an annual 2 percent

increment for experience and qualifications. We're all very proud of

that, but we compare that to the rest of Canada and we see that our

teachers in British Columbia are well paid. Even with the reduction of

$60 million, grants from provincial general revenue to school districts

increased by 15 percent in 1982-83 over 1981-82. No teacher in British

Columbia is required to offer instruction for more than five and a half

hours and 15 minutes daily. It's well appreciated that other hours of

the day are needed for course preparation and paper analysis and

marking. It is a very favourable instructional time compared to other

parts of Canada and the world.

B.C. has the second-highest

total operating cost per pupil in 1982 in Canada. Only Alberta ranked

first. B.C. ranked highest in 1981 on a Canada-wide comparison of

salaries and ages and benefits of all school employees as a percentage

of operating costs, As I mentioned, B.C. teachers ranked third in the

Canada-wide 1982 survey of salary comparisons. This is something we're

very proud of in British Columbia. It also does not exclude the fact

that teachers and administrators understand what is happening to the

economy. They understand that we all should be and are working

together. Salary costs per pupil have increased by 76.2 percent over

the same period. I think that's a record of which we can be proud, and

it's a record which we will ultimately maintain in the future. At this

time, it's a record that will be added to by diligence and by

dedication through assisting the economy and our schools.

The

bill in itself gives legal authority to achieve the objectives we all

want. The questions may rise in the public mind or in the teacher's

mind as to how together we're going to achieve what is necessary. They

ask the teachers to participate during this school year with other

British Columbians in the economic recovery by not being paid on

non-instructional days — approximately six days throughout the year.

These are times when teachers would not be working in the classroom but

would be utilizing that time in the pursuit of their own education. We

are accomplishing it by shortening the spring term by one week and

making up that time so that the students do not suffer. That amounts to

approximately 13 minutes per day to see that no loss of instruction

occurs in terms of the meat of the education that our children need.

What would this amount to? The record should show, and many know, that

teachers received an average settlement of 17 percent last year plus

their 2 percent annual increments. By agreeing to these proposals, the

teachers would give back the equivalent of approximately 4 percent, on

average — much less for some teachers.

They might

legitimately ask the question: wouldn't a rollback affect the salary

base for next year? I would say the purpose of this adjustment is not a

rollback for next year. The salary base will be preserved for next

year's negotiations. This proposal is similar to that of the doctors.

People are asking if there will be layoffs. Are we not just applying a

band-aid? No, we're not. This proposal would solve the problems for the

entire 1982-83 year. These show the commitment of our government to

education.

The teachers are joining others who are in the

private sector. Many companies in the private sector are actually

borrowing money in concert with their employees, who have embarked on

job-sharing, days off without pay or anything to keep the economy going

and to keep people working. There are many people in the private sector

who have felt the cruellest restraint of all: the loss of their jobs.

Many people in the public sector — the British Columbia Government

Employees Union, the health-care workers and people in Crown

corporations — are all working together, one way or another, to become

part of the restraint program in the true spirit of British Columbia.

[ Page 9484 ]

This

bill preserves jobs in the educational system. It preserves the

educational services. It preserves special education. It is fair to the

teachers — it keeps them employed. It does not cut down the

instructional time in the schools, and therefore it is fair to the

students. The students will have every opportunity to benefit from

their education. It does save $60 million of the taxpayers' money. It

is a very strong endeavour as part of our restraint program and as part

of the economic recovery program, all in one well-thought-out plan to

maintain the high standards of education in British Columbia that we

have and to maintain the high quality of instruction and the high

standards we have in the members of our school boards. It does call on

each of us to do our part.

The bill makes provision to give

time for adjustment through discussions at the local level among

teachers and administrators and school boards to solve some of the

other complexities within the educational system. This bill is

presented with harmony. It is being responded to in a harmonious way by

the majority of teachers, administrators and school boards in this

province. In the area I represent there has been a great deal of

dialogue between the teachers and the school board