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, OCTOBER 6, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9609 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Hospital funding. Mr. Cocke –– 9611

B.C. Hydro revenue. Mr. D'Arcy –– 9612

British Columbia Railway subsidy. Mr. Stupich –– 9613

Workers Compensation Board surcharges. Ms. Sanford –– 9613

ICBC surcharges. Ms. Sanford –– 9613

Organized crime. Mr. Levi –– 9613

Fish-packing industry. Mr. Lorimer 9613

Government advertising budget. Mr. Hall –– 9614

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Tourism annual report, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9614

Financial Administration Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 86). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 –– 9615

Mr. Stupich

section 2 –– 9615

Mr. Stupich

Ms. Brown

Mr. Hall

Mr. Barber

Division on third reading –– 9618

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Report. (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

Third reading –– 9618

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 3), 1982 (Bill 88). Report.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 9619

School Services (Interim) Act (Bill 89). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

section 2 — 9619

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Lauk

Hon. Mr. Schroeder

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

with us today are a large group of teachers visiting from various

districts across the province. I also had the opportunity of meeting

with those involved in the profession at noon today and discussed with

them the various problems that we as a government face. Similarly, I

have received from them the concerns that teachers hold in their

various districts. I am sure that it's a very worthwhile exchange. I

appreciate the opportunity and wish only that we could meet more on a

one-to-one basis with all of the people involved in the educational

system. I would ask that all of us here extend a hearty welcome to all

teachers visiting the Legislature today.

MR. LAUK: In

replying to the ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

welcome the presidents of all the teachers' associations of the various

school districts who are here to express their concern over government

policy with respect to the education system, and the negative effect

it's having on programs for children throughout the province.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I would like to add a welcome, and ask the members to join me in

welcoming the president of the Quesnel District Teachers Association,

Janet Reinsdorf, who is here today and with whom I met. I'd also like

to welcome Mr. Quintin Robertson, the president of the

Cariboo-Chilcotin Teachers Association from Williams Lake. I'd also

like to welcome some friends who are not teachers — Mr. and Mrs. Cliff

Simmonds and Mr. and Mrs. Orville Fletcher from Williams Lake. I'd like

the House to give them a good welcome.

MR. KING: I

would like the House to join in welcoming four constituents from the

riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke — Mr. Elmer Rorstad of Revelstoke, Mr.

John Stewart of Armstrong, Mr. Bob Megale of Enderby and Mr. Val

Heckrodt of Salmon Arm. These constituents are British Columbia

citizens and also teachers. I would ask the House to welcome them to

Victoria.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I also wish to record a

welcome to Heather Walker of the West Vancouver Teachers Association

and Mr. Herb Johnston of the Howe Sound Teachers Association.

MR. HOWARD:

There are three school districts either wholly or partly within the

constituency of Skeena, and I had the pleasure of meeting with four

representatives of the teaching profession from that area: Mr. Steve

Cardwell, Mr. Harald Jordan, Mr. Glenn Grieve and Mr. Doug McLeod. I'm

sure the House is pleased to welcome them as well.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Also here from that great Columbia River constituency

is Mr. Don Creamer, president of the Kimberley and District Teachers Association,

and Miss Carolyn Fawcett, president of the North Columbia Teachers Association.

I would like the members to welcome them.

MS. BROWN:

Darcy Bader, president of the Burnaby Teachers Association, and Ivan

Johnson are also in gallery. I hope the House will join me in bidding

them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: This must be teachers' day

in the gallery, because with the teachers' delegation in the gallery

this afternoon are three constituents of mine: a former mayor of Burns

Lake, Doreen Woodall; Caroline Du Mont from Vanderhoof; and Mr. Harald

Jordan, the president of the Struthers District Teachers Association,

who is actually a constituent of mine from the community of Telkwa. I

would ask the House to make all three of them very welcome.

MR. BARRETT:

On this "Love thy Teacher Day, " I would like to welcome the teachers

from my constituency and urge that they show up every day and get this

kind of praise from the government the rest of the year, instead of

being kicked around, as they have been.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'm sure all members would like to pay their respect and homage to a

magnificent Canadian accomplishment, and that was the first scaling of

Mount Everest by a Canadian team. On behalf of both sides of the House,

we'd like to extend to them our sincere congratulations and best wishes

for a great and, indeed, tremendous effort. At the same time we have to

express our regret about the loss of life and extend our sorrow and our

condolence to those four members who made the ultimate sacrifice: North

Vancouver cameraman Mr. Blair Griffiths and three Nepalese guides.

Perhaps those remarks could be conveyed to their next-of-kin.

MR. STUPICH:

I'd also ask the House to welcome Mr. Jim Howden, who is here not just

as president of the Nanaimo District Teachers Association, and

certainly not as a representative of the BCTF executive, but rather

representing the teachers from the Nanaimo district.

MR. STRACHAN:

On behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and

me, I would like all members to welcome, from School District 57 in

Prince George, Jim Caldwell. who is the president of the Prince George

District Teachers Association; Doug Smart, who is an officer of the

BCTF and also a well-known Prince George teacher; Mr. Dan Hughes from

McBride; and Mr. Don Van Der Meer from Mackenzie. Would the House

please welcome these visitors.

MR. MITCHELL: I, too,

would like the House to join me in welcoming two teachers from my

riding who are here to represent the standard of education that the

parents feel they are losing. I would like you to welcome John

Bergbusch, who is the president of the Sooke Teachers Association, and

Neil Robb, who is the lower Island agreement coordinator. They are the

forerunners of 50 other teachers who will be here after 4 o'clock when

school is out.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Along with the

congratulations extended by the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations, I want to add my congratulations to the half of the team who

come from Columbia River constituency, Mr. Patrick Morrow from

Kimberley, Dwayne Congdon from Invermere and Gordon Smith from Golden.

[ Page 9610 ]

MR. SKELLY:

I'd like the House to welcome school trustee Rosemarie Buchanan from

School District 70, who is here along with Paul Richardson, president

of the Alberni District Teachers Association. Also, on behalf of

Alderman John Mika, I would ask the House to welcome Mike Hayes from

the Gulf Islands Teachers Association and Barbara Davis of the Saanich

Teachers Association.

MR. BRUMMET: Because the

teacher representatives from my area have probably come the greatest

distance to meet with me to discuss their concerns, I would like the

House to welcome Mr. Bruce Cummings and Mr. Don Lewis, who respectively

are presidents of the teachers' associations of district 60 and 81 in

northeastern British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I too

would like the House to join me in welcoming Miss Joan Robb, who

represents School District 46 and all the teachers contained therein.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

There are representatives here today from the five school districts

that make up my constituency. Would the House please welcome Anthony

Smith from Ashcroft in the South Cariboo School District, Jeff Young

from Merritt, Don Walmsley from Boston Bar, Mike Kennedy from Lillooet

and Dena Campbell from Princeton.

MR. NICOLSON: Also

in the House today is Mr. Frank Burden from the Nelson District

Teachers Association and Mr. John Chisamore. In addition to being past

president of the Creston Valley Teachers Association, Mr. Chisamore has

been called to that noblest of callings; he is a physics teacher.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I would like to ask the House to welcome Mr. Amrit Manak, who, as

president of the Richmond Teachers Associations, represents 1,000

teachers.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like to introduce to the

Legislature Walter Bergmann, the president of the teachers' association

in School District 69, and Bob Edwards, the president of the teachers'

association in School District 71. They are here with Jean Kotcher and

Gwyn Reilly of School District 71.

MR. MUSSALLEM: One

would almost assume that there are a considerable number of teachers

here today. I have the honour, on the other hand, to introduce a group

of students. Today in the gallery we have 17 students from the Maple

Ridge Christian Academy of Maple Ridge with their teacher Robert Low. I

request the House make them welcome.

In addition, Mr.

Speaker, I hope you'll permit me to mention that we have three

excellent educators from my constituency, from Maple Ridge and Mission,

in the gallery today: Karen Chong, John Perry and Sandra Howes.

MRS. WALLACE:

In this, the longest introduction period in history, I would like to

add the name of David Denyer, who is the president of the Cowichan

District Teachers Association.

MR. HYNDMAN: The best

often comes toward the end. From the great metropolis of Vancouver and

the Vancouver elementary school administrators' association, would

members welcome Mr. Bob King and Ms. Joyce Anderson, the president.

MR. GABELMANN:

I'd like to have the House welcome from Vancouver Island West School

District, Mr. Dick Jellema, from Campbell River School District, Mr.

George Gardner, and from Vancouver Island North School District, Mr.

Norm Prince and Mr. Ian McLaughlin.,

MR. REE: On

behalf of my colleague the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) and myself, I'd like to introduce two educators in the gallery.

I ask the House to welcome Bill Friesen, the president of the North

Vancouver Teachers Association, and Mr. Ian De Groot, a mathematics

teacher at Sutherland Junior Secondary School.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

I had the pleasure of meeting with three fine educators from Kamloops

this morning. They are Ken Smith, the principal of South Sahali

Elementary School; Mr. Gordon Moffat, the principal of Dallas

Elementary School and president of the B.C. Principals and

Vice-Principals Association; and Mr. Rod Andrew, president of the

Kamloops District Teachers Association. I ask the House to welcome

them, please.

Also, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself from

the constituency of Delta, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Gordon

Gibb of the Delta Teachers Association.

MR. COCKE: From the Royal City, Mr. Speaker, Tom Westwater, the president of the New Westminster Teachers Association.

MR. SEGARTY:

It's a great pleasure for me to welcome this afternoon Mr. Bill Fife,

president of the Fernie District Teachers Association, and Mr. Rowan

Hartley, president of the Cranbrook Teachers Association. I'd like the

House to join with me in welcoming them this afternoon.

MR. LEA:

Along with welcoming Ed Thornitt from the Prince Rupert District

Teachers Association, I think the teachers would welcome it if the

House Leader for the government were to call.... There are only two

bills left on the order paper to deal with, as I understand it: one on

education, Bill 89, and the borrowing bill, Bill 86. I'm sure that the

government will call Bill 89 so the teachers can see their legislators

in action today.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the members extend a warm welcome to those teachers who may have been missed.

MR. D’ARCY:

Mr. Speaker, would the House join me in welcoming Bill Lunn from

Castlegar, District 9, and Floyd Smith from Trail, District 11. They're

both here on behalf of the children of their areas. Also in the gallery

today, returning after a long absence, is a former member of the fourth

estate, Mr. Les Storey. He tells me that he hasn't missed a thing.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I had the pleasure of having a frank discussion with four teachers in

my office this morning. I believe only one is in the gallery at this

time. I'd ask the House to welcome a lady from the sunshine valley, the

Grand

[ Page 9611 ]

Forks area, Maxine Ruzicka, who is the president of the Grand Forks Teachers Association.

MR. LEVI:

I was going to introduce the candidate for the western separatists from

Fraser Valley West, but I can't see him in the gallery. However, I

would like the House to welcome Mr. Gordon Wickerson of the teachers'

association in Coquitlam, on behalf of myself and my colleague from

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt).

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

From the great South Peace River area, the area that the Leader of the

Opposition would like to see wiped off the electoral map, I'd like to

have the House welcome Rick Guenther, the president of the Peace River

South Teachers Association, and Marc Lane from the Chetwynd Secondary

School. I hope the House will give these visitors from the great Peace

River area a very warm welcome indeed.

MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, I believe last, but by no means least, from that great

academic centre of British Columbia, Okanagan North, Mr. Ken Robinson,

who is vice president of our teachers' association. He represents those

fine teachers who are in the classroom and could not join us today.

It's quite a distance, and I know he'll enjoy the proceedings.

would also ask the House to welcome Mr. Stewart Ladyman, the inspector

for the Nakusp School District, who is here on other matters; I hope

everyone will give him a most warm welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

According to time-honoured tradition, and in the unlikely event that

there is anyone in the gallery who has not yet been welcomed, we would

like to welcome him or her.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members. yesterday at the conclusion of the sitting certain matters

occurred affecting the procedure and dignity of this House, upon which

the Chair feels obliged to comment lest uncertainty remain in the minds

of any hon. members. I have had the opportunity to examine the Blues

and the parliamentary authorities which bear on the proceedings in

question.

In relation to the procedural matters, it seems to

the Chair that the essence of the problem was that the House Leader

moved a motion to adjourn before the Minister of Finance had moved the

motion to refer Bill 86 to the Committee of the Whole for consideration

at the next sitting after the day upon which the said bill received

second reading. Hon. members have from time to time urged the Chair to

intervene immediately should the Chair perceive any irregularity in

proceedings. I refer to the Speaker's decision made as recently as

September 22, 1982 in this House, which states in part as follows:

"However, there is no question that the Speaker, when of the opinion

that any proceeding is contrary to the rules and practices of the

House, should draw the attention of the House to that fact."

the proceedings which arose yesterday, there is no doubt the Speaker

did not give the Minister of Finance the opportunity of moving the

normal motion prior to recognizing the House Leader. Perhaps the Chair

might be permitted to say in its defence that the government House

Leader moved the adjournment motion in a rather peremptory fashion; in

any event, it is undoubtedly the Chair's responsibility to intervene

when he perceives a motion being offered to the House, of any nature

and from any source, which might be considered an abuse. Standing order

44 expressly empowers the Speaker to refuse to put such a motion.

However, in the heat of the moment the Chair undoubtedly fell into

error by prematurely recognizing the hon. House Leader, and it was only

after hearing the points of order raised by the Minister of Finance, to

the effect that he had believed that leave to commit Bill 86 forthwith

had not been refused, that the Chair was fully cognizant of the problem.

was the Chair's opinion at this point that the Minister of Finance

should be permitted the opportunity to move the normal committal

motion, leave having been refused to commit the bill forthwith. To

suggest that any hon. member could properly interrupt pro forma

proceedings relating to the progress of a bill with a motion to adjourn

is not in accordance with the Chair's understanding of accepted

parliamentary practice, A further examination of the Blues leaves the

Chair with the impression that some hon. members were of the opinion

that, had the adjournment motion been voted upon and either passed or

defeated, the bill in question could not have proceeded further. This

is, of course, not in keeping with the authorities, and I refer all

hon. members to the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 353,

which clearly states that a motion for committal may be received at any

time after second reading.

I will now touch briefly on a

further matter, which, in the Chair's opinion, seriously affects the

dignity of this House. To differ with the Speaker's ruling is the

undoubted right of every member of every parliamentary body in the

Commonwealth, but how that disagreement is expressed is a matter which

has been the subject of comment over many hundreds of years of British

parliamentary history. In this jurisdiction any member who disagrees

with the ruling of the Chair may, of course, appeal such a decision to

the House under the existing rules. If a member of the House feels

aggrieved by a decision or a series of decisions which he perceives to

be inappropriate or unfair, he may move a substantive motion by giving

notice of such motion in the usual way. He may not under any

circumstances stand in this chamber and use the language that was used

at the close of proceedings yesterday.

It has been held time

and again that an accusation of partiality in the discharge of the

Speaker's duty is a breach of privilege or contempt of the House, and I

refer all hon. members to Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice,

eighteenth edition, page 148. Let me conclude by saying again that

every member has the undoubted right to disagree with the ruling of the

Chair, but this right does not carry with it a licence to express that

disagreement in terms that amount to contempt of the Legislature.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can the

minister confirm that a recent announcement of $5 million for the

Children's Hospital has yet to be provided to open up the much needed

beds for services to children'?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There has been no such announcement. It was press speculation.

[ Page 9612 ]

MR. COCKE:

Will the minister confirm now that the money has been robbed from the

system earlier this year, and is now being held back so he could make

the announcement using the children as part of an election campaign?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I can't confirm that.

MR. COCKE:

He has an out. Now that the election appears to be off, has the

minister decided to provide the funding for the Children's Hospital

that's so badly needed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The people

of the Children's Hospital and representatives of the ministry have

been in constant consultation since the hospital opened its doors,

along with an independent audit team who have conducted a survey at

that hospital. As recently as last week, representatives of the

hospital, myself and members of the ministry were again discussing the

situation at Children's Hospital. I believe they are continuing to

discuss the budgetary requirements of that facility. If there are to be

announcements made, they would be made at the appropriate time at the

conclusion of their discussions.

MR. COCKE: That's very interesting. The report the minister received, I believe, was dated September 6.

The

pressure on all hospitals continues to grow. We're informed that beds

are still closed, operations are being cancelled and waiting lists are

growing. Has the minister decided to restore a level of budgeting which

will provide an end to the chaos and pandemonium caused by the earlier

decisions of this government? We're in constant touch with about 16

major hospitals, and we're finding it to be exactly the same.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The chaos and pandemonium the member spoke of perhaps may be confined

to their own caucus, but we have not been advised of that in the

hospitals. We are in constant communication with the hospitals, along

with a task force from the B.C. Health Association. If the member would

like to send over the information on the 16 specific hospitals, I'd be

pleased to respond specifically.

MR. COCKE: I'll give

him a couple of examples. Prince George had to cancel 20 surgical cases

during September and five days of surgery. Prince George is now in a

position where their waiting list has grown to 1,080 people. Has the

minister decided, in view of that, that he will look more carefully at

the hospitals and restore funding as quickly as possible?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

We have said many times that we will be reviewing each hospital. We

have teams who are visiting most hospitals in the province to review

their precise situation. Members within the Ministry of Health are in

constant contact with the hospitals, and I am sure that they have been

in contact with the Prince George hospital. I have not heard from the

Prince George hospital in the immediate past as to any difficulties

they may have, but, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to have one of the

officials within the ministry make contact with the Prince George

hospital because I am not prepared to accept the word of that member

for New Westminster as to accuracy.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, I'll ask him also to look into Lions Gate Hospital; I noticed

the member for the area said that's one — Lions Gate, with a waiting

list of 1,700 for elective surgery. I'll also ask him to look at the

Royal Jubilee, which also cancelled surgery for two days during the

month of September. There are 118 acute-care beds closed at that

hospital. Mr. Speaker, we can go on — UBC hospital has also suffered.

Will the minister look into those hospitals?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, each hospital is to be reviewed by an

audit team, along with representatives from the B.C. Health Facilities

Association, who have been in contact with representatives from the

Ministry of Health. This has been going on for some time....

MR. NICOLSON: It's been going on for some time, and it's getting worse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The member for Nelson-Creston is apparently responding to something

that I suppose was whispered to him by his seatmate, and I don't quite

understand what he is saying.

Mr. Speaker, each hospital is

subject to review by a review team made up of various experts in the

field of hospital administration, medicine, nursing and others from the

ministry itself. The cooperation we are receiving from the B.C. Health

Facilities Association, from the administration of hospitals, and from

the trustees of the hospital boards has led us to believe that any

problems which will be identified will probably be resolved with

minimum difficulty.

B.C. HYDRO REVENUE

MR. D'ARCY:

To the hon. member for Oak Bay, in his Energy capacity. Yesterday under

cross-examination under oath, the Utilities Commission asked B.C. Hydro

to justify a rate increase. B.C. Hydro revealed that they in fact had

$150 million in revenue in this recession year that had not been known

about before. Mr. Speaker, this amounts to fully 11 percent of the

total projected revenue of B.C. Hydro for this year.

question to the minister is this: since this has come out in sworn

testimony before the commission, why is the minister, through his

energy arm, B.C. Hydro, concealing $150 million in order to justify an

unnecessary rate increase?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm

pleased that the member brought this suppressed information to the

attention of the House; it was already brought to everyone's attention

in the Province this morning. I can assure the member that it's a matter we'll be looking into very directly with a great deal of interest.

[ Page 9613 ]

MR. D'ARCY:

The point the minister doesn't understand is that the only reason this

information came out was a cross-examination, under oath, by the

Utilities Commission.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY SUBSIDY

MR. STUPICH:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I asked him a

question about transfers from consolidated revenue to BCR with respect

to the northeast coal development. I would like to ask a slightly

different question today. I wonder whether he has yet been able to

establish whether there have been any transfers from consolidated

revenue to the BCR in connection with northeast coal development in

addition to the $67 million that were previously made public as having

been paid before March 31. Incidentally, the $67 million is very close

to the latest cutback in education budgets.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

If I'm permitted the same latitude, the figure just mentioned by the

member in the conclusion of his question is a figure that is applied

against virtually every account the government carries in one way or

another. Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure accuracy, I will take the

member's question as notice.

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD SURCHARGES

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On April 1, 1982, the

government applied a 35 percent surcharge to the Workers Compensation

Board for hospital costs, even though the WCB already pays the full

hospital and medical costs for injured workers. Since the unfunded

liability of the WCB has now reached over half a billion dollars, has

the minister decided to eliminate the hospital surcharge?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MS. SANFORD:

Since Bill 81, the Rate Increase Restraint Act, limits the WCB

assessment increases to 6 percent, will the minister now advise the

House that the surcharge will also be limited to 6 percent?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

ICBC SURCHARGES

MS. SANFORD:

I have a supplementary. I would like to address this one to the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is responsible for

ICBC. Can the minister confirm that ICBC has also been levied a 35

percent surcharge on hospital costs, adding to that corporation's

operating costs?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker. I'll take that question as notice.

ORGANIZED CRIME

MR. LEVI:

Now that the Attorney-General has placed the province in a crime

prevention mode as a result of last week's action with respect to the

Solicitor-General, can he tell the House whether he has decided to

repudiate his predecessor's policy, a soft policy on organized crime...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Humbug!

MR. LEVI: Humbug, my foot! You're the one who said it.

...and

institute an inquiry into organized crime and all of the dirty money

that is available in this province, explained quite specifically in the

report the minister had done about the business of crime, about which

we have heard nothing? Would the minister inform the House what he

intends to do about this?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, I don't accept any of the premise upon which the question was

asked, but I can assure the member that so far as initiatives taken by

this ministry with regard to those who engage in the business of crime,

that is currently being assessed by the federal Minister of Justice and

all of the Attorneys across Canada for the purposes of considering the

extent to which the Criminal Code should be amended to deal

specifically with the recommendations contained in our report.

MR. LEVI:

Perhaps the minister would inform us if he is suggesting or indicating

that they have decided to do something about the so-called RICO type of

legislation in the United States, which enables the government to get

its hands on most of the illegal earnings of organized crime. Is that

specifically what he's talking about'?

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

FISH-PACKING INDUSTRY

MR. LORIMER:

I have a question to the Minister of Environment regarding the

permanent layoff of a further 100 B.C. Packers employees at Prince

Rupert. Has the minister met with B.C. Packers regarding the latest job

losses from the fish-processing industries in Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LORIMER:

Has the minister done anything about the job losses throughout the

province, and has he determined whether these layoffs are from

management decisions in B.C. Packers, resulting in the consolidation of

operations throughout British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Two questions: the first answer is yes; the second answer is no.

MR. LORIMER: Has the minister completed the study of the groundfish

industry which was promised during the spring session? Can he advise when the

study will be made public?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

No and no, are the answers to those two questions. You might recall

that there has been a change in the federal cabinet, and the new

federal Minister of Fisheries and I have not yet had a chance to meet.

MR. LORIMER:

Has the minister made any representations at all to the federal

government that foreign fleets fishing within the 200-mile limit should

be required to process at least part of their catch in British Columbia

processing plants? Has he done anything in regard to the processing of

those fish?

[ Page 9614 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS:

By provincial government policy, only those fish which cannot be

processed by onshore plants may be processed in factory ships. We have

an ongoing dialogue with federal Fisheries and Oceans on this matter.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING BUDGET

MR. HALL:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. In view of the fact

that the federal government has announced a $30 million cut in

advertising and publications expenditure as a restraint measure, can

the minister advise what cuts he has decided to make in the B.C.

government's $22 million advertising budget this year?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

There will be cuts made in the B.C. government advertising budget. I

don't have the specific numbers with me, but in view of the member's

curiosity, I'll be glad to get that information and bring it back to

the House for the member, and for all other members who might be

interested in getting this information.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Tourism for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have not yet had complete

instructions from the Chair as to the response from ministers to

questions taken as notice. For example, a very important question was

asked of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) as to the exact

amount of money that has gone to northeast coal out of general revenue.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, points of order must be valid points of order. While the

member's concern is certainly of importance to him, unfortunately it

does not fall within the purview of the Chair to rule on the promptness

or otherwise of responses to questions on the order paper, which I'm

sure the member understands clearly.

MR. BARRETT:

Could the Chair instruct the House, if it would be permissible, for

time, by leave, if ministers wish to answer some of the questions

they're running away from?

MR. SPEAKER: The member is aware of the rules of the House.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn to debate the serious

failure of the government to act in the public interest to prevent....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Under 35.

MR. SPEAKER: This is under standing order 35?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, under standing order 35.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. It helps if the Chair is aware of that.

MR. MACDONALD: ....to prevent the capture of Inland Natural Gas Co. Ltd., until recently a widely held B.C. company....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the practice in this House has been

very clearly laid down by you and other Speakers in the past: if a

member rises under standing order 35, he first establishes whether or

not it is a matter of urgent public importance and he does not read his

motion. That motion is put when the urgency has been established.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the point made by the minister is a valid one.

Nonetheless, the Chair must hear the argument, without hearing the

actual motion.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm

stating the matter by referring to the motion. I'm not moving the

motion now, and I don't need any pettifogging interruptions from this

minister, who is responsible for allowing Anderson and Ben Macdonald to

take control of that company. Now it's being taken over by

international oil, knowingly.

I rise and say that the matter

falls under the provisions of standing order 35. The statement is as

follows. In the past 48 hours, Trans Mountain Pipe Lines, a company

owned and controlled by major multinational oil companies, has taken

steps to exercise options, which if completed would place them in

control of Inland Natural Gas Co. Ltd. As a result of this action, the

major supplier of natural gas in the interior of British Columbia will,

because of a complete failure of government to secure the public

interest, fall into the hands of big oil. This is a major new foothold

for big oil in our province, and has potentially disastrous

consequences for consumers of gas in British Columbia.

The

interests of big oil, and more recently their allies in the Bronfman

dynasty, have achieved control of a major public utility in B.C.

without regulatory approval and without firing a shot. The Assembly

must hold a debate and resolve to take action, because the government

refuses to do its duty. The government is not simply asleep; it has

been lulled into inaction by its friends, Jim Anderson and Ben

Macdonald, who acted as front men with the strings held by the big oil

interests. Now that the front men are being bought out and big oil is

pulling on its strings, the government is unable to act. The government

sold its soul to Anderson and Macdonald, and big oil has now come to

collect.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has made his point.

The Chair has allowed the member considerable latitude in explaining

the basic premise of his 35. We'll consider the matter and bring

forward a ruling.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to add that the matter in my submission is urgent and important.

MR. SPEAKER:

That's an integral part of the 35. The Chair will undertake review of

the matter, and bring a decision to the House a little later.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Bill 89 will follow.

[ Page 9615 ]

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the government is taking deliberate

steps, both now and through something on the order paper which I'll

draw to Your Honour's attention, to subvert the hope of this House to

get to deal with the educational problems in this province. I draw to

Your Honour's attention that on today's order paper....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed, there does exist, under committee stage, Bill 86, intituled Financial Administration, etc. Yesterday's Votes and Proceedings does not show that that bill was ordered to appear on the order paper today for committee stage. Votes and Proceedings

shows clearly.... Let me read it to Your Honour. This was after the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) had sought leave to proceed to

committee forthwith. That leave was not granted. After the intrusion of

the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in that foolish move he

made yesterday, it says at the bottom of the page: "The Hon. H.A.

Curtis (Minister of Finance) moved that Bill No. 86 be referred to a

Committee of the whole House to be considered at the next sitting after

today." You will notice, Your Honour, if you look further into

yesterday's Votes and Proceedings with respect to another bill, namely Bill 89, which is the bill that we hope we can get to today, the appropriate entry in Votes and Proceedings is that it be ordered to be placed on orders of the day. Votes and Proceedings

shows that Bill 86 was not ordered to be placed on the order paper

today for committee stage. I suggest Your Honour should cancel it —

wipe it off the order paper — so that we can get to Bill 89 immediately.

MR. SPEAKER:

The point of order by the member for Skeena is well taken, and the fact

of the matter is that there will have to be a change in the journal

entry. Nonetheless, hon. members, the records at the table clearly

indicate that it was the will of the House that that bill be put over

to today, and on that basis, hon. members, the bill will proceed.

MR. HOWARD: Are you saying there was an error, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: There was apparently an omission in the printing, but not in the actual commitment of this body.

MR. HOWARD:

How could that be? Is it possible that the government House Leader has

tampered with the printing of the official record in order to prevent

us coming to this?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why be scurrilous!

MR. BARRETT: What's the explanation?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the day that we all exhibit perfection is, I would suggest, one that very few in this chamber will be here to see.

MR. BARRETT: We follow rules because we don't have perfection, but when you tamper with the rules then we've got problems. Shame!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Nobody's tampering.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2) 1982

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to be sure in my own mind that it is this

section which allows the minister or the government to roll over debts

that have been incurred for operating expenditures. The legislation

previously did not allow debts incurred for operating expenditures to

be rolled over. They had to be paid off. This amendment would mean that

money borrowed, to use the Premier's words, "to buy groceries" could be

paid off by reborrowing, and reborrowing again and again. Is my

understanding correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman,

that is correct, The amendment in

section 1, which in fact amends

section 42 of the Financial Administration Act, is required so that

maturing treasury bills, which were previously issued under

section 43

of the FAA, can be refinanced or, to use his words, rolled over.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, in this instance it's quite clear that it simply means

that the money may be borrowed for an indefinite period, rather than,

under the previous limitation that was in effect, for 365 days. If I

could sum up then, the changes in total, including this

section 2,

would mean that the government could borrow money for any purpose,

including operating expenditures or any other purpose. It could borrow

it for any length of time, in any amount, with no specific provision as

to payback and no need to inform the public until.... I've forgotten

the figure, but I think it's 60 days after March 31, or at the end of

the fiscal period. I just want to make sure that I understand the

effect of this section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The

amendment is required in order that a treasury bill operation can be

maintained for a period which is in excess of 365 days. I dealt with

that briefly in closing second reading of debate yesterday. However, I

think the member strays a little further than the legislation permits,

Mr. Chairman, in his assumption that this would not be reported. I made

it very clear, and it has been made clear repeatedly, that first of all

the moneys which would be dealt with by this amending act would be

those voted by the Legislature, The reporting period is much shorter

than 60 days after the end of the fiscal year — I think it's 15 days.

I'll just check my notes. Again, the Legislature will vote the money,

and then the treasury bill mechanism, if required, will come into play.

MR. STUPICH:

If I could just deal with that one point, the minister said: "The

Legislature will vote the money." The Legislature votes money in two

ways. It votes in advance: for example. sometime between budget day on

April 5 and the end of July we voted money for education. The

government has run short. In this legislation it has the authority to

borrow to meet those commitments. The subject of whether or not it

[ Page 9616 ]

will

meet those commitments is another bill. But in addition to that kind of

voting, the Legislature also votes after the fact when we do approve

expenditure overruns that have been made, so not always is the voting

ahead of time. The government may, in its wisdom, when the House is not

sitting, pass warrants to spend money, and then may have that approved

sometime afterwards.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member is

correct. It is a matter of magnitude, I suppose. Certainly the bulk of

the public money which is spent by the government of the day is voted

in advance, but that is not to deny that over the years special

warrants have been issued and then approved after the fact.

MR. STUPICH:

One more comment, Mr. Chairman. It has been practice that the bulk of

the money is voted ahead of time, but practices are changing in strange

ways these days. We've never before had a government — at least not in

the last 30 years have we had a government — in the province of British

Columbia come and ask for the authority to borrow money in the way this

administration is doing. So it's quite conceivable that there's nothing

in that legislation, which will come into effect very soon, that would

stop the government from spending even more money than was voted by the

Legislature when it deals with the estimates in the first place. As

someone said, it's really a wide-open credit card, an open cheque-book.

I'm not suggesting that this minister would use it unwisely, but what I

am saying is that it could be done and would not be improper in terms

of the legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think other

aspects of the Financial Administration Act would come into play, and I

appreciate the member's observation. Certainly it would not be my

intention, and I respect his comment in that regard.

But we

do have, Mr. Chairman, the final safeguard to which I referred

yesterday, and that is the auditor-general, who passes right past the

government, directly to this House and the people of British Columbia.

I think that a Minister of Finance in future would do that which the

member has described at his or her own peril. Admittedly, it would

occur for the first time, but the auditor-general would issue a

scathing denunciation of that practice, I'm sure.

MS. BROWN:

I was interested in that comment about the auditor-general, because as

the Minister of Finance knows, whether he has himself, certainly the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has never paid any

attention to any of the recommendations laid down by the

auditor-general. So if that's the only safeguard we have, then we have

no safeguard at all.

I want to have the record show that

this is a

section that allows the government to saddle not just our

generation but our children's generation with debt. That's all this

section does. Debt! It is something that this government said it would

never do. This

section now gives them the right to saddle not just our

generation but other generations with debt.

MR. HALL: I would also like to take some issue with the minister's comments.

We've

seen in the last six months an auditor-general sitting in Ottawa, armed

with exactly the same powers as our auditor-general, watching our debt

in Ottawa go $5 billion further into the hole.

Interjections.

MR. HALL:

Naturally there are comments about it; nevertheless, the debt, which we

will have to pay back, is there. In other words, the auditor-general

does not stop debt, has no power whatsoever to stop debt. He can only

comment on it after it has happened. So to place one's faith in the

strength of the office of the auditor-general, with respect to the

minister, is, I think, really misplacing the onus on control. This, as

we said in second reading, is open-ended, unlimited and timeless. Had

it been in effect, let us say, since 1980, we could have seen the

situation where this government, operating deficit financing as it has

done since March 31, 1980, had actually — if you look at the

bookkeeping figures — gone into debt about $3 billion. It has spent

$1.6 billion reserves and has incurred something like whatever the

current guesstimates are — close to $3 billion in three years. That's

what could have happened. We could have been facing a $3 billion ticket

had this legislation been operating and we hadn't had those first

reserves.

I say the minister should not try to divert our

attention to an office which essentially is an external audit after the

fact. What is required is disclosure when it happens, which I think is

partially in place. I think the act itself says 15 days after the

commencement of the session. I would like to have seen disclosure

sometime after the borrowings take place. I'm sure the minister will,

before this debate is over or before he's very much older, tell us that

he will place the full extent of our borrowings in the quarterly

report. After all, that's the full disclosure that he's been talking

about for years and years and years. I will be quite content if he will

stand up now and tell us that he's quite prepared to put the full

disclosure of all his borrowings in the quarterly report. I will be

quiet from now on about this bill today.

MR. BARBER:

This bill and this

section allows that government to borrow any amount

for any purpose for any period of time. It is the biggest credit card

that any debtor has ever applied for. The debt-ridden government of

Social Credit is today applying for the biggest credit card of them

all. Mr. Chairman, when you and I apply for a credit card, the people

we go to — Visa, Master Charge, American Express or whomever — put a

limit on it. You have a Visa card. I have a Visa card. We have limits

on that. There's some built-in guarantee; there's a ceiling, a maximum,

a level of accountability and restraint implicit in the contract

between the two parties, the lender and the borrower.

Social

Credit apparently is asking for an open-ended credit card — no limit —

in order to borrow any amount for any purpose forever. I ask the

minister, what is the limit on his credit card? How much does he expect

to borrow within the first 90 days upon application of this law?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is not possible to give a definitive answer to the member at this time.

MR. BARBER:

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the minister. I think it is

possible. I'm not asking for a nickel and dime precision; I am asking,

though, for a dollar precision. Other provinces do it. Other states in

the American union do it. It is possible in other jurisdictions. It is,

I think, already known to the minister what he proposes to borrow in

the first 90 days. I am so advised.

[ Page 9617 ]

When

the Legislature authorizes borrowing for Crown corporations, we do so

with a ceiling. Every year that ceiling is advanced and increased.

Every year the government comes in with a borrowing bill for B.C.

Hydro. We have an opportunity to debate and to consent. Most years they

come in with a borrowing bill for B.C. Rail. Once again we have an

opportunity to put a cap on it. Once again we have an opportunity to

determine in advance what the credit limit shall be. If the government

knows in advance how much B.C. Hydro needs to borrow for these and

those purposes, the same mechanism that grants that knowledge grants

the knowledge that I ask for and that we ask for today.

frankly cannot believe the response of the minister, who says he

doesn't know what he's going to need to borrow in the first 90 days of

application of this law.

We've accused the government of

being incompetent on many occasions. The record is obvious enough in

that regard, but in this particular regard I don't believe that he is

not competent, not informed or not aware of the amounts of money he

will be required to borrow. I think he does know. I think the reason he

won't say is that he's worried about the further political damage that

will be done to his government. This bill has harmed them enough to

begin with. The spectre of Social Credit creating permanent debt for

the people of British Columbia has damaged the coalition a great deal

to begin with. I think the minister wishes to avoid further damage by

avoiding giving a plain answer — one I believe he already has — to a

plain and simple question.

Let me put it again and ask him

to reconsider and give the reply I believe his officials have already

given him. How much do you expect to have to borrow under the

provisions of this

section and bill upon proclamation in the first 90

days of its effect? That's very simple. I don't expect you to be

nickel-and-dime precise. I want a general dollar figure.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The first member for Victoria is badly ill advised at this particular

point, if in fact he has, as he indicated, been advised contrary....

MS. BROWN: That means "well advised." "Badly ill advised" is a double negative.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No interjections, please. I don't interject. Mr. Chairman, order, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The point made by the member who has just taken his place overlooks the

fact that on the basis of quarterly reports this government is obliged

to report on its financial situation. In the case of the second quarter

which ended September 30, 1982, I tell the committee today that I

expect that report will be available on or about November 8. That is, I

think, earlier than has been the case in some previous years. It's

about on average. In developing his theme just a moment ago, the member

knew that quarterly reports were introduced by this government. He

knows that the quarterly report will more accurately reflect the

situation than I can today in terms of his request to me.

What

he is asking is for me to give today, in committee on

section 2 of this

bill, a reasonably accurate forecast of revenue and expenditure

projections for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982. On the

production of each quarterly report we do show revised forecasts. They

are revised upward or downward. Indeed, the last few have been downward

revisions, as we all know and as the people of the province know. We

show the movement from the original budget forecast for revenue and

expenditure.

Mr. Member, I cannot answer your question. It

is not that I choose not to. I heard you say that you don't wish to

know to the last nickel and dime. I cannot predict, with any accuracy

that would be useful to this committee or House, the production of

revenue up to the end of March 1982. I'm sure the member appreciates

that. It may not serve his purpose in debate, but I think he must

understand that. My officials understand that, I clearly understand

that and the government clearly understands that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order. The member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will come to order. No interjections, please.

Before

recognizing the hon. first member for Victoria I must observe that we

are in Committee of the Whole. We are on

section 2. Of course, our

standing orders advise us that in Committee of the Whole we must be

specific to the clause under debate.

Section 2 is quite specific and

clear. It strikes out a term of 365 days. I think we could canvass many

subjects during this debate in committee that would have been better

canvassed during second reading. I'll advise the hon. first member for

Victoria and the Minister of Finance that we must be specific.

MR. BARBER: I agree entirely. We both know that committee, rather than

second reading, is the means whereby we can ask questions and further questions

upon receiving the first answers. We can't do that in second reading. On

that basis, the questions I'm posing now could not possibly have been raised

then, because you would have ruled them out of order.

I'm

asking now whether or not the minister is aware that in other Canadian

provinces where legislation of this order exists there are, in fact,

ceilings, limits and stated lending and borrowing procedures by way of

limit that assist the Legislature in dealing with the requests of

government to spend more money than it has earned.

This

government has put this Legislature in a very difficult position. We

are being asked to grant the government a credit card with no limit at

today's interest rates. That is a very expensive proposition for the

people. It is a very difficult proposition for legislators. It is the

burden of permanent debt, without any ceiling, that concerns us the

most. I ask the minister whether or not he is aware of those ceiling

procedures in other provinces and whether or not we might be advised of

any relative ceiling that the minister proposes to endorse or announce

here. We are not prepared. as legislators on this side of the House, to

allow money to be borrowed for any purpose for any period of time in

any amount without knowing at least what the ceiling is.

The

minister says he doesn't know. Well, maybe he doesn't know literally

and technically, but, again, I was advised that figures have been

generated that give him a pretty darned good picture — sufficiently

good, it should be said, to justify bringing this bill in in the first

place.

The government and the minister obviously have

received advice that they have to borrow in order to meet operating

costs: that much is self-evident. Were that not the

[ Page 9618 ]

case,

this bill wouldn't be here today. It is upon the basis of those figures

and those predictions that we can only anticipate that the government

must have some idea of how much it is they propose to borrow. I name 90

days because that is, of course, a quarter, and because I'm well aware

that that's the system upon which the minister operates.

Again,

the government has put this Legislature and all of the people in a very

difficult position. It has asked us to allow any amount for any period

for any purpose. It's a very difficult position to put us in, if we are

to canvass in any competent way what it is the government proposes to

do. I remind the minister that when Hydro and B.C. Rail borrow, we come

in here and we debate a ceiling, and we advance or diminish it

accordingly — and that's a reasonable check. That's an appropriate

means of accounting to the people.

What we see here in this

section is an extension of the date to any period, be it a year and a

half or forever. What we know as well is that it's for any purpose and

any amount. The combination of these three factors together produces a

diabolically difficult position for the people of B.C. and for this

Legislature.

I ask the minister if he's aware of what is

done in other provinces with regard to ceilings, and whether or not he

is prepared to announce or commit himself to the announcement of any

ceiling in this instance for British Columbia.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The ceiling would be set by this Legislature. In my response to the

member, I do not want to indicate concurrence with all that he has

said. The Legislature will, estimate by estimate, page by page, decide

that which is to be granted to Her Majesty for the purpose of the

ensuing fiscal year. I therefore have some difficulty with the phrase,

"any amount for any purpose for any length of time" — I believe I

correctly quote the member. It is for those purposes which are debated

and approved by this Legislature in Committee of Supply and in budget

debate generally, and for the shortfall which occurs between revenue

and that expenditure limit which has been approved, line by line, by

this Legislature.

MR. BARBER: They do have ceilings

and provisions in other provinces. Let me offer one illustration, and

conclude with it. This government is perfectly capable, through

warrant, of spending money that we never appropriated or debated in the

first place. Let me illustrate: when this Premier decided to announce a

stadium in Vancouver, with what legislative authority did he do so?

Precisely this, Mr. Chairman — none. We had never debated any estimate

for a stadium in Vancouver. It had never been produced in any budget

book. He made an announcement, started to spend money, and did so

entirely in the absence of legislative spending authority.

The

minister says that it's not really true — they're not asking us to give

them any amount for any purpose. My reply is that, frankly, that's

rubbish. We have a perfectly good illustration — there are many others,

but that one will serve to make the point. The Premier committed this

province to a lot of money for a particular purpose without any

spending authority at all. He did it all retroactively. It is the

combination of that practice and of the well-known fact of Social

Credit overruns that leads us to be concerned about the maximum that we

will be called upon to guarantee by way of public debt.

It's

not just as simple as saying that you appropriate a budget and we make

up the difference between that appropriation and this revenue. There

are, in fact, two other elements that come into play: first of all, the

new programs for which the government has no current authority — the

Vancouver stadium is a good example — and, secondly, the whole area of

overruns, costs well and above those which we appropriated, but which

the government goes out and spends anyway. Today it goes out and spends

it without having the money in the bank to do so. It's in those two

areas that we have a particular concern for the policy statement that

the minister has made.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

86, Financial Administration Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the

following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call report on Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

RATE INCREASE RESTRAINT ACT

Bill 81 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 9619 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 3), 1982

Bill 88 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 89; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. BARRETT:

I wish to address a few remarks under this

section to the Minister of

Education. I wish to be strictly relevant to the section, in accordance

with the rules of this chamber. I want to refer to

section 2(l), the

wording and intent of which we are debating in committee stage.

Section

2 reads:

"In order to maintain the quality and diversity of educational

services in the province and to preserve jobs of employees, where there is a

conflict between this act and a provision of a contract, this act prevails.

"

(2) This act applies to all boards and employees.

"

(3) This act and regulations made under this act prevail

over the School Act and regulations made under that act."

There

are two things I wish to comment on briefly, Mr. Chairman. First, under

section 2(2), this government has decided to say, not only to teachers

and employees of school boards but in a warning to every other person

in this province, that regardless of any contracts you sign freely in a

free society, if they feel like it they will bring in legislation and

break those contracts with the use of the heavy hand of government.

Subsection

(3): I think it should be perfectly clear to every tax-paying citizen,

every law-abiding citizen in this province, that under this

section the

government has decided to centralize power and take unto itself the

authority in legislation to make up its mind, through order-in-council,

to change any contract that they deem they wish to interfere with. That

direction can only come from the Premier of the province and the

cabinet as a whole. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

deserves criticism in the community — fair enough — for his remarks;

but in terms of the intent of subsection (2), for the government to use

the heavy hand and interfere in contracts means that the Premier and

the cabinet themselves have decided to take this power within that

cabinet room for whatever purpose.

So let it be clearly

pointed out that when we debate this bill, the attack is not so much on

the Minister of Education, although he deserves attack and will receive

criticism. The fact is, under this

section this is the fine hand of the

Premier of British Columbia, who wrote this bill and put it in the

minister's hands to deliver as a page-boy. We are dealing with a

page-boy's bill. He was instructed by the Premier to bring this bill

in. That same page-boy who once attacked his cabinet colleagues as

gutless has taken complete instruction to interfere in contracts in a

free society.

I recall — my good friend from Vancouver East

will remember too — those infamous speeches made by the former Social

Credit opposition when they talked about the great freedoms they were

protecting in British Columbia. Those great freedom fighters ran around

this province talking about the sanctity of contracts. Let it be

clearly spelled out today that sheer hypocrisy motivated those

speeches. There has never been such an obvious, clear, overwhelming

grab in terms of power to give dictatorial orders to people who are in

public employment. or an indication of anywhere else if this government

so deems.

Subsection (3) deals with school boards. That will

be a matter of public debate throughout the province, Mr. Chairman, but

let it be said to those school trustees that a significant number of

people in this province understand the struggle they're having with

this government, and respect the integrity of school trustees who have

stood up to this government and said they're not about to be pushed

around in a free society after having been democratically elected to

sign contracts.

Mr. Chairman, since there is limited time to

discuss this in estimates, let my remarks suffice on the basis of the

teachers and their contracts with school boards, and in terms of my

opinion on the interference with school boards themselves. Now let me

address my remaining time to the real dangers of this bill, beyond

those two groups that must and will fight for themselves in the

community. I deal specifically here with the wording of subsection (2)

in this

section 2 and I repeat the sentence that concerns me: "In order

to maintain the quality and diversity of educational services in the

province and to preserve jobs of employees, where there is a conflict

between this act and a provision of a contract, this act prevails." Mr.

Chairman, the damage done by that minister and this government to the

good will in education alone is more than can be repaired even if he

restored full funding for the existing budget. That damage has been

compounded by the wording and intent of this bill that says: "We don't

trust teachers; we don't trust school boards; we don't care what they

think about education, we will impose our will." The will is an

extension, we thought, of a philosophy of this government. The

dangerous thing is that there is no education philosophy in this

government. There is no clear-cut defined statement of what education

means to this government.

What has brought this all about,

Mr. Chairman, has been a decision by the government to seek out a

scapegoat in the community for its massive blunderings in northeast

coal and other investments throughout the province. And who will the

scapegoats be?

MR. COCKE: Vander Zalm and the kids.

MR. BARRETT: No, don't blame it on that minister. That minister caved in weeks ago to the orders of the minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if you could perhaps

advise the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we are in fact not in

second reading, but in committee. If we're going to be discussing

northeast coal and all other things, which were discussed in second

reading yesterday, when the leader was obviously not present — again —

then I should have the latitude to respond in like manner.

Interjections.

[ Page 9620 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The minister has risen to point out standing order

61(2), which asks us to be relevant in clause-by-clause debate. The

point is well taken, although I have not heard anything yet which would

lead me to believe that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has strayed

from relevant debate, given the wording of the section.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your ruling. I would have been

upset had another cabinet minister interrupted in committee, but that

minister has never made an effort to even understand the mechanics of

this Legislature and how a debate functions on a section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I don't intend to be distracted by the

guilt-interruptions of that minister. My remarks are in reference to

subsection (1), which I clearly confined my remarks to, and I repeated

that subsection enough to indicate the thrust of my argument.

continue, I'm pointing out that this government, in this section,

reveals that it has no basic educational philosophy. It resents the

fact that money has to be spent. It would be so much better from their

point of view if all teachers would volunteer their whole lives freely,

and if school boards would volunteer everything they've got freely, to

give education, so that the cost could be removed by government.

There

is no unifying philosophy that holds that government together. They

came together as a group in this kind of legislation, revealing that

their primary purpose as government is to cling to power. This kind of

legislation proves exactly the absence of philosophy in terms of the

use of power in education. I have yet to hear that minister speak of

education on behalf of his government relative to this section, to

"quality" and "diversity, " with any sense of understanding of

philosophy. It's just a repetition of rhetoric, jingoism and jargon.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're never here.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I find that an interesting comment. The fact is that

we're debating two of the most important bills of this so-called

session this afternoon. One is putting us into debt and the other one

is destroying education, and the Premier isn't even here this afternoon

for the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, this

section is an assault on what all governments

up to this time have assumed to be a primary responsibility — providing education

in this province. During the 1930s there was a debate on a similar

section on

education in this province, led by people during that early time of the Depression

who wanted serious cutbacks in public education through legislation similar

to this. There was a Liberal administration at the time. There was a Mr. Weir

and there was a Mr. Pearson: two outstanding members of this Legislature, who

took a principled position with the government at that time that if there were

to be serious cutbacks in education, both of them would leave the cabinet. It

was Mr. Weir and Mr. Pearson in this very chamber who, as representatives of

the party the minister once aspired to be leader of, the Liberal Party, took

a position that was supported by the early socialists in this House, some of

whom have gone down in history as being the strongest supporters of public education

in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point I must advise the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we are straying from the specific principle of this section.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, it was those two words "quality" and "diversity" —

quality and diversity in the public education system — which are part

of this subsection, that were the essence of the debate in that

depression time. Those two Liberals stood in this chamber with the

support of the then official opposition, the CCF, and beat back their

own government's attempts to cut back in public school education. I

find it ironic that some 50 years later another Liberal, who wanted to

be leader of that party, is now the person leading the fight to cut

back in public education, contrary to the great traditions of those

early members of this House who supported both quality and diversity.

When

the minister says he will leave it to regulation to determine what

should be quality and what should be diversity, what comfort is that

for the parents of a handicapped child? To have that child go into a

kindergarten classroom of 24 other pupils and expect a young teacher to

cope with 25 five-year-olds, two of whom in that class are

handicapped.... The young teacher cannot even call upon a teaching

aide. The parents concerned cannot have the confidence that the public

tax dollar is providing an opportunity for diversity of education for

their child. When you translate the tragedy of that minister's actions

into the reality of personal stories out there, the minister himself

would become concerned, because he is a man with heart, and

occasionally shows it. But when the minister attacks and defends this

particular area in education, he always attacks teachers or school

boards or unnamed bureaucrats. What a great defence! The minister

stands up in defending and says unnamed bureaucrats are misleading the

school board. But when you strip it away and come down to the words of

this section, who is it that is really being attacked? The children of

this province are being attacked by the reckless statements and the

reckless policies of that minister and that government.

Where

are the guarantees in this section? What statement do we have from this

minister or the government that can be believable, considering its

performance, that the diversity and the quality of education that we've

come to expect in this province will be maintained? Would the

government have us believe, under this section, that they are to be

trusted, that behind closed doors in cabinet they will ensure the best

possible education for children? Would the government want us to leave

this chamber feeling comfortable that their word could be trusted, when

they have broken their word on policy and deed over the last seven

years in an unparalleled record of wreckage throughout social services

and education? Would you have us believe, at this late hour, that after

all of the public relations work done by the former Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), it was just a sham to impose this minister

to bring in the government's real policy? I believe that, Mr. Chairman.

I believe that this minister is an instrument of a deliberate cabinet

decision, as evidenced by this

section in this bill, to destroy

confidence in public education in British Columbia by casting

aspersions both on the teachers and on the school boards.

But who speaks for the children of this province? Who is it that will stand up on legislative guarantees and say that

[ Page 9621 ]

every

child has an unalienable right in this province — a quality, a

quantity, and a diversity of education that they've come to expect up

to this point? Of course it costs money. But up until today — up until

this bill — money has always been prioritized for education over the

giveaway of natural resources or foolish programs evidenced by any

government. Up until this moment, we have always had governments,

whether they were Liberal, Tory, coalition, Socred or NDP, that have

squarely been on record that education was a number one priority.

Today, in October 1982, we are now having a bill declaring in this

section that education becomes second-rate, because of a minister who

will make all the regulations and interfere in all the contracts.

The

teachers and the school trustees of this province have prided

themselves on the delivery of a professional service. The teachers of

this province have had an internal debate in their own organization as

to whether or not they are a trade union or a professional group.

They've decided they're a professional group. The trustees have moved

clearly and deliberately to cooperate with the professional teachers'

group to provide a stable level of qualitative, highly skilled

education opportunity for the pupils of this province. Within a matter

of six weeks, since that man became minister — revealing the true

intent of this government's policy in this

section — you have destroyed

that confidence.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to take a

few questions down. Do you truly believe in public school education? Do

you truly believe in decentralized, democratic decision-making by duly

elected public officials? Do you truly believe that any government

should have the right, as provided by this section, to interfere and

overturn democratically elected boards' decisions at the local level as

to the quality, quantity and "diversity" of education? I know you write

slowly. I hope you write good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section.

MR. BARRETT:

What justification does the minister have to support his intent under

this bill to directly interfere with decisions made by local school

boards? Does he have confidence in teachers' professional ability to

determine part of their own working practices without his interference?

Does he understand how difficult it is to have large classrooms with

handicapped children in them, and function without teacher's aides?

Does he understand the impact on morale of the moves he's made against

educators and education in British Columbia? Does he truly believe that

these cutbacks in funding will serve the purpose of education? Does he

believe that he has all of the abstract knowledge necessary to make the

arbitrary cuts he's making? Would the minister please give us a

detailed philosophical statement on his view of the role of public

education from the public purse? Would the minister stand up, go beyond

jargon and rhetoric, and tell this chamber and the people of British

Columbia what he thinks the role of public education is?

have just a few more comments, Mr. Chairman. I ask the minister to

consider explaining to this House and to the people of British

Columbia, under this section, the differences of opinion and statements

made for the record by other cabinet ministers about education and his

own performance. I refer specifically to the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who has clearly said

throughout this province that the greatest hope — if I may paraphrase

him — for our young people in the workforce is to have a maximum number

of opportunities of educational experience — using the words "quality

and diversity of education" — in the public school system. That

minister has warned everyone who's willing to listen to him that any

attempt to withhold the best and most wide-ranging educational

opportunity from any youngster in this province means that we are

denying that child the full possible potential for developing its

skills and abilities for meeting a very complex world out there in

terms of job opportunity and other areas. It will be interesting, as my

colleague says. to see how the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications votes on this. He'll vote with the government. He'll

vote with the flock. They say one thing in one area, but they do

something else in another area.

The last comment I wish to

make at this particular point is in terms of the intent of this

particular section. I am deeply concerned that we are going to go back

to some Dan Campbellisms in education in this province. I sat in this

chamber when there was a similar, although not as well organized,

assault on education. teachers and educators, when Dan Campbell was a

member of this chamber. He got up and said: "We've got to do away with

music, art and all that airy-fairy stuff." There were, at that time, a

number of cabinet ministers who dissociated themselves from the

minister. We felt a bit better. What is the first victim of cuts from

this government in terms of diversity and quality? The first victim of

cuts is the humanities, The first victims of cuts are those civilizing

experiences that our young children can have in an open, bright

educational opportunity to hear a poem for the first time, to become

importance of art, to understand music and those finer developments

within society that have made us a little bit better as a civilization

within the Commonwealth. One of the things that ties us together in the

British Commonwealth and one of the reasons why education is a priority

in the Commonwealth is a commitment to the humanities.

I have yet to hear the Minister of Education clearly state

his attitude towards the humanities. His concern for art confined

itself before he became minister to running around Surrey trying to

cover up nudes. Do you recall that? We had a demonstration of that

minister's understanding of art. When I talk about maintaining quality

and diversity, that minister's history was that he went around with

sack-cloth covering up nudes in Surrey as his approach.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps we could return to the bill, the 1982 bill.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I confess I'm straying. But I did have to recall that minister's limited view of the world....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order. please. I'll call all hon. members to order and remind the hon.

Leader of the Opposition that standing order 61(2) does commend to us

that we be specific to the clause under discussion.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your criticism is well founded. I was

straying. But the emotion of the moment of remembering that minister's

record was the cause of the straying. I will stick strictly to the bill.

[ Page 9622 ]

Does

the minister understand that the wholeness of education includes more

than just an appreciation of language skills and mathematical skills?

Does the minister understand that every single parent out there expects

that when his child goes to school the child will be given the

opportunity to be exposed to everything that is possibly enriching and

ennobling and building character? That includes an understanding of

music, of art, of literature and, above all, of philosophy, and an open

mind. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that when it comes to voting against

this bill, nothing could be stronger in terms of our opposition than

the understated intent here to destroy an accepted, broadly based

philosophy of a liberal education in British Columbia by this section.

There

has never been a difference of opinion. There has been a difference of

style, a difference of approach and a difference of funding around

education, but this is the first time we have had a clear-cut

difference of opinion where a government wishes to define quality and

diversity. We have never expected diversity to be defined; it has been

left to the school boards. Quality is to be left to the school boards.

Ultimately it is to be left to the parents to determine with the school

boards through their voting rights at the local level.

I say

to you, Mr. Chairman, that this minister has caved in to the Premier.

This minister who once bragged about his colleagues being gutless has

now been relegated to messenger-boy in this section. This government

has decided for political purposes to assault the educational system of

this province. I, for one, will at least go on record clearly as being

opposed to the first recorded time in the history of this chamber,

since this building opened in 1897, of a bill that demanded so much

sweeping power and was so negative to what we've always believed to be

our inherent right in this province: a decent, proper, open and

understanding public school system.

I'm ashamed of you, Mr. Minister. Not only are you a messenger-boy, but you're bringing a very bad message.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

There are many things that I obviously must provide answers for, since

the Leader of the Opposition covered, in the last 30 minutes or so,

possibly more than what has been said by the whole of the opposition

during all of the debate on this bill. It's the first time that we've

heard from the Leader of the Opposition on the bill, so I can

appreciate perhaps why he wants to cover so many subjects or so many

topics and relate them to

section 2.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. There are many unparliamentary words being expressed

right now from members opposite. They are unparliamentary, and the

Chair will have to intervene.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the point was made....

MR. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, the minister clearly caused disrespect for this

side of the House and us members who spoke on the statement that he

made. I feel that that is completely unparliamentary and that you

should have ruled that out of order. You were here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, if it helps the hon. member from the opposition, I was

not showing any disrespect for what had been said by the opposition.

Instead, I think I was complimenting the Leader of the Opposition for

having said more than the whole of the opposition.

The

statement was made that the minister has a limited view of the world.

I'll confess that my views are obviously a whole lot more conservative

with respect to values, that I differ considerably from the socialist

view where anything goes. I don't hold that view, and I really don't

apologize for that.

When we talk about education and what

has happened in British Columbia over the last number of years.... For

30 years, with the exception of three, Social Credit has provided all

of the programs and all of the necessary resources to bring about

whatever change in education those who spoke earlier referred to.

Let's

look very carefully at

section 2. As I said yesterday, when

unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition was not present, given the

choice, certainly I would have preferred staying away from legislation,

staying away from a restraint program, and staying away from asking so

many people in our society to help in some way to ensure that restraint

would help us to economic recovery; I would have preferred to carry on

as we were able to in the past.

Take a look at what's

happening in Alberta, where they are laying off teachers and cutting

educational programs. Take a look at what's happening in all the

provinces in Canada. Take a look at what's happening to our good

neighbours across the line in Washington state, where they're having to

cut school programs, to lay off teachers and to close whole schools.

Take a look at what's happening everywhere in North America, and then

see the alternative that we're providing in this legislation. As

spelled out in the application of

section 2, we are attempting not only

to preserve programs and a good educational system for British

Columbia; we're saying to the teachers: "We respect you. We know you're

doing a job. We want to see you continue to be employed in British

Columbia. Here's how we propose to keep you employed and give you the

security we would like you to have."

I've heard from many

people in various sectors. We know that those involved in the health

sector have made various concessions in respect of restraint.

Similarly, we know that those other public servants who are working for

the province have recognized the need for restraint. When you compare

the sorts of contracts that have been negotiated by the public sector —

the concessions that they have been prepared to make now — you can

appreciate that they too recognize that they must be a part of the

restraint program if our economy is to survive and recover. I

appreciate that, and I'm sure all British Columbians appreciate it.

would tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that I believe that by far

the majority of the good and wonderful teachers in British Columbia

also agree that they as well have a part to play in restraint and

economic recovery; and I believe they would willingly do so.

The

Leader of the Opposition said that somehow this was all contrived by

the Premier, that I as the minister was the messenger-boy. Well, let me

say this, Mr. Chairman: I am proud that our leader, the Premier, did

take a leadership role, that he did call for a meeting of the trustees

and the members of the BCTF executive, to address the problem of the

checkerboard effect that was a result of our having requested school

boards to take on this task in such a way that they could retain

[ Page 9623 ]

much autonomy as possible. The meeting was held. At that meeting it was

certainly the impression — of the majority, I believe, if not of all

who were there — that both the BCTF executive and the BCSTA agreed that

some legislative changes were required. Obviously they could not agree

on what all the legislative changes ought to be, but they agreed that

legislative changes were required. Following the meeting, we took the

initiative required to bring about legislation that affords the

protection which, I believe, the teachers, the children and the

taxpayers in British Columbia deserve.

For a moment, I'd

like to also comment on what the Leader of the Opposition said about

the contract. Certainly I feel badly that a great many feel very

strongly about a contract's having been broken. I can certainly

appreciate that those teachers who have to give up, in one way or

another, a part of their salary, feel — although I'm sure for the most

part supportive of the need for restraint — not that keen on making

that contribution directly. That was not a pun.

I can

appreciate those concerns, but I think the teachers would agree, and I

hope the members of the opposition would understand, that all those

contracts have another partner still: that is, the taxpayers of British

Columbia, the citizens of B.C. It's fine to talk about maintaining all

of the programs as they were, maintaining all of the teachers in their

various jobs, with the pay provided them through the various contracts

they were able to negotiate. I can understand that argument, but the

taxpayers cannot be called upon for more money still. There's just no

way that the unemployed logger, the guy at the mill working three or

four days instead of five, the person with an engineering or

architectural firm who sees his business down by a third or more, can

be asked to pay more still.

How much can we demand of

the taxpayers in British Columbia? We've reached the point where we

cannot go back and ask for more still. I know the Leader of the

Opposition argues that somehow we should drop northeast coal, that

somehow ALRT and B.C. Place are the sorts of things that can be drawn

into this debate, because he feels, as he mentioned, that this is

possibly where the funds could be obtained. But the people employed in

those projects, which will be paid for over 20 years, are very happy to

have jobs today. I would not deny them that opportunity, nor would the

majority of teachers in British Columbia. Shame on the opposition!

hope there are many more questions I might answer with respect to this

and other sections, but since the Leader of the Opposition asked me a

number of questions, I would also ask some questions of the Leader of

the Opposition. He's gone now, but possibly someone on the other side

could provide the answers.

I would ask this of anyone in the

opposition: do you believe that teachers would prefer layoffs as

opposed to a formula or a means which would ensure job protection like

no other sector in British Columbia's economy can possibly receive?

Members of the opposition, do you believe that teachers anywhere in

British Columbia would for a moment prefer a cut in programs and the

loss of the advances we've made in special education since 1975, to the

tune of 50 percent more now than it was then, to this program that we

have introduced for restraint, assuring them instead of the protection

of those programs in legislation? Does the opposition believe that the

teachers or taxpayers would not prefer us to take a leadership role

where obviously, unfortunately, and possibly for good reason, the

school boards could not follow through on what they had hoped to bring

about for answers initially? Again to the members of the opposition: do

you believe that the taxpayers have a bottomless well and that we can

continue always, as a government, to keep digging and asking for more?

should not lose sight of the fact that in the private sector — and

those of us who are constantly involved with government should

understand this very well — when the money isn't there and the industry

isn't able to sell its goods, there is a loss of jobs: people have to

work-share and do all sorts of things in order to try to keep the

business running. But in the public sector, unfortunately there are

those who still believe —the socialists are certainly among those —

that somehow, whenever there's a need for more money, you can keep

digging deeper and deeper into the taxpayer's pocket, even though the

money isn't there.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will

be brief. I'll limit my remarks to the wide-ranging comments of the

minister. I had expected that the minister would confine his remarks to

this

section as required by standing orders, and deal with the two

questions about quality and diversity. I understand the nervousness of

the new cabinet minister who was formerly a teacher. He has difficulty

in stating the education philosophy of his government. But I would

expect the same kind of silence that one would expect from some form of

embarrassment, rather than noise to cover up the lack of argument.

The

minister gets up and gives us what he thinks the taxpayers want in

terms of priority, He wants me to answer those questions. First of all,

we just finished voting against a bill that would allow this government

reckless debt spending, without any reference back to this chamber

whatsoever.

The minister refers to the private sector.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Stick to the section.

MR. BARRETT:

I'll stick to the

section debate that the minister raised in terms of

the question. If you want the answer to the question of what I think

the taxpayers prefer, then I suggest that you put your position to the

taxpayers, I'll put our position, and call an election and let the

taxpayers decide what they prefer — right now!

You're going

on the crossroads of a whole school year. I'll bet you don't even have

the courage to call an election right now, before that whole school

year is destroyed by this legislation. Let's go now. That timid,

weak-kneed, frightened group clinging to power wouldn't dare call an

election right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The

section is very broad, hon. members, but I think we've strayed a little too far on this point.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you for bringing me to order. Yes, Mr. Chairman. we have strayed,

but let's now deal with the points raised by the minister as a

smokescreen.

Do we think that the taxpayers have a

bottomless pit of money? No, we don't. The only place in the world

where that is believed is in Tokyo, where you're spending taxpayers'

money to subsidize coal, leaving British Columbia without any

accountability here in this province. Do I believe that the taxpayers

want their money spent on that basis? The answer is no. If you want to

show restraint, show restraint in the giveaway of the resources that

are the treasure which should be paying for education in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I

[ Page 9624 ]

welcome

the opportunity from the government to declare what my options are. I

believe that the Japanese can take care of themselves without welfare

from this government and that money should be spent here for the

education of our own citizens rather than subsidizing them.

I believe in restraint? Well, my dear friend, what they probably will

propose is that all those children who can't go to class can stand

around and have an official tour of the stadium. Yes, all the children

can be taken through the stadium with $125 million — another place for

the Vancouver Lions to lose — and can be shown: "This is the popcorn

stand that the government couldn't run, this is the peanut stand that

the government couldn't run, but please come here and see the stadium

because we believe the stadium is more important than your future." You

want options'? Then have the guts to stand up and demand cuts in that

giveaway of northeast coal, cuts in the stadium and put the money into

education if you really believe what you're saying. But no, he's making

out as if there's no money for anything; as if there is not even enough

money for the minister to take his salary home, or to get on that jet

and put his comfortable derriere in that comfortable seat; to fly all

over the province and make pronouncements from the jet windows, saying:

" I wish there was room for you peasants in this plane."

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I will advise the member that there's a lot of latitude here, but we

are now straying substantially from the principle of the

section before

us. Will the member please return to the section.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, there's no question we're straying. I'm returning to the

minister's definition. He says that the taxpayers don't have a

bottomless pit. I agree, and Pouilly-Fuissé wine is not part of the

bottomless pit. Travelling all over the world is not part of the

bottomless pit. Luxurious offices, rented space and furniture is not

part of it. Oh, this is the most comfortable cabinet that was ever

installed in office in the history of British Columbia. They ride high,

they eat well, and they say they haven't any money for poor school

kids: "What would the opposition want us to do? Would they actually

want us to cut down on our expenses? Oh, naughty, naughty! Give up our

little sandwich for those kids? After all, we have to sacrifice."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

What are the options? Hiring experts from Ontario to tell you how to

behave, and not even getting your money's worth — that's an option? Can

every one of that Ontario mafia that's down in the Premier's office,

and turn that money over to education. That's a good start. You've

hired more image-makers and Hollywood experts and they still haven't

helped you. Fourteen thousand dollars was spent to tell the Minister of

Industry (Hon. Mr. Phillips) not to go on television. I could have told

him that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point

the Chair will once again have to intervene. We are straying broadly

from the section. To the section, please.

MR. BARRETT: If the government truly believes that its priorities are

more important, as the minister says, and that the taxpayers don't have

a bottomless pit, then let him stand up publicly and say that subsidizing coal

to Japan has a higher priority for our taxpayers' money than education and

that subsidizing a downtown stadium has more priority than education. You've

not shown a single penny of restraint in that coal deal or in B.C. Place, but

all the cuts have taken place in education and in health. Forty million dollars

was taken out in the last week of March for general revenue — unexplained, unaccounted

for, and handed over to B.C. Rail to buy down loans for the massive debt in

northeast coal.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Once again, I'll ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to return to

section 2. There's an awful lot of scope in

section 2 but we are going

past that scope, and I'm sure the hon. member is aware of it.

MR. BARRETT:

I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Chairman. It is wisely given, but it's

about 15 minutes late. It was the minister who got up and started

giving the jingoism about the taxpayers' bottomless line. I'm only

responding to the minister, who was out of order in this section.

I'm

saying, in conclusion — and that being, Mr. Chairman, so as to satisfy

your ruling — that if the minister wants to give people options of

where money should be spent, then he should call an election. It's not

as if there isn't money. The argument is that the money is being spent

to subsidize Japanese interests and a stadium, while education suffers.

There

isn't a single person in this province who would argue against saying

that we can't spend money we don't have. The argument is not about

spending money we don't have; it is about where all the money has gone,

particularly the $553 million in special funds that has been squandered

by this government. This is a rich jurisdiction. Who is it that always

tells us that? It's the Socreds. "Oh, look at us, look at how we've

saved money here and money there." You've blown the whole kitty, you've

got the wrong priorities and you're attacking education as a means of

justifying your inadequate policies. You wouldn't call an election —

not one whit would you. You know why you won't call an election?

Because you'd lose, that's why.

If you really believed in your education policies....

MRS. JORDAN: You'd get wiped!

MR. BARRETT:

Oh, Mr. Chairman, do I hear some bleating from them? Do I hear the

voice of nervous concern? If you really believe in what you're

espousing in this bill, if you believe that people really support it,

then go call an election on it. They're struck by dumb silence.

I'll

tell you this: we were called back here to set up an election

atmosphere. They thought this bill would be great to whup teachers,

whup school boards, whup education, and get elected. They've brought in

the bill but they haven't brought in the writ. You know you're wrong.

You know your priorities are wrong, and you don't even have the courage

to defend them out there publicly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, sit down!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Go back to Vancouver East!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intelligent debate coming from the new

cabinet ministers. In another two weeks they'll have their black

jackets and the silk

[ Page 9625 ]

ties,

and the role will follow them. There's an aura that comes when they get

in the cabinet. Did you notice it when the minister answered? He said:

"My boss called a meeting." Remember that? He said: "We called them in

the room" — referring to this section. And we said: "Now that you're in

the room, this is what we want you to do." And they said: "Golly gee,

last week it was something else, and we were already doing that because

the minister wanted that done." There was a complete reversal of

policy. What you said couldn't be done before all of a sudden not only

could be done but was ordered to be done.

I want to tell you

my own experience in that regard, related to this section. For four

months the school teachers in Kelowna wanted to meet the Premier. He

wasn't available. Busy. Talking to the minister, holding his hand.

Twenty-four hours before I was to go up into Kelowna, the teachers

contacted me and said: "Would you meet with us?" I said: "Certainly."

Six hours after I said that I'd meet with them, the Premier said that

he'd meet with them, too. Then what happened, after all the rules the

minister had laid out, saying: "No, this can't be the solution." All of

a sudden, Kelowna was made an exception. Why was Kelowna made an

exception? I know why, but I don't want this word to get out of this

room. The Premier was worried that the teachers wouldn't vote for him

in Kelowna, so he ordered a deal for them, but not for anyone else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're really straying now, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly we're straying. I'm responding to the

minister's description of what went on in the Premier's office.

The

minister is absolutely harmless when he talks about his past, and when

he stands, looks in the mirror and thinks about his future leadership

options. The minister is absolutely harmless when he describes to this

chamber how he loves his boss. He's not believable, but harmless. But

the minister becomes harmful when he's abandoned his own course and has

been relegated to the role of taking this message from the government

to destroy education under the guise of restraint.

It's not

as if there wasn't any money there. It's not as if there weren't any

surplus funds. The surplus has gone and the present money is being

blown elsewhere. You ask the parents of children in this province where

they want their money spent. If that's going to be your argument and

rhetoric, and you say that there has to be a bottom line for the

taxpayers, then you let the taxpayers decide what the bottom line is.

Is it subsidizing coal to Japan to the tune of a billion and a half

dollars? Is it building a stadium in downtown Vancouver' Or is it

guaranteeing the next generation a fair chance in life through a decent

education? I'll tell you what the people will answer, and that's what

you're afraid of.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before

recognizing the next speaker, who will be the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development, I should like to point out to the committee

that this

section does allow a tremendous amount of scope, because of

the fact that it contains a

preamble; nevertheless, it's in the

section. An awful lot of scope has been allowed because it talks about

the quality and diversity of educational services. But I would remind

all hon. members that while we can speak about the quality and

diversity of educational services with, I'm sure, a great degree of

latitude, straying into subjects that are not within the Ministry of

Education and the purview of the minister whose name is on this bill

would be irrelevant and unparliamentary. Some latitude has been

allowed. I'm sure that all members will now return to the specific

clauses of the

section now before us.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your admonition. As this

section does deal

with financing, I'll try to relate my comments to the section. I'm

rather disappointed, though, that the Leader of the Opposition has seen

fit to leave the chamber, because every time I get up and try to

straighten him out on a few facts, he leaves the chamber. He stands in

this chamber, pontificates with great changes in his voice, great

shaking of his hands and great waving of his arms, and then when

somebody gets up to set him straight, he runs. He's done this time

after time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will call the hon. minister to order. We have had quite enough latitude during the debate on the section.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I wouldn't suppose, Mr. Chairman, that now that the Leader of the

Opposition has had all the latitude to wander all over the place, and

now that someone wants to get up and straighten out the Legislature on

some of the misinformation that he has cast on this Legislature, I'm

not going to be allowed to do so. I know the Chairman would not want to

do that.

What we're really talking about is a philosophy of

long-term funding of education in this particular section. It's

interesting to note that the federal government, which was funding a

lot of social services, has cut back over $700 million to the province

of British Columbia this year. I say that maybe it's time the province

of British Columbia called on Ottawa to give back some of the money

that we have sent to Ottawa. This should be a priority in the province

of British Columbia right now, because the money we have sent to Ottawa

is now being used to carry out a socialist philosophy which is

supported by the socialists opposite. To do what? To buy up service

stations and oil companies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Chairman, it's no different for me to talk about this than it was

for the Leader of the Opposition to talk just a moment ago about

northeast coal, which is a project which will provide taxes for ongoing

education in this province.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. As I've said earlier, there was quite a bit of latitude

allowed the Minister of Education and the Leader of the Opposition. I

feel that we should now return to the specific clause before us. It

does allow an awful lot of latitude because of its wording, and I'm

sure all members are aware of that. It speaks of the quality and

diversity of education. If we would follow that section, and look at

what the

section says, then we could probably debate the

section 1n

order.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

[ Page 9626 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if I'm not going to be allowed the

latitude to answer the Leader of the Opposition in this Legislature,

I'll find another forum in which to do so.

MR. LAUK:

The minister raised a number of points in debate on

section 2. All of

them are wrong, according to the facts which come from his own ministry

and from other sources. I want to deal with them as best I can right

now.

I really do resent that the minister is so badly

advised, or misinformed, in this chamber that he comes and gives

inadvertent misrepresentations about the facts concerning the effect of

this bill, the costs of this bill and the long-term effects of this

bill in the school districts of this province. I commend to you, Mr.

Chairman, and to the minister that he inform himself. It is not just a

political question anymore, now that the Premier has backed off an

election; it's a question of the education system. He is the Minister

of Education. He cannot possibly go around as a one-man band in this

province, changing policy on every hotline show....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

This is the answer that I get from the minister. I'm calling him to

question about the facts he gave in debate on

section 2, and he says:

"Tell us about the banks." The financial pages are full of information

about the Dome bailout and the banks; he can read that himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don't we just return to the section. I'm sure all the hon. members know the scope that's allowed.

MR. LAUK: He said, "Tell us about the banks, " Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's irrelevant. Please proceed on

section 2.

MR. LAUK:

The Minister of Education has been going around the province, or

wherever he's been the last few days when he hasn't been in the

House.... He said on

section 2 today, and he said in debate on this

bill, that we've had the highest contribution per pupil in Canada to

the public education system. That's not a true statement. I'll name

just a few provinces that we have comparisons for in Canada, and we

haven't done them all yet.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Tell the truth, Gary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LAUK: I thank the Minister of Forests for advising me to tell the truth. I certainly will. I'm about to do so, as I always do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's be careful, hon. members. The word is unparliamentary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: "Truth" is unparliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The imputation is unparliamentary, and that applies to all members,

including the Minister of Forests and the member now speaking.

MR. LAUK:

Those that we've looked at so far are all higher in their contribution

per pupil to the public education system: Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba and Ontario. Alberta is substantially higher. But I'll tell

you what the real story about the funding of public education is in the

province of British Columbia. It's the niggardly, mean-minded way in

which this administration has not contributed to the funding of public

education, but has put it squarely on the shoulders of the homeowner.

They have forced municipalities and school boards, through their own

finance formula, to raise homeowner taxation to an extent where it's

the highest residential taxation in Canada.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind the hon. member that he is now straying from the principle of

section 2.

MR. LAUK:

He said that there's no tax money. He said that vis-à-vis

section 2. He

said: "Taxpayers of B.C. are not to be asked to pay still more." Those

were approximately his words.

In British Columbia the total

contribution of the provincial government per pupil is a little over

$1,000. The rest, $2,200, is on the shoulders of the local taxpayer. In

Alberta the provincial contribution is $2,400; the local taxpayer in

Alberta pays only $1,500. Nowhere in any of the provinces I have

mentioned is the local taxpayer paying more than $1,600 per pupil. In

British Columbia, the local taxpayer is paying $2,200 per pupil. Under

section 2 and under this act, they will be paying almost $2,800 per

pupil in 1983, and higher still.

HON. MR. SMITH: Nonsense!

MR. LAUK: They say: "Nonsense." Will you resign your seat if that's not the case?

HON. MR. SMITH: Your figures are always wrong.

MR. LAUK: They're your figures. They're from the Ministry of Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, all members will be allowed to participate.

MR. LAUK:

I invite the hon. former Minister of Education, who travelled the

length and breadth of the province, promising all kinds of

pie-in-the-sky.... He said that it would take him two years to come out

with the 12 commandments or new stone tablets on education, and just

before he announced the changes, he resigned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are now straying quite substantially from

section 2.

MR. LEA: I'm not sure he resigned.

MS. BROWN: He was fired.

MR. LAUK: I think it was R and R, on his own request.

The

Minister of Education said: "Ask the teachers: would you rather have a

job under this bill or would you rather have layoffs?" I do confess

that I haven't asked the teachers. I assume that they'd rather have a

job; I don't have to ask them that. But I have asked the trustees. They

tell me, district by

[ Page 9627 ]

district

— except for a handful — that under this bill, by the end of June 1983,

they will either have to have layoffs or substantial program cuts. They

are saying that they're going to have layoffs anyway. To the Leader of

the Opposition and members of the opposition the minister said: "What

do you want to do? Are you going to tell the teachers that they're

going to have layoffs?" I'm going to ask the minister if he can answer

a serious question. I wonder if he could pay attention, Mr. Chairman.

After this bill passes into law, if there are any teacher layoffs in

any school district, will the minister resign? He'd have to resign his

seat because of the way he put it in the chamber. Will the minister

stand in his seat and give that undertaking? Will the minister answer

this question: after this bill passes into law, if there are any

cutbacks in special education programs, either created by the district

already or under the regulations, will he resign his seat? If, after

this bill passes into law, will the minister resign his seat if there's

no increase in the school tax portion of homeowner taxes in school

districts across the province?

We've had six weeks of the

doubletalk and doublespeak programs and policy changes by the Minister

of Education. The problem is that he can't be trusted.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. That will have to be withdrawn. I'm sorry, I find it

unparliamentary. The member is well aware that it imputes a

dishonourable motive to another member.

MR. LAUK: I'm not saying that he's dishonourable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair finds it dishonourable. Will the member please withdraw?

MR. LAUK: I withdraw the word.

I'll

ask the chamber these questions. Can we trust a person who says one

thing on a Monday, another thing on a Tuesday and a totally different

thing on a Thursday, all contradictory? Can we trust a government that

brings in a bill which creates a situation for school boards across the

province which is totally catch-22? They are not allowed to lay off

without the permission of the minister. They don't have enough money to

maintain their programs, and they can't raise the money for their

programs. What do they do? Do they resign? Does the minister place a

trustee in their place? The fact is that it's a catch-22 bill.

We're

dealing with

section 2, which has a

preamble in it, as the Chairman

pointed out. It's the only bill I've seen in ten years of being in the

Legislature that has a

preamble in one of its sections. Why, in

September 1982, when they're about to call an election and are trying

to create an issue, do you think there was a

preamble put in

section 2?

MR. LEA: Gee, I don't know.

MR. LAUK: I wonder why. Could you tell me, Mr. Chairman?

MR. LEA: He doesn't know.

MR. LAUK:

Gee whillickers, let's ask Mr. Science. Where's Mr. Science? Gee

whillickers, Mr. Science, why is there a

preamble in

section 2? Who's

kidding who, Mr. Chairman? We know what this bill is. It's a political

ploy. It's taking kids — a whole generation of students — and making

them into a political football. It's the new minister's idea of

increasing recreation in the schools: make the whole system into a

political football. It's called Vander Zalm's P.E. Program.

don't want to create a controversy. I don't want to suggest to teachers

throughout this province that they have nothing to fear from the new

minister. I don't want to suggest that they do, either. But I will

suggest that they and the people of this province look at the record: a

government that changes its policy on the run. A government that will

use a whole generation of kids for political purposes is a government

that cannot be trusted.

Section 2 says: "...protect the

diversity and quality of education in this province." What I think it

should say is: "...protect education from the minister and kids in the

education system from this government."

The minister says

that even after 74 school districts had filed plans to meet restraint

programs imposed by the government.... The Premier of this province

grandstands and pulls in the executives of the BCSTA and the Teachers

Federation and says: "Okay, you want legislation? I'll give you

legislation." It's not the legislation that either organization asked

for — not in any particular.... Nevertheless, he figured that if they

wanted legislation, he'd give them legislation, any legislation —

"Let's make it up as we go along." And this is what it is: it's

designed for political purposes. When the minister says they're worried

about a checkerboard effect.... They weren't worried about any

checkerboard effect, because they brought in a bill that's going to

create a checkerboard effect. There are school districts that have

money in the bank — few, but some. There are some that have the J fund

— it's called the non-shareable capital section. They've got money in

those sections. There are a lot of school districts that don't. So

these school districts that have money in the J fund are going to use

it and others are not. That's not a checkerboard? Who's the minister

kidding, Mr. Chairman? The trouble is, he's either badly advised or he

doesn't know what his ministry is all about, or he wouldn't be making

such statements. ''Where's the money going to come from?" says the

Minister of Education. The minister's not listening, Mr. Chairman, but

I know you are. You were here as Chairman of the committee when we were

in estimates for two sessions while the New Democratic Party moved

motions to cut back on ministerial travel, on advertising in

departments, on office space. We didn't....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

I think that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has had too

much porcupine pie today, Mr. Chairman. He's got a little bit of reflux.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please, and the member is reminded that we can't reflect on a previous vote.

MR. LAUK: We cannot reflux on a previous vote.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's called what?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'll see you in the hall.

MR. LAUK: I can't believe it.

[ Page 9628 ]

moved in two sessions a total of, I think, $192 million. We didn't say

cut whole programs out. We didn't say cut all the advertising out —

although, after seeing that new, glossy $100,000 pamphlet, I think we

should have. That came to $192 million. Those were just the overages

from 1981. All we're asking is to cut back to that amount. Have they

done so? No. They're now bludgeoning the education system for a smaller

amount. I can't believe it. And the minister has the temerity to stand

up in debate on

section 2 and ask: "Where's the money going to come

from?"

Mr. Chairman,

section 2 of this bill is a travesty. I

wonder if the minister can listen for a moment. I know he's

lolligagging with his colleagues. I wish he'd spend more time listening

and reflecting upon what he's doing. Under this act and under this

section, I understand that bureaucrats — that is, the civil servants in

the ministry — have been informing secretary-treasurers of school

boards around the province not to worry about the 1983 calculations. I

wonder if the minister can confirm that. This presupposes more

legislation. I'd like to know what that legislation is. When we're

talking about trust.... He's saying: "Just give us this little bitty

bill. It's for restraint, you know. Restraint is motherhood. We're

going to ask the teachers, the parents and the trustees to cooperate in

restraint; that's all we're asking. It's just little old me from

Surrey. You can trust me." But already his bureaucrat