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 )

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9507 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Letter to Premier from BCSTA. Mr. Lauk –– 9507

Natural gas rate increase. Mr. Macdonald –– 9507

Hiring of Human Resources executive directors. Ms. Brown –– 9507

Replacement for CNIB residence. Mr. Gabelmann –– 9508

Payment to Winfield Ranch. Mr. Howard –– 9508

Government fee increases. Mr. Stupich –– 9508

Steel contract for McInnes overpass. Mr. Leggatt –– 9508

Native Court Workers. Mr. Macdonald –– 9509

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1982 (Bill 88). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9509

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

Mr. Hall –– 9509

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9511

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9513

Mrs. Dailly –– 9514

Mr. Ritchie –– 9515

Mr. Nicolson –– 9518

Mr. Waterland –– 9519

Small Business Development Act (Bill 82). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

section 5 –– 9520

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lea

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Ree

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Bennett

section 7 –– 9526

Mr. Stupich

Division on third reading –– 9526

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

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 9526

Mr. Ree –– 9528

Appendix –– 9530

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have the

pleasure today to introduce to the House foreign students who represent

preparing for university entrance, and are here with their instructor,

Mr. Roberts. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

am very honoured today to make another introduction. The national

council for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind has been

meeting in Vancouver since Sunday. This is the second visit of the

national council to British Columbia. With us today is one of the

directors, Mr. Fredenburg of Toronto, and his good wife Mrs.

Fredenburg. They are accompanied by their cousin Mrs. Payzant of

Victoria. I would ask the House to give them a very warm and sincere

welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have two introductions

today. One gives me a great deal of pleasure, and that's to introduce

the gentleman who conducted prayers today, Rev. Gordon Faraday, and his

wife Ann, who are sitting in the gallery. I want a special welcome for

this gentleman. He's the man who conducted the wedding ceremony for my

wife Dorothy and me,

Secondly, in the gallery today are Mr.

John Pierce and Mr. Allan Jenner from the Morguard bank, which is one

of the newly incorporated banks in Canada. I would ask the House to bid

those two gentlemen welcome as well.

MR. HYNDMAN: In

your gallery today are two very special visitors from Vancouver. They

both trained as teachers at UBC; they've both taught in B.C.'s public

schools. They're here to watch the education debate and I'm convinced

that their vote in the next election will be determined by the quality

of the debate they see today. Would members join me in welcoming a

special friend, Jennifer Burke, and a very special person, my wife

Vicki.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Visiting with us in the

gallery today is Mr. Miles McMahon from London, England. Mr. MacMahon

is with British television. I hope the House will give him a warm

welcome.

Oral Questions

LETTER TO PREMIER FROM BCSTA

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the Minister of Education. Can the minister confirm

that he has this day received a letter, addressed to the Premier,

signed by Mr. Gary Begin of the BCSTA and dated today?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I did receive a copy of a letter addressed to

the Premier from Mr. Gary Begin of the BCSTA.

NATURAL GAS RATE INCREASE

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the former minister of Education, the Minister of

Energy. In view of the hearings before the Utilities Commission in

Kelowna, where a 1.6 percent increase has already been granted on an

interim basis against the consumers of natural gas in the interior, and

in view of the fact that Inland is obviously regarded by Peter and

Edgar Bronfman, and others, as a goblet to be drained, and that Trans

Mountain has a $50 million kitty that they're all after, with its tax

write-off possibilities, has the minister decided to intervene in that

hearing and say that no rate increases should be granted while this is

going on?

HON. MR. SMITH: The short answer is no. The

longer answer is that the member would like me to intervene not only in

the Utilities Commission hearings but also in all corporate affairs in

this province.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary

for the minister. The fact is that the government of B.C. did intervene

before the Utilities Commission during the takeover, but they did it

too late to be of any effect; it was a charade. So the intervention is

perfectly reasonable and proper. When it comes to protecting 100,000

residential, commercial and industrial users of natural gas against an

unwarranted rate increase — an application brought by a company that

nobody knows who owns at the present time — why will the minister not

intervene on behalf of the public?

HIRING OF HUMAN RESOURCES

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

MS. BROWN: My question is

directed to the Minister of Human Resources. At a time when there's a

freeze on the hiring of auxiliary staff in her department, when clients

in some regions are having to wait up to ten days for appointments and

appointments are being reduced to 20-minute maximum duration, and the

number of people going on welfare is increasing at the rate of 500 a

month, can the minister explain her decision to hire another executive

director at $65,000 a year in her ministry rather than three or four

front-line staff to give direct service to people in need?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The question presupposes a few things. First of all, the waiting

periods the member refers to have not been a matter of fact throughout

our ministry services. I'm very pleased with the fact that the Ministry

of Human Resources is coping with a very difficult time in our

province's economy and doing a very good, dedicated and professional

service to the people we serve.

On the question as to

whether or not we have hired an executive director, I will take that

question as notice. I imagine what the member is referring to is a

replacement for an executive director in the ministry offices at the

deputy minister level. I will certainly bring the answer back to this

House.

I would like to share with the House the fact that

our ministry has an exceptionally good executive staff and does not

have a series of overloaded executive people, but we do have a very

efficient executive staff. If there has been a vacancy in that staff

and it has had to be filled, it is simply to keep the complement up in

order to give the service to the people in need when they need it.

[ Page 9508 ]

MS. BROWN:

This is a new question, because the minister has indicated that she

doesn't know anything about the ads which are running under her

ministry's signature.

Apparently two executive directors are

being hired, not just one. I realize that one is a replacement. I

wonder whether the minister will tell me if her ministry has decided to

cut staff everywhere, except at the senior levels of bureaucracy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question without having to take it on notice. The answer is no.

REPLACEMENT FOR CNIB RESIDENCE

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing. Has the minister decided to assist in the funding of

construction of an alternative housing facility to replace the CNIB

residence at 35th and Main in Vancouver?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

PAYMENT TO WINFIELD RANCH

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. In 1981 a

payment of $700 was made to Winfield Ranch Ltd. That's a company in

which the Premier has disclosed a financial interest. Can the

Attorney-General advise whether he intends to undertake an inquiry as

to just what that payment was made for?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, without further particulars as to the agency by whom the

payment was made and the purpose, I couldn't answer the question.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, because that information is not available in any public

record, I asked the Attorney-General whether he would conduct an

inquiry into it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if

the matter is not a matter of public record, and hasn't been brought to

my attention, I don't see how any steps can be taken by me at all. If

the hon. member can give some hint of his source of information and its

reliability, then perhaps it could be considered.

GOVERNMENT FEE INCREASES

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On April 5,

1982 — almost six months ago — I asked the Minister of Finance to

confirm that the government had at that time already imposed tax

increases for 1982-83 of some $300 million to $500 million in the form

of increases in government fees and user rates. To date the minister,

despite repeated requests, has neglected or failed to answer. Has the

minister now been advised, and can he inform the House, what effect

these increases will have on the taxpayers and citizens of British

Columbia in 1982-83?

HON. MR. CURTIS: There is a question on the order paper to that effect.

I will not end my comment with that observation, but the member for Nanaimo

has placed a question on the order paper with respect to fees, licences and

permit charges which are levied. It is a matter of record in his office and

mine that we have exchanged correspondence through the interval following July

29 and the end of August. My correspondence indicated to him the approximate

number of fees which were altered and my willingness to provide more detailed

information as soon as it was available. That commitment, made in writing, is

now made in this House. I explained to the member that it was going to take

some considerable time, because these increases cover virtually all ministries,

and certainly cover a number of agencies. I stand by the commitment to provide

that information to the member as soon as it is made available to me through

the Ministry of Finance.

MR. STUPICH:

I do acknowledge receipt of that correspondence, and acknowledge it to

the minister, saying that I accept his word that that information will

be available, and I agree it takes time. The question now is about a

gross figure of the total amount involved. When I first raised the

point in 1982, my question was that in preparing his budget, the

minister must have had some idea — a ballpark figure, at least — what

the gross effect of the total increases would be. Perhaps he would

share that with the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will

attempt to return to the House with the "ballpark figure" — to use the

member's phrase, which I clearly understand. However, it should be

observed that at the time of the asking of the question, some fees had

been increased and others had not; fees were increased following that

approximate date to which the member has referred. I will take the

question as notice and try to return with a global figure at the

earliest moment. That is not to exempt myself from the earlier

commitment to provide more detailed information.

STEEL CONTRACT FOR McINNES OVERPASS

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. On September 28, I asked the minister responsible for the

ALRT why he failed to protect B.C. jobs by not insisting on B.C. steel.

now want to ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business about the

McInnes overpass. That's a $3.2 million development, but it's not using

any B.C. steel either. Would the minister advise why British Columbia

steel — that is made-in-B.C. steel, not imported steel — isn't being

used on a project that the taxpayers are putting up their money for?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'd be happy to take that question on notice and get the answer, but

I'm sure that as is usual in this House, the member's assumptions are

entirely wrong. I'll get back to the House with the answer.

MR. LEGGATT:

The major supplier for these government contracts is CanWest Steel, who

largely import their steel from Korea and the United States. Would the

minister explain why his government seems to be preferring that

particular company for their steel supply, rather than using a British

Columbia company which uses scrap and manufactures steel right here,

and which is dying on the vine because it's not getting government

contracts?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've already told the

member that I would be quite happy to get the answer to his question.

As I said, the member's assumptions and most of his questions in

[ Page

9509 ]

this House are based on erroneous information, so I won't put too much stock in them until I have a chance to get the answer.

MR. LEGGATT:

When the minister is looking into that question, would he see whether

my information is accurate that Mr. Cecil Cosulich is on the board of

directors of CanWest Steel?

My second question to him on

this is: when you're looking into this, would you supply the House with

a complete list of all government contracts which have been supplied to

CanWest for the supply of steel?

NATIVE COURT WORKERS

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a friendly question, if that's permissible to the

Attorney-General. The native court workers program, I think, has

suffered only a reduction of $52,000 from the budget figure. I would

ask the Attorney-General, in view of the importance of this service for

the native people particularly, whether he can confirm that there will

be no further cutbacks in that particular program.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I'm advised that there is no intention to reduce the limits of

expenditures over those announced in any of the programs for which the

ministry is responsible.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of

that great city of Vancouver, I ask leave to introduce the amendments

to the Vancouver Charter, motion 29 standing in my name on the order

paper.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the rules of the House be suspended and that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please; leave, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

I ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended and the House

proceed immediately to motion 33, an emergency debate on unemployment.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 3), 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 88. As in previous instances,

the bill is designed to remedy minor clerical errors in the

legislation, plus, in this case.... There are a number of statutes in

this province that still provide that where fines are imposed but not

paid, imprisonment results. This is not in accordance with the policy

of the government, and a number of statutes are being modified to

ensure that imprisonment does not result in those cases. I move second

reading.

Bill 88, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1982, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

(continued)

MR. LEVI: I defer, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL:

Every Thursday afternoon when we're gathered here, we go through this

agonizing period of getting through until 5 o'clock. For the benefit of

the galleries, that means that when we're on red alert for elections,

we have to twiddle our thumbs until 5 o'clock to find out whether the

government has plucked up its courage to call an election on a Thursday.

Interjections.

MR. HALL: In that case it might be a yellow alert, if they choke any more.

want to restore some calm and orderly behaviour to this important

debate on education. Notwithstanding that there have been a number of

contributions on this bill which have indicated the various positions

on both sides of the House, as the second member for Surrey, and

sharing a riding, as I do, with the Minister of Education, it seems to

me I should place my feelings on the record. In the eventuality of our

getting through this next few days and having to put our records, so to

speak, up for examination, those in that fine, burgeoning School

District 36 will know where both the minister and I stand on this bill

he introduced.

Let me say right off the bat that I can't

support my colleague from Surrey in this bill. It's disruptive.

[Applause.] The applause I'm getting is obviously from those members

opposite who share that view; they can't support that member either.

It's disruptive, for the fourth time, to the district that the member

and I share. The public school system in this province has been

disrupted not specifically or specially by this minister, but by this

government. This minister has been instructed to bring this bill in. I

don't know whether he's the author or not; only time will tell. But

disrupt the system he has — for the fourth time. In our district an

agreement had been reached to, in effect, meet the basic aims of the

trustees and the ministry officials, to produce a final expenditure

result in keeping with the overall guidelines that had first been

announced in February, then announced a couple of months later, and

amended for the third time just before this minister took office.

When

you disrupt something four times in that period of time, especially

when all these other things have been going on, especially when we see

the language in which this bill is couched, as the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned this morning — certainly not the

language of a legislative draftsman, but the language, I would suggest,

of a political science fiction writer — then I would suggest we are

looking at a political bill. We're looking at a bill that's been

written and drafted upon the instructions of a very political Premier,

nervous over a political enemy. Who that enemy is I'm not too certain.

It might well be the Minister of Education. It might be part of the

school system. It might be us on this side of the House. But there is

certainly no other way one

[ Page 9510 ]

can look at this bill than in those terms. That's on a first glimpse of the bill.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

However,

like all members of the Legislative Assembly, when we get an important

piece of legislation like this, I chose to get in touch with the

leadership of both the school board and the school teachers in School

District 36. What do they have to say? The trustee reaction for a

start. Well, it was interesting. "They're creating" — "they" is always

the ministry or the government — "an administrative nightmare." "Why

didn't they have the guts to legislate rollback?" "For the past months

they've been operating purely on crisis management and not

accomplishing the work required." This simply causes fresh chaos. It

removes the termination power from the school board.

MR. KEMPF: How do you want to see it done, Ernie?

MR. HALL:

I want to see it done, Mr. Member from the north, by consultation, as

it was indeed being done until this gross interference by Bill 89.

"They will be running everything from Victoria," complains School

District 36. "They" — the government — "caused the problem in the first

place, and now they want credit for producing these draconian

solutions," says School District 36. "It's interference with agreements

reached this past week," says School District 36. And then when they

get into the details.... I don't want to get into the

section-by-section analysis, but as they say, if they had been asked

about it all, they would have pointed out that one day off per month

would have been much better than that which is suggested in the bill —

five days off at the end of the school year. Total chaos in the busing

plans for School District 36 has been caused by this gross interference

on the part of the ministry.

The

interesting thing was that the day after the bill was introduced, in my

mail slot came press release number 119 from the Ministry of Education,

which was boasting about the agreements that had been reached across

the province in the way that I've just pointed out in an out-of-order

fashion across the floor to the member from Houston or Vanderhoof or

somewhere like that — the whole of that area. Wolfman Jack. Two-Story

Jack.

Why does my colleague from Surrey boast in this press

release? "Expenditure reduction plans have been reduced by, or are on

the way to, the Ministry of Education from 74 out of 75 school

districts, in compliance with restraint orders from the Hon. William

Vander Zalm." Why does he boast, in the first paragraph, on the day

after he introduces this piece of legislation?

In the third

paragraph he says: "Of those reporting to date, 52 have filed plans

complete enough to be analyzed, and it's satisfying for me to note that

in 25 of those districts the necessary savings have been made without

teacher-layoff proposals." Since that, Mr. Speaker, moving from School

District 36 to the province as whole, we received today the letter from

the chairman of the School Trustees Association.

"Mr. Premier:

"In July your government announced the imposition of the

second phase of restraint on 1982 public school budgets. The BCSTA appealed

for appropriate legislation before the Legislature adjourned on July 29, 1982.

We met with you on September 24 and discussed the following: morale, equity

and management flexibility. You acted quickly to bring in legislation. I thank

you for that. We must now consider if Bill 89 meets the objectives that we discussed.

" 1. Morale. School boards need time to study Bill 89

to discuss its terms with employee groups and determine its potential

impact on the critical stage of employee and student relations.

"2.

Equity. The negotiations which the bill envisions as being complete by

October 15 require boards to draft 1983 budgets. We cannot begin to

negotiate in good faith until we look at 1983 budgets, and we cannot

look at 1983 until you have answered our questions pertaining to equity.

"3.

Management flexibility. We commend you for responding to many of the

points we raised, but we need time to consider the impact of the

prescriptive legislation. We had hoped for permissive legislation.

"Mr.

Premier, I've been asked by my executive to canvass our membership for

their response to Bill 89 to ascertain how this legislation will meet

the objectives we have discussed. We ask that you postpone further

debate on the bill for a period of one week to ten days to allow for

necessary consultation."

That's what the trustees are saying

today: no response from the government whatsoever; bull her through,

boys; push her through. It's political. That's what it is, and you know

it, and I know it.

What did the teachers say, Mr. Speaker,

when they were contacted by the second member for Surrey? The same kind

of things, the same kind of concern about the system, the same kind of

concern about interference when they had met face to face with the

trustees and worked out an agreement with the very guidelines that this

very government had laid down.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do they have a problem?

MR. HALL:

Yes, they have a problem, because now you have destroyed that agreement

by imposing further cuts on them — more than you'd asked for in the

first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much would you give them?

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about sitting down to negotiate the best

quality education system in this province, given whatever figures you

want to spend on education. You don't do that by shouting out loud from

the rooftops, here in the central city — the capital city — on the

lower part of Vancouver Island, and telling school boards what to do.

Mr.

Speaker, we've contacted the leadership in Surrey. I've given you those

quotations and the further quotations from the BCSTA. What happens next?

MR. SEGARTY: More money!

MR. HALL:

Nobody's asked for more money, and this little chipmunk to my left

should really shut up and listen if he wants to know anything at all

about the educational system in this province.

Mr. Speaker, what is next month's interference going to consist of? There's been consistent interference in the school

[ Page

9511 ]

system in this province since February. Why do we

have to have this savage attack on contracts? A little while ago the

Premier said he was just a country boy. He wasn't used to any of these

United Kingdom labour-boss tricks in negotiations. Now he's shown the

United Kingdom labour-bosses a thing or two. He just wipes out

contracts. I've never heard of that happening in the United Kingdom,

Mr. Speaker. I thought a country boy shook hands and said: "That's a

deal, a deal for all time." The sanctity of contract means absolutely

nothing to the Premier of this province. I'm beginning more and more to

believe that this bill was written in the Premier's office and given to

his Minister of Education to swallow, because not one of the things

that are in this bill have I ever seen my colleague from Surrey

promote. In fact, every time anybody suggested anything in this bill to

the Minister of Education, he said no to them. It's on the record. He

said no to every one of these elements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit picking on him.

MR. HALL: I'm trying to defend him from the bully from Kelowna.

I said to you as recently as yesterday, when I received press release

119 from the ministry's director of information services, we got the

news that said:

"'I am impressed with some of the creative solutions

advanced by a number of the districts,' said Mr. Vander Zalm. 'I certainly

do appreciate the unselfish manner in which some trustees have reduced their

indemnity and some administrators have taken a voluntary rollback in salary.

I particularly commend those teachers who accepted the seriousness of the economic

situation and have worked out solutions with the board.'"

Then, when that was going on, he stabbed every single one of them in the back

by producing Bill 89 — under instructions, I would suppose.

Why,

then, do we have Bill 89? Why, then, do I say that I cannot support it?

Simply because it is politics. You know, and we know that this is

politics, pure and simple, and that this is the issue that the Premier

thinks he might be able to whip up into some sort of frenzy for the

election. It won't work, Mr. Speaker. We know, and you know. Before the

month is out, the province will find out the depth of this issue and

the depths to which politics will enter into legislative drafting in

this House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wanted to take my

place in this debate for a few moments. I always appreciate the

opportunity of following the second member for Surrey. He speaks so

well in this House. He deals so well with the issues as he sees them

that there is a danger that those who might be listening to his words

would think that he was right. I think it is appropriate that we take

the opportunity to show where he is wrong.

He talks about it

being Thursday afternoon and the time being wasted. This has been

typical of the debate from the opposition with respect to this

particular matter concerning the crisis that faces education in this

province. They don't want to debate it. Their principal critic who

spoke yesterday, I must say, struck a new high for him. He made

absolutely no sense at all yesterday.

The second member for

Surrey has read the bill. There's only one difficulty about reading the

bill. When it comes to dealing with legislation in this chamber, I

think the second member for Surrey should take a remedial reading

course. He can read the press releases that come to his office, and the

correspondence and communications that he gets from the outside, but in

anything as significant as a piece of legislation, he can't read the

clear words. I would think that one of the things that could be done in

this province is to take this bill into every school and allow the

students to be able to tell the second member for Surrey how clear

language is to be read.

We have had a number of months since

the Premier first announced the need for restraint in all areas in this

province. We've had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the

medical profession, with government employees and with other

significant elements in the community. The teachers and school trustees

have had the opportunity of examining what their role should be in

achieving the benefits of restraint and at the same time having the

least possible effect on the education system in this province. There

is no question that if we had unlimited funds available to us from the

taxpayers, education would receive all of the money that the opposition

has asked for and more. But the taxpayers of this province and their

children in the schools recognize that in these particular times that

is not possible.

When we left the teachers, through their

associations and the school trustees. to discuss the resolution of the

problem, it is true, as the second member for Surrey has said, that a

significant number of school districts, by negotiation between the

teachers and the school boards, were able to resolve the budgetary

problem facing them this year, up to December 31, 1982. They are to be

given credit for the responsible way in which they accomplished that

difficult task. But there were many school districts that had not

achieved such agreement. Some school districts acted on their own and

saw the only solution as being the laying off of teachers, apparently

without regard to the consequences it might have for the school system

and the students. There were other school districts which, by

arrangement between the teachers and the school boards, saw their way

to solving their budgetary problems by cutting back on the programs and

services to which the students are entitled.

Faced with that

variation throughout this province, it would be irresponsible on the

part of the government to sit back and allow this to continue. We are

now at the end of September, we're getting close to the end of the

year, and those school districts could only achieve budgetary restraint

in those draconian ways: by laying off teachers — "which, it is

suggested, some school trustees would like to do, but the government

does not — or cutting back on school programs, which some school

districts might want to do, but the government does not. Therefore in

this situation the government moved at the appropriate time and in the

simplest of ways, by saying to all of the school teachers' associations

and school trustees in this province who had not reached the kind of

agreement that was reached in Surrey: "Ladies and gentlemen, we'll give

you until October 15 to sit down and seriously bring about the kind of

result that others have done or, I'm sorry, we're going to have to

impose it upon you." That's a decision no government wants to make. But

what can you do in the face of threatened layoffs of teachers? Surrey,

for example, was threatening to lay off 90 teachers; but they didn't

need to when they finally got down and saw some sense.

All the while this was going on, the officials of the Ministry of Education were examining what was taking place

[ Page 9512 ]

the school districts in this province. Lo and behold, what do we find?

In the school districts of the province there are five, and in some

cases six, days in the school year for which the teachers are paid, but

no instruction is given to the students. It was found in many cases

that if as few as two of those days were given up, it would solve the

budgetary problem until the end of December 1982 — as few as two days.

In the last round of negotiations last December and into January the

teachers received pay increases of 17 percent. No one denies that they

were entitled to that. But in a period of restraint, is it too much to

ask that they consider giving up two days for which they are paid,

during which they do not teach, to solve the problem of potential

layoffs of their colleagues or cutbacks in educational programs, which

the teachers themselves have publicly said they oppose?

School

districts other than those that have not agreed have seen this solution

— it's been pointed out to them — and they have solved their problem by

adopting it. At this particular time the government has said: "With

respect to those who have not seen the opportunity, we point it out to

you clearly. We will give you until October 15 to make up your minds

what you're going to do."

I am confident that the school

teachers in this province who responsibly discharge their obligations

to the students in this province and the school trustees who have the

responsibility for managing the educational system at the local level

will recognize the opportunity they have been given, and will, between

now and October 15, achieve the kind of resolution that is possible. If

in so achieving it, they give up one or two or three of those paid

non-teaching days between now and the end of December, then they will

have made a significant contribution to the restraint programs in this

province which are so desperately needed, and at the same time will

have ensured the continuation of educational programs in their school

districts. That's the responsible way to deal with the problem that

confronts us. The doctors have done it in their way. The British

Columbia Government Employees Union members are doing it in their way,

but they didn't get a 17 percent increase last December, Mr. Member.

You must remember that.

MR. SEGARTY: They didn't get 47 percent over the past three years.

MR. LAUK: Well, so what? You still gave them an increase — in a depression.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, you're keeping a disorderly House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask hon. members to pay attention to the debate and not to interject.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a couple more remarks.

The hon. second member for Surrey indicates that in this legislation we are

interfering with contracts. We don't want to. We're asking the people

who are first able to resolve this problem to sit down and rethink the arrangements

that exist in this province themselves. We have indicated that if only a few

of them find that they can't take that opportunity, then in order that there

would be equality in the way in which all school districts, teachers' associations

and trustees resolve their problem, and so that there aren't a few who are

left out, for whatever reason.... Therefore, yes, the government has interfered

with the contracts with regard to teaching days and so on.

MR. KING: It's easy to interfere when you're a Liberal, isn't it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke continues to

chatter across the floor and make irrelevant, immaterial comments with

regard to me and my remarks. It's the kind of debate we've come to

expect from him. I think if he would go back to his constituency once

in a while, and leave his home in Victoria, and talk to the people, he

would find, as we are finding, that throughout the length and breadth

of this province the people want two things: they want restraint in

expenditures, they don't want people laid off, and they want to have

the educational system preserved.

MR. LAUK: That's three things.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

They want four. They want to get rid of these people over here, but

they insist upon hanging onto those safe seats that they've had for so

many years.

That's what the people of this province want,

and they are receiving this in this legislation. The legislation makes

it clear that those special programs that are so necessary and valuable

to those persons in our schools who suffer from various handicaps and

require special programs are to be continued. That, too, is laid down.

MR. LAUK: No it isn't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is clearly spelled out.

MR. LAUK: No.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the education critic,

is here spouting off absolute nonsense. I don't know why he doesn't go

and do another bank job. What he did to the banks was bad, but what

he's trying to do to the schools is worse than the Brinks holdup.

MR. LAUK: Are you denying that you drove the car?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, if I wasn't interrupted so often I'd be able to conclude

more quickly. I must say that you're keeping very good control of the

House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, if you would

address the Chair instead of the other side of the House, I'll try to

defend you from the other side of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You may have found yourself a new future, Mr. Member. You control this House so well.

know that we'll get into this debate when we get into committee stage

and go through it

section by section, but there's another

section which

I suggest that the members are concerned about: the interference with

contracts, I just wish they would take the time to look at the School

Act.

MR. LAUK: I did.

[ Page

9513 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

If you've read the School Act you should realize why it was necessary

to do what we've done in respect to term contracts. It doesn't offend

against contractual relationships. Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is that

he needs to take some better legal advice that he can give himself.

The

bill also looks into next year. It is appreciated, and the school

trustees have recognized that if they have budgetary problems in 1982,

they will have even greater budgetary problems in 1983, a new budget

year. When they approach that new budget year, the government, by this

legislation, has indicated that there will be some additional relief

available to them: one in the matter of using non-shareable capital

expenditures, and the other with regard to the number of days they will

be teaching, the number of days the schools will be open. We preserve

the number of instructional hours in the school year, leaving the

opportunity to those school boards and their teachers to make the

determination as to how those instructional hours will be used, but we

ensure that there will be a saving in the number of days the school is

open.

The member for Surrey says this rule is going to

create havoc with the busing system. It will do just the opposite. It

will enable the boards of school trustees and their teachers to work

out all those problems. They have the responsibility. They know what

can be done in their particular school district better than anyone in

Victoria might know, and we leave it to them to make those orderly

adjustments of their school system which best suit their particular

circumstances.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) is to be congratulated on his restraint in bringing forward this

legislation, and for showing the clear way by which the principal

participants, who are the school trustees and the teachers, can

themselves resolve the problem concerning education in their district.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

The Attorney-General, in explaining the bill, was far more eloquent

than I could be, but I do feel that I'd like to make a few comments in

this debate. Of course, the most obvious point is that, for whatever

purpose, members of the opposition have tried to get out to the public

a misreading of what this bill actually says. The bill deals with the

problem where the problem has not been resolved. It is very clear, to

anyone who reads the bill, that it is not intended to be a heavy hand

from Victoria, undoing what has already been achieved. The bill makes

very clear that where settlements have been reached without teacher

layoffs, without the cutting of special programs, those agreements

stand. Yet we've had a great deal of public reaction, and reaction from

some representatives of the teachers and representatives of the school

board; a great deal of outcry against things that do not actually exist.

We heard, for example, the second member from Surrey (Mr. Hall) talking about

the horrendous busing problems it would create. Different parts of this province

have different busing problems, transportation problems, weather problems,

that sort of thing. and that has been deliberately left flexible. There is very

little difficulty in picking up a few minutes a day, in adding a few minutes

a day to the timetable.

There are many ways it can be done. I am fully convinced that the people in

the schools, in the districts, will adjust that best to their own particular

situation. To use one example — and not as a guideline because in some cases

it may not suit the purpose — in any secondary school having five scheduled

periods in a day, adding 13 minutes to that day means less than three minutes

on each period, which would hardly be noticed. It can be done by picking up

time from the noon hours, at the beginning of the day, at the end of the day

— in various ways.

say that this is going to create a difficulty is something that is hard

to believe. The only way, in effect, it can be used is for whatever

other purpose. Of course, it has been the opposition's purpose to try

to make this into a political bill. They have accused this of being a

political bill. This is a very practical piece of legislation. The only

political thing that comes into it is that they have seen some

possibilities in here — their usual concern for education only as long

as it provides political ammunition for them. That is certainly true,

This government has done more, and is very interested; it has increased

education grants and done a great many things to preserve education.

Even this bill, the actions taken in the restraint measures, are to

preserve education. They are certainly there to preserve education,

because some minor remedial action now to cut expenditures when the

revenues aren't there is certainly a great deal better than major

surgery later on.

This is what this government has done,

over and over again. Many school districts recognize that it is

necessary to accept this; and many teachers. Obviously they negotiated

those agreements. Where, for whatever purposes — I think in many cases

these are political — then we try.... The opposition has tried to

spread a great deal of unnecessary fear and paranoia throughout the

public, saving: "Your children are going to suffer." The children are

not going to suffer from this. The teachers are not going to suffer.

effect, this legislation and action does not take away local autonomy

or destroy the collective agreement. The collective agreement remains

intact. The teachers' salary base for next year remains what they

negotiated. That means their pensions, all of those things that are in

the agreement, basically remain there. This government has said: "Where

you haven't been able to sort it out, where you can't reach an

agreement without hurting the students by taking away programs, and

without hurting your fellow teachers by having them laid off, then, and

only then will we step in. Where you have reached agreement, fine.

Where you can reach agreement by October 15, fine." I suspect there

will be very few districts left where this act will have to be imposed,

yet the opposition has seen fit to spread the message that this is an

imposition front Victoria trying to run the whole province, We've left

it to them and many of them have responded responsibly. The intent of

this bill is very clear.

The other thing that perhaps enters

into the confusion is that the school districts' financial year runs

from January to December, so whatever cuts are necessary in

expenditures in this year's budget must be applied by December 31. The

school year runs from September to June, and teachers on staff don't

want the insecurity of wondering what's going to happen to them in

January. For that reason, this legislation had to move in. To save that

kind of insecurity and confusion, this legislation had to move into the

area of dealing with the problem until next June as well. That was

dealt fairly to everybody in this province by cutting out five actual

working days. and for those days when teachers did not teach, when the

year was shortened, their pay would be shortened.

In order

to preserve the instructional hours for students, they were asked to

spread that over the rest of the period. Anyone who has worked in a

school or had anything to do

[ Page 9514 ]

with

timetabling at the elementary level — I've had experience at both the

elementary and secondary levels — realizes that picking up those 12 or

13 minutes a day on the average — some schools may chose to pick it up

on one day — can be done rationally, without creating a great deal of

problems for teachers and without actually creating any extra work for

them. It will mean a little more time to restructure the bell system

and the timetable, but very little extra work needs to go into that.

I'm sure that most teachers and districts will have no problem with

that, because it has not been imposed; it has been left with them to do

it. We just ask that students not lose instructional time because of

these measures that need to be taken. No special programs should be cut.

We've

had to deal with the situation to December 31. We said that where

individual districts and individual teachers' associations have in

effect dealt with it and solved that problem, fine; that stays. We've

also had to deal with the situation until next June, because teachers

are hired from September to June and shouldn't be wondering whether

they're going to have their jobs in January just because the financial

year ends and begins at the end of the calendar year. That insecurity

has been removed, so those pupils can count on the programs. The

programs stay, teachers' jobs are preserved and their salary base

remains in place. What is making all of this possible is that

contribution — voluntarily made in some districts, and imposed as a

last resort — of the days when they do not teach children. As I pointed

out, they give up their pay for the non-instructional days. As the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said, it doesn't even have to be

all of those; it only applies where the other voluntary measures

haven't been taken — two or three days of that time. I think it

indicates the responsiveness of teachers in this province that many of

them came up with this and solved the problem.

One thing

that the opposition often forgets in their debate.... They talk about

government money as though it came from a magic-mushroom tree or

something of that nature. Government money is, in effect, the

taxpayers' money. This legislation — the policies and the philosophies

encompassed in this legislation — is saying that the educational system

does not need to be hurt; but we do have to cut expenditures if we want

the good things that have been established to survive.

We've

had a genuine concern for education, a genuine concern for the

students, and that's what education is really all about — trying to

preserve the system for the students of this province. It behooves some

people, for whatever reasons, to try to make out that this government

is the enemy of education. It is not. It certainly is trying to

preserve the good educational system. I think that most parents — they

are taxpayers — and most teachers in this province are interested in

the same thing, which is to preserve that educational system.

Mr.

Speaker, many of the accusations.... I would urge those people who have

been reacting to the erroneous

interpretation that has been passed out

by many people — for political purposes — that they not judge this

legislation, the policy or what's happening on the basis of that.

They're reacting to misreadings of the bill. When they are criticizing

it, they are reacting to misinterpretations, to deliberately fiery

rhetoric. In a sense, that is the only issue the opposition has.

They've got to try to make out that there's something wrong here when

in fact it is not wrong, it is right. They've got to try to make out

that it's an imposition on everybody throughout the province when in

fact it's an imposition only where the districts cannot settle. Would

you have us, as the provincial government with the final

responsibility, leave it, even if only one or two districts cannot

settle in some responsible form? Would you have us leave that and go

on, or would you rather have it resolved? I think it is our

responsibility. Where people cannot settle this issue, somebody has to

step in and resolve it. Many of the accusations are erroneous. Many of

the fears that are being sent out as messages are completely

unnecessary. I think that when the school districts and the teachers of

this province can read for themselves what this says, they are going to

feel that they have been badly misled by those who claim to be their

friends, those who claim that the Social Credit people are their

enemies. You can only misuse friends so long and expect them to remain

your friends. I think that in this case the opposition has been badly

misusing the responsible teachers of this province for their purpose. I

think they are wrong in this case.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm

going to be very brief. My remarks are going to be very short, because

I don't really believe that this bill presented by the Social Credit

government deserves anything more than a few basic remarks.

This

bill is the culmination of a government that has an anti-education

bias. This bill is only presented in this House because of the way in

which the Social Credit government has handled education from the time

they assumed office. Since 1975 when they took over again we have seen

a gradual — and now it is a rush — erosion of all educational standards

in this province. That has been done basically from a financial point

of view.

Since 1975 this government has gradually decreased

their input into educational costs to the various school districts of

this province. They've reached a point now where, despite their bill,

which claims to put 75 percent of school costs into education, we now

find that they have confiscated all the commercial and industry taxes

and have left the school boards having to raise everything from

residential. Why I'm mentioning this, very briefly, is that this bill

is only here because this government has given education an

exceptionally low priority throughout the last five years.

They

have strangled the school boards of the province in their attempt to

provide good education in this province. Because they have mismanaged

the school system, because they have centralized and because they've

basically starved the local taxpayer, now they find themselves in a

situation where the school boards have not only been asked to accept

further cuts but have been ordered by a centralized ministry to move in

and do things which boards and teachers have never been faced with

before.

That's why it is not necessary for the official

opposition to go into any detail with this bill. We reject a government

that has an anti-education bias and that has basically shown that

megaprojects always come first. To listen to the Attorney-General

pontificating about this school bill, as if he has not sat as a cabinet

minister since 1975 and been responsible for the erosion of education

in this province.... We should never have to be handed a bill like this

even to deal with.

We all simply are ready to go to the

people and show the people of this province that this is a government

that has a basic anti-education bias. They are not concerned about the

children of this province. Any government that was would never have

allowed the educational system to deteriorate to this position. I know

that the minister who has brought this bill forward wants to conclude

this debate. I know we're

[ Page

9515 ]

going into committee where further questions can be

answered. I want to conclude my remarks on this bill by saying that we

reject all aspects of this bill because the students of this province

are going to suffer even more because of this bill.

MR. RITCHIE:

The bill before us is actually a bill to preserve jobs. That's exactly

what it's going to do. Speaking on behalf of the teachers of School

District 34, many of whom I know personally.... They are very good

friends of mine and people who I have a tremendous regard for because

of their dedication, the many hours that they put in on their

profession, the way they're prepared to go way further than duty calls

in order to do what they feel their profession demands in order to make

sure that those students get the quality of education that they deserve

and require, because they, like us, recognize that the most valuable

resource in this province is our young people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Those

teachers I speak for were asking for leadership of this nature in order

to bring some sort of quiet settlement to some little misunderstandings

here and there in respect to how we were attempting to apply the

restraint program to the education field. Those teachers know there

have been no cuts in education, that the education budget was not cut

but increased by, I believe, an average of about 15.9 percent across

this province.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

That's an excellent question: where are they? We have had this session

interrupted many times by the opposition, particularly by the Leader of

the Opposition who is attempting to bring about what he called an

emergency debate concerning the economy. Then they get into a great

flurry about education. What have we got? At this moment we've got one

member of the opposition in the House and he doesn't have any interest

whatsoever in this bill or in education. He hasn't spoken; he hasn't

said a word; he may yet. I understand that some of them support the

bill and may not speak, so he could be one of those. I think it's a

real disgrace that here we have such a very important piece of

legislation before us and there's only one member of the opposition in

his seat.

As I talk to my teachers — I had one of them visit

me just last Sunday at my home — they are very concerned. They are not

concerned about some of the things this government is doing in respect

to education, to improve on all the services, but because some of their

colleagues were facing the possibility of layoffs. That teacher told me

that they could understand the restraint program. They know it's not

something that's being applied just to one section. They understand

that doctors, dentists, public employees, MLAs, and indeed the many

unemployed and those who have had difficulty in their businesses and

are facing bankruptcy, have all shared in it. The teachers are prepared

to share in it. Oh, yes, we have a few radicals — there's no question

about it: they're all over the place. As a matter of fact, we witnessed

their attempt to instruct students on what they should do to defeat

this Social Credit government.

I came over here as a

representative for my constituency, fully convinced and satisfied that

the majority of the teachers in my area are very fair, dedicated

professionals whose duty to their profession comes before politics. It

is because we as government don't wish to see anyone unemployed. If we

can help it, that we are asking each and every one to share. The whole

restraint program has been designed on a very fair basis, to give those

of us who are fortunate enough to be employed and receiving income some

opportunity to take a little bit less so that we can help our friends

and neighbours. This is designed to do the same thing in the field of

education.

I have spoke publicly many times and have had

many opportunities to speak with students and teachers. I can recall

telling them that I am nervous, indeed frightened, at the

ever-increasing cost of two of the most essential programs in this

province and indeed in this country — the costs of health and

education. The reason I have been concerned and frightened is that I

have experienced how the runaway cost of such programs can be

detrimental to the programs themselves, and how damaging it can be if

you don't keep a tight rein on costs. I've come to the conclusion that

any time two programs reach the point of being almost 50 percent of the

total budget — and I don't take any exception to the increasing cost of

these services — then it's time to take a hard look to see just where

we're going. I think, in my own humble way. that while this recession

is very hard on some and not so hard on others, it's going to do us all

a great deal of good in that it's going to cause us to display that

courage and ability to search around for areas where we can cut out

unnecessary spending. That applies in education, as it does in any

other area of spending.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

I don't think you've spoken yet, but I'm sure you'll get your turn. The

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) hasn't said a word yet, other than

to make the odd catcall from across the way.

Here is an

opportunity for all governments to take a look at what has been going

on in the area of spending, and to make sure that they're going to

bring some sort of control without jeopardizing the quality of

services, particularly those essential services such as health,

education and help for the elderly. I don't care whether it's in the

home. In business or in government: if you're reckless in your

spending, you can't expect to continue getting all of the things you

really want.

The bill also ensures the preservation of the

quality of education services. We've heard over the past few weeks how

these services are going to suffer, how children are going to be denied

quality education. One has only to look at the source of this sort of

comment to understand that it's now being applied in education as it

was in health. Those members, for their own political gains, would ride

on the backs of the sick as they did during the debates on health, and

now they're attempting to climb on the backs of our students. This bill

is going to ensure that jobs will not be lost in the field of

education. It is also going to ensure that our education services will

be maintained, including those special services. I would consider that

to be a very responsible approach indeed.

We have heard many

comments from this side of the House during this debate, all very

constructive and well put, explaining why this is necessary, why it's

the responsibility of this government to bring about the opportunity,

through legislation, for those teachers who want to share. The member

for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), our Minister of Agriculture and

Food, did an excellent job, as he usually does

[ Page 9516 ]

when

he gets on his feet to speak. He talked about the myths, about why and

how restraint. Some of our members have talked about the fairness of

the restraint program. The debate has covered areas such as how it's

being supported by other sections of society; how the doctors have come

along willingly and said: "Yes, we'll share the load."

We've

heard severe criticism from the opposition benches about the public

employees, who also said: "Yes, we'll share the load." They certainly

bargained, but they did not bargain according to the philosophy of the

New Democratic Party, as was clearly stated in this House by the member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). He claims that their idea of free

collective bargaining is to bargain for all you can get, and then when

you think you have everything, you go on strike. Not only is that

irresponsible and greedy, but it's absolutely stupid. Why would you sit

there and allow the member representing your party to take his place in

a debate to make such statements on your behalf?

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: Check the records.

heard one of the members talk about his spouse, who is employed in the

education field, and how terrible things were out there. I have four

children who have all come through the public education system, and I

am indeed proud of all of them. They are doing exceptionally well for

themselves as a result of the tremendous education they received. One

of them is now employed in the field. We talk quite frequently. Oh yes,

there are times when she will convey to me some concerns, but after

we've been able to communicate, there is a good understanding. But she

just shakes her head when she hears some of the things that are being

said by just a few of those involved in the field of education. But

then, as one really concentrates on what's being said and attempts to

put together statements and words, it is very plain to me — and we must

make sure that it's going to be plain to the public, and particularly

to the students — that there is a political game going on. I read

recently where the president of the Teachers Federation, in his

comments, used words identical to those used by the education critic,

words such as " sleazy." As one really concentrates here, we can quite

easily see that the problem that appears to be out there is not one of

dollars; it's not one of quality of education. It's one, Mr. Speaker,

of political interference.

I heard one member talk about a

disease in the system. If there is a disease in our system, it has to

be the disease created by the philosophy of that party over there. I

believe that the greatest....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke rises on a point of order.

MR. KING:

The member that is speaking has put his colleague the Minister of

Education to sleep, and I think he should be entitled to listen to the

debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE:

My colleague concentrates better with his eyes closed. What I am

attempting to show here, in these few remarks, is that the problem we

are hearing about is not one of dollars, because we know that those who

are employed out there are prepared to share. It is not a question of

quality of education, but one of political interference.

would like to read from a document which has had me concerned for quite

some time. This may have been read into the record before, but I think

it's very timely that it be read in again during this particular

debate. We know that with the debate that has gone on so far, all

they're attempting to do is to stir up problems and get people upset

for their political ends. I'm reading an

article here from a document

of the NDP:

"The socialist transformation of

society will return to man his sense of humanity, to replace his sense

of being a commodity. But a socialist democracy implies man's control

of his immediate environment as well, and in strategy for building

socialism, community democracy is as vital as a struggle for electoral

success. To that end, socialists must strive for democracy at those

levels which most directly affect all of us in our neighbourhoods, in

our schools, and our places of work."

This document, Mr. Speaker, is the NDP Waffle Manifesto, which was signed by the Leader of the Opposition.

"Tenants'

unions and consumers' and producers' cooperatives are examples of areas

in which socialists must lead in efforts to involve people directly in

the struggle to control their own destinies."

That's

a very frightening influence in our schools, Mr. Speaker, and that's

the document that has me concerned, as far as education is concerned,

in the debates that are taking place here today.

Mr. Speaker, this is a document that was signed by a number of the members

over there, including the Leader of the Opposition. He said: "I only signed

it to get the debate going." That's like the member for North Island,

who said: "Oh, yes, I remember saying those things. That was ten years

ago. I've changed my mind." They don't change their minds at all.

Once a socialist, always a socialist. It's very frightening to me that here

we have a group that has gone against restraint all through this program and

that is now using the students of this province to further promote socialism

in this province.

MR. LEGGATT: It's a red plot, dictated from Moscow. It's Brezhnev behind it.

MR. RITCHIE:

There is the member over there from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who

only two days ago stated on a television show that absolutely no

dollars of public money would be used to create jobs for anyone other

than unionized B.C. workers.

The argument they're bringing

forward here is not one in the interest of education costs, not one in

the interest of education quality, but one in the interest of their own

socialistic philosophies and programs that they want to push on the

people of our province.

The comments that are made

continually reflect it also. The member for North Island mentioned in

his remarks the other day.... He made some remarks the other day to the

effect that we are now going to see our children all being taught by

the Dutch Reformed Churches of this province.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't say that.

MR. RITCHIE: I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that I have many Dutch Reformed Churches in my constituency. I

[ Page 9517 ]

have

many Dutch people in my community. I can assure you that if you, Mr.

Member, would take a little time to see just what they are teaching,

then maybe you'd be a little envious of them. I would think that that

member would be well advised to take a little time out not only to

research some of the comments that he makes, but also to take a look at

what the Dutch Reformed Church people are doing throughout this

province.

Mr. Speaker, he also said that parents should have

a choice. Does that mean that parents who support the independent

school system should have a free choice? Does that go so far as to say

that if they wish to direct all of their tax money into the independent

school system they should? I just find it so devastating, as I really

study the remarks that are made from that side. It causes a great deal

of concern to me and to many people, certainly in my community, knowing

that such a document exists.

This bill is a very fair bill.

It is a bill that is extending the restraint program. The program has

been introduced as fair, as a program that is going to make it as easy

as possible for all concerned. It is going to give those people who are

employed in the education field an opportunity to share. Above all,

it's going to protect the programs that are being provided.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed proud to support this bill. The opening remarks, I

believe, by the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association.... He

said: "This is good. It's too bad that it wasn't a little bit sooner."

Again, I want to repeat that the only reason we're getting this stalling

is because of their socialist approach, of their ambitions and desires, and

the fact that they feel that they're losing ground.

have the Leader of the Opposition going around the province promising

$300 million. Now he's talking about the $60 million he'll find to put

back into the education field. Where is he going to get it from? Is he

going to get it from the seniors? Is he going to get it from the

unemployed? Is he going to get it from those whose businesses are

suffering? Where's he going to get it from?

MR. KING: You mean there's no money left?

MR. LEGGATT: Where has it gone?

MR. KING: You spent it all on French wine!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There has been some levity, but that type of interjection cannot be permitted.

The member continues.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, the $300 million that he promised he would bring into the

communities would be restricted to unionized employees only, according

to the statement by the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who admitted that

he always is factually wrong. You talk about fairness, and you talk

about democracy; you don't know what fairness and democracy are. He's

going to get $300 million from future sales of gas that he said some

time ago wasn't there. It must be laughing gas. Where's he going to get

$300 million from? Maybe it's just like what he did just prior to the

1975 election, when he said they were going to raise gas 10 cents per

gallon to support ICBC. Is the $300 million going to come from the

unemployed?

MR. LEA: From the Premier's personal trust fund.

MR. LEGGATT: We're going to send a diver down and get it from Lake Okanagan.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

One moment, please. Perhaps if we could return to the principle of Bill

89 we could return to more orderly debate. I would commend that to all

members and to the member now taking his place in debate.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, I haven't really deviated from Bill 89. I'm attempting to

respond to the far-fetching, far-reaching debate from the opposition

benches, if we could call it that. I'm attempting to prove here that

any of the comments that we've heard from that side so far are not

genuine. They're hollow. They're socialistically influenced, because

their plan for this province and indeed for this country is to

socialize it, using schools, colleges and cooperatives. They have

listed them all here — every opportunity they get to ride on the backs

of those unfortunate people. Now they are objecting to this bill. and

the way they're doing it is they're going to try and ride on the backs

of our students. Three hundred million dollars — the Leader of the

Opposition says he'll borrow against gas sales to create jobs. He says

he's going to pour $60 million back into the education system. Where is

it going to come from? They want to close our northeast coal. The

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) called it a rat trap

yesterday. He wants to cancel LRT. Where's the money going to come

from?

Mr. Speaker, the whole debate during this question of

Bill 89 is identical to the debate that took place during the debates

on the health program. I have an

article here out of Hansard by

that member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I enjoy this because it

points out what we have over there. "But I have come to an overwhelming

personal conclusion that before we can have an integrated community and

integrated health-care system, we must have a more segregated one for

some years to come." That tells me something. That tells me that the

member who is opposed to private ownership believes that you get onto

the bandwagon with these small self-interest groups and you help to

divide. At this moment they're working on attempting to divide our

teachers, to separate teacher from teacher, teacher from trustee. But I

want you to know that it's not working. It's not working because there

are only a small handful of teachers out there that are taking the lead

from that president of the teachers association.

I know too

that the majority of the public are saying: "We need restraint." We

need it in a very fair way. The teachers are saying: "We would like to

share, but we need the vehicle to do it with." Some of our boards that

were unable to come to a settlement that was going to be satisfactory

under the restraint program, they required this. There's no need for

any question as to whether or not it can be done. There will be no loss

to education and no loss of jobs. It's an excellent bill.

just wanted to try to point out to this Legislature, and I will

continue to point this out as I move out through my community, that

this whole debate does not revolve around the question of whether

there's going to be enough money for education or not. It's not

revolving around the question as to whether we're going to be able to

provide education or supply those special services. Those will all be

supplied, and no one will lose their job.

The big loss is

going to be to the NDP's plan for socialism. They can see that being

threatened here. We have teachers out there who are saying: "Why,

certainly we want to

[ Page 9518 ]

share.

We're not being influenced by them at all. We want to work, and we

don't want any of our colleagues laid off." That's what this does: it

protects them. Because of the developments that are taking place, the

biggest fear that they have is not dollars and cents, it's not quality

education, and it's not special services. It's their own political

ambitions, as stated in the Waffle Manifesto. We have their number.

It's getting smaller. We've got a few more in the House now. But as one

who came to this country many years ago, one who has experienced the

philosophy of the NDP of British Columbia and see it at work, seen what

it could do to education, health, free enterprise and initiative, I see

a repeat of it here. We have a responsibility to tell the story and

make sure that they don't get the opportunity to use our schools or use

our students.

This bill is something that is going to cool

everything down. It's going to assist those boards who are having

difficulty arriving at the solution in order to meet the restraint as

designed. It's going to make it easier for them because it's spelled

out here exactly how it can be done. My teachers were most anxious to

have the opportunity to share in the way that's been suggested here,

but their leadership wouldn't allow it to go.

The

legislation, as it was written, made it difficult, as was already

stated by the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). This clears

it up. There are no problems out there. The only problems we have out

there are those who would agitate, those who would follow the

recommendation and the belief of the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann), who says: "You've got to divide them. They've got to be

desegregated. You've got to split them up and get them fighting."

That's the way to socialize. We know it. There's no point in you

shaking your head. I can repeat this again. This document was signed by

five of your members, including your leader.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Is that the Waffle Manifesto?

MR. SKELLY: Can I sign it? I didn't get a chance to do it.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, you should sign it because you certainly believe all of it, the way you talk and act.

"A socialist democracy implies man's control of his immediate

environment as well. In my strategy for building socialism, community

democracy is as vital as the struggle for electoral success. To that

end socialists must strive for democracy at those levels which most

directly affect us all in our neighbourhoods, our schools, our places

of work." And it goes on. They say that they will use all of these

vehicles, including schools, to further their socialist cause.

It's

signed by the Leader of the Opposition. Why did he sign it? He said: "I

signed it only because I wanted to get a debate going." If the people

of this province are prepared to elect as their Premier someone who

would sign such a dangerous document only to get a debate going, that

would be a very big disaster.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, to the bill.

MR. RITCHIE: On Bill 89.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Fraser Valley is now advised that he has three minutes left.

MR. RITCHIE:

The contribution I wanted to make to this debate was to point out that

the opposition members are not really discussing dollars and cents,

quality of education or these special services. They are discussing,

protecting and defending their political cause through the school

system, because it is one of the vehicles they intended to use. They

can see the erosion of this. That is why they are so viciously opposed

to the independent school system, in spite of the fact that the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would write to that group and

say: "If you give us your vote, we will continue that support." As long

as this document signed by the Leader of the Opposition is floating

around, the people won't believe it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: I signed that.

MR. RITCHIE:

I'm not going to answer that, because maybe you did. I know who signed

it. Five of your members signed it. Would the sixth one please stand up?

They

will use our tenants' unions, consumers' and producers' cooperatives

and schools to further their political ambitions. They can't fool me

and they're not going to fool many people out there. We know the game.

We saw it through the debates on health. We saw them attempt to get on

the backs of the sick, and come in here with these gory stories. We

don't believe it at all.

This bill is a good bill. It's a

bill that should settle the problems we have been witnessing out there

that could quite easily have been resolved by a simple sharing; but it

was being aggravated by the political interference of that party and

those they work with in the system. Fortunately, there aren't too many

of them. Certainly in my community they are only a handful. I support

Bill 89 fully. I look forward to seeing our opposition members stand in

their places to vote in favour of it.

MR. NICOLSON:

We've heard some rather incredible arguments from the other side, some

wandering and some stalling on this particular bill. I just hope that

the teachers of the member for Central Fraser Valley's riding read that

particular speech. Then I think they'll know what kind of commitment

that member and his government give to education.

I want to

make a few very short and simple points about education in this

province. This province has the worst record of financial support for

its public school system of any western province, or Ontario. British

Columbia now gives less than one-third in provincial dollars, and

requires over two thirds to be raised by local property taxation. The

province of Alberta has almost the reverse of that ratio. The province

of Alberta gives grants of 62.1 percent, while it raises only 37.9

percent off the backs of local property owners. In Saskatchewan 53

percent of the education program is paid by grants from the provincial

government and only 47 percent is from property owners. In Manitoba

54.2 percent is paid by the provincial government and only 45.8 percent

is from local property owners. In Ontario it is about a fifty-fifty

split.

We have seen this erosion take place ever since this government took office. In fact, those figures were almost the

[ Page 9519 ]

reverse.

They've been turned right over, so that instead of government paying

its fair share, as this province should be able to afford to do if it

were properly managed, instead of this province paying two-thirds of

the cost of education and local property owners having to pay only

one-third, we have the reverse of that in this province. It's the worst

and sorriest record of all. That's why last year we saw this government

seize even the local industrial and commercial tax base, which meant

that the dams which were taxable in Nelson Creston — the school

taxation for those dams.... Even the federal government building grants

in lieu of taxes for education were being poured into Victoria coffers,

then poured out on their megaprojects, the high-risk ventures that this

government has gone into, without any regard for ever getting into

times like this.

We saw the lie of the last provincial

budget, only six months ago. And how the tune has changed. Where did

that $1.5 billion go in six months? How could you lose $1.5 billion?

What a bunch of misfits. What a bunch of financial bunglers and misfits.

Mr.

Speaker, I am up, and I am mad. I'm not going to be long. I'm just

going to tell you that this Premier has conscripted little children

into his political manoeuvrings, and into his political war against the

rest of the people in British Columbia. He has conscripted poor,

innocent children. I know some of those children. I know a little girl

who was born with congenital heart defects. I know that her homebound

program — the program for a child who cannot get out of the home and

needs some education — is in jeopardy. I know an autistic child who was

neglected by the previous Social Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett

until 1972, and it wasn't until the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Levi) was the Minister of Human Resources that any program was set

up for that girl. She was school age and there was nothing for her. An

autistic girl: they didn't know if she could hear; they didn't know if

she could communicate. He set up a special-needs program for that girl,

and she learned how to sign, how to communicate. Today that little girl

has no program because this government has cut out all teacher aides in

School District 7.

I represent three full school districts

and part of a fourth school district in this province. I represent an

area that has generated the very wealth that built this building. I

represent an area that once was represented by four MLAs at one time in

this House, when there were only 41 members.

Mr. Speaker, I

want to bring out the fact that this government has done nothing about

employment in the forest industry. In Salmo, there is about 80 percent

unemployment today, and there is no recreational opportunity for any of

those children. There are no bus trips into Nelson so that they can

take

part in the swimming program, the ice skating program, various

other recreational programs. These things were already cut out before

this bill was brought into the House.

This government has

the worst record on education. This Premier will do anything to try to

get an election issue. This Premier will put anybody up in the front

lines, but he'll be hiding in the background. He'll be taking his

polls. He doesn't have the guts, I think, to call an election. That is

the only way we can fix the mess in education, the mess in

unemployment, the mess as far as jobs are concerned in this province.

The only thing we can do is call an election. Let's get some

confidence. You guys get out of the way, and let's get on with the job.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, Bill 89, is entitled School Services

(Interim) Act. In fact, I think the bill should be entitled the school

employment and program preservation act, because that is what it does.

The

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who feigned anger and is now

charging out of the building, said that this government is bringing

children into the political arena. It is his party. and speeches like

the one he made, that are attempting to drag the children of this

province into politics.

He remarked about programs for

handicapped children in one of the several school districts which

happen to be in his riding, yet he says he's against this bill. This

bill provides the opportunities for school districts to maintain

special programs, programs for handicapped children, and to maintain

the current level of employment by school districts. It allows them to

maintain the level of teachers they have now. Yet he is going to vote

against the very bill that will allow the continuation of the special

programs which he seems so incensed about. He is in fact going to vote

against the opportunity for those handicapped children whom he

mentioned to continue the programs they so sorely need. So I really

don't understand the logic of that member.

The last two

members from the opposition to speak on this bill spoke for no longer

than two or three minutes, and said really nothing related to the bill

at all. They refuse to face and accept the fact that the purpose of

this bill, the reason for its being, is to continue the educational

programs and the jobs for teachers in the education system. Yet they

want to vote against it. At least, they say they're going to vote

against it. Of course, they have spoken against quite a number of bills

in this Legislature and then voted for them. I don't know if that's

what their ploy is this time or not.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The members say that they're not going to vote for this bill. They're

not going to vote for a bill that will allow the continuation of

special programs in the education system. They're not going to vote for

a bill that will allow teachers who are employed now to remain

employed. They, then, are the ones who are really against education.

[Mr Mussallem in the chair.]

The

Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Barrett), said that if he were the government — which, of course, he'll

never be — he would restore this $60 million to the education system.

As has been asked several times this afternoon, I don't know where he's

going to get that money. What he is doing is offering a $60 million

bribe to the politicized leaders of the B.C. Teachers Federation.

That's all it is. It's a bribe to attempt to act them, once again, to

mount something like the so-called apple campaign they had in 1972.

Let

me tell that member that regardless of what they say or what antics

they go through regarding this bill or the education system in British

Columbia, the teachers in this province will not be involved in that

way, because the teachers in this province recognize the fact that this

bill will ensure their continuing employment and the continuation of

many of the special educational programs which they and we know are so

important in this province. The leaders of the BCTF have

[ Page 9520 ]

turned

that once professional association into nothing more than a radical

trade union through the positions and antics with which they carry on.

They have politicized the spokespeople for the teachers. Yet if you

talk to teachers.... My wife is a school teacher. She has taught school

most of our married life. I, through her, have contacts with many

educators in British Columbia.

The real educators' concern

is not with the number of dollars that are spent on education, but with

the continuation of quality education. I speak to many of them on an

ongoing basis, and they are quite pleased with the fact that this bill

will assure a quality education in all the school districts in British

Columbia, and particularly in those school districts which have not

come to grips with the economic realities of the times we live in, and

have not done what they can to trim away some of the waste, fat and

frills that really add nothing to the education system, but perhaps

make the life of a school teacher somewhat more comfortable. But that

doesn't help education.

The Leader of the Opposition and the

members opposite say that they will do away with this restraint measure

which is necessary in British Columbia because of the very radically

reduced revenues the government has to work with. They're against the

cost-saving measures carried out by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) and the health-care system. They're against the cost-saving

measures that are imposed upon all ministries of government, and yet

somehow they say that they really don't object to constraint. They

don't object to constraint; but they don't like to take the heat that

is always generated when constraint is imposed on any sector of

government or on government-funded services.

I mentioned the

politicization of the BCTF, and there were a few raised eyebrows and

guffaws from members opposite. But indeed it has happened. The present

president of the BCTF is a known political activist. He's a known

socialist from Kamloops. He never makes any bones about that. He tells

people where he is politically. He thinks that because he is a

socialist he can impose his socialist thoughts on the rest of the

teaching profession. School teachers aren't socialists any more than

anybody else in society is. School teachers are primarily educators.

They're people who quite often — more often than most people — don't

have strong political leanings, because they're so interested and

concerned about delivering quality education that they don't really

have time to get politically involved in the type of thing that the

members opposite are talking about.

I'll give you a good

example of the political involvement of school teachers right in the

classroom. I remember that in late 1975, when I first had inklings of

political involvement, my eldest daughter was going into grade 12 in

to the class, when they came in and sat down for their first lesson: "I

am NDP. If you kids are NDP, you're going to get along very well with

me." Then he assigned an essay to the class and said: "I just want to

judge your writing ability. You can write an essay on any subject you

wish." My eldest daughter was somewhat turned off by his opening remark

about being NDP and their getting along well with him if they were also

NDP, so she wrote an essay entitled "Socialism versus the free

structure, it was a good essay. She got an F on that essay from her

teacher. Obviously, she took the position in her essay that the free

enterprise system was superior to socialism.

A couple of

months went by, and my daughter's father became involved in politics;

he was elected and was now a minister of the government that kicked out

the socialists. He then assigned her a special essay to write. He said:

"Terry, will you write an essay supporting the policy positions of the

Social Credit government," and my daughter did. The essay was about the

same calibre of writing as the previous one. She handed it in. But now

her father is a cabinet minister and, lo and behold, she gets an A.

Political

involvement in the classroom is something we should not allow in

British Columbia, nor should the teachers allow their professional

association to become politicized to the extent of the attempts now

being made by the likes of Mr. Kuehn.

The members opposite

have taken very little interest in this debate. They have not really

talked about or accepted the fact that the purpose of this bill is to

continue educational programs and employment. For that reason, I move

adjournment of this debate until later in the sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. STUPICH:

My colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) made quite an

argument in favour of including service industries in this particular

legislation. I thought it was a convincing argument. I hope the

minister was listening when the argument was made. I am inclined to

think the amendment may be ruled out of order by the government, but

that would not stop the minister from bringing in a similar amendment,

and I would urge him to do so.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is out of order, as it would impose an impost on the Crown. I so rule.

MR. STUPICH: I cannot quarrel with your ruling, but I would like to have some response from the minister on my invitation to him.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I understand what the opposition is trying to do. I am certainly not

unsympathetic to the service industries of our province. However, as I

have said on the hustings — and I'll say it in the Legislature — we

would have to have a bill that involves a lot more money than $200

million if we're going to go into the service industry. Basically, we

would actually be replacing the banking system if we were to loan money

to the service industries of the province. I am looking at some other

methods whereby we may be able to be of some assistance to the service

industries,

[ Page 9521 ]

but

I'm afraid that at this time.... I have told those service industries

that at the present time we are not prepared to go into the service

industries.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, not to go into the

service industries with the money in this bill is not going to solve

the problems that the small business community faces in the province.

The minister says that he has sympathy for the small business

community, but they need more than sympathy; they need help. The

government talks about no handouts. but about giving them a helping

hand. The opposition asks the government and the minister to give these

industries in the service area a helping hand.

The service

industry is the hardest hit in the small business community. There may

be some help in this bill for small businesses that are in the

manufacturing industry, the processing industry, high-tech and

transportation, as it relates to the primary resource industries. But

when you look at this, it becomes a little ludicrous, because what this

bill is going to do is to say to the manufacturing industry: "Listen to

us. We've been telling you that there's no market for your goods. Now

what we're going to do is lend you some money so you can expand your

business to produce some more goods." To the processing industry,

they're going to say: "We know that you don't have any place to sell

those things that you process, but we're going to lend you some money

so you can expand your plant, open another store or open another

factory. We're going to lend you some money to do that."

The

problem is not that we don't have some capability to produce; we don't

have anyone to sell our goods to. If we had the opportunity to sell our

goods to someone, then the service industry would be all right, because

people in the processing and manufacturing industries would be working

and would have money to buy from the service industry. You wouldn't

have to worry about the service industry.

I'd like to make one more brief comment before I sit down on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. LEA:

Yes, to the section, because this

section rules out the service

industry and puts in the processing and manufacturing industry. I'm

going to talk about the processing and manufacturing industry and say

why this

section is not the one that should really apply.

do have economic problems, not all of our own making, but now that we

have a downturned economy and factories and processing plants sitting

idle — or factories and processing plants that are partially idle —

this is the opportunity to bring those industries in our community up

to efficiency. Now is the time to replace machinery and to build up our

industry so that when good times do come again we are a more efficient,

productive and energy-conserving province than we were in the past. Now

is the time, when our industry is partially idle, to go in there, give

it a boost and put ourselves in a position to be more competitive in

international trade.

But we don't do that by acting like big

daddy. This bill, in essence, is the wrong direction to go in. What we

should be doing with this

section is saying to the business community

that we are going to use the tax structure for incentives so that the

small business person can make up his or her own mind whether they want

to expand. With the tax structure there so you can easily recognize it,

you know exactly what you're faced with in terms of incentive and taxes

so you can make the decision yourself.

This bill is going to

make the small business person in this province go to the government,

speak to a clerk 6 and an economist 3, and say: "We've got a good idea

that we'd like to go forward with, and we'd like some funding under

this section." The clerk 6 and economist 3 are going to have the power

of life and death over your idea; neither one of them probably having

been in business before in their lives; neither one of them probably

ever having been an entrepreneur; neither one of them probably ever

having gone out into the world and make money by competing with other

people in the business world. Yet those are the people who are going to

tell the business people in this community whether they can go ahead

with an idea.

The business community has told me that they

do not want grants. They want tax systems that are fair to everyone and

reasonably priced loans with an interest rate that's reasonable. This

bill is a big-daddy bill. This

section is the key to that big-daddy

legislation, because you're going to have to go to government and beg.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's another proposal?

MR. LEA:

Tax incentives within the system and some low-interest loans. You don't

have to go to the government; you do it through the financial structure

that's there. At least those people have had some experience dealing

with business people. Who wants to go to the government and have an

economist 3 and a clerk 6 tell you whether you can go ahead or not? I

know the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) doesn't agree with

the principle of this bill. He's going to vote for it, mind you,

because he's become partisan in the last couple of weeks. Up until then

we thought he actually was one of ours. You know how the Speaker is

non-partisan?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I was.

MR. LEA: You were.

Mr.

Chairman, this bill is not the bill that the small business community

asked for. The processing and manufacturing, industries told me and the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) specifically, from one end of the

province to the other, that they didn't want this kind of financing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about depreciation allowances?

MR. LEA:

Depreciation allowances also. In fact that's in our paper "Let's Get to

Work." It's all in there. What they asked for is in our program of

"Let's Get to Work." They said they didn't want this, and yet they've

got it. Who's left out? The service industry. Do you know why? For the

very reason that the minister said: they do not have the money to help

the small business community. The other reason is that because this

bill isn't necessarily applicable to the needs of the small business

community and manufacturing and processing, there won't be any

applications for this bill. When they get there and find out that

they're not eligible or that it doesn't apply in their particular

situation, they're going to be darned angry. They're going to find out

about it, they hope, after the election. Business people have been

calling me in my riding

[ Page 9522 ]

and have been calling me from all around this province. When I tell them they are left out of this legislation........

The

small business community isn't known to be an NDP-supporting group.

When I told them they have been left out, one who has been a lifetime

member of the Social Credit said: "What in hell are they doing?" I

said: "I don't know. You'll have to phone a Socred and ask them,

because they're the ones who left you out." As the member for Coquitlam

Moody (Mr. Leggatt) said, they still have money for this kind of a

program sitting in the bank that nobody's eligible for. This

section is

a hoax. What they tried to do is make the small business community

think that they actually had help coming. This

section is no help at

all. There may be a handful of small business people who can take

advantage of it in the province. That's why we're going to vote for it,

even if a handful are helped. But we are on record, in our "Let's Get

to Work" program, of using tax incentives and depreciation allowances

to help the manufacturing industry in this province. This is not the

kind of bill that is going to do the kind of job that's needed for the

small business community in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, just before proceeding on further debate on

section 5,

the Chair has allowed some latitude with respect to speeches concerning

a failed amendment. The Chair has allowed some latitude with respect to

debate on principle, which would have been better covered in second

reading. I'm sure all hon. members are aware of the stages that we go

through in committee and the type of debate that is relative and

specific in committee.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Chairman, I have to respond to the member for Prince Rupert, who again

made his philosophical speech and went around the mulberry bush. He is

just a little mixed up when he talks about taxes. It always makes me

laugh when that member stands up and talks about what should be done.

As I explained to the Legislature not too long ago when they brought

out their great recovery program last March, there wasn't one word in

the whole deal about interest rates to the small business community.

Now that we've come out with a program to help the people who want to

create something new through the manufacturing expansion and into the

international marketplace and high technology, to assist and create a

vacuum for the service industry, to keep our economy strong, they're

great "me-too-ers," They can tell us how to reorganize a program, but

when they brought out their program, there was not one single word

about the small business community and low-interest loans for them.

Their great leader goes out to the UBCM the other day and lays out

another program of great recovery, with nothing about the small

business community. All he wants to do is build a post office on every

side street in every community in British Columbia. Then, of course,

the communities have to go along, and staff them and sweep them. That's

the kind of thinking....

I listened to the member for

Coquitlam-Moody on the Jack Webster show the other day, and I don't

think he thought anybody was listening, because he said: "Oh, that

minister has had all kinds of money, and it's still in the bank and he

hasn't put it out." Mr. Chairman, the programs that we have had have

been responded to by the business community. We have put out, and

provided jobs for thousands and thousands of people. As a matter of

fact, just one portion of the assistance which the member for Prince

Rupert was negatizing a moment ago, saying it was a no-good program for

providing seed money for the entrepreneur.... That member is against

providing seed money for that small entrepreneur who wants to go into

the manufacturing business, who can't really have time to deal with his

banker — just a little seed money so that he can get established. My

theory is that all big businesses usually start out as small

businesses, and this is just a helping hand. I'll have to tell you

again that we've put out $9,572,183 in that program — 536 projects.

MR. LEA: Whoopee!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

You say: "Whoopee." Well, it was a $10 million program, and we've put

out $9.572 million. The member for Coquitlam-Moody says the money is

still in the bank. How silly can you get? You thought there was nobody

watching you on the Webster show. You stand up in this Legislature, and

every time you open your mouth you're wrong, wrong, wrong. You went on

the Webster show and you were wrong, wrong, wrong. That member there

wants to put up a picket fence around British Columbia so that we can't

have any imports or exports. My friends, that type of policy has ruined

Canada. That type of policy has kept the manufacturing in central

Ontario. That type of policy brought me out here from my native New

Brunswick, where they put a wall around it and we could no longer trade

with the great United States. I'll tell you that member is still

thinking in 1921 terms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment,

please. This is

section 5. We are in committee on Bill 82. Perhaps we

could remember standing order 61 (2), which commends to all members of

the committee that debate on a

section or clause in committee must be

strictly relevant to the

section or clause under debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS ; Mr. Chairman, I'm just responding to the arguments

of the member for Prince Rupert. We certainly don't want to stifle debate

on this section.

want to go on to tell you that they say we haven't done anything in the

low-interest loan business. I want to tell you that just last year, in

the period ending March 31, 1982, the Development Corporation created

or preserved 948 jobs just through one little program. Yet the member

for Coquitlam Moody says we've left the money in the bank. He said over

the Jack Webster show that the money is still in the bank and the

minister hasn't put it out. I don't know where you guys are listening,

but the program has been a great success. This is another step to bring

stability to the manufacturing industry so that they will know that

when they take out that loan, the interest rate is going to be solid

for three years. That's about the time that the small business man needs

to get established and to get his business running. It's a good program.

am listening to the members opposite, and I won't take time to talk

about the service industries. I won't take the time of the Legislature

this afternoon to go through all of the programs that we have available

for all small businesses. I won't talk about the 16,000 inquiries. I

won't talk about the seminars that we're putting on all around the

province where people are coming and getting advice. I won't talk about

all the other programs that we have. This government has done more for

the small business community than any other government in British

Columbia, or than any other province in Canada is doing. They're not

the staid, old programs. They're new and innovative programs. We have

helped the

[ Page 9523 ]

small

business community. Over and above that, Mr Chairman, we have kept this

economy moving, so that the small business community and the service

industries have opportunity.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like

the minister, perhaps when the committee has reported, to come with me

and meet a small business man from Port Hardy who is in the buildings

today. He has met with a number of government people over the last

number of months and is attempting today to meet with people who

hopefully can make some decisions. He met, in fact, with the minister's

deputy when he heard about the possibility of getting some assistance.

I think it might be useful to bring the debate down to some more

relevant level, one which relates to an individual person who in fact

thought he might benefit, having heard news reports of this bill. I

think what I have to say is appropriate to

section 5.

The

gentleman concerned has run a fairly successful small business in the

community of Port Hardy. He is primarily involved in brushing contracts

for the Ministry of Highways, the Ministry of Forests, various logging

companies — that kind of activity. He was also involved partially with

silviculture programs as well. Once the cutbacks came in August in

highway contracts, in forestry contracts, in private industry

brush-cutting and other programs, he was forced to try to keep his

employees going. He tried to figure some way of making sure they would

have some income, and make sure too that he would be able to keep them

so that when times were better he would have his employees still

working for him. He's a typical small business person who has provided

jobs in this community and, if he's allowed to survive, will continue

to provide jobs in this community, in this province.

It's

all well and good to talk about creating new jobs in high technology

and manufacturing, but for a lot of people in this province there's a

real crisis just to maintain the jobs that have existed, and will exist

again in the future should people survive this winter. The gentleman

I'm referring to — as I say, he's in the buildings right now trying to

solicit some support from government people — met with the deputy, and

the deputy said: "Well, there's nothing in here for you. You don't

qualify." I gather he doesn't qualify under

section 5, as I read it,

because it's not new technology and it's not new jobs. It's not a new

program. It's simply maintaining jobs that have existed and should

continue to exist.

Even more important in some ways is the

impact in a small community like that when this person is not operating

his machinery. The fuel dealer suffers, the tire shop suffers, the guy

who operates a heavy-duty mechanics shop suffers because this guy isn't

taking his equipment in there to be repaired, maintained and upgraded

on a constant program. He's eventually going to be faced with not being

able to maintain his equipment. It eventually will run down, and he's

going to face immense capital costs having to buy new equipment. What

kind of logic is it to have a program that doesn't allow him to

maintain his programs?

He said to me: "Well, there are a

whole variety of government programs for the small business man. Let's

look at EBAP. Maybe I can qualify under that program." Of course, the

bureaucracy there is such that only 1,000 instead of 10,000 have been

able to be employed. All the bureaucrats in all of the responsible

ministries threw up their hands and said: "Forget about trying through

that program because it's just a waste of time." There's no one who

would deny that statement.

So a small business man thinks

when he listens to the radio and reads the newspapers, that the

government is providing a variety of programs that might help him to

survive this difficult fall and winter. He travels to all of the

government offices throughout the island, coming down here today

hopefully to see political people who might be able to make some

decisions, suggesting to them that these airy-fairy pie-in-the-sky

electoral promises are not doing a thing for him, not allowing his

business to survive. Worse than that, they are not allowing his

neighbours' businesses to survive, and even worse than that, not having

the kind of programs in the woods, on the highways, and on the roads in

the woods that are important for silvicultural purposes, that are

important for basic maintenance purposes. He's not eligible under the

section. I think that's ridiculous.

MR. LEGGATT: The

minister indicated that the program announced at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities meeting of some $330 million for job creation in terms

of local initiatives and projects did nothing for small business. The

minister fails to understand that the best thing that can happen for a

small business is to provide customers to small business. That's what

they need. They need people with money in their pockets, who are

working, to buy those products. The amount this Legislature authorized

for assistance to small business, in spite of what the minister tells

the House, was not expended by the minister over the fiscal year.

Either there weren't enough applications or the minister didn't sell

his program; it's one or the other. If there weren't enough

applications, it's because the economy is already down so low that this

kind of money \von't bring it back up. Just pouring money at a problem

doesn't solve it. They have to change the atmosphere for small business

by creating customers.

Under

section 5, since the amendment

which was to include the service industry has been ruled out of order,

those businesses that loan money will have their loans forgiven. The

act says: "The liability of a borrower to repay a loan made under this

part may be wholly or partly extinguished subject to terms and

conditions the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prescribes." The

minister is asking us to buy a pig in a poke if he asks us to vote for

a bill when we do not know — I apologize to the minister if he's

already made the announcement, but I did not see it — what the terms

are under which these loans will be forgiven. I'm going to guess at

what the terms will probably be.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, to the section.

MR. LEGGATT:

Section 5 deals with loans, and some of those loans are forgivable. If

you want to have an argument about relevancy, Mr. Chairman. I would

suggest to you that it's perfectly relevant under this

section to raise

the question of forgivable loans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

On a point of order, I continually have to keep helping that member out

with his legislative program. He's been in this Legislature now for

quite a while since he arrived from Ottawa. The forgiveness part of the

loans is not under this part. It's low interest loans: none of it is

[ Page 9524 ]

forgivable.

If he wanted to talk about the portion he's talking about, Mr.

Chairman, he should have talked under

part 1,

section 1, and not

part

section 5. I continually have to keep helping that member out.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point of order is well taken. The minister will be allowed to enter

into debate on

section 5 if he wishes. The point of order, as explained

by the minister, is correct and well taken by the Chair.

Section 5 does

not include forgiveness.

MR. LEGGATT: I see. Can I

take it then that the minister is advising the House that no loans made

under this

section 5 are forgivable? Is that what the minister is

telling us?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When you sit down, I'll answer you.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm not giving up the floor. I'm just asking the minister to give us some....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

You don't have to give up the floor. You can stand up a thousand times.

I'll have to advise the member again that this is a debate on.... I

don't put through too much legislation, but under this, you could stand

up a thousand times. You can get up and down like a yo-yo.

want to advise the member that a low-interest loan is exactly as it

says: it's a low-interest loan. We take the normal rate that the

British Columbia Development Corporation loans out money at, divide it

by two, and give the individual a low-interest loan. The loan has to be

repaid with interest. There is no forgiveness.

MR. LEGGATT:

I wonder if the minister would then take the House into his confidence

forgivable are forgivable.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You

want me to go back to

section 1. We have brochures on this that outline

the whole program. I'd be most happy to have my staff provide the

member with all the criteria for loans under

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good point.

Section 1 did cover that.

MR. REE:

I was listening to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and rather

liked his idea, because I'm not too averse to using taxation to assist

businesses, or reducing taxation, or some sort of incentive taxation.

But I find it very hypocritical coming from the member for Prince

Rupert. Businesses are having a lot of trouble, and they do need some

assistance, whether it be in the service industry or otherwise. But

certainly one should not assist one service-industry store or merchant

in the block, when they have a competitor in the same block, without

providing equality to both of them. Otherwise, it doesn't provide for

fair competition between them.

The question as I said, as

far as tax incentives and the statements from the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) being hypocritical are concerned, is that I find that

the farm team of the NDP certainly did not adhere....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The word "hypocritical" when applied to a member does impute an

improper motive. I would only caution the members of the House about

that statement.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, the word does impute an improper motive.

MR. REE:

If it does, I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman. I find that the farm team for

the NDP throughout this province, when it comes to establishing

taxation, goes the opposite way. They feel that businesses — any form

of businesses — are a bottomless pit of dollars. Businesses can be

taxed; business will be taxed to the hilt. You'll find nearly any

socialist council in this province have opted for option (

A) or option

(

C) on municipal property taxes, to the detriment of small businesses.

They will not take the option (

D) level, where it's equitable as far as

value goes. The socialist councils do not wish to help small

businesses. They do not wish to give any assistance to small

businesses. They'll use this taxation, which was allowed, Mr.

Chairman.... The debate on taxation incentives was allowed by you from

the member for Prince Rupert. That is the attitude of the socialists.

The socialists do not assist small business. Socialists think that

small business has a bottomless pit.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's absolute nonsense!

MR. REE:

You tell me, Mr. Member, any municipal council which has got a

preponderance of socialists on it in this province that has municipal

taxation under option (D). There isn't one in this whole province.

There are some with option (

D) for municipal taxes, but they're not

socialists. They provide assistance to the small businesses by helping

them this year, particularly when there was a serious increase in small

business taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I

support

section 5. It's not forgivable. It's repayable by a corporation

or small business borrowing from the Development Corporation, and I

think will be of good benefit to this province.

MRS. WALLACE:

I was interested when my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

was speaking, because he was raising a similar argument to the one that

I want to raise. I was particularly interested, in that the minister

didn't respond. So perhaps there's some hope. Maybe he's going to think

about it.

What I'm asking is that the terminology here as to

the uses of this particular loan — manufacturing, processing or

high-technology industries.... I'm wondering if the

interpretation is

going to be a bit broader than it has been under existing programs. We

found that under ASEP, for example, when people applied for funding,

the

interpretation of "manufacturing" in particular was very narrow.

know of one instance where a young chap was wanting to go into the

firewood business. He needed a bit of funding to get himself

established. He needed to get a few pieces of equipment and so on, and

it was decided that changing a tree into firewood was not

manufacturing, and therefore he was not eligible.

Another

instance was a chap who has a very successful mushroom farm in Cobble

Hill, and he wanted to enlarge that operation. He had an ample market

to sell twice as much

[ Page 9525 ]

product

as he had, but it was decreed that changing those spores that produce

mushrooms into a food product was not a processing or manufacturing

process. Therefore he was not eligible. I'm wondering if the minister

can assure the House that, under this newer program that he's now

introduced, he will put a broader

interpretation on those terms.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I think the program the member is really talking about is the first

portion of the program. What we're really trying to do is create

something new, but in the case of mushrooms, you're getting pretty

close to getting into the agriculture end of the business. Firewood —

well, you're always going to have some areas where a fellow in the long

run can always sort of try and get it in the program. I t