1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1161 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Community Involvement Program. Mr. Barnes –– 1161

Government Advertising Campaign. Mr. Hanson –– 1162

University and College Financing. Mr. Nicolson –– 1162

Development bond eligibility. Hon. Mr. Brummet replies –– 1163

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1163

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Second reading.

Mr. Mitchell –– 1165

Mr. Howard –– 1166

Mr. Skelly –– 1170

Mr. Lauk –– 1174

Mr. Barnes –– 1179

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, visiting the precincts right now

are 44 senior citizens from the Prince George and District Association

for Senior Citizens and with them is their very able tour director, and

a senior citizen emeritus in Prince George, Mr. Al Holdner. I would ask

all the Members of the Legislative Assembly to bid these people welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I am pleased to introduce Mr. Gary Johnston,

coach of the British Columbia junior rugby team, and Mr. Les Underwood,

the team manager, both of Victoria. Yesterday the junior national team

of Wales, which is perennially one of the top three rugby teams in the

world, came to Victoria. The Welsh team, one of their strongest in

years, capped an undefeated season by beating England, Scotland,

Ireland and France, and winning the Five Nations Cup this year. Last

night Team B.C., coached by Gary and Les, outplayed the Welsh junior

national rugby team, scored two tries and won 16-13. This is the first

time in Canadian rugby history that any Canadian team has beaten a

Welsh national team.

We also have in the gallery John A. Stothart from sport and

recreation in my ministry, who is chef de mission for the winning team

in western Canada, Team B.C. '83, in Calgary recently. I would like the

House to welcome him.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to

the House today a gentleman whom I fully expect to be our next member

for Nanaimo, Mr. Graham Alce.

MR. R. FRASER: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is a young

man who sees the future of B.C. coming on strong and who is working

toward it. Not only has he worked in the great riding of Vancouver

South in the past couple of weeks, but he is the president of the Young

Socreds. Would the House please welcome Mr. Franco Trasolini.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we

have three children of one of our research staff, Zonzabell Sather:

Marni, Jodi and Ryan. Would the House welcome them, please.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Human Resources. Pardon me, I don't have my glasses and I do have

trouble seeing. I broke them and can't afford to get a new set.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARNES: It's really the truth.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You should use more discretion in where you spend

your money.

MR. BARNES: I'll deal with you later.

The minister must now be aware of the pain and hurt she has caused

by cancelling the community involvement program, striking a serious

blow against disabled people in the community. Is the minister now

prepared to listen to members of this House and members of the

community who have urged the government to reinstate funding for this

valuable and necessary program?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, may I say — and not to take

away from the seriousness of the question at all — that I didn't think

the members in the House needed glasses to ask a question.

[2:15]

Responding to the question, the community involvement program has

been a subject of great concern to all members of this House. It covers

2,500 people in the province who receive $50 extra above and beyond

their income assistance. Of those 2,500, I am told that approximately

1,500 are handicapped — not all of them are in the designation of

handicapped. I want to make that clear so that those members in this

House would not portray incorrect information in this regard. Many of

those in the program — as was stated last week — will be continued on

the program until their agreements expire. The program does expire on

today's date for all of those who are not covered by an agreement that

is being extended.

The government is very concerned about every person in the province

who requires extra help, Mr. Speaker. We have been listening. We will

continue to listen to those people who have a genuine concern. All I

can say to the member is that because of the problems we have had in

the province trying to retain the core programs of our ministry —

assistance to the infant development program, the retention of

Pharmacare, keeping of most of the family and children's services and

the SAFER program, and keeping intact all of the help for those who

come to us in need of income assistance — we have had to diminish a few

of the most recent services of our ministry.

However, our ministry is looking at it. We are receiving information

from all members of the House, and I can in all sincerity assure the

member who has asked the question that we are very conscious of the

concerns expressed. I thank you for bringing them to our attention. I

pledge to you it will be my first priority to restore when the

opportunity and the dollars make that possible.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the quite long explanation of why

the minister is recognizing the needs in this field for the community

involvement program. I won't use notes this time. I'd just like to ask

the minister: has she responded to any of the requests on behalf of the

people in the community involvement programs to discuss the impact it

is having on them, and is she prepared to consider reinstating that

program and apologizing to those people for having caused them serious

inconvenience and anxiety as a result of her rather precipitous,

unilateral decision to withdraw the program without planning,

consultation or any attempt to find out the dire consequences of this

act?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I won't respond to the argumentative portion of the question, but the answer to the first

part is yes.

[ Page 1162 ]

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

MR. HANSON: I'd like to direct a question to the Provincial

Secretary regarding the fireside chats to be aired on television at

taxpayers' expense. A week ago I asked the Provincial Secretary to

advise the House of the details on the Premier's advertising blitz that

he announced two weeks ago. The Provincial Secretary declined knowledge

of that and took it as notice. Since that time he has been making

statements outside this Legislature to the press confirming that a

program is in place and that production is to take place with Jem

Productions. I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary: what are the

details of this program, which is the real top priority of this

government — advertising itself at taxpayers' expense?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First, I might say that recently we had a

by-election in Mission–Port Moody. The NDP campaigned against our

restraint program and were defeated, which suggests to me that we have

strong support for our restraint programs here in British Columbia.

Under the circumstances, because of the strong endorsation we have from

the people of British Columbia, maybe we should review the need for an

advertising campaign.

MR. HANSON: I have a supplementary. If the endorsement is so

strong in that minister's mind, clearly you don't have a mandate to

spend taxpayers' money on that campaign. As a minister of the Crown,

the minister has an obligation to be forthright with this House. If you

hold this House in contempt....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, this is question period. I expect a question now.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this minister has an obligation to

provide this House with the details of the program that he is so

willing to advertise outside this House. Will the provincial government

spend taxpayers' money employing David Brown of Jem Productions to

produce television ads to be shown on the major networks in the ad

campaign? It's a very simple and straightforward question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I take exception to being lectured by that

junior member for Victoria. I want to say that the information that he

suggested I related outside this chamber to the media is erroneous. At

no time have I ever suggested that Jem Productions had been engaged for

an advertising campaign, for fireside chats or chats of any other

description. And I want to recommend to that junior member that he look

at the estimates of this House. Look at the budget that's been

presented in this House and look at the estimates that are contained

within the Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government Services

votes, and you'll see whether we have a mandate or not to expend money

for advertising.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the same

minister, last week we addressed a question to the president of

Treasury Board. He indicated that no allocation of or proposal for the

expenditure of funds had come before Treasury Board. However, if it

were to come before....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I understand that we

are engaged in question period. I'm getting a little bit sick of

sitting here listening to that member make mini-speeches rather than

ask questions of the members of this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will undertake

to have the rules of question period adhered to. The first member for

Victoria, and the question is?

MR. HANSON: My question is: how many taxpayers' dollars are

going to be spent on this advertising campaign to be developed by Doug

Heal, who works for the Provincial Secretary? How many taxpayers'

dollars are going to be expended, and what are the guidelines on that

project?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just look at the estimates of the Ministry

of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services. I think there is a

vote there that relates to the specific question that he's now asking,

and if he'll look at it he'll get some answers. He won't get an answer

vis-à-vis this particular program. That part of the question I'm

prepared to take as notice.

You recognize that this House allocates certain funds to different

government ministries to expend. You'll have ample opportunity to ask

questions in that regard in due course. If you don't continue to delay

the House, as you people have for the last two months, maybe we'll get

to the estimates, at which time you'll have an opportunity to examine

in detail every proposed expenditure of government in this fiscal year.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, is the Provincial Secretary telling

this House that Doug Heal has the authority to spend $18 million to

prop up the sagging image of this government around the budget and

legislative programs? Is that what you're telling this House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, the answer is no. I think the image of this government has been propped up by recent events in Mission–Port Moody.

MR. HANSON: On a final supplementary to the minister, will

the minister advise this House whether McKim Advertising has been

appointed as the agent of record to coordinate the booking of time on

this particular project?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll take that question as notice.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FINANCING

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of

Education. Since college and university loans officers are unable to

advise students about their eligibility for student assistance because

of cutbacks in government support for the program and also because of

changes in regulations, has the minister decided to end the uncertainty

and reconsider the decisions he has made since the last election to

slash, cut and redefine the program?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no.

MR. NICOLSON: Then why has the government and the minister

decided that fully qualified students of demonstrated need will be

denied access to student assistance?

[ Page

1163 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If the member is prepared to deliver to me

the facts on the particular case to which he has referred, I'd be quite

prepared to assist him.

MR. NICOLSON: That's very nice to hear. We'll make him the super loans official of the province.

I'd also like to ask him why it is that students who are awaiting a

ruling from the education bureaucracy on their eligibility are forced

to borrow while waiting for decisions to be made. Decisions would

normally have been made by the end of July, and now most students won't

know about their eligibility until the middle of October. Can the

minister confirm that a student who borrows more than $600 from his

parents to survive this waiting period will by that act of borrowing be

ruled ineligible for student assistance?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot specifically answer that

question, but it seems to me that the first portion of the loan, up to

around $3,300, is available from the federal government. With respect

to the other portion, the grant portion, I'd be prepared to look into

that particular matter that the member has raised. But it seems to me

that moneys up to $3,300 are available for the first portion of the

program.

MR. NICOLSON: Can the minister also confirm that a student

who has transferred ownership of his motor vehicle to his parent

becomes eligible for less assistance, but if he receives a motor

vehicle from his parents he becomes eligible for more assistance under

the minister's new program?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It seems to me that student aid is just

that — aid to those who require some assistance. If somebody is driving

a machine worth $8,000 to $12,000, which is more often the case than

not, and somebody is prepared to make a gift of a car, then I can

understand. If the member will give me a specific set of facts, I would

be quite prepared to lend some assistance.

DEVELOPMENT BOND ELIGIBILITY

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a

question. On July 27 the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace)

asked concerning the people who received layoff notice in the Ministry

of Environment effective July 31: whether that date would affect their

eligibility to receive the development bond that had been negotiated. I

am able to confirm that it does not affect their eligibility; they will

remain eligible.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to resolutions Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point I want to make,

particularly in light of the exhortation of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) a moment ago dealing with the budget, is that the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations is not, I submit, entitled to ask the House for leave to go to any

other business of the House; he must deal with Committee of Supply. I draw Your

Honour's attention to a decision this House made on July 6, a House order,

a special order that I submit overrides the other provisions of the rules, which

says that the House will take into account the question of committee to consider

the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order will have precedence

over all other business except interim supply and introduction of bills until

disposed of. For the minister to keep attempting to put Committee of Supply

or resumption of the budget debate into the background, particularly inasmuch

as that's a preliminary to getting into the estimates.... I submit that

he's completely out of order in doing that, and that the only thing he's

entitled to call is a resumption of the debate on the budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, had that been....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's just a lot of words and no facts, Mr. Speaker.

I ask for leave to proceed to resolutions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, first of all, on the point of

order raised by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the Chair rules

that the government may indeed ask for leave, as has been the case in

many instances in this House, and certainly during the last 20-odd days

known to the Chair. While hon. members may wish it differently, the

Chair must go by the rules that bind us.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 31

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Mowat

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

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

[ Page 1164 ]

MR. SPEAKER: On another point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: My point of order relates to the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and standing order 8. I point out to you that

the Minister of Finance came in for the division but was absent all

through question period, deliberately staying out of the House because

he wanted to refuse the opportunity....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, when the Chair

repeatedly calls for order, it is only right for the member speaking to

cease speaking and take his place.

On the point of order raised by the member, the Chair has no power

whatsoever to call members into this House. It has been ruled on

numerous occasions that that is the case. Members from both sides of

the House repeatedly try to take their place in debate by abusing the

rules of the House and using

section 8 for purposes other than those

for which it was intended. I would ask all members to bear in mind that

the rules bind us all. On that note, the order of business....

The member for Skeena seeks the floor again.

MR. HOWARD: With the leave of the House, could I move that it be entered in the Journals that the Minister of Finance ducked...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...question period deliberately? If I could have leave I would move that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as you know, at this stage a member

cannot even seek leave to make a motion, let alone.... I'm sure that

upon reflection the member will realize that he has erred in making

that assumption.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a

provision in the standing orders that requires members to attend a vote

in the House. I point out that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

did attend during question period but absented himself during the

division that was held.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may we return to the business of the day?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With the hope that we can, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Resolution 29.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the resolution of this House

was clear and unopposed: that the resolution to be debated and taking

precedence over all other business before the House is that the Speaker

leave the Chair, and that we consider the budget speech. That has not

been completed. It is now August 31.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly the Chair has just disposed of that very same matter.

MR. LAUK: All right. That's not the point. I'm leading up to

the point — I hope without some interruption — that this precedence

motion, having been adjourned to the next sitting of the House by the

last vote taken, leaves the House no alternative but to adjourn the

House until the next sitting when that precedence motion can then be

debated.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You want the day off! You've got a golf game.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, clearly at this

point the member is stretching the credibility of his position by

bringing such a point of order before the House.

MR. LAUK: Then what does a precedence motion mean, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair listens very carefully to

points of order in the hope that they will at least have some semblance

of credibility. The Chair finds no such semblance in the point raised.

MR. LAUK: Well, I respectfully disagree with the Chair. I'm raising a serious precedence motion.

MR. SPEAKER: You're entitled to disagree, hon. member, but

the rule of the House will be that the Chairman or the Speaker will

conduct this meeting.

MR. LAUK: The second point of my point of order, Mr. Speaker,

is that Wednesdays are private members' days. The hon. House Leader,

after having adjourned the precedence motion, must now proceed to

private bills. Public bills and orders only follow private bills on

Wednesdays. Either we're going to have order according to the standing

orders, or we're not. Let's make up our minds.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the government House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm more than

delighted to ask leave of the House, which I'm sure will be given, to

proceed to Resolution 29 to appoint a committee to do a job.

MR. LAUK: That's not my point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Why don't you let the Whips know what's going on?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, if only we would have had some kind of communication through the normal channels instead...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: ...of a destruction of those normal channels.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I would hope that at

this time we do not engage in a discussion on the organization, which

is clearly not the business of the House, but must be conveyed

elsewhere.

[ Page 1165 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour clearly sees that because the government has destroyed the normal communicating mechanism....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: You see the difficulty that Your Honour and the

House finds itself in. All I'm trying to suggest is that if the normal

communication would have been open and there had been some advice as to

what was required, it could have been dealt with very expeditiously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. That is not the business of the House. The member for Nelson-Creston seeks the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: On the point of order raised by my colleague

from Vancouver Centre, Mr. Speaker, have we had a ruling as to

whether...? Is today not Wednesday?

MR. SPEAKER: I so ruled.

MR. NICOLSON: All right. I see there is some basis for

agreement in this House now, Mr. Speaker. There is one point upon which

we can be agreed: that being Wednesday.

On page 7, under standing order 25, it is a private members' day. If

it isn't, I would refer you to standing order 9, which says: "Mr.

Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of

order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate. In explaining

a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or

authority applicable in the case." The member for Vancouver Centre has

brought to your attention that today is private members' day. If that

is not the case, I would request under standing order 9 that some

citation be given for the guidance of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the motion before the House at

this time is clearly for leave to go to Motion 29, and that leave not

being given, we then go to the next....

[2:45]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. members, before us at this time is the question of leave to proceed to Motion 29.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated

earlier, if only the normal communication had been available we

wouldn't have had to go through this, and the minister would have

obtained leave without any difficulty.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we cannot argue on the one hand

about something that we must try to execute outside this House in the

way of arrangements for the smooth operation of business if on the

other hand members of one particular side of the House are not prepared

to cooperate, nor would the other. We can't have it both ways.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the reason for my concern is that it's

August 31, 1983, and still this province does not have a budget. This

government is delaying its own business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has made his position clear by voicing a no.

I now go back to the House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's not the only member of the official

opposition to practise obstruction throughout this whole session, I

want to tell you that right now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the hubbub

of that moment we did not hear what bill the government House Leader

said was being called.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 6, hon. members.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

(continued)

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I seek the floor to speak on Bill 6.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe you have already so done.

MR. LEA: Did I not adjourn?

MR. SPEAKER: A good question.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew adjourned the debate on Bill 6.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank you for saving me from my own members who are trying to push me out of my rightful place.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's important that we get on to a bill like education, on which I

spoke in generalities in a previous debate. We should get back to where

this particular bill fits into the budget speech. I know the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) will agree that we have tried to bring some

order into this House. We have tried to bring some ordinary

parliamentary reasoning so that we can debate according to traditions

set up by past parliaments and legislatures in this building. I think

it's disgraceful. Again I say, not only to you, Mr. Speaker, but also

to those in the galleries — to whom I know I can't refer — who come

here and expect to see the people whom they have elected debate the

bills before this House.

This bill is part of the budget package that was brought into the

House on the day the budget came down. We haven't had a chance to

complete the budget debate, to vote on the budget or study the

estimates that precede this bill. This bill we are debating today —

Bill 6 — is part and parcel of the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) estimates. We should have an opportunity to question what

direction that

[ Page

1166 ]

minister is going to take; he's not even in the

House today and we are debating a bill that is going to affect his

ministry. The House will not bring any reason, procedure or point of

discussion....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest that you bring the member to order and ask him to speak to the

legislation presently before the House and not on the breakdown in

communication between Whips, for which the NDP is responsible.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. The member

has just three minutes remaining in his speech, and I will ask him to

speak to the bill and not to other matters — Bill 6, the Education

(Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. MITCHELL: In summing up my concerns on this bill, I think

that we should look at what the principle of the bill does. The

principle of the bill is part of the principle of parliament, and this

parliament, this Legislature, is attempting by this bill to take away

from those who were elected in their school districts — by my

constituents and your constituents, who have chosen people from all

walks of life to set up and regulate the type of schooling, courses and

direction their particular communities need.... This government, with

their heavy-handed centralization.... That's all I can call it, Mr.

Speaker; it's their desire to completely centralize everything in

Victoria — the debate on and the direction of the programs elected

school districts are trying to establish for their communities. In

speaking against this particular bill, I find it completely disgusting

— and that's the only thing I can say, as one who was chosen by my

constituents to represent them in this parliament — that even when

we're discussing a bill of this importance the Minister of Education

has not had the decency to tee up with the House Leader that he would

be here to listen to our concerns, to the particular issues and points

of order we have brought up, to why we are opposing this bill and why

we in the opposition do not believe that this government has the total

right to centralize everything in Victoria. We don't want this to be

the year 1984, in which all the decisions will come out of a computer

located in this area. This is what the Minister of Education has said

when he has spoken: that the budgets from every school district will be

put into the computer.

I see that my red light is on, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank you

for saving me and giving me my last few minutes in this debate.

MR. HOWARD: To close the debate, Mr. Speaker, I....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member for Skeena on

Bill 6. Another minister could close debate on it, but I presume the

member wants to speak.

MR. HOWARD: I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) saying he'd gladly close any opportunity.

He closed off communication between the Whips.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will come to order immediately. Does the member wish to speak to the bill?

MR. HOWARD: That's why I'm standing, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed on Bill 6.

MR. HOWARD: I was going to, when I had the interruption from

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I will submit, with all

due respect, Your Honour, that the first comment of the Chair should

have been about the interruption of the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations. He knows the rules as well as I do — in fact, better than

anybody in this House, although he doesn't exhibit that very often.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. HOWARD: Now, with respect to the bill, it's improperly named. It's founded upon....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Gee, you missed your chance to close the debate,

Jack. If you hadn't been absent.... If only the Minister of Education

had been here.

This bill seeks to amend a statute called the Education (Interim)

Finance Act, which was assented to a little over a year ago. When the

bill was introduced more than a year ago, prior to the election, the

then minister — and I know that cabinet solidarity means that when a

minister speaks, he speaks on behalf of the cabinet; a subsequent

minister can't absolve himself from those declarations and those

intents — affirmed clearly in this House that it was an interim

measure. It was just for a short period of time to get over what the

government identified then as a difficult situation.

Members in the House probably quite honestly believed that the

minister was stating for all time that yes, it was a temporary and an

interim measure. Now we see before us an amendment which removes the

interim aspect, the temporary aspect of the act itself. In fact, the

explanatory note to

section 2 is very simple and uncomplicated — a

four-word statement that says it repeals the sunset provision. The

sunset provision found, I believe, in

section 61 of the act, says:

"This act is repealed on December 31, 1984." That was the interim

commitment, or the commitment of an interim nature made about an

interim piece of legislation that this House, prior to its dissolution,

prior to the calling of the election, took as gospel. School boards in

my own constituency took it as such. I'm sure anybody in the House who

has been a member of a school board and active therein, and thereby who

still might have communication with current school boards, took as

gospel that it was an interim piece of legislation, and that school

boards and school budgets were going to be impacted upon by the

government for only a very short period of time.

[3:00]

That very short period of time was to have expired on December 31,

1984. Even though a year ago some school districts complained — and

legitimately so — about the intrusion into their basic rights, as

elected representatives of people, to manage school districts, they

accepted it on the basis that the commitment from the government was

such that they had to live with it for only a short period of time. Now

we find that this was a false statement made in this House; that

[ Page 1167 ]

the commitment by the government of the day and the

minister of the day has subsequently proven to be nothing more than hot

air or puffery. It is gone. This is no longer an interim finance

measure. It's a permanent finance measure even though the word

"interim" is contained in the title.

I submit that the word "interim" is retained in the title because it

reflects the general attitude of this government — a government which

always seeks to deceive; a government, not a minister, which seeks to

deceive the general public into believing something is so when it is

not in fact so. The mere maintenance of the word "interim" indicates

that this is still an interim measure, yet within the body of the bill

there is no reference whatever to its being any more interim or

temporary than any other piece of legislation. Having maintained the

misleading reference "interim" in the title of the bill, the government

could have altered the provisions of

section 61 of the act. Instead of

repealing it completely, they could have put in another date — maybe

December 31, 1985. If they concluded after examination that 1984 was

not really an appropriate date to have the act collapse and die — or be

repealed, as the act said — and they had come in with some other date,

then they would have been fully justified in maintaining the word

"interim" in the title. But I submit that without that, the word

"interim" has no business being in there, except for propaganda and

misleading purposes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. member that the

innuendos are becoming unparliamentary, and they could apply to another

hon. member of this House. Further, ample time will be given during the

committee stage of a bill to discuss the title of a bill, and I am sure

the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. HOWARD: I'm discussing the principle of the bill, Mr.

Speaker. I am not, through directness, indirectness or innuendo,

seeking to cast any aspersions against any member of the government.

I'm talking about the whole government as a total entity.

I maintain that the word "interim" retained in the bill is contrary

to the principle of the bill, because the principle encompasses

permanency and foreverness within it for an indeterminate period of

time. It's an indefinite sentence levied against school boards. And

yes, if we ever get to the committee stage of the bill, we may have an

opportunity to deal in more detail with that word "interim." But I

maintain that putting the word "interim" in the title of the bill is

completely contrary to one of the principles of the bill, which is

permanency.

The bill also seeks to control — although there's a euphemism in

there — school boards in their activities and to lay the heavy,

centralized, authoritarian hand of government on every school board in

this province. It says to every school board: "You will do what you are

told — or else!"

We can't discuss this bill in the context of the control it seeks over

school boards without reference to something else which is before this House.

That is that in addition to this the government wants to have the authority

to put school board members in jail if they don't do what they're told

by this government — not through an order-in-council but by a directive. A

directive can simply be a telephone call from the minister, or maybe the deputy

minister. A directive can simply be a letter ordering a school board to do something,

and if the school board in its conscience and its commitment to its contractual

obligations finds that it's in a catch-22 situation — damned if it does

and damned if it doesn't; no matter what they do it's wrong — then they

are subjected by another desire on the part of this government to being fined

$2,000. If they don't pay the fine, they're liable to end up in jail.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is

no reference whatsoever in Bill 6 to any of the elements to which the

member has referred. That is the piece of legislation which is before

the House at this time. I think the hon. member is referring to another

bill.

If we're talking about the principle of the bill before the House, I

would respectfully suggest that the comments ought to adhere to that

bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order raised by the Minister of

Education is quite valid. The member for Skeena has now referred to

another bill. Clearly this offends the rule of anticipation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, if the minister had been listening

to what I said, instead of star gazing or whatever he's doing, he would

have heard from the outset that that's what I mentioned. One of the

principles in this bill is authoritarian, centralized, Victoria-based

control over school boards. I was seeking to draw a comparison with

additional controls which the government wants to impose upon duly

elected school board members who are responsible to the people who

elect them. That principle is wrong, whether it is in this bill or any

of the other bills that the government brought forth on budget day or

since budget day. All contain the same principle that the great father

in Victoria knows best, regardless of what responsible, democratically

elected school board members feel is their responsibility.

I can imagine the howl that would go up on the part of this

government if the federal government, another level of government, had

the temerity even to suggest that it had the right to control what a

duly elected legislature does.

I would be one of those to decry that as well, if that occurred,

even though there is provision in the constitution. I think it is an

offensive provision, and I didn't see this government during the

constitutional debate seek to take that out; they went along with it.

Even though that provision is in there I think this Legislature would

rise up unanimously and object to an intrusion into our jurisdiction if

the federal government sought to do that.

This government sees no problem in exerting that same kind of

interference and intrusion with respect to school boards. That's the

element of control that is involved.

When the Attorney-General was the Minister of Education he made a

commitment to this Legislature that the School Act — and this bill

deals with the School Act in an indirect way — would be the subject of

a major revision presented to the Legislature within a year. Now the

Attorney-General was not Minister of Education very long, but he was

reflecting government policy to overhaul and revise and modernize the

School Act and bring it before this Legislature.

That hasn't happened. That assurance, that commitment has been

washed aside in this present government's insane desire to run

everything in this province from Victoria and in its desire to be the

big bully with respect to democratically elected bodies like

municipalities, like hospital boards, voluntary organizations of that

nature, and like school boards. The bill is offensive in that regard.

[ Page 1168 ]

Earlier I had mentioned that there is a euphemism used by the

government — not "interim," which we have dealt with at some length.

For some reason or other it shows up again that the government says one

thing when in fact it seeks to do something else. Reference has been

made in this chamber from time to time, not only during this session

but in previous sessions and in previous parliaments and under previous

premiers, to the thoughts expressed by people in other parts of the

world who espouse the political ideal of fascism. One of the underlying

facts about the fascist movement throughout the world, and one of the

identifying features of it, is that it says one thing couched in

acceptable "motherhood type of language," when in fact it seeks to do

something else. That is what "interim" does. "Interim" is one of those

nice words, suggesting it is only temporary, when in fact the ideal is

to have this as permanent.

The same provision and same thought applies with respect to

"control" and "supervise." The explanatory note to the bill says: "One

of the other principles of the bill is to give the minister powers to

supervise budgets and expenditures by school districts." " Supervise"

and " control," " supervise" and "domination," "supervise" and

"centralized power" have different meanings. What the minister is

seeking with this bill is an absolute, authoritarian control over

school boards and their budgets.

"Supervise" is a baloney word, just put in there as a sop to the

writers or to be able to drag it out and say: "Oh, no, we only want to

supervise things. We just want to make sure it is going in a proper direction"

— when, in fact, it seeks to control.

[3:15]

I think

section 1 of the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act

is worth looking at, because this bill is affected by that particular

section. The bill seeks to control school boards with respect to their

budgets, or any portion of them. It seeks to make it a permanent

feature of government activities. It seeks, therefore, on a permanent

basis — forever — to declare that certain sections of the School Act

have no force and effect. It seeks to go further than what the few

words in this bill say. This bill seeks to make permanent that sections

181 to 183 of the School Act have no effect; that they are null and

void; that whatever powers and authorities existed under those

provisions — sections 181, 182 and 183 — are no longer valid; that they

are repealed, wiped out, gone. It seeks to make that a permanent

feature of the law of this province.

This bill seeks, indirectly, to amend the School Act. If the

provision — and I mentioned this earlier — of

section 2, which repeals

the interim feature of the interim School Act had another date in it,

one might have an argument to say: "Well, it's still interim." But when

that is repealed, when that's gone, when this is a forever piece of

legislation, also forever sections 181, 182 and 183 of the School Act

are null and void and have no effect. They are gone.

Section 185 of the School Act is gone, no longer in effect, invalid,

repealed, wiped out, cancelled — whatever word one wants to use. They

are gone forever.

Section 186 is gone.

Section 187 is gone.

Section 188

is gone; 189, gone; 190, gone; 193, gone forever as well.

Section 194

is wiped out and gone forever under the provisions of this bill before

us.

Section 196 — that is gone forever, has no effect.

Section 197 also

has no effect — forever.

Section 198 likewise is gone completely from

the School Act.

I submit to you that if the minister and this government wanted to

make amendments to the School Act, then they should have brought in a

bill to that effect. They should have been upfront about it. They

should have fully disclosed their intentions and not have been

Machiavellian, manipulative and manoeuvring about their intentions.

Section 198 is also gone.

Section 199 is gone forever. I'm reciting

these one after the other to try to make the point that the government

is seeking — indirectly and without public disclosure, really, of what

it's doing, because it doesn't say anything about this in the bill,

although that's the effect of it — to amend, or to repeal and declare

as having no validity and no effect,

section after

section after

section of the School Act.

Section 200 as well — that no longer has an

effect, on a permanent basis.

Section 201 has no effect any longer — on

a permanent, forever basis.

Section 202 no longer has any effect on a

permanent basis, forever.

Section 203 — that too has been wiped out by

the simplicity of this bill before us that says one of the principles

of the bill is to give "the minister powers to supervise budgets."

That, Mr. Speaker, is an explanatory note. If one were to describe that

explanatory note accurately, every rule book in the House would be

brought forward to declare the identification as being unparliamentary.

But that's precisely what it does. It has a subtlety, or a subterfuge,

in it. They are not powers to supervise or powers to control, but they

are also seeking....

Where did I stop —

section 203? They're also seeking to wipe out

section 204 of the School Act on a permanent basis; and

section 205 on

a permanent basis; and

section 206 forever, on a permanent basis. Is

that an interim piece of legislation?

Section 207 and, finally, in that

grouping,

section 208 as well are gone; in addition to that, sections

210 and 211. I haven't counted them up, but you can see that there are

quite a number of provisions of the School Act that have now been

declared permanently invalid. School boards no longer have the

legislative authority to operate under any of those sections. When the

act was brought into this House a year ago by the previous minister, a

great commitment was made that it was only interim, that it was only

necessary to push these sections of the School Act to one side for a

short period of time. Now they're pushed aside forever. It's the

minister's desire to not only control the activities of school boards

but also deny — by the back door — the historic rights and

opportunities that school boards have had under certain provisions of

the School Act. That should not be permitted, Mr. Speaker, in a

legislative chamber which prides itself...and from a government that

says it is an open government, that it discloses to the people

everything it intends to do.

When the minister made his opening remarks he didn't say anything at

all about the sections I enumerated being repealed and having no more

effect. He hid that information from public view — or maybe he lost his

notes. Maybe he had a note about it and, with his usual ability, wasn't

able to find the note to see what, in fact, it was that he was doing or

what was being done.

Let me say a word about the minister's comments, now that I've

referred to his opening remarks on this particular bill. On page 627 of

Hansard , he said: In 1976" — he's talking about the cost of

education — "the total bill was in the order of about $910 million."

That's a large amount of money. "In 1983 the total budget is

approximately $1.9 billion. That's a staggering increase over a period

of seven

[ Page 1169 ]

fiscal years. We have only have to examine one

uncomplicated aspect of fiscal life in this province that is that the

Social Credit government was the government of this province

continuously over that seven-fiscal-year period. The minister sought to

editorialize and to give an exaggerated aspect to those figures that, I

submit, is not there. I don't say that unkindly, Mr. Speaker, but the

use of the word.... I'll read that sentence again: "That's a staggering

increase...." I submit that the use of the word "staggering" was

designed for editorializing purposes. It was not an objective analysis

of the movement in costs of education. That turns out to be an average

increase over the seven-year period of 7 percent per year — seven

years, a 48 percent alteration; a little under 7 percent per year.

In those years the rate of inflation was consistently above that.

The rate of public spending on matters other than education increased

at a fabulous rate. Take the first two years the Ministry of Finance

was held by the present minister — that was only four years ago. He

brought budget increases into this House which totalled 40 percent. If,

as the minister said, there is a staggering increase in expenditures —

as the minister said with respect to education — how would he classify

the government squandering and spending binge that went on over that

two-year period when the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

increased expenditures by 40 percent? How would he classify the

percentage increase in public spending when...? Ever since this

Minister of Finance has been the Minister of Finance — this is his

fourth budget from the time of his first budget until the introduction

of the budget that has now been put in limbo.... This government and

this Minister of Education took

part in it in the inner meetings of

cabinet and endorsed the whole thing. In that four-year period this

Minister of Finance has increased public spending, and has reached into

the taxpayer's pocket and yarded out hundreds of millions of dollars,

resulting in increased government expenditure of more than 85 percent,

which is more than 21 percent per year. But the minister says that an

average increase of 7 percent in educational finance is "staggering." I

submit to you that that word was tossed in there without the minister's

knowing the full intent of it. It also shows that education has been

starved in this province in order that a real staggering increase,

namely that 85 percent increase in government spending over the last

four years — in order that the funds acquired by excessive taxation

could go somewhere other than into education. Education has been the

poor boy in budgetary activities. Education has been denied proper

funding — for some other purposes. What other purposes? Perhaps the

Minister of Education could point out to the House how he, who earlier

was Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Labour, could

participate in a cabinet that saw such a staggering — and I use the

word in its real sense — increase in government squandering of public

funds over a four-year period, and can now sit quietly by and decry the

fact that the increase has only been 7 percent per year since 1976.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I hear mutterings, which I think it would probably be best to ignore.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: They've come awake, these silent, sleeping

back-benchers who don't want to get into the debate and talk about

anything. They just want to chatter from their seats and interrupt

people. They're not interested in truthful declarations. Can you see

them shake their heads, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House will come to order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Please protect me from these people, Mr. Speaker

One other quotation from the Minister of Education....

Interjection.

[3:30]

MR. HOWARD: Now he's interrupting again.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, figures don't lie, Mr. Minister. You know the reverse of that statement, and you're adept at it as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the minister to come to order. He'll

have ample opportunity to reply. The member will address the bill and

please stay in order himself.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that no reference

was made as to whether or not I was in order until back-benchers and

government members started chattering. We're getting to them. The truth

of this matter is getting to them.

On page 628, in his introductory remarks to this bill, the minister

talked about taxation and budgetary increases. Listen to this

carefully. I don't know whether the minister was misquoted or he picked

up the wrong note or got the wrong figure or somebody gave him

incorrect and false information which he unwittingly relayed to the

House. He said: "It seems to me, with a budget in the area of a 7

percent increase in what we have introduced...." Where did that 7

percent increase come from? Even the Minister of Finance, who made a

most conservative and confined estimate of the realities, said in his

budget speech that the increase is 12.3 percent. Yet the minister said:

"It seems to me, with a budget" — I assume he's talking about the

budget introduced on May 7 — "in the area of a 7 percent increase in

what we have introduced, it has worked reasonably well." He talks about

a whole bunch of other things: they don't want to take funds away from

education. Does he mean a 7 percent increase in the total budget? The

Minister of Finance said it is 12.3 percent. The Minister of Finance is

wrong, because he fudged the figures; he restated the figures from

1982-83 and put those restated figures in the current budget — and it

says so in the budget — to show a fictitious 12.3 percent increase,

when in reality the budget increase this year over last year — compare

both budgets — was 16.7 percent. So what's this 7 percent the minister

is talking about? Is it a 7 percent increase in the budget of the

Ministry of Education? Is that what he's saying?

Interjection.

[ Page 1170 ]

MR. HOWARD: He has said "right."

If he was referring to the Ministry of Education — and a lawyer

would know this; the minister is, I know, a learned gentleman — then

the statement should have been qualified to say a 7 percent increase in

the education budget. But that is not what he said. Take a 7 percent

increase in the education budget, compared with a 12.3 percent increase

in the total budget as announced by the minister, and — using the

Minister of Finance's figures, which I say are erroneous; I don't want

to exaggerate the point — you find a 7 percent increase this year in

the education budget, and a 12.3 percent increase in other things. How

is it possible then that the Minister of Education can be in this House

with pleasantness and accept that kind of authority? Doesn't he fight

for education in the confines of the cabinet room? Doesn't he stand up

to other people in this cabinet who are getting the lion's share of

taxpayers' money? Doesn't the minister declare his own interest in

education? Is he intent on starving education in this province? It

seems that this is the case.

In any event, he will have an opportunity. He would have had an

opportunity earlier to close the debate, but I looked around and he

wasn't here. I don't know where he was.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's here now. Why don't you sit down?

MR. HOWARD: You see? There they are, not interested in

getting into the debate themselves, just yapping away like hyenas in

the background. Mr. Speaker, please draw the government back-benchers

to order. They're intruding upon the ordinary flow of my comments in

this particular debate.

I have one other thought to express about this particular bill

before my time expires, and it relates to a provision which school

trustees find, generally speaking, rather offensive. That is the

provision which says the minister can control the budget or a portion

of the budget. I'm sure government members had an opportunity to meet

with the representatives of the B.C. School Trustees' Association.

I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and on that I'm sure

I'll get applause from hon. members opposite who don't want to listen

to the truth. Thank you for your attention, for your interruptions,

your inanities and support for a piece of legislation which is

centralizing and authoritarian, and which is misleading all the way

across. You've got lots of support among your back-benchers.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to congratulate the first person who

spoke on this bill and did a very good job. As the Speaker will

probably know, the opposition intends to vote against this bill, which

we feel dangerously centralizes authority over school districts and

education financing in our province into the hands of one minister.

While we're fairly sympathetic with this minister, he may not be the

Minister of Education for all time. In fact, he will probably not be

the Minister of Education for very long, and it could be centralized

into the hands of some other minister. That's the danger of this type

of legislation. It doesn't simply give power to the good people, to the

people who are able to make competent decisions about restraint, but

gives power to anyone who may occupy the position, someone who may not

have the sympathy for the public school system that this minister may

have; in fact, someone who may do some damage to the public education

system, as Social Credit ministers have done in the past. In fact, as a

result of the principle of the bill, we're concerned about the past

attitude of the Social Credit government toward public education. What

we really question is the government's intent, in part by what it is

doing in presenting this bill, toward the public education system.

First of all, the events of the last two years lead us to believe

that the government is trying to keep the school districts, the parents

and the students of this province in a constant state of uncertainty

and confusion. This concerns us, because if there's one thing that a

public education system must rely on it is a system of continuity and

the belief that the system will be here from one day to the next. That

type of certainty and confidence is built in to the system and

reflected in the confidence of students, trustees and parents.

Confidence that the system is going to carry on is what we really

require in this province to give us a quality system of education. It's

something we can build on in order to create the future and establish

the basis of economic recovery for this province. As long as that

public school system is in a constant state of change, confusion and

uncertainty, it means that our students, teachers, administrators and

trustees do not really know where the system is going. They don't know

where they can best invest their money and effort in order to guarantee

that this province will have the best students to address the issues

which are going to face this province in the future, and especially

those economic issues which threaten our economic recovery.

In deference to my friend for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I think "interim"

is actually a good word for describing this bill. "Interim" is a good

word to describe the whole attitude of this government and this

minister to education, because nothing this minister or this government

does with respect to public education has any element of certainty or

continuity about it at all. Nobody can have confidence, Mr. Speaker,

with the way this government treats the public education system in the

province of British Columbia.

MRS. JOHNSTON: The voters have confidence.

MR. SKELLY: Well, there's the protégé of the former Minister

of Education, who voted himself out of office. He had so little

confidence in himself that he went back to potting plants.

Unfortunately, he left a few protégés to run for office in Surrey, and

now we're being victimized by the fact that these members will be with

us in the House for another four years.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is quite unparliamentary to refer to a member's ability to be seated in the House, and I would remind the member of that.

MR. SKELLY: There is no question of the member's ability to

be seated. I counted the votes in Surrey, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure the

members for Surrey counted those votes — on both hands. We both arrived

at the same conclusion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will direct those

members to listen quietly. I would like to make a promise to both

members for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston and Mr.

[ Page 1171 ]

Reid). Clearly they have something to say, and when

and if they have the courage to stand in this House and speak on this

bill, then I undertake and promise to sit quietly and listen to

anything they may have to say about Bill 6 and the problems of public

education in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I don't think anybody other than me was speaking in order. Do you, Mr. Speaker?

Maybe I should go over some of the points I was making just before I

was so rudely interrupted, and then some of the members who may have

been concerned or may have misinterpreted what I was saying will get it

straight this time.

We are concerned about the government's treatment of the public

education system in this province and the confusion, uncertainty and

problems they've generated in the minds of trustees, administrators,

teachers, students, parents and the general community. That's why, with

deference, I disagree with the member for Skeena about the term

"interim" in the bill. Everything this government does with respect to

the public education system in the province is "interim." It's always

changing and in a state of confusion. Maybe it would be better if the

act was entitled the "Education Permanent Interim Finance Act," or

maybe the "Education Interim Permanent Finance Act," or some equally

confusing term which is suggestive of the confusion in the government's

mind with respect to the whole area of policy around public education.

[3:45]

Last year the government changed the financing of school districts

at least three times. At the beginning of the fiscal year they

announced that school district budgets would be cut back by a certain

amount. This required the school boards to adjust their normal

budgeting procedures to cut teachers that they'd previously agreed to

hire, to restructure classrooms and to change classroom sizes. It

caused a bit of confusion, but we have confidence in the school

trustees in this province. They were able to understand the problems of

the economic recession and, as a result, they were able to come through

that first change in education financing with little or no trouble.

MR. REID: And they will again too.

MR. SKELLY: There's that member for Surrey, Mr. Speaker, who

is constantly interrupting this House, speaking from his seat, again

causing no end of confusion in this education debate, which appears to

be government policy.

MR. HOWARD: He makes more sense than speaking on his feet.

MR. SKELLY: No, I didn't mean speaking from his seat that

way. I meant speaking while sitting in his seat. Mr. Speaker, hopefully

you'll draw to that member's attention that the standing orders of the

House do not allow a member constantly to interrupt the speakers who

have taken their legitimate place in this debate. But okay, since he's

done it, I'll have to go back over what I said in case some of the

members didn't hear.

Anyway, at the first of last year, the government announced that

they were going to impose cutbacks in the education budget. The school

boards were able to respond positively, as school boards generally do.

Those people are very concerned about the state of public education in

this province. They are, in general, very good people. They are

concerned about the tax situation. They are concerned about the

situation in the province. They are aware of the fact that this

government has driven the province tremendously into debt compared with

previous governments. They are aware that since 1976 this government

has spent the public's money like drunken sailors, and now we've

reached the point of reckoning where we have to start cutting back on

social programs, according to the government. The trustees were

sympathetic with that approach in general and were willing, provided it

was done on a one-time basis, to adjust their spending and employment

projections. They did change their budgets and staffing requirements,

and they did change class sizes in order to accommodate the new, more

rigorous financial regime being imposed by the province.

But then suddenly, halfway through the year, the government

announced that budgets were going to have to be cut again. The school

districts couldn't believe that the Minister of Finance and the Social

Credit government of British Columbia could be so incompetent as to be

unable to project the revenues of the province on an accurate basis.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are we on the budget or the bill?

MR. SKELLY: We're dealing with school district financing. If

you have a problem, you could always stand on your feet in this House

and draw the Speaker's attention to what I'm saying through a point of

order. Surely these instructions were given to you in your first

orientation meeting which was held just after the last election.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the education program in the Social Credit caucus

is a little deficient. I would suggest to that caucus — and not through

you, Mr. Speaker; that wouldn't be appropriate — that perhaps they

should provide a bit of an orientation session for their members, tell

them what that little red book is for, and maybe point out that there

are some rules and regulations that people in the Legislative Assembly

should abide by. Now I'll get.... Oh, no, I'm going to have to repeat

this again. I'm sure most of the members in the House would have got it

by now, but in any case....

About halfway through the year the government then ordered school

boards again to cut back on their financing, again to cut back on their

staffing, again to change class sizes and shut down schools. In the

case of the school district in Alberni, we were forced to shut down

five community schools, to reallocate the teachers, to lay off some

teachers who were on contract, to.... And this is very difficult,

because I know my children go through it once a year when we move down

to Victoria for a legislative session and then move back home, and they

have to change schools. What this government did in Port Alberni was

force that district to shut down five schools, to move the children

around the community, to move the teachers around the community, to

create additional confusion in that school district and additional

problems in that school district. The government didn't have to bear

the burden of those problems. It was the students, the teachers, the

parents and the community of Port Alberni that bore the problems.

In spite of that, the school district was very responsible. They sat

down and worked out a method by which they could chop back on their

budgets, chop back on staffing, change class sizes, and change the

allocation of students to various

[ Page 1172 ]

classes and schools in the district. The school district was very responsible in that regard.

Then, right after they did that, the government brought in the

school districts' interim financing act, the Education (Interim)

Finance Act, Bill 27, which again totally revamped the whole program of

school district funding, seized the industrial tax base and the

commercial tax base from the local school districts, totally changed

the financial and budgeting system around, and threw the school

districts again into confusion. As I pointed out to you before, Mr.

Speaker, that type of confusion does not lead to good quality education

in the public schools of the province. That type of uncertainty does

not contribute to the improvement of the public education system in the

province. I think there is some intent on the part of the government.

It is evident from what the government has been doing over the last

seven or eight years that they really have no respect for the public

education system in the province of British Columbia. Wherever they can

see an opportunity to bring in the wrecking crew, they do so. They

attack school boards; they attack students; they attack teachers

specifically.

They said the teachers aren't teaching properly, so one of the

ministers brought in a system of province-wide testing. The idea of

this province-wide testing was not to see how well the students were

doing. We know from competent studies that testing is not really an

accurate way of measuring how well students are doing, so the

government said it wanted to do this in order to tell how well the

teachers are doing. Because they changed the system of education

financing around, and because they wanted to cut back on what the

teachers were being paid, they cut back five or six paid working days

from every teacher and they shut down the schools on those five days.

As a result the tests were conducted at different times in different

schools in different districts around the province, so that people

from, say, Dawson Creek could phone down to Vancouver and say what was

on the test. The whole principle of standardized testing, for what it's

worth — and not many people these days consider it worth anything — was

tossed out the window. That was all wasted money, wasted effort, wasted

time by a government that is consistently wasting money, effort and

time of the people of British Columbia.

That's the way they treat the public education system of the

province. Finally you will recall the numerous threats that the

previous Minister of Education made against the teachers in the public

education system in the province. Fortunately he is gone, as I

mentioned before, back to his potted plants, and now we have a new

minister.

I know a lot of teachers and trustees around the province. I used to

be a teacher and a school trustee before I was elected to this

Legislature, and I know a lot of parents and students, and I was one of

those as well. When this minister was appointed, as a result of his

record as Minister of Labour, many teachers, trustees, students and

parents heaved a sigh of relief because they thought that here was a

minister who was willing and open to discussion. Here was a minister

willing to go out and visit those communities, to talk to them, to

receive information back from them and to discuss the improvements in

the system.

Definitely they thought some continuity was now going to come back

to the system as a result of eliminating the previous Minister of

Education. Now they thought there would be some consultation. The

Speaker smiles, maybe he knows something more than the rest of the

parents and students and teachers in the province. In any case, those

people had high hopes for the current Minister of Education. They

thought that now there would be some recognition of the value of the

service provided by school boards and school trustees — service that is

provided for very low pay, as the Speaker will know. Most of that

service is provided free; it is given willingly by the school trustees

of this province.

They thought there would be recognition of the commitment to service

to children by teachers and by other school board employees around the

province. As I said before, they finally thought that now there would

be a minister in the office of the Minister of Education who would

respect the open door to discussion. With the throne and the budget

speech and with the present legislation that is under discussion here

in the House today, and with the utterances of the new minister, the

hopes of those people throughout the province — teachers, students,

school trustees, parents and communities — have been dashed, with

respect to this minister.

They found the door to discussion slammed in their faces. The

minister does not respect the opinions of those who have been involved

in the educational process in the public education system for years and

years. Maybe that isn't so, but what has happened in this House with

respect to this bill and what has happened with the school budgeting

process, leads people to believe that it is so. I am not convinced, as

that member for Surrey has said, that this Minister of Education is

that bad. I think he's just following orders.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I think I'm going to have to go back to the

beginning. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker? Nineteen minutes.

I can go back to the beginning without cutting anything out.

No, I'm not convinced that this minister is as bad as the

legislation and his recent utterances would lead us to believe. For

example, when he was Minister of Labour he actually made a good try; he

made a good effort. In spite of the pressures from the more extreme

right-wing members of his caucus, and from the Premier, this minister

did a relatively good job. If he was given free rein and allowed to

apply his own particular personality to this legislation and to the

administration of public education in the province, then this minister

would probably do a good job. In presenting this bill, Mr. Speaker, and

given the requirement to guide this bill through the House, the

minister is actually operating under the thumb of the Premier of

British Columbia, who we know has no respect whatsoever for public

education in the province of B.C.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Chair recognizes the first member for Vancouver South.

[4:00]

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, while I have no objection to the

compliments to the minister, it does seem to me, under standing order

43, that the presentation is very repetitious.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will further advise the member for

Alberni that he's canvassing an area that might be better canvassed

under the estimates of the Minister of Education and not under Bill 6.

The member will please proceed with discussion regarding the bill.

[ Page 1173 ]

MR. SKELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be very happy to get onto

the budget. This is the only province in Canada that doesn't have a

budget for the fiscal year which began on April 1 of this year.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: It's really hard to believe how incompetent the

government can be. If we're talking about the kind of certainty in the

public education system that this legislation should provide, at least

the people of the province should know what the funding program is

going to be for the education system in the future.

As I was saying, I don't believe the former Minister of Labour is

responsible for this type of legislation. I don't think he is that kind

of personality. I don't think that he has that lack of respect for the

public education system of the province, that he would present this

type of legislation that results in the administration of the public

school system in this way. I think he's presenting this legislation and

steering it through the House under the thumb of the Premier of the

province, who has no respect whatsoever for the public education system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's beside the bill. To the bill, please.

MR. SKELLY: No, I think I'm speaking directly to the bill

when I say that, Mr. Speaker, because the principle of this bill

reflects a government that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Surrey rises on a point of order.

MR. SKELLY: Is this a maiden point of order, or can I heckle it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Alberni will take his place.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, under

section 43 I would like to

repeat that the statements are not only irrelevant but also

repetitious. Could we please stick to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The member for Alberni will relate his remarks to the....

MS. BROWN: It's not well taken at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It certainly is. The member will relate his

debate to the bill before us and not to other cabinet ministers or

items that might be better canvassed under estimates.

MR. SKELLY: I was talking about how legislation such as this

could be presented — legislation with a principle so abhorrent as the

principle of this legislation; legislation that centralizes the power

over school district budgets into the hands of one minister. That's the

principle we're talking about in this bill, Mr. Speaker. There is no

other

section to this bill except that

section which gives the minister

the power to fiddle and tinker with budgets passed by school districts

acting in good faith under the existing legislation. The minister has

now centralized, into his own hands, the power to change those budgets.

Even if they stay within the guidelines prescribed by the provincial

government, he can go in and tinker with sections of the budget and

change them around. They issued a directive to hospital boards, and

this is on the same type of principle as is reflected in this bill.

They say that the hospitals have two different sections in their

budget; one

section applies to equipment and the other to personnel.

The government is willing to allow hospital boards to fire personnel

and transfer those salaries to the equipment side of the budget, but

they're not willing to do it the other way. It represents to me, as

this bill does, an attitude about people, about hourly-paid workers,

about employees, especially employees in the service industry.... This

government's constant repetition about productivity in the public

sector and in service industries indicates to me that they don't like

people who work in the public sector. They seem to treat those people

as second-class citizens, as people who maybe should not be citizens at

all. What did they do during this budget year in this legislation? They

attacked people — as they have done in hospital budgets, where the

government allows tinkering with the hospital budgets — very much as

they do in Bill 6, the bill I'm referring directly to. They allow a

transfer from salaries to equipment, but they won't allow a transfer

the other way. In other words, you can fire people to buy equipment,

but you can't refuse to buy equipment in order to hire more people.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Tell the truth.

MR. SKELLY: What does that minister know about the truth?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. That is getting

a little unparliamentary on both sides. To the bill, please, and

perhaps we can avoid all these side discussions.

MR. SKELLY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm getting close to winding up my debate on this bill.

The opposition, and I personally, are opposed to this type of

legislation. What it does is further concentrate the powers of local

governments in the hands of a Social Credit cabinet minister here in

Victoria. The result of that is that whenever errors are made they are

magnified all around the province. When the minister is out $10 for one

school district, if every school district has to abide by the same

formula, then we're going to be out $840. The same thing for $1

million: if he's out $1 million in one school district then we're going

to be out $840 million around the province, because he's operating

every school district on the basis of the same formula.

What we're saying is that by getting many minds to work on the

problems of restraint and how to develop school district budgets in

times of economic problems, we can reach some good solutions. But when

you only put one mind to work, then errors could be made which are

magnified around the whole province, and that's what we're concerned

about. Not only does it violate the democratic principle of broadly

based consultation, of allowing people in their local areas with their

locally elected officials to make up their minds with respect to

budgeting priorities within their districts — and concentrating that in

the hands of one minister behind the closed doors of that minister's

office, thereby violating that democratic principle of broadly based

consultation — but it

[ Page 1174 ]

also increases inefficiency. Some people say that a

dictatorship is the most efficient form of government, but nothing

could be further from the truth.

MRS. JOHNSTON: It depends on who it is.

MR. SKELLY: The lady member for Surrey says it depends on who

it is. We've already established the price. She's willing to look at

the dictator, but it depends on who it is. Some people say a dictator

is a good thing — for example, the member for Surrey. But if only his

mind is applied to a problem, the results are unpredictable and

inefficient and create serious problems, as we've seen with every

single dictator ever placed in office.

What we're doing in this bill is no less dictatorial. Putting one

minister in charge of all the education budgets in the province and

allowing him to fiddle and tinker with those budgets is no less

dangerous than putting a dictator in charge of the whole country and

risking that his judgment is the most effective in terms of government

of the whole province. What we're concerned about is that this

legislation makes that minister a dictator in terms of school district

budgets around the province. We see that as a problem.

So we are concerned about this bill, Mr. Speaker, and that's why

we're opposed to it. It reflects a total lack of confidence in the

whole principle of local democracy. This minister, or this

government.... I really don't think this minister believes it, but this

government believes local governments are simply rubber stamps that

should follow the absolute edict of the Minister of Education here in

Victoria; rubber stamps that should follow the whims of the Minister of

Education or the government here in Victoria. It's a vote of

non-confidence in local governments around the province, and for that

reason we intend to vote against this legislation. It's dictatorial,

inefficient, a vote of non-confidence in democracy. It's a vote of

non-confidence in the ability of school trustees, the ability of

committed first-class people who have stood for election around the

province out of commitment to the people of the province, out of

commitment to the public education system and to local democracy. This

bill, in our opinion, represents a vote of non-confidence by the Social

Credit government in that type of local democracy, which we believe is

the cornerstone of the democratic system here in British Columbia.

So for all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this

legislation, and this party intends to vote against this legislation.

In order to give the government some time, I would move adjournment of

this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[4:15]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 32

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, Bill 6 is déjà vu, in the sense that

last year's education restraint financing act is in a sense being

reconfirmed and expanded. We have in British Columbia a situation which

we share with the rest of the country. Education in Canada is unique,

unlike, I think, any other country in the world. Other democratic

jurisdictions have similar education systems, but Canada has a most

unique system because of the way it was established generations ago.

Canada is the second largest landmass in the world, with a relatively

small population. Sometimes the school districts and education had to

reach small populations in remote areas. We had the unique....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Is the steel plate bothering you again? Can we send

in the nurse to adjust the minister's steel plate? It's giving him

headaches. I'm trying to educate these hon. members, who have been

gracious enough to sit in the House — and I'm grateful for that — but

they're constantly interrupting me.

In other democratic jurisdictions there was a general

decentralization of education, but in Canada, because of the remoteness

of some communities, we decided generations ago that we wanted to make

education available to all communities as best we could with the

resources we had. Sometimes that meant that in one jurisdiction,

especially in western Canada, we would have an establishment of the

one-room school. It's interesting if you read the history of the

pioneers of this province and this country and how that came about. The

hon. member for Burnaby North taught in a one-room school, and there

may have been others.

MR. LEA: I went to one.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Prince Rupert confirms that he

received an education in a one-room school. All of us here are

receiving an education in a one-room school. But it was very much a

part of Canada. It was part of our history. Certainly my parents went

to a one-room school, and I suppose many of you have had the same

background.

How it established itself was this: two or three families, usually

farming families and one or two families in a village, would get

together and say: "We can't send our kids constantly by wagon or train

to the nearest school. We've got to establish a school in our

neighbourhood, because it's having an effect on our families and our

lifestyles." They would get

[ Page 1175 ]

together. They would combine and provide their own

financial resources, and they would all build the school. They would

advertise in some of the major educational centres in the country for a

teacher. They raised the money to hire a teacher, and if problems

arose, the families or the heads of families would meet and they would

decide whether a teacher wants to resign or whether to replace a

teacher or expand or whatever. It was a community type of organization.

When these villages and communities grew in population — after the

First World War in western Canada particularly — the availability of

these families and the time involved in the administration of the local

school would become so onerous that they would delegate two or three of

the citizens of the community to become the representatives to deal

with the administration of the school: the teacher's salary, the

conditions of work, and they would also deal to some extent with

discipline and with curriculum and see that things were kept relatively

up to date.

As the population expanded, they went to a two-room school.

Sometimes they had two or three schools in a relatively definable area.

We evolved the structure of what we know today as the beginnings of a

school board, where we actually establish through provincial

legislation in western Canada the process by which we elect from a

community — by that stage called a school district — to administer the

education system.

In those days all things were drawn to the attention of the school

board: the raising of school money from the community to build schools,

to pay teachers and to finance programs. The curriculum was also

established and designed by local school boards to a great extent.

Local school districts had to rely on some central body for materials —

textbooks, guides and various other materials — to keep the system in

that little school district up to date. The young people who went

through that school district — let's call it School District 1 — would

be up to date with people in School District 10 and indeed with kids

going to school in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. In those days

the materials — the textbooks and the course guidelines — were provided

from central Canada and the United States.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to keep anybody awake. Where was I?

MR. LEA: You were making a very intelligent point.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. I feel like I'm the only person in a one-room school.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Did you go to one of those schools?

MR. LAUK: No, I did not. I went to the school of hard knocks, my friend. I'm just a little country boy.

The point I'm trying to make is that in those days curriculum was

the thing that concerned school boards. School boards not only in B.C.

but also in other provinces met and said: "We've got to have a

curriculum that is even and fairly uniform throughout all of our school

districts, because we're finding that in some school districts there is

a delay in catching up with other school districts — new materials and

so on." So the request went out for some kind of central authority to

establish some basic curriculum for school districts. I don't know what

day that was, but it had to be a day that a wiser person would perhaps

have recognized as a loss of local autonomy. A uniform curriculum was

required at the time; nevertheless, it was a loss of autonomy.

How far did these local school boards want to go? Given the makeup

of school boards in those days, I don't think they would have been

particularly happy with Bill 6, any more than are the school board

members of today. They wanted a uniformity in curriculum, but as

provincial legislation evolves, and surprisingly enough, as politics in

this province polarize and political philosophy enters into the

education system, dangerous precedents are set. Now we have a situation

where the autonomy of the local school board is virtually eliminated.

Even during the NDP administration school boards had to go through

elaborate approval steps to get the simplest improvements to their

school districts. One example, I think, was in Prince George, where a

school board member told me they had to go through 60 stages of

approval to get the showers maintained and expanded in an elementary

school. Do you remember the situation I'm talking about? It was in the

Prince George school district, when the Deputy Speaker was on the

school board. There were over 60 steps for approval to expand these

showers. How ridiculous!

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: When did you start showering?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not in school.

MR. LAUK: Not in elementary school; all right. Did you start around grade 10?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Perhaps one of the hon. gentlemen on the other side would care to help you. As far as I'm concerned, I'm on Bill 9.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 6.

MR. LAUK: That's right. Bill 9 has to do with community showers.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I think I've just found out the

problem. The hon. member said he was speaking on Bill 9, but we're

really on Bill 6. Would you please, under

section 43, ask the hon.

member to see that his comments are not irrelevant or repetitious.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point is well taken. I'm sure the member

can relate his remarks to the bill now before us. Furthermore, I might

point out....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I have one more comment: avoid personal references to another hon. member.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't have Beauchesne in front of me, but my recollection as it deals

[ Page 1176 ]

with relevancy and repetition is that it says the

rules are so vague it is difficult to make that judgment, and that the

member speaking should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am.

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's a very good explanation.

MR. LAUK: I thank my hon. colleague. That's the most

faint-hearted defence I've had in a long time. He might as well have

said: "In spite of my own doubts, let's give the hon. member the

benefit of the doubt." Thanks a lot. I've stood alone before and I'll

stand alone now.

The reason I am raising the example of the 69- or 70-step approval —

I expand it by 10 every time I mention it — is that we have gone

towards centralization of the education system in a most irresponsible

way. We have demonstrated we do not trust locally elected school

boards. We have demonstrated over the years that centralization of

education is supposed to be the way to go. No improper motive is

attributed to that centralization. I think that originally they wanted

to have an even-handed school system. They didn't want to hear a

complaint that somebody had some equipment that another school district

didn't have.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It seems to me that it has gone far beyond the pale, and we were

aware of this for some years. The NDP have argued for decentralization.

We think there is a lot of room for it. We think it would be a

demonstration of our confidence in locally elected school boards. We

think it would be appropriate from the democratic point of view if you

gave more responsibility to locally elected school boards. Then perhaps

better people would run for those positions. That is no reflection on

those who are running, who have dedicated their time, but perhaps

people with better ideas, more energy and more time could run. Perhaps

there would be more competition for those positions during the election

of local school boards.

All of those benefits would flow from decentralization. I thought

that both parties were discussing that. I know that during the 1975

election the Premier called for the decentralization of the education

system. He called for it in quite clear terms. As a matter of fact, in

my own constituency during that election the Social Credit candidates

used that argument continuously. They said: "The Social Credit Party is

committed to the decentralization of the education system."

Since 1976 we have become the most centralized education system in

all of Canada. Last year, I believe, our education system was used in a

conference in the United States as one of the examples of a very

centralized education system in the North American context. I don't

take any pride in that. I think it is a terrible thing that we are used

as an example of ultra-centralization in education. That is a direct

result of more and more encroachment upon the traditional

responsibilities of locally elected school boards since 1976.

This bill not only centralizes the British Columbia education system

in the ministry and sets up predictable formulas and procedures; it

also places absolute power in the hands of one person, the minister of

the day. That absolute power is a disgrace. It is a very dangerous

thing, particularly when it comes to the education system. Will what

our kids are being taught in school depend on what government is in

power? Is that what's going to happen? We've seen the chamber of

commerce and other right organizations argue that free enterprise and

feudal capitalism be taught in the curriculum in the schools. We have

seen attempts by right-wing organizations to effect curriculum changes

in other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: My colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) suggests

that the Fraser Institute is writing curriculum. That would be a

terrible thing indeed. We have a situation in which the propaganda

merchants for right-wing politicians in the Fraser Institute are now

being called upon to provide curriculum for our schools. If we formed a

government tomorrow, would we eliminate all economics courses as they

are now and reintroduce something on democratic socialist lines? This

is the kind of nonsense we are facing when this ultimate centralization

of education takes place.

The minister is a fine chap, and I trust him enough to know that he

would not condone partisan philosophical interference with the core

curriculum in the school system.

MR. LEA: You are wrong.

MR. LAUK: No, I am not wrong....

MR. LEA: He would.

MR. LAUK: I trust him because I don't think that he thinks in philosophical terms.

I think the hon. minister is — and I admire this quality in a man —

a simple man. His lifestyle is straightforward and routine, and he

doesn't want to have his comfortable ideas about life and society,

albeit based somewhere around the fourteenth century, to be disturbed.

The problem with that is that he may not know that the curriculum is

being undermined and is being used for partisan political purposes.

I think the bill is a dangerous bill because the costs for schools

are largely based on home-ownership and other forms of land taxation in

the school district, so we can say that a major portion of the costs

for education in the province is borne by people who live in the school

district as homeowners and property owners. There's a large

contribution from the provincial coffers, but there's an even larger

one, if you like, indirectly from the federal government, and we, and

I'm sure the Minister of Education, would resist any kind of move by

the federal jurisdiction....

AN HON. MEMBER: Expand on that contribution.

MR. LAUK: All right. I think that certainly in post-secondary education there's a large contribution...

AN HON. MEMBER: We're talking about Bill 6.

MR. LAUK: I'm talking about education vis-à-vis Bill 6.

... from the federal jurisdiction to the education system, and I use

that as an analogy to point out that both our administration and the

current one has resisted any attempt by the federal government to

direct the affairs of our universities. And rightly so. But, you see,

from our point of view it's consistent with our philosophy of

decentralization; from your point of view it's inconsistent, because on

the one hand you agree with centralization if your government is the

one with the power, but on the other hand if it's the federal

[ Page 1177 ]

government you resist it. I raise that as being an inconsistency and a form of political hypocrisy.

We are arguing that rather than going towards decentralization this

government is moving more and more towards centralization. Bill 6 is

the acme of this relentless drive to gather up all power over the

education system into the hands of one person, the minister of the day.

I don't think the stated purposes can be believed. It is not a question

of restraint. I go back again to my historical discourse, where I

pointed out that school boards, ordered to get uniformity, did

relinquish some autonomy to a central authority. Now that that

authority is being virtually swept away every year into the hands of

the central authority, there are many school board members, parents of

children and taxpayers in general who are very dismayed indeed.

I think it's a rather simplistic argument to say that centralization

will create efficiency. Using my historical examples again, it should

be pointed out that every time another aspect of school board autonomy

is centralized, it has expanded the costs to the taxpayer generally and

hasn't relieved in any way the cost to the local property owner.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Where did you get that information?

MR. LAUK: Oh, this is well known.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, hang on. I'll give it to you. I'm glad you

asked the question. If you look at costs in the 1960s and the 1940s,

and also compare them to 1930s costs for our school districts here —

per pupil — the costs are astronomical. Of course, that's taking

inflation and everything else into consideration. The minister's

experts will be able to tell you that, I'm sure, if you just make the

request.

This kind of astronomical, exponential growth in costs, I argue, is

attributable largely to the centralization process that has taken

place. Rather than efficiency, we have more costs, layer upon layer of

bureaucracy, higher salaries — because you can't be paid the same; if

you're just a superintendent or a local bureaucrat in the school

district you're going to be paid somewhat less than a high-priced

bureaucrat working for the minister. There's prestige involved, and so

on. He's got a large department and he has to pay these people

astronomical salaries. This has been going on for years and years. Of

course, the school board, being reluctant to give up its authority,

holds on to some illusion of authority and keeps on high-priced

bureaucrats at the local level as well. So you really just duplicate

the costs to the taxpayer.

[4:15]

We're all the same taxpayer: federal, provincial or homeowner. We

pay out of the same pocket, and the taxpayer ends up suffering. But

also education ends up suffering. Because of needless bureaucratic

duplication we seem to be reluctant to give more money towards

expanding that kind of facility to education that will directly benefit

students in the classroom. For example, it seems to me we would have

progressed much more rapidly towards smaller class sizes, where they

are appropriate, without the duplication of bureaucracy that has

occurred as part of that disincentive to work towards that goal. And it

seems to me that Bill 6 very much dots the i's and crosses the t's, and

really buries local autonomy so long as this bill will stand as

legislation.

The model of the early school board was an interesting one, indeed.

As so often in political life, you see that when a government comes up

with what they think is a curative piece of legislation to solve one

problem they create a whole series of other ones. That is based upon

really sloppy draftsmanship, but mostly upon sloppy thinking in terms

of the kind of legislation that's required to solve a particular

problem. I think all too often in the British parliamentary system we

have partisan politics to the extent that instead of taking an

objective view of education and saying, "What's going to benefit the

education system? What's going to provide the broadest education, the

most high-quality education for the young people of this province?" we

seem to leave that to one side and take a political approach. It seems

to me that the political approach this government is taking is to get

control over the school boards.

What's happened lately? For many years school boards tended to be

very conservative — small 'c' and partisan conservative as well. The

school board membership generally went along with the central

authority. I think that in the past ten years more and more people have

taken an interest in local education, and you'll find a broader

political spectrum on the boards. I think most people familiar with

what's happened will agree with that. The response of the right-wing —

the Socred Party, the beneficiaries of the right-wing in the province —

has been to resist the power of locally elected school boards because

they were actually making decisions that disagreed in part with the

prevailing political philosophy in Victoria. I think that that

political motivation is behind this bill as much as anything else. That

political motivation is behind the relentless centralization of the

school system over the years. That's a terrible thing, because it puts

education on a political footing almost entirely. No one can raise a

rational, reasonable argument with respect to education without there

being a counterattack by partisan political forces within the province.

It's a crying shame, and I think that if you thought about it, Mr.

Speaker — I say through you to the hon. members — for any time at all,

you would see that what I am saying is substantially correct.

Now how do we solve that problem? Well, you don't solve the problem

through Bill 6. You don't solve the problem by encouraging more

centralization. How can we ask a lawyer with a somewhat passing

interest in education to be the sole arbiter of education finance from

district to district to district? As I pointed out in the debate on the

Education (Interim) Finance Act last year, there were differences

between school districts in costs that were not due to the choices or

the options open to a local school board. The differences in school

costs were substantial where, for example, in northern school districts

during harsh winters their fuel bills are much higher than they would

be in Victoria and Vancouver where we have mild winters. It's just one

example, but I'm raising it to point out that you can't have

across-the-board financing formulas in the sense that Bill 6 is forcing

upon the ministry without taking these differences into consideration.

The inconsistent approach of the Social Credit Party government

towards education has caused massive chaos and confusion within the

school system over the past three or four years in particular. That's

another terrible price to pay for the political machinations between

parties in this province. You've got one statement about "we want a

postage-stamp finance formula...." I think the minister's predecessor

was arguing that — certainly the first Minister of Education in 1976

argued that he would give benefits to school districts

[ Page 1178 ]

that saved money. We found out that, last year, those school districts that actually toed the line were penalized.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I'd like to draw Your Honour's

attention to the fact that I don't believe we have a quorum in the

House anymore.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. In accordance with standing order 6, I will ring the bell.

We now have a quorum, hon. members. Would the second member for Vancouver Centre continue, please.

MR. LAUK: I'm grateful that those who are here have agreed to come in and listen to this fantastic speech.

Could I get Hansard to read back my last two lines — is that possible? I wouldn't want to repeat anything.

As I was saying before the quorum call, partisan differences in the

province have had a terrible effect on the education system, and people

directly involved, including parents, teachers and school board

members, have been thrown into confusion by the inconsistent and

contradictory statements over the past two or three years by the Social

Credit Party minister of the day, who has changed, I think, three or

four times in that short period. For example, I was saying that the

former Minister of Education in 1976 held out an incentive to local

school boards to be efficient with the taxpayers' money and promised

that they would be rewarded if they did so. School districts did so,

and then a new Education minister changed the rules of the game and, in

fact, the very people who had been efficient with their funds were

penalized. This is the chaotic nature of the education policy, as

enunciated by Social Credit ministers over the past several years.

The partisan nitpicking that has gone on and the demagoguery by a

former Social Credit minister, calling for the socalled core curriculum

— and that from a minister who is directly involved in the education

system, and who should have known better — called into question the

quality of education in British Columbia, which at that point in time

stood quite high. It is now quite low. What administration is now in

office? It hasn't been any other party except the Social Credit Party.

In 1976 we were second to none in the country in terms of the quality

of kindergarten to grade 12 education, but now we're standing very low,

near the bottom.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's not what the teachers tell me.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm talking about the quality of the system as a whole.

Our system is being questioned by educators and administrators all

over the North American continent. This is public knowledge. I think

part of the reason is because the government has not had a consistent

education policy based on benefits to the education system and a broad

education for our young people; it's been based on demagoguery and

narrow partisan goals. To argue, for example, for a core curriculum, as

one of the former education ministers used to argue, was pure and utter

demagoguery.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the bells were ringing. Was there not a division in the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member, the bells were rung to get a quorum in the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, does that mean the hon. member was unable to retain even a quorum in the House? Is that entered in the Journals ?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't believe that came into the picture at all, hon. member. There was just no quorum here.

MR. LAUK: Well, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications has now quite rudely entered that fact in Hansard in a most ungracious manner.

In any event, I'm glad that minister was the one to raise the issue.

He was getting a little bit hurt that I would call him a demagogue, but

that's what he was. He was going up and down the province undermining

the confidence of the people of this province in the education system.

You know, the only time the hon. first member for Surrey stands is on a point of order. Will she be speaking in a debate soon?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Surrey rises on a point of order.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would call your attention to

standing order 43. This hon. member continues to persist in

irrelevance, and I would suggest that it should be brought to his

attention that we would like to hear his comments on Bill 6.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's difficult precisely to demonstrate relevance in this case. I would suggest that the hon. member....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would prefer not to be interrupted, hon. members.

The hon. member was speaking to Bill 6, and I believe that there was

some relevance in what he was saying, but perhaps — on many occasions,

I suppose — the Chair can be wrong. If the hon. member would try to be

a little more direct in discussing the bill....

MR. LAUK: I thought that was very, very diplomatically put, Mr. Speaker, much more diplomatically than others have put it in the past.

I draw the relevance of my remarks to Bill 6 by pointing out that

when you have centralized control, which Bill 6 is now completing in

the education system, it depends largely on the mood or the whim of the

government of the day and their partisan interests, and their purely

political interests to....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: This has not been a good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I can't believe this.

Mr. Speaker, the relevance of my remarks is that with the kind of

demagoguery we saw in 1976-77.... The chaotic statements made by

Ministers of Education of the Social Credit Party in the past several

years have created confusion and chaos. It would have been much less so

had there not

[ Page 1179 ]

been this massive centralization of power that we

see being completed by Bill 6. That's the relevance I wish to point

out. It is ultimate presumption on the part of the Social Credit Party

that one minister has the power to supervise budgets and expenditures

by school districts. This is a most incredible power given to one

person. I don't see why the Minister of Education — or anyone — should

have been given that kind of power. If he was at all modest, let alone

competent, he would refuse that kind of power, knowing that he hasn't

the competence personally or in his department to carry it through.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

[5:00]

MR. LAUK: Were the interruptions counted in my speaking time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may close, hon. member. Quickly, that is.

MR. LAUK: In closing, I would like to point out to the House

that this bill is draconian, dictatorial and extremely right-wing, and

should be opposed. It will destroy education and create further chaos

among the people in the education system. In addition....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, you had taken your seat.

MR. LAUK: No other person was recognized, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe I was right in my ruling that you had taken your seat, so we can....

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I was sitting right here and,

as an honourable member, I can tell you that it could be only termed as

a flexing of the knees. I was watching very closely, and I can tell you

that the hon. member's bottom didn't touch his seat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if the bottom didn't touch the seat, why did the chair move?

MR. LEA: I kicked it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the hon. member rise on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: No. I still have the floor, Mr. Speaker. I move....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I challenge your ruling then, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Mowat

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 17

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like the members of the House to make welcome in the galleries a Vancouver Sun columnist and distinguished criminal court judge for almost 30 years in this province, Mr. Les Bewley, and his wife Bess.

MR. LAUK: I ask leave on the same introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to point out that today, when I opened the Sun and saw that Les Bewley was on vacation, was the day I enjoyed his column more than any other time.

MR. REE: I also would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: We have a state representative from Wisconsin in the

gallery. I'd ask the House to welcome Lois Plous from Milwaukee,

Wisconsin.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARNES: Ladies and gentlemen, fellow MLAs, members of the

gallery, and visiting columnists in the galleries, I rise to oppose

Bill 6, the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983. I feel it

is a vicious piece of education, one designed....

[ Page 1180 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: The Minister of Education finds those remarks

humorous. After all, this is a very serious matter, certainly not

something we should be joking about. When I say this legislation is

vicious, I say it because the government is carrying out a diabolical

plan to undermine most democratic institutions within this society.

This piece of legislation, although it appears innocuous, is an attempt

to freeze the education system within the budget program, and no one

has any way of knowing what will be required in the future. You call it

an interim piece of legislation, but the legislation may have

disastrous effects in the future. Although we try to program

objectively and to anticipate what administrative costs will be with

respect to students and their needs, to try to anticipate trends in

pupil-teacher ratios and the requirements from time to time, it's

impossible to know for certain just what the costs and the requirements

will be. For that reason, therefore, this legislation is a cause for

concern.

I believe the government knows full well that it is attempting to

restrict locally elected boards in a most unfortunate way, and there

are serious implications.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: More money to buy a better education; that's all.

MR. BARNES: I can appreciate what the Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) feels about dollars.

I agree with him that we have to save money. We can't spend what we

don't have.

I am not suggesting that we can provide programs for people without

a cost. Obviously we have to pay. The question is the priorities that

are involved — the concern that we should have for what we should spend

money on. As we know, this government has a budget that will expend

$1.6 billion that it cannot expect to get from its revenue-producing

programs, from resources or otherwise. How can you do that in a time of

restraint and at the same time show no concern for established

institutions within the society like the school system?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I don't think the question is the cost. That is

where your problem is: you are talking cost and you are trying to give

the public the impression that you care about saving money. Let's be

realistic, Mr. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet). We are not

talking about costs. If that were the question we would have some facts

before us that we could debate, and we would have some formulas that

would make sense, and we would be in a better position to evaluate what

we require and what the expenditures should be.

That is not the situation here. This is just another boondoggle,

another attempt for you people to carry out your ideologies, to vest in

yourself the powers that you feel you can exercise better than the

people. It is really a contradiction. You are trying to tell us that it

is restraint — that you are concerned about saving money that you don't

have, that revenues are falling off, that we are not in a position to

pay for the things we once had. This is the problem with this

legislation. It just isn't addressing the concerns.

We are talking about the education system. The Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) made some interesting analogies when he was

reflecting on the costs of certain industries trying to operate within

this society. This is a quote from an

article by Crawford Kilian, who

writes regularly for the Province .

I may as well give a plug for this fellow Kilian. He wrote a great book

which I would recommend some of you people read in your spare time: Go Do Some Great Thing .

Some of you might want to read that book because it will assist you in

understanding the very delicate nature of our community of peoples from

all walks of life, all cultures, all creeds, all sexes, all ages, all

departments, all aspirations. That book would assist you people more

than anyone else in understanding the needs of our society.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Surrey rises on a point of order.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Standing order number 43. I would suggest that

the comments of the hon. member are certainly irrelevant and are

getting a little tedious. Could you please ask him to stick to Bill 6?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is hard to define at this point, hon.

member, as the hon. member has only been speaking for two or three

minutes, but I am sure that he is going to relate his remarks to the

bill before us. On the same point of order, the Chair recognizes the

member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: On that point, Mr. Speaker, we are not debating Bill 6, we are debating a hoist motion on Bill 6, as I understand it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We do not have a hoist motion, hon. member; it is the bill itself.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the assistance from the hon. member

for New Westminster. I can assure you that when we have completed the

main motion we will be moving a hoist. It is just a matter of time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. first member for Surrey is incorrect when she

suggests that what I am saying is irrelevant and that it is tedious and

repetitious. We are talking about the thrust of this government's

spending program for education in this province. I am explaining to the

House why I distrust this thrust, why I suggest that we are heading in

the wrong direction and a dangerous direction. Very soon this

government will be coming back to this House and saying to the people,

"We made a mistake," as they have so often done. They made a mistake

they are going to rethink things, and they would like our assistance.

But just listen to what the minister — as I was saying earlier, to

quote the Minister of Education.... He draws some interesting

analogies. He says he now understands how "the head of a sawmill feels

when he's got to go and say to people: 'I don't have any money, I've

got n