1986 Legislative Session: 4th

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)

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8255 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

U.S. lumber tariffs and free trade. Mr.

Skelly — 8255

Mr. Williams

Mr. D'Arcy

Education Excellence Appropriation Act

(Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 8257

Mr. Stupich — 8257

On the amendment — 8266

Mr. Rose

Mr. Rogers

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests

estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 33: minister's office — 8271

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Howard

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

my colleagues the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of

Post-Secondary Education (Hon. R. Fraser), I would like to introduce to

the assembly a number of guests we have in the House today who are

delegates to the World Symposium on Education: from Newfoundland the

Hon. Loyola Hearn, Minister of Education, accompanied by Cyril

McCormick, Wayne Mitchell, Milton Peach, Keith Winter and William

Hynes; from Alberta the Hon. Neil Webber, Minister of Education; from

New Brunswick, the Hon. JeanPierre Ouellet, Minister of Education; from

Ontario the Hon. Greg Sorbara, Minister of Colleges and Universities,

accompanied by Mr. Joseph Cordiano, MPP, and Mr. John Morrison; and

from Nova Scotia Mr. Blenis Nicholson, the deputy minister. I am sure

that all members would wish them well with their deliberations and bid

them a cordial welcome, and we all look forward to them enjoying Expo

MRS. DAILLY: I would like the House to join

with me in giving

a very special welcome today to my nephew, Kevin Gilmore, and his new

bride Jane. They are on their honeymoon.

MR. PASSARELL: I'd like to also give my

regards to a

honeymooning couple in Victoria this week, but I think I'll let that

one pass. But who I would like to introduce are some students who have

come all the way from the Atlin school. They are down here today and

will be visiting Expo accompanied by their teachers Ken Mitchell and

Terry Markley. I wish the House would make them welcome.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the House,

first of all, to

congratulate the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) on his wedding

to his wife Ruth last Saturday. As well, I'd like to ask the House to

join me in welcoming a good friend of mine from Vancouver connected

with the federal Solicitor-General's ministry, Mr. Carlos Charles, who

has joined us in the gallery today.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like the House to

welcome

representatives of the Canadian Bankers' Association, who are either in

the legislative chamber or in the precincts, here to meet with our

caucus.

Oral Questions

U.S. LUMBER TARIFFS AND FREE TRADE

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Premier. I'm

making notes as I

go along. Was the Premier consulted by the Minister of International

Trade, Science and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer) prior to making the

wild and intemperate statements that the minister made on the weekend

about trade terrorism and retaliatory measures against the United

States?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the minister

of trade and

science and investment and communications, along with the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), was at a meeting called by federal trade

officials at which he reiterated the British Columbia position.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We will get to the Leader

of the Opposition's position just a little later today.

He proposed that all items should be on the table, that it

should be

a clean launch, as was stated by the President of the United States in

his first statement and by the Prime Minister of Canada — no

preconditions, all items on the table — and the minister reiterated the

British Columbia position very well at those discussions. I want you to

know that British Columbia is standing firm as part of the Canadian

team in protecting our interests. We would not, at the first initiative

of a few lumber companies, giggle and suggest that we should negotiate

British Columbia's tax system.

MR. SKELLY: Does the Premier agree with the

comments made by

the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment about trade

terrorism being practised by the United States? Does he agree that

Canada should be preparing a retaliatory package against the United

States?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have gone very clearly

on the offensive

in this regard. I find it hard to believe that those who oppose the

free trade talks, where Canada has something to gain, would be willing

to negotiate an attack on the Canadian lumber industry.

If the member opposite is a student of history, he'll

understand

that trade protectionism — attacks on one country's trade goods —

always invites the type of action which is not a solution, and that's

retaliation. The Smoot-Hawley bill in the thirties effectively

destroyed two-thirds of the world's trade, Mr. Speaker, by that very

fact. Therefore I have written the Prime Minister today, asking that he

contact the President of the United States and make sure not only that

he clean-launch all items on the table — no preconditions that he and

the Prime Minister spoke of — but that we have a standstill on any

protectionist trade initiatives on either side of the border while the

talks are going on.

MR. SKELLY: It's amazing, Mr. Speaker, that

the Premier is still asking for a clean launch when the launching pad

has been blown up.

Given the wild, intemperate, ill-advised statements made on

the

weekend by the Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment

(Hon. Mr. McGeer), does the Premier still have confidence that this

minister is capable of negotiating or discussing these kinds of issues

in a serious way with the United States?

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the members

opposite howl

because they love to support an action not taken by government but by

U.S. lumber interests.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right now the U.S. lumber

interests are

giggling and chuckling, because here in B.C. the leader of the New

Democratic Party said: "Oh, the Minister of Trade has reduced the

possibility, taken away the possibility, of British Columbia

negotiating with the U.S." The

[ Page 8256 ]

first test of fire the Leader of the

Opposition

(Mr. Skelly) has had to face again this week, and already he wants to

bow and negotiate with the U.S. lumber interests. Who is he going to

negotiate with? Is he going to negotiate with a handful of senators? Is

he going to negotiate with a handful of congressmen? Is he going to go

down and say to George Weyerhaeuser, "You have frightened me, Mr.

Weyerhaeuser"? And for the first time in history a Canadian elected

official, from the bullying of the private sector in the U.S., is going

to go down and let them negotiate the Canadian or the British Columbia

tax system. It is laughable.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. lumber interests know they have a

weak

ally in the political system in British Columbia. Let us tell them, as

a Legislature and a government, that that weak ally of the U.S. lumber

interests, one who would negotiate with them our tax regime, does not

speak for the British Columbia forest industry, doesn't speak for the

British Columbia forest workers, and doesn't speak for the people of

British Columbia or Canada.

MR. WILLIAMS: The weakest ally in this

fight against the

biggest problem since the great Depression is the Minister of

International Trade, Science and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer); have no

doubt about that. Can Rambo Jr. confirm that he talked about a

retaliatory package against the Americans? — that was quoted this

weekend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member,

with the greatest of

respect, from time to time in the heat of debate we use terms and

expressions which, upon reflection, do not meet the guidelines. The

member acknowledges that.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I certainly can

confirm that. I want to

tell the House and the opposition that as long as I have been a

representative in this House the U.S. softwood lumber industry has been

seeking to introduce tariffs against our major product here in British

Columbia, ever since we have been in the House. Always our case has

been put forward on its merits. The merits have not changed in this

past year. They have not changed since it was decided that British

Columbia was not guilty of any subsidization whatsoever. What has

changed in the interim is the political climate in Washington, D.C.,

which has suddenly made a case without merit apparently into some case

with merit, and here the Premier of British Columbia has said we have

nothing to negotiate in this province. We have said we believe in a

clean launch and across-the-board negotiations for free trade. And what

do we have, Mr. Speaker? We have an opposition, a Leader of the

Opposition, a leader of the national NDP, who want to negotiate, who

would plead guilty to a crime that wasn't committed, who would give

away Canadian interests unilaterally.

We've got to recognize that we have that problem here in

British

Columbia. It wasn't this Legislature that decided to make an

application in Washington, D.C., for countervailing duties. It was not

the lumber industry of British Columbia. It was not the Canadian

government that said or did any of those things. No, it was a

protectionist group in the United States, the U.S. softwood industry,

that has been after British Columbia for over a quarter of a century.

And I want to know when the New Democratic Party is going to stand up

for British Columbia and for Canada.

MR. WILLIAMS: Will the minister of trade

confirm that there

are now two tables where these things are being dealt with, and there

are no Canadians at one table and nobody standing up for British

Columbia and our primary industry?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, l do not

confirm that there

are two tables. I had dinner with Ambassador Murphy. He wanted

everything on the table, including Canadian medicare. The one thing he

did not want to have on the table was the Canadian lumber interest.

No, there will be only one table so long as we in British

Columbia

insist on one table, and as long as we keep that member out of the way.

He wants to have higher stumpage here in British Columbia. He wants to

take merchantable timber and let it rot on the stump. He wants to make

the housing prices higher in the United States and accept tariffs from

the Americans. He wants to give our position away. I say never, never,

never, Mr. Speaker, and that includes keeping these people out of

government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary to the minister

of International

Trade, Science and Investment, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister confirm

that without the province of British Columbia blindly getting on the

Mulroney bandwagon on free-trade issues, without investigating the

impacts on British Columbia, the costs to our industry in the province,

this government has given Mulroney and the United States the

opportunity to establish conditions that we can't live with in British

Columbia? The conditions are restrictions on Canadian lumber entry into

the United States.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker. I think

the Leader of the

Opposition has demonstrated that he's unfit to be Leader of the

Opposition, much less leader of the government. We have free trade in

the lumber industry. What is being suggested is that this be taken

away. Why are they suggesting that it be taken away? Because the lumber

industry in British Columbia is efficient and competitive, because it's

bringing lower housing prices to the North American market. That's the

crime we've committed, and the New Democratic Party are willing to

permit British Columbia to pay a penalty for that kind of effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why you have free trade is so that you

prevent the taking away of free trade. It's protectionism that these

people have stood for. It's what their national leader stands for. If

we have protectionism, then our industry in British Columbia is

vulnerable, not just this year but next year and the year after. The

same with the precious auto pact in Ontario for the leader of your

party; the same with the Maritime fishing industry.

If you do not stand up for free trade, then what you invite,

Mr.

Speaker, is the kind of protectionist retaliation that we see with the

softwood lumber industry in the United States.

MR. D'ARCY: To the minister of trade. The

Prime Minister has

stated that when serious discussions take place with the Americans on

this issue, the provinces will be participating fully. Can the minister

tell us whether his government will be using the same negotiating team

as his government used to negotiate the Columbia River Treaty,

northeast coal and the Louisiana-Pacific waferboard plant?

[ Page 8257 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there's only

one address in

Canada for international negotiations, and that address is Ottawa. The

federal team will be negotiating an across-the-board agreement, and we

want to make certain that there are not two tables — no double

negotiation, no giveaway of British Columbia interests as suggested by

the New Democratic Party both provincially and federally. One table.

One negotiation. Clean launch. Everything on that table. And the New

Democratic Party's pusillanimous attitude notwithstanding, no giveaway

of British Columbia's interests.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 4,

Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION EXCELLENCE APPROPRIATION

ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading of Bill

4, Education Excellence Appropriation Act, with the observation that

this is one of several bills which were alluded to and presented on

budget day.

Clearly there has been wide agreement throughout the province

that

the most effective way to build excellence in the educational system is

through a multi-year funding framework. This point was made by a number

of individuals and representatives of organizations who spoke to me in

the course of preparing the 1985 and 1986 budgets. They presented a

very solid case for that. Therefore the government of British Columbia

has decided to combine stable base funding for schools, colleges,

institutes and universities with a special, clearly identified

three-year fund for excellence in education. This framework will allow

effective long-range planning to make the best possible use of

taxpayers' dollars made available through these funds.

The Education Excellence Appropriation Act will authorize the

spending of an additional $600 million on education, above and beyond

the funds voted for the Ministries of Education and Post-Secondary

Education. As the House will know from budget day, of this sum, $110

million will be available in the fiscal year 1986-87.

The fund will be used to make adjustments to the operating

budgets

of school boards, colleges, institutes and universities, and to fund

innovative proposals from the education community. The government

expects to see, and has already seen, local authorities taking the

initiative in developing proposals and establishing consensus on

program priorities. On the K to 12 side of the fund, l note with

interest that four proposals, possibly five, were approved quite

recently. In one of them, on Vancouver Island in the vicinity of

Qualicum, the Qualicum School Board advances an innovative and

thoughtful proposition which met the criteria under Excellence in

Education.

The government does not have unlimited funds at its disposal.

We are

in deficit. But we believe that much can be achieved if the sums

available are spent wisely. If I might mention some of the things that

we believe could be supported under the authority of the act which is

before the House today, our basic goal is to improve the quality of

instruction and research. We expect to see more computers and ancillary

equipment in schools, an improved school curriculum, leading-edge

courses in colleges, and improved university library services, to name

just a few examples.

Our institutions will also be seeking ways to attract and

retain the

very best instructors and researchers. The fund will obviously assist

them in this goal.

The government expects institutions to stretch the available

dollars. As a result, initiatives which increase productivity and

efficiency, or bring in outside funding, will be rewarded.

[2:30]

Centres of excellence will be established in subject areas

important

to economic development. These may include — but they are not essential

— international business and finance, cultural industries,

microelectronics and computing science, biotechnology, or resource

industries such as forestry.

In addition, the government is seeking ways to ensure that the

best

students take advantage of the opportunities offered by higher

education. The possibilities are exciting. The government expects that,

thanks to the fund for excellence in education, the next three years at

least will be seen as a turning point for education in our province.

During those three years we know that the education community has in

mind actions that will be taken to create the educational basis of our

future prosperity.

This is a financing bill, and I endorse it and commend it to

the House. I move second reading of Bill 4.

MR. STUPICH: The minister said near the

closing of his moving

of second reading that it's a financing bill and that he moves it. I

suppose it's obvious that he moves it. It's not so obvious that it's a

financing bill. Indeed, it has been described in the Vancouver dailies

as a political slush fund, as a means of providing pork-barrel funds. I

think perhaps that's a more appropriate description of the legislation

than the one used by the minister.

The bill does provide for up to $110 million to be spent by

March

31, 1987. Provision for that is in the budget that we have been

discussing and the estimates we've been discussing since budget day.

However, the remainder of the fund is something that may or may not be

provided for in subsequent budgets.

There is and there can be no guarantee that anything other

than the

$110 million for this fund ever will be made available. As I say,

that's not a criticism; that's just the way things work. There can't be

any guarantee that this administration, or any other, would follow

through on the promises to provide funds in the future. As a matter of

fact, we have seen evidence of similar promises by this same

administration, where they have broken the promises within two years of

having made them, and not only not put further contributions into the

fund but indeed have taken out of the fund the balance remaining that

was underspent from previous years. So we know their history.

We know when it comes to making promises for future action

that they

can't be trusted. As a matter of fact, we know that this government

can't be trusted when it makes promises with respect to current

programs, let alone future ones.

We have a lot of concern about this legislation. We're

concerned

it's being used, as the Vancouver daily described it, as pork-barrel

funds, political slush funds. It's passing strange — perhaps not in

B.C., but it would be in any other administration — that where any

payment said to have come out of this fund is announced, in those

instances where the constituencies have a Social Credit MLA, the

Minister of Finance needs the assistance of the local MLA to make the

[ Page 8258 ]

announcement. The local MLA is given

credit. In

some instances, because of the geography of the school districts as

compared to the geography of constituencies, the Minister of Finance

needs the help of two or perhaps even three local Socred MLAs. Even

though one of them is the Premier, he still needs help to make these

announcements,

whereas in constituencies represented by other members,

whether NDP or any others — I don't suppose there have been any in

Prince Rupert — the Minister of Finance needs no assistance. It's not

because money hasn't been going into colleges and institutions in those

areas; it's simply that the Minister of Finance finds he's physically

and fiscally capable of making that kind of an announcement in such

constituencies without the help of anyone. But as I say, in the

constituencies represented by Socreds, he needs a lot of help.

Excellence in Education is great — motherhood. I suppose we

all want

to see more excellence in education. But the desperate need in British

Columbia today, after three years of Socred restraint.... It's more

than three years now, because it really started in February of 1983.

After three years of Socred restraint, we're not really concerned about

improving the quality of education. What we're truly concerned about is

maintaining the quality that exists today — not even the quality that

existed three years ago, but the quality we're left with today after

three years of starving educational institutions of the funds they need

to maintain the level of education, of which B.C. once was proud. We're

not proud anymore. We know we've fallen behind nine other Canadian

provinces when it comes to maintaining and improving the quality of

education offered in British Columbia. So we're not talking about

improving quality of education, we're talking about some desperate

moves to try to maintain quality.

When the minister talks about feeding tens of thousands of

dollars —

in some cases even hundreds of thousands — out of the Excellence in

Education fund to various programs, in almost every instance all he's

doing is replacing some of the funds that he or the Minister of

Education has taken from those very programs in order to build up an

amount of $110 million that may be spent if, as, when and where the

Minister of Education feels it will do the most good. The way it has

worked out in practice, of course, is that he has had to scurry around

trying to fill in the holes which are so deep because of the cuts that

very little of the $77.6 million — as I have it now — already committed

out of the fund.... almost all of that has gone to partially fill in

holes created by stealing funds from those programs in the first place.

So very little has been done to date to improve the quality of

education in the province. Very little has been done even to maintain

the level of education in the province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I've talked about the pork-barrel aspect of the

fund.

I've talked about the permissiveness of it. My research notes tell me

that the funds may not be spent if the cabinet decides it needs the

money elsewhere. The legislation provides that the minister, not the

cabinet — if it were the cabinet at least that would be a number of

people — decides when, where, if and in what quantity the funds are

going to be spent. He makes that decision, and if he doesn't spend

them, then presumably they're left to be used in some other way, or

perhaps used to carry on some other program in another year.

The ill-defined objectives. What kind of consultation has

there been

with educational authorities — the people who are involved in

delivering the educational service — as to just what should be

considered excellent in education? There are no objectives defined in

the legislation. The money was being spent long before the legislation

came up for discussion in the House. We have committed almost 75

percent of the total fund, and yet no objectives describe.... The

Minister of Finance, in a very brief moving of second reading, told us

little about the real objectives. There was a bill on the order paper,

so of course the Minister of Education could say that he couldn't talk

about it. But very little was said about the objectives, other than the

descriptions in the dailies quite openly saying they're simply

pork-barrel funds that are going to be used in an attempt to win the

next election, whenever that may be.

For example, there's something else here, the signs that have

been put along the highways, advertising Expo: $50,000 per sign.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I know. It's an example of how

you're using the

funds out of the Excellence in Education fund and saying it's for

quality in education. Because you used them to announce something

somewhere, during the course of the pre-election period, the Minister

of Education says this is appropriate to come out of education, whether

or not it has anything to do with education, except by his wildest

imagination.

All of the educational institutions have been hit by this base

funding, the inadequacy of the base funding, every school district.

There were some 58, at one point, that I had seen that were going to go

over budget, that were going to have to go to their local taxpayers for

more money. I don't know how many of them ended up doing it, or are

going to end up doing it. But, Mr. Speaker, you know from your own

experience, as the MLA for Prince George South, that the school

districts up there are having trouble delivering education because of

the inadequacy of the base funding. We have all heard from our colleges

and we know some of the problems. Perhaps the situation is a little

worse in Nanaimo; at least, it captured headlines a little more with

the recently announced resignation of the president of Malaspina

College. After three to four years of inadequate funding, he has felt

that with respect to his ability to lead Malaspina College in the

direction in which he and his council feel it should be going, in

serving the Malaspina College district, he just isn't able to function

any longer in what he feels is a reasonable way.

School district operating grants have been cut. The textbook

program

was cut. All kinds of programs were cut, and the cuts were used to

provide the money for this $110 million that the minister may use in a

blatantly political way, as he has been doing to date in announcing the

release of these funds, along with the appropriate MLA. The school

boards in the province have had $167 million cut from their fiscal

framework, and even that may be low rather than high.

This is all happening at a time when Statistics Canada reports

that

since this administration seized control of school district budgets

just four years ago, there has been 17 percent inflation in Canada.

Everything that the school districts are buying has gone up in cost,

whether it's hydro, whether it's supplies, whether it's equipment. In

total there has been an increase in inflation of 17 percent, yet they

have had their funds cut.

[ Page 8259 ]

Provincial funds for schools declined $75 million between

1982-83

and 1985-86. The homeowners were hit; they paid more, $13.7 million

more in school taxes between 1982-83 and 1985-86. They're paying more,

but the school districts are getting less. They'll be hit with more

taxes this year in most school districts. At the time this was written,

budgets were still being finalized. School college operating budgets

have been cut $21 million between 1982-83 and 1986-87. University

operating grants cut $51.3 million from 1982-83 to 1986-87. In real

terms colleges get 25 percent less than the universities, and the

universities 30 percent less than they did in 1982-83.

Where did the $110 million come from in detail? We have, to

some

extent, to guesstimate, I suppose, but it would appear that

universities, colleges and institutes adjustments lost $27.6 million in

funds that were not renewed; the public school system, relative to

1985-86, lost $65 million; cutting the books for school children, $11

million; cutting special initiatives in post-secondary education, $1.8

million — a total of $105.4 million.

Mr. Speaker, it would seem there is little doubt but that the

Excellence in Education Fund was financed by underfunding the base

budgets of schools, colleges and universities. This appropriation

should be restored to those budgets, and let the elected school boards,

the appointed college boards and the universities look after their

programs to the best of their ability. Even though the funds are

limited, at least let them have the money, and let them decide in their

own institution how those funds might best be applied, rather than

leaving it up to the political needs of the Social Credit Party, in

anticipation of a provincial election.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker, there are good grounds, from the point of view of

education, for opposing Bill 4. Certainly the school districts need the

extra money. They've lost it; the government has taken it away from

them. Now the government is saying: "Under certain circumstances, we

are prepared to give some of it back to you." So it would seem as

though the pressure is on the school districts to ask for some of this

money, to plead for some of this money, to try to retain some of the

programs that they have had and that they have had to cut back on. The

pressure is on the colleges to beg for some of the money, and they have

done this. They have appeared before the Minister of Post-Secondary

Education (Hon. R. Fraser). They have appeared, I expect, before the

Minister of Finance — certainly before the minister responsible —

trying to get the release of these funds to save some of the existing

programs, not to bring in new programs. To some extent, in some

instances, their pleas have been met.

I'd like to discuss another aspect of this, and I have

referred to

it already. It's about this business of the Minister of Post-Secondary

Education having the authority to spend $110 million this week if he

chooses, or next week or next month, depending exactly upon the date of

the election — that is, to the extent that the fund has not already

been spent. That wasn't planned. I am sure in my mind that they

intended to hold the whole of the $110 million until the very point in

time when it would do the most good politically, and they just erred.

They made a mistake, and they've had to spend a lot of it before that.

There's no question in my mind that they intended to give the

appropriate minister the authority to spend that money in accordance

with the political timetable of the Social Credit Party.

Whatever, it took the authority to control that spending out

of the

hands, out of the votes, of the members in the House. Presumably the

minister would one day have to report to the House and tell us what he

did with that money. When we see Public Accounts for 1986-87 in March

1988, a couple of years down the road, we will know then what the

minister thought was properly excellence in education. We'll know what

he did with it. He'll have to answer to us then, and he could be asked

down the road to answer questions about what he did some two years back.

My colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke),

said:

"If he's here." We've had experience before of asking questions of

ministers, only to be told: "That minister has been replaced by a

different person in the meantime, so there's no point in asking

questions." But it's the same old ministry. It won't be the same old

administration, I hope, by the time we're asking questions about this

particular expenditure. Nevertheless, that problem does exist.

Whatever happened to the plea of the Social Credit caucus,

from whom

we heard so much in 1974 and 1975, when they raised the cry: "Not a

dime without debate." They're asking us to approve the expenditure in

this year of $110 million that will be totally under the control of one

minister. That's according to the legislation. I know things have

happened since, but we're dealing with the legislation right now, and

the legislation gives one minister the authority, within a period of 12

months and any time within that period, without any rules or

guidelines, to spend $110 million with absolutely no debate — other

than giving him a cheque of.... We might as well put the money in his

account and say: "Here, go and spend it. Tell us a couple of years from

now what you did with it. Here's $110 million. You do whatever you want

with it, wherever you want and whenever you want, and then tell us

about it a couple of years down the road."

There wasn't a member in the House from Prince George South

when

that debate went on. The redistribution changed that. There was a

member from Fort George but not from Prince George South. There was a

very long debate in the House. It went over a period of two years —

"not a dime without debate." The debate extended far beyond the

precincts. The debate, such as it was, went on all over the province of

British Columbia. In those days we were led to believe that what the

Social Credit members were talking about was the threat to democracy.

It wasn't politics at all; they were concerned about the threat to

democracy that this attempt to say that there shall be some reasonable

limit to the length of time spent on estimates, just as there is on

almost everything we do in this House.... There isn't on estimates. But

there are limits to the time that I may speak on this bill right now.

There are limits on the time that the minister spoke. During the course

of delivering his budget speech I noticed that he was watching the

clock in the last three-quarters of an hour, just as I was. My time was

limited. So we have agreed among us that in order to have matters

proceed through the House in a reasonable way, there shall be time

limits on certain things. The NDP administration presented a plan — and

passed the motion, actually — that there should be a limit, and a very

long limit, to the time spent on estimates. The Social Credit members,

the Conservative members and the Liberal members who were in the House

at the time... There were such things then, Mr. Speaker. It's before

your experience, but there actually were Liberal and Conservative

members.

[ Page 8260 ]

The Social Credit Leader of the Opposition spent little time

in the

House, but spent a lot of time speaking around the province. At one

point, I believe, he said that he wasn't going to attend the House

again until this matter was resolved. He took the battle out into the

community. Mr. Speaker, perhaps that's what we should be doing now.

Perhaps we should all be out there travelling around the province and

saying: "This government wants the right to spend over a billion

dollars without any debate. They want you to grant to two ministers the

right to spend over a billion dollars, and they don't want to debate

it, they don't want to talk about it and they don't want to answer

questions about it until up to some two years later."

There's a story from the Victoria

Times

dated May 15, 1975: "Social Credit leader Bill Bennett opened his

campaign Wednesday against limits in the spending estimates debate" —

that's May 15, 1975; he opened his campaign then, nine months or eight

months before the election — "by challenging the NDP membership to

censure Premier Dave Barrett at the party's convention this weekend."

The NDP were meeting in convention, and the then Leader of the

Opposition was urging the members of the New Democratic Party to oppose

the Premier at that convention and to urge upon him that he pick up the

old principles of democracy that prevailed in the NDP and that

prevailed in the CCF and say that we had to have the authority in the

House to decide on spending. Members of the House on both sides had to

have the right to decide whether or not a minister would spend money

and how he would spend it, and he had to answer questions about his

spending program. And the then Leader of the Opposition wanted the

party to take the Premier — Premier Dave Barrett — to task and urge

upon him that he abandon any idea that he might have of curtailing

debate in the House on spending estimates.

That's supposed to be the same party that in government today

brings

forward legislation that says that the Minister of Education should

have the right to spend up to $600 million without debate. "Not a

dime...." A dime isn't worth talking about. But if we're going to give

him $600 million, well, that's okay to the Social Crediters today.

They've certainly changed, haven't they? In eleven years they have come

from saying that every dime should be debated in this House to a point

where they now say that $600 million in one bill shall be debated some

two years hence, not today. Where is the democracy in that?

"The Leader of the Opposition, speaking to an overflow

partisan

crowd of 500 in the Broadway Holiday Inn, said he challenges the NDP at

the convention to show the people they still believe in democracy."

Well, I challenge the members on the government side of the House to

show they believe in democracy, and to urge the minister to withdraw

this legislation. I wouldn't ask them to vote against him — today that

would be suicide — but to urge the minister to withdraw this

legislation and to put the money back where it belongs in the budgets

from which it was misappropriated.

"...to show the people they still believe in democracy and

they still believe in discussions." Mr. Speaker, we're allowed to

discuss this bill, but we can't get into the details of what the bill

is going to do, because we don't know; the minister doesn't know today,

and he doesn't know when or how much, so nobody can talk about the

details. The Minister of Education could tell us if he has any specific

plans, but from the way in which the funds have been doled out to date

I think it's quite obvious that the minister is reacting to emergencies

rather than paying on the basis of plans that he and his ministry have

drawn up.

"I ask them to censure the Premier of this province and their

leader," he said. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would never ask a bunch of sheep

to censure the goat that's leading the herd. But I would ask the Social

Credit members to discuss this with the Premier, to remind him about

what he said about democracy, to remind him what his attitude was

towards this principle of "not a dime without debate," and remind him

that he should discuss with the Minister of Finance the propriety of

withdrawing this bill at this time. I would ask him to do that, Mr.

Speaker. Anything more than that would be asking far too much.

"The Leader of the Opposition praised the founders of the NDP"

— well, I'm not prepared to go that far — "and the party's role in

British Columbia politics, but he was less than kind to Premier Barrett

or his government, especially for the recent closure of debate on

departmental spending estimates." Well, Mr. Speaker, you will recall

that two or three years ago closure became almost the order of the day.

A lot has happened since 1975, and the administration that was so

concerned about closure in 1974-75 used it very easily, willingly and

readily in 1983. However, leaving that aside, the question was spending

estimates. The Leader of the Opposition then wanted unlimited time to

debate each and every estimate, unlimited opportunity to question each

and every minister about what he or she intended to do with respect to

spending estimates. That's what I'm asking for now. I'm asking that

this bill be withdrawn and that the money be put back into the

education budget where it properly belongs and that the authority for

spending it, the responsibility for spending it, go back to the school

boards, the college boards and the Universities Council.

"The Leader of the Opposition" — it says Bennett here, but I'm

saying Leader of the Opposition because I don't want you to shake your

head; I'd rather have it nodded — "ejected from the B.C. Legislature

Tuesday for attempting to continue discussion on estimates, told the

crowd that if the NDP membership refused to censure Barrett, the

government and the party would be destroyed." Well, Mr. Speaker, the

government was certainly defeated in the next election. The party, I

submit, has not been destroyed. If there was any feeling over there

that the party was destroyed, then I think we would have been into an

election campaign before now. So I think they're a little concerned

that the party is doing quite well right now. However, he was saying

that if the party didn't take this seriously, if the party didn't

really believe in democracy, then the party itself was letting down the

people of British Columbia, and the party should take the

responsibility of dealing with the government it supported and urging

upon that government that they withdraw this attempt to limit

discussion on spending estimates — not do away with it, but have some

limit.

He said he was in Vancouver to ask the people if they were

prepared

to pass the estimates of eight departments. Well, the newspaper story

goes on to say that people were not. Mr. Speaker, I wonder, if the same

question were put to them, how they would feel today. I guess it would

depend on the audience. If it were a Social Credit audience, they might

feel quite happy about a Social Credit Minister of Education having the

authority to spend $110 million to suit the political purposes of the

Social Credit Party. They might feel quite happy about that. If it were

an NDP audience, then of course

[ Page 8261 ]

they would not feel very happy about

it, and would make their feelings known at the time.

The decision was to limit debate in the estimates to 135 hours

or 45

days, whichever was longest when the time limit expired. Another

quotation from the Leader of the Opposition's speech that day: "'If we

have something to tell the Premier of the province, it's not one dime

without debate,' said the Leader of the Opposition" — not ten cents.

Mr. Speaker, from your reading of Bill 4, you're aware that we're not

talking about ten cents. We're talking about 6,000 million ten cents:

$600 million. He said that "historically parliaments have always fought

to control spending from public funds, and that parliaments have a

fundamental right to discuss public spending." Indeed, that's what

parliament's all about.

[3:00]

There are a lot of things we talk about in the House, a lot of

things we argue about when we get into question period, but when it

comes right down to it, the only real authority we have is to vote yea

or nay when it comes to spending. We can ask questions in discussing

estimates, but we can't insist on answers. We can be stopped from

asking questions if we ask them too often — they're tedious and

repetitious. We can't insist on an answer, but we do have the right to

ask questions, and we have the right to vote for or against each

proposal to spend funds.

That's the only real right that we have — not just a right,

Mr.

Speaker, an obligation, because it's not our money we're spending.

We're spending the money of the people of the province of British

Columbia. In the last five years, of course, it's borrowed money that

we're spending, to quite an extent. Nevertheless, the people are

responsible for paying those loans off some day, and it seems likely

that under the present administration that day will never come.

Nevertheless, we're not spending our own money, we're spending the

people's money, so we have not only the right but have an obligation to

question every expenditure of public funds. This right is being denied

to us to the extent of the $600 million in Bill 4 that is before us

right now. On that basis alone the bill should be withdrawn, and if it

isn't withdrawn, surely there should be enough people on the other side

of the House who, combined with the opposition, will convince the

government that they are in error in trying to take away from the

Legislature this authority over the spending of $600 million in this

one bill.

There are other bills that I won't talk about now, but in this

one

bill alone.... Because although, as I said, it's dealing with year two

and year three, and although the money for year two and year three have

not been provided yet — not in the budgets, as they can't be.... Is

there not a designated speaker situation, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, there is, hon. member.

You could proceed

for another two hours, but it would be a courtesy to advise the Chair.

Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I

remembered when the

light came on that I was supposed to have discussed that with you. I

won't be another two hours, if that's of any comfort.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: You said another two hours. I

wasn't going to take you up on that.

The Premier goes on to say — and this is another quotation

from the

same newspaper story: "When we become the government, we will return

this historic right to the people of this province." Well, Mr. Speaker,

with respect to curtailing the time spent on spending estimates, that

right was restored to the Legislature, so in 1976, fresh in office, the

new Social Credit administration and the new Premier lived up to the

then Premier's campaign promise and restored to the Legislature the

possibility of having unlimited time for discussing spending estimates

— all they wanted.

But that was ten years ago, and now ten years later the

Premier

apparently has forgotten his successful campaign in 1974-75. He has

apparently forgotten that he convinced the people of the province over

a 12-month period, including a period when he was thrown out of the

House for obstruction — I don't say he was obstructing; I'm simply

saying that's why he was thrown out at the time.... In spite of that he

apparently has forgotten all of that, has forgotten his promises to the

people that when he became Premier things would be different, and the

Legislature would have the absolute authority as well as the

responsibility and the obligation to vote on expenditures.

May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the quotation: "When we

become

government" — which indeed they did, on December 22, 1975 — "we will

return this historic right to the people of this province." They did

for a while, and now they are taking it away. But not 10 cents — $600

million in this one piece of legislation.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Going on with his speech: "The right that David Barrett denies

us as

opposition, we will grant the NDP as opposition when we form the

government." Well, I think that is the kind of promise that the NDP

could go around the province making right now, because certainly while

we might very well have felt at the time that it was reasonable to have

curtailed the time being spent on estimates, the idea that any one

minister in any government should have the right to spend $600 million

without having to justify that in the House before he spent it, as

opposed to after, would be anathema to the NDP We would never make that

kind of a proposal in the House. If any party did, and if there were

still a remnant of Social Crediters around, I would expect those

Socreds to embark upon the same campaign that they did in 1974-1975. I

would expect them to go all round the province and convince people that

the government of the day, whatever government it was, was taking away

from the Legislature the supreme authority, the only real authority

that the Legislature has: the right to vote on spending, to ask

questions on spending, to hold the ministers accountable before rather

than after the fact.

The Leader of the Opposition said: "The Barrett government has

betrayed the party founders and brought shame to them." Mr. Speaker,

that is how he described the NDP at the time. I don't know what the

attitude of the Social Credit about such things was when it was first

founded. I believe at the beginning they were a democratic movement,

where they started. I doubt that there is any relationship at all

between the current Social Credit organization in British Columbia and

the original Social Credit Party with its principles. Certainly the

idea that governments or individual ministers.... As I

[ Page 8262 ]

said, even if the cabinet had the

authority, that's

one thing. But to give to a minister the authority to spend this kind

of money! He doesn't have to go to the cabinet and ask them. Presumably

he would consult with the Premier.

"The Barrett government has betrayed the party founders and

brought shame to them." Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to bring shame

to the founders of the present Social Credit organization or the

current members of that organization in the province of British

Columbia, this government, by taking this kind of authority out of the

Legislature, without shame.... They're taking it away and not even

making any excuses for it other than to say that the minister knows

best how to use this money during an election campaign. That's really

the only excuse for doing it. Mr. Speaker, if there is anything more

shameful for a government to do than that, then I don't think we've

seen any examples of it in the province of British Columbia.

It goes on to say: "They would be ashamed to see what has

happened

to their party as government in the province of British Columbia."

Well, shades of — shall we say — William Aberhart or Ernest Manning or

W.A.C. Bennett. He was in office as Premier for 20 years in British

Columbia. Not once did he try to get a dime without debate in the

House. Six hundred million dollars in one bill, and there are two other

such bills before us. There are three similar bills in total, but in

this instance $600 million. Even though Premier W.A.C. Bennett had

total control in the Legislature, never had to worry about a vote,

always had a good majority, never once did he propose the spending of

this kind of money to be under the total control and jurisdiction of

one minister, who as I say would not have to answer questions about it

until a couple of years down the road.

He said: "Although B.C.'s budget has doubled since the NDP

government was elected in 1972, the amount of time allowed for debates

has decreased." Mr. Speaker, that isn't true, but it doesn't really

matter. He produced a list of financial losses by the government. I

won't get into that, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that we may be

getting to the minister's estimates soon, and then we can talk about

the losses. But then the next line. It's repetition, but he believed in

repetition at the time. It went down well with the audience before

which he was speaking. "You don't think we need the opportunity to

question them with that sort of record?" he said.

When I get the opportunity, I can talk about five years of

deficits

under this administration. I can talk about the way in which the debt

has quadrupled in the ten years since this administration has been in

office, the losses that they made on almost everything in which they

have invested. With that kind of record, should we say to them: "Sure,

how much money do you want? We will vote it ahead of time, and then you

can tell us some day later, if you feel like it, what you spent it on.

But we're not terribly interested in holding up things in the House,

although you'd never know it from looking outside. It is May. So let's

get on with things, and let's just vote all the money that is required

for the government and then have them come back and tell us a couple of

years from now what they did with it."

If we are going to give $600 million to one minister and $1.2

billion to another, why are we bothering dealing with estimates for the

minister's office of $70,000? What's the point in dealing with $70,000

if we're going to give $600 million in authority to one minister? Where

is the relevancy of what we're doing here if we're going to be

approving legislation such as this?

"The Leader of the Opposition reiterated that he will not

return to the Legislature until Barrett allows renewed debate on

spending estimates." He took it very seriously then, Mr. Speaker. But

times have changed. There's a very old saying — very trite to say it

now, I suppose — that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts

absolutely. It would appear as though that is what has happened in this

instance. Perhaps the minister will have something to say about that.

"Don Phillips, Social Credit MLA for South Peace River,

ejected from the House with Bennett, also addressed the crowd" — he

felt the same way; he's not here now to speak for himself — "as did

party president Grace McCarthy and Harvey Schroeder, Social Credit MLA

for Chilliwack." Those two members are still in the House. They felt

very strongly about the government having the authority to spend 10

cents without debate in 1975. How do they feel in 1986?

Is the difference the fact that they are sitting in government

now

and they were in opposition then? Is that what they meant at the time —

that they don't approve of spending 10 cents without debate if somebody

else is doing it? "If we were doing it, $600 million would mean

nothing, a billion dollars to another minister would mean nothing; but

if somebody else is doing it, then every 10 cents must be debated." Is

that what democracy is all about, Mr. Speaker? Is that what they really

mean when they talk about the founders of the party being ashamed of

the government in office?

There were other stories, but they are very similar. Here's

one from the Vancouver

Sun

dated May 14, 1975. There was no election campaign on then — at least,

not officially — but the Leader of the Opposition was certainly

conducting one. "The opposition leader, expelled from the Legislature

during an angry exchange Tuesday, announced today that he will abandon

his seat for the foreseeable future, to take the issue of government

spending estimates to the public." That's how he felt about it then. He

was very concerned about spending estimates in May 1975, when he was

Leader of the Opposition. Now that he's Premier, he apparently has lost

all concern that he might have had for democracy, all concern that he

might have had for the right, the obligation and the responsibility of

MLAs to examine ministers about their spending program.

This is a quotation, and I've had it from another source:

"Until the

government relents and allows free discussion of estimates, I will take

the estimates to the people." Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that's one of

the things I want to do in the coming days and weeks and months: tell

the people, as I speak, write or communicate with them in any way at

all, that this government, contrary to the high principles that the

Leader of the Opposition then had....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: "Espoused" rather than "had,"

because we don't

know how he really felt about it, but we certainly know what he

espoused. Contrary to what he espoused in those days, he really had no

interest in democracy; he really had no interest in the rights of the

members of the House, their obligations or their responsibilities. He

had only one goal in mind, and that was to occupy the Premier's chair,

so that he could have total control of spending estimates under his

thumb.

[ Page 8263 ]

Mr. Speaker, that's what Bill 4 does. It gives him, through

his

Minister of Education, the right to spend up to $110 million by March

31 of next year. As I say, it could be spent all in one week, according

to the bill. We can't deal with what has happened up to now. But the

way it reads, the bill gives that minister the authority to spend up to

$110 million in any one-week period in the course of 52, or to spend it

over the year — whatever that minister decides. Certainly implicit in

the legislation, to me at least, is the idea that the Premier will have

a lot of influence as to how that minister spends that money, or the

minister won't survive — and we've seen some examples of that fairly

recently.

"The Leader of the Opposition said he would conduct a

provincewide

tour, beginning with a rally at 8 p.m. tonight in the Holiday Inn on

West Broadway." He really espoused these principles in 1975, Mr.

Speaker. I leave it to him. There certainly could be an opportunity for

him, during the course of this debate, to stand up and say why he has

changed his mind, or to stand up and admit that in 1975, while he

professed to believe in democracy, while he professed to believe in the

rights of the Legislature to debate spending estimates, to him it was

just a political ploy. If he stands up and admits that, I have no

argument left — that's it, so be it. Having reached the Premier's

chair, his goal, then he's ready to do anything and everything to make

sure that he hangs onto that as long as he wants to do it.

[3:15]

"The Leader of the Opposition said that other members of his

caucus

will remain in the Legislature in the hopes of convincing the

government to abandon its position of enforcing a time limit on the

debate of budget estimates." Mr. Speaker, that's what the debate was

all about at that time: whether or not the Legislature could debate

every dime. Now we're talking about $600 million. Is $600 million so

important that we have two Social Credit members in the House — and, I

admit, two on our side? When we were discussing whether or not we

should debate every dime, the Legislature was generally quite crowded.

The party that was so concerned about the right of members in the House

to discuss every dime had everyone here. Today, when they are going to

be asked to vote for the minister's right to spend $110 million in one

year, they're not interested. Their minds are made up. They haven't

listened to the discussion. I expect that none of them will take

part

in the discussion other than the minister responsible for the bill.

They know how they're going to vote; they've made up their minds.

They're not interested in going to the minister and saying: "Look, are

we really doing the right thing here? Is it proper? Is it democratic?

Is it in keeping with the traditions of British democracy, the kind of

democracy that has been built up over several hundred years? Is it

really the thing to do — to give the Minister of Education the

authority to spend $110 million in the course of 12 months?"

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm not a betting person, but if I were, I'd be quite prepared

bet that not a single member of the Social Credit caucus will ever

discuss with the Minister of Finance whether this is the right thing to

do. They will accept the rule. They will accept the leadership of the

person who travelled around this province for some ten months and

conducted a campaign to persuade the voters of British Columbia that

they should throw out of office a government that proposed a time limit

on spending estimates, and is now prepared — I don't say "today,"

because I don't know what day it will start — to go around the province

and justify his action in saying that one of his ministers should have

the right, during an election campaign, to spend $110 million in the

best interests of the Social Credit Party. And they will accept that.

Democracy. Traditions. "The opposition leader and fellow

Socred Don

Phillips were expelled from the House during an angry exchange about

the right to debate $2 billion in estimates. The House exploded into

bedlam when the government invoked its time limit and attempted to

force approval of the estimates without debate." Mr. Speaker, I expect

that there will be no bedlam at this time. I'm not sure even that the

public will become aroused. I'm afraid that the public have come to the

point where they're ready to accept almost anything — indeed, in many

cases to expect nothing — from the Social Credit administration.

Anything that they do is excused on the basis: well, what do you expect

of the Social Credit members? What do you expect of the Social Credit

administration? That's their pattern. That's the way they work. They

know what's best and they'll do what's best depending upon their own

decisions.

"There were shouts of 'dictator' from the opposition benches,

and retorts of 'opposition anarchy' from the government side." Mr.

Speaker, we could well shout that today when we come to the point of

voting on Bill 4 in second reading. It's far closer to dictatorship

when you give individual ministers the right to spend funds in the way

this bill does.

I wonder what would be the next step. How far might we go

beyond

this? I said earlier, almost facetiously: why not deal with the whole

budget figure? Why not say a bill for $9.6 billion to be spent as the

Minister of Finance decides? Why bother with estimates? If we're going

to take out of estimates $110 million in this case, and other hundreds

of millions in other bills, why bother with individual estimates for

small amounts? I raised that question earlier, Mr. Speaker.

"The Leader of the Opposition and Phillips were escorted out

of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms when they refused to stop talking

and take their seats as ordered, first by the Deputy Speaker and then

by Speaker Gordon Dowding. The Leader of the Opposition, red-faced,

angry and pointing his finger at Dowding said, 'I will not withdraw,'

when the Speaker asked him to leave. In an interview today, the Leader

of the Opposition said: 'We propose to conduct informational meetings

to bring to the people the seriousness of closure of debate in the

Legislature."' Mr. Speaker, I would like that opportunity now, and

indeed I will be speaking on it, because I believe that this is

important. I'm not sure how many of my colleagues are exercised about

this, but I take it seriously. I've been around here a long time. I

have not seen anything like this happen before, and I hope that I never

see it again. In all likelihood I won't be here that long. To give to a

minister the right to spend this kind of money and to come back two

years later and tell us what he did with it — I've not seen anything

quite like this.

"It is our feeling that the Legislature is now a farce." Well,

Mr. Speaker, I think I've indicated that in my remarks so far. Isn't it

a farce if we talk about spending tens of thousands in different votes

among different ministries, the detail of them, and ask ministers

questions about what they're doing, criticize what they're doing? We

can't urge them to spend more, but we can move motions that they spend

less on

[ Page 8264 ]

that particular program. Isn't it a

farce that we

deal with relatively small amounts like that and, because of the

campaign waged by the then Leader of the Opposition and the one

campaign promise that we know he kept....'' I can't think of any others

offhand, but he did keep that campaign promise to do away with the time

limit on spending estimates discussion, and then he brings in something

like this.

It is a farce. Our time would be better spent reporting to the

people. Sooner or later we'll all have that opportunity. At the present

time, of course, we have to stay pretty close to Victoria, but sooner

or later we'll have the opportunity to tell people what we think about

a government that was such a strong supporter of democracy and the

rights of parliament in 1975, and that has so totally abandoned those

principles — or at least the principles which they professed.

"To all intents and purposes, the House is no longer

discussing the people's business, and I don't intend to sit through

long procedural wrangles. Until the government relents and allows free

discussion of estimates, I will take the estimates to the people." This

is a quotation from the then Leader of the Opposition. In those days,

of course, had he chosen to — or had anyone else chosen to — he could

have spoken without time limit in opposition to what was happening.

That isn't the case today. I'm limited as to how long I may speak

against this bill. My colleagues are limited even more closely. The

Minister of Finance, in presenting this bill, was limited in the time

he had, and will be limited when he responds. There are limits, and

they are reasonable limits. I don't quarrel with the limits.

The Leader of the Opposition then chose to take his fight

outside of

the House where the decisions are being made and the votes are being

taken. He chose to handle them politically outside of the House. I, at

this time at least, have chosen to handle them here in the House.

"The Leader of the Opposition said

Phillips will join

him in the Vancouver rally tonight, but it is not known if Phillips

will join the party leader on the provincewide tour. The current furor

goes back to last spring when the decision was made to establish

time-limits. The opposition claims the rule constitutes closure and has

opposed any time-limit. The government proposed a compromise Monday,

but the compromise was unacceptable to the Social Credit opposition."

The Premier — Premier Barrett at the time — made one worthy

observation, particularly in view of my colleague's remark that it

wasn't the principles that the Leader of the Opposition had at the

time, but rather the principles that he professed to have. Premier

Barrett said outside the House that the opposition was led by hate

rather than by reason, so he raised the question as to whether the

Leader of the Opposition, in arguing against the limit on spending

estimates, was really arguing against the principle or was simply

trying to take political advantage of a situation.

I have to ask again, where is the Premier today, the person

who

travelled the province talking about how important it was to maintain

parliamentary rights, to speak in favour of democracy, to protect the

opportunities for the members in the House to discuss and to debate

spending estimates? It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. Why pursue this?

I've taken time. I think I'm not getting through to very many

government members, yet there's always the hope that one of them will

start to think. There's always the hope, I suppose, that one of them

will be a little embarrassed about hearing the words of the now

Premier, and will think about them and about what they're doing to the

Legislature, to democracy, in proceeding with this particular

legislation.

This is the story out of the Sun the

following day, May 15: "Not a Dime Without Debate, Leader of the

Opposition Vows. An indignant Leader of the Opposition vowed Wednesday

never to 'freely or willingly' surrender the Legislature's right to

control the public purse." That's the point I tried to make earlier.

It's not as though we're approving or disapproving or questioning our

own money. We were elected to serve the interests of the people of

British Columbia, each one of us sent here representing a constituency.

Taxes are being collected from everyone in the province and it's our

responsibility, our opportunity, to question the spending of those

funds. We can also argue about the way in which they're raised, but

more particularly we question and vote on the spending. That's a right

we should never give up freely or willingly. Certainly the opposition

will never, whatever opposition it is, give up freely and/or willingly

the right to control the spending of public funds. It's a black day for

British Columbia when a government comes in and wants to take that

right, in part, away from the Legislature.

I have to ask the question again, Mr. Speaker. If it starts in

Bill

4 with taking away the right to spend $600 million, although we haven't

provided the balance of the money, what we are really doing in this

bill is giving the minister the right to spend $110 million in the

first year and the balance of $490 million in the next two years. We

don't know who that minister is going to be in those two years. We

don't even know who it's going to be this year, the way things have

been happening. And we don't even know what administration is going to

be in office one, two and three years from now. Nevertheless, this bill

is giving that minister the right to spend $600 million by a certain

time limit, over a period of three years, and he need only come back to

the Legislature up to two years later to say what has happened to it.

"The B.C. Social Credit leader, at a noisy Vancouver party

rally which he said launched a provincewide tour against restrictions

on debate of government estimates, challenged delegates at this

weekend's provincial NDP convention to censure Premier David Barrett."

As I said earlier, I would like to challenge the Social Credit members

in the House to discuss it with their Premier.

I don't really expect them to vote against him, that would be

asking

too much. But I would like them to discuss it, and try to find out what

is the rationale for having switched from the position that he held so

firmly — at least publicly — just ten and a half years ago, to the

position that he apparently now has. Although he hasn't spoken on this,

he must have given his support or it would never have reached this

stage. Why has he changed? Or did he change? Was it just lip service he

was paying to democracy in 1975? Did he have any feeling at all for the

rights of MLAs, for their obligations and responsibilities? Or was he

simply playing politics in 1975? If he had any feeling at all, what has

happened to it in the ensuing ten and a half years? Is it that power

corrupts? And is it that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Does he

feel that as long as he and his administration are in office, anything

goes, that anything they do must be right by virtue of the fact that

they do it?

It reminds me of a Social Credit cabinet minister in the

previous

administration whom I heard say in this very chamber one day: "I never

tell a lie, and even if at times I do tell a lie, it's the truth

because I said it; so it must be true." It would

[ Page 8265 ]

seem to me that that's the kind of

attitude we have

here. It was wrong for government to try to spend a dime without debate

in 1975, according to the then leader of the opposition. But it's okay

for a government today to say that one minister may have the absolute

and total control to spend $600 million without debate. Those two

positions are totally irreconcilable. I think we should have some

explanation from the Premier as to how he would try to reconcile those

two different positions.

[3:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

"I pledge the right Dave Barrett denies us as opposition we

will

grant to the NDP in opposition. We will give them their full right to

discussion." As I say, that's one campaign promise he kept. But now

they're taking it away — in spades. They've given us the right to

discuss ten cents in spending as long as we want. To a point; the

Chairman, of course, has to exercise some control. But there are no

time limits. As long as we can make it sound different, we can discuss

ten cents in spending as long as we want. But when it comes to $600

million, we're limited as to the amount of time that we can spend. I

can spend two hours, my colleagues can spend half an hour each. If

every one of them spoke we can spend 14.5 hours discussing this bill

and that's the end of it, except for what the government members might

do. Fourteen and a half hours and we are then in the position of voting

on spending $600 million over which we'll have no control. One person

will have total control of that fund. And yet they weren't prepared to

let the NDP administration spend a dime without debate.

"The opposition leader announced his intention Wednesday to

abandon his seat in the Legislature to publicly campaign over the right

to debate about $2 billion." Well, that was his choice at the time.

Continuing on with the report of this meeting: "'I have an

answer to

the Premier of this province,' said the opposition leader. 'I have an

answer to the Premier who accuses us of being frivolous, who accuses us

of anarchy. Anarchy never, but freedom forever."' That's a very

high-sounding phrase: "Anarchy never, but freedom forever." We're

losing freedom when we vote in favour of this bill. Members on the

government side still have an opportunity and still have time, and I

believe still have an obligation to get to the government benches and

persuade them to hold this bill back, because once they vote for it

they have, for the next three years, given whoever happens to be the

Minister of Education the right to spend $600 million. They won't have

the right to question that minister, whatever side of the House they

happen to be on. They won't have that right. They will have given it

up. Today they are making that decision, and I would urge them to think

carefully. While they might have some confidence or at least might want

to show some confidence in the present Minister of Education, are they

as convinced that they will have the same level of confidence in

whoever follows the current Minister of Education? Because they are

tying the hands for some three years down the road. They should think

about that. Anarchy never, but freedom forever. Even they, I think,

would want to have the freedom in year two and year three to question

the spending of this fund, to vote on it.

"The Leader of the Opposition said the new rules would require

passing"" — that's not relevant, really — "at the rate of $6,500 per

second." I haven't worked this out in dollars per second.

"The right of discussion and debate are the modern equivalent

of what people went to war and fought for." Well, some of us actually

have been around long enough to have taken

part in the last war, and

that was one of the things we were convinced of at the time, that we

were fighting for freedom and for the rights of members in the House.

Some of as were convinced of that at the time, and of course the

Premier brought that up, although he wasn't personally involved — he

just wasn't old enough at the time, or he was lucky not to be old

enough. In any case, that war was fought, ostensibly, politically, to

preserve freedom, just as was the first world war.

"It is a freedom that was won, and we will never lose it

freely or willingly." Well, Mr. Speaker, we thought it was won. I like

to think that the present Premier who fought that campaign in 1975

believed, when the election results became known in December 1975, that

he had won a battle. I would like to think he believed that. I might

have believed it up until this bill was presented, because over and

over I have to keep coming back to the fact that he was concerned about

legislative authority to debate every dime, and now he is prepared to

support legislative authority to give one minister the right to spend

$600 million. Again, I would like to ask that the Premier reconcile his

position to those two positions in the Legislature.

"We say not one dime without debate, and we mean not one

ten-cent piece.'" Mr. Speaker, if today's Premier were the same person

who was speaking to the people of British Columbia in 1975, then the

Premier would stand up in this House today in division and vote against

this proposal from the government. I don't see how he could possibly

reconcile the positions. He would have to oppose this principle to

spend not a dime but $600 million without debate.

Another story from the Sun ,

"Not A Dime Without Debate, Bennett Vows," is a different story, and it

is a different reporter. "An indignant Leader of the Opposition vowed

Wednesday never to freely or willingly surrender the Legislature's

right to control the public purse." Mr. Speaker, that is what it is all

about. We are retaining the right to control some expenditures from the

public purse; they're not taking it all away. But if they get away with

$600 million in this bill and $1.2 billion in another bill and $70

million in another bill that's going to get bigger and bigger and

bigger, we're told.... If we give them the authority for all that this

year, where are we going to be next year? Once they have started down

that road, where are they stopping? What estimates will actually come

before us? Just innocuous things that no one is terribly interested in

that can't get the government embarrassed at all? Will they take out of

estimates everything over which they want to exercise total and

complete political control and put it all into bills and use such

high-sounding phrases as "excellence in education"? "This is not

politics. We are doing it because we want to improve the quality of

education. We don't trust the school boards. We don't trust the college

boards. We don't trust the university councils. We're going to put all

of that responsibility and authority in the hands of a minister. And if

we are going to do that, we don't have to debate it in the House. We've

picked the person that we believe is best qualified to deliver the best

educational system, to decide where the money should be spent, so why

bother electing school boards? Why bother appointing college councils,

except to provide havens for Social Crediters? Why bother appointing or

naming university governors and senate members and all that kind of

thing? Why bother with

[ Page 8266 ]

all that? Let's just bring in a bill

giving one

minister after another the authority to spend as much money as we think

that ministry might best use during an election campaign, and then

ultimately a bill that would give the Minister of Finance the authority

to do all the spending."

Once you go down that road, Mr. Speaker, where do you stop?

The

Leader of the Opposition in 1975 said we had to stop at the point of

one dime — that we couldn't go beyond one dime, because that was going

too far. If you could spend that one dime without debate, then it was

so much easier to spend twenty-five cents, a dollar or a million

dollars. But if you would accept the principle that the members in the

House have to have the unfettered right to question, to criticize and

to propose with respect to the spending of everything that the

ministers are intending to do; if you accept that as a principle of

parliamentary democracy; if you accept the idea that opposition members

and caucus members on the other side of the House have the right and

the obligation and must have the responsibility to ask these same

questions, to keep asking them in the hope of getting answers, even

though you protect the minister by saying he or she doesn't have to

answer, then where are we going to go? Either we have the right to

question all expenditures, to vote on all expenditures, or what's the

point in saying that you have the right to question some but not others?

It's a dangerous road that we're going down when we say that

ministers will have the right to control expenditures of these amounts.

Petty cash funds I could see: where do you draw the line on them? But

when you start with a sum of $600 million and say that one person

should have the right to decide where, when and in what amount those

funds are going to be spent — that person makes that decision entirely

on his own, according to this legislation — then I suggest it's a

dangerous road we're starting on. I have to ask: if the province of

British Columbia is going to continue under a Social Credit

administration for any length of time, how far are we going, and what

point is there in having even 57 MLAs, let alone 69 if the members in

the House are simply going to hand over to the government the right to

control spending?

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in 1975 said we were

starting down a dangerous road when he argued against the spending of

one one dime without debate. I suggest we're taking a very long leap

along that road when we give to the Minister of Education the right to

spend $600 million and say to him only: "Come back and tell us a couple

of years after you've spent it what you did with it."

I cannot support Bill 4. As much as I appreciate the actions

of some

school boards, of college councils, of universities, in coming cap in

hand to ministers and asking for contributions from this fund to try to

maintain something by way of quality of education, which has been

seriously under attack, I submit for political reasons, for the last

three years in the province of British Columbia.... I support that. I

don't question the fact that they are doing it in what they believe to

be the best interests of education. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I can't

vote for this legislation. I think if the members on the other side of

the House were to consider for one moment the seriousness of what

they're doing and the question of just how far they might be going,

there might be some of them who will ask questions in caucus, who will

question whether or not they really are doing the right thing in this

instance.

The previous Social Credit leader used to say on many

occasions that

he was prepared to take a second look. I would urge the government to

take a second look at this legislation, because today democracy in

British Columbia — democracy in the form of the MLAs' right to

question, to vote against expenditures if they don't like them — is

being seriously challenged. This is important legislation in that

sense. I think it would do the government nothing but good if it were

to change its mind on this, take a second look and decide that this is

not the way for a democratic government in the province of British

Columbia to be conducting their financial affairs. Mr. Speaker, I urge

the members to persuade their government to withdraw this legislation.

[3:45]

But in the meantime, in the event that they don't, I would

like to

move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Rose), that the motion for second reading of Bill 4, intituled

Education Excellence Appropriation Act, be amended by deleting all the

words following the word "that" and substituting therefore the

following: "...It is not in keeping with proper fiscal policy and

educational policy to have funds for education expended other than

through the normal budgets of the Ministry of Education and the

Ministry of Post-Secondary Education." I move that motion, Mr. Speaker.

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: Of course, I'm speaking in favour

of the amendment,

because it seems to us that the government is proceeding rapidly in

just the opposite direction to which it should be going. It

self-righteously pounds its chest about democracy while striking at the

very root of it. It introduces educational experts from all across

Canada in a question period. I don't understand how they had the brass

to do that, when everybody knows that what this government has done to

education in B.C. Is unparalleled anywhere else in Canada. To bring

experts from all across Canada to have a look at this is, I think, the

height of gall and brass. I wouldn't like to say "stupidity," but I

think it's the height of ignorance.

Mr. Speaker, what the amendment essentially calls for is to

have the

Legislature vet, examine and question any expenditure raised from the

taxpayers of this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With the member's

permission, Mr. Speaker, a

point of order. I did not hear the Chair rule whether the amendment was

in order or not.

MR. LAUK: I looked it over, and it's in

order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's reassuring, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has not ruled

yet, but debate may continue.

MR. ROSE: I find that the Minister of

Finance seems to have a

habit of doing that every time I get started on something. I don't know

whether he wants to stop me in full flight; whether he's concerned by

the eloquence of my oratory; whether he's afraid I might convince the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) or the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) to vote against the government. I

really don't know what he's fearful about. He often questions what I

say, or maybe a motion, as soon as I get started. I

[ Page 8267 ]

wouldn't do that to him, although I

know he shouts

"Question" before anybody even gets a question out of their mouths

during question period. I'll leave that for now.

What I was attempting to say is that the Legislature, not the

Minister of Education, not the Minister of Forests and not the Minister

of Health, should be deciding upon the expenditure of funds in those

various areas — education, forestry and health. The motion says: let's

go back to democracy; let's go back to sanity; let's stop this playing

around and porkbarrelling with the people's money, just to perpetuate

your incompetent selves in office for another 20 years or so. I don't

think people are going to buy this. You may think you've fooled them —

maybe you have. I think of P.T. Barnum and lots of other people when I

think of a certain quote. But maybe you can't fool all of the people

all of the time.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Is that a draft?

Mr. Speaker, I'm a little concerned that we're having a

triplication

of the excellence fund for colleges, the extra $12.7 million for

colleges which was introduced last year as part of the college budget,

under special and central control of the Minister of Education. Now we

have it in health. Now we have it in elementary, secondary and

post-secondary education. Now we have it again in forestry — and not

because it didn't work, but because it did. This beautiful $12.7

million package of pork chops produced — and I hate to use this word,

but I paid so much for my education — a plethora of press releases, 42

of them, with smirking ministers snipping ribbons and passing out, in

concert with the local member.... They didn't do it in my riding, but

they did it in other ridings — as a propaganda piece. So we had $12.7

million taken away from the regular college funding last year and put

into a special fund. I don't know whether it produced excellence, or

what it did, but it certainly produced 42 press releases, and that's

had the desired effect. Now we've got $70 million for silviculture.

That's kind of a pipedream, because we don't know whether the

municipalities or the unions, once burned, are going to do it again.

We've got a Health Improvement Appropriation Act. "there's another $720

million to be decided on, mainly by the Minister of Health — more pork.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: "Oink, oink" across the way.

Now we've got the fund for educational excellence — $110

million.

For what purpose? For excellence? I don't know about that excellence

stuff. When I think of what excellent things they've spent the money

on.... Fixing leaky roofs is one; adding to increment salary grants —

that's another, and I'll go through the whole list of them if you like;

$7.3 million yesterday or the day before on college spending, which

still isn't enough. The whole thing is a crass political propaganda

trick in an attempt to convince the public that they're doing something

about education. "Excellence" is beautiful. What a buzzword! Nobody

could have asked for nicer buzzwords than excellence in education. It's

not going to wash.

Here we have from Vanderhoof what I would regard as a

left-wing editorial. It says here in the Express-Bugle ,

from Mr. Kempf's riding: "Excellence dollars should fund the districts.

The provincial government is ignoring districts in dire need of

additional funding by not utilizing its Excellence in Education fund to

finance budget overruns."

MR. LAUK: Jack Kempf?

MR. ROSE: No, he didn't say that. That's in

his riding.

MR. LAUK: He got hit on the head on the

weekend.

MR. ROSE: Well, let's leave his problems.

He's got all kinds of problems, the least of which is being hit on the

head.

MR. LAUK: He was hit there, and he wasn't

injured.

MR. ROSE: Well, at least the Coquihalla got

off with a bang.

It seems to me that the member for Vancouver Centre is always in the

House when I'm speaking, and is not always the greatest of help.

Anyway, carrying on from this editorial, it seems strange that

school boards throughout B.C. are crying for additional funding while

this $110 million is sitting idle. Well, it's not sitting idle; we

haven't even passed the legislation. We've spent over half of it; we've

spent $70 million already on excellent.... What — excellent bus routes,

excellent teaching instruction? No, on salaries and some of the other

things, and maintenance that we've had to clean up after three years of

neglect.

The editorial goes on: "The provincial government, according

to the

press release, wants to use the fund for textbooks and special

programs." Of course they do, because they got caught with their hand

in the till, finding that they cut their textbook budget in half. Where

we needed in excess of $22 million, they were only going to spend $11

million, which meant certain courses couldn't go ahead. Contracts with

publishers couldn't proceed; preparations for new curricula and

programs could not be implemented, so they put it back.

Where did they get it? Out of the educational excellence fund.

Why

shouldn't they? They stole it from school funds to begin with, so of

course that's happened. The editorial says that 69 out of 71 boards

around B.C. have submitted adequate needs budgets. You know what that

means, Mr. Speaker. Adequate needs budgets means that they cannot

function to the level of quality of education that they perceive they

need as elected trustees, because the fiscal framework ordered and

centralized and controlled by the czar of education in Victoria does

not provide sufficient funds.

We've got a three-tiered education system, right? Tears are

all in

the eyes of the taxpayer; that's where the three tears come from —

times maybe 72 or 73.

"Sixty-one of 79 can't get by on the framework budget and are

demanding the government fund them through the excellence fund." Gee,

it's hard to get up and talk against giving boards money. I can see

where some government member is going to say: "What are you talking

about? Why are you opposed to this? Why are you opposed to giving

boards money through the excellence fund? I thought you wanted it. For

the last three years you've been screaming about more money for

schools. Why are you fighting us here?" You know, you can't shoot Santa

Claus; you're not supposed to do that. We're doing it because we don't

believe the minister should be responsible for the distribution of the

funds and have no adequate legislative check on how those

[ Page 8268 ]

funds are spent. We have no guarantee

whatsoever

that these funds will not be used as favours in certain districts. We

have no guarantee that they will not be squandered in some areas, not

because of the needs of the district but because of the needs of the

incumbent MLA who wants to become elected or re-elected.

That's why we're opposed to it. We're opposed to it because it

strikes at the very heart of what democracy is — to have the government

examined fully by the opposition. That is parliamentary democracy. If

you take that away, what have you got left? You've got a charade here.

You've got a showboat. You've got a bunch of high-priced people who sit

around and babble and don't do anything about properly examining a

piece of the people's business.

Now whether they want to do it or not is beside the point. The

point

is that they should have the right to do it, and they shouldn't have

those funds squirreled away in the Ministry of Health for the Minister

of Health to throw around to his friends or enemies or colleagues, or

the Minister of Forests, or the Minister of Education, regardless of

how much....

Are the teachers and the colleges going to want to apply for

these

funds for innovative programs? Of course they are. Universities and

colleges sometimes even go to the CIA to get funds for research of

various kinds. They're scrambling for funds, these institutions,

because they have been systematically starved. Now we come along, and

we've got this government that's going to give these people all this

wonderful money, accompanied by 42 press releases at least per every

$12 million.

Going back to the editorial: "Pleas for additional funding

appear to

fall on deaf ears. The money is there, but it's not going where it is

most needed. School boards will most likely turn to the residential

taxpayer to make up for any budget shortfall, a move most trustees said

they are reluctant to make." I'll bet they are. You're darned right

they're reluctant to make it.

We just debated Bill 12. The first tier is what the framework

provides. The second tier is what the local residential taxpayer will

provide, and that's what this editorial is talking about. The third one

is the educational excellence fund. But according to the minister's own

government report, just to maintain the status quo in public education

— not post-secondary — you need $128 million. The ministry said that

they needed that. The experts within the ministry said: "In order to

maintain the status quo, we have to have $128 million." Did we do that?

No. The framework delivered $128 million short of the status quo. So

where are the teachers and the principals and the schools and the

boards going to make up that difference? They're going to go to the

local taxpayer. The school board trustees are reluctant to make those

demands, but isn't it interesting that the framework delivers something

like $128 million less than we need, and the excellence fund provides

$110 million? They're pretty close, those two.

I know some people will say: "You don't know the difference —

typical Socialist mathematics — between $110 million and $128 million.

You guys over there couldn't run a pushcart." That's what you're going

to say. The point is that those figures are alarmingly and shockingly

similar. Why? Because that's where the shortfall came from. It went

from the shortfall delivered by the framework into the excellence fund.

That's where it has gone. The difference will probably be made up by

the taxpayer and the local homeowner based on a very small tax base.

But I've gone into that before, and I'm not going to go into that again.

Here's the crucial point in the editorial from the Vanderhoof Express-Bugle . It

says....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, there really is. I didn't

make this up. There

really is such a newspaper up in Vanderhoof, not notably the most

left-wing area in the province — you can ask the member from Omineca.

It's not the most left-wing ridding in the world, but I think that it's

learning.

[4:00]

"Perhaps the government has already taken notice of this by

designating $9 million for teacher funding out of the...." I guess

that's really what he's talking about, improving teaching; that's a

little more teacher-bashing here. "That is basically a drop in the

bucket compared to the total amount of money in the fund." Here is the

crucial point; this, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, is what our

amendment addresses itself to, and this is the concluding part of the

editorial: "The best thing that could happen to education since 1982

would be for the Education ministry to use the money to provide school

districts with the additional funds they require to keep services at an

equal level." That's what we should be doing in our educational policy,

not these little gimmicks, these little propaganda pieces that the

ministry dreams up all the time.

To sum up briefly our major objections to it, I said, I think

— and

repeated what the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said a little while

ago....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)?

MR. ROSE: He's over at the major

educational conference, I'm told. He's going to lead the world and tell

everybody in Canada and the world how great the B.C. education system

is since 1982. Or else he's presiding at a wake for the same. I'm not

certain. Anyway, he's not here on this very important educational bill,

and perhaps he should be. I don't think it makes any difference anyway,

because I don't think that he determines educational policy. I'm sorry

if that shocks you that I say this, but I've felt for a long time that

we've had one minister that got into trouble and that leopard couldn't

change its spots. You couldn't launder him so he's acceptable anymore,

so you send him into Forestry. Change the leopard. Now we've got the

new leopard but the same old spots, so you have the same old policy. So

I don't think that he makes policy. I don't think that any of them make

policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: A leper?

MR. ROSE: No, not a leper, a leopard!

Lepers don't have

spots, necessarily; none that I know do. Anyway, to corn an old phrase:

there is no point in talking to the monkey when the organ grinder is

making all the decisions. That's the problem.

Here are some of our major objections, Mr. Speaker, and I know

that

you'll be interested in these as major objections to the excellence

fund. First of all, these funds are to be allocated on a merit basis.

Where are the guidelines? Who determines what is merit? Is merit

something that's there

[ Page 8269 ]

because the incumbent MLA might be in

trouble and

therefore needs a shot in the arm and a few more press releases for

himself? Is that what merit really means?

Permissiveness is the next thing. The member for Nanaimo said

this.

The bill says that the funds may not be used.... Now we've got $110

million this year and over the next three years, depending upon who the

minister is.... Wouldn't it be a shocker is a minister of another

administration had control over this $600 million fund? What would we

do about it then? He might be moved to do a little political propaganda

himself, but I don't think he would. We're opposed in principle to that

kind of an arrangement, so of course he wouldn't do that. The funds may

not be spent if the cabinet decides it needs more money elsewhere. The

cabinet might well decide it needs money for some other important

purpose, so it might take it out of the excellence fund. That's

something we should all consider.

It says here that the objectives are ill-defined. Other

education-related items could be anything. What are other education

items, mentioned first of all by the Premier on.... I've forgotten the

date, but I think it was around February 15 — near Valentine's day

anyway. I've got it down here, but if you don't remember.... You forget

a lot of things. I don't expect you to remember, you know. What the

school boards were saying to the minister on February 14 is that they

didn't want an excellence fund. They wanted to send him a valentine,

and on it they say: "Now is the time for us to say we love each other

so, but we can't feel that way towards you until we get more dough."

But they didn't get any more dough, they got a gimmick. They got $110

million taken out of educational funds and tagged to excellence.

The member shakes his head. I don't blame him; he hasn't had a

good

week. He's had about the same week as Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has

had. I think their problem is that they both have the same mindset, and

that upsets a lot of people, including me.

Fourth point. There is inadequate base funding: college and

university budgets have been frozen. Somebody said — I've got the quote

somewhere — "You can't build excellence on quicksand."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Please don't heckle me. I'm a

very junior member in

this House and you know how it upsets me when I'm heckled. I lose all

composure, and that's not good for either of us.

Your grants and framework have been a disaster for most

districts.

Where did the money come from? The Premier should know where the money

comes from. He's certainly a member of Treasury Board. Universities and

colleges adjustments fund of last year — $27 million not spent. That's

where the money came from. The underfunding of the public school system

— $65 million. Cutting books for children — $11 million. Cutting

special initiatives, vote 64 — $1.8 million.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Wrong again.

MR. ROSE: Your problem, Mr. Premier, is

that you very seldom

come in here and enter into these debates as a participant. You come in

here and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member,

we are on the

reasoned amendment to Bill 4. The hon. Premier will have his chance on

the floor at a later time.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't suggest that you

admonish the Premier

too much, Mr. Speaker. He's sensitive and he might hold grudges. I'm an

old friend of the Premier. One day I almost got run over by a member of

his family. I don't know whether he was looking forward to this day or

not, but the point is that that's what happened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are on the

amendment.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, if you continue to

permit the Premier

to heckle a speaker like this.... I've never seen anything like that

before in my life, and I'm not reflecting on the Chair.

Friday, May 16: the presidents of B.C. colleges say they're

having

to struggle to build schools on financial quicksand. The excellence

fund. It goes on to talk about what has happened in the colleges, and I

want to do that right now. I'm pleased that the Premier is here. I like

to see him here; I don't see him very often. I hardly recognized him

when he came in. He's running around snipping ribbons and doing all

this other stuff.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, the Chair

will know that we have an amendment with respect to Bill 4 in second

reading. I fail to see what that has to do with other members of the

Legislature who are present today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your point of

order. The member will speak to the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I think the Minister of Finance

is probably trying

to become Speaker. I notice he's practising these points of order all

the time, and he's usually dead wrong. It's a little green book. You'll

see it in your desk there, and you can be a little bit more precise.

It's new and it's all.... We've just done the parliamentary reform and

I would recommend it to you. The colleague right behind you was

chairing on that great document. Some of us assisted, so we do know a

little bit about it.

Where did the money come from? I've already been over it.

Where is

it going? Excellence, okay? Non-salary inflation. Is that excellence?

Twenty-four million bucks non-salary. This is what we've spent so far.

University operating budgets — operating budgets; what's that got to do

with excellence? — $5.6. Another $7.5 to universities generally. I

don't know what that was for, but it was probably not tied to any

particular grant or project. But would we know? We wouldn't know

anyway. How would we ever find out what it was used for two years down

the road? We would have no idea what that money is going to be spent

for. Then $4.4 college operating; $6.2 student aid. A big deal — $6.2

million in student aid. You know what the student aid budget figure

was, Mr. Speaker, the year of restraint, the year before? It was $22

million. You have taken $50 million out of student aid over the last

four years and you've given back $6.2 million. And you want applause?

You should be ashamed of yourself. You should hang your head in shame

and

[ Page 8270 ]

read the standing orders, or

something. Do something to improve your mind.

When he spoke, the Finance minister said he wants to help the

best

students. Where? In West Point Grey? Because there's no access if you

increase the fees of colleges by 30 percent. If you make it so 7

percent of the kids from the interior can go on to university or

post-secondary, and 15 percent of the kids who live in West Van or

Point Grey, and if you increase their fees 30 percent, you cut out

student aid, you cancel courses, you get classes larger — and you want

to help the best students? What a laughable thing. Who wrote that

speech for you anyway — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)?

That's just nonsense, absolute drivel, poppycock. I can't tell you how

bad it is.

Then $6.6 million for textbooks. With $22 million in the

budget for

textbooks, you cut it to $11 million, give $11 million to the

excellence fund, then when you get caught at it, what do you do? What

do you do then? You put $6.6 million back. Again, that's supposed to be

an admirable thing to do. You got caught. That's all that happened: you

just got caught at it. We have $3.3 million for BCIT programs. What are

the guidelines for that? Nineteen million dollars for salaries.

Somebody forgot that the teachers and the school boards have increment

contracts. They forgot that, so they had to give them $19 million. Now

another one yesterday: $7.3 million for colleges. It adds up to about

$70 million.

Where is the improved teaching? Where are the innovative

programs?

Where is anything? All you've done is fix a few leaky roofs. You've

tried to make up for the fact that you've savaged education, and you

bring all these experts in from all over the country. You should be

ashamed of yourself: there isn't a province that's been operating like

this. Certainly not anyone that I think is worthwhile.

Even Alberta: look at how bad Alberta is. Alberta has done

nothing

like that. "While B.C. has endured reductions, Alberta colleges have

received hikes of more than 5 percent for two years running," said John

Waters, president of the College-Institute Educators' Association in

the Vancouver Sun , May 16.

And here's what our old friend, a guy who really tried, did.

There

was a really innovative guy named Bruce Fraser up at Malaspina. What he

did was excellent, true excellence. What he did was that he had a lot

of innovative programs having to do with training of Pacific Rim

students. He made money on those programs and put it into his budget.

He just wasn't hanging around with his hand out. Other people have done

the same thing. Douglas College is another example of that. The one in

Prince George is another example. But do you know what Bruce Fraser

did? He quit yesterday or the day before. He quit. He couldn't stand it

anymore. "The resignation Thursday of Malaspina College president Bruce

Fraser over financing shortages is the most dramatic move in a year

that has already seen presidents take a collective stand for their

institutions." So the presidents have to get together; they have to

gang up. They have to come and supplicate. What a position to put a

president in. He has to come and beg for money enough to run his

institution. That's absolutely shameful, outrageous, shocking,

dismaying even, and I don't think that we should.... Why isn't there

somebody in education in the ministry fighting for education, instead

of fighting education? That's what I'd like to know. I think that is

unacceptable.

"College heads tell of struggle. Figures tell tale of

excellence funds." I don't have to go on to prove the point. I did a

little thing the other day on the dropout figures. You know, only about

35 to 40 percent of our kids ever get through school in this province.

They drop out. There's a financial advantage to their dropping out.

I've got a correspondent here from Sooke, and what he has to say is

this: "Looking at the matter from a financial point of view, the loss

of 100 students appears to save the school board approximately $300,000

and reduces the pupil-teacher ratio in grades 11 and 12." Now are kids

being driven out of our schools? It sounds to me like that is what's

happening. They don't have enough counselling; their classes are too

large. You've narrowed the curriculum to the point where only the

academics.... "Teach the best and shoot the rest;" that's the attitude.

"We want the best students to go on." That's not acceptable.

[4:15]

I'm quoting here from, I believe the source is, the Toronto Star :

"The real tragedy is that the fate of

these young men

and women can be predicted in mid-elementary school. Kids who start

failing and falling behind in early grades, whether for physical,

social or intellectual reasons, most often do not overcome their

difficulties, unless there are compensating factors or extenuating

circumstances. Make-work and skills training programs may be important

remedies for unskilled or uninterested youth, but we really need a

major commitment by our society to young children starting on that

spiral of self-defeat."

I think that all of us, if we can be fair-minded about it for

moment, are really concerned about the fact that there are many young

people in our society who could make contributions; but because there

are no jobs for them, because their educational support and servicing

is unacceptable and, in some cases, non-existent — in certain kinds of

talents.... It means we're going to face them later, Mr.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), in the courts. We're going to see

them in Human Resources, and we're going to see them in other places,

which will be far more costly to the state than spending it on

education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for

Vancouver South wishes to speak to the amendment?

MR. ROGERS: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before recognizing the

member, I will

advise the House that the amendment is in order, in that it purports to

be declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the

principles, policy or provisions of the bill. That is clearly stated in

the amendment, and for that reason the amendment is found in order. I

must caution members, in speaking to the House, that it is the method

of expending funds for education that is stated in the amendment, and

only that can be debated — only the declaratory principle of the

amendment can be debated. With that said, the Chair recognizes the

second member for Vancouver South.

MR. ROGERS: With that very eloquent ruling,

members will now

of course wish to take some time to prepare their debate, in order to

make sure it's utterly and completely in order on this amendment —

which hasn't taken place in the past. On that basis, I move adjournment

of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 8271 ]

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 33: minister's office, $186,345.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, thank you

very much for

calling the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. Before we get into

what is probably the most significant issue before us, that involving

the countervail announced yesterday in the United States, I think it's

important that we put on record that the increase for the Ministry of

Forests for the current fiscal year is something like 23 percent.

Incorporated within that sum is a significant increase under the

heading of silviculture — up 47 percent. Part of that, of course.

reflects the third year of the federal-provincial agreement. The amount

of the contribution is now $22 million by the province, with an equal

sum having been submitted by the federal government. I think that one

thing we should keep in mind is that the total amount of the funding is

$300 million, divided equally between both levels of government. The

federal government is not, as was stated in the House last week,

putting in that total sum.

I would like to make a couple of remarks with respect to the

current

issue. Perhaps l ought to trace a bit of the history, and refresh our

memories as to exactly what has happened over a number of years. The

first issue came up with respect to the announcement out of Ottawa

shortly before the countervail was to be filed — and it was going to be

filed in any event; that's abundantly clear, and it became even clearer

when we were in Toronto last Thursday. I think we should keep in mind

who initiated the concept of the envoy. I think it's very clear to

everyone now that it emanated from the federal government. I think that

their intentions were sincere in what they attempted to do: to work

with the U.S. administration to try to stall the filing of the petition

under the U.S. trade laws. The amount and the time given to us was not

very significant. When we look at the time for filing, I don't think

most people are aware of the fact that before the concept of envoy....

By the time we had arrived in Toronto, they had made reference to the

word "representative." So instead of an envoy system, we have a

representative system.

What really happened was that the time for filing was running

even

when we were there. The agreement, from what I understand and was able

to extract, is that the time.... There are 20 days, by the way, before

a decision is made by the International Trade Commission, and their

decision to investigate is usually 20 days after filing. When we were

there, the clock was already ticking. It was already ticking, so it

became abundantly clear from the position which we have taken that all

issues involving free trade and those negotiations are to come from the

main table. All of the information which had been passed to us by the

federal team and by our reading of the U.S. negotiating team was that

everything goes there.

Now, of course, what did we do? We relied upon a letter from

the

President of the United States. I think it might be worthwhile making

reference to it. This letter was dated April 24.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Now I think we ought to

have a little bit

of support from the member for Vancouver Centre. I recognize that there

are not too many forests, but there are a lot of head offices in your

riding that you might consider.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I haven't

even got started yet.

MR. LAUK: You haven't even started yet?

What's going to become of our forests?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I quote

the second paragraph of a letter from the President of the United

States dated April 24, 1986:

"During Prime Minister Mulroney's recent

visit to this

country, he and I agreed that we would attempt to initiate

comprehensive bilateral trade negotiations between our two nations on a

'clean launch' basis."

So now we know where the words "clean launch" came from.

"We believe it is in the best interests

of all of us

to have everything on the table when the negotiations begin and to

start without preconditions on either side. The clean launch idea is

strongly supported by the American business community, for it provides

our negotiators with maximum flexibility."

Well, I tell you what: that was not a bad start. However, then

what

happened was this. On the way back, I come across another letter, and

this letter is dated May 8, 1986, and it seems to me there was a turn

here of about 180 degrees. May 8, 1986 — again, a letter from the

President. This is, by the way, addressed to the chairman of the Senate

finance committee, who is the Hon. Bob Packwood, senator from the state

of Oregon:

"Thank you again for your forceful

efforts in

preserving our fast-track proposal for a Canada free-trade agreement.

Once again, I want you to know that I am committed to finding a rapid

and effective solution to the Canadian softwood lumber problem which

restores for the American lumber industry a fair opportunity to

compete. To this end, I intend to press for an expedited resolution to

this problem independent of the comprehensive negotiations. If this

cannot be achieved through bilateral negotiations with Canada, then I

will take such action as may be necessary to resolve this problem

consistent with U.S. law.

"We fully realize that lumber and other

pending trade

irritants must be resolved before we submit to the Senate the results

of the comprehensive negotiations."

Now that last paragraph would indicate that there may be some

degree of flexibility.

I want to mention something that happened in 1983. The

International Trade Commission came up....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Remember, countervail

has been with us for

years and years. During question period today, we know.... That member

for Vancouver Centre

[ Page 8272 ]

has been around here a long time, so

he should be able to go back and remember 1962. It's a long time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In 1983 the

International Trade Commission said the following....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) could wait. Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate

your humour, but it is not in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In 1983 two words were

used by the

International Trade Commission. As far as Canadian softwood is

concerned, there is no subsidy, nor was there any discrimination. Now

why did they say "no discrimination"? Because there are U.S. Interests

in Canada who are involved in the softwood business; and in addition to

that, it is open for anybody in the world to do business in our country.

The largest trade inquiry in the history of the United States

occurred in 1982-83. Who was on that tribunal? Who created it? The U.S.

created the tribunal that heard it, and all the chairs were filled by

U.S. citizens. So I'm beginning to wonder, as everybody else is, with

respect to the politics that are occurring now, after we have just been

through the most intensive investigation and hearing in the history of

the U.S. as far as their trade law is concerned. That occurred. Their

decision came out and it was quite clear. As the Department of Commerce

stated in May 1983:

"We believe that a comparison of Canadian

stumpage

prices with the U.S. prices would be arbitrary and capricious in view

of the following:

"(1) the wide differences between species

and

composition; the difference between size, quality and density of

throughout the United States and Canada;

"(2) the additional payments which are

required in many provinces in Canada but not generally in the United

States;

"(3) the fact that in recent years prices

in the

national forests in the United States have been bid anywhere from two

to five years in advance of cut, without taking into account the

fluctuations and demand for lumber;

"(4) the fact that in recent years the

U.S. Forest

Service has restricted the supply of timber in certain national forests

due to budgetary and environmental constraints."

Another point that everybody seems to have forgotten about is

with

respect to the stumpage system within the United States. Mr. Chairman,

you know that we based our entire system on the U.S. Forest Service.

Secondly, within the boundaries of the United States themselves, the

variation in stumpage rates goes anywhere from $8 to $100 — within the

United States, depending on whether it's east, west of the Rockies, the

Pacific Northwest or in the southern portion. The variation in stumpage

within their own country is very significant.

Now one of the concerns that seems to have been raised, and

why we

believe it's the responsibility of the federal government to

negotiate.... We know very well that the province cannot turn around

and negotiate on international trade matters. It's country-to-country.

MR. LAUK: Well,