1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1197 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act Respecting Okanagan Bible College (Bill PR401). Mr. Campbell 1197

Oral Questions

Origins of restraint program. Mr. Cocke –– 1197

Letter to BCGEU employees. Mr. Reid –– 1198

Government advertising campaign. Mr. Hanson –– 1198

School budgets restraint. Mr. Rose –– 1199

Budget debate

Mr. Blencoe –– 1200

Hon. Mr. Curtis (closes debate) –– 1203

Division –– 1206

Committee of Supply. Ministry of Health estimates (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 44: minister's office 1206

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act 1983 (Bill 17). Second

Reading

Mr. Cocke –– 1207

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

Ms. Brown –– 1210

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1215

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MS. SANFORD: I would like the House to join me in welcoming

visitors today from Courtenay in the constituency of Comox. I would

like the House to welcome Paul and Monica Turner with their two

children Jay and Noah.

HON. MR. CHABOT: From the great riding of Columbia River in

Kimberley, we have Mr. Frank Atkins and his son Derek. I would like the

House to join me in welcoming them here.

HON. MR. McGEER: Listening in the members' gallery to the

voice of British Columbia, which I trust the members will keep from

being too staticky this afternoon, we have Edie Apple, a distinguished

visitor to British Columbia. She is the assignment editor at the Voice

of America in Washington, D.C. I would ask the members to bid her

welcome, along with my own policy coordinator and ex-Harvard student

Janie Burns.

MR. R. FRASER: The House will remember that I introduced one

of my nieces recently, and today I'm going to do that again. I can

assure the House that there are two proud grandmothers today, for my

brother Peter and his wife Catharine tell me that the most beautiful

and intelligent baby of 1983 was born yesterday.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery today is a very good friend of

mine, Mr. Harvey Venier from Cranbrook. Harvey is on the board of East

Kootenay Community College. He's visiting Victoria today with his

nephew from Italy, and I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. HOWARD: I don't have an introduction to make, but I

wonder if I could have leave of the House to make a very brief

statement with respect to the shooting down of an airliner by the

Soviet Union as reported in the day's press.

MR. SPEAKER: This would not be the time, hon. member, to ask leave.

MR. HOWARD: At the appropriate time, then, I think we should express our indignation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. It would be

appropriate at the time of motions, and then the only thing that could

be asked would be leave. We could not go into the reason for it.

Introduction of Bills

On a motion by Mr. Campbell, Bill PR 401,

An Act Respecting Okanagan

Bible College, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena asks leave to make a motion.

MR. HOWARD: No, a brief statement.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the substance of the message

that the member for Skeena wants to convey is, I'm sure, one that could

be addressed through the standing orders of this House. I would suggest

that the member apprise himself of the the proper standing order, which

is, I believe, 35, under which he has the opportunity to make his

statement without the necessity of asking for leave. He knows the rules

very well. They use standing order 35 very frequently. I would suggest

he do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been asked to ascertain if leave shall be granted to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: I think that the killing of 269 innocent people

aboard an aircraft which was shot down apparently, as reported, by the

Soviet Union should raise the indignation of everybody in this nation

and in the western world. I'm sure there would be no disagreement

whatever in this House if the government on behalf of the Legislature

would officially communicate our views to the Soviet Union and to the

the Canadian government, and ask the Canadian government to express

their opinion about this senseless and appalling act.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to the statement just offered, as House Leader for the moment, on behalf of the government I'd like to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. You must ask leave either to make a statement or to have a ministerial statement....

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On behalf of the government, we would like

to associate the government with the statement made by the Opposition

House Leader with respect to this reported incident, about which more

information has recently developed. The incident has been in the news

media for the past few hours, and statements made by international

representatives of the United States and, I understand, Canada as well.

I'm sure all members would agree that the act of shooting down of an

unarmed civilian aircraft has historically been considered tantamount

to

an act of war. The significance and importance of this cannot be

succinct statement when it's within their capability of doing so. The

act — as it has been reported — is so significant that I would think

most people have yet to grasp the implications of this. So we would

associate with the statement made by the member opposite.

Oral Questions

ORIGINS OF RESTRAINT PROGRAM

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Premier as a result of listening to his speech this morning. The

Premier has repeatedly lectured this House and the public on his

government's restraint program. Can the Premier confirm that the

restraint program was originally designed at a cabinet retreat at

Schooner Cove on Nanoose Bay on Vancouver Island in January of 1982?

MR. SPEAKER: The second part of the question is in order.

[ Page

1198 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Without appearing to duck a question which

is out of order because it asks about decisions made in a cabinet

meeting, I would say this government's commitment to restraint has been

well known, particularly where it's been implemented in public

policy.... It is of long standing. The response to the recession has

taken form on a continuing basis. However, the compensation

stabilization program is a key element in that and, of course, was the

first part of restraint. Other parts have been developed at various

times and will continue to be developed as we meet our responsibilities

as government.

MR. COCKE: Maybe I indirectly referred to it as a cabinet

retreat. I think it took in more than the cabinet. There were 19 aides

at that meeting. I'd like the minister to confirm that the meeting cost

the taxpayers for accommodation alone $10,474.94 — talking about

restraint.

MR. SPEAKER: The question would be best placed on the order paper. It is a detailed question, and I so rule.

MR. COCKE: Just prior to that, will the Premier confirm that

as leader of this restraint-preaching government he enjoyed the luxury

of a $450-a-day suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Montreal in November 1981?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, again, questions in question period

must have some relation to urgency, and certainly a detailed question,

the type of which the member has asked again, would best be placed

either on the order paper or in a forum to follow shortly in the course

of parliamentary discussions.

MR. COCKE: I'm reacting directly to the preaching that we

heard this morning. As a result of that, I'm asking the questions that

the Premier knows the answer to. The Premier knows exactly whether or

not he spent three days at the Ritz-Carlton at $450 a day. I ask him

that question directly. The order paper is no place for that question,

Mr. Speaker, with respect.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Though the question is out of order, as is

quite often the case with that member, in 1981 we were at the

constitutional talks. The suites involved were ordered by the

government of Quebec as the Premiers met. Intensive meetings took place

at that time on the constitution. I can remember that that member

wasn't very interested, but I'll tell you that the work done and the

time spent was done by all the Premiers of the country, all in the very

same type of accommodation in the same hotel. Arrangements were made

not by our government but by the government of Quebec.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't say "old excuse" to me, Mr. Member

for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), because I'm not embarrassed by it at

all. The work we did was substantial for this country. I'm going to

tell you, British Columbia's reputation for attending conferences is

very modest, compared to that of other Premiers, and in particular the

Premier of Manitoba.

LETTER TO BCGEU EMPLOYEES

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the

Provincial Secretary if I may. There was some indication in the press

this morning that Norm Richards, president of the BCGEU, has sent some

direction to the members of his union by way of a letter instructing

those members not to accept relocation within the agency of the

government. Could you indicate to me, Mr. Provincial Secretary, if

you've received a copy of that letter, and if it's in fact available?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I just happen to have a copy of that

letter here. Essentially, the letter is directed to members of the

union who have received notices of termination. I will quote from it

very briefly, and I'm prepared to table a copy.

The letter addressed the question of redeployment:

"Before any redeployment program can be implemented it

must be negotiated with the union. On behalf of the officers of the

union I'm asking for your support in our fight against these program

cuts and the legislation, and recommend that you take the following

steps: refuse to participate in the development of redeployment plans

outside the collective agreement in your union; refuse to provide the

employer with information for the priority placement division of the

the Public Service Commission; file a grievance, if you have not

already done so; advise management personnel to contact the union if

you are requested to provide information."

Essentially, the union is saying to its membership to maintain union solidarity at the expense of public service employment.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

MR. HANSON: A question to the Provincial Secretary, Mr.

Speaker. It is apparent that the Provincial Secretary is readily able

to provide information when he's fed it by a back-bencher, but when we,

on this side of the House, ask him to provide information on the ad

campaign and the costs involved, he cannot do so. I want to ask that

minister why he is unable to provide details on that program to the

House, when Dave Brown himself has confirmed that filming is underway,

and that one cabinet minister has already been filmed. The cost will be

in excess of $100,000 for production, with the booking times on top of

that. Why will you not give this House answers to these questions?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Again, Mr. Speaker, that junior member from

Victoria wants to lecture the House and the ministers. To suggest that

the information on my desk was given to me by a back-bencher is

strictly speculation and erroneous as well. This information was

provided to me by people other than back-benchers. I gave the member an

answer yesterday. It might not be the answer he is looking for, but I

gave him the answer yesterday. How many times does he want me to answer

the same question?

MR. HANSON: In response to that minister, I don't mind being a junior member of a party that believes in truth and honesty.

Mr. David Brown of Jem Productions has indicated that he is working

without a contract on an informal basis with Mr. Heal. Why is Mr. Heal

operating with Mr. Brown on an

[ Page

1199 ]

informal contract? Is there no signed agreement and no guidelines available

for this program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We want Sophie!

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't know if I should answer the question

about "We want Sophie" or what. I take all those questions that are put

to me by members of the opposition very seriously. Some of the

technical details of the question asked of me yesterday.... I attempted

to acquire the answers from Mr. Heal so that I could come back to the

House today and give the information to the members who I know are

patiently waiting for that information. They really want the

information; I am sure they do. So I phoned Mr. Heal yesterday

afternoon. Unfortunately he was out of town and so I couldn't get some

of these technical details you are asking for. However, as soon as Mr.

Heal returns to town I will get all that information for you. It might

be lengthy, so in order not to abuse the question period I am prepared

to table that material here so that you will have an opportunity to

read it, rather than my occupying the short opportunity you have of

asking questions in this House.

MR. HANSON: In that telephone conversation yesterday, did you ask...?

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, that Provincial Secretary continues

to deny to this House the information as to whether McKim Advertising

is the agent of record handling this particular program and this

campaign. Is McKim Advertising the agent of record for the provincial

government?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I listened to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) feed you your lines on that particular question.

You understand the House rules that a question taken on notice can't

be asked repeatedly in the House. I've taken that question as notice,

with a view to getting the information and bringing it back to the

House. As soon as I've got that information, I'm prepared to bring it

back to the House.

MS. BROWN: When?

HON. MR. CHABOT: As soon as possible.

SCHOOL BUDGETS RESTRAINT

MR. ROSE: My question is directed to the Minister of

Education. The minister said in a speech last week to the B.C. School

Trustees Association that no budget increases for school boards would

be permitted. Even if they face cost increases they would have to

operate within the current budget. I believe I'm putting that fairly to

the minister. In view of the government's decision to deregulate B.C.

Hydro rates, has the minister estimated how many teachers' jobs will be

lost or class sizes enlarged? Should school boards have to pay for new

unregulated Hydro increases or increased heating costs should this be a

cold winter in Prince George, for instance?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the member would have

been there on Friday. As my critic, I expected him to be at the BCSTA meeting

and I didn't see him there. He was probably campaigning.

In order to answer that question, it's going to take a considerable

period of time. As the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has

mentioned, I don't think it's appropriate for me to take up all the

time of question period — what's remaining — to give a detailed answer

to that question in order to give the member the fullest possible

answer, so he'll fully understand exactly what the plan is. I would be

quite prepared, if the member wants to talk to me later, to give him

the full details.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for that, the same way as I

thank the minister for giving me the briefing through the Ministry of

Education that he promised me six weeks ago and has not come through

with yet.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that you would prevent or

somehow discourage the Premier from pointing his finger at me. It might

be loaded.

I would like to ask the minister, since he obviously dodged the last

question: he talked about increased productivity as a possibility for

justifying any teachers' increases. The other day he was unable to

define teacher productivity. Has he yet been able to come up with a

proper. reasonable and sensible definition for this word, or is he

still talking about the number of bricks that can be laid by a

bricklayer in one day?

[2:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have often attempted to

discuss matters with the member, but I wasn't too sure whether it was

him I talked to or the person on whose behalf he was campaigning. Now

that he's back, perhaps we'll have that meeting. With respect to

productivity, one of the reasons that very little was said on Friday

last was that it seems to me that it is something which ought to be

worked out through negotiations and bargaining between the trustees,

representing the school board, and the BCTF and their teacher

representatives locally. It's not for the Minister of Education or the

government to turn around and tell them how to operate, where they're

going to save and how they're going to increase their productivity in

the school board. It's not for us to do. Our job was to provide a

budget; we have provided a budget, and they're in the process this fall

of working on the 1984 budget, now that the accounting

definitions have

been given to them.

The secretary-treasurers are sending me statements and telling me:

"We think the system is a very valid one. It's sound." There's just one

problem: there's a shortage of money. But that's no surprise to anybody

on either side of the House. It's very easy, Mr. Speaker, to negotiate

an agreement when you you’ve got lot’s of money, but right now the real

test, to show the real mettle, is to negotiate when we don't have those

kinds of funds.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. speaker, I made reference to a letter

from Mr. Richard of the B.C. Government Employees' Union. When I quote

from a letter I like to have an opportunity to table it.

[ Page 1200 ]

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Premier

has decided to leave, because before the adjournment I was trying to

point out to the Premier that while he tells every single British

Columbian, particularly those in greatest need, that they must go

through some endurance test under this government, that they must

indeed see their essential programs eliminated — human rights,

handicapped programs and senior citizen programs — while the Premier

talks about restraint and his programs to dismantle some of the basic

services that maintain the social fabric of British Columbia, we know

what his priorities are.

One item that we have discovered in terms of where his restraint

priorities are is that the Premier of this province decided to spend

$2,700 of public money on having pictures of himself printed so he

could send them to his friends and relatives in this province and in

other parts of the country. He did that on September 15, 1981, for a

total of $836. Not only did he decide to compound that insult in terms

of restraint and telling the handicapped people of British Columbia

they can't have enough money so they can work in the community, he then

ordered another 750 of them at a cost of nearly $2,000 to the taxpayers

of British Columbia.

Twenty-seven hundred dollars may be a small amount, but when this

government talks about what it is trying to do to help the people of

British Columbia, these tokens are symbolic of their hypocrisy. That

$2,700 would provide enough money for five handicapped persons for

their CIP allowance for an entire year. That's where this government's

priorities are. That's where this Premier is coming from. He would have

pictures of himself sent to his friends and his relatives at a cost to

the taxpayer rather than ensure that the handicapped persons in this

province are given a sense of decency or are allowed to have some

meaningful role in the community and in this province. That's where his

priorities are, and the people of British Columbia won't be conned. You

can't fool them any longer.

We witnessed this kind of spending before the election: cabinet

ministers living high off the hog while other British Columbians have

been told they must pull in their belts and lose their jobs. This

government and these cabinet ministers continue to utilize the public

trough for their own benefits and their own fun times. What they do in

terms of representing the people of British Columbia is very

significant. They may make small of the very things they say don't

matter — $2,700 for pictures for the Premier to send to his friends and

relatives. It is a small amount, but it is symbolic.

How can you tell the people of B.C. that they have to participate in

seeing essential services that maintain their lifestyle in some decency

— a degree of compassion — when the leader of the government abuses his

position and uses public dollars for such trivialities as pictures of

himself? It is a gross insult to the people of British Columbia, and he

should pay back every penny that was spent on those photographs. It is

symbolic. The leader of the government, if he is to be taken seriously

in trying to help the people of British Columbia by his draconian

measures and his attacks on the people of this province, then he has

got to be taken seriously about not spending money on such trivial

pursuits. No one can take him seriously, and no one can take this

government seriously. They have seen through them. The polls are there,

the Goldfarb report is there.

The people of British Columbia didn't elect this government to do

what it's doing: to take on the handicapped and human rights; to attack

senior citizens; to take the Meals on Wheels program away from senior

citizens; and to take a vicious course of attack on the families of

this province. We talk about a lot of things in the political arena,

and a lot of the time it is rhetoric and theatre. The people of British

Columbia must wonder sometimes what is happening. I personally believe,

and I think the people of British Columbia agree, that you can play

games with many, many things; you can do things in the name of

restraint and maybe get away with it for a short while, but when you

play dangerous games with children and families, and with the

mechanisms that are there to help those families and children when

they're in trouble, you are eroding essential prevention programs that

in the long term will save the taxpayer — if you want to talk about

cash registers — millions and millions of dollars. By destroying

child-care workers and their programs, by abandoning child-abuse teams

and taking away those family support workers in a time of the worst

recession since the depression, when we need that kind of service, you

are threatening — and I say this in all sincerity and on behalf of our

party — the very social fabric of this province.

Children and families should not be subjected to the political

gamesmanship of Socred maladministration. Children and families are

special. Children are our future, the happy things in our lives. There

are so many unhappy things happening in our province and in our world —

we heard about one of them today — and as families and compassionate

human beings, the one thing we can cling to is our children and their

future –– I get very angry when I see a government that's decided to

make political Brownie points at the expense of our children. That's

what they're doing. I don't think any British Columbian would endorse

that course of action.

In its financial handling of the people's dollars — and I'll go into

some of that debt in a minute — this government, in seven and a half

short years, has managed to triple the debt of the province of British

Columbia. After we left office in 1975, the debt of the province was

just over $4 billion, and that was a debt built up by all governments

during 104 years of administration: Liberals, New Democrats,

Conservatives and Socreds. Four billion dollars in total. The people of

British Columbia don't hear these figures very often, because the

government is not honest in its figures and in telling people what

they're doing with their dollars. In seven and a half short years they

have built that Socred debt up from $4 billion to $12 billion — a 173

percent increase in seven and a half years. No one else has done it. On

their own, in seven and a half years they have tripled the debt of the

province of British Columbia, to three times more than was done by 104

years of other governments.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Because of their mishandling of the economy and their lack of

diversification of the economy, international financiers and New York

experts are now saying they cannot trust this government's financial

arrangements and they have downgraded our credit rating, which is going

to cost the people of British Columbia $9.6 million this year. If this

[ Page 1201 ]

government had been doing its job properly — I mean

running the books properly — and not going around spending millions and

millions of dollars on advertising and conning the people that they

were doing a good job, then $9.6 million would be sufficient funds to

pay for the office of the rentalsman, the human rights branch and

commission, the consumer education and information branch and about 75

percent of the family support program workers that have been fired. In

their simple mismanagement of the economy of British Columbia the

people of this province are going to lose $9.6 million this year alone.

Over a number of years it is estimated that that could be $100 million

to $200 million that the taxpayers of British Columbia will have to pay

for because this government has run up the worst financial record in

the history of this province.

[2:45]

Their programs and administration have resulted in the elimination

of these critical services, particularly those for children and

families. If this government had managed the economy properly and had

not run up a huge debt.... I'll run through some of those. B.C. Ferry

Corporation, when we left office, had no debt; in March 1983 it has a

debt of $102 million. B.C. Hydro, when we left office, had a $3 billion

debt; now it has an $8.5 billion debt. B.C. Rail in 1975 had a $522

million debt; today it is $1.1 billion and growing every day. BCDC owed

nothing when we were in office; today it is $200 million in debt. B.C.

Steamship Company owed nothing when we were in office; today it is $3.4

million in debt. B.C. Place is $205 million in debt. B.C. Systems

Corporation — which this government has spent millions and millions of

dollars on and is now going to sell off to the private sector — is $40

million in debt. The Whistler land bail-out is costing the people of

British Columbia $27 million.

The record of this government in its financial arrangements is

absolutely atrocious. Mr. Speaker, the financiers who know what's going

on have said so. This government has failed to serve British Columbians

adequately in the arranging of the economy. They have failed to

diversify and give British Columbians a future. They have failed to

give British Columbians a sense of vision, a sense of purpose and a

future.

They feel the advertising they're about to do will gloss over these

particular facts, but the people now have something to compare against.

They know that this government goes out and spends millions and

millions of dollars on advertising to try and cover up what the truth

of the situation is. They know that that advertising and those millions

of dollars that are going to be spent will be at the expense of

child-care workers, child-abuse teams, family support workers, human

rights workers, the handicapped and the senior citizens. They know

where their priorities are. Shove aside those people in the name of

Socred empire-building and build their image to sell the most draconian

piece of legislation that's ever been seen in this province and in this

country.

In the galleries over the last few months we've had attention from

newspapers, television and radio from all over North America and from

the Guardian . They didn't

come here because such marvellous things were being done. They wanted

to see what kind of government would spend millions of dollars conning

the people of British Columbia with its advertising and its cabinet

ministers running all over North America spending hundreds and

thousands of dollars on expensive meals. They wanted to see how they

could do that and get away with that and at the same time start to eat

away at the very basis of our province: programs to ensure our children

and families are safe and have a future. They wanted to know what

government could do that. Now they know.

There has been a 173 percent increase in the debt of this province

in seven and a half years. We have lost our credit rating. I don't have

to just talk about the facts that are coming out from newspapers. The

Employers Council of British Columbia economic outlook, mid-year 1983,

just published this week, has some serious things to say about this

government, its administration and financial arrangements. "A note of

caution should be expressed. Some economists are concerned that the

recent provincial budget may have as many negative as positive economic

effects. Particular fears have been expressed that the public sector

restraint legislation and the tax increases on retail sales and

restaurant meals may have a dampening effect on the economy. Another

significant measure of how the private sector views this particular

budget is that capital expenditures on new machinery and equipment are

forecast to decline by 21.6 percent in current dollars, compared to a

14.3 percent decline in 1982. The private sector's expenditure

prediction on the purchase of machinery is a significant economic

indicator of business's assessments of its prospects, If it expands, it

invests capital in machinery. The Employers' Council of B.C. is

forecasting a major reduction in capital expenditure. That's a sign

that what this government is doing in terms of.... It is saying that

the recovery is around the comer. The Employers' Council of B.C. — the

supposed friend of the government — is saying that this budget is a

disaster for recovery because it has no sense or purpose. It has

declared war on the public sector by removing essential services. At

the same time it throws an incredible spanner into the works of the

private sector's chance to recover by adding major tax increases at a

time when the private sector can't afford those tax increases. The

private sector, if it is to be the recovery mechanism for this

government, cannot afford such major increases in their taxes. To hit

them with an increase in sales tax and to hit the restaurant community,

the tourism industry.... Even the economists of the right are

questioning where this government is going with its economic policies.

It is illogical. It doesn't make sense.

If this government was serious about showing the people of British

Columbia that it has a handle on the economy, it would table a

four-year budget. It would show the people of British Columbia where

the diversification of the economy is going to come. For instance, it

would say that if you're going to sell automobiles, particularly

Japanese automobiles, in the province of British Columbia, you build an

assembly plant in British Columbia for jobs for British Columbians.

We hear the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) say that the mining industry is very

glad that this government is here and that they're lining up to do

business. However, the record shows that, under this government, the

mining industry has had the worst time in its history. The 1982

highlights for mining, one of the basic resources and employment

factors in this province, show that 19 of 29 mines incurred losses of

$239 million. It was the industry's worst year. The overall loss for

the year amounted to $151 million, representing an average return on

investment of minus 6.2 percent. Working capital declined by 44

percent, from S628 million in 1980 to $354 million in 1982. The total

debt load quadrupled to 29

[ Page 1202 ]

percent of total assets. This government has done nothing at all for the mining industry.

The Premier of this province said the following words back in 1982:

"We brought in a restraint program that does not

penalize in a punitive way the people who work in the health care

system or the people who work in government or the people who work in

education. Because we planned it and because it is encompassing and

because it allows for collective bargaining, it is the fairest program

of restraint that has ever been imposed, not only in our country but in

North America. We tried to bring some measure of sharing the load to

people who work in the public service, so that they, along with those

in the private sector who are hurting and need services, can join in a

common fight to make sure we maintain as much employment as we can, but

keep services coming. We haven't asked our people to take major cuts.

What we've asked them is to control the rate of increase."

We now have the greatest height of hypocrisy that we have yet seen

in this administration. It was announced the other day that the Crown

corporations are to have restraints on their rate increases lifted by

the Finance minister. At the same time we've got the government saying

that it's in so much trouble it's now going to have to spend millions

of dollars trying to convince the people that what they're doing is

worthwhile. At the same time it's going to lift the restraints on Crown

corporations. In the words of the Province

this morning: This coincidence gives the Bennett people a problem that

no amount of ad campaigning will solve. They will be seen as favouring

big, hard-nosed corporations like B.C. Hydro and sticking it to the

little people who have to pay the price of the government's restraint

policies." Everywhere we turn we hear this government saying — and the

opposition Whip talked about it the other day — that it's an endurance

test for British Columbian life; you're saddled with Socreds; take it;

endure it. But I don't see any restraint on that side of the House. No,

not when the Premier of this province can spend $2,700 on pictures of

himself, which would pay for five handicapped persons for a year on CIR

That's their priority. They're going to allow the Crown corporations of

this province to put up their prices. The control is over. They're not

believable, not when the government can eliminate the family support

program, the family and children's service coordinators, the homemaker

service, the post-partum counselling service, income assistance

co-ordinators, provincial in-service and resource team, the

mentally-retarded co-ordinators, community grants co-ordinators, child

abuse teams, human rights officers and commission. Senior citizens'

centres grant funding and legal aid — so people can at least fight back

— have been cut. How can they be believed that restraint is what it's

all about? It's not that at all, because they haven't even tabled how

much they're going to save. They haven't told the people of British

Columbia how much they're going to save, at all. We don't know how much

they're going to save. They haven't got the guts or the determination

to tell the people that it's a mission they're on; it's a philosophical

mission they are on to take away some of the basic compassionate human

ingredients that make a society civilized and progressive. That's what

it's all about. The office of the rentalsman, rent controls gone —

eviction without cause, declaring war on 355,000 tenants and their

families in this province. Mr. Premier talked about payoffs today. He

accused us of taking payoffs, Mr. Speaker. The biggest payoff in the

history of this province is the money they received from the

development corporations, and now they're going to see the elimination

of the rentalsman and rent controls and eviction without cause. That's

a payoff. I've already asked him to table how much money they got from

the development corporations for their campaign. Talk about payoffs at

the expense of 355,000 tenants and their families in this province.

That's a gross payoff. Eviction without cause! Can you imagine? No

security in one's home; sneeze the wrong way, look the wrong way, talk

to the wrong person, belong to the wrong party, the wrong colour, too

many children, and you can be evicted under this government.

[3:00]

Where is the sense of decency in this government? Where is its

compassion? You can't fit every single British Columbian into a cash

register, Mr. Speaker. Government has to be responsible. Government has

to be financially smart and they have to try to do the best for the

taxpayer. We all admit this on this side, Mr. Speaker. But government

exists also to ensure that those who need help, particularly in this

recession, this worst time since the Depression.... It has to ensure

that our people are protected, that they have a sense of decency, and

that they are not subjected to the cash register mentality of this

government. People can't fit into cash registers. That's the mission

they're on. People have become secondary, in their mission. That cannot

be tolerated.

Throughout the history of this party, we have fought for these very

things. This morning the Premier made fun of Mr. Tommy Douglas. Tommy

Douglas was one of the most revered and respected Canadians in this

country. If we had people like Tommy Douglas or Stanley Knowles in this

chamber, I know what they would be saying.

I urge this government to reconsider their course.

I keep going back to children, because it's so important. The

Victoria General child abuse and neglect team reports that families

categorized as "high-risk abuse" or "neglect" increased to almost twice

the number in 1982. Crisis lines in B.C. have indicated an alarming

increase in the numbers of suicide calls received in 1982. The Kamloops

Family Life Association noted a 25 percent increase in suicide calls in

1982. The Prince George Crisis Intervention Society reports an 86

percent increase in suicide calls. Williams Lake reports that suicide

calls doubled in 1982. We have one of the highest, if not the highest,

suicide rates in young people in this country.

In the last year or so there has been a dramatic increase in the

admissions to mental health institutions in this province. In 1981

there were 2,576 admissions to mental health facilities in British

Columbia; in 1982 the number jumped to 8,542. Those are human beings.

On behalf of those people, look at your budget and look at your

priorities. Don't spend millions of dollars to advertise. Reconsider

what you're doing. Lay out the long-range program that would remove

that deficit and give our children a future in terms of jobs and

employment. Diversify the economy. Return to a high degree of

compassion in government. I keep hearing from this government about

endurance tests and the public being in the trough. People are made or

broken in society. There are enough jungles out there to hurt people.

There are enough ways for people to trip. In these times we only have

to look at the unemployment figures, the suicide rates, the number of

entrants to mental health facilities, and the welfare rates.

[ Page

1203 ]

1 urge this government to return to a sense of compassion and

understanding in these times. Have some care, because there is a

feeling in the province of British Columbia that the almighty dollar

has become far more important than people themselves. People are

important. Your budget should prioritize people. There should be a

vision of the future for British Columbia. People in British Columbia

today feel that they're living in black times. They can't believe that

they live in one of richest parts of Canada and one of the richest

parts of the world. They are being told that unless they eliminate some

of these basic programs of a civilized society, the province will sink

into oblivion, which is absolute rubbish. Politics is about priorities.

I suggest that this government's priorities are totally wrong for these

times and totally wrong in the estimation of the majority of British

Columbians.

Let's have a sense of vision. Where are you going tomorrow? What's

the future for our people? What are you going to do about jobs? When

are you going to stop ripping off the land and just selling it off to

the quickest dollar? When are you going to build a future and sense of

vision for the people of British Columbia? That's the challenge, and in

our estimation this government is not meeting it. It's selling short

the people of British Columbia. I urge you and our party urges you to

take a new direction, to re-look at your priorities and bring in a

budget that shows that people care — not just part of a cash register.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42(3) I will

advise the House that on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the

Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply, the Minister of

Finance closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, considerable time has elapsed

since the budget was presented to this assembly on July 7, and

considerable comment has taken place in the interval. I will take some

time this afternoon in closing debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do

now leave the chair, because I think it is important to review a number

of points.

I do not intend to deal line by line with everything that has been

said in this chamber and around the province regarding the budget, but

I would like to start with a letter. Some of us have used letters in

the course of this debate. This one is the only one I intend to read in

full. I think I should explain that I have known the individual

slightly for a number of years; he is an acquaintance. He lives, as it

happens, in the constituency represented by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). The letter was dated August 2. I

suppose that I have received three or four thousand letters — something

in excess of two thousand letters — since the budget was presented,

excluding copies of form letters, which have been churned out in

quantity and distributed to all members of this House. I will read the

letter in full. It is short, and if it is the wish of the House that it

be tabled, I have no objection to doing so. It's dated August 2, 1983,

and addressed to me:

"Dear Hugh:

"Neither I nor anyone I know admits to voting for your party in the last provincial election."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I digress from the letter to

observe that that person would have been described as undecided or

doubtful prior to May 5. He continues:

"I write to inform you that your firm decision to decrease

the number of civil servants, etc., in B.C. is quietly more popular than you

might possibly appreciate. Should you continue and bring your intentions to

a successful fruition, I together with a great number of others shall have no

qualms in supporting you when the time comes."

I'll read the first sentence of the first paragraph again: "Neither

I nor anyone I know admits to voting for your party in the last

provincial election." In many respects that summarizes for me the

degree, the volume and the magnitude of quiet support that exists in

the province of British Columbia today, on the first day of September,

after the budget was introduced within the first several days of July.

If I might speak personally for just a moment, I am a native of this

city. I have been fortunate — and I underline the word "fortunate" — to

have been raised in this great capital city and to have married —

admittedly, a young lady from Vancouver — and raised with her three

children now in their young adult years, in greater Victoria. I have

worked in the private sector in Victoria, and I have served — as others

have observed, including the member who has just taken his seat at the

civic level and more recently provincially.

I want to come back later to deal with the preparation of the budget

and the hard decisions which the Premier and his ministers and I took

leading up to the budget. It also happens that for a variety of reasons

— not the least of which have been the duties and obligations of this

House and of the portfolio — I've not travelled a great deal this

summer. I have spent more time in and around the capital region than

would normally be the case. I have, with the exception of when the

House has been in session mornings and afternoons, moved through the

community to a greater extent than might normally be the case.

[3:15]

1 don't suggest that I have attended formal functions, meetings of

one kind or another, so much as I have been simply moving through the

community, quite literally from James Bay — immediately near here, in

fact, the Menzies-Medana-Simcoe area — all the way to the tip of the

Saanich Peninsula, past Sidney into the Swartz Bay area. I have also

had an opportunity to reach some of those islands which comprise part

of the constituency of Saanich and the Islands, but with the greatest

of respect to the Gulf Island residents, my activities and movement in

the community have essentially been from two blocks south of here to

some 18 miles north of here, through what one usually considers to be

the capital region. In shopping centres and in stores of one kind or

another, while going to the butcher, while visiting one of the outlets

of the liquor distribution branch on a couple of occasions, while

pulling in for gasoline and servicing of an automobile, while doing any

one of 20 or 30 ordinary activities, I have encountered men and women

in the capital region who have said something along the lines of: "Oh,

yes, you're Curtis, aren't you?" Or: "Hello Hugh, remember me? I

remember you from so and so." Or: "You're the Minister of Finance." In

some cases one turns to the other and says: "Isn't that Curtis? Isn't

that the Minister of Finance?"

So much for the background. Mr. Speaker, I was not prepared, in my

most enthusiastic expectations, for the degree of individual quiet

support for this budget. It is unlike anything I have experienced in

terms of citizen reaction in something just shy of 22 years in elected

office, civic and provincial. I was not prepared for it. I might have

hoped for some of it, but I wasn't prepared for the extent of it, for

the fact that people would go out of their way to say: "It had to

happen; circumstances are such, it is necessary." Yes, these are the

same people that the first and second members for

[ Page

1204 ]

Victoria (Mr. Hanson and Mr. Blencoe) refer to as being somehow their personal

possessions. These are people who live in the capital region, as do my wife

and I and two members of our family.

It is not limited to the capital region or to greater Victoria. Some

of my colleagues in government might think I would not experience that

in the seat of government, in the capital region of British Columbia,

because of the very nature of the community and the fact that a very

large number of people employed here are in one way or another

associated with the public sector, be it federal, provincial or civic.

If I have had that measure of support, freely offered, enthusiastically

endorsed, in the capital region, then every one of my colleagues in

this chamber has had it fivefold or tenfold.

Briefly put, the people of B.C. are with us in this difficult

period. The people of B.C., particularly those who suffered the ravages

of the recession, may fault us for not having done this sort of thing

two or three years ago, but that's in the past. This morning the

Premier indicated the start of restraint with the compensation

stabilization program in early 1982. The people of B.C. were supportive

of that, and the events of May 5 clearly demonstrate that for every

objective British Columbian, there can be no doubt, and that topic was

canvassed once again just a few days ago on the lower mainland. The

people of British Columbia — and I feel that too often as elected

people we tend to forget, we tend to overlook, that the people

frequently lead the politicians.... We don't have some monopoly in this

chamber on intelligence, on foresight, on an ability to see that which

must be done. Hopefully we are representative of our respective

constituencies and our communities, but frequently — and I hope that

more and more we can recognize.... The people of this province in this

particular case clearly understood that because of the severe decline

in revenues, and notwithstanding our very sincere and successful

efforts with respect to expenditure control, we could not go on as we

were, because the ultimate result would be bankruptcy. The Premier

again today alluded to that which has occurred elsewhere, whether it be

manifested in hyper-inflation or in deficits piling on deficits,

defaults and threatened defaults, or the threatened collapse of

national economies. I think that the Premier this morning outlined very

succinctly in a very straightforward manner, and as a leader of a

government should in these times, the circumstances in which we have

found ourselves and this government's determination to ease the

situation — not for us, not for the government, but for the people who

send us here and entrust their affairs to us for three or four or five

years.

That was the message in the election campaign. I don't want to

attack the news media today — I really don't want to. Well, I am not

going to. I have kept this as others may have. This is the Times-Colonist

published in Victoria on Friday, May 6, 1983, and the headline is:

"Restraint Wins For Bennett." The fourth paragraph in particular quotes

the Premier from Kelowna: "I believe the people of British Columbia

wanted to be told the truth about the reality of the difficult times."

That's what the election was about. That's what the budget was about,

and that's what this debate has been about.

MR. MITCHELL: Why wasn't the budget brought down in January?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be

distracted by that member, except to point out that during his party's

brief time in government in this province we had a December election.

"Rush to the polls, boys, because we can't tell them anything."

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It was snowing. So much for that interjection, which is thrown across quite often.

I did want to deal with one other particular part of the Times-Colonist

for May 6. It is the lead editorial inside headed. 'A Verdict Beyond

Doubt." I will not take the time of the House to read all of it, but I

am going to offer a little of it, Mr. Speaker — the last paragraph —

and I hope that the editorial writers at the Times-Colonist will perhaps reflect on this and also on their front page from May 6.

"Every party makes a multitude of promises, specific

and implied, in the final days of an election campaign. What Social

Credit must remember in the cold light of its new dawn is that this

province is still in a financial bind, unable to meet even its

operating expenses, much less building plans. Promises should be kept,

but only when the revenue has been generated to pay for them."

Mr. Speaker, we came out of the election campaign with virtually no

promises in terms of what might attract the voters' attention, what

might appeal to the undecided. The harsh reality of late 1982 and early

1983 was the issue in the election. Indeed, that was what guaranteed

that the socialists would lose. The about-to-retire Leader of the

Opposition — who apparently is not present today; I've not seen him —

said: "Compensation stabilization, controls on the public sector? We'll

drop them." That was the moment....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who said that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The present Leader of the official

opposition said that, Mr. House Leader. That was the turning point. The

people of British Columbia did not want promises. They wanted reality;

they voted for reality. They knew as well as we knew that revenues to

the provincial treasury were down dramatically, to an extent

unprecedented since the 1930s. They knew that expenditure controls were

in place to the very best of our ability, and they said: "We make a

choice between promises which are being thrown around the province by

the New Democrats, or the concern, control and responsibility that can

be offered by Social Credit." Again, that was what May 5 was all about.

The budget should have come as no surprise to any member of this

House; I believe it has come as no surprise to the majority of British

Columbians. Others have enunciated and articulated this; it is

important and we must say it time after time: as a newly elected

government we had to make a choice between what is essential, what

government must deliver with tax dollars, and, on the other hand, what

is desirable. The Premier said again today, and others who have spoken

— private members and members of the treasury benches — have said

through the course of this summer that it could have been much easier

for us, We could have had an easier summer selfishly, personally, if we

had just turned our backs on the problem and gone ahead with a $1.6,

$1.7, $1.8 or $1.9 billion deficit and worried about it next winter

with a budget in 1984 for the 1984-85 fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, that

might have been comfortable. It might have been more palatable for some

in the province. It might have been easier for

[ Page 1205 ]

us. If the NDP had been elected it would have

happened because they're used to long vacations. The fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that it had to be done now, at the earliest possible time.

[3:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There are a couple of specifics, I think, which should be dealt

with. But before I come to those I really want to restate that

particular point: we could have played the old game of hear no evil,

see no evil and, in the course of the budget, speak no evil. We could

have ignored it, but only for a very few months until early 1984.

In large measure, Mr. Speaker, our current inability to do all the

things that we as government would like to do, as well as to fully

curtail expenditures in the public sector, is directly related to an

agreement signed by the short-lived NDP administration with the BCGEU

in 1973. I do not fault individual members of the BCGEU; I fault the

government. They gave away the ranch. It's easy to do and sustain that

during periods of prosperity. It could, therefore, be tolerated in the

short term then, but it cannot be afforded today. It cannot be afforded

now, it could not be afforded last year and it cannot be afforded next

year. The ripple effect of a 35-hour week, enshrining of tenure and

restrictions with respect to the government's ability to contract out

and to seek least-cost options just can't be tolerated or, more

importantly, afforded. Our taxpayers can't afford it; forget the

government. The people who send the money here can't afford it.

I don't want to make too much of it except as a sample not an

example, but a sample. How many British Columbians are aware, Mr.

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, that

middle-management employees in British Columbia Hydro get 17 days off

per year in addition to what I think would be described as a generous

provision for holidays to compensate them for reducing their work week

from 37 1/2 to 35 hours? We can't afford it, Mr. Speaker.

Through the course of the summer we've heard a great deal about

slashes and cuts and insensitivity. Again I point out that we have had

to choose, as a responsible, newly elected government, between that

which is essential and that which is desirable. We've been accused of

slashing programs. Mr. Speaker, I ask, through you to the House, how

can you say that a program has been slashed when Medical Services Plan

spending has doubled in the last five years? Essential — not desirable.

How can one be accused of slashing when hospital spending has been more

than doubled in the past five years? Health plan and hospitals more

than doubled in the last five years. Essential. How can it be described

as slashing when university grants have risen by 50 percent in the past

five years? Essential activities.

One of the members opposite representing the NDP spoke about the

almighty dollar and made reference to cash registers. Well, Mr.

Speaker, as the Premier articulated today, and as others have said

through the course of this debate, it isn't a question of the cash

register or the balance sheet. It goes far beyond that. Again, I think

the quiet majority of British Columbians understand that if we are to

maintain the delivery of those essential programs for which government

is responsible — and to which British Columbians are entitled — then

you have to draw that difficult line. You have to draw the distinction

between essential programs like health, human resources and education —

post-secondary and K to 12. You have to understand that. And then you

have to, regrettably, address other programs that are desirable, which

we would like to have left in place, and say that for a year or two or

three we can't afford them. That's been the fundamental, underlying

thrust of this entire budget preparation, our defence of it and the

public's acceptance of it. It's the difference between that which we

would like to do and that which we have to do.

It's been a stressful summer. The Premier alluded to that. It's been

a summer of confusion for some who have perhaps heard just one side of

the story. But it has not been....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Member, you're right. We're going

to ensure that those who have been puzzled by some comments will have

an opportunity to go back to where we were with the Times-Colonist of Friday, May 6, 1983: "Restraint Wins For Bennett."

Those ministers responsible for the delivery of non-social-service

programs. those in the employment-generating side of government, have

spoken in the course of this debate of many encouraging prospects —

even more than encouraging; many very exciting prospects — which are

around the corner for British Columbia, and for British Columbians: for

those who are here now and for those who are undoubtedly going to come.

I think we are very quickly going to be one of the more attractive

parts of North America in which to invest and to work; as the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) said

this morning. It has started already. It's underway. Perhaps we tend to

focus on the latest bulletin flown out of Ottawa by StatsCan, or we see

a news story on television or in the press, or hear one on the radio.

It was referred to again this morning by the leader of this government,

but it bears repeating: we have had an increase in employment of

100,000 persons since January of this year. In some respects I think

there is a lack of understanding about that fact. Maybe we can be

faulted for that, for not adequately explaining that and saying so in

all parts of the province, even in those parts of the province where

unemployment is still a very serious concern. Fundamental to the budget

is the fact that we are vacating government's push in the public sector

to ensure that that kind of growth in the private sector will continue

and accelerate. The budget is also about that.

I've spoken of my personal experiences, which could be described as

"What I did on my summer vacation," in 100 words or less. I talked to a

lot of greater Victoria and southern Vancouver Island residents, and

they're with us. They understand. One by one my colleagues around the

province and in this chamber today can also attest to that fact.

Interestingly enough, while the comments seem to go through the whole

spectrum of demographics from late teens to the quite elderly, I find

the two ends are most supportive: the senior citizens, particularly

those who, thank God, survived the Depression and the Second World War,

and especially those who survived the Depression — just barely, in many

instances — and younger British Columbians, young men and women who

turned out in the election campaign, among other things, because they

sensed that this government, notwithstanding difficult decisions

immediately ahead, could provide the kind of career security that they

wanted, in an area of activity of their general choice.

[ Page 1206 ]

Here's my friend again. My acquaintance. I cannot describe him as a friend; that would be overstating it. August 2, 1983:

"Dear Hugh:

Neither I nor anyone I know admits to voting for your

party in the last provincial election. I write to inform you that your

firm decision to decrease the number of the civil servants, etc. In

B.C. Is quietly more popular than you might possibly appreciate. Should

you continue and bring your intentions to a successful fruition, 1,

together with a great number of others, shall have no qualms in

supporting you when the time comes.

Yours truly"

I quietly, enthusiastically, and with determination support the budget which was presented to this House on July 7.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion before you.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

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

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 44: minister's office, $182,438.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, according to

standing order 25 the next item of business today is public bills in

the hands of private members. There is a bill standing for committee

consideration. Maybe the member would want to proceed with it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member didn't have his hearing aid on, I asked for leave.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 17.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (FINANCE

MEASURES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I note that the bill was called after

the House Leader ascertained that our critic who adjourned debate is

not here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

MR. COCKE: Just like everybody else, he has other things to do.

In any event, what we have before us....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the

member for New Westminster has said that the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) is not here, and I wonder, under standing order 8, whether or

not he has permission to be absent from the House.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Standing order 8

has been canvassed on numerous occasions in this House. The power of

the Chair to enforce standing order 8 does not exist. That is a

decision by individual members, and must be taken as such.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I agree with that on normal occasions,

but on this occasion we've had one member of the opposition party

saying that another member of that party is not here. If the member is

clearly not in attendance in the legislative precincts, I wonder if he

has permission to be absent.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I'd like to point out to Mr.

Speaker that the hon. member who just spoke is not really here either,

and hasn't been all through the budget debate. I didn't hear him speak

during the budget debate and I haven't heard him speak in any of the

debates. Surely there is some sort of substantive definition of

attendance, other than just plopping down in your chair and sitting

here shouting epitaphs across the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, both points of order leave something to be desired.

[ Page 1207 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I take some small offence to the comment

that the point of order that I raised leaves something to be desired.

The House has been told that a member is absent, and under standing

order 8 I wonder whether or not that member has permission to be absent.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it were the case that the Chair

determined which members do or do not have authority to be absent from

the House, surely chaos would reign in this chamber. That is not the

intention, and I would convey to the government members that if it is

their wish to change the standing orders, they have the power to do so.

I do not. On this point, hon. members, I will conclude the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure!

MR. SPEAKER: I will invoke closure on the question, and we

will return to the business of the day, unless there are new points of

order to be canvassed or members wish to challenge the ruling of the

Chair. Only on either of those two points will I entertain further

debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on standing order 8, this

matter has been canvassed on numerous occasions, and you as Speaker,

sir, have made the position clear that you, yourself, cannot require

attendance from the House. But surely standing order 8 would require

individual members to obtain prior permission from the Clerks of the

House. And I would think that members, to qualify for their stipend,

would need to make appropriate application. Perhaps the Chair would

entertain a motion that members who do not apply to the Clerk for

permission under standing order 8 should automatically have the day's

pay deducted.

[4:00]

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to recognizing the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).... Hon. members are aware, I am sure, that

a declaration must be filed with the office of the Clerk indicating

when a certain number of days in excess of those allowed have been

achieved, and it is each individual member's responsibility to file

that particular affidavit and to swear to it accordingly. The Chair

does not intend now or until the standing orders are changed to alter

in any way the time-honoured traditions of this House.

MR. LAUK: Arising out of what the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications has said, I think it would be fair for this

House.... Under standing order 70 or an amendment to the Constitution

Act cabinet ministers can be absent from the House without leave over

and above the ten days if they are on government business. There is no

affidavit filed by cabinet ministers as to those days and what

government business they are on. That is totally and absolutely a

flagrant breach of the spirit of the intention of the standing order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly....

MR. LAUK: In order to be helpful in that regard I suggest

that we have perhaps a committee of some kind investigate whether or

not these cabinet ministers are absent day after day after day on

so-called government business.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think that the point raised by the second

member from Vancouver Centre is an excellent point about the filing of

affidavits on absent days which could easily be extended to the members

of the opposition, reminding them, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

attendance at the golf course is not attendance in the House. Perhaps

appropriate attendance kept by the Clerk would be the correct manner in

which standing order 8 might be....

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly now we are digressing into an area that is not covered. On a different point of order, the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Based on the wise ruling you made, Mr.

Speaker. I would just ask that there be some instruction to the Clerks

when perusing the affidavits that September 1 was the day the House was

told that the member for Nanaimo was absent. If they would just keep

that in mind when they are looking at those affidavits....

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has just

directly accused the member for Nanaimo of being a liar, challenging

and questioning the member's integrity.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in regard to the point raised by

the member for Skeena, had the Chair felt that any such accusation or

inference was being made, the Chair would have brought that to the

attention of the House. Clearly the Minister of Labour now withdraws

any....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Of course, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying

is that the member is obviously in violation of the rules, because it

has been admitted he is away, absent without permission of the House,

and I just want to make sure that it is drawn to the attention of the

House. There is no allegation other than that.

MR. LAUK: As a result of the remarks of the Minister of

Labour, it's now a question of privilege. The Minister of Labour has

wrongly and erroneously stated the rules of the House. Your Honour has

already clearly stated them, and the remarks are totally out of order.

So there.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a very appropriate way of concluding the matter.

MR. COCKE: I did mention the fact that it was unfortunate

that there was a mysterious disappearance of one of our members. He is

in Columbia River looking for a gravel pit.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This bill, of course, is a rather diverse statute that refers to a

number of statutes and amends a number of statutes. It is one of the

Minister of Finance's bills. Normally one has difficulty with these

bills, with so many principles involved. We've found, however, that

there's only one thing we can do in order to have the latitude of

debate that's required, and that is to debate the several principles

that are within that bill to the best of our ability so that we do have

the latitude that one would find desirable.

There are a number of amendments here. I'd like to draw to the

attention of the House the fact that the homeowner's grant base has

been changed. Previously one could anticipate

[ Page 1208 ]

a $125 base. Now that base has gone to $150.

Therefore the average homeowner with a lower assessment value is very

likely to pay a higher net tax — this in a day of restraint. The

government has shown very clearly that their desire, as a government,

is to restrain the public but at the same time not restrain themselves.

I equate this aspect of the bill — this principle of the bill with

the recent move to exempt Crown corporations from the restraint that

they had enjoyed until September 1. Now the Crown corporations, being a

relative of government, can charge all they like. B.C. Hydro can raise

their rates. ICBC can raise its rates to whatever astronomical amount

it wishes. This, however, is the same situation as we see in this bill.

That is, the principle is the same. The principle here is to say to the

public: "You are not going to be able to enjoy the same net income that

you did previously." Lord knows this government knows how to divest

people of their net income. "You will enjoy less net income as a result

of this amendment."

It's not fair that a government trying to reduce its deficit a

deficit caused by their own incompetence — is trying now desperately to

reduce that deficit on the backs of the people that they represent. The

majority of the people in this province put that government in power,

and the majority of the people have spoken, in my view. But I think

that the majority of the people in the province are saddened by the

fact that government, instead of saying: "Let's work together. Let's

all restrain ourselves...." As a matter of fact, I'm getting so that

word offends me because it's so badly used so often. But the government

have placed themselves in a position where they're doing it on the

backs of the ordinary people in our province. This amendment is not

going to affect the wealthy. I don't imagine that it would affect many

of the people who live in such areas as Oak Bay and Shaughnessy Heights

in Vancouver and Point Grey — my hon. friend from Vancouver East has

knowledge of that area.

MR. MACDONALD: That's where I keep my clothes.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Mr. Speaker, it will not affect that

wealthy member that much. But let me tell you, it will affect those

people who have marginal incomes. You see, those people have had

visited upon them cost after cost after cost. Those people — and this

is analogous — have been faced with an increased user fee for health

care, increased premiums for medicare and increases across the board

from the government they love so well — the government which yesterday

raised the price of booze in this province 13.5 percent.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Not correct, the Minister of Finance says. Shame

on me. Then I hope that you'll tell your employees to reduce that

price. I'm just talking about the increased cost of liquor in the

liquor stores.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As of today.

MR. COCKE: As of yesterday.

In any event, we now have a prospective increase in hydro. We have a

reduction of that income here. I suggest that it's not fair to the

average person. The minister indicates that there hasn't been a recent

increase in the cost of alcohol in the province. We sure know there's

been a much-increased rate in terms of other sin taxes: tobacco and

others. In any event, all I'm saying is that if the government were to

be fair, they would say to people, "Look, we know it's tight. We want

to work with you to see that we get out of this thing together,"

instead of creating further indebtedness for the people that they're

serving. The more you reduce people's net income by taxation, the more

you reduce their ability to purchase consumer goods.

This government has an ideology that they claim will increase

consumption of consumer goods. How, may I ask, will you increase the

consumption of consumer goods if people have a net loss of income?

That's what they're having. This government thinks it can get away with

going around patting small business people on the back and saying: "We

love you. We know perfectly well that you support us because you

believe in our ideology." Then they turn on them like an adder clasped

to the breast of the public and bite them with a reduction of net

spendable income. This is one of the aspects of this bill that I feel

is rather negative.

[4:15]

1 don't think that after an election is the time to make the kind of

announcements that we continually see before us since the budget was

introduced on July 7. What would the government have done in terms of

eliciting support had they gone out to the ordinary people and said to

them: "We're going to reduce your net income. It's only to the poor or

to those who are marginally in the situation of home ownership. At the

same time it's very tight in terms of income, We're going to raise the

base from $125 to $150"? If they had said that then, and the people had

property understood what they said, I think that there would have been

quite an outcry. There isn't a great outcry now, because — this was

good strategy, or it appears to be good strategy — so much bad stuff is

buried in such a big mound. When you bring in some 26 to 31 bills, much

of them being quite hard to take, people take their eyes off some of

these smaller areas.

However, these smaller areas may be overlooked, they are still part

and parcel of the government's determination somehow or other to crawl

out of the hole they created by doing what they're doing here. It's no

different to all the other areas of restraint that they've talked

about. A government that's determined to have a restraint program

should recognize the fact that people have to make a go of it. People

have to live. People who have offered them support don't deserve this

kind of treachery. Mr. Speaker, that's what they're getting.

There are many other areas in this particular bill that worry me.

There will be people in the private sector that are going to be quite

concerned about some of the penalties and admonitions in this bill with

respect to collecting taxes and taking further responsibility for the

collection of those taxes. What the Minister of Finance wants now is

for small business to be his tax collector and to be totally

responsible. If mistakes are made, it's their mistake, even though

sometimes one would wonder at the instructions that people get. How can

people avoid making mistakes?

There are amendments here that are very difficult to understand. For

example, I see the taxation of the federal government in two or three

sections of the bill. Intergovernmental immunity from taxation is

immensely complex and involves volumes and volumes of case law and

judicial decisions. However, it seems that the province can legally tax

the feds if a statute clearly so provides, yet there are measures here

which, for the sake of harmonious federal-provincial fiscal relations,

are usually undertaken only after a good deal

[ Page 1209 ]

of discussion and consultation. I would ask the

minister — if he was around — just how much consultation has gone on

with respect to the seemingly new tax-the-feds aspect of this bill.

What worries me is that we expect the federal government to contribute

its share to cost-shared programs such as health care, welfare and

others. On the other hand, if we create antagonism through lack of

consultation.... And there's no way one could ever know whether one has

had consultation or not, because the minister is not even here to nod.

I spoke to a parliamentarian from another area not too long ago.

This parliamentarian said, after viewing our House: "Is it usual for a

minister to leave the House while that person's bill is being debated?

In our House that would be tantamount to an abuse of the House, and

there'd be an immediate adjournment of the House." No matter how

inconsequential the minister may find my remarks, it is not an insult

to me that he would leave the House; it's an insult to the institution.

Naturally, this bill could be far more adequately debated by our

finance critic than myself, but he doesn't happen to be in the House,

nor is he available to debate it at this time.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Who said so? I said he wasn't here. Here means in this House, in this chamber.

MR. REID: You said he was in Columbia River.

MR. COCKE: Let's speculate. Where might he be? You think he might be in Nanaimo. That's purely conjecture.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are on Bill 17.

MR. COCKE: Okay, Mr. Speaker. Once again, now that that

peripatetic Minister of Finance has returned, and now that we see some

additional taxation is visited upon the federal government by the

provincial government, I'm asking how much negotiation and extensive

intergovernmental discussion went on around this question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's reciprocal.

MR. COCKE: It's nice that he's here now to answer that

question. I would hope that when the minister gets an opportunity,

after some discussion of his bill — which incidentally might have been

over by now had they called the bill at an appropriate time....

Trickery. In any event, when he gets the opportunity, I'm sure he will

give us a full....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Cool it. Don't be so touchy.

MR. COCKE: I'll tell you, I'm touchy all right. I have been

in this place for 14 years and never have I seen it so disorganized, in

such chaos, and so absolutely authoritarian in terms of the

government's position. Never before have I seen a situation where a

bill has not been announced at least the day before. Now we get seconds

to advise ourselves of a bill that is coming before this Legislature.

It's an absolute shock. It's dictatorship. As far as I'm concerned, I'm

ashamed of this government. I'm ashamed of their actions, and sincerely

wish that everybody in the province could understand what you people

are doing. It's a shocking situation,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The business of the House at present is Bill 17.

HON. A. FRASER: He's been making that same speech for 14 years.

MR. COCKE: That's a lot of nonsense, Alec, and you know it.

There was a time when there was some civilization in this bush-league

place. but it has certainly gone right down the tube this year, and

everybody knows it.

I would also like to draw attention to the fact that again we have

before us a bill that will come into force by regulation. We don't have

proclamation clauses any more. We used to have proclamation clauses in

bills. We've got another bill before us now that's going to change

proclamation to regulation. So this bill anticipates the passing of

another bill, but I'm not going to deal with that.

I will talk about this bill that comes into force by regulation.

Guess when. Sections 11, 12 and 34 are retroactive to April 1, 1983. On

April 1, 1983, an election hadn't even been called. We were all waiting

for a call of the Legislature so that we could discuss a budget. Then

there was no budget. There was a government that ran by

order-in-council and special warrants for every nickel they got until

well after the election. The budget was not brought into the House

until July 7. Furthermore, after having debated that piece of news for

three days, it was dropped until just a few days ago. Then it was

dropped again and it finally passed today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are

dealing with Bill 17, which is a relatively common omnibus bill in this

parliament. I wonder if the member for New Westminster is not in fact

reflecting on a vote.

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

is also reminded that during discussion of a miscellaneous bill such as

this, it is very difficult to establish principles. Normally it's done

in committee. I'm sure the member can relate to the several principles

contained within this bill, and will keep us in order during second

reading.

MR. COCKE: I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when

the minister introduced the bill he dealt with specifics in the bill —

seriatim or whatever. Naturally one has to.... This is a further

principle of the bill. I was saying that they had the opportunity, the

time and the place, You know, this place was vacant in the spring when

we weren't here. They could have brought in this legislation. It could

have been passed, and then it would have been law without this

retroactivity clause. Instead, we resort again to doing it after the

fact. Everything after the fact. I think people must be getting pretty

fed up, because it's very difficult to anticipate in April what

somebody might say in September — or July, for that matter, when the

bill was introduced — about the way we lead our lives.

Retroactivity is something that should be used very infrequently and

only in case of an emergency. There's no reason why the government has

to provide for its comfort with the potential discomfort of others.

That's what retroactivity does. Retroactivity is an area we should

avoid, yet it is increasingly becoming a habit with this government.

I was talking about the aspect of the bill that calls for proclamation. A

section of this bill will come into force by

[ Page 1210 ]

regulation — I shouldn't call it proclamation any longer. That is the whole question in the homeowner's grant. Why that?

[4:30]

In any event, I suggest to the government that there should be some

system by which they could tell the people what they're going to do

beforehand, as opposed to letting the people go by guess and by gosh,

and then suddenly be confronted with something that was law before they

knew what was happening.

I would just like to ask why it is that there is also a bit of a

contradiction in the

section that I talked about before, with respect

to the homeowner's grant. In one place it says "by regulation," and in

another place it says "on January 1, 1984." I gather that that's

necessary, but is there a possibility of a change of mind between now

and then? One would seem to preclude the other. I think that's

something the minister should deal with, because that's a rather

unusual situation that we have before us.

I wonder if there's any particular reason why the aspect of the

repeal of the exemption of the federal government for gasoline tax....

Why is that retroactive, and was that discussed? I gather the feds have

agreed to it. But the other, related one — that is, if the Minister of

Finance is going to give us an in-depth discussion on that.... The

other aspect is the exemption for social service tax transactions for

fishermen and the repeals of the exemption of the federal government

from social service tax. Those are all part of a parcel. Mr. Speaker,

I'm just going to ask the minister when the negotiations took place and

why the government, subsequent to the negotiations, didn't make an

announcement of what they were going to do. Failing that, why wasn't it

brought in earlier so that it could have been passed by this House in

prospect, as opposed to retroactively, as we're doing it now?

To sum up, the parts of this bill that I can find that I feel are

complementary to what the government is doing, visiting the backs of

the ordinary people with a reduction of that income for their own

purposes — that, I find, is very difficult to take. However, I don't

find it surprising by virtue of the fact that this is the way it has

been from day one. With all the increases in government fees, with all

the increases in government cost of services, we see here another

increase — because that's what it amounts to — in terms of a means of

government garnering from the ordinary people. Mr. Speaker, I suggest

that one should look at this bill with a good deal of suspicion. I

can't tell you that a person can do an in-depth on every aspect of this

bill, particularly when charged with the manifold responsibilities that

one has in this House. All I can say is that the aspects of the bill

that I've looked at worry me, to the extent that I felt obliged to

stand in this House and say that with the knowledge that I have of it,

unless I can be sold a great deal by the Minister of Finance, I

couldn't possibly support the bill at this juncture.

I would move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 6.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if the Chair recognizes the

minister it would be for the purpose only of closing the debate, unless

he seeks the floor for another reason. No? The member for

Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not surprised that the minister

wants to close debate on this particular piece of legislation. It's a

dreadful piece of draconian legislation, and I know that as soon as he

can terminate the whole discussion of this bill, that's what he will do.

As my other colleagues who've spoken on this bill have said, it not

only deals with the centralization of power here in Victoria but is

actually a direct assault and attack on another level of government.

The duly elected school trustees of this province, elected by the

democratic process, with responsibilities to the people who elected

them, are under attack. What the minister has done with this piece of

legislation is to take unto himself the responsibility which the voters

thought they were giving those duly elected school trustees.

[4:45]

With this piece of legislation he now takes complete responsibility

for designing and deciding all kinds of issues in the field of

education, which today during question period he said he didn't want to

have. I regret that I do not have access to the Blues from this

afternoon's question period, because I wanted to quote back to the

minister precisely what he said. I'm sure that my colleagues who are

speaking after me are going to quote the minister's words to him again.

This afternoon during question period the minister made it absolutely

clear that he did not want to have responsibility for deciding how much

money school boards should spend, what courses they should give and

what decisions they should make, etc.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Read the Blues.

MS. BROWN: I will read the Blues, and so will my colleagues, Mr. Minister, and feed your words right back to you.

In this piece of legislation there is absolutely nothing for school

boards to have responsibility for. They have become the errand-boys and

the hired guns of the provincial government. That's all they are.

They're here to take the flak for bad decisions made at the provinicial

level. The Deputy Minister of Education and the Minister of Education

are the ones who make all the decisions in the area of education for

the children of the province, and the school boards are there to take

all of the blame. That's the only responsibility they have left.

I want to quote, as my colleagues before me did, a statement made by

the Premier of the province back in the days when he was running for

the job of Premier, and the commitment that he made to this province in

terms of education. At that time he said that if elected the British

Columbia Social Credit government would return authority to local

school boards.

Interjection.

[ Page 1211 ]

MS. BROWN: It's right here in a little booklet which was sent

around to everybody. It said that they would return authority to local

school boards. He said: "We in the British Columbia Social Credit Party

believe that meaningful educational policies can only be developed in

cooperation with local school boards. After all, the local school

trustees have been elected by the people in their own areas."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, it's here. The minister had to leave, he is

so embarrassed. I'm not being critical of the minister, Mr. Speaker,

when I read this, because he was not a part of this; he did not help to

draft this. This is signed by Bill Bennett. In the tradition of the

House, when I'm through I'd like to table this.

MR. BARRETT: No! You can't table fibs.

MS. BROWN: I'm reading from a document, and in the parliamentary tradition of this House I have no alternative.

MR. BARRETT: No, no lies are permitted. You cannot table that.

MS. BROWN: Hon. leader, I have no choice.

It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: "We would therefore return authority

to local school boards, while at the same time eliminating the

bureaucracy in the Department of Education. We would also work to

return dignity and responsibility to individual classroom teachers,

trained professionals who deserve more authority in setting educational

objectives for their pupils."

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I overheard the

Leader of the Opposition saying: "You can't repeat this stuff." I've

got to agree with him. This is repetitive debate because the same

article, which I support, was read by other members in the debate on

this bill, and possibly we could chastise the member for repetitious

debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out that lies cannot

be brought forward in this House, and the member is correct. He says he

believes it. How can you vote for this legislation if you believe what

is in that pamphlet? Which way is it going to be? That's the point the

Chair has to deal with. The Social Credit Party was lying in that

pamphlet. Now you say that you support this pamphlet. Are you going to

quit the party? Shame, Mr. Speaker! The member is confused and he

should be taken outside and spanked.

MR. SPEAKER: Members who seek the floor on one point and then

begin to canvass what can best be described as partial debate,

certainly in themselves abuse the rules of the House.

MR. REE: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for

clarifying things. Usually what he has to say is misunderstood by most

of the people, so I thank him kindly. But I still feel that we are

having repetitious debate to delay and obstruct this House, and I would

ask you, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding that it is the right of a member

to seek his or her place in this chamber to express his or her views,

whether or not those views may have been canvassed by other members, is

really a very difficult

interpretation for the Chair to make. Members

must be afforded the protection of the Chair if they are to have an

opportunity to express their personal views, regardless of how they may

conflict or concur with those of other members of the House.

MS. BROWN: This is the first time I have read this into the

record and I think it is the kind of thing that bears repetition; it

needs to be repeated over and over again.

Very clearly, the people who drafted this brochure are not the same

people who drafted Bill 6, which the Minister of Education is now

introducing to the House. In discussing Bill 6 I think it should be

brought to the minister's attention that the bill he is introducing

runs absolutely counter to the statements made by the Social Credit

Party in 1975, when it asked the people of British Columbia to elect it

as government. That has to be repeated over and over again, in the

faint hope that the Minister of Education will see the error of his

ways and withdraw this piece of legislation, and will redraft it so

that it is more in keeping with the sentiments expressed in 1975 by his

then leader, his now Premier, when he affixed his signature to these

words. I don't believe it is possible to repeat this statement too

often. I am convinced that there are a number of people who probably

never voted Social Credit before....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have got to

have a quorum in this chamber. If the government is not prepared to

deal with the legislation, I suggest you call adjournment until we have

a quorum.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at this time it is the

responsibility of the Chair to determine if there is a quorum. Usually,

hon. members, I talk long enough for enough people hopefully to come

into the chamber. Usually that is the case. I do not see that taking

place at this time. I will make a very careful count to see if in fact

the point of order brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition is

valid. I will begin the count.

We have a quorum, hon. members. A bare quorum.

MS. BROWN: I don't know what is bothering the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), but there sure is a lot of

rumbling coming from his side of the House.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough, I am happy to give it again.

This is what happens, Mr. Speaker, whenever you decide to talk about

education on the floor of this House. None of the government members

wants to listen, so there are these continual interruptions. Despite

that, I am going to repeat this brochure: "A British Columbia Social

Credit government would give B.C.'s young people a better quality

education." That was a promise made in 1975. It went on to say that it

would return authority to local school boards because it believed that

"meaningful educational policies had to be developed in cooperation

with local school boards because local school trustees were elected by

people in their own area." In other words, it says that at the

grassroots

[ Page 1212 ]

level.... That's what the trustees are:

grassroots-level politicians. They understand the educational needs of

their area much better than do the bureaucrats in Victoria or Ottawa.

That's what this statement said and I agree with it; I associate with

it. My only regret is that the Minister of Education, in introducing

Bill 6, did not take that into account.

It is true that no two school districts are exactly alike, no two

school areas are exactly alike. What gives the Minister of Education

the authority to think that the bureaucrats in Victoria, and the

minister himself sitting in Victoria, would know what is best for

Burnaby School District 41, for example, my school district; would know

better than those school trustees who live in Burnaby and were elected

by the parents and the residents of Burnaby itself? What makes him

think that? I am going to talk about the chairman of School District 41

in a few minutes. This is what this legislation says. It says that the

Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister of Education and the

bureaucrats here in Victoria have a better understanding of the kind

and quality of education that the children in School District 41 should

have than do the locally elected school trustees.

Let's look at the facts and see if they support that position. In

fact, under the new formula devised by the minister, Burnaby school

district is treated the worst of all. Over the next three years there's

going to be a shortfall of something like $11 million which they're

going to lose under this formula. There's going to be a reduction of

something in the neighbourhood of 20 percent of the budget that they

need to operate. Now the minister would say: "Well, what's so bad about

that? There's declining enrolment; fewer children are entering the

school system than last year and the year before." He doesn't take into

account a couple of things that are peculiar to Burnaby. They may

happen elsewhere, I don't know; but I'm addressing myself specifically

to two factors that affect Burnaby. One is that more adults are using

the school system in Burnaby than anywhere else. More adults are in the

continuing education program than anywhere else. More and more people

past the so-called school age are going back to school, and we are

finding that our school trustees, through the public school system, can

deliver that education much less expensively than even the community

colleges or PVI — I saw the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch)

here a minute ago — or any of the vocational schools. The school

trustees in Burnaby are proud of that and make a big issue of it. It's

not easy to be able to deliver that quality of education and at the

same time stay within a budget as effectively as they have done. It

also says something about a community that has so many of its adults

interested in pursuing education.

Instead of allowing Burnaby the flexibility to continue to make the

kinds of decisions that will meet the needs of the residents and the

community of Burnaby, the minister, like manna from above, like the

potentate he has become, is now, with his Deputy Minister, to decide

how Burnaby's schoolboard dollars are spent; what courses they give, to

whom and under what conditions, completely ignoring the special kinds

of interests that Burnaby has, and ignoring the special needs, which

the school trustees recognized and moved to meet.

[5:00]

The school trustees recognize those needs because they were elected locally.

They had to address themselves to local concerns in order to get the vote. They

were not elected in Prince George to make decisions about educational needs

in Burnaby. They were not hired and do not live in Victoria to make education

decisions about Burnaby. They have to go before the electorate every two years;

they have to renew their mandate every two years. They have to go back to the

people of Burnaby and say: "Re-elect me so that I can give you this kind

of education, so I can deliver this kind of education." And the people

of Burnaby dictate to their school trustees what they want. Of course, they're

paying the taxes to ensure the school trustees can meet their requirements.

I'll talk about taxation afterwards, and what this government's done

to our tax base in Burnaby.

So for the minister to introduce a piece of legislation which takes

the flexibility away from the school trustees is to damage the

education system in Burnaby. This bill is going to have a negative

impact on Burnaby. And that is one reason why I am not prepared to

support it.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not going to support this bill. The second

a second language. My colleague from Vancouver mentioned that yesterday

when he was speaking. It's on the increase as well. The number of new

Canadians who are moving into the community and whose children are

entering the school system puts additional pressure on the educational

system. As long as the trustees have the power to make decisions, they

can be flexible in terms of meeting the needs of those children for

them under this piece of legislation. Now the minister, the deputy

minister and bureaucrats living and working in Victoria are going to

bring down a formula which does not take into account the special needs

of that

section of the community in Burnaby. I mean, the statistics are

increasing. There are more students entering the school system in

Canadian population is growing. The school board has to take that into

account, and has to be able to be flexible in terms of how programs are

designed, so that by meeting the needs of those children for whom

be incredibly inventive and innovative to see that they do not penalize

one group in order to enhance another, and vice versa.

Those decisions have to be made at the local level. That's the only

level that's relevant, as far as those decisions are concerned. It's as

ludicrous as asking Ottawa to make those kinds of decisions for us. It

can't be done. And if the Minister of Education had the commitment to

education which this 1975 brochure of the British Columbia Social

Credit Party — under the signature of the Premier — said it had to

ensure that every child in British Columbia has the best-quality

education affordable, the minister would indeed return power to the

local level, would indeed allow the local school trustees to have more

flexibility to be able to be more innovative, and would reward them for

being innovative. Of course, the very opposite has happened.

Is that my green light already? I just got started.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay, thank you.

[ Page 1213 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, this is just Burnaby. I still have to speak

about the rest of the province too. Anyway, that broke my train of

thought, Mr. Speaker. What was my last word, do you remember?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: You're taking notes? Okay, I was speaking

about.... Ah! Penalizing, right. The Burnaby school board, under the

new system, is being penalized, as are West Vancouver–Howe Sound and

North Vancouver, I understand....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: They are. I know they are being penalized because they have tried and succeeded in living within their budgets.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. They have succeeded in living within

their budgets. Therefore they're being penalized for that. I want to

talk about the third....

Interjection.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: They work very well with their MLA.

... group, Mr. Speaker, who are a special responsibility of the

Burnaby school trustees. There are a large number of institutions which

cater to the needs of physically and mentally disabled children who are

part of the educational catchment system in Burnaby — the children at

The Maples, for example. It's just escaped me — I used to work there as

a volunteer and the name.... The Donald Paterson School. The whole

concept — which this government introduced and we supported — of

reintroducing these children into the school system, making them a part

of the school system was something which Burnaby welcomed and went out

of its way to ensure would work in the best interest of these children.

It wasn't simply a case of putting them in the public school system and

abandoning them once they got there. Special aides were hired, special

programs were introduced, and these children really fitted into the

system very well. That called for some flexibility in terms of

budgeting, called for inventiveness and innovative ways of designing

budgets.

Now that's going to be taken away from them. Everyone is being

cloned. Every school district has to be exactly the same as every other

school district. That doesn't work to the best interest of those

children who are not exactly the same as every other child. It doesn't

work.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, not really. As long as the minister is listening....

MR. REID: I'm the designated listener.

MS. BROWN: The little member from Surrey is a designated listener. That's fine.

Those three groups — the adult continuing education group, the

needs.... The fourth group, though not necessarily in that order, is

all the other kids in Burnaby. The previous Minister of Education used

to say to Burnaby: "Why is it that your budget is not the same as that

of Delta" for example, or some other school district? There were always

these comparisons of one school district with another one — comparing

an old school district with a new school district the apples and

oranges thing.

The reality of the situation is that in Burnaby the parents want the best for their kids.

MR. REID: The deserve the best, and we're giving them the best.

MS. BROWN: And they deserve the best — precisely. They also

know what is the best for their kids. So they elect the school

trustees, who come as close as is possible to giving these kinds of

programs to their kids.

They're suffering under this. It was a rich program, a good program

that the kids in Burnaby get — aside from reading, writing and

arithmetic — in all of the areas of dealing with the twenty-first

century, which we're embarking on. Every effort was made to ensure that

the school children in Burnaby were ready and could handle the

twenty-first century once they went out into the world. We didn't see

any point in sending young people with a horse-and-buggy education out

into a computer-age world. It didn't make any sense. So the Burnaby

school trustees, aided and abetted by the parents and everyone else in

the community, really enriched the program. Some of it they did through

getting funding from outside. Sometimes parents had to pay additional

funds for their children to enjoy these programs. They were able to do

it, and no one complained, because, as with the rest of British

Columbia, the parents wanted the very best education for their

children. They're going to lose that now. We're into cloning. Every

education system and every school district is going to give exactly the

same program as every other school district. Who is going to decide

what kind of program? The Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister of

Education and the bureaucrats here in Victoria. That

article that has

again been read into the House — two articles by Crawford Kilian, who

talked about the fact that school boards are now so degraded that they

have no real reason to exist.... .

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's true. You speak to the parents in Burnaby

and they will tell you that a group of them can no longer go to their

school trustees and say: "We want this particular program for our

kids." That's not going to happen any more.

The tragedy of the situation, as I said before, is that Burnaby

really tried so hard to stay within its budget that it made the most

incredible sacrifices. It was closing schools, and by the process of

attrition was cutting down its staff and its FTEs — the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) likes to use his little FTEs....

Interjection.

[ Page 1214 ]

MS. BROWN: He didn't tell you what an FTE is?

...and they were really quite proud of themselves — so much so that

the chairman of the Burnaby school board ran as a Social Credit

candidate in the last election. He was sure that he was going to be

rewarded, and that if he won he was going to be made Minister of

Education because he had done such a good job. He thought of staying

within his budget, delivering a good education system and meeting the

needs of the community.

MR. REID: We have an excellent Minister of Education.

MS. BROWN: That's not what the chairman of the Burnaby School Board says now.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: The Premier is now ridiculing his own candidate.

He's laughing at Gary Begin because as chairman of the school board he

had the nerve to run as a Social Credit candidate. We tried to tell

him, but now he has found out for himself. For the benefit of the

Premier, Gary Begin is saying at every opportunity that if he had had

any idea of how anti-education this government was going to be, he

would never have run.

The school trustees have tried to meet with the minister. They asked

that this bill be hoisted and that its contents be put in the form of a

White Paper and circulated so there could be public discussion. The

school trustees, teachers and the parents could talk about it, as well

as the community at large. Small businesses and everybody would have a

chance to discuss it before it was actually introduced as legislation.

The minister refused. They went so far as to prepare a brief, which

they presented to all members of the Legislative Assembly on both sides

of the House.

[5:15]

In the brief they talked about the shortcomings of this bill, and

the reasons why they thought the bill should be circulated as a White

Paper, so there could be some public discussion about it. They said

that if this bill went through in its present form it would end up in

deficiencies in the application of the funding formula and it would

result in the creation of a management unit too large to be economical.

You have to remember that Bill 6 is part of a restraint package. We're

told that the reason for introducing this legislation is because the

government is cutting back on its expenditures: cutting back on the

number of staff in the school system and in the Ministry of Education;

cutting back on the general cost of education; and trying to increase

the pupil-teacher ratio — that kind of thing.

The school trustees prepared a brief in which they said that that

was not going to happen. This piece of legislation is going to do the

direct opposite of how the minister says it should be done. They said

it's going to result in increased costs in administration and increased

legal costs. It's going to result in increased costs resulting from

court decisions. It uses a word which I've never heard before, but I

guess it's okay. It says: "...diseconomics of scale from a system too

large for effective administration." It also says that the one thing

the minister wants to cut down.... He keeps saying he wants fewer

administrators and more people in the classroom. The school trustees

said that under this piece of legislation there is actually going to be

an increase in the number of administrators in some school districts.

The school trustees are the people who administer, who actually have

to implement the legislation. They have read the act. They asked for a

meeting with the minister. They had a meeting with the minister, with

the government caucus and with the opposition caucus. They submitted a

brief in which they very clearly stated all the pitfalls that they

recognized would happen if this bill was introduced. They said it would

result in increased costs of teacher salaries because the incentive to

keep the average teacher's salary high was being introduced. It would

have a disincentive in it to reduce average teacher salaries by early

retirement of the most expensive teachers. It said it was a

disincentive for teachers to use the collective bargaining process to

preserve jobs by reducing salaries. It said it would result in

increased costs of operating schools. There was a disincentive to

reduce fixed costs because of this new formula, a disincentive to use

the schools as sources of revenue and a lack of incentive to go after

energy-efficient investment.

One thing that happened in Burnaby, for example, is that a couple of

elementary schools that were closed are being used by the community in

other ways. The school board is actually getting revenue from renting

or leasing these school buildings for other uses. Under this new

formula introduced in Bill 6 by the minister, they're going to lose

that revenue. They can't use that revenue to upgrade the building. They

can't use it to introduce new programs for students who are physically,

mentally or emotionally disabled. They can't use it to hire additional

teacher aides or support staff in the schools. They can't use it to buy

updated equipment, like more computers and those kinds of things, for

the schools. They can't use it even to support extracurricular

activities, for example. One of the things that all of the kids in

Burnaby used to be able to do until quite recently was to take

swimming. We live in a province in which swimming lessons is not a

luxury for our children. There isn't a summer that goes by that we

don't hear about young people drowning in the lakes or the ocean or

whatever in this beautiful province with so many lakes, rivers and

streams, as well as the ocean, so they introduced into the school

system that every Tuesday and Thursday mornings the kids would go

swimming. They've lost that. Okay, now you're telling me that my green

light is going on. I don't want to end without being sure that I've got

all of my statistics in about the ways in which this piece of

legislation is going to hurt Burnaby.

I just want to say that the school trustees, in one of their

background papers, also pointed out that increased centralization of

authority and decision-making has consistently been shown to decrease

organizational effectiveness and efficiency in both the public and

private sectors of the economy. They go on to quote examples of where

this happens. I think I talked about some of them when I spoke about

the brief which they presented to the government. They talk about

top-level management, decentralization of decisions, and day-to-day

administrations not being run as efficiently as they should be.

But I think the most important theme that I want to leave, Mr.

Speaker, is that taking away the decision-making from the local level

is a negative decision on the part of the government; that, in fact,

our children are going to suffer. I don't think it is good enough for

the government to say that this is a restraint move on their part, that

they are trying to save money for the taxpayers, because, as you know,

I think it was in 1982 that the government moved in and deprived the

municipalities of the tax base which they had to finance and to

[ Page 1215 ]

fund education. They took that unto themselves and

placed it in general revenue. Yet the people continued to pay the

taxes. As the tax burden for education on the homeowner increased,

there were slight grumblings, there were slight complaints, but people

paid their taxes because they really do believe in good quality

education for their children. I think it would be fair to say that that

is true of all parents in British Columbia. We all recognize that this

is not a world in which ignorant people, uneducated people, and people

without skills, without training and without talent are going to be

able to make very much of a contribution to the quality of life of the

province.

So everyone has a profound respect for education, and everyone

recognizes the importance of education to the children of the province.

This is the reason why I fail to understand why the Minister of

Education is disregarding the wishes of the parents of the province and

of the school trustees that he withdraw this particular piece of

legislation and introduce it as a White Paper for public discussion.

Now my red light is on, I gather, which means that my time is up. So

what I would like to do is to move that the House do now adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, pursuant to standing order 44, I will not put that question. That is my ruling.

MR. HOWARD: Then that ruling is challenged.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

[5:30]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Veitch

Segarty

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lauk

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

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

MR. D'ARCY: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of

air safety, perhaps you could inquire, considering the inclemency of

the weather today, whether the 10 or 15 government members who are away

on the government jets are properly taken care of. Have they arrived at

their destinations, their clubs and cocktail parties and so on —

wherever they are headed for over the long weekend? Are their seatbelts

fastened? This debate on Bill 6 is so tremendously important that we do

want to make sure that all members of the Legislature return safely

tomorrow so that we can continue this debate,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order, and the member will make his remarks relevant to Bill 6.

MR. D'ARCY: We are discussing Bill 6, which is the principle of the education....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the

members wish we could push the quorum bell — there would be no

objection from this side of the House — in order to attract back all

the NDP members who've left after the member who is speaking has drawn

attention to how important the debate is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. please. That's not a point of order, because we do have a quorum.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order raised

by the minister for tenured scientists and technocrats, the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, perhaps we could, on his initiative, chase down

those dozen or 15 government members who not only are absent during

debate, but can't even answer the division bells.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the minister's point of order was not in order, and neither are the following remarks. Please continue on Bill 6.

MR. D'ARCY: I am sure the minister for tenured scientists and technocrats is only doing his best.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: That's what he looks like, is it? Is that the

member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett)? I always wondered what he

looked like.

I am concerned about this bill because it is abo