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, AUGUST 4, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

625 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Five-year forest and range plan. Mr. Skelly –– 625

Mr. Lockstead

Government poll. Mr. Howard –– 626

Financial irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Cocke –– 626

McKim advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 626

Annacis Island crossing. Mr. Reid –– 626

Fired Ministry of Human Resources' employees and trade union involvement.

Mr. Hanson –– 627

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

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 627

Mrs. Dailly –– 630

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 634

Mr. Cocke –– 636

Mr. Strachan –– 640

Mrs. Wallace –– 641

Mr. Passarell –– 646

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to

introduce Lynn McDonald, who is visiting us from Ontario and is the MP

for Toronto- Broadview-Greenwood. A native of New Westminster, B.C.,

she is now Justice critic for the NDP federal caucus. Would you please

welcome her.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we have visiting us from

London, England, Mr. Albert Sasson, and from Victoria, Mr. Bill Glover.

Both these gentlemen have observed the Mother of Parliaments in

Westminster on many occasions, and I know they'll be watching our

assembly this afternoon with great interest. I ask all members to bid

them special welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery this

afternoon are two young visitors from Manitoba. I would like the House

to join me in welcoming Shirley Van Shie and Jim Sanford.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make welcome, from Langley, Aldermen Caroline Gran and Len Fowler.

Oral Questions

FIVE-YEAR FOREST AND RANGE PLAN

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. A

five-year forest and range plan tabled by the minister last week shows

the total spending on silviculture this year will be more than $90

million less than the level forecast by the minister when the five-year

plan was introduced in 1980. The current plan further shows that

backlog reforestation is almost 33 percent below target and that

juvenile spacing is only 7 percent of the original forecast level. Can

the minister explain to this House why his government has all but

abandoned the 1980 forest plan as presented to this Legislature?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't. because the

government has not abandoned forest planning or management that was

laid before the Legislature over the last four years.

MR. SKELLY: On a supplementary, will the minister confirm

that between July 25 and July 27, 20 to 30 tonnes of seedlings from

Koksilah Nursery in Duncan were incinerated at Koksilah Road

Incinerator? Why were these seedlings incinerated when the current

five-year plan indicates that they are 33 percent below their 1980 plan

for backlog reforestation? There are several hundreds of unemployed

forestry workers in the province available for planting, and clearly

thousands of hectares of NSR backlog to be replanted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know where the member gets his information

from. No, I cannot confirm that. I will state that every year a certain number

of seedlings are culled from the production that is produced in the various

ministry nurseries. It's unreasonable to expect that every seedling turns

out to be suitable for planting, and we did have some seedlings which were grown

for specific areas, which, because of the very serious downturn in the forest

industry over the last couple of years, the areas for which they were designated

were not harvested and these seedlings were of course in the nurseries up to

two to three years prior to that period. We have no way of knowing what specific

areas will be harvested, especially when a downturn comes. Many areas are not

harvested that would have been planned for harvesting during that period of

time.

[2:25]

MR. SKELLY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated,

there are tens of thousands of hectares of NSR land in the province.

Backlog planting is required on these sites. There are hundreds of

workers out of work who have been trained to plant these trees. Our

sources of information in Duncan tell us that 20 to 30 tonnes of

seedlings is far in excess of the number of seedlings destroyed each

year by the Ministry of Forests. Surely the minister will take it upon

himself to investigate the situation to find out why those trees were

destroyed when there are tens of thousands of hectares of NSR land, and

hundreds of people out of work who are capable of doing that work.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I never detected a question in the

minispeech just presented by the member. However, surely he is not

naive enough to think that if a seedling was grown for a specific site

you could automatically take that seedling and plant it somewhere else

and expect it to survive. That would be a waste of time and effort.

MR. SKELLY: My supplementary then. If the minister didn't

understand it, is this. Will he take a look into this destruction of 20

to 30 tonnes of seedlings at Koksilah, to see if those trees are

suitable to be planted in B.C., and the reasons they're not being

planted but in fact are being destroyed? This represents 80 to 100

years' future for the province of British Columbia being destroyed in a

single year. Will the minister investigate to see if these trees are

suitable for planting at some of our NSR sites? The sites and the

planters are available. I ask the minister to look into that issue.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Again, it is very difficult for me to

draw a question. He's asking for a commitment from the minister. I

would tell him that I'm quite aware of things that happen within my

ministry. If we had had a site prepared for planting for which those

seedlings would have been suitable, they would have been planted, but

we did have to destroy seedlings that were grown for specific areas

which were not harvested and so could not be planted. The member will

just have to accept my statement unless he wants to get into another

minispeech.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A short supplementary. I wonder if the

minister, while he's not looking into this matter of Koksilah, would be

good enough to look into the other areas where seedlings are being

grown and find out how many tonnes of new seedlings have been abandoned

there as well.

[ Page 626 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If the member has any information he'd

like to provide me with, I'd be very happy to investigate any matter he

might wish me to.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Did the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) wish to ask a question as well? He seems quite vocal in his seat.

MR. BARNES: You've got the wrong member.

GOVERNMENT POLL

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might pose a question

to the Premier. Inasmuch as the government spent some $70,000 of

taxpayers' money last year on a poll conducted by Goldfarb Consultants,

and inasmuch as many of the questions in that poll seem to have found

their way into actions of this government subsequent to May 5, could

the Premier explain to the House, particularly as taxpayers' money was

used, why the government has not to this point tabled the

questionnaire, the results thereof, and any analysis of that particular

questionnaire conducted by Goldfarb?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the member for Skeena, the government

does do research from time to time, and at a suitable time in the

future it will make it available to the public.

MR. HOWARD: I have one supplementary. Would that suitable time be in this century?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If it is, I'm sure I'll be here.

FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES

IN THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. COCKE: This is day 16 of stonewall. I'm going to ask the

Attorney-General a question. Since July 19, 16 days ago, I've been

asking the minister if he has decided to bring the police to

investigate financial irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism. Has

the Attorney-General now decided to stop stonewalling and bring the

police into this situation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Where were you yesterday?

MR. COCKE: The Premier is the one who is doing the stonewalling, through the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: In response to that non-leading question with

no assumptions in the

preamble, let me say that the investigation into

that matter has already continued, as the member knows, through

impartial officials of my ministry. If it proceeds to another level as

a result of preliminary investigation, that will be made apparent. But

no steps will be left unturned to examine the material brought forward

by Mrs. Morrison.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: I'm going. to direct a question to the Minister of

Tourism, if he can pay attention. The auditor-general reported that an

agency — since identified as McKim Advertising — spent $5.3 million of

public funds without authorization. They failed to account for such

cash advances operated as a slush fund for the ministry employees, and

laundered accounts for other agencies, charging double commissions. Now

that the minister has had two weeks to reflect –– 16 days, as a matter

of fact, since I originally asked the question — has he decided to

suspend McKim Advertising as agency of record for the Tourism ministry?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious situation, and the government is not taking it seriously, so I am going to ask one more.

I direct the question to the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll answer it.

MR. COCKE: Old filibuster Sam!

Mr. Speaker, on July 19 I asked the minister if he had decided to

suspend McKim Advertising as agency of record for the provincial

government. Knowing all he knows now, now that the minister has had

these two weeks and the opportunity to fully re-peruse the report of

the auditor-general into such serious financial irregularities as those

of the Minister of Tourism, has the Provincial Secretary decided to

cancel McKim?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's an interesting question,

but I think if the member for New Westminster would examine the record

— in other words, if he would examine Hansard — he would find that I gave him an answer on July 19.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I will wind up by asking the Premier

if, since three of his government colleagues have decided to stonewall

in this situation, he will now order his three colleagues to suspend

McKim. And because of this $5.3 million misappropriation, will he call

the police himself?

ANNACIS ISLAND CROSSING

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. On the weekend there was a major

announcement made in one of the newspapers on the lower mainland

indicating that the Annacis crossing was going to be downsized. As a

representative of Surrey....

Interjections.

MR. REID: It's important to the residents of Surrey and Delta

to have an indication from the Minister of Transportation and Highways:

is the program changed on the Annacis crossing? I would like the

minister to answer that.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Surrey, I read that article, but it isn't factual; there are a lot of

[ Page

627 ]

things printed in it.... The Annacis crossing is going ahead as scheduled,

and we'll be calling the first tender in September 1983.

MR. COCKE: On a supplementary, is the Minister of Highways going to move the Capilano suspension bridge over to the Fraser?

FIRED MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES'

EMPLOYEES AND TRADE UNION INVOLVEMENT

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Human

Resources regarding selective firings for trade union activity in the

BCGEU. As the minister is aware, the first vice-president, John

Shields, and the second vice-president, Diane Wood, were both fired

without cause. Wood is the only administrative assistant in 20 regional

districts to be fired. John Shields is the highest level within the

bargaining unit and his program will continue. On what basis were they

fired?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, notices of termination to

any employee in the Ministry of Human Resources have been done on a

very non-selective basis — on the basis of need to the ministry or

program and of downsizing government. The minister is not aware of the

personalities involved, except through the press.

MR. HANSON: A second question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister

confirm to the House that the real reason for the firing of John

Shields, the first vice-president, and Diane Wood, the second

vice-president, was that they were on the bargaining committee and

dealt with her ministry officials'?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not confirm

that. I get very tired of the socialist tactics of always trying to

attribute to other people the kinds of actions that they would probably

take if they had the kind of responsibility we have. Unequivocally no!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

Together with the Leader of the Opposition, I have just returned from

the office of the auditor-general. We left with the auditor-general

documentary evidence of what we believe to be a serious breakdown in

internal control in the Ministry of Finance. This is something that the

auditor-general has been complaining about in the last six reports. The

original documents were left with the auditor-general. I have a list,

signed by Mrs. Morrison, as a receipt, listing the documents, and

photocopies of the documents to leave with the House.

The list includes a vendor-delinquent notice made out to Gas

Appliance Centre; a certificate of registration made out to Check It

Out Fashions; a money order payable to the Minister of Finance from

Jo-Lor Industries Ltd.; a cheque made out to the Minister of Finance in

the amount of $1,332.62 from Bella Bros. Auto Supply Ltd.; a cheque

made out to the Minister of Finance in the amount of $1,508.69. These

documents were made available to me this morning and I made an

appointment with the auditor-general to refer them to her.

I am informed that this matter has been going on for some time, that it has

been reported to the ministry, and that on one occasion, some months ago, included

in similar mail that was consigned to the garbage, was one cheque made out to

the Ministry of Finance for three-quarters of a million dollars.

These were all recovered from the garbage.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the information that has been

received it is very difficult for the Chair to make a definitive ruling

at this time on the matter of privilege, if, in fact, one exists.

However. I will take the matter under advisement and bring a return

back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

As members should be aware, however, the matter of privilege or a

member raising a matter of privilege is most important and should be

carefully researched, at least to see if it does, in fact, fall within

that very slim ambit.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

[2:30]

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT –– 1983

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To begin with — to be on safe ground — I'll move that the bill be read a second time now.

Mr. Speaker. before getting into some of the contents of the bill, I

thought it might be an idea to put some of the material in perspective,

and the reason for it. I think it is important that we look at a number

of the facts which are before the government. First of all, the

Education budget, despite some of the statements to the contrary, in

fact is up about 7 percent for 1983-84. Despite what we find in the old

book of $1.4 million, in fact the actual unaudited expenditures for

1982-83 were in the order of about $1.314 million.

I think there is some indication, and we recognize, Mr. Speaker,

that there is expected to be a deficit in the order of about $1.6

billion for this fiscal year, and when added to the deficit from the

previous year we will have a direct debt something in the order of $2.4

billion. Keeping that in mind, I think it was important that we examine

the education budget over the last few years and find out — and in fact

we did dig in to find out — what the cost of education was and is. In

1976 the total bill was in the order of about S910 million. In 1983 the

total budget is approximately $1.9 billion. That's a staggering

increase over a period of seven fiscal years.

Another factor which we must keep in consideration is the cost per student. In 1976 it was $1,738. In 1983 it was about $3,935.

Another item seems to be increasingly apparent; it's a matter of

enrolment. In 1975-76 enrolment was approximately 524,000 students. In

1982-83 it was something in the order of 482,000.

One of the things that I have done since assuming the ministry is

attempt to put out what I see the facts to be. I'm not attempting to

point the finger at any particular group, whether it be the trustees'

association, teachers, superintendents or the government. I think

what's important, though, is that we examine what the cause has been.

Really, what in fact

[ Page 628 ]

has happened is that everybody has operated under

the parameters which were available, and no one really did anything

more than what they had been led to think was expected of them.

An item we should keep in mind as well is that of property taxation.

Consolidated revenue — that is, from the province of British Columbia —

is responsible for roughly 51.5 percent of the education budget.

Property taxation — and I don't think it's really necessary to start

drawing a line between nonresidential and residential; I think what's

important is that they are funds which are paid by our taxpayers....

The total amount which all taxpayers pay out of property taxation is

roughly 44 percent. There's a small amount, roughly 5 percent, which is

paid in the form of grants. I think the message has been very clear

from the electorate:

whereas they do not want funds taken away from

education, they are concerned that a reasonable cap be placed on them.

It seems to me, with a budget in the area of a 7 percent increase in

what we have introduced, to have worked reasonably well.

The process which we have gone through since the legislation was

introduced has been a series of meetings with school superintendents,

secretary-treasurers, some chairmen of school boards, and the BCSTA. I

found in each case the following statement made, with total

consistency: "We support the restraint measure." The only issue which

seems to come before us is the matter of that part of the bill which

makes reference to "or a portion of its budget."

When we established the service levels for a new funding formula for

school districts in British Columbia, they were prepared on the basis

of the enrolment within each district, their present programs, busing —

a host, as a matter of fact, of items.... But one thing which was

critical, I thought, in preparing that material was to look at service

levels which have been established by teachers through the BCTF. I can

say that in setting those levels to which they have referred, they all

comply, with only two exceptions. For example, kindergarten: the

service level that you find is 22 to 1; the BCTF guideline is 20 to 1.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr.

Member, that you always respond like that when we come out with some

facts. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that when we worked on this

thing and threw out....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I see. Well, I'm glad they had a nice

weekend. I want to know why, for example, in the ridings that you

represent in Vancouver, in the budgets which were presented and stood

for three years, we find such discrepancies.

MR. LAUK: That's because you've got a Socred school board chairman, Kim Campbell.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll make a comment about that in a moment or two as well.

I can go up to the interior or some of these other areas and find

some of the school districts have been doing a great job managing their

budgets.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In some cases that might be true, but in the list that I've got it's the exception rather than the rule.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister will address

the Chair, other hon. members will keep their interruptions to a

minimum, and maybe we'll find where we're going.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: One of the objectives which we had in

mind, and always have in mind, is to try to place some reasonable cap

on school budgets. Interestingly enough, I will read to you in a moment

or two from telegrams and letters which are coming to me asking: "Would

you please do something about the way the school system is managed on a

financial basis." You know, it worked.

MS. SANFORD: Where's Vander Zalm?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I understand he's presently having a press conference. I'm not sure where he is.

In preparing the service levels, we took into consideration existing

budgets, funding and the fiscal frameworks, including service levels.

The interesting thing about this information was that when we had our

major meeting with all of the trustees and chairmen of school boards,

school superintendents and secretary- treasurers, they accepted the

fact that it was a difficult and tough decision. After the process had

been filtering throughout the districts we asked for some constructive

comments. They're coming through. Every Friday since that meeting day

in Richmond we have met with districts in various parts of the

province. They will all be covered, and they've all come in with some

ideas. I was asking for ideas so that any changes that were necessary

... so that there would be fairness and equity in the system. We would

achieve that and we would accommodate them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One of the items which comes up often is what we're trying to

achieve. One way of doing that is to use what is often called the

pupil-teacher ratio. I've made one statement before.... I think it's

necessary. I don't know why, but it seems to be historical. There's a

custom in the game to always use pupil-teacher ratios. Why do we always

have to have the teacher at the end to draw the comparison? The fact of

the matter is we're talking about pupils and certificated staff —

certificated staff within the district, which means everybody, while

certificated, may not be in the classroom.

MR. LEA: So it's worse than it seems.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As a matter of fact, I know that the former Minister of Education....

MR. LEA: Who? Bill Vander Zalm?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly). I saw them trying to achieve these pupil-teacher ratios of 17

to 1. Well, I want you to know that the member did not achieve it while

she was the Minister of

[ Page 629 ]

Education. As a matter of fact, it was something in

the order of about 19 or 19.5 to 1. It was achieved in 1983. The fact

of the matter is, it's a little bit expensive. All we're asking for

with this entire system is to have the ratios go up from 17 to 1 to 19

to 1 over a period of three years. I think that that can be achieved.

Remember, we've got a declining enrolment, budgets are going like

this....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Like what?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I'll tell you what....

Are your eyes ready? One thing I would like, Mr. Speaker, is.... The

opposition is always breaking the rules of the House. In they come with

their charts and everything. There's an advantage. Well, I have a

couple of dandies. I don't know if he can see that or not, but that's

about all they'd permit me into the House with. I just wanted some

evidence of.... There's the line. It's going straight up on a 45, and

it's costing a lot of money.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope you'll

take this minister to task. If you don't put your foot down now, the

next thing he's going to bring in are his slides from the last trip to

Hawaii and the wedding pictures. There's just no end to it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure all members are aware of the

parliamentary rules which state that no displays or exhibits are

allowed in the Legislative Assembly.

[2:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I suppose there's always the argument with

respect to the size of classrooms. There are some statistics on the

number of students in a classroom; interestingly enough, we find it

could be 22, 23, or 24. Then, of course, out comes the old chestnut

that class size affects the quality of education. To comment quickly

with respect to that, I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that class

size, whether it means one, two or three more people in a classroom, is

going to affect the quality of education.

One of the biggest of the items coming out constantly is that we have eroded the autonomy of school boards.

MR. LEA: Not true, not true. You have eliminated the autonomy of school boards.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What we did was give them budgets over a

period of three years — something they had asked for. When you look at

all of the powers exercised by trustees and school boards, you'll find

there is a significant amount of work to do.

MR. LAUK: Name one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll tell you what. I've got a list of

these, and perhaps I'll wait for my critic. When he gets up and has a

run at me, we'll respond with some of them.

I will tell you, Mr.... ah .... Mr. ...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...Speaker. Is this your maiden speech?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I realize that the members opposite have

had a number of days off and I can understand why they're so bubbly and

happy, but some of us were working long and hard and we want to get to

the facts. There is not a great deal of humour in all of this.

Mr. Speaker, they raised a comment about the chairman of the

Vancouver School Board. It seems to me that as far as the socialists

are concerned, the only people in this province who have a licence to

be critics out there are their own. Isn’t it strange that somebody who

happens to be a chairman of a school board, and who happens to be a

member of the Social Credit Party, is suddenly, if making a comment,

not right. What are you leading us to? Let's be fair to her. She said

she was impressed that the boards were asked to criticize and tell the

Education ministry what problems they had with it. Her remarks didn't

mean she was giving her blanket approval. All she said was that the

funding formula looked like a good step, and she appreciated the way it

was being presented. However, the headline is: "COPE trustees rap

Socred link." Who is COPE? We know who COPE is.

Regarding some of the comments made here about meetings with the

BCSTA, I do not know, and do not think, that many of those comments in

fact reflect the support and encouragement which comes from a number of

school districts in British Columbia. When telegrams come to me from

the BCSTA saying, "Don't be concerned about what the press is saying;

we really want to come and talk....

MR. LAUK: Name one. Have you got one? There are a thousand trustees; get us one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Here's a telex that came in. I suspect you

even got a copy of it, but did you read it? No, I don't think so. This

is signed by eight chairmen in British Columbia — some in the interior,

some out in the valley. Their clarion call is for a more equitable

distribution of opportunity, not necessarily increased provincial

expenditure. I quote from the telegram:

THIS WOULD BE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAMMED BASE-BUDGETING SYSTEM

THAT WOULD INCLUDE AN EQUITABLE FRAMEWORK FUNDING STRUCTURE, THEREBY ENSURING

FUNDING THAT WOULD TRANSLATE INTO EQUAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY FOR PUPILS ACROSS

THE PROVINCE. THE NEED FOR CONTINUED RESTRAINT, AS EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTER

OF JUNE 8, IS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED.

I thought that was a pretty good start.

One of the things that I'm having some difficulty with in school districts....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody rises on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I was just wondering if the minister would care to

indicate.... He quoted from something, which obviously had a signature

too — it must have. I wonder if he would be kind enough to either table

it or quote from it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to forward to

you a photocopy of the telex which I have here. It will be delivered to

you at the adjournment of my speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

[ Page 630 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I've got to find it. It's right here.

AN HON. MEMBER: It could have been absolutely fraudulent. You might have made it up.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: One of the concerns we find as we go

through the district is the attempt to try to justify why it costs

$2,900 or $3,000 or $3,100 per pupil in one district, and $3,800 or

$3,900 in a district close by. Obviously one of the concerns may be the

cost of special education, but it seems to me that that difference

requires some examination. I want to know why one school administration

office has 57 or 58 people and another has something like 38, yet

they're both serving approximately the same number of students. It's

all coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. I think there ought to be

some fairness and equity built in, instead of allowing these offices to

build up, so those funds get into the classroom. That's really all

we're asking.

With respect to service levels — and I know there will be a little

fund with respect to all the functions, of which there are nine, and

the categories below.... It's the first time we have ever been able to

get any information of substance from a school district.

I admit, when we look into the bill, when it makes reference to a

portion thereof, that there is vested in the minister of the day that

power to inject himself into it.

MR. LEA: But you'll be fair.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You understand me perfectly, Mr. Member.

There's only one thing I'm looking for. We have made the statement

again and again to school districts: their allocation of funds as

between the function is in their discretion, but when it comes down to

function number 4 for administration we want them to be particularly

careful.

This particular telegram is from the following people: the chairmen

of the Central Okanagan, Hope, Abbotsford, Langley, Delta, Cowichan,

Coquitlam and Mission school districts. I'd be pleased to send a copy

to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose).

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I'm not going to table it, Mr. Speaker, because I'm retaining the copy.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to. You quoted a document.

HON MR. HEINRICH: I'll forward a copy to the critic.

MR. LAUK: Don't worry; we'll find it in your garbage.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They really are quite humorous this afternoon; I concede that point. I don't want to bring their good time to an end.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They're going to block you in anyway, no matter what,

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, they're not.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of putting out predictable budgets over a period

of three years, trying to bring some equity and fairness into the school system

and into each of the districts by bringing up service levels which is forcing

those who may be required to manage those funds a little better up to the top,

by responding to the chairmen of school districts who want a system that works,

like the one we've got here, and in view of the encouragement which has

come from a number of people, I feel quite confident that the budgeting program

that we've introduced is going to achieve exactly what we set out to do.

I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MRS. DAILLY: I know that we've rather enjoyed the atmosphere

in the last little while, listening to the debate from the minister. I

must admit that I somewhat enjoyed the humorous remarks going back and

forth from both sides.

If I may I will change the tone of the chamber and say that I have

to be pretty serious about this bill. Like Bill 3, which is attempting

to gut the public service of British Columbia and all the programs that

go with it, this bill is attempting to gut education. I cannot find

anything humorous in that. The minister has a somewhat beguiling,

gentle manner, not the kind of manner that could provoke a person too

much on this side of the House to become angry. But I have to put aside

the personality of the minister and think very seriously about what

that minister is presenting to this House in this bill.

For all his attempts to make it appear as if this was just a nice

way of carrying on with that famous word "restraint," this bill is

simply a coverup for the Social Credit government's inherent bias

against education. It has always been there. We have had a few more

perhaps sophisticated ministers in the past who attempted to cover it

up, but now it's out in the open. It just follows the same thing about

education that is tragically happening in the United States today,

where President Reagan has selected education for his own political,

base purposes of re-election. He's attempting to make education a

scapegoat for his next election, and I accuse this government again of

doing the same thing. They feel that if they just say, "we're trying to

save money; look at the millions of dollars we spend on education,"

they can get away with anything. Well, the opposition does not intend

to let them get away with it. The people who are involved in education

— the parents and the children who are going to suffer — will not let

this government get away with it.

I'm being quite serious when I say that this is a dangerous

political trend happening in this province. President Reagan is running

around the United States making outrageous statements, and this

minister is going to start, with the backbenchers aiding and abetting

him with outrageous statements — all for the so-called word of

"restraint". Let's see what they are really doing.

First of all, the B.C. School Trustees' Association have always

agreed, as has the opposition, that we're in a time of recession, and

we know money is not plentiful. We know no government can spend money

with abandon. But to use that term restraint to bring in autocratic

centralization of education in this province, the type of

centralization that we only see in countries which I would say are more

communist than democratic.... This government is going to bring in a

centralized education system all in the name of restraint. What we have

to say to ourselves is: does the public really care? The interesting

thing is that we have to ask what centralization of education is going

to do. Big government, as we see now espoused by this government,

particularly in education, is not the best government. The interesting

thing is that this group over there ran around this province for

[ Page 631 ]

years, and still do, very hypocritically saying

that they don't believe in big government. Every step and every bill

they bring into this House is creating further big government and

centralization. The education bill is the outstanding example of big

government — Big Brother knows best.

[3:00]

The best government is that government which is closest to the

people. You know, it makes you nervous when you live in a province

where you see in the area of education, which is so sensitive and

important to the development of our future citizens, that we're going

to have a Big Brother approach to education. You may ask: "You're

talking about this one little bill?" This one little bill gives that

minister, and primarily his bureaucrats, the power to make all the

major decisions for the school boards in this province. Do you know

what's left for the school boards? The school boards are left with the

dirty work — having to deal with the teachers when they have to fire

them. Do you know what they're left with? Most school trustees would

say: "Sure, we like doing that. That's our job." But do you know what

they say: "If that's going to be our job, why have you taken away

everything else from us? Why have you increased our load when it comes

to property taxation?"

If you want to centralize, and if you back-benchers want to go out

in the province and wave this bill around and say how good it is for

education, I think you'd better stop being two-faced. If you believe in

centralization of government, you had better centralize the money also.

You'd better go the whole way. If you really believe in centralization

to this extent, you'd better not leave the school boards with having to

raise the money alone, primarily through property taxation. Every year

since the Socreds came in the property tax load on most of the

districts in this province has increased immensely. My own district

doubled since the Socreds came in in Burnaby, Mr. Speaker, and at the

same time they are taking all the decisions unto themselves.

I ask you: who would want to run to be a school trustee under the

Social Credit? Yet I have enough faith in the school trustees of this

province, and the new ones who will be thinking of running, that I

think they will want to stay on there and fight this government. I've

found that the people who go into education and who are on school

boards are not really partisan, and I know you found that when you were

a school trustee. They're there because they are interested in

education and children. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that very few of

them do bring partisanship. The only time you see it is when someone

happens to decide to run as a Social Credit candidate as we saw in

Vancouver Centre. To quote the chairman of the board in support of the

Social Credit policies, "it is ludicrous." That very chairman who

doesn't see anything wrong with the Socred policies ran as a Social

Credit candidate, so let's not bring forward some of these very

noncredible sources.

But back to the bill. What I'm concerned about is that this new

minister, because of this bill, is going to find that his bureaucrats

are going to be making all the decisions. The people of British

Columbia did not elect the Deputy Minister of Education to make all

their decisions. They want the elected officials to make them, but the

local elected officials are going to have no opportunity to make

decisions that really count. The minister himself will not have that

opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: People on the other side keep saying: "Oh, this

isn't true." Maybe the time has come to outline this for the benefit of

the minister and the minister who is sitting beside him, who is also

very interested in education. I know both those men are genuinely

concerned with children and with education. What I'm trying to point

out to you is that the government you are involved with is caught up in

this Reagan-turn-the-clock-back, all in the interest of restraint

theories that are not going to assist the children of this province.

They're not going to benefit the children in the classroom. For

example, this bill that the minister just stood up and spoke about so

mildly gives extraordinary powers to the Minister of Education to

control school board budgets. No minister has ever had it before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MRS. DAILLY: If the back-benchers think that's good, then let

them stand up and say that they don't believe in school boards; abolish

them. They don't believe in local taxation; it should all come out of

the central. You can't have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, the power given in this bill will extend to dictating

the amount the school boards may spend on any specific item in their

budget. Can you imagine it? The point I'm making is: what's the point

of the school boards? If you don't believe in autonomy, then don't

stand up and trv to cover it all up under the term "restraint." Up to

now the Minister of Education has had the authority to only issue

directives relating to total spending and the special education portion

of their budgets. The arrangements established are permanent in this

bill and the directives issued by the minister remain secret. He's not

even obliged to make them public.

Speaking of special education, Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting

that one of the ministers said in defence of this: "No, we have to make

sure that the proper amount of money is spent on special education." At

the same time his own ministry's budget has cut special education

programs by 12 percent. That's pretty hyprocritical, yet they are using

this as a guise to say: "We want to protect special education."

The pupil-teacher ratio. I'm not going into a debate on the smaller

class size. The NDP made it quite clear that they believed in it and it

was for the betterment. That's for another debate. The Socreds don't

believe it makes any difference.

I want to get back to the bill. On special education, the minister

mentioned the pupil-teacher ratio as not making that much difference. I

want to point out to him that many of the problems that the school

boards of B.C. have had with increased budgets and with finding that

the pupil-teacher ratio didn't make the regular classroom that much

smaller are because of this government's premeditated policy to

decentralize special-education facilities and get them back into the

local area. That may be a good philosophy, but the point is that if

you're going to order boards to do that, you have to give them the

resources. At the same time as this government creates these new

policies that are going to create increased educational finance

problems, they're taking more money away from the school boards. Do you

know, Mr. Speaker, that the district of Burnaby, I want to repeat, is

going to have to work on 83 percent of last year's budget? Can you tell

us that the board is not going to face any inflationary costs at all?

Is everything going to stay the same? Yet this board is being told, by

some kind of strange formula which I hope the minister is voting to be

able to explain in detail and which I

[ Page 632 ]

know some of my colleagues will be asking specific questions on....

The minister said, as he waved some papers in his hand: "Why is it

that some districts like Vancouver have these enormous budgets and then

you go to other areas and the budgets are smaller?" I want to suggest

to the minister that he personally visit the Vancouver school board

system, travel throughout it, and look at the services which a large

cosmopolitan district must provide, but which you don't have to provide

in some of the rural areas. My God, Mr. Speaker, how can he not see

that a large district like Vancouver is deluged for requests for

specialized services because people come down to that area? It is

larger. Their demands are far greater on that school board. Yes, they

raise more money, but at the same time, naturally their budgets are

going to reflect the fact that it is a huge cosmopolitan area with very

special demands.

When the minister makes that kind of statement, I really get

concerned, because I feel that he is simply repeating in this House

facts and figures brought to his attention by his own bureaucrats to

suit the debate. They are taking advantage of this new minister by

giving him facts and figures to embellish and help out with this

debate, but those facts and figures are only half-truths, and they're

based on myths. That minister, I hope, will get out for himself and

find out what the true facts are when it comes to school board budgets

in this province, because he will then find out that some of the

statements he is making now hold no weight or basis in fact.

Another red herring.... No, I won't say it's a red herring; it's

really a fact. The minister mentioned the fact that some districts have

dozens of supervisors and others get by with very few. On that

statement I have complete sympathy with what the minister is saying,

but the interesting thing is that prior to the defeat of the NDP

government the Ministry of Education under the NDP had prepared a

regulation which would limit the number of supervisors per district. It

just suggested to the boards.... At that time we knew that we were

moving into a period of recession. We knew that we had to cut back

expenses. I remember, if I may digress, telling the colleges that they

could only have 15 percent, and I remember a considerable uproar at

that time. How times change.

I just want to point out to that minister that the NDP, in wanting

to provide good education for our children, doesn't have its head in

the sand about the fact that a lot of extra supervisors in school

districts creates a better educational environment for the children. We

recognize that. What I want to know is why the Social Credit

government, who have been in office since 1975, with a couple of

ministers — I can't blame that minister; he just took over — didn’t

move on this. Why didn't they do something then, if they were so

concerned at this particular level?

All I'm saying is that many of these problems which are being

brought to the attention of the taxpayers today in an attempt to whip

up an anti-education feeling, I believe, in this province were there

for the last ten years. They were there for the last seven years. The

NDP had a completely different philosophy. I know that in many cases it

caused much controversy, but in the last eight years the Social Credit

have been in charge, and many of these problems which are being thrown

at the taxpayer today are problems that were aided and abetted and

created by the Social Credit government itself, and nothing was done

about it.

[3:15]

Suddenly we find thrown at us a bill that for some reason or other

is going to change the whole scene of education in the province of

British Columbia, and not for the betterment of the children. I think

this is what we must keep coming back to. How can you expect the

schools and school districts of British Columbia to provide adequate

education and a good learning environment if the local school board is

no longer able to reflect what the local people want? The local school

board now must reflect what some centralized bureaucrat in the ministry

thinks should be done for that district. I ask the minister and the

other members of the Social Credit government: "Do you really believe

that you can provide good education if the major decisions are being

made out of an office here in Victoria?" I don't believe that that

minister and the other ministers sitting beside him now have so little

interest in what happens to the children in our schools that they could

sit back and let the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education make the

major decisions. That is what this bill is doing.

The school trustees of the province have bent over backwards, I

think, to be cooperative with the new minister. The new minister

started off by being cooperative with them, but I know — and he is

discovering — that the honeymoon in Education is very short for any

minister. I think you and I would agree on that. I accept that

Education is a very difficult area to be in. But putting aside the

difficulties of any Minister of Education trying to please the public,

all of whom have different ideas, there is a basic principle inherent

in this bill that is wrong — that there will not be a great difference.

The majority of people in British Columbia will reject this. They do

not want the decisions for their children to be made primarily in

Victoria. That is what this bill is doing. No matter what the minister

says in its defence, the only way he can show us and the people of B.C.

who are concerned that this is true and that it's not going to help the

children is by withdrawing it.

Let's talk about this whole matter. I know that the minister and the

back-benchers will use this bill over and over again, not in the

interests of the child, unfortunately, who is the centre of the

educational system, but in the interests of appealing to a vocal, loud

minority, who are saying: "We're paying too much for education. Bring

down the cost." Nobody disagrees with the fact that costs have to be

brought down, but, Mr. Speaker, just like the right-wing government in

the United States, this government is using this talk about bringing

costs in education down to emasculate the whole system and to destroy

it.

The minister must have received a brief from the BCSTA. When you

really look at this bill and relate it to whether it is going to help

when it comes to costs, do you know what the trustees say? They

actually say that this stupid bill is really going to increase costs.

Not only does it centralize, but it is not going to help with the

so-called purpose. I'll quote from the BCSTA report, and I know that

the minister must read them too.

When a ministry brings in a bill like this it is a direct insult to

the intelligence, hard work and dedicated attitude of those hundreds of

trustees out there. What you're really saying is: "You can't manage

your budgets. You may be elected to run the district, but we say you

can't really handle it, so I'm going to make all of the decisions out

of the ministry." Do you know what they say? They say: "We concur that

restraint is needed." The brief went on to say they concur with the need

[ Page 633 ]

for ceilings, and then they explain how management

costs — now I hope the minister is listening to this — will increase

under this bill due to diseconomies of scale and incentives to keep

some costs high. The brief also notes trustee concerns regarding the

funding formula and points out that it does not take into account

specific problems in specific districts.

To go back again to the whole theme of big government, this

so-called "little government, " as the Premier and his father used to

like to say, is always complaining about Ottawa — that great, big

government in Ottawa. They want the government in Ottawa off their

backs, and they want to be able to do their own thing. Well, why don't

you apply that same principle to your treatment of the school boards of

this province? Have you no faith in the trustees, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Speaker?

I challenge the Socred government. If you don't have faith that the

trustees can run the district — and that's what this bill is saying; it

has no faith in the school board's ability to manage — then why don't

you bring in a bill that completely eliminates school boards? Actually,

this bill might be called that — The Abolishment of the School Boards

of British Columbia — because you have left them so little to do. I

hope the minister will explain to us how he sees the need for school

boards in this province when everything is now centralized in his

office.

I know that the trustees have come forward and tried to talk to the

minister about this. May I say I find this rather appalling: here, on a

beautiful summer day in August, when I'm sure the minister is aware

that many of the trustees are at the beach, on holiday with their

families and so on....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Lucky!

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, they're lucky. But the point is we're all

here doing what we consider we have to do — they want to have lots of

discussions with that minister on a vital bill like this that's going

to change the whole school board structure in the province, yet you're

bringing this bill up on a hot day in August when most of the trustees

aren't even around. You're going to slide through a bill that is

emasculating them, that is taking away their true role as school

trustees. I ask the government and the minister how you can do that if

you have a conscience, a feeling for the work that has been done by

hundreds of trustees of this province. How can you, with this one bill

today, present it in the middle of the summer when they're not here any

more to discuss it with the minister? You're just saying: "We know

what's best." Do you know what you're really doing? You're just

catering to a very small group out there because you think that that

small, loud, vocal group — in many cases, ignorant about education — is

the majority.

The interesting thing is, when you get right down to it and have

polls on education and on how people really feel about education,

teachers and the school system, that in most of the polls I've read

most of the people are satisfied. I'd like to know, then, why this

government has decided to whip up this anti-education bill. For what

purpose? It can't be just restraint, because, as the trustees have

pointed out to the minister, it's not even doing that. As a matter of

fact, it's increasing the costs. Can you imagine the stupidity of a

bill that centralizes, that takes away the rights of the school

trustees of this province to govern and to do their job, and at the

same time even increases the costs? Do you know why? The trustees have

no flexibility any more. They're told they have to pay so much, for

example, to a district superintendent, and that's it. Trustees like to

feel that they have a bit of choice in this. They pick their

superintendent. Sure, maybe some school boards have overpaid, but the

way to change that is through the public, education and knowledge. You

do not change it with a hammer like this that is taking away all the

rights of the school trustees.

The problem with this government is that they pick up on a few of

those things — too many superintendents, teachers getting a few more

holidays than they should — and they magnify it, Do you know what

they're doing? They're actually doing a disservice to education because

those things can be handled locally and will be dealt with in time. I

know if you, Mr. Speaker, when you were chairman of a school board,

continued to misspend money, to misappropriate it — in the sense of not

spending it on the right programs, and wasting money.... I don't think

you would have found yourself back in office. That's the whole beauty

of local autonomy. Instead we have this centralized government that

think they can pull in all the purse-strings out there in the public,

and they're not even doing their job.

The school trustees have come before that minister and past

ministers and have laid out to that minister and others the basis and

the criteria for a good education formula. Isn't it strange that all

this has been ignored? Why has it been ignored? Let's look at some of

the criteria that they're asking for. They're saying that the funding

of education should be on a program basis with programs defined on a

course or subject basis. I'd like the minister to tell us what's wrong

with that. They're saying that the costing of educational programs must

reflect increases in the prices of goods and services as well as in

quantity, yet my own district of Burnaby is going to find its funding

dropped lower than what they had to deal with before, yet everything is

still going up. You can explain to my district of Burnaby how they can

possibly provide even the adequate basic education in 1983-84 with what

this government is doing to them. I've got a responsibility to speak

up. It's not just for the school board; it's for the children in the

classrooms who are finally the ones who suffer from this kind of

stupidity.

Another criterion is that it must be recognized that price levels

are determined by the marketplace and are beyond local control, That is

so true. There are times when the school board is unable, because of

what's happened in the marketplace, to control. Yet this is used

against the school boards. Your own provincial budget has had to

reflect this. Unfortunately nobody could fire you as a government at

this particular time but the time will come.

The price increases should be related to an appropriate educational

price index. Quantity levels should be related to educational criteria,

not politically determined to vary the level of funding needed. This is

something that is really of concern. I'm not going into the details of

this, because other speakers will. But how is the funding going to be

determined now? What guarantee have we that it is not going to be done

strictly on a political basis? I'm sure the minister means well, and he

could say "never." But how can he assure us, when you've got

centralized funding, that each school district is being treated fairly

and equitably, not on the basis of who happens to be in that district

and on the political tenure of the board?

MR. REID: Shame!

[ Page 634 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I would hope so. What I'm trying to point out to

that member and to the rest of the House is that as long as you have a

bill on the statutes left like this it leaves it open for those things

to happen. The only way you no longer have to say "shame" is to vote

against it.

The school boards must retain the authority to determine the

quantity levels and their accounting structure. We understand there are

certain things you render unto Caesar, etc., but this minister is

apparently wanting to be the Caesar of all the school boards now. He

wants to take over completely and make all their decisions for them;

and he's a new minister too. You know, Mr. Speaker, somebody said he

wants to be the headmaster for all of British Columbia and the whole

province. The point is, what good is that going to do? Even if he were

perfect — and I know he's just a shade short of that — it would still

be dangerous to have one person think he alone knows what's best for

some local district which deals with the people themselves. That

minister can't possibly get out and know how the grass roots in each

little local school district in this province really feel.

[3:30]

What's really happening with this bill is that the trustees of the

province are being reduced to mere puppets, and we have Big Brother

pulling the strings on the school boards. I want to say why we're

concerned about that. The public out there may say: "Well, does it

really matter who's in control?" Isn't it interesting that when you go

to the local levels, the parents want to meet the school trustees right

there. They want to meet with the people who make the decisions, such

as the principals and teachers. What are they going to do now? When

something happens in a district that's really bothersome to the parents

and to the child, are they all going to have to line up outside that

minister's door? He could end up with all these problems sitting at his

door. The tragedy of it is that we all know he won't be able to cope

with it; no minister could. Yet what's going to happen to the people of

that district? Who do they turn to? The local school board, the

trustees, will have to say: "I'm sorry, it's not my decision. The only

thing I can do around here is to try to make sure that I explain your

tax bill to you; that's all. I have very little left to do. I have to

tell the teachers when they have to go. I don't have much to do with

anything else. I can't make the decisions any more." I don't think the

parents in British Columbia are going to be too happy.

The problem and the tragedy of a bill like this, similar to the

other bills brought in by the government, is that the real impact and

the negative effect won't be felt tomorrow, won't even be felt next

week or for several months; it could be over a year before the true

impact hits the parents and the children of the district. I'm afraid

the problem is that this government counts on that. They hope that

somehow they can shove through all these bills in the heat of the

summer, and they're going to get away with it. But the effects are

going to be out there for you all to live with.

Remember, the minister, the cabinet, the Premier and all the

back-benchers are all responsible for this legislation. The NDP will

work to fight it. We are going to do everything we can to make sure

that education remains in the hands of the local people of this

province. We want to be sure that the school boards are not singled out

— nor the educators, nor the children of this province — as scapegoats

for some political move of the Social Credit government. We reject

that. Mr. Speaker, we reject the bill.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Reid

Parks

Ree

Reynolds

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

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It does make one wonder whether there's any

point in getting up and trying to debate this bill on the actual issues

when the NDP have more or less served notice that they intend to block

any and every piece of legislation that this government brings to the

House. That is their intention and we've just witnessed more evidence

of it. After each of their speakers they move adjournment of the

debate; for what purpose I'm not sure, other than to waste more time.

It seems that it's part and parcel of their tactics to deflect

attention from the real issue. The real issue is that there must be a

measure of restraint, and it must be exercised if we are to preserve

the services in this province which include the continuance of a

quality education system.

I suppose it's politically advantageous for one after another of

their members to stand up and say: "That government is anti-education."

This government is not anti-education; this government is

pro-education. We want to be certain that that educational system

serves the children, the students, of this province rather than the

system.

The accusation is repeatedly made that this government intends to

centralize all control over education. That is not the case. Those

members know it, and school boards know it. This bill proposes that

some limits be put on certain portions of school board budgets. I see

that as a measure to preserve quality education in this province,

despite tactics that people might try to use for partisan political

purposes in order to create emotional feelings out in the public. I can

tell you this: these are limits. These are caps that are put on in

certain portions of the budget. This is not legislation to tell the

school boards how to spend every nickel and dime that they get in their

budgets. The member asked if we had no faith in the responsibility of

school boards. Yes, we have a great deal of

[ Page

635 ]

faith in them. Those who are acting responsibly in the interests of the students

and of what the educational system should primarily serve — that is, the students

and the children in this province — will not find these limits onerous. In other

words, they will be able to function quite well without these limits and the

limits will not need to be applied. There are responsible boards out there.

[3:45]

What this bill does is prevent, should someone, somewhere, some

board.... And let's not kid ourselves, there are some elections

that take place strictly along partisan lines, sadly enough, because I

know that the NDP put their machine into every election they possibly

can — municipal, school boards, and so on — to support them. And you

tell me that is not partisan? So it is possible for a school district

somewhere to decide that the biggest emotional reaction might be

obtained from cutting out the special education programs and blaming

the provincial government. These formulas say: "No, you can't do that."

But I think that if you study the formula that has been put forth you

will find that it does allow for responsible management of a quality

education system for the students, not the teachers.

Certainly my background was in education, and I wanted a great deal

of autonomy as a school principal. I felt I was qualified to run that

school. When I was appointed to that position it was recognized that I

must have some qualifications and some ability and some experience and

some skills to run that school and the budget in that school. But at no

time have I ever asked a school board to say: "You can do anything you

like and we will never take a final authority over you." I think any

board has to have a final authority. It doesn't need to be used very

often, but it certainly has to be there, and I would not want any

school district to say: "In the interests of local school autonomy" —

just to use that analogy — "once we appoint a principal he can do

anything he likes and we will never interfere." I don't think that

would be right. I would have never asked for that. I don't think, when

boards stop to think of it, that they are ever saying: "Local autonomy

means that regardless of the educational philosophy, policy and

programs that are set for this province, we want the right to do

anything we please, and no one ever shall have the final authority;

just send money, no instructions." I don't think that will ever happen

in this province or anywhere where a provincial government or a higher

government that has final authority can give that up entirely in the

name of local autonomy.

It is very interesting to note that the socialists have principles,

but they have principles to suit particular occasions wherever they

happen to appear, because here we have local autonomy. The member made

this statement: "Isn't it true," or "would you not agree," or words

to that effect, "that the government closest to the people is the best

one to make the decisions?" In this case, because it is convenient for

them to argue that, they say the school board should be the final

authority.

When we said that municipal councils should have the final authority

to make decisions, then they say: "No. you must impose regional

planning on those councils." In other words, it depends on the

situation as to where their principles lie. Yes, local autonomy, but

only when it suits their purposes.

During the election campaign, on many occasions you heard them say: "Oh,

yes, we're in favour of restraint. We recognize the definite need for cutting

some costs because the poor taxpayers pick up the bill." But then, during

the election campaign, they said to all of the teachers in this province: "If

you will vote NDP we will restore all cuts that have been made in the educational

system, regardless of the economic climate; the NDP are the party that will

make sure that you get the wage increases that you asked for and that you get

anything you ask for." That's what they told the teachers in letters

directly to the teachers, but they didn't tell the public....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, and I happen to still be a member of the BCTF, so I happen to be on the mailing list and I get these documents from them.

MR. LEA: Well, bring it in and table it, because you're not telling the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask the member for Prince Rupert to withdraw the statement.

MR. LEA: What statement?

MR. SPEAKER: That the member was not....

MR. LEA: Oh, that he's not telling the truth? I absolutely

withdraw it, and I hope he'll table the letter so we can see what the

truth is.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll see if I can dig that document out of my files.

MR. LEA: I'll check it against Hansard too.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, check it. The point is, that

statement did get out and there was a statement in there — and I'll do

my best to find that document and table it in this House — which said:

"We will restore all cuts that have been made in education if you will

vote NDP."

MR. LEA: That's not true.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, I'll see if I can dig it out and do that.

I think the point is that they talk about principles to fit the

occasion. They're in favour of restraint in government spending, in

favour of preserving the educational system for students. That's what

they say. But when it comes to the other set of principles which they

use, they say: "We will pay people; we will give them guaranteed

tenure. We'll support that." Regardless of whether there are any pupils

left in this system, you still want the teachers hired. You want the

people in place to be paid full salaries whether or not there are

students to teach. I suppose they are now going to deny that they

support the position of those unions who want guaranteed tenure in the

educational institutions. Let them stand up and say so, instead of

constantly condemning this government.

The statement was made that the funding should not be politically

determined. I'm making the point that that is correct; it should be

objectively determined. Here is a formula that brings in as many

factors as the ministry can to say

[ Page 636 ]

objectively that this is how the funding will take place, not on a

political basis, not on the basis of political abuse. It's a fair

formula, one that is there to try to protect the education system for

the students.

A lot of the arguments used, as were used last year, are that the

only way.... I find it so difficult to follow that education is

better for the children if we pay the teachers more money; that somehow

or other the students are going to benefit if we put in more money.

I'll tell you what students in the educational system benefit from.

They benefit from the many dedicated teachers who are working in those

classrooms and who will not work to rule despite their union

instructions. Those people, when they were told to work only 9 to 3 to

teach this government a lesson.... Many of my teacher friends went

on coaching teams after school and on weekend trips to give those

students an opportunity. They worked with them after school. They

didn't work 9 to 3. They didn't take those instructions, which were for

basically partisan purposes to try to attack this government. They went

ahead and did the job they were hired to do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Good. If you can learn to read, you've got it made. You have the letter; now learn to read it.

If I might go on, there are many dedicated teachers in this province

who are interested in what's best for the students. They do not support

this constant tactic of: "Give us more money. Put more money into it

and that will improve education." It doesn't. It's the attitude of

dedicated teachers that improves education. This has been found out in

many jurisdictions. The United States, over a number of years, simply

poured money into education. If any of you read the report "Nation at

Risk," you will find out that a follow-up study said that in the last

15 years, when more money than ever before was poured into education in

the United States, educational quality went down. So it isn't money and

shorter hours that make quality education. It's dedicated teachers.

What we are trying to do as a government is to say: "We want to

preserve a quality education system in perpetuity — not just for this

year, not for political purposes. We want to keep it in place." You

can't keep a quality educational system in place if you spend so much

on administration and teachers' salaries that you're going to run out

of money and then can't afford to carry on with the basic education

system. So we're looking in long-range terms. To preserve quality

education in this province, you have to say: "Let's go back to the

fundamental principles that make education work" — teachers in the

classroom, not a great deal of spending at the district level, and not

a great deal of extra spending or programs, and so on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can make all the interjections that you

like. You can make all the inaccurate statements that you like in this

province, but the people out there — and I talk to a lot of people in

my constituency as well as in other places — are saying: "We want good

education for our children. We want our educational system to serve our

children, and we don't want it to serve the teachers or the

bureaucrats." What we're doing is putting a lid on funding more

teachers, more bureaucrats, fancy programs, and higher levels of pay

for people. What we're saying is yes, we're doing what the people in

this province are asking, and let's remember what the education system

was designed for. It was designed for the students, and we've got to

preserve it for the students. I think we have many people in this

province who are committed to that cause, and many teachers who are.

They are not all committed to "gimme, gimme more," which their

central organization is trying to give the impression of. I think that

central organization, and some of the lobbying and political activities

of the BCTF, is doing a great disservice to many dedicated teachers in

this province who are interested in the benefit of the kids.

I think the NDP, in this House and elsewhere, is doing a disservice

to many dedicated teachers by saying to their organization, "Join us

and we'll give you what you want, " in the pretence that they're really

interested in the students of this province. If you're interested in

the students of this province, you will try to keep an education system

in place in this province, not just this year, for your partisan

political reasons, but over the next one, two, five and ten years, and

so on. Do not try to use the children and the dedicated teachers in

this province for your own personal political gains.

[4:00]

I would think that if those members thought objectively, just once,

and if they would support this bill; if they would look at this formula

and say: "School boards can operate within these limits....

They're not being told what to spend on a day-to-day basis. The school

boards have far more autonomy than the NDP is trying to make out. They

will have a great deal of autonomy; they will have the right to deal

with the teachers, the schools and all of this. What we're saying is

that if you, instead of putting that money into student programs,

decide to pay superintendents or some of your higher-priced

administrators, for whatever reason, $100,000 a year, then no. You

limit it to whatever amount is sensible. Maybe it's $70,000, and you

give the other $30,000 to students. That is where the money should go:

to the students, not to the administrators.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to admonish the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Brummet) to read the bill. It would have been a good idea, but now

he's rushed away to try to find some correspondence that he managed to

dream up, misquote or something.

If any party in this province has shown by its record, and by its

constant diligence and attention to the needs of children and

families ... it's the NDP. When I see a member of the government

stand up and indicate, somehow or other, that our attention has been

misdirected toward selfish people — and he manages to dream them up, as

he does many other things.... I believe that he was quite right in

his opening remarks, when he said: "It makes one wonder if there's any

use in debate." There is only one use in debate, and that's when you

can stand up and convince somebody somewhere that you have an argument.

That minister convinced no one, in my opinion.

He went on by indicating that what they're trying to do now by this

heavy hand of the Minister of Education is preserve the quality of

education. I'm not sure how you preserve the quality of education by

rolling back for a three-year period to a pupil-teacher ratio of

whatever kind of ratio you want to talk about. If the situation is to

preserve the quality of education, the government should be remembering

what the blazes they've been doing for the last few years. On

[ Page 637 ]

one hand they've been mainstreaming into our school system children

who are usually called "exceptional" children, some disabled children,

some with learning disabilities, some with physical disabilities and

some with other mental disabilities and so on. What does it call for

when one takes this course? It calls for a very much heavier

utilization of teachers. We're not suggesting that we want to hire

teachers and have classes of ten to a class across the board and so on.

We are suggesting that there should be an adequate supply of teachers

in this province to do the job, to actually care for the needs of those

children we're trying to educate.

I smiled to myself when I heard the minister quote an American

situation, saying that they've been pouring vast quantities of money

into the American system and have been getting worse quality as a

result. Have you ever read that particular piece of work? I'm not sure

who did it, but let me tell you that when you use the same kind of

looking at our children from time to time, you're actually just

broadening the system. There are people within the system who had no

access to it before but who now have access. Therefore, when you take

an assessment of the entire group, you could say to yourself that the

quality has gone down; but it hasn't.

Quality is very much an individual situation. There are those who

can meet standards far higher than others can. If you care about the

greatest resource we have in our province — that's the human resource —

then you have to set the standards. You have to set the situation in

such a way as to make it universally accessible. I can't believe that a

minister who was formerly an educator and an administrator in education

would get up here and tell us that it’s just a few people out there who

are dissatisfied with what's going on. It's across the board. It's not

from a few teachers in the BCTF who happen to be the leaders of the

teachers' federation; not at all. It's from the B.C. School Trustees'

Association, from Socred teachers, from a former Socred candidate in

Burnaby-Edmonds who said that had he known what this government was

going to do he wouldn't have run for them. These people over here under

the thumb of the Premier and the cheque-losing Minister of Finance have

the audacity to jump up and say they've got great support out there for

this kind of program. The support they have is because of this mystical

argument about restraint. Believe me, that support is fast waning,

because people are seeing through this whole thing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let me go back to the genesis of this whole question of interim

financing. Let me quote the minister on April 23, 1982, when the

minister was the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith). When

he got up and introduced the Education (Interim) Finance Act, what did

he say? He said: "This bill is an important transitional step between

the old education system and the system of the future." Interesting,

isn't it? "It is a bill that will be in place only until the end of

1984. It will be replaced with a revised Public Schools Act."

MR. LEA: Who said that?

MR. COCKE: The member for Oak Bay, the then Minister of Education. His name was Smith.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it now?

MR. COCKE: It's changed, because he daren't look the public in the eye. I wouldn't say he's typical lawyer, would you, colleague?

I'm just going on with this quote: "The revised Public Schools Act

will be made public during the next three or four months" — that's back

in 1982 — "as an exposure bill for comment." Well. let's say we had

lots of comment on that one, didn't we. "It will embrace a number of

reforms and will set out a framework to cover the education finance of

the school system following the restraint period."

So this bill is the bridge bill, if you like. It's the bill that

takes us through restraint into the new Public Schools Act. What's the

last

section in this bill that we have before us?

Section 61 is

repealed. Does anybody know what

section 61 was in the Education

(Interim) Finance Act? It was the

section that makes it go out of force

in 1984. But we've repealed it here. We're repealing the sunset

provision. That's what it says; that's the explanatory note.

His predecessor, who, it's rumoured, was also a Socred, came into

this House and promised us we had before us an Education (Interim)

Finance Act. Before you know it, we get an amendment. He promised us

that within three or four months of the time that he introduced the

bill there would be a white, green or yellow paper, or something,

floating around this province suggesting exactly where we were going

with education.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation should not have seen the

light of day. I defy anyone to move around this province and talk to

people who are intimately involved in the education process and find

any kind of even near majority that would favour what we have before us

here. We have, as usual, government taking upon themselves the mantle

of complete and total centralization of power and decision-making. You

tell me this is only concerning itself with finance. Ha! That's

everything. He who pays the piper calls the tune. In New Westminster

we're bitter because we're paying the piper and they're calling the

tune. Over 100 percent of the money required for New Westminster School

District is raised there, not here.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right. Not a nickel is coming from

that government. Then they come along and say, "Well, you've raised the

money to operate your school system. Now, as Minister of Education, I'm

going to tell you how much you can spend and how much we're going to

divert into other areas, etc., etc., etc." Pretty heavy-duty. That is

centralization.

There was a man in history noted for centralization; his name was

Joseph Stalin. Somebody over there must have read a book that he wrote,

because they want to centralize, control and have power over everything

that creeps, walks or breathes in this province. Here again we have

before us a centralizing piece of legislation that gives the minister

all power, with just a few lines, because he calls the shots no matter

where the money was raised. "Any board has the final authority," said

the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), and then he ducked out

of here. Can anybody say that with a straight face when he's got this

bill before him? Final authority to what? Quit? We know perfectly well

they're told that they've got to fire a teacher or two, and that if

[ Page 638 ]

they don't the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is going to

dock them 2,000 bucks or send him to jail. We know perfectly well that

the Minister of Education is going to move in on them, despite the fact

that he's loaded them with more work. He's going to tell them: "You've

got to go back to a period three years ago in terms of ratios."

[4:15]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that there have been partisan elections of

school boards in this province worries me as it does the Minister of

Environment. It should. I guarantee that most school boards in the

province are dominated by Socreds, or have been traditionally. Mr.

Speaker looks a bit quizzical and then goes over the school boards that

he knows in his mind.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not in Surrey.

MR. COCKE: I know not in Surrey, and hopefully it won't be....

MR. REID: Not in Coquitlam,

MR. COCKE: And not in New Westminster. You go across the rest

of the province, Mr. Speaker, and the fact of the matter is that there

is very little partisanship, regardless of the politics of the people

on school boards. Most of the people who run for schools boards run

because of their concern for children, and that's why I'm not a dam bit

concerned. I believe that they do.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

doesn't. He says: "If I believed that.... " The Minister of

Tourism, who is noted for keeping on the McKim agency and other

high-ground stuff, shouldn't be talking very much about anybody and

their political direction.

I think that there is a real place for local autonomy. That place

should begin in the school system. You don't have local autonomy with

this bill. The minister also charged that we are maintaining our stance

on another bill that's before the Legislature with respect to local

autonomy and maintaining that there should be some planning on a

regional basis. I'm not ashamed of that at all. I believe that regional

planning, as is the case in regional school districts, should be done

at home and not by the government in Victoria. So what we're doing here

is saying exactly what we're saying there: "Give them the

responsibility."

Certainly there has to be a formula, but it has to be a formula that

can be lived with. What's wrong with the present formula? In the first

place, it was ill-thought-out to the extent that.... It's been

pointed out over and over again to the minister — and he hasn't made

any amendments or suggestions — that if, for instance, you have an

older group of teachers within a district, because of the formula

you're more likely to hang onto them whether or not it's good for your

district, by virtue of the fact that your percentage increases would be

badly affected were you to go the other way. The same thing applies

with high-priced administrative people, superintendents, high-priced

principals and so on. It doesn't make any sense. It suggests to me that

in one fell swoop, along with the other 25 stupid pieces of

legislation, what we have before us again is a minister grasping for

power at the local level; a government that does not trust people at

the local level to make decisions.

I'm going to reiterate what my colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) said. This bill gives extraordinary powers to the Minister of

Education to control school boards. This power will extend to dictating

the amount that they may spend on any specific item in their budget —

not just how much they can spend overall, but how much on any specific

item in their budget. Until now the minister has had the authority,

under the Socred restraint program, only to issue directives relating

to total spending and the special education portion of the budget. The

arrangements established in this bill are permanent. The directives

issued by the minister remain secret and he is not obliged to make them

public.

Well, there you are. If the minister has anything to say about that, let him say it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He might be a nice guy, but he's sure changed

since he became a Socred, I'll tell you. That does it to you all. I can

remember when you weren't a bad........

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I wonder what that voice from the wilderness is

talking about. He never gets up in this House and defends anything. All

he can do is sit there and make loud noises that nobody can understand.

Eventually I'm sure we'll get him to supply us with somebody who can

interpret what he's saying.

MR. SEGARTY: I can't help it if you can't understand my Newfoundland accent.

MR. COCKE: Isn't that brilliant? Honestly, it's one of the

most brilliant things I've ever heard in this House. It's been pointed

out to me that sitting right there in this House is the original

Newfoundland joke.

There will be, as a result of this bill, increased legal costs, increased costs resulting from court decisions....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Because there's going to be litigation. That's why, for crying out loud.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, there won't be. As far as I'm concerned, the

minister has made a mistake. It's not his mistake; we know that.

Everybody was brought into that cabinet room subsequent to May 5 and

they said: "Bring out the most outlandish legislation you possibly can

and we'll push it through, shove it down their throats, and maybe folks

will forget it in three or four years. We're here to tell you it's not

going to be easy. We're here to tell you that we're not elected to come

here and play patsy, summer, winter or fall, to a group that is

bullying people in B.C., and is trying to bully the opposition. We're

just not going to accept this kind of legislation which is so

completely incompatible with the needs of a democratic society. Nobody

knows it better than the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom). A number over there don't know any better, so you can

forgive them, particularly the Newfoundland joke. But some of them do,

and that's tragic.

[ Page 639 ]

People are speaking out all over the province on this bill. I'm not

going to go through them all, but what do we see in terms of headlines?

"Death of B.C. public education." That's an interesting headline.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Crawford Killian of the Province . What's wrong

with him? Do you hear the minister sneering? What Crawford Killian

probably says about the minister is: "The Minister of Education for the

province, ugh." Same tone, same thought. He says: "Trustees can still

negotiate with their teachers, but it will be an exercise of futility."

Is that right or wrong? Certainly, as far as I'm concerned, when I was

listening to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who seems

to know so much about it, it seemed to me that Crawford Killian is

telling the truth here.

Who else have we got? The B.C. School Trustees' Association

vice-president said: "Schools on a three-year backward roll," and

there's a whole

article telling how they feel about it. These are

responsible people. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a bill designed to wrest

the power or authority away from locally elected boards and to provide

that authority to the Minister of Education, who owes his allegiance to

the Premier, and obviously the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is

mixed up in this situation.

I just find it a travesty that we should have to go over and over

the same kinds of bills, hour in and hour out, talking with a

government who won't listen. We're talking to a government that will

not divest any of the authority that they can grab back to the place

where it's best taken care of. Think about it. Local people with local

responsibility have to very quickly answer for their mistakes. What

does the Minister of Education know about New Westminster or its

environs? Obviously the Minister of Environment knows nothing about

Vancouver and its environs. I suggest that what they should have done

is what the former Minister of Education promised he would do prior to

an election, and that is present an entirely new act. He said that he

would have the proposals within three to four months. Here it is over a

year later, and now we're amending that bill with the sunset clause and

removing that sunset clause.

I just wish that we could believe a government that talks out of

both sides of their mouths, but we can't. Here's a government that made

a promise in the opening statement of the presentation of the original

bill. Now, just over a year later, they're totally going back on their

promise. Not only that, but they're not even providing a new sunset

clause. Last time they at least said it was going to go out of force

within a little over a year. Now there's no end to this thing. He

doesn't have to come back with a bill or a piece of proposed

legislation for years to come. He's got the reins now, and whoever is

going to be the next Minister of Education, if this one moves over,

will have exactly the same reins. It is not a healthy situation.

[4:30]

1 could imagine the furor in this House if the NDP had brought in a

piece of legislation like this when we were government. There would

have been pandemonium. There would have been all those charges that we

heard when we brought in excellent legislation. But this kind of

legislation would have brought hysteria to the opposition. We wouldn't

have done it. The pathetic part of it is that you did, and you're

supporting it. You're going to go home and tell them something like old

two-story Jack does over there — the one who has a story for those at

home and one for us down here.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, he's not from Atlin; he's from Omineca. You know, you're getting more like him every day.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sure, it's a survival game, isn't it? The member

for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) says: "It's a game of survival." He admits

going home with a different story than what is being told here. Here,

here, there, there, everything is fine. It's not a very tough piece of

legislation and so on.

Anyway, that's what we see before us. We see a piece of legislation

just a few lines long that gives the minister absolute and total

control. Financial control is total control over every school district

in the province. That's not good enough. That's not what we have a

Minister of Education for. We have a Minister of Education who should

be catering to helping and assisting with his bureaucracy for a better

and more economical school system. But no, it's heavy hand; that's the

easy way to go. Thoughtless, heavy-handed, centralist philosophy is not

good enough.

I want to give the minister time to think over just what he can do

in terms of getting this bill out of circulation. Will he let it die on

the order paper? We can surmise that he could. On the other hand, will

he just withdraw it? I don't think it's amendable, do you? One thing he

could do to show a little sense of integrity would be to include an

additional sunset provision in this bill. In other words, this goes out

of force, along with the rest of the interim finance act, a year or

even two years from now. His predecessor said a year and a half. Now he

wants an indefinite time. Obviously he hasn't got quite the confidence

that his predecessor had.

In order to facilitate all of these things, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Sanford

Gabelmann

Brown

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

[ Page 640 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, is it correct that only 15 members of the opposition voted in the division?

Interjections.

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

government explain whether the Minister of Finance is out grovelling in

the garbage, looking for more discarded cheques?

[4:45]

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, I'm proud to take my place in

debate this afternoon. I know it's not common for the Deputy Speaker to

take the place in debate, but I will this afternoon. Having been drawn

into debate ever so kindly and gently by the hon. member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly), whose opinions I always admire, I felt I should

leap into the breach and maybe explain to members of the assembly the

full implications of Bill 6, the bill before us now.

As we all know, Bill 6 has been most adequately and abundantly

explained to the British Columbia School Trustees' Association. We had

the good fortune to have them in our caucus. It's been explained to

members of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, explained in

depth to administrators throughout the province and in particular to

secretary-treasurers.

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: You want some comedy, do you? Well, I'll tell

you something relating to education. My young daughter, who is in grade

one, is a little slow with reading, but she's catching on. She was

asked to do some reading during the summertime, so my wife got out one

of her old reading textbooks, and my daughter just loves it. It's from

1946, "Dick and Jane." My daughter has never had so much fun with a

reader in all her life. She's reading it religiously every day.

Speaking of "Dick and Jane" and reading, I would really commend to

all members this act and the implications and the statements the

minister has made. In fact, there has been an awful lot of conversation

and dialogue — and when I say "dialogue, " I mean a two-way street —

with respect to this bill and its implications for education within our

province. I would commend to all hon. members who seem concerned about

the lack of negotiation that they talk to the School Trustees'

Association, to members of the Teachers' Federation, to administrators

and secretary-treasurers in particular, and find out how hard the

Minister of Education has worked to explain this legislation to all who

are concerned.

I think the essential thing in this legislation, the thing we all

must consider, which I'm sure all school board administrations have

considered — at least the ones I've spoken to have, the administrators

of School District 57 — is the fact that this act and the attendant

formula proposed by the minister addresses two specific areas. Number

one, the minister is going to have a hard and serious look, and a

formulated look, at education administration. That's clear; and it's

something that has to be taken into account. In my own School District

57, the administration costs, administration staff personnel,

certificated administrators, have in fact increased exponentially, it

seems, far more than the student population. As a matter of fact, in

School District 57 we have as many students in 1983 as in 1974. I can

assure you that the administration costs in terms of salaries and

positions have risen far higher than the student level. At this point

that's a sincere concern of our government; and it's a concern that

must be addressed and is being addressed in this legislation. The other

thing is that, as we did in the previous legislation, the Education

(Interim) Finance Act, we are protecting those special education

programs. I think that's commendable on the part of the minister.

So we are looking at two items: administration costs and special

education. You might ask what school board would be so heartless as to

whipsaw special education children and make cuts there so they could

support administration overruns and increased administration. Well, I

can tell you, lots of them would. It's not a very nice thing to say,

but that has been done. You get a special education group who of course

can get the motherhood support of all those people, of the press and of

school trustees, and school boards, as much as they say they won't,

will whipsaw that and in fact make the government look bad. I had the

same thing happen to me last fall, when the school district

administration in District 57 cut a winter busing program to the tune

of $40,000, a minor amount considering their budget, which is large.

District 57 is one of the big six or seven in the province, and yet for

$40,000 they kept on an inflated and overstaffed administration and cut

out a winter busing program — totally inappropriately, I think.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

That exactly is what this bill does: it tries to address problems

like that and the fact that school boards will sometimes try to whipsaw

the Ministry of Education and the government of British Columbia into

providing extra funds when in fact all they want the money for is

administration. So clearly this bill does identify that we have some

concerns with those administration costs. We realize that most

districts are prudent in their administration, but there are some that

aren't, and I will admit that District 57 is one of those that could be

a little fat when it comes to administration salaries and positions. I

can assure you that that board is looking at those problems.

I was encouraged to hear my good friend the member for Burnaby

North, who as we all know was a previous Minister of Education in

another administration, mention that that government had indeed

attempted to introduce regulations restricting supervisory staff in the

school boards. Unfortunately we don't have those regulations before us.

I think the member would be well served in supporting this legislation

— I'm sure the member for Burnaby North does support this legislation —

to bring those regulations to this House, or at least to share them

with some of us, and indicate how the NDP did support limiting

supervisory and administrative costs. I think that would be commendable

upon the member for Burnaby North, and I would certainly ask her to do

that if she so wishes. It was a good idea then and it certainly is a

good idea now, and I think all of us on this side support the NDP and

thank them for their support for us in this legislation.

The legislation in Bill 6 has been said to take away from school

board autonomy and do all sorts of horrible things and just eviscerate

the whole trustee movement. I really think that's an improper thing to

say. As I said, we are looking at two items only: administration

budgets and special education

[ Page 641 ]

programs for handicapped children. School boards will still have a

great variety of things they are allowed to do, things they have been

traditionally allowed to do and that they still have a challenge to

maintain. For instance, capital facilities: the selection of sites,

design of buildings, renovations, overall planning facilities, busing

and boarding, and community use — something that every school trustee

should be well aware of. They still have total control of programs with

the exception of special ed. They have a responsibility for boundaries,

grade groupings in school, locally developed courses — something, I

might add, that's been very popular in our district is the development

of locally developed courses. They still have the authority to have

elective courses from the provincial curriculum, summer schools, adult

education, special education and many, many other decisions.

I don't think autonomy is being eroded at all. They have the

responsibility for the transfer, evaluation, promotion and dismissal of

staff, the reduction in staff for declining enrolment, and establishing

support staff levels. They are still the paramount authority in school

disciplines. They have the setting of health service standards, and

they're responsible for student attendance. In other words, Mr.

Speaker, I would commend to all members of this assembly that in terms

of what a school board can and cannot do they still have all the

authority that they have ever wanted and should have, with the one

exception of administration and special education programs. I think

this is a good time to be a trustee. It has been asked: what is there

left for a school board to do? I would commend to all members and to

the public, and to new trustees anticipating running for election this

fall, that there are quite a few things they can do. They have all the

autonomy in the world with the exception of those two items, and they

have a large responsibility to do this.

There's no question that education has been a problem since about

the mid-sixties. I mentioned this last year while speaking about

similar legislation. One of the problems was the Pill. At that time we

had a Roman Catholic Minister of Education, and I had to tread on this

one lightly, but I will say it again: the Pill clearly caused a

declining birth rate. The numbers, as I remember them, indicated that

throughout Canada we went from about 475,000 to around 250,000 births a

year, beginning in the mid-sixties. That's a fact of life, my friends,

and there's nothing we can do about it. Those facts are there. There is

a serious decline in that population. Well, of course, that wave that

we continued to expect to come through school didn't come through. When

you have a declining birth rate you're bound to have that falldown. Now

it's natural that school trustees, supervisors, administration staff

and everyone concerned with education are not going to want to see a

cutting back of what they're doing. I think inherent in all of us, when

we get on school board.... As has been mentioned, I was on one for

a term and a half until I had another incident happen in my life that

caused me to have to resign. I was on a vibrant school board, we

thought: good programs, good education system, and producing pretty

well. We had to recognize that we had a declining population, but we

didn't, and as a trustee I'll admit it to you. We didn't want to admit

that we weren't increasing and that we couldn't be ever building and

growing. We didn't want to realize that there was no more potential for

growth, but we had to do that, and we have to do that now.

Essentially, that's what this bill addresses: the fact that there is

a declining enrolment. It's serious, as I've said, and you just have to

look at birth rates. It's happened since 1965.

There's a bit of a wave coming on now, and I understand from our

district and from other districts that there probably will be a little

bit of a bubble in kindergarten enrolment beginning in September 1984,

and maybe in September 1985. This bubble will continue, of course, up

until grade 12. But we have had a declining population for the last ten

years. Even in a growing population like Prince George, the area that I

represent, in fact, the school population has declined.

The point remains that it was a tough decision to make. A lot of us

who should have made those decisions didn't make those decisions in the

mid-seventies and going into the eighties. We couldn't recognize that

we had a declining population. We still kept building schools; we still

kept on hiring teachers. The BCTF, of course — and maybe with some

justification — said: "Maybe we should have a lower pupil-teacher

ratio." That was a good thing for them to say. I guess if I were a

member of the BCTF I would say the same thing, but we all know why they

said it. They wanted to increase employment for their membership.

That's commendable if you're looking at it from that point of view, but

it's not commendable if you're the taxpayer who has to pay for lowering

the pupil-teacher ratio. And it really didn't happen. We didn't get a

lower pupil-teacher ratio in the classroom. What we did was we provided

more supervisory staff and other certified people and applied it to a

PTR, which brought it down to 17, but, in fact, the net result in the

classroom was that there are still classes of 25 to 30 students, and

that more money is being spent on certified people doing non-teaching

and, in some cases, non-productive functions within the school board.

That's the big concern that faces us now as governments, and I think

that we have to recognize that.

Essentially, this bill says: "Let's put those services back into the

classroom, " Not that librarians aren't important, not that many other

functions aren't important, but students in the classroom are, and they

have to be served. That's what this bill attempts to do. Let's take it

away from the administration — all these functionaries running around

doing this, that and the other thing; program advisers, you name it —

and get back to teaching in the classroom. That's what this bill

attempts to do, and I'm sure all members are aware of that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence, and I thank you, hon.

members. I am supporting this bill, and I would urge all other members

to do so.

MRS. WALLACE: After listening to the member for Prince George

South, I'm glad that as Deputy Speaker he doesn't participate too often

in the debate, because he certainly makes a much better Deputy Speaker,

as bad as that may be, than he does a participant in this debate, where

he comes in and brings us a Dick and Jane approach, something that is a

long outdated approach to education. That's about where that member is

sitting: a very stereotyped view of education and very far removed from

the actual things that we're dealing with here today. When I hear him

talk about what happened in Prince George when he was on the school

board, I don't wonder that those things happened if that was the kind

of approach that he took. Those things are not happening in 99 percent

of the school districts in this province, where school trustees are

really working to cut down on their administrative costs. He talks

about getting rid of the librarian. I guess he doesn't think that kids

need a library. They don't need to read.

[ Page 642 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: How about the chairman of your district?

[5:00]

MRS. WALLACE: I guess you're talking about your telegram, Mr.

Minister. I would just like to talk about that telegram, as a matter of

fact, because you were next on my list. I heard you reading excerpts

from the telegram, and I heard you mention that it was signed by the

chairman of the Cowichan School Board. That twigged in my head, because

I knew I had a copy of that telegram. Talk about selective reading! I'm

going to take the time of the House, because that minister just read a

couple of lines from the telegram; I'm going to read into the record

the entire telegram. It's a telegram to the Minister of Education dated

June 18, 1983:

THIS LETTER REPRESENTS THE CONCERNS OF A NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

WITH RESPECT TO SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCING AND THE EFFECTS OF SUCCESSIVE APPLICATIONS

OF RESTRAINT.

THE BASIS OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT INEQUALITIES IN THE CAPACITY

OF DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS THAT WERE IN PLACE BEFORE RESTRAINT

STILL REMAIN AND INDEED HAVE BEEN WORSENED.

THE INEQUITY IS KNOWN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND TO YOUR OFFICIALS.

INDEED, SOME DISTRICTS HAVE ADMITTED TO HAVING MORE FUNDING THAN IS NEEDED TO

MAINTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIVE TO PROTECT JOBS.

HOWEVER MANY DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDING. THERE

ARE REASONS THAT CAN BE CITED FOR THE INEQUITY.

HISTORICALLY, FRUGALITY OF SOME DISTRICTS WAS MORE FORCED THAN

CHOSEN. IT TENDED TO BE MORE OF A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF THE ASSESSED VALUE

PER PUPIL THAN A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO BE FRUGAL.

IN 1981 A BASE WAS CREATED WHICH PRODUCED AN EXAMPLE OF SOME

DISTRICTS WITH A PER-PUPIL COST IN THE $2,800 RANGE HAVING A MILL RATE OF 55

MILLS AND OTHER DISTRICTS WITH A PER PUPIL COST IN THE $3,500 RANGE HAVING

THE SAME MILL RATE.

I think the minister will agree that this is the same telegram.

WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW FINANCE FORMULA IN EARLY 1982,

BEFORE RESTRAINT WAS APPLIED IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE ILLUSTRATION, RECOGNITION

WAS GIVEN TO THIS INEQUITY OF THE $2,800 PER PUPIL COST DISTRICT HAVING A SIGNIFICANT

REDUCED MILL RATE WHILE THE OTHER REMAIN AT 55.

THE NEW FINANCE FORMULA (60, 30, 5, ) WHILE IT RECOGNIZED THE

INEQUALITY, DID NOT ALLOW DISTRICTS TO ADJUST THE MILL RATE TO ENSURE EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUPILS AMONG SCHOOL DISTRICTS. RESTRAINT MEASURES WERE IMPOSED

ACROSS THE BOARD IRRESPECTIVE OF HISTORICAL VARIATIONS AMONG DISTRICTS.

THE MINISTRY, IN APPLYING RESTRAINT IN THE SPRING OF 1982, ALLOWED

AN INCREASE IN BUDGET WHICH DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT

(1) DECREASES IN PUPIL

ENROLMENT

(2) DIFFERENCES IN COST PER PUPIL OR

(3) THE PERMITTING OF SCHOOL

DISTRICTS TO INCREASE THEIR MILL RATE (I.E. BACK TO 55 MILLS) TO PROVIDE EQUALITY

OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY.

FURTHER PROPORTIONATE REDUCTIONS IN AUGUST 1982 DID NOT TAKE

EXISTING INEQUITIES INTO ACCOUNT EXCEPT IN A MARGINAL WAY. AS AN EXAMPLE, AT

$2,800 PER PUPIL COST THE REDUCTION WAS $1.2 MILLION AND AT $3,500 PER PUPIL

COST, THE REDUCTION WAS $1.3 MILLION.

IN 1983 THE RESTRAINT PARTIALLY ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM BUT THE

NET EFFECT WAS TO INCREASE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOW- AND HIGH-COST DISTRICTS.

THE NUMBER OF TEACHING POSITIONS IN ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS WAS PROTECTED REGARDLESS

OF DECLINING ENROLMENT IN MANY, THEREBY REDUCING THE PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO IN

DECLINING DISTRICTS AND POTENTIALLY INCREASING THE PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO IN DISTRICTS

THAT WERE NOT DECLINING.

THERE IS A SOLUTION THAT COULD BE PUT INTO EFFECT ON A PHASED-IN

BASIS IF NECESSARY OVER THE FISCAL YEAR 1984.

Here, Mr. Speaker, begins the minister's quote:

THIS WOULD BE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM-BASED BUDGETING SYSTEM

THAT WOULD INCLUDE AN EQUITABLE FRAMEWORK FUNDING STRUCTURE, THEREBY ENSURING

FUNDING THAT WOULD TRANSLATE INTO EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUPILS ACROSS

THE PROVINCE.

Then he skipped some more, Mr. Speaker. He skipped this part:

THIS SYSTEM HAS ALREADY HAD CONSIDERABLE WORK DONE ON IT WITH

THE MINISTRY, AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT IT WOULD BE FAVOURABLY RECEIVED BY MANY

SCHOOL DISTRICTS WERE IT IMPLEMENTED AS IMMEDIATELY AS FISCAL YEAR 1984.

Then he began to quote again.

THE NEED FOR CONTINUED RESTRAINT AS EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTER

OF JUNE 8, 1983, IS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED.

End of his quote. The telegram goes on:

THIS GROUP IS SEEKING MERELY A MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF

OPPORTUNITY, NOT NECESSARILY INCREASED PROVINCIAL EXPENDITURES.

[ Page 643 ]

INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAY HAVE FURTHER SPECIFIC CONCERNS

WHICH THEY WILL LIKELY ADDRESS TO YOU.

THIS GROUP IS EAGER TO MEET WITH YOU AND YOUR STAFF IN THE MINISTRY

AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS THIS LETTER OF OUR IMMEDIATE CONCERNS WITH RESPECT

TO FUNDING IN 1983, AND WE ANTICIPATE THE PROSPECT OF YOUR MOST FAVOURABLE RESPONSE.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that was very, very selective reading and did not give the intent of that telegram.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm quite prepared to table this draft copy, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Draft?

MRS. WALLACE: This is a copy that I had to have phoned down here because my file copy is in my Duncan office.

MR. REID: Maybe it's not correct.

MRS. WALLACE: I have another copy. I'm quite prepared to

table it, Mr. Speaker, but I would prefer that the minister table it

and then you would have the original document.

MS. SANFORD: He said he wouldn't.

MR. HOWARD: Did he quote from it?

MRS. WALLACE: He quoted from it. I think the rules of our

House are quite clear, Mr. Speaker. When you quote from a document you

are required by the rules of the House to file that document.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm quite prepared to file mine. Yes, I'll file it right now.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I'll ask permission of the House to file it when I'm finished then. I think I can file it now; we're in second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member asking leave to table the document?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet),

who is no longer in the House, spoke of his support of this bill, and I

was interested in what he had to say, particularly inasmuch as when a

similar bill was presented last year, the Education (Interim) Finance

Act, he spoke on the bill. He said at that time: "I support the basic

principle of this bill. I'm not entirely happy with everything that it

does, specifically to the people in my constituency. However, I will

not accept that I have done nothing simply because I have not gotten

involved in a partisan political debate." This is the now Minister of

Environment, who was talking about this bill when it was presented last

year. He goes on to say: "Some of our back-benchers have been working

diligently to try to resolve some problems...." The point that I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is that he didn't like the bill at the time. He goes on to say:

I think there is a solution in this bill. There is the basic

principle of restraint and there is an attempt at equalization. I'm quite

prepared to discuss that the intent did not come out quite as it should have

because of the calculation, a point that is overlooked time and time again in

this province. We look at averages, and those average figures, particularly

in unique circumstances, are meaningless.

I think the Minister of Education would be well advised to pay

attention to his colleague who talks about the meaninglessness of

average figures. Because when you use averages, you run into some very

real problems.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) referred to the

former Minister of Education twice removed — not the last one but the

one before that; they keep revolving like whirling dervishes — who said

when he introduced this bill: "This bill is an important transitional

step between the old education system and a system of the future. It is

a bill that will be in place only until the end of 1984. It's a

bridging bill." Those were the remarks that he made, and that same

Minister of Education, in his introductory remarks in the "Report on

Education" which he filed, was talking about the hearings which he held

around the province:

"At both the professional and public forums that I conducted

I was impressed with the dedication and sincerity of members of the educational

community who presented superb and thoughtful briefs. I will always be indebted

to teachers for their openness and for the creativity they displayed in their

presentations. Also I'd like to commend the administrators and trustees

who made strong and positive contributions. And finally, I'm grateful to

parents and members of the public who cared enough about the education system

to make their views known."

That was the assessment, Mr. Speaker, of the local elected

officials, the teaching staff, and the parents and public generally by

that former, former Minister of Education, when he conducted his tours

around this province.

What has changed so suddenly? Why are school boards and trustees suddenly wastrels

of the public money? Why has it become so important to ensure that we really

put our thumb on them and make very sure that they behave themselves? Why are

we not paying any attention to the parents who are concerned about the status

of their children's education? What has changed all of a sudden? This was

the sort of assessment that that minister gave of the general participation

from the public, and the stature of the school trustees and their interest and

concern and abilities. Yet suddenly we have come to this interim supply bill,

which was supposed to be phased out. It was supposed to be a bridging piece

of legislation. We were supposed to have a new School Act which was going to

really deal with the problems, be based on the work that was done in these public

seminars, and put to use some of

[ Page 644 ]

the information that was gathered and spoken so highly of by the

Minister of Education. But instead of that, we see that all scrapped,

put to one side, and we have this interim finance bill brought in

that's supposed to be phased out in one year. Here we are now

discussing not just having it for another year or two, but having it

for who knows how long — forever being enshrined in lasting legislation

that will go on and on.