1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9531 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act For The Protection Of Video Display Terminal Operators (Bill M210).

Ms. Sanford

Introduction and first reading –– 9531

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

Mr. Ree –– 9531

Mr. Hyndman –– 9531

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9536

Mrs. Wallace –– 9540

Mr. Kempf –– 9541

Mr. Strachan –– 9544

Royal Assent to bills –– 9545

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

Mr. Strachan –– 9545

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Assessment Authority annual report, December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9545

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT FOR THE PROTECTION OF

VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINAL OPERATORS

On a motion by Ms. Sanford,

Bill M210,

An Act for the Protection of Video Display Terminal

Operators, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the Day

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

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

(continued)

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, last evening I was in Burnaby North attending a meeting.

At that meeting three teachers came up to speak to me; they advised me

that they supported this legislation. They are pleased to see that we

are taking leadership to bring to an end the disturbance that has been

going on between the school boards, the teachers' union and the

government to bring forward, with leadership, restraint in the

educational field.

Mr. Speaker, at that meeting these

teachers also indicated and confirmed what I had mentioned yesterday,

and that is the intimidation they feel at various union meetings. They

confirm that the majority of the teachers are conservative. The

majority of them wish to get on with education — teaching the young —

but they are frustrated because of the actions of a minority group that

is strictly interested in political disruption in the province through

the means of teaching ideology to the students. Mr. Speaker, in

addition to these teachers I received an excellent representation from

the group at the meeting in Burnaby North, a group that is dedicated to

our philosophy of free enterprise. I'm confident that when the election

call comes we may see some changes in Burnaby North. There will be a

good battle in that constituency, Mr. Speaker.

When I was at

home in the evening, before retiring, I was watching the news and I saw

a TV advertisement put out by the Teachers Federation.

MR. KING: That was very perceptive of you.

MR. REE: Yes, it was perceptive. Mr. Speaker, that advertisement on

TV is a lie. It seriously misrepresented the situation of education in this

province. It represented this government as having no interest in education,

no priority for education, and as not directing any money toward education in

this province. We have more money allocated by this government towards education

today than at any other time. There's more money directed towards primary

and secondary education than ever before in the history of this province. and

a larger percentage of the budget goes towards education. As I indicated yesterday,

the top priorities of this government are for health and for education. This

government has led the way since 1976 in that area. with a larger percentage

than between 1972 and 1975 being directed by this government now.

Mr.

Speaker, this TV ad, as I say, was a lie. It was an example of the

leadership of the teachers' union. They are out to misrepresent to the

people of this province what is actual fact. Their leaders, as I said

yesterday, are nothing more than radically orientated to political

glorification. I don't think this bodes well for the students of this

province. Therefore it is my pleasure to stand and support this bill

and the action being taken by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm). Regardless of what was said in the newspaper the other

night, I strongly support that minister and commend him for the action

he has taken.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Vancouver South.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I'm a little perplexed at finding that

none of the members of the opposition across the aisle, who purport to

have a very serious interest in this topic — there are a number present

this morning — appear prepared to carry on the debate of this very

important bill this morning. I'm very happy to stand down, should, for

example, my good friends the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

or the member for MacKenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who look fit and ready

this morning, care to rise and deliver a few more words on the topic —

or the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). She's chirping away from

her chair.

I think Hansard should note that on this

important Friday morning when we're debating this education bill —

although I'm very pleased to follow my colleague for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) — the members of the opposition have

chosen not to state their position on this very important piece of

legislation. Perhaps they can reflect on that. I know the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has a consuming interest in these

matters. I hope we'll hear from him this morning. We have the weekend

coming up and the chance for our citizens to read and reflect on the

proceedings in this chamber this week. I'm sure all of us on this side

of the House hope and expect that members of the opposition will stand

this morning and outline, perhaps for the first time, some of the

positive views of the NDP about educational policy in this province.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MR. REE: They don't have any.

MR. HYNDMAN:

My colleague from North Vancouver–Capilano says they don't have any.

The other night I was reading the comments of the education critic for

the NDP, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in the

Blues. I had read through them because I wanted to glean the positive

elements of the opposition's point of view on this particular bill.

What struck me as unusual was that in going through the comments of the

education critic of the NDP I found line after line of negative attack

on the content of the bill before us, real or imagined, but nowhere in

all those pages could I find a single I me of positive policy statement

as to what the position

[ Page 9532 ]

would be of a NDP government with respect to restraint in education, education funding generally or the bill before us.

hope that before this debate is over other members of the official

opposition will recognize this vacuum and deficiency in the record to

date of the opposition with respect to the content of this bill. I hope

some members of the opposition will rise and, for the first time in

this debate, outline in positive form the particular positive steps an

NDP government would take, if elected, with respect to the current

situation in education and the content of this bill.

As I

said, the words of the education critic of the NDP are heavy on the

attack, criticism and the negative, but there is not a single positive

line or statement among them as to what the NDP opposition would

specifically do today with respect to the economics of public education

in this province. We hope that that happens before the debate is over.

Much

has been made of the relative priorities attached to education by the

NDP in opposition and the Social Credit Party as government. One is a

little confused when listening to the opposition. For example, some

months ago we heard repeatedly that health was the number one priority

issue of the NDP in opposition. This week it is asserted that education

is the number one issue for the NDP. As I said, we have yet to see

specific numbers or specific policy proposals on how these things would

be funded and by whom. With respect to the government, the record is

certainly very clear in terms of the budget and the priorities. This

year's budget, which was introduced in the spring by the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), very clearly set forth, in numbers, the

priorities of this government. We're not ashamed of the fact that our

first priority in the budget is health and health care for British

Columbia. This year our budget proposes spending $2.2 billion on health

care. The number one priority, the number one spending department of

our government, is health care for our people. Education ranks number

two, at $1.7 billion, if you include universities and colleges under

the Ministry of Education. So the record of this government is clear

with respect to those who wrongly suggest that education is not

important to this government. Education is extremely important to this

government. As a priority, it was allocated a huge amount of funding —

$1.7 billion. It is second only in importance to health care. The $2.2

billion for health care and $1.7 billion for education together total

about $4 billion, which is about 60 percent of the provincial budget.

Therefore I think the priorities of this government are very easy to

see. It cannot be said that education is not a priority of this

government. It is a very important priority if $1.7 billion of

provincial revenues are being devoted to education this year.

Even

though the debate on the bill before us must be concerned with

restraint in these difficult economic times, the fact is that within

the debate and the education sector and the educational system

generally, teachers this year, in spite of difficult economic times,

are receiving more, and are going to receive more. The overall

education budget presented by this government this year proposed a rise

of almost 8 percent. Teachers generally across this province, in the

last year, have had average wage increases of 17 to 18 percent;

notwithstanding any modest reduction in those figures which may flow

from the bill before us, those teachers will enjoy very significant

wage increases this year as compared to last, wage increases which

many, many British Columbians would be pleased to have by comparison. I

think our teachers are deserving of reasonable wage increases. I also

think a very high percentage of our teachers recognize the need for

restraint and readjustment in these difficult economic times.

Speaking

not only for myself but for all of my colleagues in caucus, there is no

question that we recognize not only the importance of education as a

priority in public policy making, but that we also recognize the

importance of the role which educators play, which teachers, the BCSTA

and its members, the BCTF and its members, will play in our educational

system. It's a little easy in debates such as this to assume that every

one of the teachers, the educators, the BCSTA, the BCTF, may think in a

certain specific or narrowly defined way; in fact, Mr. Speaker, I think

the alternate is the case. I think the very high percentage of

teachers, educators and educational administrators, of members of the

BCSTA, of school trustees, of the executive of the BCTF, are at one

with the government and their fellow citizens in realizing that these

times call for reappraisal, readjustment and restraint. I believe that

the general thrust and direction of the bill before us, a framework for

restraint for education in late 1982, has the support of reasonable and

commonsense citizens, reasonable and commonsense teachers and

educators, and reasonable and commonsense members of the BCSTA and the

BCTF.

In broad perspective I think we have to remember that

the bill before us is a very sensible and carefully-thought-out piece

of legislation that fits not only within the government's general

economic program but also within the three basic budget objectives

outlined by the Minister of Finance in the budget this spring. I would

like to quote from page 19 of the official budget document as presented

by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance outlined three

basic objectives which the budget of this government seeks to achieve

this year. The bill before us is a step towards meeting those

objectives in the field of education. Those objectives were, first, to

"protect and enhance the quality of public services in our province,"

second, to help "ensure that restraint is shared equitably among all

British Columbians," and third, to "provide economic stimulation in the

short term, while building the economy for the long term." When dealing

with those objectives, Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely clear that in

principle the bill before us strives to protect and enhance the quality

of public services in our province. The bill before us seeks, through

an essential readjustment of teaching salaries, to provide that the

basic quality of educational services in the province is protected and

enhanced.

Secondly, as the second part of the budget, the

bill before us in principle will help to ensure that restraint is

shared equitably among all British Columbians. I am certain, Mr.

Speaker, that that very high percentage of fair-minded teachers in

British Columbia — who are also citizens in the general sense, and

taxpayers — recognize the need for some equitable readjustment, as

economic times have developed, of their own particular income

situation. The readjustment contemplated by this bill, which has been

calculated in the order of about 4 percent, is certainly fair,

reasonable and equitable. I have not heard any teachers say that they

believe they should be somehow excepted from the general restraint

readjustments that are being cast upon all of us. As I say, I think the

high percentage of teachers are fair-minded, reasonable and more than

prepared to carry their fair share of economic readjustment in these

times.

As a third goal of the budget the Minister of Finance

stated that the budget would provide economic stimulation in the short

term, while building the economy for the long term.

[ Page

9533 ]

Mr. Speaker, it's certainly clear that this bill is

part of a larger social and economic framework within which the present

government seeks to put a reasonable lid on government spending. The

ultimate objective there, of course, is to ease the load in years ahead

on the provincial taxpayer, be that taxpayer a citizen or a business.

To the degree that load can be eased, that citizen and that business

will have left to spend the economic capacity to regenerate the

economic engine of this province. The bill before us is thoughtful and

careful, and it fits within the basic economic objectives of the budget

as set forth by the Minister of Finance in the spring.

There

has been a lot of debate both in the media and in the corridors of this

building, and to some degree in this chamber, about the bill before us.

As I've listened carefully, it seems to me that most of the debate is

not about the essential principle or thrust of the bill — which is to

provide some leadership and a fresh framework for readjusting the

public funding of education in this province in these difficult times;

I think there's little dispute about the need to do that — but about

alleged difficulties in implementing the very simple piece of

legislation before us. I think that reflects the fact that even those

who would oppose this bill for their own narrow purposes realize the

essential wisdom of the basic philosophy and thrust of the bill. They

in fact must agree with it. Therefore they are driven to argue about

alleged difficulties of implementing portions of the bill as they

perceive it. The argument is that it is not workable, or that it will

create impossible problems at the local school-board and school level.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I simply think that that is not the case. With the

greatest of respect to the BCTF, the BCSTA and the public educational

system of this province, if a much larger and more complicated

organization — and I'm speaking now of the BCGEU — can in a responsible

way come to a very responsible settlement with the provincial

government, and then quietly and constructively carry on and work out

how that settlement will be implemented for 40,000-odd professional

public servants, with a myriad of job classifications, all across the

province, surely the mechanics and procedures by which this bill and

its principle are put into effect in the field of education can proceed

in the same way.

There is another good North American

example of the need to reappraise and readjust in these difficult

times: the United Auto Workers and the Ford Motor Co. recently

reappraised and readjusted their major employment contract, having

reached agreement in principle on how that readjustment would take

place. If the UAW — a huge North American union — and the Ford Motor

Co. — a huge multinational organization — can, in a quiet and

constructive way, work out the implementation of the details and the

mechanics, of putting into effect that reappraisal and readjustment

that they negotiated, then surely in the field of education in this

province school trustees, school boards, the BCTF, school teachers,

administrators and the Ministry of Education officials can quietly and

constructively sort out how this bill will in fact be translated into

practice.

I think those who continue to argue that this bill is somehow impossible to

put into effect or, alternatively, that it can be put into effect only with

tremendous damage and difficulty.... I disagree with those views. The people

who argue that way are going to have to persuade many citizens how their argument

holds water in face of the fact that larger and more complicated reappraisals

and adjustments have been settled and are now being put into effect quietly

and constructively. As I said, two very good examples are the BCGEU settlement

and the recent major settlement between the United Auto Workers and Ford Motor

Co.

It's clearly a time when all citizens are going to have to work together

to put reappraisals and readjustments into effect. Families and households are

doing it day after day in this province and across this continent. The good

citizens of 100 Mile House voluntarily got together some months ago and did

the very same thing for their community.

I'm

absolutely convinced, as I have said, that the great percentage of

teachers., educators, educational administrators, members of the BCTF

and the BCSTA are also prepared, in that same constructive way and

spirit, to work to find the ways to translate this bill and its

principle into effect.

As I see it, the fundamental

principle of the bill is very simple: it comes right down to

job-sharing. What I think the bill provides, in simple terms, is an

ongoing quality of educational services in this province — which the

members of this government certainly want to see — that in these

difficult times is best provided through job-sharing; in this case, by

under which they provide their services. That modest readjustment

should provide for a sharing of jobs in the teaching field across the

province, so we can maintain our level of service and employment. The

concept of job-sharing is certainly the way we have to go if, at the

end of the tunnel, we are to provide some reasonable relief to the

taxpayers and maintain a reasonable degree of educational service and

quality. and if we are also to provide some reasonable job security for

those in the teaching field.

In simple and clear terms, one

of the important things this bill does is to assure teachers in this

province that their jobs are secure, that they will be there in the

future. Until the introduction of this bill there was considerable

doubt and concern in the minds of many teachers about what the future

held in terms of jobs and job security. With this bill the government

has clearly set forth — in simple terms, and very frankly — its

approach and philosophy towards seeing that jobs for teachers are

preserved for the future, through the simple process of job-sharing.

That principle of job-sharing is one which will likely be with British

Columbians for some time in the future. Neighbour-to-neighbour,

community-to community, it's happening around this province formally

and informally.

There's been some suggestion that in the

case of this particular bill it is somehow wrong because, it is argued,

this bill is arbitrary and centralizes power. Well, my answers to those

suggestions are these. Given the structure of public education in this

province, with about 75 school boards around the province, it is

humanly wrong to expect that all 75 school boards could all at once

come up with a single, coherent, magic solution to the very difficult

problems of getting through a difficult budget year. This is a wide and

diverse province. It has about 5 school boards of differing

circumstances. In difficult economic times like these, there is a

strong argument not only for leadership by government at the provincial

level but also for leadership that must take the form of the provincial

government standing up clearly, boldly and firmly, and saying: "This is

the best course, as we see it, to get us through these times." Perhaps

it is the case that, to some degree, there will be some centralization.

There will be temporarily, to some small degree, some loss of local

autonomy. Nothing in this world is perfect, and these times require

differing approaches. But whatever philosophical, temporary and, I

think, not large cost there may be on account of

[ Page 9534 ]

those

items, they are surely small in comparison to the benefits which this

bill will achieve. They are the benefits of having — at last — a clear

and forthright statement of position and philosophy by the government

as to its approach. The bill before us provides and shows direct and

clear leadership in difficult times.

Listening to friends

opposite, one thinks back to their time in government; one thinks back

to images of how the educational system in British Columbia fared from

1972 to 1975. By contrast, one asks: "Was there a simple, clear and

direct concept of leadership coming from Victoria which let British

Columbians and educators know the philosophy and the direction that

public education was taking under the NDP government?" I think the

answer, Mr. Speaker, is that there was not. There was some kind of

rolling chaos, typified by the travels around the province of Dr.

Stanley Knight and his pronouncements from the Mount, from the ferry,

from the airplane, on the airwaves, finally culminating in his public

firing — on television by the Premier — to the surprise of the then

Minister of Education, who was in the province of Quebec. During the

years 1972-75 educators, administrators, teachers and pupils were

absolutely at sea — confused and lost — trying to chart for themselves,

to figure out in the fog, what the apparent course of the then

government was with respect to educational policy. It was absolutely

rolling chaos, and I think the record shows a tremendous disappointment

to educators, teachers and others in the educational system of the

province.

By contrast, Mr. Speaker, this bill before us sets

forth in very simple, clear and direct terms the position and the

philosophy of this government with respect to educational financing and

educational policy in these difficult economic times. What we've not

heard from members opposite — and I sincerely hope that before this

debate concludes we will hear it — is some clear statement of what the

NDP would do in these times with respect to education and the issues

before us. We've heard lots of criticism, but I defy members opposite

to put a speaker up this morning to quote from the Blues or Hansard ,

since this debate opened, a single line of constructive, positive

policy that the NDP would implement to deal with education in these

difficult times. We have had platitudes and ongoing criticism of the

government's policy, but we have not had specific alternative proposals

that would permit our citizens and our voters to compare. That is what

we should be hearing from members opposite, and we're not. They're

against, they're against, they're against. I challenge them to rise and

tell us, in dollar figures and number terms, how they would approach

educational financing in this province in these difficult times, and

more importantly, Mr. Speaker, to tell us where the money would come

from.

It was interesting last week when the Leader of the

Opposition was before the Union of B.C. Municipalities and generated

out of his hot-air machine the job-creating program that was somehow

going to consist of borrowing against anticipated future revenues, in

some magic way that BCPC would perform.... The public wasn't fooled by

that. They saw through it. The speech was a bust. The media weren't

fooled. That party opposite, bankrupt of ideas, offers nothing to the

people of this province but the remortgaging of their own hot air.

That's all you can do. That's all your BCPC proposal would do. It would

remortgage the hot air that you generate talking about your future

plans.

Interjections.

MR. HYNDMAN: The

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is chirping away, and I know

he's going to stand up as soon as I sit down. He will, I know, in a

very constructive way, give us his personal, constructive, individual

agenda of positive steps he would take with respect to educational

policy.

MRS. WALLACE: He already has. Where were you?

MR. HYNDMAN: He can move his amendment, and do it again.

I challenge the next opposition speaker up to read back to this House from the Blues or Hansard ,

from the debate since it opened on this bill, a single line of clear,

positive, specific policy on behalf of the NDP. There are many lines of

negative policy, lots of platitudes, but not a single specific

statement. Therefore the only choice the people of this province have

in weighing the approaches of the two parties in this House with

respect to education — in the absence of specific new proposals by the

NDP — is to look at their past record, 1972 to 1975, which, as I have

said, were years in the field of education in this province of rolling

chaos, of travelling experiments, of absolutely no clarity, consistency

and focus, of no guideline from Victoria. In these economic times, by

contrast, this government is providing, through the bill before us, a

simple, direct, clear and straightforward message of this government's

approach to dealing with educational issues in these times.

Some

critics and editorial writers take some exception to the bill before us

and find things wrong with it, and that's their right. But I would

rather be part of a government and a party prepared to put forward

clear and forthright solutions, and have them analyzed and discussed —

and yes, criticized — than be part of a group so desperate to return to

power that it would be timid and afraid to advocate anything specific,

anything approaching a platform, and would take the view that the best

service its members can offer to the debate on public education in this

province is a constant and carping criticism of what the government is

doing, in the hope that somehow they can avoid being called to account

for their position and policies. Before this debate is over, I think

there is an obligation on members opposite to stand in their places and

specifically outline in simple and direct terms what the educational

policy of the NDP will be. In specific and financial terms, how much

money will you spend and where will it come from? That, I think, is

what the public has yet to hear from the NDP.

To the degree

that those members don't agree with the restraint policy of this

government and want to spend more than is now being proposed, we'd like

to hear about the impact of that on property taxpayers in this

province, for whom just months ago members opposite professed such

concern and called for such relief. Members opposite certainly know

that when advocating the spending of more and more money on education

in this province, some portion of it has to be borne by the small

business taxpayer and the residential property taxpayer. To the degree

that you rise and call for greater spending than the government

proposes, we'd like to know what impact it's going to have on the

property taxpayer and the business property taxpayer. If not from those

sources, are you going to borrow some more money? If so, why?

If, as you say, you're going to shut down a number of the major job-creating projects in the province, and if you're

[ Page 9535 ]

against

B.C. Place, Expo, northeast coal and ALRT, how do you square that with

your call for job creation? The people opposite, at 2:30 each day, are

calling for action on jobs, and at 3 o'clock are calling for the

cancellation of the projects that create the jobs. Every Tuesday and

Thursday the Leader of the Opposition rises after question period and

asks for an emergency debate on job creation. Every Tuesday and

Thursday morning his colleagues have been against ALRT, northeast coal,

B.C. Place and Expo '86, which are job-creating projects. You can't

have it both ways. That's the kind of thing the NDP has to sort out,

first of all in their own minds, and then say it to the public of this

province. The public of this province are not so gullible as to be

taken in by that kind of smoke and mirrors approach.

Similarly

with respect to the debate before us, the public of this province will

not allow the NDP to get away with its approach so far to this bill,

which is to criticize, criticize, criticize. You tip-toe around your

obligation as the official opposition to rise and specifically outline

in clear and simple terms your formula for public education in this

province — how you'd finance that formula, where the money would come

from. Members opposite, Mr. Speaker, have yet to do that in this

debate. They have a very heavy sense of obligation so to do.

There

is a lot of election speculation around. I suppose only the Premier

knows if we're going to see an election. Certainly the public of this

province, the editorial writers, the analysts, the media, to the degree

they think an election is coming, want to be able to weigh the relative

approaches of both parties. This bill before us is a very clear, simple

and direct statement from the government as to its philosophy and

approach to dealing with education in the current climate. We have yet

to hear from members opposite, from the NDP, who, in the two-party

system we have in this House today, have a heavy responsibility as the

official opposition to outline, in similarly simple, clear and direct

terms, their policy, their program. We have yet to hear it. As I say,

they are heavy on the criticism, but we have yet to see the individual

pieces of a specific NDP program for education and for financing that

program. We should have it.

For example, if members

opposite, as they've inferred, object to what will happen to teachers'

salaries with respect to the bill before us, they must rise and state

specifically in figure terms what they believe teachers should be

receiving in these times, and how that will be financed. We should hear

those numbers. The questions to the opposition with respect to

teachers' salaries in these difficult times are: What are your numbers?

What are your income proposals? How will you finance them? We should

hear those numbers. Before this debate is up, I think the teachers of

this province deserve to hear from the NDP specifically what their

proposed numbers are for teachers' incomes and salaries, and how those

would be financed.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, one aspect of

the bill before us today deserves very important comment, and I'd like

to touch on it. It's the topic of teachers' pensions.

The

question of teachers' pensions was of very grave concern, and very

proper concern, to teachers and retired teachers in this province

during 1979 and 1980 in particular. The legislation before us makes a

very important statement with respect to those pensions. We do not

propose, as part of our approach to restraint and readjustment in the

educational field, to touch or diminish, or in any way prejudice,

teachers' pensions and the teachers' pension funds. The contribution to

those pensions by the provincial government continues at its previous

level. That's a very important statement by this government. We

recognize that to teachers still active in the field, teachers

approaching retirement, teachers now retired, pension planning and the

strength of the teachers' pension fund is tremendously important.

think the government has been very wise not to look to teachers'

pension funds as a necessary part of the readjustment and reappraisal

of the economics of public education which must take place in this era

of restraint. The fact that teachers pensions are preserved and

protected, the fact that there is going to be no reduction in the

provincial contribution to teachers' pension funds is a very important

statement as part of this legislation. It is a good example of

something which is not specifically stated in the bill. and therefore

is a statement by virtue of not being specifically dealt with. Those

pension matters are not touched by the bill before us; therefore the

provincial share of pension contributions will continue. Teachers need

not worry that their future pensions or their pension fund will become

part of readjustment in the period of restraint. That fact is very,

very important.

We're dealing with the current time and current teachers. Just to

summarize, the bill before us, which is very simple in its terms and

wording, has, as I say, in substance few critics in this province. To

the degree there are critics, they seem to be people who either choose

not to oppose for their own purposes, or who know it is unwise to

oppose, the fundamental concept of the bill, which all British

Columbians must surely agree with: the need in these times for

readjustment and reappraisal with respect to education in the public

sector. The criticism seems to be of the implementing or working out of

the details of the proposed bill. I think the effective answer to that

is, important though education is, and complicated and sophisticated

though educational policies and procedures are, that this is a

time when large organizations encompassing thousands of jobs for

individuals in complicated fields are, in fact, working these things

out. If the BCGEU can now very constructively and quietly, with GERB,

be setting about the working out of how you implement the recent

settlement — fairly simple in concept — surely in the field of

education that kind of working out of the mechanics can also take place.

If Ford and the

UAW in the United States, two enormous organizations, can reappraise

and readjust in a time of restraint, and now be quietly and

constructively working out the details of their reappraised program,

surely in the educational sector here in British Columbia we can set

about the same matter.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This bill most certainly does

require some centralizing direction from Victoria. I think that in

these difficult times, with 75 school boards around the province and

the urgent need for some clarification and direction from government,

our citizens support a clear and forthright statement at the provincial

level as to the philosophy and direction we shall be taking. That kind

of statement implies, of necessity, some authority from Victoria and,

to some degree in the short term, some centralization, The world is not

perfect. I think that teachers, students and families of school pupils

out there would all agree to accept this kind of thrust and direction,

if for the medium and long term it was the correct step to take — and

the correct step it most certainly is.

[ Page 9536 ]

concluding, I think we should also remember that our teachers,

educators and professional education administrators aren't just, in the

narrow sense, professionals in the educational field. They're also

citizens and taxpayers of this province. To the degree that this kind

of policy direction is a step towards relieving the burden on our

taxpayer and providing a better economic climate for our future, then

in a very broad sense, the bill is a step in the right direction.

know that a number of the members opposite are now anxious to rise and

outline, in specific terms, all the details of the proposals of the

official opposition. I sit down and look forward to those remarks.

MS. BROWN:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm rising under standing order 42(

l) on the first opportunity afforded me to correct statements made by the

second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) in his speech.

That

member accused the members for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and me of not participating in the

debate. I would like to correct him. I know the record will show that

all of us participated in this debate yesterday. If that member would

spend less time using the taxpayers' money on extravagances for himself

and more time in the House, his comments would be more accurate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members are familiar with the provisions of standing order 42, which are very clear.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I simply want to say that in my

humble learning and experience, participation has always implied the

saying of something useful and constructive.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we will now continue with debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I'm very pleased to rise and speak to this bill, as both a Member of

the Legislative Assembly and as one who has had two children go through

our educational system. I'm really disappointed that the members

opposite have not, as my colleague from Vancouver South has so aptly

presented in his arguments for this bill.... He has expressed his

disappointment, which is really the disappointment of all of us, not

just as legislators but as parents in this Legislature. We have not

seen the constructive debate on this very important piece of

legislation that the children of our province deserve. You see, what

we're debating here is the education and future of the children of

British Columbia who are living in this era and who will be in the

educational system in the next few years, and who are indeed in the

classrooms this morning. It's really sad to know that there have not

been constructive ideas given from the opposition side of the House.

There is no question that this is the kind of bill in which

constructive criticism could be given and could be added in terms of

giving ideas to the government. Surely that has to be the absolute

total responsibility and total commitment of every legislator in this

House, no matter what political party or philosophy they represent,

when we're dealing with the children of this province.

It's a great disappointment to know that the only thing that those members

opposite can come up with is a policy of fear, conditions of insecurity, suggestions

of cuts and suggestions of irresponsibility for teachers and children alike,

which is a terrible example for citizens in this province to give to the young

people of this province. I refer to the members opposite, some of whom are quoted.

I quote the very first reaction from the education critic for the opposition.

His very first criticism, which I will quote from the Vancouver Sun , when this

bill was presented to the people of British Columbia was: "The member from

Vancouver Centre says that...Lauk will be reporting today to fellow opposition

MLAs about aspects of the bill that he believes could completely usurp the power

of school boards, increase taxes for homeowners and allow the dismantling of

some programs for disabled students." If that isn't the politics and

policy of NDP fear and negativism.... I can't think of anything more

descriptive of negativism and lack of policy than that paragraph.

First

of all, let me just say this: it was this government that brought in

in the school room. Don't tell us — members of the NDP and members of

the opposition — that we don't care about education, and don't tell us

that we don't care about education for the disabled and for the

handicapped, because we were the ones that initiated that service in

this province in this government's time of responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

For the first time, we were able to bring disabled students into the

classroom. Before this they were getting some kind of education —

perhaps sometimes by correspondence, perhaps sometimes by a visit from

a teacher or a volunteer — if they were lucky and if they were

accessible to that kind of program in their particular community. Since

this government's CHANCE program was put in — which has, by the way,

been tripled in terms of dollars since its initiation — we have been

able to bring an education to handicapped in the classroom, where they

will be able to have interaction with non-disabled students and their

colleagues and friends in the community.

Our Ministry of

Human Resources puts someone in the classroom. Our Ministry of

Education gives a special education to them in the classroom setting

for the first time, Mr. Speaker. Isn't it incredible that in the 1980s

we can say that for the first time! This marvellous socialist

government of three and half years, 38 months, didn't put that in, when

all over North America that program was being initiated for the first

time in the very late '70s. The socialist government that had the

capability of putting it in then didn't. They now cry that it will be

cut out. They now cry and put the psychology of fear into those people

who have burdens enough to carry, in that they have and care for and

love a handicapped child. The education critic in this House would put

in a statement of what he calls fact to the news media, the broadcast

media, that we are going to cut programs for disabled students.

am going to tell you why this bill is before this House, Mr. Speaker.

It's just so that this kind of thing cannot be done in this province

and so that a few people, such as the B.C. Teachers Federation, who

want to play politics.... The union hierarchy of the teachers wants to

play politics by putting the fear of God into those parents. It is so

sad to threaten them with taking away the disabled programs, to make

those threats. That's why the bill is before us. That's one of the best

reasons this bill is before us — so that it won't happen. So that

people like the education critic for the NDP, and other NDP members,

aren't able to go out and say: "If

[ Page 9537 ]

you

go along with what the Socreds are doing, the handicapped will not have

the service that was put in. They're going to cut it out." They talked

about cutbacks for handicapped. That's the best reason we should all

vote for this bill. If they vote against this bill they are voting

against retaining, securing and ensuring that we have a service and a

policy which ensures that those handicapped children will be looked

after, so that no one will play politics with those handicapped

children.

That's the most important part of this bill, in my

mind but I see other reasons why we should vote for it. I see a whole

bunch of other reasons.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The member opposite says: "Thirty million dollars." Sure, that money is

very important. We're in a period of restraint. Just this morning I was

talking to one of the people in this province who have a very difficult

time surviving in this economy. In fact, I believe that the member, who

is not in the House today, yesterday made reference to the same person

as having been in his office. This gentleman, who is in a part of the

forestry industry, was here in this building to talk to both the

opposition and the government side, to everybody he could reach,

because he wanted to know where he was going to go this winter and what

he was going to do. I think there was reference in the House to that

gentleman earlier in the debate, and perhaps yesterday afternoon. When

you're talking to people like that, you know what kind of restraint

they are under.

If the NDP could come up with any criticism,

if the socialists in this province could come up with any criticism at

all.... I don't want to be in the position of giving them their

arguments, but if they wanted to make any criticism they could perhaps

talk about the sanctity of an agreement. The agreement that was made

with the teachers, the settlement that was made long before anyone knew

what the problems of this nation were going to be, was for a 171/2

percent increase in their wages. That's a very healthy increase. It was

settled and it was something they were looking forward to. If any

argument could be made at all by the socialists in the House it would

be that, well, there was an agreement; let's keep the agreement. Nobody

in this nation would rather keep all agreements than this government of

British Columbia — none.

We would all like to be able to

keep the agreement with the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who

has just been outspoken in the House in this debate. I always listen to

him very quietly. I notice that he's interrupting again during my

address to the House. We would like to have kept the agreement with

him, but we have all in this House taken a decrease. In our communities

we have seen people who have not only taken decreases in their wages,

but who are very happy to take no increase at all just to keep their

jobs. We have seen people with businesses who are just awfully pleased

to get their staff together and say: "Look, can we just all hold the

line? We're not going to be able to have the increment that you've had

in past years. We've got to share a little and do a little bit better."

That's what they've been doing, and they've been doing it right across

the board. We've done it in the government service and in all of those

areas in which public funds are being expended.

Now we're

saying to the teaching profession.... I have talked to people in the

teaching profession who have not been upset. Many teachers, some in my

own family, say: "I don't want to see a teacher laid off in my school

to keep me working." I have had people in my own family say: "I would

rather take a decrease in pay, as difficult as it is in these times,

with mortgages to pay, with children to raise and all of the problems

that we have, than see one of my colleagues have no job at all." I

think that is what is going through the minds of the teachers out

there. It may not be going through the minds of the executive of the

B.C. Teachers Federation, but I suggest that they are not

representative of the teaching profession in this province.

Again,

if I can refer to the gentleman I spoke to, who has his problems with

the economy today, he would be so very pleased to have had a 17.5

percent increase decreased even to 10 percent, 9 percent, or 1 percent.

He would be glad just to be working. There's where the comparison is.

This

is not an ordinary time. This is not a time when we can say well,

because somebody said that it is to be so.... At the end of the month,

the end of the week, the end of the year, the bottom line is: where is

the money going to come from to pay the bill? The Leader of the

Opposition says there's all kinds of money; he's going to give it all

back. He didn't say that to the BCGEU: he was very silent. The silence

was deafening during the whole of the negotiations with the B.C.

Government Employees Union. Where was the NDP? Where were those members

during that time? Silent. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we heard nothing

from that side. The Leader of the Opposition was having a holiday in

California. He didn't come out and say that he would retain the

dollars. He didn't say that he was going to give all the money back.

Isn't

it strange that he takes only one segment of the public service, not

those who work in the hospitals or in the public service? He's now

taking the teachers. He says that they, through the BCTF and their

executive, have been such loyal people — not the teachers in general,

but he can use the avenue of the BCTF, which has become a terrifically

political organization.... Now, of course, he can be outspoken. On

Monday, September 20, the Leader of the Opposition made a tour of

colleges in the Okanagan and spoke to faculty members: "Barrett told

faculty members that the first thing he would do if in power is restore

all budgets." Fascinating! He'll restore all budgets. Tell me how at

any time the socialists in this province could have top budgets to

restore the kind of security that this bill gives to the teachers in

the province of British Columbia. That opposition, when they were

government, were unable to restore budgets to anybody, let alone

when.... They talk irresponsibly in opposition. Their record is clear.

It is there for all to see. We all know what 38 months of socialism did

in this province; we also know what it did to education. Let me address

my remarks to that.

The record in education is clear. Since

we became government we have been a government that cares about

education. We have made provision for the funding of 90 percent of the

B.C. school costs for 1982. That's something that has come about

because of this government's caring for education. Another thing that

has been brought forward is the adoption of the provincial core

curriculum, which not only the children in this province wanted but

also the parents wanted. We have 100 percent financing by the

provincial government of colleges and institutions.

Has

everybody on the other side of this House forgotten that. when they say

that we on this side of the House don't care about education? When

they, were giving their politics of

[ Page 9538 ]

fear

in reference to this bill, their statements of irresponsibility about

the first partial funding for independent schools, did they forget

about that? Did they forget about the day when they exited from this

chamber and refused to even discuss independent schools, because they

wouldn't take a stand on independent schools in this province? It's

hypocrisy to, on the one hand, tell us that we don't care about

education, when they didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up

and be counted in this House when a division was called when the people

were debating independent school funding in this province. They didn't

have the intestinal fortitude then, and they don't have the

political.... Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be very careful of my wording:

they don't have the political integrity to tell the people of this

province that this bill retains the kinds of things education is all

about.

In this province we don't want education by fear and

education that at some point is going to have some disabled child taken

out of the school, because it's the most emotional exception they can

make. We don't want to have people taking out programs, and then

sending notes home to the children that they're going to do thus and

so, because they know the parents will get all upset. That's not the

kind of educational system we want in this province.

It's

obviously the kind of educational system that that socialist party

wants, though, because that's the total argument they have given

throughout this debate, and which they give to the public through their

public pronouncements. It's so sad that politics has become so

polarized in this province that the people of this province —

particularly the children in this province — are being used as pawns

for the furtherance of the socialist party in this province.

MR. COCKE: Tell us about the secret service, Gracie.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

When it comes to talking about education in the province of British

Columbia, the only thing that opposition can do when they hear the

facts of education is talk about anything that they can dredge up in

terms of the kind of politics they know everything about. They're

exceptionally good at the kind of politics that they have put forward

in this province for the last seven years. I think it's interesting

that they get so unsettled and upset. I think it's a great tribute to

our side of the House that every time we talk about education, or any

of our policies and job creating programs, they get so shaky and upset.

It's fascinating. It's a tribute to us. I'm delighted that every time I

get up the member for New Westminster and the members opposite get so

excited, because it's a great tribute to us.

As far as our

commitment to education is concerned, it was this government that

between 1976 and 1982 created the Justice, Pacific Marine Training,

Pacific Vocational and Open Learning Institutes, the Emily Carr College

of Art, and Kwantlen, North Island, Northern Lights, East Kootenay and

Northwest Colleges. Is that not commitment to education? The creation

of the Knowledge Network, which is a great tribute to the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).... There's

been a tremendous expansion of vocational and technical — training

programs. I must again highlight the CHANCE program, which has been

such a good program for the handicapped.

I would also like

to say that per-student education costs have gone from $1,824 in 1978

to $3,283 in 1982. Is that not a commitment to education? It's an

80-percent- increase commitment to education. One would think that with

that kind of increase in spending the enrolment would have gone up

dramatically. But has it? In 1981 the actual enrolment in British

Columbia public schools was 503,371, and in September 1978 it was

517,786. In other words, there was a 3 percent decrease in enrolment.

What were staff increases in this province during the same period of

time? There was a 3 percent increase between 1978 and 1981. But in 1978

professional staff was 28,866,

whereas in 1981 it was 30,435. That's a

5 percent increase. When one thinks that we have more money being

spent, more professionals in the field and fewer students being taught,

one has to think that we have a commitment to education which has never

been seen before in the history of this province.

I want to

address myself to those teachers and what they are getting from this

bill. They are getting a sense of security. They are now getting, after

all of the rhetoric, after all of the politics being played by the

socialists in this province — the politics of fear that they've tried

to put forward.... Our Minister of Education has come up, with his

colleagues, with a program which will give, in this period of

restraint, the sense of security and the peace of mind which every

teacher needs in this province today. They do not need to go into that

classroom and worry that perhaps they won't have a job come

Christmastime or the beginning of the next semester. They don't have to

go into the classroom and concern themselves that they are going to

have to perhaps take out a program for the handicapped, as they have

been told by the socialists in the province. They don't have to start

their day on Monday morning and concern themselves with whether or not

they're going to have to be out of work the next week, whether or not

they may get a little slip in their paycheque telling them that a third

of the school is going to be laid off. That was the threat that was

made.

Mr. Speaker, I was very sad to read this comment. The

first comment that came from the representative of the School Trustees

Association, who called the legislation "half a loaf," was that they

were dismayed — dismayed at losing their power to lay off teachers. How

incredible that anybody should want the power to lay off anybody in

this province, or in this nation, at a time when the downtown in the

economy.... It's one of the saddest commentaries on our society I have

heard. Talk about cynicism. Talk about hardheartedness. Talk about the

cynicism of the socialists, who are supposed to have hearts of gold.

How sad! How sad that the old CCF heart of gold, which I believe in,

having known some old-time CCFers in my lifetime.... I really believe

they had that. How sad that the New Democratic Party has come to the

point that they are so hard-hearted that they would in this time when

Canadians throughout this nation are just hoping that they can hold on

to their jobs and their sense of security, pay their bills, be able to

raise their children to have a good education, have health services,

have help for people and provide help to other people by work.... How

sad that there's someone in this province or in this nation who wants

the power to lay off — initiated by a group of socialists who have lost

their commitment to humanity and their commitment to the people of this

province, that they've been given the responsibility to fulfil by being

elected as the loyal opposition in this House. It's a very sad

commentary on any group of people in this society.

The

teachers then have a sense of security today that they didn't have.

They have yet to give up something. Instead of a 17.5 percent increase,

they're going to have to take something close to a 13.5 percent

increase. I understand that it's

[ Page 9539 ]

interpreted

as about 4 percent less than they were getting. A 13.5 percent increase

is half a loaf? Oh but that some of the people in this province who are

out of a job today in the forest industry could have half a loaf. If

that's what half a loaf is. Oh but that some of the people who in the

private sector have had to make some very hard choices, and in some

cases have to work seven days a week in order to make their businesses

pay, could have just half a loaf. Some half a loaf!

We have

asked them to give up five of their professional days. And there's been

a lot of discussion about the professional days. I think that in a time

of affluence, a time when everyone wants the ultimate and the best for

everyone, this province, this nation, could afford those kinds of

things. I don't think that it was good for us to have the ultimate all

through those times, to be honest. I'll tell you quite frankly that the

people who run businesses in the private sector have to find those

kinds of professional days on their own hook. They have to go back to

school on their own hook. They have to pay for sales seminars and

professional seminars. They have to reach out. Sometimes they have to

travel. They have to pay for themselves. I don't think it was the best

idea that the former Minister of Education in the socialist government,

the NDP government, who were here for 38 months making policy.... I

don't think it was a very good idea that they made it possible for the

teachers in this province to have professional days. I think if I would

have had the opportunity to vote on that, I would have voted against

that. I don't think that teachers even wanted to have time to learn and

to improve their profession, but it was done. It was one of those

things we could have afforded, one of those things we did afford. We

could have afforded it in a time when we weren't in a restraint program,

Mr.

Speaker, whether you agreed with that or didn't agree with it, that is

something we can't afford in times of restraint. We just simply can't

afford it. This bill says we can't afford it. So we're going to ask you

to give that up. That's five days. They have had the opportunity to

give up those five days voluntarily — or three of them, or four, or

whatever will fit the school budget in each and every school district —

and to their credit, there are more school districts — the percentage

is larger — who have voluntarily done that than have not. It certainly

gives proof to what we on this side of the House have all said: most of

the teachers, and most of the people in the educational system, want to

work within the system to preserve it and to be sure that their jobs

are kept, because they have willingly given up those professional days

on their own.

We have said that at the other end of the

school year.... The Minister of Education has asked that they return in

order to take down some of that 17.5 percent increase — take it down,

so that they give back those five days. I think that that, considering

that there are doctors and government workers in this province who have

said that they will cut their loaf of bread to suit the economy, is a

fairly reasonable request to make.

What is such a good thing

about this bill.... My colleague from Vancouver South has made

reference to it. It has preserved everything for the teachers intact.

When they come out of the restraint period they will have everything

intact that they have now, even after the bill is passed. I think that

what we have seen in all of this debate.... The power that people want

— the power to lay off others — has been taken from them. That to me is

probably the best thing that our Minister of Education has done. He has

said: "We will not let you play politics with this bill." This bill has

said that he will not allow teachers to be threatened. He has said: "We

will not allow students to be threatened." He has told the teaching

profession what we on this side of the House believe: that we have a

teaching profession that is indeed professional. They're not a group of

people out there....

I know and have met so many teachers in

the classroom and in the community who.... All they want to do, Mr.

Speaker, is the right thing by those young people who are in their

hands for most of the day. They have the capability and they have the

professional ability to do just that. What they have going for them,

which the socialist side of the House fails to recognize, is that they

also know that they are not just dealing with the educational part of

that child's life, but with the whole family and the whole child. They

are dealing with the fact that they are serving youngsters who are

coming out of families who do not have a job, who do not have a place

to go to work, who do not have a paycheque at the end of the week or at

the end of the month. Do you think that teachers who have given their

lives serving the educational needs of our youngsters in this province

are oblivious to the fact that the parents in this province are not

having a difficult time? I don't believe that.

I don't

believe for a moment that they are so cold and unfeeling that they

would buy the politics of fear being put forward by the socialist side

of the House, throughout all their protestations and all their public

pronouncements that they don't care about the families they serve.

That's what these people are taking for granted. They know nothing of

the restraint that is being exercised in the private sector. I can't

think of any group of people that knows more about what is really

happening in the real world than the teaching profession in our

province. The educators know because they see the results of a child

who comes to school and is perhaps just as worried as his mother and

father — sometimes there is only one parent — that they are out of

work. Don't think that doesn't show up in the classroom. Don't think

there isn't a professional and human attitude among those teachers that

can pinpoint when a child is worried. That shows up first in the

classroom, probably more clearly than in any other part of the

community.

I want you to know that I support this bill

because I have faith in those teachers who see those youngsters come

through the classroom. I support this bill because I know that our

Minister of Education has preserved those teachers' jobs and their

sense of security until we can come out of this downturn in our

economy. I think we're going to be the ones who are first out of the

recession. We were the last in, and we're going to be the first out.

hand in hand with those people who think of each other and not just of

their political party card — the doctors, the government workers, the

teachers and the private sector in our province — who together are

meeting a difficult time. Together we know that above everything that

the NDP can give them, above everything that the socialists can promise

them — dollars they don't have, dollars they were never able to get

when they were in government — this recession will end when all of us

get together and see that it ends. We will come out of it together

intact, with the most vibrant and best future for the children. This

bill addresses the children of the province by providing opportunity

for the young people, security for those who will teach them and

security for the future, because that's where our future lies.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat.

[ Page 9540 ]

MR. KEMPF: Just like a groundhog out of a hole!

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, we can't seem to do anything right, according to that

member over there. If we get up to speak he tells us to sit down

because we're wasting time, and if we don't get up to speak he urges us

to get up to speak.

We've had a lot of people participate in

this debate. We've stated why we're opposed to this bill. For some

reason the members on that side of the House seem to want to do a lot

of talking about this bill. It would appear that they feel a need to

try to explain their position to the public, to the school trustees,

who have asked that the bill be pulled for a while, to the parents, who

are concerned about what is going to happen to their children in the

system, and to the teachers. It would seem they're concerned about

whether people have accepted this bill for what they say it is. If

they're going to keep on talking, I guess we're going to have to keep

getting up and reiterating our arguments. We were hoping we'd have an

opportunity to vote on this bill and move on to something else.

MR. KEMPF: Where have you been all morning?

MRS. WALLACE: I've been right here, listening to what's been said — to the rather dubious arguments.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Have you understood what's been said?

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, no, I haven't really, because it doesn't make much sense. The

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) gets up and talks

about there being no disabled in the public school system until this

government became government. I don't know what she uses for research

or where she gets her facts. I think she must make them up. Her

argument is incredible when she makes statements like that, because we

all know it's not correct.

The government is often fond of

talking about its triple-A financial rating. This bill has not a

tripling but a crippling effect. If I had to grade this bill, I'd give

it a triple-C rating — a triple C-minus. It's a triple C because it has

created confusion, centralized control, and it will cause cutbacks in

the educational system. All those things are minuses — three minus

points.

The confusion is out there. All you have to do is

pick up a paper, or read the letters or telegrams that are pouring in.

The whole educational system is in a state of confusion. School boards

have been asked to change the goalposts four times. They have tried

three times. This is the fourth time. This bill was introduced on

September 27 or 28. On September 17, the Minister of Education sent out

a news release stating that 74 of the 75 school districts, in

compliance with the restraint orders, had sent in their plans. The only

one that didn't have a plan in the hands of the ministry on September

17 was the school board in Vancouver, where some court case is going on

as to the legality. Twenty-five of those districts had made the

necessary savings without teacher layoffs.

MR. KEMPF: Is that the way the socialists would want them to settle?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The Chair must at this time advise the hon.

member for Omineca that he will have an opportunity to participate in

the debate, but when the present member has concluded her remarks.

Until then, the member speaking has the floor and will be accorded the

rights due her.

MRS. WALLACE: I seem to have a very bad effect on the member for Omineca. Every time I stand up to speak he starts screaming.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I learned my language from you, Mr. Member. We know what he said.

The

school boards, school trustees and teachers were working out solutions.

I would point out that those school trustees are democratically elected

groups representing the local people. The heavy hand of government is

now stepping in, creating more confusion.

That brings me to

my second C, which certainly is centralization. We're moving in a

direction where local autonomy will be gone under this bill. We're

going to have the little dictator in Victoria telling us what little

Johnny and Mary are going to learn in school, what courses are going to

be offered, and what the whole setup is — a complete removal of local

control. That minister who is now the Minister of Education has been

trying to enforce the county system on this province for as long as

he's been in this Legislature, and now he apparently thinks he's found

a way to slip it in through the back door. That's really what this bill

is about as far as centralization goes. That control is a dangerous

sort of thing.

The Minister of Human Resources talked about

the great things they've done for community colleges. What they've done

for community colleges is to centralize that control, with the result

that those college programs are choked to death and some college

campuses are closing down. That's the record that they're trying to say

is such a great record as far as community colleges go. She talks about

figures and dollars. That's the inclination on that side of the House

all along. They forget to mention that they've confiscated 80 percent

or 90 percent of the tax base. It's just ridiculous. They talk about

the number of dollars they're giving to education. When they've taken

away that local tax base from commercial and industrial properties,

naturally they'll have to give more dollars. That was the concept they

said they were trying to introduce. To then stand up and compare

today's dollars with last year's dollars, or the previous year's

dollars, on the basis of the changed tax base, is not even like

comparing oranges and apples, it's like comparing oranges with kittens.

There is absolutely no relationship. They're not even the same type of

product.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The third

C, of course, is cutbacks. They try to tell us there are no cutbacks.

The most disturbing thing to me in this bill is

section 10, where it

says no cutbacks will be made in special education programs without the

consent of the minister. Those programs have been so starved by this

government in previous years that most of them are already paid for at

the local level. Now, when they've lost their tax base....

Let

me tell you what has happened in Cowichan. Last year the special

programs asked for $2.799 million. They got, from this very generous

government, $1.66 million, about half of what they asked for. They went

out and raised

[ Page 9541 ]

the

money locally to establish those special programs in the Cowichan

School District. Thanks to the dedication of that local school board,

which was determined to see those programs continue, they had

maintained them all. This year they asked the government for $3.2

million. Last year they only got $1.66 million. Do you know what they

were told they can have this year? They were told $1.6 million, a

reduction from what they got last year. Now there is no way, in an area

where we have 28 percent unemployment, we can go out and raise that

money locally.

The alternative school is one example where

they had.... I don't know what the minister knows about that

alternative school, but that is an excellent program. A lot of the

children in that program are referred from the courts, or they are

children who have.... It was introduced by the local school board and

eventually financed by the provincial government, in part through

the.... Well, originally, prior to the Social Credit years, it was

financed in part from the Attorney-General's department. That funding

has been withdrawn now and it's strictly Human Resources and Education.

But be that as it may, it still was being financed. They had asked for

$154,000. That has been reduced to $70,000 and only $14,000 has been

approved from the Ministry of Education. When our representatives

phoned the Ministry of Education over this they said: "Don't worry.

You'll get a $56,000 grant." I can only assume that's from Human

Resources, which means $70,000 for that alternative school program and

only $1.6 million for a $3.2 million special education program.

Yet

this bill says that they can't cut those programs without the consent

of the minister. How can they run those programs if the ministry isn't

prepared to help finance them? You're just not prepared to finance

them, yet you say they can't cut them. What is the school board to do,

Mr. Minister, when you tell them they cannot cut those programs and at

the same time you don't give them any money to operate them? That's the

catch-22 that the school districts are in. That's the situation that

the educational system is in in British Columbia as a result of what

that minister has done, changing his mind every five minutes since he's

been appointed to the Ministry of Education and finally having to be

told by the Premier — and now he's over there for advice again — what

he's supposed to do. His commitment to education is non-existent. He

has no understanding of the complexities of the educational system.

This bill is simply compounding an already confused situation by adding

to the confusion, centralizing the control and causing more cutbacks.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're the only one who's confused. How many teachers do you want laid off?

MRS. WALLACE:

Why do the school trustees want more time to consider this? The

confusion is there. You people can talk all you like in this

Legislature, but I suggest to you that you're going to have some

difficulty selling this bill to the public, because this bill has

nothing to offer that will improve the educational levels in this

province.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I'll ask the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to

come to order and not interrupt. The minister has been allowed to

participate in this debate. has done so, and no further comments are

necessary.

MRS. WALLACE: Those two ministers over there at the front of the House seem to be very twitchy and very concerned about whether or not....

Interjection.

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

MRS. WALLACE:

Those members over there thought that they could create some kind of an

issue against the teachers on this thing, and get us involved in that

some way. What we're looking at, and what we've always looked at, and

what we'll continue to look at, is the overall educational system and

the standard of education. If you want to know what we would do.... You

know perfectly well what that is. We would maintain the standard of

education at the level it has been in this province, the level that it

was brought to while we were in government.

Your cutbacks

would be just a bad memory to the people of this province, and that's

what you're going to be one of these days, Mr. Minister.

Mr.

Speaker, I've given this a triple-C minus rating. I think I was wrong.

I probably should have given it a triple-D minus rating because this

bill is divisive, it's dictatorial and it's disastrous.

MR. KEMPF: I wasn't going to get up in this debate....

AN HON. MEMBER: You were ordered to.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, I'm not ordered to do anything, unless it's by the constituents whom I serve.

wasn't going to get up in this debate, but it is quite obvious,

particularly from the debate of the member that just took her place,

that the socialists have taken a lesson from their leader. For the last

three weeks the leader has been virtually absent from this House. He

hasn't entered into any debate. He's been absent from every debate that

has taken place in this chamber. Once again, he's absent on education,

as many of their members are, time after time. At least in debate on

other bills they have gotten up in this House, although the debate has

been nothing but rhetoric. At least they have had nerve enough to come

into this House and debate the issues. This morning we've seen speaker

after speaker get up from this side of the House and espouse, through

debate on this bill, the philosophy of this government and of this

party in regard to education. We had one little lonely member from

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Wallace) get up and give her ten minutes' worth.

That's all we've had from the official opposition this morning on Bill

89. There is only one member from that side of the House that has the

intestinal fortitude to get up and say what their policy is. Of course,

even that member didn't espouse policy, as far as the socialists

opposite are concerned, in regard to education.

Mr Speaker,

only 11 members — and you can check your list — from that side of the

House in total have had the intestinal fortitude to get up and debate

this bill, and we have been on it for several days. Even the education

critic from that side of the floor — it's in the record of Hansard

— spent 10 minutes on a bill they say is going to ruin the educational

system in British Columbia. Eleven out of 26 socialists dare to get up

and espouse their philosophy in regard to education

[ Page 9542 ]

the province of British Columbia. If the philosophy is such as outlined

by the member who just took her place, I don't blame those socialists

opposite for not getting up. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't believe what I

heard that member say. She said that 74 out of 75 of the school

districts in the province of British Columbia had settled before the

introduction of Bill 89. That may be true, but I want to tell you that

only 53 out of the 75 settled without layoffs of teachers or other

staff and without cutting of essential programs in the educational

system. If that member for Cowichan-Malahat is a spokesman for the

socialist opposite in what she said, and she espouses a philosophy that

accepts the settling of this dispute with layoff and cutting of

programs, then I don't blame those people on the other side of the

floor for not getting up. Maybe she's the leader, because we haven't

had that other individual who says, out of the House, that he is the

leader of that rag-tag group of socialists over there. Maybe the member

for Cowichan-Malahat is the leader. I don't know. She seems to espouse

the philosophy of that party over there. Their philosophy seems to be

to settle at any cost, even with layoffs and cuts in programs.

Twenty-one

school districts settled before the introduction of Bill 89 with cuts

in staff and programs. That's not good enough for this government.

That's not good enough for this party. We brought in Bill 89 to ensure

that the students of British Columbia would retain the programs that

they're being offered, and to assure the teachers of British Columbia

that they would retain their jobs. For those reasons alone, I stand in

support of this bill.

MR. COCKE: You're filibustering your own bill.

MR. KEMPF:

Filibustering our own bill! You wanted to debate the very problems and

issues in the province of British Columbia so badly, yet only 11 out of

26 of your members have seen fit to get up and debate on this

particular vital bill and subject in the province of British Columbia.

I say shame to that party. Only 11 members opposite have attempted to

tell the people of British Columbia where they stand on restraint.

MR. COCKE: Why don't you get a job?

MR. KEMPF: I've got a job, and I'll have it a long time after you're gone from this House. That I can assure you of.

They

fail to have the intestinal fortitude to stand in this House and tell

the people of the province of British Columbia where they stand on

restraint and education — 11 out of 26 members of the socialist caucus.

They don't want to debate this subject. They don't want to let the

people of the province of British Columbia know where they stand. But

it slipped out in the debate of the member for Cowichan-Malahat, whom

we smoked out this morning. She was finally pushed forward by her

colleagues, saying: "We have to say something. Get up." She said it

all. She said that 21 out of the 75 school districts who settled and

whose settlements included cutbacks in programs and layoffs in teachers

was acceptable to the socialists on that side of the floor. It's not

acceptable to the members on this side; it's not acceptable to this

government.

A great number of the members opposite have

adopted the attitude of their leader: run and hide. When you don't have

anything to say, and when you don't have any policy or philosophy, you

run and hide. That's exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has done

in the last three weeks in this chamber. That's exactly what the

members opposite are doing this morning.

I wasn't going to

stand and speak in debate on this bill, because the school districts in

my constituency settled prior to Bill 89. Yes, they settled without any

cuts in programs. They settled without laying off any teachers, Mr.

Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). What did your school district

do, with your advice?

MR. COCKE: We pay for our entire education system in Westminster without a nickel of government money.

MR. KEMPF:

The majority of the school districts in northern British Columbia, like

the school districts in my constituency, settled prior to Bill 89. I

had no intention of getting up this morning in this debate, but the

indications of what that socialist rag-tag group on the other side of

the floor stands for just inflames me, and I have to get up in this

debate.

The school districts in my constituency have settled

their dispute. The teachers and the trustees found ways and means to be

responsible citizens in the province of B.C., without laying off

teachers or cutting programs. They have been responsible British

Columbians, and have accepted the very serious need for restraint — all

on their own, without Bill 89.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

Don't worry, Mr. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), they get a lot of

help from me. If your constituents got as much from you, they'd be very

lucky people. What did you tell your teachers to do in regard to Bill

89? Get up and tell this House.

MR. SKELLY: You're not allowed to speak twice.

MR. KEMPF:

You didn't tell us the first time you were up. Why didn't you tell us?

What did you tell your teachers to do in this dispute? What advice did

you give your trustees? Was it advice to cooperate in a very serious

time of restraint, of world-wide recession? As the member for Alberni,

what have you told your trustees and teachers to do'?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I'll ask the hon. member for Omineca to please address the Chair. It

contributes to parliamentary debate. I'll also say to the hon. member

for Alberni that if he's going to interject, he could at least do it

from his own place.

MR. KEMPF: As I was saying, the

teachers and trustees of School Districts 55 and 56 in my constituency

have been responsible British Columbians. It would appear that there

are school districts, teachers and trustees who are aided and abetted

by the socialists opposite, and who don't intend to be responsible

British Columbians or to in any way accept that we in this province are

in a very serious recessionary period.

MR. COCKE: A Socred depression.

MR. KEMPF:

Oh, yes, it's all the fault of the bad old Socreds. The general public

of the province know better, and you know they know better. That's why

you laugh nervously here this morning. You may have inflamed some of the

[ Page 9543 ]

teachers

by your advice, you may have inflamed some of the trustees by your

advice, you may have inflamed some of the top union people in the BCTF

with your advice, but the people of B.C. know better.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

I said before, I wasn't going to get up this morning because the

teachers and trustees in my constituency have been good British

Columbians, responsible British Columbians. If for no other reason, I

wanted to get up this morning to put that on the public record of this

chamber.

The controversy over Bill 89 is not a teacher

problem. The controversy over Bill 89 is not a trustee problem, it is

not a student program problem. We all witnessed the sad situation last

week, when students of this province....

MR. COCKE: Wait a minute, you haven't told us yet what it is.

MR. KEMPF:

I'll tell you; just have faith. Give us a little time, Mr. Member for

New Westminster. Don't be so anxious. Your members on that side of the

floor weren't anxious to get up and debate this bill. Only 11 of you

out of 26; 15 have been mute on this subject.

MR. COCKE: We're not finished yet.

MR. KEMPF:

Neither are we, Mr. Member; we're not finished either. We'll be quite

happy to debate this in a very much larger arena. We'd be happy to go

out and debate this issue in a much larger arena.

As I was

saying, we witnessed a very sad situation last week, when students of

this province made a spectacle of themselves, aided and abetted by the

socialists on that side of the floor. As I came and went in this

building, I saw many of them out there talking to them. Aided and

abetted by the socialists opposite, they made a spectacle of themselves

in front of this very building, whooping and hollering and endangering

traffic.

Mr. Speaker, while we're on this subject, I really

would like to know where the law enforcement was last week. It's too

bad the Attorney-General isn't here now or I'd ask him.

Mr.

Speaker, ignoring the problems that those students caused in regard to

traffic, in regard to disturbing the peace, in regard to all those

things, I've got to ask these questions: Where were their teachers?

Where were the teachers of these students who were out in front of the

parliament buildings during school hours? Where were their teachers and

where were their parents? If those teachers, those parents. those

students were so concerned about their education. Why weren't they in

school? Why were they out in front of these buildings during school

hours? If they're so concerned about their education, why weren't they

in school"

I'm thankful that we don't see that kind of

behaviour in my constituency. Rather we see people who are responsible

British Columbians. We see responsible students, responsible teachers,

responsible trustees who did settle their own conflict. They've shown

that they can do so, and are good citizens in the province.

I support Bill 89, and I'll tell you why. Above all, Bill 89 is designed

to preserve instructional classroom time; to preserve special programs, including

those offered to the handicapped of the province of British Columbia; to ensure

and preserve teaching positions; and to ensure. above all. the stability of

one of the best school systems anywhere in the world — the school system in

the province of British Columbia. It does all that, and asks very little of

those in the education system in this province. It asks only that teachers give

up their pay for non-professional days, which are non teaching days. from now

until December 30, 1982. Is that asking too much? Is that asking too much

so as to retain all of the teachers' jobs, to retain all of the programs,

including those to the handicapped, in this province? Between January 1, 1983

and June of that school year, it asks only that the teachers give up their pay

during that period for five additional days. To ensure that there is not a

loss in instructional time to the students, it asks that that five days be made

up during the course of that six months. I ask the members opposite, is that

too much too ask? What would you ask the teachers of this province if you were

government? What would be your policy?

That,

in a nutshell, is Bill 89. The overall effect on the teachers and on

the administrators, who have also been asked to accept the five-day

deletion, will be this: an average 4 percent rollback of a recent 17

percent-plus raise given educators across the province this year. It

will give the trustees the ability to balance their budgets without

cutting teachers' positions and programs. It allows the province to

enact a saving in the provincial education budget of $60 million

between now and June. Is that asking too much?

MR. SKELLY: What's $60 million?

MR. KEMPF:

If it's asking too much, Mr. Member for Alberni, who chatters away not

even from his own seat, what would you suggest? You didn't tell us when

you stood in your place.

MR. COCKE: Resign'.

MR. KEMPF:

I'll never resign! That bothers you, because that's the only way you'll

get rid of me. Certainly the people of Omineca aren't going to get rid

of me. You've done your polls, and you know that perfectly well. I know

the results of your recent poll in my constituency. I'll never resign —

I've just started! I like to represent the people of Omineca. I like to

represent the people of British Columbia. You've only heard the start

of what I've act to say in this chamber

What we've asked of

the teachers and administrators in the B.C. educational system is less

than the doctors and the dentists have donated to the restraint

program. For those in the gallery who don't know, it's a heck 4 a lot

less than we ourselves as legislators have added to the restraint

program in B.C.

This bill, when properly and truthfully

explained to the people out there — teachers, trustees. the general

public — will be accepted by those in the education system. Certainly

it will never be accepted by the socialists opposite, and we accept

that. Certainly it will never be accepted by the union executivem and

we accept that also. But truthfully and properly explained to the

general public and to those in the education system, it will be

accepted.

The union executive don't want it accepted,

because they're in bed with the socialists and they want chaos. In the

last couple of days of debate one of the very few that have stood on

that side of floor talked of the socialist philosophy.

[ Page 9544 ]

They

want chaos: chaos in the educational system, chaos in the health

system, chaos wherever they can possibly bring it about. That is the

socialist philosophy. We heard the member for Central Fraser Valley

(Mr. Ritchie) talk about that yesterday.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The

little debate that we have heard from that side of the floor is purely

a political ploy, in the hope that maybe, if we do happen to go to the

polls — and I've suggested in the chamber that we do, because the

general public out there knows right from wrong, and they'll mark their

X in the right place when the time comes.... I hope it does. But the

debate, however little of it we've heard from that side of the floor,

and the chaos that those members opposite are trying to create with

this issue in the educational system are purely a political ploy. I

support Bill 89.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as you

well know, it's not very often that a Deputy Speaker gets up and speaks

in debate. I assured the member for Port Alberni a little earlier that

I was going to be quite non-political as I discussed this bill, which

led me when I was preparing my notes to consider that I was sitting on

the horns of a dilemma. I could either stand up and agree with

everything that everybody has said in this debate, or disagree with

everything that everybody has said in this debate. That would appear to

be fair.

My offerings to the assembly on this bill will come

from the perspective of being a school trustee. In Prince George in

1976 and again in 1978 I had the good fortune to be elected to the

board of school trustees in District 57, and the further good fortune

in 1978 and 1979 to be elected by my school board colleagues to be

chairman of the school board. I hope I can offer a different

perspective on this bill — the perspective of a former trustee — to the

members of the Legislative Assembly today. A school trustee is in an

onerous position. It's often been said that you take a person's two

most important resources when you sit on a school board: their money

and their kids. You're charged with responsibility for people's money

and children. It does become an onerous task, I can assure you.

District 57 we had a very interesting budget process that I think ties

in with the principle of this bill. I'm sure that trustees throughout

the province go through the same thing in budgeting and deciding what

they're going to do for the following year. I can assure you that it's

an onerous task. It takes a good three weeks of hammering out and

sometimes longer. In our district we would closet ourselves away with

senior administration people for a good four to five working days. We

would have access to computers and all the administrative help we could

get. That way we could hash out our budgets for the following year.

Later

on, after the first week of the real tough stuff, we always brought in

senior administrators, teachers and people from program areas — what we

called posers, a position of special responsibility. They would help

us. I think an interesting thing to point out to Members of the

Legislative Assembly on this debate is the fact that I was always

impressed with the good and very tough decisions the teachers would

come to when they helped the board prepare their budget. There was

absolutely no question, when it came to areas you might have to cut in

terms of funding, that if you went to the teachers, principals and

people in the particular program areas — these were normally discipline

they would come up and help you arrive at some very tough decisions.

They would do it in a most responsible manner. They were of great

assistance to the board.

By the same token, the same thing

applied to the administrative side, the business side, of the school

district in Prince George. If you talked to the people in charge of the

physical plant, maintenance and that sort of thing, in spite of the

fact that we commonly think all these people are building empires, we

normally found — it was our very good experience — that when you spoke

to the people in the field, they could help you arrive at a very good

and tough decision. I commend that to all members of the Legislative

Assembly, because a very important part when school boards are doing

their budgeting is to get their troops in, talk to them about their

priorities, what decisions they would like to see you make, and give

you the reasons for making those types of decisions.

They're

never easy. They're always tough. They're particularly tough now. I had

the good fortune in the years 1976 to 1979 of being a trustee in a

district which had a growing population. Prince George, as we all know,

is a dynamic community. The population had increased to some degree. As

a matter of fact, it tripled since 1966. We were building schools. We

had lots of money. We had a growing enrolment and things were very good

on that school board. The biggest problem was getting capital funding

for schools, getting kids off shift and reducing some of the bus

routes. We were able to do that in those days. I'm sure all hon.

members are aware of the economic climate of that time, and how well

things worked during that time.

However, things have changed

considerably. No one likes restraint. I don't like it any more than you

do. I don't like it any more than the government employees do. As

members we've had to face personal restraint and cut our own salaries

back. We've had to ask the people who work for us in government,

teachers and other people to face the economic reality of 1982. And by

and large they've been pretty good. No one likes restraint, but in

these days we all have to face it. I think it's a credit to the many

sectors of the public sector that they have in fact faced restraint and

learned to deal with the economic reality of 1982. I'm sure the school

boards will be able to do that as well.

I think the wisdom

and, really, the foundation of this bill is that it gives to school

boards authority which they didn't have before. It gives them some

direction. It gives them a framework to function in, and allows them to

maintain the quality of education and the contact hours — that's the

term that is normally used — with the student. It allows them to keep

every job in place. I think that's the important thing behind the

principle of this bill and something that I would commend to this

assembly as well as to everyone in the province.

As we all

know, Mr. Speaker, the young population of our province — as a matter

of fact, of our country — is declining. Just to show you how

non-political I can be, I'm going to spend a few minutes talking about

the pill. You Roman Catholics don't like that do you — with greatest

respect to the current Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this Bill 89?

MR. STRACHAN: Pill, P-i-1-1.

[ Page 9545 ]

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, this is a special....

Interjection.

MR. STRACHAN:

Aw, gee, I was just getting onto a good subject. I understand His

Honour is somewhere within the precincts. Mr. Speaker, I would move

adjournment of this debate until later on today.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts. I

would ask members if they would keep their seats. Just before His

Honour is ready to enter I will ring the division bells, and we will

proceed at that time.

Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Commercial Appeals Commission Act

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982

Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1982

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1982

Coal Amendment Act, 1982

Homeowner Interest Assistance Act

Small Business Development Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Carrying on with orders of the day, my colleague down the line adjourned debate.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

(continued)

MR. STRACHAN:

As everybody is aware, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the pill and

its relationship to school budgeting. However, I think I am going to

wind this down a bit. I'll have to leave you in suspense wondering what

I'm going to say about the pill until later on next week.

have some comments about the Minister of Education and his statement

that people should learn to write good. I thought that was interesting.

It reminds me of a couple of other statements I've heard in the House —

one just last week from an hon. member opposite who talked to us about

big megaprojects. I kind of wondered if we ever had little

megaprojects. The real clanger, while we're on the subject of

education, came from the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who

once talked about his biologists in the Fraser River counting fish with

wetsuits on. I got a kick out of that one. I'll close, just before

adjourning, by saying that Ben Ginter, the Prince George millionaire

industrialist, once addressed the BCTF meeting in Prince George, and

told them: "I only have a grade 4 education, but I are a millionaire."

That said something to me.

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

Motion approved.

Hon.

Mr. Curtis tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Assessment

Authority for the calendar year ending December 31 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:39 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada