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 )

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9649 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Levi –– 9649

Student loans. Mr. Lauk –– 9649

Public health services. Mr. Cocke –– 9650

Eligibility guidelines for income assistance. Ms. Brown –– 9650

Northeast coal hirings. Mr. Leggatt –– 9650

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Health annual report –– 1981.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 9651

School Services (Interim) Act (Bill 89). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

section 3 –– 9651

Mr. Lauk

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Mitchell

Division

section 4 –– 9656

Mr. Kempf

On the amendment to

section 4 –– 9657

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lauk

On the subamendment to

section 4 –– 9657

Mr. Lea

section 4 as amended –– 9657

Division

section 5 –– 9657

Ms. Brown

section 10 –– 9658

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

On the title –– 9659

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Brown

Division on third reading –– 9659

Royal Assent to bills –– 9660

Appendix –– 9660

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to

introduce to the House two visitors from the Kootenays. Garth and

Kathleen Barnes of Trail are visiting Victoria to celebrate their

thirty-sixth wedding anniversary with their children and their latest

grandson. I would ask the House to join me in congratulating Garth and

Kathleen and to welcome them to the House today.

MR. STRACHAN:

On behalf of the member for Central Fraser Valley, it gives me great

delight to introduce the member's wife, the very lovely Maud Ritchie.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like the House to join me in welcoming two close friends and supporters, Dick and Isabel Scott from West Vancouver.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like the House to join me in welcoming my main campaign worker

and president of the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew NDP, Doug Hoon, and his

wife Linda.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the precincts today

is a very special guest of the Ministry of Tourism. I would like the

House to welcome Herr Hans Jurgen Moog, mayor of Frankfurt, West

Germany.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. LEVI:

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

the fourth minister in six and a half years, and we're still waiting

for some protection for the small shareholder. Recently, on the

Vancouver Stock Exchange, a company called Omineca Resources

experienced a 376 percent increase in share value in four days on the

basis of gold assay results which were subsequently disputed. Salted.

In view of the Vancouver Stock Exchange's abrogation of this

responsibility, what steps is the minister taking to protect the

investors, particularly in view of a recent similar occurrence with New

Cinch? What steps is the minister taking to protect the small

shareholders?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I note that the member

opposite has read the

article in the newspaper; he does his research. I

am concerned about his statement, though — if I heard him correctly —

that the assay was salted. That is a somewhat serious charge. I think

the member also knows from the

article that trading has been suspended

on that particular issue and the stock exchange itself is awaiting

results, I believe, of a further assay to determine what should happen

with the stock on the market.

MR. LEVI: I'm sure that the cabinet ministers will meet together

to discuss the definition of the word "salted." However, I want to

ask the minister: one of the now acceptable principles of operating stock markets

— acceptable in Toronto and in New York — is the whole principle of timely,

continuous disclosure. We don't have that in our legislation. However, is

the minister prepared to indicate to the exchange that this is an acceptable

principle which should be adopted by the Vancouver Stock Exchange? Because we

are still waiting, of course, for the legislation which has been pending since

1977. Does the minister believe in that principle, and is he prepared to communicate

with the stock exchange and say: "That's a principle which this government

believes in, so please adopt it"?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The stock exchange has performed, I think, an excellent service. It is

well run. There is a securities act on the order paper for debate after

we have had input from investment dealers, lawyers and accountant

groups. Their input will be reviewed this fall, and we will probably be

looking forward to debating that bill next year.

If the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam wishes to participate in developing

the legislation that he feels is so necessary, I would certainly like

to hear from him and have him submit a paper on his thoughts. As a

minister new to the portfolio, I will be reviewing all of those reports

and discussing the new securities act with the investment community,

the Law Society, etc. I'd be more than pleased to hear from the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam, if he would please submit a paper to me.

MR. LEVI:

I thank the minister for the invitation. If he'd take the trouble to

get his staff to pull out the speeches I've made in this House in the

last five years, he'd know exactly where I stand in respect to this.

Because

we do not have the J. Henry Schroder report which inquired into the

stock market, what evidence does the minister have to bring to this

House to support his feeling that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is doing

a good job, particularly in the light of the story in the paper today,

the New Cinch experience, and other experiences in which small

shareholders are frankly being ripped off?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'm not sure if the member read the entire

article in the newspaper, in

which Mr. Hudson was stating the concern of the stock exchange about a

stock such as the one he mentioned — and therefore it was suspended.

The role of the stock exchange cannot be, in my opinion, total

protection for anybody who wishes to invest in equity. There has to be

a limitation. For example, in the particular case that you mentioned

there is one assay report that indicated the content of gold per tonne.

Another assay report indicated that it did not have the same value.

Therefore the stock was suspended and a further test is to be made. The

stock exchange itself cannot conduct a review of all assay reports.

They have their responsibilities to carry out, and the investor has his

responsibilities to carry out as well — in other words, to investigate

the stock that he's going to invest in.

STUDENT LOANS

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Education. Can the minister

explain to the House why British Columbia students who qualified for

the Canada student assistance plan are the only students in Canada not

to have been notified of the amounts of money they will receive? I

should note that I gave the minister notice of this question today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The student assistance plan is a shared program in that a portion of the money is

[ Page 9650 ]

available

to students by way of a loan from the federal government at the

beginning of the school year. As well a grant from the provincial

government is available following the first part of the year —

generally around Christmas or the new year. Normally these funds are

made known about this time.

An amount is provided for in the

budget but, as the member should be aware — and as I'm sure everyone

here is well aware — the number of applicants has increased

dramatically. As a matter of fact, we're still receiving some figures

now. Once all the applicants are known and all the numbers are known,

we'll be able to provide the information. This is not out of line, or

is not too different from other years. The loan portion has been given

and the grant portion is forthcoming, as they're well aware. We're

still trying to get all the figures together before we give them the

information in order to have it as complete as possible.

MR. LAUK:

This province allocated less than $17 million for student assistance in

the Education votes. The federal government's allocation for British

Columbia is nearly $31 million. Can the minister confirm that the

amount allocated by B.C. was a deliberate underestimation of expected

enrolment, and ignored the realities of increased student enrolment

caused by unemployment even back in the spring, according to your own

ministry figures?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, as the

member ought to be aware, if he's reviewed this year's budget and last

year's budget, the amount provided for student loans has increased over

last year. Certainly there was no way of telling exactly what the

increase might have been with respect to the number of applications. I

can't verify exactly what the federal loan figures are, but ours is a

grant program; theirs is a loan program.

MR. LAUK:

Can the minister assure that the students qualifying under the plan

will be notified of the moneys they will receive within a week? Is your

timetable within the next week?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

We'll try to advise them as early as possible. I think it's in the

interest of the colleges and the students that we have all of the

information available to us so we can give it to them very accurately.

The member, and all members here, can be assured that the ministry is

doing its best to meet the needs of the many additional applicants.

Certainly there are many more attending college this year than there

have been or than there were in other years.

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

MR. COCKE:

I'd like to ask the Minister of Health a question. In April of this

year the minister confirmed that the principle of user-pay would be

extended to an important area of public health: namely, public health

inspectors. The Ministry of Health has recently been canvassing the

district health offices in order to determine what other health

services could be provided at direct cost to users. Can the minister

confirm that persons requiring the services of audiologists and speech

therapists will now be asked to pay for these essential services?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I can't confirm that they will now be asked to pay for these services.

MR. COCKE:

The public health units, which the ministry has been canvassing for new

user-pay targets, provide a broad range of essential health services to

public health inspectors, public health nurses, speech therapists,

homecare nurses, physiotherapists and mental health services. Has the

minister made a decision to apply user fees to any of these services?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Some of the services, which may have been provided at some time

previously, may have had a user fee attached, but there have been no

new user fees applied to any of these services in recent times. There

have been no decisions made — to this time — to apply any user fees.

MR. COCKE: That's why the minister is canvassing, I guess.

We've

been informed that of 27 fourth-year students in the School of

Rehabilitation Medicine who are eligible for bursaries, only six have

been notified that they will be receiving their cheques. In view of the

fact that the summer for these students is taken up with unpaid

practicums and that they are unable to work, has the minister decided

to provide bursaries for the remaining students? It seems unfair at the

present time.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll have to take that question as notice.

MR. COCKE:

Can the minister confirm that he is prepared to restore the provincial

contribution to the Pine Street clinic in Vancouver, to the Drake

Clinic and to the Downtown Community Health Clinic in Vancouver to

permit them to perform their very important services to the elderly,

the poor, the alcoholic, the addicts and street kids whom they serve?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll take that question as notice as well and see what the situation is.

ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES

FOR INCOME ASSISTANCE

MS. BROWN: My question is to

the Minister of Human Resources. In a press release dated September 7,

in dealing with the large number of people moving from UIC onto income

assistance, the minister stated that her ministry was planning ways to

meet the increased demand on the income assistance program. Can the

minister now confirm that the only plan developed by her ministry to

deal with these people is one of stricter guidelines concerning their

eligibility to receive income assistance'?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I cannot confirm that.

NORTHEAST COAL HIRINGS

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development.

Article 13 of the comprehensive agreement between the

province of British Columbia and Quintette Coal Ltd. requires that

company to file with the government an outline of its hiring policies,

together with its plans for employing local people, including native

people and women. Can the minister advise whether Quintette and Teck

have filed their plans with the government, in terms of their hiring

policy?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer to the member's question is no.

[ Page 9651 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

Would the minister advise the House whether he has taken the time to

inquire why those very important hiring plans have not been filed, in

view of the growing protests in the vicinity of Tumbler Ridge about the

lack of a local hiring policy?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'd like to inform him that the member for that area has things under control.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, this being the first

available opportunity for me to do that. The question of privilege

relates, I submit, to a most serious matter. It relates to an

article

in today's final edition of the Times-Colonist , which I have here and which I'll submit to the table after I have made the point about the question of privilege.

The

article in question appears on page A3 and is headed: "Pay-as-you-go

Watchword Gone with Curtis Motion." It is written by Jim Hume. The

section of the

article which I wish to draw to Your Honour's

attention.... Let me read the full paragraph in which is the sentence

which I think offends this House: "The opposition New Democrats have

been severely critical of the treasury bill legislation and voted

against it on final passage." That's correct. That's accurate. The

following sentence says: "The NDP also voted against legislation

calling for a 6 percent rate hike ceiling on five Crown corporations

and the Workers Compensation Board." That is not correct, Mr. Speaker.

The records of this House and the Journals will show that that particular sentence which I just read is false.

question of privilege is that it offends the proceedings of this House

to have the proceedings misrepresented as they have been in that

particular article. I submit that it is not an accidental

misrepresentation, because the author of the

article is a long-time

member of the press gallery and knows the proceedings and the

activities in this House as much as anybody does. My question of

privilege is not an attack on freedom of the press. It deals with

misrepresentation by one member thereof, a member of an otherwise very

responsible body.

I submit the remedies are threefold. One,

the government House Leader in order to give the House an opportunity

to express its dissatisfaction with misrepresentation, should place a

motion on the order paper....

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please, hon. member. Before the member continues, the very suggestion

of remedies before any decision is made would be inappropriate and

would be more of a debate than the entertainment of the actual fact

itself. I would have to ask the member at this time to conclude his

basic premise, and only after a finding could other action be

contemplated.

MR. HOWARD: All right. Before I table

this with the House, I submit that there should be an absolute

retraction and an apology to this chamber by the author of that article.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Again, the member is suggesting remedies before the Chair has an opportunity to....

MR. HOWARD:

Yes, I thought if Your Honour knew of the proposed remedies, it would

assist in his coming to a conclusion about the de facto situation of a

question of privilege. What is involved here is a decision by Your

Honour both with respect to the misrepresentation which I claim has

taken place and, if Your Honour finds that.... I submit that the two

things proposed are one way, and the other is for Your Honour to

communicate the dissatisfaction of Your Honour to the president of the

press gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Thank you,

hon. member. The Chair will review and undertake to bring back a

decision on the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the calendar year 1981.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 89.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, is leave granted?

Leave granted.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 89; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 3.

MR. LAUK:

Before lunch I was making the point that under

section 3 the government

was not responding to the legitimate requests of the trustees and

teachers, when they asked, during a time of economic recession and

cutbacks in education, that they be allowed to use some of the funds

that the provincial government had for capital purposes. Instead of

providing that remedy in this legislation,

section 3 provides the

so-called remedy of the school districts dipping into non-shareable

capital funds.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the Chair recognizes that at this point early in the

afternoon members are discussing business other than what the committee

is doing, and maybe leaving the chamber. But, please, could we have

order.

MR. LAUK: Instead of providing the remedy

sought, which would be the use of what we understand to be about $120

million in capital funds available in the Ministry of Education budget,

they are demanding that school districts use the capital funds that

they may have available, to which no contribution is made by the

provincial treasury. How do districts raise those funds? They raise

those funds on the backs of the homeowner, the residential taxpayer. I

pointed out before noon that these taxes had already been raised

substantially because of this government's ineptitude in terms of the

assessments during a time of extreme speculation in home and property

values. That speculation was so out of control that I compared it to

the Klondike gold rush, which had better control over its speculation

than this government was able to provide over this property in the last

18 months to two years.

[ Page 9652 ]

When

the property values went down in the marketplace, the assessments

seemed to remain rather high. Even the present Minister of Education

appealed his assessment notice, as well as other citizens, as if, in

some kind of pathetic pretence, he was not at least in part responsible

for the totally unfair and unjust assessment procedures that were

continuing. What I'm saying is that

section 3, if it's to be used by

school districts, will indeed put great pressure upon the

municipalities and school districts to raise further taxation from the

homeowner. Last spring we saw the government confiscate the industrial

and commercial tax base and use it in consolidated revenue. None of

that money is earmarked for education. Therefore they're placing even

more pressure on school districts to raise their money from the

homeowner, their only source of funds.

Apart from that, even

if they could raise taxes for such capital funds, I understand that the

regulations are such that they cannot raise money directly from the

taxpayer for the non-shareable capital budgets that they have in each

school district. So is

section 3 a fraud? Is

section 3 window-dressing?

It is, because most school districts do not have appreciable amounts of

capital in their funds for capital expenditures. Some do; most don't.

How are the ones that don't going to raise sufficient moneys to cover

off the tremendous, drastic cutbacks imposed by the provincial

government under

section 3 of this bill if the regulations are such

that they can't raise these funds? I'm told that the answer is the

possibility of the province imposing a provincewide mill rate that will

allow districts to raise sufficient funds — again, from the homeowner,

the taxpayer — to meet these cutbacks. In other words, this is a

back-door move, deliberately imposed and designed by this government to

increase taxation on the homeowner, increase taxation on people they

claim to be protecting, and claim, as a matter of policy, not to be

raising taxes in a time of recession.

I would say, Mr.

Chairman, that you must agree with me that this is the most

Machiavellian piece of legislation that any of us has seen in a long

time. It creates, as I said before on

section 2, a catch-22 situation,

and under

section 3 an impossible situation. It leads to to demands, if

you like, from some school districts for an increase in homeowner

taxation, with the government pretending reluctantly in the spring to

grant it, when in fact this legislation imposes that burden on the

school districts in the first place. This is the kind of cynical

government that we've had to put up with for a long time. It's been

cynical in such a way that the province of British Columbia and its

people have suffered for far too long. They have had to pay for the

mistakes of this government and for its political ploys.

Section 3

certainly is one of those political ploys. It is unfair and it is going

to lead this spring to a massive increase in taxation.

I understand that the Minister of Education has received a telegram from Mr. Gary Begin of the BCSTA.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: When?

MR. LAUK: Just before noon today. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know, let's hear it.

MR. LAUK:

All right, I'll state it. I am not saying we agree or disagree with the

telegram; I want to know what the minister's view is of the telegram

sent to him from the president of the School Trustees Association,

October 6 at 11:50 a.m.

AN. HON. MEMBER: That's the way they operate.

MR. LAUK: I understand it was for release. We got a release of the telegram sent to you today.

It says:

WE URGE YOU AGAIN TO GIVE SCHOOL BOARDS THE LAWS WE NEED TO MANAGE

RESTRAINT. WE NEED LAWS WHICH ALLOW TEACHER TERMINATIONS BY SENIORITY AND FOR

SHORT-TERM STAFF LAYOFFS. FAILURE OF YOUR GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE NOW

WILL LEAD TO UNNECESSARY UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE SUMMER OF 1983. WE ARE NOW CONVINCED

THAT GOVERNMENT POLICY DECISIONS ON BILL 89 HAVE BEEN BASED ON ERRONEOUS DATA.

PLEASE MEET WITH US FOR FULL DISCUSSIONS BEFORE YOU PROCEED FURTHER WITH BILL

What does the minister propose to do? Does he propose to accede to Mr. Begin's

request, or otherwise? I'm informed that this bill, which purports to prevent

layoffs, is indeed doing the opposite. Assuming no cost increases for heat,

light, rental and equipment — and we know very well that those costs are still

going up — the information now being received indicates that school boards will

have to terminate teachers on January 1 in order to effect the savings imposed

by the minister's directive.

I'm

told that with 33 out of 75 — or less than half — school boards so far

reporting the effect of this bill, 1,100 teachers would have to be

terminated by the first of the year. If the minister does not grant

permission to the districts....

MR. RITCHIE: This bill stops that.

MR. LAUK: The school trustees who have to implement the bill say that's not the case.

MR. RITCHIE: They wouldn't allow it.

MR. LAUK:

They say if the minister will not allow the districts to lay off 1,100

teachers by January 1, either by seniority or otherwise, under Bill 89

— and it is unlikely it would be successful, for political reasons, as

the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) has pointed out —

then of the 33 boards so far reporting, this summer they intend to lay

off 2,700 teachers because they have no alternative under this

legislation.

Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of consequence

this hastily drafted political bill has imposed upon the education

system of this province. The new minister is not sufficiently aware of

the consequences of these sections of the bill; otherwise, I'm sure he

would withdraw the bill and reconsider his position on this whole

matter. Again,

section 3 will, I predict, raise homeowner taxation in

the districts.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the hon. Barney Rumble have been pointing out time and time again....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member knows that we must be parliamentary.

[ Page 9653 ]

MR. LAUK:

Those two gentlemen in the chamber have said I've got to watch my

predictions. Well, other people are watching my predictions in the

press every day, I say to those hon. members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Commerce is up $1 today.

MR. LAUK:

If you had a billion dollars of the taxpayers' money, my friend, your

stocks would be up too. If you approve of the use of federal tax money

to bail out reckless oil and gas investments, then you're an

irresponsible citizen of this country.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I'd like to make a few comments at this point. Number

one, we should speak to

section 3. The hon. first member for Vancouver

East, in addressing

section 3, referred to the Assessment Authority in

a reflection that would be proper; however, we would not want to get

into a full debate with respect to non-shareable and the Assessment

Authority. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that. I'll ask the hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) not to interject any more.

Perhaps some advice to the Chair: the telegram would maybe better be

discussed under

section 9.

MR. LAUK: All right. Well, having read it, that's all I'm going to do anyway, so I'll just leave it at that point.

This

spring, under this act — if no changes are made to it — homeowner

taxation is bound to increase. It's imposing upon school districts the

necessity of raising taxation, and the government, by imposing this

section, hopes in some way to impose the political burden of raising

taxes on school districts. In effect, it's

an act of political

cowardice on the part of the government not to take their

responsibility. If they feel there should be an increase in taxation —

and I don't think there should be — why do they do it in such a

cloak-and dagger manner through

section 3, and impose the political

responsibility on the school districts? It's unfair, it's political

deception and it's political cowardice. The government is going to be

held to account for that, because I don't think that homeowners are

going to be fooled this time by this government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

I was moved to make a few comments after hearing that first member for

Vancouver Centre, because it would appear he's back at the old game of

creating an artificial dragon and then trying to set himself up as the

dragon-killer. And I'm quite concerned about some of the

interpretations that he has made under this

section 3.

First,

perhaps, I think that as Education critic he must know that the school

district budgets work from January until December, and therefore it's

necessary for that clause to apply for the full year of 1983. So that

part is necessary even though it extends beyond June 1983.

The

other thing he must, of course, realize is that if a school board at

any time took money that was allotted for equipment during that period

and spent it, it couldn't go back and spend it again on the equipment.

So you can only use that money one way or the other.

He seems to overlook the fact that this

section does say that a

board "may" — not "shall," "may".... Then he makes the case that this

will increase local taxes, that this is a political ploy by the

government. I would suggest that this is a very straightforward

response to what some districts asked:

"In some cases, if we have to choose, with the money that

we've allotted for capital equipment, would it not make sense that we use

it in this way to help save some other part of our program?" And this gives them permission to that.

his very argument he then attacks the school boards of this province.

I've been in on a lot of school-board budgeting, and I've found that in

capital expenditure there are some very strict controls as to how much

you can allot to capital funds. It is not an open thing where boards

can just fudge, put a lot of money into capital and then use it

otherwise. Those budget submissions are very carefully perused, and

they have to deal with real items that are necessary. In other words,

they get close scrutiny by the responsible board members in this

province. For that member to suggest for one minute that the

responsible school trustees in this province would pad the equipment

account by some great measure and then turn it over to operating is. I

think, an insult to those responsible school-board members. And that's

what in fact he has done. Those boards, in cases where they feel that

they might do without the equipment in order to use those funds. to

keep something else going, may do so. But to suggest for one minute

that they're going to be irresponsible, and that they're not going to

be accountable to their taxpayers — and they are accountable; they are

representative of their taxpayers, so they are certainly not going to

do the very things that that member suggests.... Here we have a

straightforward clause that says a board in its wisdom can decide that

some of this money can be moved from one

section to another. As a

school principal, I came across this many times, where it might have

made sense to do it this way instead of that way. In many cases,

responsible boards said: "Well, fine, as long as it fits under the

regulations." It was always a responsible decision. Here we have a

straightforward clause allowing them to do that, to make those

responsible decisions, and then we have the education critic in this

House standing up and suggesting that those responsible boards in this

province are going to manipulate this at the expense of their

taxpayers, in abrogation of their own responsibilities in order to do

this.

I would have to say: who is being political? Who is

using this as a political football? This act in this

section 1s trying

to provide some stability and trying to sort out this problem, and it

was not a political act. It's a very sensible, economic act. The only

time the opposition use education is whenever they hope to get a

political benefit or a vote from it by dissension. All you thrive on is

dissension.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am getting excited, so perhaps I'll leave it at that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) come to order.

MR. LAUK:

I don't think that the member for North Peace River understood the

point. I'll repeat it, briefly, for him again. This

section has been

put in by the government. We didn't put it in; you did. The

section is

inviting school boards to use non-shareable capital funds for purposes

other than those for which they were originally designed — capital

equipment and expenditures.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I say they're going to be responsible and you say they're not.

[ Page

9654 ]

MR. LAUK: This is committee. You'll have an opportunity to

respond again if you so wish. I'd suggest that if you listened

carefully and did less talking you might learn something.

Section

3 has been put in there by this government as a cutback measure,

inviting school boards to use these funds for a purpose other than that

for which they were designated. It's not the opposition that has

suggested it. It's the government that's suggesting that the school

districts do that. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) stands up and suggests that for school districts to actually

do that under

section 3 would be acting irresponsibly; that if the

school boards actually started to apply these funds they would be

irresponsible and be betraying their mandate from the electors. I can't

think of a more specious and contradictory argument.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll leave it at this point. The bill says to school

districts: "You've got to keep all your staff. You can't fire anybody

and you can't have any money to pay them. We won't give you permission

to lay them off and we won't give you any money to pay them." What are

they going to do? Are they going to be forced to use

section 3?

It's

not from me where the rumour comes up. The Minister of Education can

stand up and deny right now that there will be a special mill rate to

raise money for the J funds. If he wants to deny that now, and stake

his seat on it — that it won't happen in 1983 — that's fine. He hasn't

done so yet. Our best information so far is that that may well be a

possibility. The provincial government will allow for a mill rate to

increase J funds to indirectly be used through this act to pay salaries

— the very irresponsible act that the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing is decrying as being so terrible. We didn't put it in the bill;

you did.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly I have to

respond to that. It's very irresponsible to suggest that they have

information, or that the member has information — he doesn't tell us

what sort of information or where from — which would suggest such a

mill levy will be imposed. Such a mill levy has never been

contemplated, suggested or thought of. Certainly there's no intent here

in any way, shape or form to provide for some additional revenues —

only to make those revenues there now available for the school boards

if they wish to use them. This is in response to the request from the

BCSTA.

MR. LAUK: The minister well knows that what he

just stated is not correct. It's not in response to a request of the

trustees or the teachers. They requested the use of the provincial

capital funds, not non-shareable funds at the district level. That's

the first fact that he's got wrong.

Secondly, I'm glad to

see that the minister has committed this government to not imposing a

special mill rate to increase J funds in the districts. We'll hold him

to it — with the public.

MRS. DAILLY: The people of

Burnaby, whom I represent with my colleague from Edmonds (Ms. Brown),

who is going to speak later, and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr.

Lorimer), want to make very clear to the government why we are so much

against this bill and this particular section. It's symbolic that this

government has mismanaged the economy ever since they came into office

— I ask one member over there to deny this. They have eroded the tax

base of the local taxpayers in every district in this province. In my

own district of Burnaby your recent change in financial formulas have

eroded the tax base by 54 percent. Since you came to office the

percentage paid by the provincial government has on average declined

across the province, so on a percentage basis you are now paying less

than 35 percent. These may be figures that can be jockeyed around at

your will when the campaign appears, but ever since this government

came into office, the people who have to pay the taxes, the homeowners

of this province, have had to pay more and more for their school taxes.

On the other hand, when the Premier ran in the 1975 election, he

campaigned on a policy to reduce the local burden of school taxation.

All

we're saying to you is that your duplicity is becoming too much for the

taxpayers of this province. You have brought in this bill because you

have mismanaged the economy. This

section is a desperate attempt to

say: "Well, if you're in a lot of trouble, here we'll give you an

opportunity to move into another

section of the formula." That's no

answer. The answer is a true commitment from the government to give

education priority in this province. You've never given it priority.

You have put the people of B.C. into a position whereby their taxes for

school purposes have increased year by year. That's what all this is

about.

This bill is brought here by a desperate government.

It is trying to appease the trustees, parents and teachers of this

province — and the children, who are going to suffer from your terrible

policies in education. That's why we reject it.

MS. BROWN:

Just briefly, I want to bring to the attention of the minister that the

J fund in Burnaby has only approximately $500,000 in it. When the

school board submitted its budget for special education needs alone,

they were given $400,000 less than they needed. To tell them that they

can use the J fund to meet these needs isn't really doing anything. I

think that's what the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was

trying to point out. There really isn't that much money in the J fund

in some of these school districts to meet the real shortfall that

they're experiencing.

MS. SANFORD: I want to follow

up on that point. In School District 71, for instance, the total

reserve is $134,000. In many school districts there is zero reserve. In

some districts presumably there are millions. I don't know whether the

minister has those figures. I don't have the figures about the millions

that might be available in some school districts. I raised this point

in second reading; it's very inequitable. At that time I asked whether

the minister would explain to us if at this stage he is prepared to

make this system more equitable. If he's going to use the J fund....

Some school districts have no reserve J fund and others have millions.

This system is inequitable.

What action is the minister

prepared to take to ensure that these funds are made more equitable

throughout the province? I would like to hear the minister's response

to that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm rather surprised

at the question. I think possibly I should give a response by way of

posing a question. Possibly one could take from the question that the

member is suggesting that we somehow confiscate the J funds now

available in the various budgets and distribute them among all the

districts. Those moneys were raised locally, as the hon. member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentioned. Certainly they are a local

responsibility, and the local board can decide where they be used for

operational

[ Page 9655 ]

purposes

next year. As you may recall, it's been suggested by someone on the

other side as well that somehow the minister has changed his position

several times on how these budgetary savings could be brought about,

but there hasn't been a change. The request initially was that all

capital funds be put into the operating budgets. We've said no. Those

capital funds, which are for major additions and the like.... The

shared funds should remain in place because, in some areas especially,

expansion is needed, and now is a good time to do it. There are a lot

of people looking for employment. The quotes coming in are good. But

these sorts of discretionary funds in the J account are for the Apple

computer, the underground sprinkler, the overhead projector.... We feel

that a board should be in a position of deciding whether the computer

is more important now or whether it can wait for another year, and that

instead they use those moneys for operational purposes.

MR. LAUK: School buses, wheelchairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, not school buses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MITCHELL:

I've looked at the bill. and you have to look at it in the context of

how it affects education. The real problem that we are faced with

within the education system right now is not solely because of this

bill. It's because of the action of the government in the past. To be

consistent with what we on this side of the House have said. this bill

is a political bill. It is a bill that is appearing to do something

that is not going to be done. This is the problem that we have. This is

the problem that the school trustees in my riding know. We have got

into this position because of the lack of funds paid by the province of

British Columbia to the school systems.

You take every other

western province from Ontario back, and you go through the amount of

money that is paid to the school districts on a per-pupil basis....

British Columbia is going to pay out $1,043 on a per-pupil basis to the

school districts; Alberta's cost is $2,391; Saskatchewan's is $1,751;

Manitoba's is $1,542: Ontario is $1,635. What I'm saying is that this

is the real cause of our problem in the education system. They bring in

a bill, and I can just see some of these members and some of the

candidates saying....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. The hon. member for Central Fraser Valley rises on a point of order.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I just can't relate the remarks of that member to

section

3. Do we want to get into a real wide debate again? Or do you want to

stick with the

section that's up for debate —

section 3?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member for Central Fraser Valley makes a very good point.

Section 3 is quite specific with respect to a budget transfer. Please

proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: Through you, Mr. Chairman. If

the hon. member would listen.... What I said is that this particular

section,

section 3, in a political bill is going to be perceived as

going to do something: it is going to give the school boards a way to

keep the services that they are providing in the district. I can just

imagine the Social Credit candidates. They will be standing up there

and they'll say: "We put in this bill, this great Bill 89. We put in

section 3." They'll read it out: "During 1983, a board may use funds

from the non-shareable capital

section of a budget for the operating

budget."

This is a lot of hogwash, Mr. Chairman. It sounds

simple. These are the simplistic answers that will be given out to the

public — they will blame the problem on the school boards. It is not

those wonderful people who have spent all year trying to get a budget

that can go through this particular ministry, to get it passed, to get

it redrafted, The real problem is because this government did not take

the advice of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who

predicted that there were going to be hard times in the early part of

the 80s. I know the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) was

one of those who screamed and laughed and jeered, but now the

prediction is coming true. When we tried to save $83 million out of the

1981 budget, when we tried to save $79 million out of the last

budget.... If that money had been put into schooling and fair grants to

the school board, instead of advertising and propaganda, we wouldn't

need

section 3.

This is not going to solve the problem. It

is going to confuse the issue. All this government wants to do is

confuse the issue and divide the parents, the school teachers, the

school boards and the general taxpayers, who are not aware of the

problems of financing schools. They're not aware of all the

manipulation that goes on within the ministry. Very few of them really

understand what is shareable and what is nonshareable, but they do know

that the province is only paying 32 percent of the taxes and they are

paying 67 percent of the taxes on their land. That is going to rise

because of the mismanagement of this government.

Section 3 will not, I

say seriously, cure anything. It's just a lot of political

smokescreening. It's a flim-flam.

An average of the figures

I gave earlier for the western provinces' contribution was 50.9

percent. If 50.9 percent came from a rich province like British

Columbia, we wouldn't be in the position of having to bring in a

ridiculous

section like this. This is not going to do anything for the

number of overhead projectors or underground sprinklers that I've ever

seen in my riding. There isn't that kind of money in the budget. This

is not going to do the job. It was made to confuse the issue. but it

doesn't confuse the members on this side.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

[ Page 9656 ]

NAYS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 4.

MR. KEMPF:

I rise to speak on

section 4 of this bill on behalf of the many

children and students who live and attend school in the northern

two-thirds of this province, and in particular those who live in my

constituency of Omineca. I rise to ask the minister, here in this

chamber as I have asked him outside, to move an amendment to this

section cf Bill 89 which would, in effect, give school boards and

teachers the opportunity to decide for themselves when it is that they

will take the five days off that are prescribed by Bill 89.

The

motive for me so doing was given me by the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) in his debate earlier today. The member suggested that I

should stand, speaking in favour of such a move, and I am. The idea was

a good one.

As a northern member, I think it my place to ask

for such an amendment — an amendment that would, in effect, make this

change to Bill 89. I would certainly hope that not only the member for

New Westminster but all of the members opposite will support me in this

effort and vote for such an amendment should it be brought forward by

the minister. It makes sense to give school boards and teachers —

depending on where in the province they find themselves — the right to

choose whether these five days are taken in conjunction with Christmas

holidays or during the month of June. For many thousands of children

and students in the north, it would be far more sensible to take them

in early January, extending the mid-winter break for an extra week.

Some in this chamber might not know that during the first week in

January daylight in the northern two-thirds of British Columbia is at a

minimum. Daybreak occurs around 8:30 a.m. and dusk is around 4 p.m.,

leaving very little time during daylight hours — particularly for the

many hundreds of rural people who must ride buses morning and night to

travel to school, take their classes, and return home. Also, Mr.

Chairman, temperatures during that period, not to speak of possible

horrendous snowfalls — and I've experienced this myself — can reach

minus 40 degrees Celsius and lower.

These are the hardships

of living in the area that provides all of the wealth for this

province. To reduce that kind of hardship by one week, rather than

taking that week at the end of June when days are long and the weather

is beautiful, makes a great deal of sense. As well, I'm sure that the

teachers and the administrators and administration staff would look

favourably at this option. At least the amendment would give them the

opportunity to decide. The idea for my actions in asking the minister

for this amendment came from across the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you move it?

MR. KEMPF: You know perfectly well, Mr. Member, I can't move it. The rules of this House dictate that I cannot move it. And I'm not....

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF:

The idea came from across the way. I checked this out. I made sure of

my ground before standing. The idea for my actions came from across the

way. I'm not proud. It was a good suggestion.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got a lot to be humble about.

MR. KEMPF:

The members opposite make fun of this, Mr. Chairman. I could take that

from a southern member, but the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who don't know what goes on in

their own constituencies, make fun of a proposal for this amendment.

I'm

not proud of the fact that the suggestion came from the other side of

the floor. I wish to see the amendment carried out. I fully expect

after what the member from New Westminster has said.... He's not in his

seat now. That's too bad. He's left the House. Too bad. For if an

amendment were to come forward I would like to see that member vote for

it. It was his suggestion. The question now is: will he or will he not

stand and vote for such an amendment? We'll see. I would hope that all

hon. members on the other side of the floor would stand and vote for

such an amendment, and, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, I

would look forward to such an amendment being adopted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Certainly I do appreciate the comments which were made this morning by

the hon. member for New Westminster, and I appreciate as well the

comments by the member for Omineca. They certainly agree on this point,

and I concur: it would be a very positive change. It certainly gives me

pleasure to address this proposal which was made this morning, and made

again by the member for Omineca now, and which we've talked about

during the intervening few hours. This amendment will provide the

flexibility for the school boards in a district to choose the time of

year when they wish to select the five days. As was mentioned, it

certainly makes sense, particularly in many of the northern areas.

So,

Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to move the following amendment to

section 4, deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

"Subject to subsection (1), the 1982-83 school year will end on June

23, 1983, unless a board, with the consent of the minister, authorizes

some other date, not later than June 30, 1983, for that school

district." I have some additional copies which I'll be pleased to

provide to members on the other side so that they too may look at this

relatively simple, but certainly important, amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Is the committee aware of the amendment? Would the committee like the

amendment read again? I'll submit it to the hon. House Leader of the

opposition.

[ Page 9657 ]

MR. HOWARD:

Could you also tell me, Mr. Chairman, how it is in order for the

minister to move it but not for the member for Omineca to have moved it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any member can submit an amendment, hon. member, and the minister has.

I'll

just give the hon. the House Leader of the opposition a moment, if he

wishes, before I call the question. Is there any discussion on the

amendment?

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE:

Listening to the member for Omineca, I rather thought that what the

minister was going to do was provide the school boards with their own

autonomy. What he's done here is.... They have to come to him, hat in

hand, and ask whether or not he will vary the situation. The minister

authorizes some other date not later than June 30. In other words, he

insists on making the final decision himself. I don't know why the

school boards should not be given the latitude to decide which days

they prefer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Just a very quick

response, Mr. Chairman. The reason that we would need to know the days,

or what the program is, is to ensure that there will be recognition of

the fact, given by the boards, that the five days, however they may be

changed, are those five days for which the teachers are not being paid.

In other words, we don't want a district to add on a further five days

and therefore put into jeopardy the agreement which is provided for the

teachers in this legislation.

MS. SANFORD: You're not attacking responsible people, are you?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

No, no. I'm certainly sure that all of the boards would be totally

responsible. But on the other hand, I think that when we see a

possibility for this, we too have a responsibility to ensure that it

can't happen.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this is not

what the member for New Westminster was talking about, and it's not

what the trustees have asked for. This is a further encroachment on the

autonomy of school boards throughout the province. The cynicism of this

minister and this government is incredible. A legitimate point was

raised by the opposition, and they take it, twist it and turn it, and

come up with this amendment that further encroaches upon autonomy. He

says he trusts all school boards; however, we're going to tell them

exactly what to do in every feature of their responsibility. The

concept of what's going on here is that we don't believe that you can

band-aid and patch up a bill that is so negative and destructive to the

education system in this province. We don't believe that at all. Do you

think that by tinkering with it, by bringing in this silly little

amendment, you're really going to solve the problem you've created for

the education system? This amendment is just another act of cynicism on

the part of the minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Because I think this is sufficiently important to school boards

everywhere, to the people of British Columbia and the teachers, I would

move a subamendment to remove "with the consent of the minister."

On the subamendment.

MR. LEA:

There's one thing about politicians: they do face reality. The reality

is that whether we vote for or against this bill — and we're voting

against the bill because we're in disagreement with it — the government

majority is going to pass the bill. So I agree that the amendment is a

good amendment, even though it's an amendment to a bad bill — the

subamendment is a good amendment to a bad amendment to a bad bill. But

I'm going to vote for it because of those reasons.

Subamendment approved.

Amendment as amended approved.

Section 4 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 5.

MS. BROWN:

I have one question, Mr. Chairman. Under subsection (3) dealing with

the non- instructional days, does the amount of money deducted for the

six days go to the boards or does the money saved go to the government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I suppose the simple answer is that the money goes to the taxpayers,

and that we don't have to collect these additional moneys in order to

pay the shortfall. I don't know what other answer there is. I suppose

one could suggest that the money goes to the boards; the money remains

with the boards, and therefore they can balance for that term of the

year.

MS. BROWN: The Telex which was sent out to the

superintendents said that this would apply only in 1982. But in

bulletin number 9 which went out it said 1982-83. Now which one is it?

Is it only 1982 or is it both 1982 and 1983?

[ Page 9658 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Subsection (3) is for 1982 only.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix. ]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would like to ask the minister a question regarding this special

education section. The

section reads that the board shall not reduce

services under special education without the consent of the minister.

How are boards expected to carry on these special education programs if

in fact funding is not provided by the minister?

The case in

point is my own school district. Last year they requested $2.799

million for special education programs and got $1.66 million. However,

they decided they would not cut those special education programs and

they raised the balance locally in order to carry on those programs.

This year, just in order to maintain the same level, they asked for

$3.2 million, and received less than they got last year — $1.6 million

approved by the government. They cannot go out and increase taxes any

more. In fact, it's going to be difficult to maintain the present

level, with the 28 percent unemployment in Cowichan. How are we going

to maintain those programs if in fact the minister says we have to

maintain them — and we'd like to maintain them — and the funding isn't

there?

The alternate school is a case in point. We required

$154,000 this year to run that school. That was changed to $70,000, but

the only moneys approved were $12,000. That simply is not going to run

that school. We contacted your ministry, Mr. Minister, and told there

would be a grant of $56,000 to make up the $70,000. I assume that's the

grant from Human Resources. We had assumed earlier that the reduction

from $154,000 to $70,000 was the Education portion and the balance

would be picked up by Human Resources. That means the program is cut to

less than half. It's a small operation and it's extremely crucial. I

can't see the minister deciding to say that he'll agree to let that go,

and certainly the school board doesn't want to let it go. These kinds

of figures coupled with this kind of a

section really leave school

boards in a catch-22 position, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Is the member referring to Cedar Lodge?

MRS. WALLACE: No, the alternative school.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The alternative school. Okay, we'll have to look into that. But the

member put forth all of the arguments for the legislation: that in fact

we wish to preserve those programs and avoid layoffs, and therefore

require these savings to be made in the manner spelled out in the

legislation. The manner that has been spelled out in legislation will

assure us that there are sufficient funds in the budgets to the end of

the school year to provide for a continuation of programs, and for a

continuation of employment for the teachers.

MRS. WALLACE:

To say that the government supports the continuation of special

education programs, and then to cut a budget request from $154,000 to

$12,000 certainly doesn't put their money where their mouth is.

MS. BROWN:

Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister knows that

one of the most important special education programs, the learning

assistance program, is not established under regulation and therefore

does not have.... The minister's not listening.

The learning

assistance program, which is one of the most important special kinds of

things that the schools provide, was not established under regulation

in most schools and so does not have the protection of this particular

section. To say that the special education programs aren't going to be

cut is not accurate. The learning assistance programs are going to be

cut.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't have

the information before me, but it's in the book. It's definitely one of

those programs listed and provided to the board as special education

programs.

MR. MITCHELL: Again, I'd like to bring to

the minister's attention what is happening out in the real world, in

spite of the wording within this bill, which says the board shall not

reduce services under the special education program established under

the regulations. In my own area, as I said earlier in second reading,

in the Port Renfrew school there was a teacher doing special education

work who was on an eight-tenths' day. That particular teacher was the

only one in that school. Because of previous cutbacks that special

education program was wiped out.

I'd have more faith in this

bill if the minister had the guts that he said the Minister of Finance

has — if

section 11 said that this act comes into force dated back to

the beginning of 1982. When the Minister of Finance is trying to

collect money from the taxpayer, he backdates. It's immaterial when

they were passed; they were backdated to the end of the fiscal year or

the beginning of 1982. If this act had that in

section 11, then we

might have some support that special education programs would be

maintained.

Special education programs are especially needed

in the Port Renfrew school; it's a logging area, with a large native

population. In speaking with the school trustees and the school board

and people in the ministry, they realize that one of the improvements

in education needed in that area was wiped out because of the first or

second restraint. I don't think this section, although it says.... I

know it will appear in all your Social Credit publications that we are

not reducing it.

When the act comes into force, if it went

back to the beginning of 1982, there would be some protection for those

kids. It's those kids that I'm really worried about. They are not going

to have the special education that they need. There is nothing in the

bill that gives them that support.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

[ Page 9659 ]

On the title.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the title be changed to the Public Education Destruction Act.

MS. BROWN: I second that.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the motion by the first member for Vancouver Centre is

clearly out of order because it does not in fact coincide with the

intent of the bill. That is the ruling of the Chair.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 28, School Services (Interim) Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 89, School Services (Interim) Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could notify the Times-Colonist what the vote was.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears

to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the

government, that the public interest requires that the House shall

meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is

desired to prorogue the fourth session of the thirty-second parliament

of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that

he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House

shall meet at the time stated on such notice and. as the case may be,

may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that

time, or in the event that Mr. Speaker is unable to act owing to

illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for

the purpose of this order.

MR. BARRETT: In debating

this motion, I will keep my comments in order relative to the time. We

were called to this House with the public statement by the government

that they had intended to deal with very serious problems of

unemployment and the economy of British Columbia. After the first week

in this Legislature, all that was presented to us was a move by the

government — happily withdrawn — to gerrymander the ridings to the

advantage of what appeared to be an imminent election. The whole

legislative session was geared toward preparing a the ground for

government announcements using public funds to set the stage for the

so-called election. While the government filibustered its own

legislation, polls were taken to find out whether or not the government

had public support to return it to office. The government chickened out

of calling an election, faded in the stretch in terms of providing any

leadership, and is now closing this House in indecision and no action

for the ordinary people of the province of British Columbia, who

expected some result.

Mr. Speaker, to be presented with this

motion today, with the hope by the government that there would be no

debate on the serious number of bankruptcies, the serious number of

foreclosures and the serious problem of unemployment in British

Columbia, smacks to me of the greatest level of hypocrisy that has ever

been reached in the province of British Columbia. Here we are with the

last chance before this government steamrolls its way out of here

because it doesn't want any accountability. We've got about six members

of the government in the House. The Premier and the cabinet run out,

frightened to face the people of British Columbia, frightened to face

this House and frightened to deal with the real problems that they're

part of.

I cannot think of another time when we've had over

250,000 British Colombians who have to rely for their prime resource of

livelihood on either public welfare or unemployment insurance. The

largest crowds in any community, or in any town or village in this

province, are in the unemployment insurance office or in the welfare

offices. Welfare rolls are staggering. Costs of welfare are seriously

overrun. People throughout this whole province are without hope and

leadership, and we've got this timid, frightened government clinging to

power — frightened to call an election and frightened to call this

House to deal with the real problems.

[ Page 9660 ]

For

the last three days the Premier has not even deigned to grace this

chamber with his presence, until 15 minutes before a motion to adjourn,

and again to run away from the problems of British Columbia.

We've

asked the Minister of Finance, during these question periods, to

address himself to serious problems about cost overruns in northeast

coal. We've asked him to detail publicly in this House how much money

has been taken from general revenue out of school budgets, highways

budgets and hospital budgets for that ill-advised project. We still

have no answer. There have been people petitioning MLAs and cabinet

ministers for some hope of economic recovery with no answers. All we've

had are glib brochures prepared by eastern advisers who have been

brought to this province to motivate the government to an electoral

victory, rather than to deal with real problems. I've travelled to

almost every community in this province over the last year, and haven't

seen so much despair, lack of optimism and lack of hope in all the time

that I've been in public life. I've never before had to respond to such

bitter comments about a government that is incapable of dealing with

day-to-day problems in the province of British Columbia.

This

week we were treated to comments by the Premier of the province, in

some convoluted fashion, expressing the opinion that if the opposition

gave an issue he would call an election. If the opposition wanted it

and wanted to play politics he would call an election. I do it here and

now, loudly and clearly. We believe the New Democratic Party can get

this province back to work again. We believe the New Democratic Party

is prepared to roll up its sleeves and find some employment and a sense

of security and hope for British Columbia. If the Premier wants a

partisan definition for an election call, then I lay that gauntlet down

right now. I think Social Credit has been a failure. I think the only

benefit it can now provide the people of British Columbia is not a

motion to adjourn, but a writ to dissolve this government and get on

with an election so the people of British Columbia can make the

decision.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Mussallem

NAYS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we might have a short recess. I understand His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts.

The House took recess at 4:03 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:14 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Rate Increase Restraint Act

Financial Administration Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1982

School Services Interim 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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:17 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

89 The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 89) intituled School Services (Interim) Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 9, by deleting "may not, without the" and substituting "may, with the prior".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada