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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9635 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act (Subsidiaries Disclosure)

(Bill M206). Second reading. (Mr. Howard)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9635

Division –– 9635

Job Creation Council Of British Columbia Act (Bill M208). Second reading. (Mr. King)

Mr. King –– 9635

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9636

Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill M209). Second reading.

(Mr. Howard)

Mr. Howard –– 9638

An Act For The Protection Of Video Display Terminal Operators (Bill M2 10).

Second reading. (Ms. Sanford)

Ms. Sanford –– 9639

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 9640

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

section 2 –– 9640

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Schroeder

Mr. King

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Barnes

section 3 –– 9648

Mr. Lauk

Tabling Documents

Compensation stabilization program report for February 18 to July 29 –– 1982.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 9648

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to committee on Bill

89, Mr. Speaker. No? Leave not being granted, I therefore move to

second reading of public bills in the hands of private members. I call

Bill M205.

MR. HOWARD: I think, as we dealt with on

another occasion, there's an obligation on the part of the government

House Leader to proceed in the order in which those items appear, and

he therefore needs to call the adjourned debate of second reading

first, before he proceeds to second reading of such bills.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, if the Chair may be permitted a brief observation, I

think in future when leave is asked, the question should actually be

put to the House so that we have a clear expression of the will of the

House. If we could undertake that in the future, I think it helps a

great deal in proceeding with the orderly business of the house.

Bearing in mind the point of order of the member for Skeena, I

recognize the House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, then, leave to proceed to Bill M205? No?

MR. HOWARD:

On the same point of order, the suggestion was that he call them in the

order in which they appear in priority; that is, adjourned debate on

second reading has a prior position to second reading of private

members' bills. Those are the ones he should deal with, as he did a

couple of weeks ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the leave that was asked was not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M201.

DANGEROUS HEALTH PRACTICES ACT

(continued)

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M202.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE TELEVISING AND

OTHER BROADCASTING OF DEBATES AND

PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(continued)

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Bill M203.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING

IN PUBLIC PLACES

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Bill M204.

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION ENHANCEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

RESOURCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT (SUBSIDIARIES DISCLOSURE)

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of my colleague the Premier, I move adjournment of the debate on Bill M206 until the next sitting.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 18

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Passarell

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

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I call second reading of Bill M205. Resource Investment Corporation

Amendment Act (Voting Rights). Once again the member doesn't appear to

be present to debate his bill.

Second reading of Bill M208. Mr. Speaker.

JOB CREATION COUNCIL OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR. KING: The purpose of this

act is to recognize that there are well over 200,000 British Columbians

unemployed at this particular time, and to offer to the Legislature for

consideration a mechanism — a tribunal — that can involve government

and people from the private sector in finding ways to create employment

opportunities in the communities throughout this province and in

private industry so government may have the benefit of people from the

private sector, both employers and employees, in determining what

projects might be undertaken and accelerated at this particular time to

offer employment opportunities through what will otherwise be a very

long and bleak winter.

The purpose of the bill is to provide a catalyst for job creation. No one knows

better than the people in the communities and industries what kind of opportunities

for industrial

[ Page 9636 ]

activity

lie in the communities, districts and regions throughout this province.

I think the unique aspect of this bill is that it's not a make-work

project by government that is to be initiated holus-bolus on regional

districts and municipalities. So often in the past those kinds of

programs, whether provincially or federally initiated, paid negligible

benefits to the economic strength of the province. So it is the feeling

that by involving people from the broadest possible cross-section of

the communities — private industry, municipal councils and regional

district representatives, trade unions, native Indian bands and women's

groups — we can find projects that could well go ahead now, except for

the interference of government red tape that makes the initiation of

projects a very time consuming and a very frustrating experience.

suggest that the government could well provide some funding to assist

in getting some of these projects off the ground. I suggest further

that a small outlay of capital by this government to create meaningful

jobs in consultation with the private sector would be self-financing.

This government now has an opportunity to put their money where their

mouth is. We have been here a number of weeks now and we have not had

one job created through any of the initiatives — or lack of initiative

of this government. The government, in its traditional fashion, in its

narrow and partisan and penny-pinching approach, in its narrow

perspective, is not prepared to look at suggestions from anywhere but

its own ranks. They're prepared to let narrow partisanship interfere

with the employment prospects of thousands of British Columbians over

this winter. That's shameful!

If the government is opposed

to imaginative initiative to create some industrial activity in this

province, then the record will show that that's on their heads. They

haven't offered one imaginative program in the last three years in

government. What we are trying to do with this bill is to break the

inertia that has bedevilled this government. It's to break through the

lack of leadership in this government and get them and the economy

moving because they seem singularly incapable of doing it themselves.

If there was a real concern on that side of the House for the thousands

of British Columbians who because they are unemployed are not able to

maintain their mortgage payments or adequately care for their families

or adequately feed and clothe their families, then they would be doing

something and they'd be supporting this kind of initiative from the

opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the cost is

negligible, that this is a self-financing opportunity. The cost of

initiating any of these programs would be more than recaptured in the

productive application of our resources, both natural and human, and

certainly in the income tax benefits that would flow from the increased

employment, to say nothing of the reduction in the drain on both the

provincial and federal treasuries which flows from having people at

home in idleness and frustration, while this government sits idly by

and watches it happen. This could indeed be a self-financing program.

I'm

quite willing to listen to the government's ideas, if only they would

put some forward. We have not had in this session one initiative, one

plan that would create a single job. The only job that this government

has proffered in this session of the House is the establishment of

seven more constituencies for Social Credit hacks. That's the only

employment program they know; that's the only one they've put forward.

It's true that a public outcry and reaction has forced this timid,

leaderless government to retreat even from that initiative. Mr.

Speaker, I do not find one initiative that the government has taken.

The

government doesn't like the bill? Let them answer to the 235,000

British Columbians unemployed at this particular time, with the

prospect, before the winter is over, of up to 300,000 people in the

province remaining home in idleness. That's a scandal. It's an absolute

scandal to think that we have that kind of unused resource in British

Columbia, while this government sits idly by, obsessed with politics,

obsessed with gimmicks in terms of how they are going to try to win a

mandate again from the people when they muster the courage to face

them. It's shameful.

This particular bill is an attempt to

provide some cooperative leadership in this province: cooperation

between industry, cooperation between the communities and, hopefully,

cooperation with a government that fails to see the need for that kind

of cooperation. We're not telling people what the project should be

precisely; we are asking in a spirit of cooperation.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, would you send Barney back to the quarry? For goodness'

sake, all he does is sit there and yelp. If he wishes to speak on the

bill I'd welcome his contribution. Of all the negative individuals I

have ever encountered, he has to be the one. He fits in well with his

colleagues on that side. Negativism is all we get from this government.

This

is an initiative that will tap the talents, the brains, the thoughts

and the imagination of people across the length and breadth of this

province in a cooperative effort to generate some economic and

industrial activity in the province before winter sets in. It could be

initiated immediately. The idea is not a new one; the idea has been

used before, with good results. I see no reason why every member of the

House who has any sensitivity whatsoever to those thousands of people

in his own riding needing assistance and employment opportunities

should not support this bill.

I move second reading.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

First, in response to the member's initiation of the private member's

bill, let me say that the government does not differ. In fact, it has

done a fair amount in going along with the very thing the member has

suggested in this bill. I'd like to make just a couple of comments on

the remarks the member has just put forward.

I will not

accept the premise that this government has done nothing in

job-creation nor will I accept — nor will he, I'm sure — the fact that

we have not in every way, in this session as well as in the activities

of this government, addressed the very difficult problems faced by the

unemployed in British Columbia and, indeed, throughout Canada today.

The

employment development committee was set up earlier this year. On April

22, 1982 I believe there was an announcement of such a committee. It is

a cabinet committee. I am honoured to chair that committee. On that

committee we have cabinet ministers who are involved in various areas

of the economy, as well as very good staff who involve themselves with

the committee. Let me tell you that the committee has worked very much

along the lines that the hon. member has just described: they have

sought ideas from the community. I am pleased to tell the member — I'm

sure

[ Page 9637 ]

will be happy to know — that we have had representatives from the

various areas within the community, college representatives, university

and business representatives, and we have had some union

representation. We also have had representation from various resources

within the community. I totally agree that the human resources in

British Columbia can be tapped to their best potential, and this

government has been able to do that in more than one way.

I would like to give an example of how the Cabinet Committee on

Employment Development did just that when they brought together the new

home mortgage program, along with the Ministry of Housing. For example,

we sought advice from all the people in the financial institutions. We

sought advice from the people in the real estate field and from the

people from the HUDAC organization — people who had been in the

provision of homes for people for very many years and who had the

expertise on financing the building and so on. I'd like to pay tribute

to them, It's just an excellent example of what the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke has said this morning: to tap those resources in the

community, to bring about the best, to get together with people so that

those who are in the community — who are really there where people are

hurting — can offer assistance. The member is wrong in saying that it

isn't working, because a very good example is the new program which

brings to the people of British Columbia peace-of-mind legislation —

the new program which this House has passed giving 12 percent mortgages

and peace-of-mind legislation to people in this province about the very

thing that the member has suggested that they are hurting from: the

fact that they have mortgages to get and they have limited resources

with which to meet them. Our committee has addressed that and addressed

it well. They have called on the community to do so.

There is a tremendous opportunity for us to do just that kind of

interface with the community. It has already been done. There will be

more done in the months to come. When the House is not sitting, our

committee will be free to go throughout the province and very much

plans to do so. We have had a tremendous amount of interest from the

people. I was extremely interested, and the members on our side of the

House must have been quite fascinated, to hear the member few or

Shuswap-Revelstoke say that he didn't consider make-work projects....

Funny that his leader, just within the last few weeks, talking to the

Union of B.C. Municipalities, suggested that they have projects which

would impose operating costs on them, to make work throughout the

province. It's fascinating that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke would

have a different opinion from the leader. But maybe that's because the

Leader of the Opposition isn't in the House to hear his words this

morning.

Let me just

say that the whole idea of calling on the community has a great deal of

merit, and we have been doing that. The member wishes to put forward

the idea that it isn't happening. Maybe they're not talking to him but

they're certainly talking to our committee. They're certainly talking

and suggesting job opportunities. We are meeting within our committee

with very many people.

To say there has been no job creation

by this government is a fabrication of the worst kind. Even within our

own program, in the past few years the economic blueprint for this

province has seen people in jobs. Right this minute, as we debate this

in the House, they are working in northeast coal, on the stadium in

Vancouver, in Nanaimo on Duke Point, in Kitimat, in Prince Rupert. They

are working in the province of British Columbia. Because of the

economic development minister's work, because of the Cabinet Committee

on Economic Development and our committee on employment development,

there are jobs going on in British Columbia while we are here in this

House debating. So any fabrication of that kind — that this government

has been remiss in job creation — is probably the most incredible myth

that that particular opposition could put forward. I'm pleased with the

work that the employment development committee has done. Many programs

have been put forward; one has only to consider some of them.

There's

been a lot of criticism of the Employment Bridging Assistance Program

which was put forward at the very beginning when the employment

development committee was launched. In fact, at that time we had joined

with the federal government to provide approximately $40 million in

British Columbia for a bridging program for the forestry industry.

MR. LEA: How many jobs?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

To date, approximately 2,000 jobs have been created. It is short of

what we had hoped for. That is not the fault of our committee, Mr.

Speaker. That is because (

a) there are people in this province who do

not want the program to work (

b) they had some problems within the

forest industry itself in terms of creating equipment etc. We have met

some of those problems. I'd like to emphasize that this program, which

was presented to the province, and is still available to the forest

industry, is now being opened up to other areas within the province. I

believe it will be taken up in a much more aggressive manner.

Let

me just say that this province of British Columbia, compared with all

of the provinces in Canada who are in partnership on EBAP — the

Employment Bridging Assistance Program.... In spite of being late in

getting into it with the federal government — it started in Ontario —

this province has created more jobs in a shorter length of time than

any other province in Canada. It has created half the jobs in Canada in

a shorter length of time. That's a good record. So if it hasn't been

taken up aggressively in British Columbia, it hasn't been taken up in

Ontario or other parts of the country. Our government in this province

has created 50 percent of the total jobs in Canada in EBAP. I think

that is a very good record indeed.

I would like to name some

of the other things we have participated in. We have launched the

community recovery program which I think is going to be aggressively

taken up. We believe that those projects which may be sponsored by

non-profit organizations, service organizations and local governments

will be taken up. I think they will be meaningful jobs. We will see to

it that they are meaningful jobs, that it is work that can be done in a

meaningful way by those who participate. I'm pleased that the winter

employment stimulation program that we announced in the recovery

program is being launched and will be taken up by people in

agriculture, high technology, small business, tourism and travel.

We have a very great responsibility in the province to create jobs; we have

a very great responsibility to see that the private sector is very much involved.

Frankly, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and myself do not really differ

too much in terms of what the private member's bill is all about. Let me

just assure him that it is being done by this government and that it will be

continued by this government in a

[ Page 9638 ]

more

aggressive way when the House is not in session, which will give us

more time to be outside Victoria than to have people meeting with us

within these walls, which has been very successful and very good indeed.

look forward to the continued input from the private sector, because if

it were not for the private sector we would not, in all of Canada, find

our way out of the recession. I believe that our commitment to the

private sector and the capabilities of the free enterprise system will

lead us out of the recession much more quickly than any other province

in Canada. We will call on them for their help, as we've done in the

past. I know it will be there.

This bill does lead to

expenditure of funds and imposes an obligation on the government and

the Crown. I would say that in general we accept the idea of reaching

to the private sector, but the bill is really out of order inasmuch as

a private member's bill is not to impose a charge on the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, that is the observation of the Chair as well. If we refer to Speaker's Decisions ,

for example, 1877 to 1915, from 1902 it says: "A bill providing for the

appointment of officials to carry out his provisions cannot be

introduced by a private member without government consent." The bill,

therefore, hon. member, is out of order.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the Chair and the minister found

the bill out of order, I find it difficult to understand how you

accepted a 15 minute harangue from the minister on a bill that she

considered out of order. If the bill was to be called out of order, it

should have been done immediately and not after the member had spoken

on the bill at great length. I find that an unusual procedure, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, regarding the

point raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, if the Chair could

be permitted an observation, this points out the dilemma we had just a

day or two ago. Basically, it's been the long-standing practice of the

House to allow private members to put forward their points and to allow

response on behalf of the Crown. Otherwise, if the Chair were to

strictly adhere to all the various requirements, the member putting

forward the bill would not be allowed the opportunity to make his

address in support of his particular bill.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M209.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior

to recognizing the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I would ask all hon.

members to consider exactly what is happening at this particular

moment. We have just had a ruling by the Chair challenged on the basis

that the Chair should have intervened earlier on a bill which was out

of order. We now have a bill before us which clearly falls into almost

exactly the same category as the previous bill. The long-standing

traditions of this House have been that a member is allowed to speak on

his bill, and if the Chair is asked to intervene before the member has

had an opportunity to make his points, and again is asked not to allow

a government response, clearly there is a dilemma. The long-standing

traditions of this House will prevail and the member for Skeena....

On a point of order, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

MR. KING:

The challenge to the Chair was about ruling the bill out of order. The

Speaker dealt with the previous point of order I have raised, and I

accepted that. The challenge related to whether or not the bill was out

of order, not whether or not there should have been debate on it. I

want to make sure the Chair understood that.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is taken, and I hope hon. members as well will understand the long-standing traditions of the House.

MR. HOWARD: It kind of dampens one's enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker, knowing what's going to happen at the finale of all this.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to be wrong.

MR. HOWARD: I'll ignore the interjections, Mr. Speaker.

When it was announced that it was going to take place, this portion of the session....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: To the bill!

MR. HOWARD: Could you keep depression Don Phillips, silent, please, Mr. Speaker? He's just intruding.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. If we (

a) speak to the bill and (

b) speak

to the Chair and.other members cease making interjections, we'll

proceed.

[ Page 9639 ]

MR. HOWARD:

I'm trying to do that. When the Premier — or whoever it was — announced

that this portion of the session was going to commence on September 13,

the stated objective was to deal with unemployment. The stated

objective was to deal with job creation. The stated purpose was to come

here to deal with matters contained within this bill...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order....

MR.HOWARD: . ...and that's what I'm doing, moving second reading of this bill in order to get to the point of talking about job creation.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate that, hon. member. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

My point of order is that the speaker opposite should speak to the

bill, not talk about things in general. He should keep his remarks

specifically to the bill....

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member. A short

preamble to set the tone is acceptable, but now the member continues.

MR. HOWARD:

It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development doesn't want to talk about job creation in this

province, because he's not interested in it. He takes the first

opportunity after a couple of sentences of mine to interrupt the debate

in which we're talking about job creation and unemployment. The

Minister of Industry and....

MR. SPEAKER: On another point of order, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On another point of order, this bill is totally out of order, and I think it should be ruled out of order, so....

MR. HOWARD: The only person out of order in this House is the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair is now.... There's a difficulty

now, hon. member, in that the point of order has, been brought to the

attention of the Chair. There is also an obligation on the Chair....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Just one moment, hon. members.

Hon.

members, the point of order having been brought to the attention of the

Chair, the Chair must now make a ruling on the bill. The ruling is that

the bill cannot proceed. It is out of order in that it does impact on

the Crown. Also, as mentioned previously, a bill providing for the

appointment of officials to carry out its provisions cannot be

introduced by a private member without government consent. That consent

having been clearly denied, the bill therefore is ruled out of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the member for Skeena seeking the floor?

MR. HOWARD: This gentleman over here — I withdraw the remark "gentleman" — is still on his feet. Who has the floor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Skeena is seeking the floor on what basis?

MR. HOWARD:

With the noise from those rattle brains on the other side it was

difficult to get across to you that I am challenging your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 21

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M210, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT FOR THE PROTECTION OF

VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINAL OPERATORS

MS. SANFORD: There

has been a good deal of concern with respect to the safety of video

display terminal operators throughout the province. As you are probably

aware, Mr. Speaker, VDTs are being increasingly used in the workplace,

yet there are absolutely no standards in this province. There is no

protection in terms of any health hazards that might result from the

operation of VDTs. The only thing that has been done in this province

is the publication of a pamphlet by the Ministry of Labour which

outlines some of the concerns, with some recommendations with respect

to standards that could be set. But none of these standards have been

set. The Workers Compensation Board has no regulations with respect to

the operation or safety of these video display terminals.

There were a number of employees at Surrey Memorial Hospital who had been working with the VDTs and who

[ Page 9640 ]

found

that they suffered either miscarriages or abnormal births. As a result,

concern has been raised in this province with respect to the safety of

pregnant women working at VDTs. This piece of legislation would permit

a video display terminal operator to move from a VDT job to some other

job during the term of her pregnancy so that she will not be adversely

affected by any rays that may be emanating from these VDTs.

Mr.

Speaker, there are very few testing facilities in Canada that can test

VDTs and any radiation emissions. At Surrey Memorial Hospital testing

is now taking place, but this is because they brought in somebody from

Ontario to do the testing. Apparently they could not find anyone

qualified here in British Columbia to undertake the testing of the VDTs

at Surrey Memorial.

We need standards. This bill would

permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish standards

through regulations regarding size and colour of the terminals. It

would also provide for regulations relating to radiation shields to be

used on these VDTs. They would also prescribe the flicker rates that

would be permitted for VDTs. Also, because eyestrain is one of the

problems related to the operation of VDTs, this bill calls for regular

ophthalmological tests. It also calls for rest periods for operators,

so that they don't have to sit hour after hour suffering eyestrain as a

result of the operation of these VDTs.

Mr. Speaker, I

recognize that private members' bills are not very often accepted by

government. It's a rare occasion when a private member's bill is

accepted. But we need these basic standards. We need the standards that

have been outlined in this legislation, and these are minimal

standards. We require more training for people who are testing VDTs. We

require more equipment for the testing of VDTs. This bill, if the

government would adopt it at this point, would give some protection to

VDT operators.

Mr. Speaker, the immediate concern has been

with respect to VDT operators who have suffered miscarriages or

abnormal births. But there are a number of other medical problems that

seem to be associated with the operation of VDTs. It is high time that

we got some standards adopted by the province respecting VDT use in

this province. It's amazing how quickly these VDTs have been adopted in

various businesses and offices throughout the province. They are now in

operation everywhere. It's unfortunate that the government itself has

not seen fit to bring in some standards and some regulations regarding

VDTs. We don't want a pregnant woman operating a VDT without being

permitted to move from that job, so that she can do some other work

within that office during the term of her pregnancy without the loss of

pay or seniority. I'm hopeful that the government will adopt these

basic standards which I have advanced in this private member's bill,

and I move second reading of this bill.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, the question of the safety of VDTs is one which is

undergoing considerable review across Canada by the federal ministry of

health and other federal agencies, along with most of the provinces,

and a great deal of research has been conducted. The concern as

expressed by the member for Comox is shared by many people, although

those involved in the scientific community have not, as yet, been able

to verify some of the fears or claims which have been raised, although

their investigation has not terminated. In keeping with the traditions

of the House, I suggest that the private member's bill is not in order

in that it calls for a penalty section,

section 9, which would cause an

impost on the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly, the

provision for fines can only be done with the consent of the Crown.

Therefore, as pointed out, the bill is out of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

(continued)

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

section 2.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, I have some comments this morning on

section 2 of Bill

89, particularly in reference to the language of the

section contained

in the so-called

preamble to it which refers specifically to quality

and diversity of educational services. I make that as a

preamble, Mr.

Chairman, so you know I intend to stay in order in terms of

section 2.

think it's important to understand that it's impossible to deal with

Bill 89 and the question of maintaining educational standards in this

province without also putting it into the context of the various

cutbacks in spending that have occurred this year in the educational

system. The implications of the bill itself cannot be considered

without also considering the level of funding being provided to the

educational system in this province this year.

I think we

need to, in debating the issue of education in this province, clear up

a few things. One is the question of restraint: are we in favour of

restraint or are we not in favour of restraint? Are educators in favour

of restraint, or are they not? Is the public in favour, or are they

not? I don't think any member of this Legislature or the public would

argue that it is not a difficult time economically. No one would argue

that there isn't a need for some kind of restraint in education,

together with every other aspect of government programs. That's

unarguable.

The argument is about the way in which the

restraint measures are imposed and the severity of those restraint

measures as they affect the quality of education in this province. I

find it interesting that two of the most important resources in our

province are being hit in peculiar ways by the government. Probably the

most important resource, our children, are being attacked directly by

this legislation. It's interesting to see that another resource on the

other side of the spectrum — the forest industry in this province — is

being hit in exactly the same way. The government has made a conscious

decision that it does not intend to plant very many trees this year,

nor does it plan to do very much about reforestation. It has abandoned

its five-year forestry program and its silviculture program.

That

is the same kind of action as they've taken in education. It is dealing

with issues today in the short term, thinking about what will happen in

these few months, and not giving any concern at all to what will happen

years down the road. That is my major concern about this legislation

and about the way the government has attacked the education system in

this province. As we're doing now with our forest industry, we're

[ Page 9641 ]

doing

with our children. We're not thinking about what it will be like 20

years or 50 years from now — or even, in the case of forestry, 90 years

from now. That, it seems to me, is something the public should concern

itself about in terms of the way the government is approaching its

restraint program. Yes to restraint, but no to the kind of devastation

of the future that's implicit in this program.

The minister,

the Premier and other government members talk about the fact that

teachers are the only group that has not been cooperating with the

government's restraint program. Doctors have cooperated, government

employees have cooperated and the list goes on, according to government

members. But no other group in this society anywhere in our economy,

whether private or public, has been legislated by this Legislature, has

been told that their restraint program will be imposed by law. In the

case of the doctors, negotiations were undertaken between the

government and the executive of the BCMA. Despite statements by the

Premier again last night at the meeting in Coquitlam — statements that

were obviously false — the doctors have not yet agreed to accept that

restraint. They're still voting. It's my understanding that the results

won't be announced until sometime later this month, October 22 or so.

Therefore the statement that the doctors have already agreed to

restraint is wrong. But even if they had agreed to restraint, it was

done by negotiation, which is fundamentally different from what is

being done in this bill.

The Premier, the minister and

others have commented that the BCGEU have accepted restraint, so why

shouldn't teachers? The B.C. government employees negotiated a contract

at the termination of their contract. They signed an agreement that

obviously includes a restraint approach, but they did so in free

collective bargaining — as much as that's possible in this economy.

They at least had the opportunity to negotiate and they had some

options. Even with all of that having happened in a free and democratic

way, they still haven't decided yet whether they are going to accept

those restraints. Their voting hasn't been completed and that decision

too won't be made until later this month.

So for the

government to say that the government employees and doctors have agreed

to restraint is first of all wrong. Secondly, if and when they do, it

will have been done voluntarily. But what we have in this

section is

law that says: "We will not give you the option of negotiating. Even

though you were midway through negotiations with your school boards, we

will take away that optional opportunity that teachers might have had."

heard the Premier some time ago, talking about when he was in business,

say that all that mattered when he agreed to a deal with a colleague in

the business world was shaking hands on the deal. That's all that was

required. I'm paraphrasing: "I didn't have to sign an agreement. Once

we shook hands it was a deal, and I never went back on a deal," said

the Premier. But now he introduces legislation through the minister

which goes back on a deal.

If it is restraint that the

government wants to extract from teachers and the educational process,

then fine. There are at least two ways in which that could be

accomplished. One had begun, and that was the process of negotiations

between teachers and their boards to find ways of accommodating this

school year with less money. They were doing that. Secondly, the

contract expires in 21/2 months and there's a set of negotiations that

begins in a few days or a few weeks.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind the Minister of Agriculture that we are in committee and appropriate time will be allowed for a response.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture is a stranger to the rules of

the House. We'll get into the debate if the minister wants to respond

in a way that will have Hansard record what he says, rather than this quiet exchange.

was just making the point that the contract expires December 31.

Negotiations are now underway, or will be underway very shortly, and if

it's restraint the government wants to accomplish, it can be done in

the set of negotiations. Any contract can be arrived at through

negotiations or, if that fails, through the arbitration process. It

might be that a more effective restraint program could be achieved in

that way. But my fundamental problem is that when you sign an agreement

or a contract in a free and democratic society such as we believe we

live in, then that's a contract; it's not to be broken by this

Legislature or by anyone else.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak

specifically about the quality and diversity of education supposedly

being maintained because a few words in a bill say it's going to be

maintained. In second reading I talked about a kindergarten class in my

riding with 20 kids in it. One kid has Down's syndrome, one has

cerebral palsy, and there is one teacher. Last year that teacher had an

aide to assist in conducting the kindergarten class. On Monday of this

week I had an opportunity to meet with that teacher to verify the

situation. When you have a situation where a kindergarten teacher has

no assistance whatsoever in the classroom, and she has 21 kids — one of

whom has Down's syndrome, one of whom has cerebral palsy and all of

whom are roughly five years old — how can the government argue that

it's maintaining the quality and diversity of education? There's no

quality for those kids, because that teacher is run off her feet. She's

spending not nearly enough time with those two kids who need particular

help. What has happened in that school district? Last year they had 40

either child-care workers or special-education workers; this year they

have 17. Yet the minister says he's preserving the quality. There's no

quality preserved. In another school in that same district a grade 4

teacher has 36 kids. My daughter is in a grade 10 math class with 37

kids. I can understand it in social studies, but how does a math

teacher teach math with 37 kids in the class?

Mr. Speaker,

I've talked at length, and I won't pursue it very much further.

Yesterday afternoon, I spent the best part of an hour on the telephone

with a woman in the northern part of the island whose kid is now not

going to school because the school can't handle the child because the

kid is so disturbed. He qualifies in my opinion and her opinion and the

school's opinion for the CHANCE program, but there's no money left in

the CHANCE program. The ministry has no money and the school board has

no money. So the kid doesn't go to school. How do you preserve the

quality of education when a kid can't go to school because there aren't

enough child-care attendants in the school to allow the classroom to

function? These are serious questions, and the bill doesn't deal with

these kinds of questions. It says we're going to maintain the quality

and diversity of educational services, but the reality, when you go the

classrooms, is that it is not being preserved.

[ Page 9642 ]

was away from the House on Monday and Tuesday during the first part of

the week, and I visited classrooms in the northern part of my riding. I

had meetings with staff and various classroom situations. I was

appalled. I make it a regular practice of my job as an MLA to spend

time in classrooms. I suspect I spend between 30 and 40 hours a year in

classroom situations talking to kids, and untold hours beyond that in

staff rooms talking to teachers. I just see that as part of my job.

When I go into those classrooms and staff rooms now, I find that

teachers are demoralized. The stress levels are such that coping

becomes almost impossible. The classroom sizes are beyond belief. In

one classroom I was in recently, they had crammed every possible desk

into the room and then they had put a bench along the back of the room

and kids sat against sort of a little table against the back wall with

their backs to the teacher because there were so many kids in the class

that there was not even room for them to sit there properly at desks.

Teachers are expected to teach in those situations. What happens to

those kids who need special attention in the classroom who now aren't

getting that kind of attention?

I'm concerned not just about

the liberal education that the Leader of the Opposition talked about

yesterday, although I agree entirely with his comments about that. I'm

concerned about some of the other things that people consider to be

frills. When the kids in Tahsis can't go on a field trip, that is a

major cutback in their education. Kids who grow up in isolated

communities — there are kids who have been at school for years now and

have never been out of Tahsis, if you can believe that — require as

part of a decent and basic education that they leave those isolated

communities, if only to go to Campbell River or to Victoria, so that

they can see that there's a world out there that's a little bit bigger

than the logging community they live in. Those trips are now

unavailable to them. It concerns me when computers are not being used

in the school system because we don't have the time or the money to

train teachers to teach the computer programs that are so essential in

a modern world.

I'm not just talking about the frills on the

artsy side of things — the music, art, drama and those kinds of things,

which I think are absolutely essential and absolutely important to a

functioning and basic education. But I'm talking about some other

practical things, such as field trips for kids in grade 11 in Port

McNeill, who normally would go out into the logging operations so that

they could get some understanding of forestry, industry and of the real

world so that when they did leave school — some of them before they

graduated — they could have some understanding of how education and

work integrated. They don't have those field trips now.

resource- and forestry-based communities that kind of education is

absolutely basic. It's as basic as reading, writing and arithmetic.

That's something that the minister who talks about his conservative

educational philosophy doesn't seem to understand. These too are

conservative values. These aren't wild, radical or liberal values; they

are conservative values: giving kids an understanding and an

opportunity to relate to the workforce, to the real world out there.

That's part of education. Education isn't just learning facts from a

textbook while sitting at a desk. Education is much more than that.

I don't think the minister takes that into account when he imposes the

cutbacks that are being imposed, where we now have an average class size in

my riding, I would guess, of 33 or 34, certainly well over 30; this isn't

PTR I'm talking about. Maybe that's the philosophy of the government.

The former Minister of Education was on Rafe Mair's show not too long ago

— August 30, 1982. Rafe Mair asked the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer): "Pat, do you think that there will be

a substantial diminishing in the learning experience of kids in this year of

restraint if Mr. Vander Zalm has his way?" Mr. McGeer: "No, I've

always felt learning in our schools would improve if we were to decrease the

number of teachers relative to the students, because if you get a slightly larger

class you have better attention and discipline in the classroom." Is that

the philosophy of the government? If that's the philosophy of the government,

I look forward to the election campaign based on that issue: one which says

the more kids you have in the class the more attention and discipline you have.

You might have attention and discipline if you rule with a whip at the front,

but how much education do you have? You might have a fair amount of teaching,

but how much learning do you have?

would acknowledge that different kinds of studies can accommodate

different levels of classroom size. I find it absolutely appalling that

in laboratory classes in science and in mathematics classes we have —

in one case that I know of — as many as 44 kids in the class, and in

many cases in the thirties. It is impossible for a teacher to give any

individual attention in those situations.

Mr. Chairman, I'm

not going to speak much longer on this. I wanted to share one letter

out of large number that I have received in the last few days. I want

to read about half of a two-page letter that I received from a teacher

in Campbell River, because I think it states the matter in a way that

needs to be dealt with. The letter is to the Premier. The teacher

writes:

"Your government's regressive policies

in regards to education have caused in the teachers of this province

states of anxiety and depression, not to say frustration, unparalleled

in the history of pedagogy. This state is, of course, not conducive to

the frame of mind necessary to effective teaching. Teaching is one of

the most emotionally exhausting and nerve-racking professions in

civilized society. It is replete with built-in tensions and anxieties

even in 'normal' conditions. I have nursed, done office and sales work

and even various types of physical labour. None of those other

occupations possess a fraction of the duress that exists in teaching.

"I teach a grade 6-7 split of 30 low-ability children. Six

of these are native Indians and seven are ESL pupils. These students need and

demand so much more attention than I alone can give them. Despite my best efforts

many are getting behind, and the Indian children especially will become dropouts

in two or three years' time if the trend continues. Teacher aides are not

a luxury in cases such as above."

All I can say to those comments is amen. Those words from that teacher from

Campbell River, I think, express very well the views I've heard in talking

to about 60 or 70 teachers when I travelled around the north end of my riding

this weekend and early last week. The comments this teacher makes summarize

very well the reaction I was getting from those teachers.

I'm

not arguing here...or hold ding a brief for teachers. They have a

strong organization. They're a well-educated group of people. They can

look after themselves in terms of

[ Page 9643 ]

their

own, personal work relationships, given an opportunity to bargain,

negotiate and deal directly with those people for whom they work, and,

importantly, given the required amount of money. Given that money,

ability to negotiate and ability to discuss with their employers what

it is that will happen in the classroom, we can have an education

system that doesn't result in the kind of letter I've just read.

Imagine

a classroom split between grades 6 and 7, with 30 kids in that class,

six of whom are native Indians and seven of whom are

there who have special difficulties. The teacher is predicting that

those kids will drop out. What costs will there be not only to those

students as individuals in terms of a diminished education, but also,

if you're not concerned about individuals, to society, when those

people drop out of school, some of whom inevitably will end up in

trouble with the law and many of whom will end up in difficulties of

other kinds that will cause dramatically increased costs to government

in years down the road?

Why is it that we are so concerned

about a few dollars today, at the cost of many more dollars in years

down the road? Why is that governments can't say to themselves: "We

will abandon this short-term approach to government which says that all

that matters is what we accomplish between now and the end of the

fiscal year, or at the longest, between now and the time of the next

election"? Why can't we say to ourselves that the children are the

single most important resource in this province, that education is the

cornerstone and foundation of a progressive and dynamic society, and

that it requires a proper level of funding? If we don't do that, the

costs and the price in the years to come will be such that society will

not be able to afford those costs. Why is it that governments are so

concerned with today and not with tomorrow? That's a question that

parents and teachers ask, and increasingly, that's a question that the

children in those schools are asking.

The minister has done

society one favour. He has done society the favour of making it

recognize the threat that a government can be to education. In doing

that, he has united people out there in the educational field in a way

that they have never been united before. Trustees, teachers, parents

and children have all understood that they have a common enemy, and

have banded together, because they know that they are the people who

will have to preserve education in this province, because the Minister

of Education has no intention whatsoever of preserving education.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER:

I've enjoyed the debate of the member for North Island. He's a good

debater. I like the way his mind works. He's logical and makes his

points in a most reasonable and rational fashion. I think that's the

way debate should be carried out. He's a darned good debater, and let's

say it. I have a few things I think I'd like to talk about so that some

of these things don't go unnoticed.

The reductions in

programs which the member was talking about. I don't think anybody

wants to see the reduction in programs. I don't think the minister

wants to see reductions in programs. However, when you're speaking in

terms of budgetary factors, and by virtue of legislation you are unable

to look at the major segment of the Education budget, you must then

find your shortfall dollars in, for sake of argument, 20 percent of the

entire education budget. In that 20 percent of the budget are found

special programs, specialized programs and necessary programs such as

the ones the member outlined. If that's the only area in which you can

create those savings, then unless you can negotiate a change, as the

member says, that's the only area in which you can look.

But

if we wish to make savings in the 80 percent sector, which involves

salaries of administrators, teachers and all people involved in the

education sector.... If you wish to negotiate, you must have at least

the capability of negotiating. If the legislation that is in place

prohibits you from negotiating in those areas, then you are bound —

hidebound — to look at the 20 percent area.

The legislation

purports to make it possible to carry out what the member suggests:

reasonable negotiations. I couldn't agree more, negotiation should and

must take place. But having made it possible to negotiate, we can then

sit down with teachers and administrators, with all the people who

operate within the 80 percent segment, and come to reasonable

negotiations.

Also, no one wishes to open a contract unless it's possible to do so, or unless it's made mandatory. The fact is....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Please excuse me, Mr. Member. I'll give you an opportunity in a minute.

remember making some speeches in the House over the years regarding

sanctity of contract. Do you remember? I believe precisely what the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) believes: that is, that a

contract is a contract and should be abided by assuming certain

constants.

However, in my lifetime I've made a few contracts called conditional sales

contracts. If, during the life of that conditional sales contract, economic

factors changed so that it was not possible for me to carry out my commitment,

I had the opportunity to go to the vendor with whom I had that contract and

to say to him: "Could we open the contract and, because of economic factors,

take a look at the realities of the thing? Couldn't we negotiate a

smaller monthly payment so that I could carry out my responsibility — the responsibility

in total?" That kind of negotiation is possible within a contract. I wouldn't

believe it would be necessary to ask for that kind of renegotiation unless economic

factors changed to force it.

would suggest that we have reached the place in this fiscal year where

that kind of economic pressure is in place, and that renegotiation must

take place. The legislation makes that possible, and I think we can

have very reasonable and rational debate in the months that lie ahead

in order to see whether or not we can't make the two columns add up by

the end of the fiscal year. The member says that unless we invest in

education now, we will reap in the future the costs of not having

invested in education now, and that those costs will be ones society

cannot bear. I would suggest to the hon. member that perhaps he should

look at the economic factors now, in October of 1982, and conclude,

with me, that we have already in this year reached the place where

society is not capable of bearing the cost. I'm glad he will at least

admit that there is such a place. The debate simply has to surround the

factors of whether we have reached that place now or whether that place

is to be reached sometime in the future.

I was interested to

hear his remark about the 36 members in a class. What is the class size

average? I don't have the numbers written in my mind, but somewhere

between 18 and 19 is the average class when we consider full-time

equivalents. We're not talking about class size now: we're talking

[ Page 9644 ]

about

pupil-teacher ratio. If there are 36 members in a class and, for

argument's sake, the full-time equivalent is 19, it means that

somewhere outside the class there are individuals in supervisory

capacities or perhaps in coordinator capacities. I think we should

perhaps be looking in that area as well, to see whether or not those

individuals would come in with us on the negotiations to see whether or

not we can maintain the quality of education, as suggested in

section 2.

MR. KING:

I listened very closely to the comments of my colleague from North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I also listened very closely to the comments

from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). One thing comes

across: the government, particularly the Minister of Agriculture, seems

to view education as a number of separate, isolated components. He

talks about the 20 percent, which presumably is the programs, and the

80 percent which is teachers. How do you have programs without

teachers? How do you have education without teachers? In my view, it's

a silly argument to suggest that teachers can be sliced off, hived off,

from the education system, with the assumption that the effects on

teachers whether through reduction or through the destruction of the

teachers' morale, has no effect on the quality of education that the

children enjoy.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You're making my arguments. Great!

MR. KING:

The minister's point was that we have to look to the area of teachers'

salaries to cut costs. He seemed to be assuming that that would have no

consequence whatsoever on the quality of education. He said there

should be mutual agreement to open a contract; he talked about a

conditional contract. Yes, those things are available. If two parties

agree in good faith to a conditional contract that may be opened in a

certain set of circumstances, fair enough; it's part of the contract

agreement. That is called mutual consent. That is not what we have

here. We have a private contract, which was signed in good faith by the

parties, intruded into by the arbitrary power of the government,

without consent. So the minister's reasonable argument in terms of two

parties sitting down with mutual consent is totally irrelevant. That's

not what we have here at all. What we have here is a heavy-handed

government coming in after having changed the ground rules quite a

number of times — this is the fourth change this year.

The

Revelstoke school board has written a letter to the Premier; the

minister and I have copies. It is a particularly strong letter. It

makes the very points that the opposition has been trying to make.

Because of the lack of direction and the frequency with which the

ground rules have been changed, the ability of the education system at

the community level to plan and deliver programs is eroded. The

government can't write that off as some partisan argument. The school

board at Revelstoke is, if anything, sympathetic to the government.

There is no partisan political motive; there is genuine concern for the

education system. That's what the people on the school board side are

saying to the government. The teachers are saying the same thing. The

opposition is saying: "Yes, you are eroding the system."

The

government is not willing to listen. They say: "Look, difficult

economic circumstances" — which we acknowledge — "make it necessary to

pare back the education system, to break a contract in a heavy-handed

fashion, to erode the decision-making powers of local school boards."

They justify that on the basis of tough times. Well, times are tough,

we acknowledge. But we are arguing that there are other areas that

could be pared back as an alternative to making those savings and cost

cuts in the education system. It's a matter of priorities. Apparently

we on this side of the House hold the public education system to be a

much higher priority than does the government.

From my

perspective as an interior MLA, I think that it is totally asinine,

totally improper, to proceed with the construction of a covered

football stadium, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars to

the taxpayers of British Columbia, while at the same time ripping the

foundation out of the education system. I think those priorities are

misplaced.

The government may argue: "Hey, that creates some jobs."

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Do you want those guys to be laid off and to give up all their earnings?

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MR. KING:

I've suggested in this House avenues for work creation. And there's

certainly a lot of federal money available in terms of employment

creation that this government apparently hasn't been aggressive enough

to capture. What I am basically arguing is that if it comes to cutting

and laying off, I would rather preserve the public education system,

which is a guarantee that the intellectual capacity of our future

citizens is not going to be impaired and eroded. I'm not prepared to

trade that off for jobs in construction now.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Neither am I.

MR. KING: That is precisely what the government is doing.

number of things are happening. Demonstrably, without question or

argument, you are eroding the autonomy and local authority of school

boards. Unquestionably, you're breaching a private contract.

Unquestionably, you have failed to make a clear policy direction known

to the local schools throughout this province, and the morale of the

teaching profession and the planning of the local schools has been

impaired.

Let's see what the government previously said was their policy on education. In a pamphlet in 1975 the Social Credit Party said:

"We

in the British Columbia Social Credit Party believe that meaningful

education policies can only be developed in cooperation with local

school boards. After all, the local school trustees have been elected

by the people of their own area. They know the area, and are responsive

to the needs of their communities. We would, therefore, return

authority to local school boards, while at the same time eliminating

the bureaucracy in the Department of Education. We would also work to

return dignity and responsibility to individual classroom teachers,

trained professionals who deserve more authority in setting educational

objectives for their pupils."

That's an excellent statement,

but this government has flown in the face of every one of those

pronouncements. You have acted in a totally contrary manner to that

statement of policy.

[ Page 9645 ]

The

government has imposed cuts. When the local boards responded by saying,

"Okay, if we're going to cut, we'll have to lay off," the government

studied that and said: "If they lay off teachers that will be a

political impediment to our party." So they intruded and told the

boards: "No, you can't lay off without the authority of the minister.

If they cut too many programs, that will show up in the communities and

that will be a political liability to us." So they said: "You can't do

that either without the authority of the minister." Talk about

centralization and intrusion into the local decision-making process! We

have it in spades today.

The government knows it. They can

argue if they wish that there's a need to cut. We say yes. We advocated

major cuts in spending on publication, ministerial travel, office

furnishings and rental accommodations. There are millions of dollars of

government expenditures that could be recaptured and saved without

cutting the heart out of the education or health systems. They are two

human services that we impair at our own peril, because the price will

be paid down the road in human terms, and in the destruction of morale,

commitment and enthusiasm for the system we should have in our public

schools. It's being impaired, without question.

The

opposition members have tried to make all our points of objection in a

rational fashion. I suppose this is one case where there's just a

disagreement in terms of philosophy and objectives between the

opposition and the government. So be it. The people, in the final

analysis, will make the judgment as to which policy position was most

beneficial to the province of British Columbia. I want to ask the

minister one question as I conclude my remarks. I've been asked to put

this question to him by teachers in the Revelstoke area, whom I

understand will be obliged to give up, I think, 11 or 13

noninstructional days between now and the end of the school year. I

think it's quite a number more than was anticipated anyway. We have the

Winter Games in Revelstoke this winter in February, and the school

facilities will be required for the Winter Games for accommodation and

that type of thing. They're apparently slated to be closed for two

days. What happens in those circumstances? Are the teachers allowed to

use those days in which the school is closed as part of the days they

must give up? Or will they be in addition to the noninstructional days

or the professional days that they are entitled to by contract?

It's

a local issue. It's a bit of a wrinkle, but these are the kinds of

questions that are conjured up by the particular direction the

government is taking. I would appreciate receiving a response from the

minister to that question so I can relay this information to the

teachers in Revelstoke.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In response to the question about the particular

problem in Revelstoke, I really would have to look at the details of it. As

I understand it, you're saying that the school may be closed for days over

and beyond those days which might be set aside as professional days. Of course,

we have to realize that many districts have already negotiated with their teachers

the giving up of, say, one, two or three professional days in order to find

all the required moneys to keep the programs intact. The days, I agree, may

vary from one to five, but if there are additional days required because of

the Winter Games then I see this as being worked out between those in charge

of the programming for the Winter Games and the local school district. However,

we'll get the particulars. We've made a note, and I'll certainly

find out what arrangements have been or could be made.

I'll

make one other comment in case there may be other speakers on this

particular section, and they can keep this in mind, because it has been

mentioned several times now.... I think the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) put it this way. He said: "This bill demonstrates how a

government can be a threat to education." I will repeat and reiterate

again and I would hope the member would carefully read the bill and

recognize that the bill is really intended in all aspects to protect

education. We are saying that in this time of economic crisis and of

decreasing revenues — a problem faced by all governments everywhere:

local, provincial and federal — when the money isn't there the options

are that you look at all of the programs and begin to consider possibly

what has been suggested in the private sector and possibly what has

been suggested in other areas in the public sector: the cutting of

programs. When you consider that option, and when you consider the

option of alternatively going back to the taxpayers, many of whom, like

so many in the private sector, are suffering because business is down

or perhaps they're only working part-time or are possibly

unemployed.... Consider going back to them for more taxes which they're

unable to pay. You look then at the third option: the legislation,

which is really saying okay, everyone everywhere has some

responsibility in sharing the load. We want to keep the programs

intact. We want to secure and preserve the educational system. We want

to secure and preserve those jobs in the educational system — the

teaching jobs. This provides it. This gives that opportunity. This

gives that security and protection. I suppose it could be reasoned....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I see the member for

Vancouver Centre is shaking his head, because possibly his position

would be: "I would sooner keep something extra in my pocket and see

these other positions drop by the wayside." But I don't believe that's

in keeping with the wishes of the majority of the people in British

Columbia, and I think it's not the wish of the majority of the school

teachers. I am sure they would much prefer to see all of those jobs

intact. I'm sure they would much prefer the security, even though

possibly it means giving up the pay they would other-wise have received

for those days that are being provided for in this legislation. It's a

logical choice. I agree; certainly there isn't anyone, as I've said so

many times, who really wants to dig into his pocket and give up some of

the moneys, even though we're suffering from recession. I'm sure that

many of the MLAs in this House were not very happy when they had to

give up 10 percent of their salary through a rollback because the

government decided that we, too, ought to be a part of restraint by

contributing directly as individuals here.

I know. I see the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) shaking his head. He didn't like it.

There are others who didn't like it, and I can understand that.

Similarly I am sure that those in the health services.... We've heard

from various professional people, doctors, who are objecting to their

having to give up a part of that which they have earned through

negotiations or the establishing of a rate. They don't like it. I'm

sure they don't like it. But then again, I'm sure once they think it

through — as they all must and will — they'll agree it's better than

what the options are. Similarly those in the private sector who are

seeing their business cut

[ Page 9646 ]

down

by 25 or 35 percent, those people who are working a four-day week as

opposed to a five-day week, those who are unemployed — and we see it

happening across the country.... Nobody likes it. Everyone would much

prefer that restraint was for the other guy and not for them. That's

human nature.

MR. LAUK: How about you?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Everybody thinks restraint is great, but apply it to the others; don't apply it to me.

MR. BARNES: That's not true.

MR. KEMPF: Not true! That's how much you know about the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order! Hon. members, I'll ask the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

to come to order, and the hon. first and second members for Vancouver

Centre to come to order...

MS. BROWN: As soon as he comes into the chamber....

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and the whole committee to come to order!

MS. BROWN: Throw that man a valium!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I know, Mr. Chairman, that committee is sometimes somewhat informal,

but the way that a question should be asked by a member is when he is

on his feet in debate. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the

critic for education — I'm glad we still have a critic; for a while I

thought he'd left.... I'm sure that member should ask the question he's

just posed on his feet, but I'll answer it anyway. He said: "What about

you?" As an MLA, I have had to contribute, because we have all taken a

cut. I'm sure that this is not what the member is referring to. He's

probably instead referring to the family business and what's happening

there. Yes, the family business, like every other business everywhere,

is down from what it was. People there, too, are having to share the

workload. I know this question doesn't directly pertain to

section 2,

possibly, but if you heard some of the debate that took place from the

other side, you could well appreciate where one might be inclined to

wander sometimes. Certainly they've been all over the board.

fairness to the members opposite,

section 2 possibly says much about

the intent of the legislation. Therefore I think it's fair to, say that

this

section really says, as the legislation intends, that the bill

provides protection and security for those employed in the system and

for the programs provided through the system, particularly those that

might otherwise possibly come under attack: the special-education

programs and those things so badly needed to assist the less fortunate.

MR. COCKE: I was pleased to see that the minister, overnight, has decided to restrain himself as he is endeavouring to restrain others.

We're

dealing here with a

section that talks about quality and diversity of

education. Rather than interrupt the proceedings, as he's wont to do,

the member for Omineca should be thinking about what centralization is

doing to diversity. For example, if I were a member from the north, I

would be very angry....

MR. KEMPF: You never will be! I challenge you to come up and run against me.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He has a hard enough time getting elected in New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: I only get 60 percent of the vote, Bill. Tragic, isn't it?

would like to suggest that if the member for Omineca were doing his job

— but he doesn't like working — he would talk about diversity under

this section. For instance, if I were a member for the north, I would

say that canning those five days at the end of the school year — that

is, in June — is, stupid. If you want to can five days, that might be

all right down there, but in the north, when your heating bills are at

an all-time high and children are going through the snow, why not

extend the Christmas holiday into January, etc.? But no, when you have

this kind of centralized authority those kinds of thoughts are never

entered into. That's why, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the whole

thing is flim-flam. The whole thing is an election device foisted on

the Minister of Education by the Premier. He was out last night again

teacher-bashing in Coquitlam. If the Premier of our province wants to

provide for quality and diversity....

MR. MUSSALLEM:

On a point of order, we must keep tight to the section. I think this

debate has wandered far too much. I request that you bring it back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is very well taken.

MR. COCKE:

Why I wanted to mention the Premier's teacher-bashing last night, in

terms of quality and diversity, is that every person watching the news

last night got the feeling that the teachers were a bunch of

reprehensible creatures. When they go to school today, teaching our

children, I'm sure that their morale is going to be high. I'm sure that

there's going to be a provision for quality of education after that

kind of performance from the first member of this assembly, the Premier

of British Columbia. Most irresponsible behaviour!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What are you talking about?

MR. COCKE: Look, if you don't watch the news — and I don't blame you for not watching it — I'll get them to do a rerun for you tonight.

All

over the province people are hurting in terms of working conditions, in

terms of our recession or depression situation, but I say we must

provide for a high priority for education. We're not doing so. For

example, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) is going to get up in a minute — he tipped his hand — and

he can tell us about quality and diversity, when the School of Rehab

Medicine students can't get their bursaries. Six of them got them; the

rest of them didn't. That's quality and diversity of education. They're

fourth-year students of

[ Page 9647 ]

rehab medicine and they're left dangling by this government for a few paltry dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we do provide what this bill

calls for. Incidentally, those words are never seen in bills, and

that's the reason this debate is so totally wide-open: because they put

the flowery words into the section. I guess it's a first for this

parliament. I would also like to suggest that you don't have quality

and diversity when you have contracts broken.

Let me tell

you what a fledgling candidate for the Social Credit Party, who happens

to be the president of the BCSTA, said recently. He said: "Contracts

are the foundation of the private enterprise system." Mr. Gary Begin

said those words. We see here a government, through legislation,

breaking that contract.

Mr. Chairman, quality and diversity

we haven't. Quality and diversity only appear as words in this

legislation. I think it's absolutely shocking that we should be

debating the measure that we are, a measure put together only to

enhance the Premier's possibility or likelihood of winning an election.

Unfortunately, he's doing it on the backs of our children, The minister

said: "How can we go along without this bill?" I say honour your

contracts, continue financing at the level that we set when we drew the

budget in this House earlier this year, and then come back for a

further budget next year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Chairman, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made the comment

made several times by members of the opposition that such a

section as

section 2 has never previously appeared in legislation; this must be a

first, it's never been done, and so forth. I would refer the member to

the Labour Code which was introduced by the New Democratic

administration and written, of course, by them. If you refer to

section

27, "Purposes and objects" you'll find that there was a precedent right

there. It reads: "The board, having regard to the public interest as

well as the rights and obligations of parties before it...." I can

certainly see where this would afford the member the parallel that he

was seeking.

MR. LAUK:

Section 27 is a codification

of labour legal principles. I've never heard such nonsense as to

compare it with

section 2 of the School Services (Interim) Act, which

has this irrelevant language — certainly language which it has been

said is at war with the principle of the bill — about the quality and

diversity of educational services in the province. In any event, I

don't want to belabour the point.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Perhaps I should have read the whole section. It says:

"The

board, having regard to the public interest as well as the rights and

obligations of parties before it, may exercise its powers and shall

perform the duties conferred or imposed on it under this act so as to

develop effective industrial relations in the interest of achieving or

maintaining good working conditions and the well-being of the public.

For the purposes, the board shall have regard to the following purposes

and objects...."

I think, perhaps, that explains it. I'm

sorry if I didn't read it totally at first, but I thought the members

were possibly familiar with the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, before recognizing the next speaker, the hon. member for

Vancouver Centre, perhaps I could be allowed an observation. I think

we've heard quite enough about the Labour Code and also about

legislative style. However, one more comment, I guess, on

section 2.

MR LAUK: I'm familiar with the Labour Code. That which

is set out in the Labour Code are legal principles that are applied in arbitrations

and hearings before the LRB and the courts of the land. Public interest, and

rights and duties, are set out in

section 27 as objects and purposes of that

section and that part of the Labour Code. That's not applicable to

section

2 of this act, and you know it. You're just throwing sand in the works and

smokescreening, which is your style.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the bill.

MR. BARNES:

I just wanted to ask the minister if he is really aware of the

precedent that's being set with respect to his bill to resolve the

so-called crisis in financing education in this province. We've talked

about the sanctity of agreements, of contracts, between individuals and

government, between organizations and government. Speaking as a lay

person and not as a person with legal experience, I've always believed

that in our society agreements are upheld between people, even if they

are verbal; they don't have to be written in some instances. Here we

have written contracts between trustees and teachers. We have legally

arrived at negotiated contracts, which is our option as opposed to

having to battle and go our own way as individuals in negotiating

contracts with government. These arrangements were made collectively.

They were made with the sanction of our laws.

Just a week or

so ago the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

suggested that property rights should be enshrined in the constitution.

He made some pretty flowery speeches about the rights of individuals to

property, to ownership of things personal to themselves. I think he was

speaking of real estate specifically. Is not a contract a piece of

property that should be equally protected? Is that not the cornerstone

of our trust in this society? Are we suggesting that the government

should be exempt from its duty and obligation with respect to

contractual agreements? Why the teachers' contracts? I find that

curious. Does the government not have contracts with the private sector

international trade and in other ways? Are there no other contracts? Is

the government suggesting that when its broke.... . ?

The

excuse given by the Minister of Education is that the government is

broke. Well, that's understandable. They have been mismanaging the

funds of the province, and they're broke. That's no different than you

and I being broke at the end of the month and being unable to pay our

mortgage. I would like to know of a case where a homeowner unable to

pay can tell the bank: "I'm sorry, I don't have any money, so I'm not

going to pay you. We'll make a new deal." The point is that an

obligation is an obligation, notwithstanding the very interesting

arguments being posed by the minister with respect to the excuses being

given for breaking those contracts. I think he's trying to suggest that

the opposition is opposed to restraint and opposed to fiscal

responsibility and

[ Page 9648 ]

the

good management of tax dollars. That's not correct. That's not the

point. The point is that a contract is a contract in our society, and

it should be protected in the highest court in the land.

would suggest that should the teachers or the students or anyone in the

public concerned about contracts wish to test the authority of the

government to exempt itself from this duty, it would have a pretty hard

time trying to defend its right to break contracts. Because once

contracts are broken by governments, that is the beginning of the end

as far as trust is concerned — and the confidence that the public has

in doing business not only with the government or with anyone.

Therefore it is highly unlikely that this particular initiative by

government would be defended by the courts, notwithstanding the

government's high-handed attempt to impress upon the public that it has

no money, and that this is an emergency measure, and that it is only

being done as a no-option device. In other words, they are suggesting

they have no other course of action to take. I suggest that the

government could print or create some of those "Billy bonds" to pay the

teachers; get some treasury bills to pay your bills to fulfil your

contractual agreements.

I have just one point to make. Sure,

restraint. In the new agreements, let's sit down with the teachers, the

trustees and the other people that we have to do business with and give

them the facts of the situation. In that way, let's have our restraint.

I would like to say that breaking contracts is a very serious precedent

to set by any jurisdiction in a free and democratic society. I'm sure

that this move by this government will be one that we will pay for for

a long time to come. It is unprecedented. It should never have been

done. You should never have attempted to do what you're doing. You

should back off and pay your bills like everyone else has to do. We all

have to pay our bills. None of us is allowed to break contracts without

going to court. It's an actionable offence. Pay your bills. Borrow

money like the rest of us and pay them. Don't just borrow money to play

politics. Live up to your contracts.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. LAUK:

This

section says that during 1983 a board may use funds from the

non-shareable capital

section of its budget for its operating budget.

In the war that was going on, and seems to be still going on, between

the Minister of Education and teachers and trustees, it was suggested

by the teachers and particularly by the trustees.... That neophyte

Socred candidate, Mr. Begin of the BCSTA, suggested that the capital

fund that is part of the provincial budget, which is somewhere around

$120 million, be used to keep alive some of these programs that were

being cut back.

It is no secret that the Ministry of Education — and the minister and the Premier

should have known — has been advised that it was the request of the school trustees

that the provincial fund be used. What does the government do in its cynicism?

It asks that the school boards use their non-shareable capital funds to keep

programs alive. In most cases they simply cannot do it. It's a cheap shot

at the trustees' request, and it's a political shot. It's another

piece of proving that the government, in drafting this bill, is using it only

as a political football and not as a legitimate tool for settling the financial

problems of the educational system.

I think the bill really is represented in

section 3, because those are

funds that don't come from the province; those are funds that have to

be raised by the school districts.

Section 3 refers to the school

district capital funds. School districts have to raise their money in

what way, Mr. Minister? On the homeowner. I'll be damned if people in

British Columbia can take another increase in their homeowner taxation.

You know they can't take another increase. It would be totally and

completely unfair. Your government has presided over a disastrous

assessment system in this province. It has presided over the worst

inflation and speculation in land and residential property in the

history of this province. Runaway!

We had more control over

inflation on land and buildings and residences in this province during

the heady days of the Pacific scandal and the building of the CPR. We

have had more control over the price of property in the Klondike during

the gold rush than we had in the last three or four years under this

administration. During those heavy increases in the value of

residential land, the government decided that that's where it was going

to peg their assessments. The rest of us have had to pay increased

homeowner taxation to the extent that the province now contributes less

to public education than any other province in Canada. The homeowner

pays the highest residential taxation of any homeowner taxpayer in

Canada right here in the province of British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong, wrong!

MR. LAUK: That's true.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. LAUK: Will you resign if it's not true? You see what I mean?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the report of the compensation stabilization program for February 18 to July 29, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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