1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1553 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment.

Mr. Kempf –– 1553

Mr. Barnes –– 1554

Mr. Nicolson –– 1558

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1561

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1983

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in

welcoming four constituents from Alberni. They include Levi Martin and

Ben David of the Clayoquot Indian band from Meares Island, and Maureen

Fraser and Harry Tieleman from the Friends of Clayoquot Sound in

Tofino. They are in town to meet with representatives of various

ministries to encourage the government to keep Meares Island green. I

would like to pass along a burnper sticker to the Minister of Forests

on their behalf. The minister is interested in keeping B.C. green, and

so I am sure he would be interested in keeping this small part of it

green. I would ask the House to make this group welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I would like to join the member for

Alberni in welcoming his guests, but would also point out to him that

introductions are the time for introductions, not for political

speeches.

MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery this morning are two

beautiful ladies from the wonderful riding of Dewdney: Pam

Clarke-Saari, who is a member of my constituency executive, and her

mother, Betty Lou Clarke. I would ask the House to welcome them here

this morning.

MR. MICHAEL: There are several friends of mine in the

galleries today. First, I would like to introduce, from the Shuswap

constituency, residents in the Salmon Arm–Chase area: ML Jim Van and

his mother Jean Van. Also in the gallery today is my wife Dilys, and

with her is my daughter Colleen and her new husband as of last Friday

evening, Tim Paul. I would also like to bring greetings — and I would

ask the members of the House to bring greetings — to Tim's sister,

Karen.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member for Dewdney introduced Betty

Lou Clarke, somebody whom I remember as Betty Lou Scott. I would like

to welcome her and her daughter, because I haven't seen her since 1954.

I can't see too well. I'm sorry I'm down here and you're up there.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. KEMPF: Needless to say, I stand against this hoist motion and speak

in favour of Bill 6, and I will, on behalf of those whom I represent, vote against

the hoist and for the bill. I'll be very, very brief. I have no need to

waste the time of this House and the money of the taxpayers of the province

of British Columbia by debating the merits of the legislation before us, I know

where my constituents stand on Bill 6 and also on the hoist foisted upon this

Legislature by the members opposite. Those in my constituency have communicated

very loudly and very clearly their feelings with regard to this and other legislation

which I cannot talk about at this time before this House. They have communicated

their views not only to me but to many of the other members on this side of

the House, The only thing those in my constituency and many other citizens of

this province are afraid of is that the government may back off from this kind

of legislation that is so necessary in the province at this time. The message

that I'm getting loud and clear is to get on with the job and quit wasting

the time and money of the taxpayers of British Columbia; pass this legislation

and do what they know must be done.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The members opposite are marching to the wrong drummer. Once again

they're marching to the wrong drummer and not listening to the people

of this province. Had they been listening, and were they listening at

this time, they would not have brought in the hoist motion and would

not be wasting the time of this House in debating that motion. They

listen only to their friends in Solidarity. They brought in the hoist

motion for their friends in Solidarity. They listen to their friends in

Solidarity, and we witnessed that here in this House last evening.

Those friends in Solidarity are also dwindling. It was very apparent

last evening when, after feverishly dialling their telephones for a

couple of hours, they managed to muster maybe 30 or 40 of those

Solidarity members from this great city of Victoria to attend the

Legislature on their behalf and sit in the gallery last evening. They

sat in that gallery and attempted to intimidate this House.

But they got a real surprise last night, and an indication of what

it is that the people of this province — the real people of this

province, the movers and shakers and the workers of this province —

really think about this hoist motion and about that Solidarity

movement. It is a clear attempt on behalf of those citizens, that

minority group in this province, to intimidate this Legislature. I take

grave offence at that as an elected member, as an elected

representative of this Legislature. I want that firmly upon the record

of this House.

[10:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will speak to the hoist.

MR. KEMPF: No, I'm going to speak against the hoist. I need

not waste any more of the time of this Legislature in so doing. I have

a clear mandate from my constituents, as I'm sure all members on this

side of the floor have from theirs. I intend to vote against this hoist

and for Bill 6.

MR. BARNES: The member who just took his seat suggested that

he wouldn't waste any more of the Legislature's time, and I will agree

with him in that respect — that he has.

I support the hoist motion. As you are probably aware by now, most

of us on this side of the House have begun to catch on to the tactics

of the government, and we realize we have to make every effort that we

can to give the public time to

[ Page 1554 ]

understand the thrust of these 12 bills that we

describe as dirty. In fact, the filibuster is one of the few devices of

the parliamentary system in a democratic society that those members who

are in the minority can use to protest a very strong majority such as

we have with the Social Credit Party today. We are in a fight to try to

preserve the traditions of our society, of this Legislature and of the

people of this province — their values, their institutions, their right

to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. They've given

the government a huge mandate. One of the characteristics of our system

is that you can't determine exactly how big a mandate you're giving a

party at any point in time. Sometimes you inadvertently give them too

great a majority. This government has 35 seats, and we in the

opposition have 22. If the people had had the opportunity, had things

been a little bit different, I am sure they would have had it much

closer.

Nonetheless, this is why we are filibustering. We're exercising a

right that is guaranteed under our system of government. We do not

appreciate being told that we are wasting the time of the taxpayers —

all those specious arguments about the costs of democracy that those

people have been suggesting we are incurring by doing our duty. We have

45 percent of the popular vote; 45 percent of some three million people

in this province. It is true that we are the opposition. We recognize

that and we are opposing.

We are in favour of hoisting this interim education financing bill,

which, as you know, is an inflationary bill. It is not a

forward-looking piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that

will undermine the public school system. In fact, I believe the

government is attempting to dismantle the public school system, just as

it is attempting to do with the Ministry of Human Resources and with

consumer protection laws, as it has done with human rights in this

province, and as it is doing with local planning in regional districts

and human services right across the province. We have cause for alarm

and cause to ask for the hoist.

I can tell you, it's not a pleasurable time for any of us, because

when a government becomes so determined and so desperate that it

attempts to crush the opposition by forcing us to stay debating 24

hours around the clock, sleeping in sleeping bags on the floors of our

offices because we can't leave.... You say you respect democracy. You

people are using heavy-handed tactics which no one could imagine that a

modern civilized society or government that believes in the right of

participatory democracy would ever use. That's what we are subjecting

ourselves to right now: the heavy hand of the Social Credit government.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Where'd you get the clean shirt, Emery?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Minister, I won't get into where I got the

clean shirt, but I can tell you that you people are really pressing,

showing us that you intend to crush if we relent. That's why we're

filibustering. You have the right to close, and I know you're going to

do it, but don't ask us to go along with you. We represent people who

want us to resist, who do not want your centralized concepts of how to

run the public service and the educational system.

Bill 6 is fundamentally a backward, retrograde step. You say that

you're going to leave it to the local school boards —

self-determination. You're going to leave it to them to administer

their own affairs and to allow them to make decisions with respect to

their basic programs, but the facts do not support the tenets within

this piece of legislation. As you know, one of the most important

things in a school district is the ability to be flexible and to apply

those funds toward those programs that are unique to that district and

that population of students. There are all kinds of factors involved.

Certainly the physical factors are important. In some districts schools

are spread out and students are not conveniently located for a

particular school, so all kinds of devices and systems have to be put

into place to accommodate their needs.

What we have in this bill is a formula that seems to encourage

inflation. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has suggested

that his ministry will be concerned about the average costs, the

average salary of teachers; that that will be one of the factors to

determine what that school's budget will be. If the average cost is a

factor, why shouldn't those teachers and those school boards encourage

higher and higher salaries in order to get the most dollars? You're

encouraging people to ask for more money so that they can have a higher

rating in order to increase the costs of education.

You have another interesting formula to do with square metres of

property within a particular school district. This works against those

school districts that would close down schools which should not be

functioning, in order to be more streamlined and efficient. So again

you're encouraging inflation. You're encouraging the people at the top

of the totempole to hold on to their power base in order to get a

better share of the formula in the end. You say you're going to leave

it to them to self-determine, but the fact is that you're taking part

of the politics away from them and leaving them to suffer by making

decisions which will not be functional and will not assist them. So

we're opposed to the basic thrust of one of these "dirty dozen" bills.

I've been thinking about the overall approach of the government. I

won't bother to have a fight with the Chair this morning. As you know,

we're all a little short on energy. We've been trying to keep up with

the heavy hand of the government. But I will suggest to you, without

reflecting on the legislation, that those bills are all, in their own

unique way, a heavy blow against the public. This particular bill is,

in its own unique way, an offensive bill to every sector of the

population. We're talking about it with respect to its impact on the

schools, but the schools are made up of people: families, children,

school teachers, parent-teacher organizations, associations — everyone

involved with the schools. It occurred to me that the dirty dozen means

a lot more than those 12 bad ex-jailbirds that the movie was made

about. It has another, more sinister, historic connotation.

I recall that when I was a kid there was a game called the dirty dozens. Putting

somebody in the dozens meant you were going to insult, humiliate and abuse him;

you were going to talk about him to the point that he started to fight. In other

words, the dirty dozens has to do with provocation. It has to do with being

mean and nasty, with driving people up against the wall. It's the old game

of confrontation. If you want to conquer, then you should divide. A few years

ago — probably in the Hungry Thirties, during the days of the Depression — in

a little place called New Orleans, Louisiana, during the days of Huey Long and

some of those very oppressive administrators down in Louisiana, as you know

they used to be very hard on the poor folks. They kept them economically deprived.

They kept them up against the wall to the point where, like crabs in a pot,

those oppressed people began trying to find relief. They could not find relief

from the oppressor because it was just too powerful. They would have

[ Page

1555 ]

been crushed immediately. Just as this government is trying to do to the people:

make them kowtow, bring them to their knees.

This government is on a crusade. I used to think it was a holy

crusade, but now I think it's just a self-righteous crusade. In any

event, you're on a crusade, and you've brought in these pieces of

legislation that typify the principle of the dirty dozens of the south,

in which those people began to insult each other in desperation. You

can find it in any depressed or oppressed community anywhere in the

world. The poorer the people, the more desperate they are, the more

they offend themselves, the more they abuse themselves; the more they

lose their self-respect and self-esteem, the more difficult it is for

them to compete in a world outside the periphery of where they live.

This is why we say those bills are punitive, vengeful and motivated by

anger and self-righteousness.

[10:30]

These are not words that I am using for the first time, as you know;

and these are not words that have been used for the first time. People

all over the world are beginning to identify this legislation for what

it really is, the World Council of Churches being just one. People from

the United Nations, Europe, Africa, all the jurisdictions in Canada and

the United States have made representations about this legislation. How

can it be that this little group of people on that side of the House

can believe they are beyond reproach? They say they care about

democracy and people's rights. On what basis? The very fact that they

would centralize control over the schools in the way they're doing

flies in the face of their comments about concern for restraint. The

facts are there that this is an inflationary piece of legislation,

although that's only the minor point. It doesn't even stand up as an

economic device to improve the economy. Forget about the sinister

aspects and the ideological battle that is being waged by this

government. I have made the prediction before, and I'll make it again,

that the ultimate objective of this government, the final solution, is

to destroy the public school system. That's what this government is

really out to do. Perhaps it will be privatized and downsized and put

on a cost-for-service basis so that only those students who have the

economic means will be able to get an education in this province. As it

now stands, the system is basically inoperative because the flexibility

that is needed at the local level is no longer available.

The dirty dozen is really the thing that the public has to

understand. The idea of the dozens, as I was pointing out, is to

provoke; to find a foil; to identify someone or something that you

would like to discredit, to turn against itself, to annihilate by

embarrassment and demoralization. That's what the dozens are all about,

and that's what this bill is doing. That's what all those other bills

have been doing, and that's why we've been so concerned about them.

Mr. Speaker, I'll use the cleanest language I can, but I'll tell you

what you can do to any human being to determine their stress point or Achilles'

heel, their breaking point or level of tolerance. You can find it; all you have

to do is find some cute, neat little way to expose them to public view, and

challenge them. As you know, we have been talking about the sanctity of the

family — the importance of keeping the family unit together. Politicians not

only in this jurisdiction but all over the world talk about the value of keeping

families together as the most efficient economic unit we know. It is conceptually

— virtuously, perhaps, and ideally — a good idea to think in those terms, but

when we consider the reality of what it is like for a family to survive in this

society, then we have to start considering how that family can function and

what some of the problems are — some of the stresses on members of the family,

and whether those stresses ultimately result in distress for the rest of us

when the system breaks down.

So the target is the family — that noble, ancient, traditional

institution that we've all come to respect and speak of in such

laudatory terms and with such pride. The family has been victimized by

every entity in our society. Everyone uses the family; it is a symbol

of something that can be attacked. It is vulnerable, and it needs due

care and attention.

The object of the dozens, as it was played down in the south during

the Depression, came out of oppressed people being pressed against a

wall. If you've never been oppressed, never done without and never

suffered, then you have no idea what can happen to you emotionally.

Your stability starts to go. You become desperate. You begin attacking

everybody — yourself, your friends, anyone close to you. It's very

similar to a person drowning, Mr. Speaker. You know what that's like.

If you're going to save someone who's drowning, you don't come face to

face with him, because out of desperation that person is liable to grab

you by the neck and pull you under. In order to help someone you have

to find a way in which to approach them.

The family is vulnerable; the family needs help. But when you press

those people in the family they start to hurt themselves and become

hurtful. That's what is happening in our society. You take away

consumer protection, human rights, essential social services programs,

counselling services, family support workers and programs that give

these people an opportunity, and do not provide sufficient opportunity

for them to work legitimately in the marketplace. All of these things

are affected by this bill.

I am angry and concerned because I believe the government is totally

insensitive to these realities. I wonder how you people devise your

legislation. Who do you consult with? Who are you talking to? Where are

you getting your statistics and facts? Who is involved besides the

cabinet? What community organizations are participating? We have

letters and petitions requesting that the Premier get involved and let

us have some dialogue. None of those things happen. Just a few years

ago, after the government was first elected in 1975, the Premier's

office was stormed by a group of protesters — daycare workers in those

days, I believe — requesting an audience. Do you know what he did, Mr.

Speaker? He invited them into his office, he talked to them, and they

all went out smiling.

That was a protest group occupying his office in Victoria just a few

years ago. Why didn't he have the same latitude and respect for a group

of people protesting just a few days ago when they came into his

office? Times have changed; the government is tightening up. They no

longer have the same confidence in democracy that they once had. They

are now starting to get tough. They've got a new set of rules.

So the family, relating to Bill 6, the Education (Interim) Finance

Amendment Act, which is supposed to improve the situation for the

family.... But as I was telling you, those members of the family in the

early 1930s down in New Orleans found themselves offending each other.

Do you know how they found the stress points, the levels of tolerance?

By insulting each other. Now these are people who should be loving each

other, who should be caring for each other, who should be fighting and

demonstrating against the

[ Page 1556 ]

oppressor. But what are they doing? They're

fighting and demonstrating against themselves. They're fighting and

demonstrating against their brothers and sisters, and calling each

other names. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? That's what happens

from one neighbourhood to the next. Here are the people in the ghettos,

the poor people who are going without clothing, who have no shoes on

their feet and sores on their knees because of the flies eating them.

Because of malnutrition, they don't have the strength to sit in class

and listen to the lessons. Little kids are shaking and going to class

without breakfast, except for those lucky ones who can get up at six in

the morning and wait in the soup line.

We're talking about the Depression and about what happens when a

government is negligent and doesn't respect the first thing: the morale

of the population. This government is demoralizing the population of

British Columbia. Now let's be fair and say that they simply don't

understand that, but I would say that they know very well the tactics

of confrontation. I think that they have every intention of confronting

people and forcing them to react. I'm sure we're going to find them

being thrown in jail if they act too much. This is the thing that

bothers me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, some latitude has been allowed,

but Bill 6 is clearly a bill to allow the minister to supervise school

board budgets. Perhaps if we can relate our remarks to the principle of

that bill, or at least to the principle of hoisting such a bill, the

parliament would be well served.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can appreciate your

assistance. I certainly do want my remarks to relate to Bill 6, because

I think that the bill itself doesn't address the concerns in the school

districts. Therefore the bill should be hoisted at least for six

months, in order for the minister to have input and the participation

of those people who are directly concerned. Because it is definitely

not a bill that is going to improve the economy. I suspect that in

another year or two this bill would be more inflationary than any

restraint program they have so-called introduced to try and improve the

situation. If the economy ever does improve — if it does turn around —

you are going to have people leapfrogging, trying to get back on the

bandwagon, because you have not really set a precedent that will allow

things to level out. You have disallowed the flexibility at the local

level.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this is the problem with debating in detail

in this Legislature, when in fact we are looking at a far greater plan

by that government. This is why I sometimes find it difficult when you

tell us to be in order, when we are trying to ask the public: "Do you

understand the overall impact of what this government is doing?"

Let me get back to an example of what I mean by members of the

family going against the family. Ultimately, out of stress, and the

loss of tolerance and the ability to look outside of themselves, out of

desperation they become enclosed. You have to have economic means, you

have to be able to be mobile, you have to have an opportunity to

experience the broader perspective in life in order to participate. But

if you're hungry, if you're without means, if for you life is a

desperate attempt just to stay alive, Mr. Speaker, then ultimately you

are going to turn inward and become offensive toward yourself. You will

lose self-respect, you will be embarrassed, and ultimately you will

become a burden on and a cost to society. Basically you will be beaten.

These bills do a great deal to encourage and create that kind of

atmosphere in this province on every level.

This bill offends elected politicians. This bill offends trustees,

who themselves have been elected and have campaigned on the basis that

they would provide services locally, and this government is coming in

and saying they cannot do ' it. Mr. Speaker, I tell you: as you know,

there is very little that this government doesn't do to people. We

could go on and on and on about how it has undermined elected

representatives at the regional districts, trustees.... It's just

absolutely remarkable. But when the family begins to turn upon itself,

that's the breaking point in society. That's where the dirty dozens

come from.

If I could be indulged for just a moment, I will suggest to you that

the main institution in societies the world over is the family unit,

because it is through the family unit generally that you can get the

nucleus of some kind of cohesion and of people growing and learning the

culture and carrying on traditions and heritage. Those are the people

who make the investment, who become the consumers, who become the

workforce and the subscribers to and participants in whatever venture,

whether it be free enterprise or public. Those people are the ones who

do it, and those are the ones we rely on. But when those institutions

start falling apart, and everybody's going for themselves, they're

being promoted to individualize rather than cooperate. When we break

them up, then we've seen it.

[10:45]

If we can just imagine the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), who was doing a flashback when she suggested the family and

community organizations, social service organizations, churches and

interested good Samaritan organizations throughout our society will

pick up the slack where the government has had to withdraw many human

service programs it says that it will no longer will be involved in;

but that we can put them back in the family where they belong, and that

that is the best place. You know, we agree with that. So what is the

problem? The families are being attacked. There are very few healthy

situations. The statistics do not support that the family is on the

increase. The family seems constantly to be under attack and bombarded.

It doesn't have the esteem and respect it once had. So there are lots

of offences.

But in the single unit, when I was a kid, I used to watch an example

of what I told you about: the crabs in the pot, the oppressed people in

the ghettos and how they treated their families. Now remember, the

family is the ultimate. This is 30, 40 or 50 years ago, when we really

didn't have government assistance, but then we did not have the kind of

society we have, with the technologies we have today. Industry was a

lot less efficent than it is today, so the family meant more. We didn't

have the community centres and the outlets we have today. The family

was the main thing. People entertained themselves in the family. The

family provided a nucleus and a secure base.

So when you attacked someone's family, you were attacking the very

fundamental essence of that society, and that's how the dirty dozens

really worked. Those people were attacking each other, because the

family was the way they did it. You know what someone would do in order

to provoke that family? They would say: "I think your mother is a very

dishonest and irresponsible person." Saying that to someone 30 or 40

years ago, when the mother was like the chairman of the board, was an

offence. Anyone in any culture would

[ Page

1557 ]

probably fight anyone who said something like that.

But if you went on to say: "Not only your mother, but your father — and

not only is your father no good, but neither are your sisters and your

brothers and your aunts and your uncles and your cousins." You offend

until you break those people. Now imagine people who are already

deprived and who collectively came together in order to make a living

for themselves being destroyed by the times in which they live.

This is the sinister thing about this legislation. It is like the

government is going out and attacking those people who are the subjects

of the government. Those are the people who put the government here. It

was the people who elected that government. Why is that government not

communicating with the people? Why is it that there are so many

protests? Do you know they are talking about getting a petition with

something like a million names on it in order to get this government's

attention? Fifty thousand people stood out here on the lawn and could

not make contact with this government. Never in the province's history

have we had a protest that involved going into the Premier's office and

occupying it. I hope it never happens again. Can you imagine the

provocation? Can you imagine what this government is doing to make

people do that? They don't even care about it. They laugh and say:

"Well, those are just a bunch of pinkos, commies" — or whatever names

they call them. But the point is that they are British Columbians. They

are citizens of this province, and whatever you may wish to call them,

you have the duty to respect their right to communication, and you're

not doing it. That's the offence.

Last year the B.C. Teachers' Federation came up with the following

declaration of the rights of children and the rights of teachers, and

they had this to say about the rights of children. We equate the rights

of children at least with the rights of the natural and material

resources in our society: forests, land, water and minerals — all of

those things that we claim we need in order to bring the economy to its

feet so we can all have a fair share and be able to enjoy a healthy

economy, providing opportunity for us all, with full employment,

diversification, self-sufficiency and all of those things we talk

about. But, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to human beings, we seem to say:

"That's a resource that can take care of itself."

We should talk a little more and understand a little more about

human beings, because they are really what it's all about. If you don't

care about those people and don't have the ability to work with the

people who put you in office, then I think you are being derelict in

your duty.

The first children's right recommended by the B.C. Teachers' Federation

is "the right to conditions in the public schools which allow for a quality

education." They list several points. One is "class sizes which allow

for individual attention." That may not make much sense to people who feel

that they can just throw them all together and let them go for it — a common

denominator — but we've found that people are unique. They have their own

characteristics. They may all have the potential to develop, but only at their

own pace, in their own way and in their own uniqueness. If we wanted to tap

that resource and get the maximum benefit from it, I would think we would endeavour

to allow for every youngster to have a sense of individuality in developing

creativity to the maximum potential. That means you have to have flexibility

at the local level. It cannot be done from Victoria; it cannot happen, because

the cabinet has decided that it is going to dictate strictly from fiscal policy

the very delicate nature of running a classroom.

The other points are "access to appropriate and necessary support

services such as counselling and learning assistance; access to

adequate library services; sufficient materials and facilities to

support the educational process; sufficient administrative support to

provide a stable and efficient learning environment."

The next point is "the right to programs which will prepare the

student to participate fully in the society of the future." That's

certainly something for which require a crystal ball to know about. We

don't know what the future will be, but there is one thing for sure: we

should all be participating in it in order to keep up. We cannot

alienate large sectors of the community because of the inability to get

a proper education. It can't be on a fee-for-service basis when it

comes to basic public education. You simply cannot centralize the

education process and expect to benefit from that resource...

MR. KEMPF: Go out and check with your constituents.

MR. BARNES: ...any more than you can export raw logs, Mr.

Member for Omineca. If you don't have any other ways to develop the log

than shipping the whole log, that is the. way you treat the people of

this province.

Mr. Speaker, other points are "programs which provide a broad

general preparation for each child; programs that take into account

changes taking place in the social environment, such as the

introduction of new technology...."

The third point is "the right of children with disabilities or other

special needs to adequate conditions to allow for education in the

public schools in their community; adequate conditions to allow

students to be in regular classes without hindering the education of

either the child with special needs or the other children in the

class..."

How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker — three minutes? That's

unfortunate, but I'll be back again. I'm sure you'll give me an

opportunity to speak on this many more times as the months go on. I'm

sure I'll get leave at least to finish this brief comment.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Please don't count my time during the interjections.

"...adequate personnel and conditions to ensure the safety of disabled and other children."

The final points are:

"4. The right to have decisions about the program needs of children made in the community in which they live.

"5.

The right of children to adequate protection and services in their

community to protect them from abuse and to assist them to participate

fully in their education and to healthy physical, social and emotional

development.

"6. The right to access to further education and training after secondary school.

"7. The right to a province free of discrimination on the

basis of sex, race, religion or political belief, age, place of origin or residence."

Clearly, these are virtues that all of us support, and I doubt if there is a single member of this House — even on the

[ Page 1558 ]

government side — who would disagree. But while the

intention of the government is to try to streamline the education

system by methods that are questionable under the guise of restraint,

which seems to be more of a buzzword than a concept for which there is

any evidence that it is happening. The government should check with

those people who are making these statements, check with the B.C.

Teachers' Federation. Ask them if there are assurances that these

values will be in place, notwithstanding their new interim financing

formula that they claim will be more efficient.

I'm asking all members of the House, including those on the

government side, to consider the request by the opposition temporarily

to withhold this bill; to table it to permit us an opportunity to go to

the public and get the input that is needed to ensure that these rights

respecting these children and these families are protected, and that we

do not continue to confront them to force them to the point of stress,

so that they lose their ability to tolerate a government that seems to

disregard their very delicate dependence on their assistance.

We will be voting in favor of the hoist motion. I thank all of you for your indulgence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the amendment to the bill, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: The motion before us that this bill be hoisted

for six months is certainly one that I can recommend to all members of

the House. The government seems to feel, on the one hand, that it has

been handed a mandate to do this specific type of thing. Yet on the

other hand, we've had many explanations from government members and

cabinet ministers that what they have to do is sell the program better.

It's funny. If you had a mandate which people supposedly knew about

before May 5, how is it that you have now to turn around and sell it to

them after May 5 — after they actually see what it looks like? That is

the irony of this particular batch of legislation, of which Bill 6 is

not one of the least invidious pieces.

It has prompted a few columns in the Vancouver Province by

Crawford Kilian. I think that he puts this piece of legislation very

succinctly, and I think it does suggest to us why a piece of

legislation such as this should be hoisted for six months. Hopefully,

after six months it might die the death of other pieces of legislation

that have been left to hang around on the order paper, like the old

municipal planning act, which was brought in about three or four years

in a row by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Vander Zalm.

[11:00]

This bill does a couple of things. It really gives the minister the

power to issue directives establishing the amount of any portion of the

school board budget, and special-education programs, in a school

district for any particular calendar year. It allows the minister to

direct the school district not to expend during the calendar year in

excess of the amount or a portion of the budget. It repeals the

section

of the Education (Interim) Finance Act which was a sunset clause and

which would have meant that the bill expired on December 31, 1984. This

would have given us all something to look forward to. But now that is

taken away from us.

Mr. Kilian suggests to us, I think, the essence of the bill: it strips away

from the local trustees the power to make decisions in the local area. It strips

away almost every decision they can make in the local area. No, that's not

totally true; I should be honest. They still have the right to hire and fire.

It looks like they're going to have to be doing a lot of firing, so that's

one responsibility they're still going to have to have. That is one thing

the minister doesn't want to do personally; he wants the trustees to have

to do the firing.

Other than that, the trustees get a stipend of approximately $4,000

a year for the many hours — for a good number of them it exceeds a

40-hour work week, in addition to holding down regular jobs and

responsibilities.... For this they will now be doing the bidding, to

quote Mr. Kilian, "of a new group of satraps called budget information

officers," ministerial officials who will give each district its orders.

That column sent me to the dictionary. I'm a math and physics

teacher, and sometimes words like "satrap" do send me to the

dictionary. I think the best definition is "a subordinate ruler, often

with imputation of tyranny or ostentation." That's what we're trading

off against funds for programs in the schools. We're going to create

more bureaucracy in Victoria to go out and try to tell all of the

different parts of the province how things should be conducted. Mr.

Speaker, it's about as ridiculous as getting an organizer from Toronto

to come in and tell you how to run an election in Prince George South

or Nelson-Creston. I think I've made a very telling analogy — one with

which even the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) would have to agree.

We're creating these satraps to come into rural areas.... I think of

the Arrow Lakes School District, which has unique problems, yet we're

going to put everybody through the same sausage-grinder if we allow

this bill to go through unfettered. For that reason, so that people

will have time for some of these ideas to sink in, there should be a

delay of at least six months. It would provide time for some

face-saving; it would provide time for that famous second look which I

think has been the hallmark of some politicians' careers and would be

looked back upon with some fondness, as opposed to stubborn plunging

ahead at the peril of people and particularly of education in this

province.

I don't believe that centralized authority is the way in which

education progresses. For instance, computer instruction was not

introduced through the central authority of Victoria. It was sometimes

introduced by a local school parent group saving up money and making a

donation of a small personal computer to a school district and some

teachers; in other cases a local school board took the initiative. Even

to this day it isn't really part of the official curriculum. It's

certainly not part of the core curriculum of this province, and it's

sort of looked upon as a frill. Local school boards are leading, not

following. The government is so far behind that, left to its own

devices, it would still have the children using slates, with slate

markers, and maybe a new technological innovation called the quill pen.

Our educational system didn't progress because we had a large, central

bureaucracy; indeed, our educational system in this province started

with hundreds of small school boards. In my riding — what is today's

riding — there might have been 50 different school boards. There was

one for Procter, one for Balfour, one for Riondel, one for Ainsworth,

one for Kaslo, one for Nelson, and so on. That is how things got

started: through local autonomy and local initiative.

I talked to a 98-year-old woman the other day. She asked me to give

her regards to the Premier, but I won't repeat what she said.

MRS. JOHNSTON: It must have been nice.

[ Page 1559 ]

MR. NICOLSON: She's a very nice lady. She lives in her

apartment without anything more than maybe homemakers coming in and

giving a little assistance. She's very self-sufficient. In pioneer

days, when the Riondel mine was first opened, she went about building a

school, and she got it opened and built within a month of moving into

that community so that there would be a school for the children come

September, after the harvest.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: No, she's not ranching.

A lot of people did that. What I am saying is that with the kind of

centralized bureaucracy that we are creating, we are impeding any kind

of innovation and denying the right of local people to pass even a

local initiative or referendum, if they would.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I know we don't have referenda now.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, we took them away, but we left the

responsibility in the hands of local trustees. Now they are taking the

power away from trustees and also from the people. They're taking it

away from anything at the local level by this. If they wanted to make a

slightly retrogressive move, they could go back to the concept of the

local referendum. They haven't even done that. No, they are setting up

a system in which all decisions are going to be made in the name of the

minister by a central bureaucracy — more bureaucrats in Victoria, and

fewer instructors and more crowded classrooms outside or even in the

Victoria School District.

Mr. Speaker, we now have a beautiful formula. What does it come up

with? It takes some school districts that might have been getting more

support, relatively speaking, from Victoria, and it knocks some of them

down a little; others it puts back up. That is referred to as the

"totem-pole philosophy," I believe, in a paper done for the B.C. School

Trustees' Association by Dr. H.G. Armstrong. There is a temptation, I

suppose, for some districts to look and say: "Gee whiz, we've moved up

on the totem-pole." However, they might lose sight of the fact that

they have lost their autonomy, their funding and the ability to provide

for the needs of the students. This is a good paper, and this is the

kind of thing that needs six months to be digested by the people of the

province, for that filtering-down process to take place.

Sometimes when some action goes on here in the Legislature you go

out to the riding and the people don't grasp all of the nuances, but

given some time they certainly do get the message about a piece of

legislation. That process is a very complex one that I don't pretend to

understand, but I think that people will realize, given time, that just

moving up on the totem-pole to the top — or whether you've moved from

the top to the middle or the bottom — is not the question. That isn't

how education is going to be served. But that's what this bill does,

and the sooner people can realize that that is what is contained in

this little three-section bill — not even half a page, but a very

powerful little bill.... It makes the Education (Interim) Finance Act

permanent — as permanent as legislation can be in this House.

One would wonder why, if that legislation was somewhat flawed, which

it must have been if it were to be named "interim".... It must have

been some extraordinary, hasty move, and the government of the day

acknowledged that the bill was somewhat flawed, or one could maybe

assumed that the government of the day foresaw the possibility of an

election and therefore sought to amend the Education (Interim) Finance

Act, which, I think, became law last year. Of course, it's very hard to

say because the House didn't sit for eight months, and so what's this

year and what's last year when you're comparing? I suppose about a year

and a half ago this became law.

Mr. Kilian asks two questions in two of his editorial comments. He asks: "Is

this the death of B.C. public education?" To that question, he urges the

readers to start writing and phoning to put pressure on their MLAs, and to give

support to the school boards and teachers' associations, because he believes

that this will be the death of B.C. public education. Public education suggests,

of itself, local autonomy. Mr. Kilianalso asks if it is worth running for the

job of a school trustee. He says:

[11:15]

"Once elected, you'll not have a happy term. You will

be, at best, a damage-control officer trying to protect the community's

children, rather than trying to raise education standards. You'll often

be blamed for Victoria's blunders and rarely praised for your own

wisdom. You'll spend much of your term sick at heart over what is being

done to our children despite your efforts. Better that than turning

aside and letting the stooges do even worse."

The answer to the question of whether it is worth running for the

job of school trustee is no — not if you're looking to be recognized

for the effort you make, not if you expect to avoid being the object of

displaced anger, which would more properly be vented toward the

government, but inevitably will be directed toward local trustees. But

having said all that, he says: "Better that than turning aside and

letting the stooges do even worse." In other words, it is time to fight

and to become involved as school trustees. I know that many people are

looking at the challenge of running for trustee in the elections that

will soon be upon us. I would hope for that reason that many new people

realize this challenge. This bill should not become law until after

that process has had a chance to take place.

There are many reasons why this bill is wrong. It is even argued by

the paper of Dr. Armstrong that while this bill is supposed to provide

a funding mechanism, it is in fact going to become a spending-control

mechanism. There is a difference. Not only does it say how much they

can spend, but it will say where it can be spent.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

I've seen this happen with other forms of education finance, in

which the funding mechanism actually becomes the mechanism that

dictated class size — the old education finance formula, which has just

gone by the boards. Actually, it was a method of arriving at a formula

for calculating the government's contribution to the local education

budget, but what that became was the method of determining class size.

There was a thing called the basic education program. For a certain

number of students you got so many teachers. It was argued that with

the number of teachers under that formula

[ Page 1560 ]

that a particular school earned toward the basic

education program, that was therefore the number of teachers the school

was entitled to. When they had local autonomy, control of their local

tax base and commercial and industrial base of their community, whether

they had a good tax base or not, some boards, depending on the priority

that that community gave to education, decided to vary from that

particular formula. That's what local autonomy is about, and that's one

of the things that the satraps will not allow.

This formula has two major elements. One is the average teacher's

salary in the district and in the province, It is rather ironic today

that school boards that are loaded with teachers with higher

qualifications and more years of experience are going to be funded on a

different basis than school districts that have young teachers. What is

even worse is that it would make impossible the kind of agreement that

was reached locally last year by the Williams Lake School District, in

which salaries were traded off for job security in the local collective

bargaining agreement. Now there would be no incentive for the teachers

or the trustees to enter into such an agreement, because it wouldn't

save the district anything. If they made such an agreement, and they

bargained for lower salaries, it would mean that the district would get

less money. So why try to do that? Why try to do any serious collective

bargaining? It takes that option away from both sides in the collective

agreement.

It also reflects the number of square metres of floor space. There

is not even an incentive to use your buildings judiciously. There would

not be an incentive to close down schools. There would be a

disincentive to close down some schools that might not be in full use.

Again, this points out some of the shortcomings of the legislation.

It also raises problems about possible legal funding. It is pointed

out in this paper that Seattle now has a legal department that consists

of full-time lawyers in their school district. They consume resources

of the education program that would be much better spent in the

classroom, whether it be directly in terms of teachers or instructional

aids or materials or a myriad of things, much more imaginative than

setting up a kind of self-ensured legal fund. So we see that this

business of moving toward centralization leads to these things in which

everything becomes so top-heavy, and the last thing that becomes

important is the classroom teacher and the student, in reverse order.

Just as in the private sector, the purpose of retaining a chartered

accountant is not simply to keep the books, to make sure you have a

profit or a loss or that no funds are being absconded with; it is to

avoid paying any more income tax than you have to. It is part of

responding to a very complex legalistic system. This complex new

formula which we are being asked to approve is going to breed another

new level of bureaucrat and create the equivalent of the chartered

accountant. Indeed, many chartered accountants might find employment,

putting forth all their skills in order to beat the system as well as

it can possibly be beaten. Just as in the private sector you try to

beat the income tax, here we will try to beat this complex education

finance formula. The more complex the formula, the more money and

resources are going to be spent in this adversarial system where

recommendations are made to the board that here's a wrinkle, this is

something you haven't thought of, isn't that clever? Then the clever

people from the ministry will come in and try to shoot down this

argument. There will be great delays. There will be lots of plane trips

from the Castlegar airport when trustees and their experts from the

Nelson School District are coming down to Victoria. There will be other

government aircraft dispatching people up to Castlegar with the satraps

so that they can meet with the Nelson School Board, the Arrow Lakes

School Board, the Creston School Board, the Trail School Board and the

Castlegar School Board. Is this what we need? I say it isn't.

The people of this province must be given enough time to digest the

fact that this piece of legislation is just more unproductive

bureaucracy. It is not going to lead to control, either. It's going to

put control in the hands of different people. Just as we see these

centralized decisions being made, it is absolutely counter to what is

happening in the real world. We're going through an information

revolution in North America and part of Europe. It was identified as

the cybernetic revoution back in 1964 by people like Gunnar Myrdal,

Linus Pauling, Robert Theobald and other forward thinking people like

Toffler in The Third Wave . It has all come true 20 years later. We are in the midst of it. If anyone saw The Third Wave

on CBC-TV on Sunday night — unfortunately I missed it, but I read the

book — the whole move is toward decentralization. That is made possible

by the information revolution. This type of centralization of

decision-making powers is perhaps an adequate model for the nineteenth

century, but it is certainly not the appropriate model as we approach

the twenty-first century.

Education has made great strides under the decentralized approach.

Probably most of our school boards have reached a fairly optimum size;

there is no perfect size in this province. The funding formulas that

are suggested — the ones that are in the hands of the school trustees

today — are complex, and yet when it all comes down to it, it comes out

with a certain number of dollars. I think the reason that probably all

trustees.... I certainly don't know of any trustee in my riding who

supports Bill 6. I know a lot of trustees who don't support me

politically. Some do and some don't, and some I'm not so sure of. I

have four school districts serving different parts of my riding, three

of which serve almost the entire riding. Two of them do, and another

one serves mostly a part of my riding. I have just a couple of schools

in the Castlegar district in my riding. I don't know of anybody in the

area who supports this move.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it's fair to conclude that your

remarks are beginning to wander beyond the true principle of the hoist

amendment. I'd ask you to try to train your comments more directly upon

the principle of the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll take the advice of the learned Speaker. It

is the first time I've been brought to attention for being out of order

in the last three speeches I've made in this House, but in deference to

your expertise I will try to be more specific.

[11:30]

Perhaps if we gave this bill some time and if it were hoisted for

six months, even the Premier might have a chance to talk to one of the

leading educators in this province, Mr. Harry Dewar, who is a principal

— I understand by reading an

article by Mr. Allen Garr in Sunday's Province .

Mr. Dewar is a very much admired educator. I have known of his career

and followed it a little ever since I became a teacher, although he

never taught in one of the districts I taught in. I know that he taught

up in Dawson Creek, which was actually a crucible

[ Page 1561 ]

of inventive education. Harry Dewar came out of

that crucible. Mr. Andy Soles, now a deputy minister in this

government, was a product of that same stimulative environment in the

Dawson Creek area, as was Dr. Walter Hardwick in the Department of

Education at the University of British Columbia.

Given six months, and if the government were to take some time to reflect on some of the other legislation.... Perhaps

if we were to move on to the estimates of the House and maybe get out

of here in due course, we would have that opportunity to sit down and

really listen. I know the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is

somewhat.... Anybody in the business of being a minister, anyone who

has ever seen the British series "Yes, Mr. Minister", I think it was

called, knows that bureaucrats are often pushing legislation onto you.

The Minister of Education himself might even have a second look at this

particular legislation. What's it doing? It's creating more of that

kind of bureaucracy which this government is trying to dismantle. So

it's really creating massive confusion. It's laying off people in

proven services which are absolutely vital, while on the other hand it

is going to hire more people, and probably at prices for which they

could hire three or four young beginning teachers who have not had an

opportunity, who graduated two or three years ago and still don't have

jobs simply because there aren't any, because we're cutting back

instead of holding our own. If we had the opportunity to talk to

respected educational leaders, like Mr. Dewar, who was quoted in the

Allen Garr

article the other day....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't have the

article in front of me, but he

said.... Again, I guess like many others he's wondering how much longer

he can carry on. Last year he had to deal with about four different

cuts, and this year they're facing more cuts. They've had to cut some

very vital programs in the school. I believe other schools are being

shut down. More students than they expected are showing up, and they

have fewer staff for dealing with the modern problems.

One of the main things Harry Dewar brought out was that we are

looking to the old days. Certainly this government is looking back to

the good old days. Mr. Dewar pointed out that today — and it is a

change that has taken place since I left the schools only 11 years ago

— about 50 percent of the children in his school are from single-parent

homes. Things are not identical with what they were 20 years ago, and I

don't think they're identical with or even close to what they were 10

years ago. There is a totally different challenge, and yet the

government is not providing that kind of leadership in recognizing a

total change in society.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The family is changing. Communications are changing. We are in an

information age. And instead of changing and moving toward

decentralization, which is the way to deal with these individual

problems — dealing with people more as individuals — this government is

taking the exact wrong approach. Before we write this thing in tablets

of stone I hope we will take six months to look at this legislation,

and hopefully we'll take this legislation, scrap it, and look for a

more appropriate model, one that recognizes that all the genius in this

province is not in the 20-some-odd cabinet benches. In fact, some would

suggest that there is a paucity of genius in those 20-some-odd cabinet

benches. If we do this, and doD't bring in another bill into this House

for the next two years, we might be governing better for the people of

British Columbia. I don't know if we should be bringing in bills. Maybe

we should be repealing a few bills as a legislative program for this

year. I know that a few bills are very regressive. I could suggest some

statutes that could be repealed.

We are here juggling things around, creating massive dislocation. I

don't think we have any idea of the economic implications of the kinds

of things we're doing here. This is a move that is meant absolutely to

stifle any kind of imagination or creativity, and yet we are going

through a cultural revolution; the last one lasted 200 years, and we're

passing through this one in ten years. If this is the best we can do,

then I say we should do nothing.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm sorry to see that the minister is leaving the

chamber. I felt he was holding up rather well under the debate here.

While he has very good intentions, it is difficult to tell whether he

is awake or asleep. He looks the same all the time. I know that he had

a very relaxing, delightful and encouraging weekend up in Penticton;

that's why he applied to the government to have his bills debated all

night and all day. We know he's a good-natured fellow who can stand up

under all kinds of strain.

On Bill 6 and the opposition's recommendation to this chamber that

we reconsider this six months hence, I'd like to allude briefly to

something my very competent friend from Nelson-Creston said in his

remarks. He said he doesn't know a single trustee who endorses this

legislation. That is quite true. I would challenge the government to

produce a single trustee anywhere who endorses this legislation. We've

heard a great deal from government benches about their mandate — what

they call their mandate. Perhaps the government apologists could

explain why it is that so few duly elected school trustees.... I know

you know they are duly elected, Mr. Speaker, because you were once a

chairman of a school board, I believe. They too are duly elected; they

also have a mandate. Why is it so clear, if the government has such a

good mandate for this, that so few of them have that sort of a mandate

from their electorate? Why is it not people who have the same point of

view on education as the minister? That's why he brought in this bill

which we want him to reconsider. We have some hopes, in spite of all he

has shown in this debate, that he is a reasonable person. Why is it

that not more of the people elected at the local level feel the same

way as he does? After all, Mr. Speaker, when you and I and all the rest

of us run for office, we run on many issues — local, provincial,

economic, social. We don't run specifically on education issues. But

the people who run for school board run on financial and educational

issues only, and of course that's the bill we're debating: the

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act. That's why we think the

minister and the government members should reconsider this.

Listening to the apologists for authoritarian centralism on the

government benches, I believe the government has a fear of people who

would be critical of them, especially if those people have anything to

do with education: if they're considered by their peers to be

intellectuals, if they're students or teachers, if elected as school

trustees, or elected or appointed even to college councils by the

government, by the existing minister. The government has a fear of

these people. They

[ Page 1562 ]

seem terribly afraid that the farm teams, as they're often called, won't do the minister's bidding.

I'm not one of those who thinks that everything that went on in the

previous century, or in the one before that, is all bad, or that we

can't take positive lessons from it. But it has been stated that one of

the watchwords of the present government is that they believe the

government that governs least governs best. I believe that; a

surprising number of people on this side of the House believes that;

but the government members don't believe that. They believe that the

more government, the more authoritarian centralism, the less local

autonomy and the less elbow room that people at the local level have to

make decisions regarding their own tax dollars, then that serves the

economy best. In this case, that serves education best.

Education is a tremendously important part of the economy. We know

that next to health, education takes the largest part of the provincial

budget. We also know that education, especially under Social Credit,

takes an increasingly large amount of the local tax dollar collected

from property owners, industries and businessmen at the local level. So

we know that even at the K to 12 level, forgetting post-secondary,

education is a tremendously large part of the economy. Yet the

government wants to govern more and more in this area.

As I said, I'm prepared to have an open mind. Perhaps the minister

really is a decent sort of fellow. How could he possibly know, coming

from the Prince George North constituency, what is best for the

educational needs in Victoria, Quesnel, Castlegar or Port Hardy? It's

impossible. The people who know best about those educational needs are

the people who are elected and responsible to the local property owners

and the local tenants — the people who live in those areas, Mr. Speaker.

Let's remember that if we want to talk about financial

responsibility, the people at the local level have to take more and

more each and every year. In each and every budget during the time that

the present Social Credit regime has been in office, the local people

have had to dig deeper into their pockets in order to meet the

education costs. So if there were going to be a — what shall we call

it? — sort of a Proposition 13 type of taxpayers' revolt at the local

level, that's where it would have shown up first. The local people are

the ones who have seen their property taxes for education increasing

far faster than the school board budgets. They're increasing far faster

than the provincial government contributions.

[11:45]

So we have a case where the provincial government wishes to take

less and less responsibility for taxation but more and more authority

unto itself. The government wants to govern more, not less. The

government appears to have no systems or planning in place. It has been

noted, I think, by other speakers, that the word "planning" isn't

popular any more, so we're to use the word "system" or some other sort

of newspeak. I don't really care too much what the trendy words are,

but the fact is that the government seems to have absolutely no way of

communicating with the local level — with the students, educators or

administrators — in providing education services. It's simply assuming

that it knows best.

Mr. Speaker, we all know — you know, because you don't come from

Victoria; you come from the northern central part of the province —

that every community is different. Prince George is fundamentally

different from Kamloops in its needs and desires, which is again

different from Vancouver or Chilliwack or some other area. A person

would have to have the wisdom of Solomon or think he's God to be able

to sit in the cabinet chambers in Victoria, know what is good for the

local level and deliver those services efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of authoritarian centralism that we

see in this bill and in many other bills. It's very significant in this

bill, because the cost of education is such a large part of the economy

that it consumes dollars that would otherwise be spent in other ways.

Perhaps they would be saved, invested or go into retail sales. But we

all know that education is an excellent investment from the point of

view of not just our young people but people who wish to train and

prepare themselves to become more readily employable and to get ahead.

It's been stated in here that the Socred regime that we have in

office today wants to emulate Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

Well, if that were true, it would be an improvement on the present

situation. We all know that the economies of the United States and

Britain under those leaders have been shrinking. There has been a

growth of megadebt that wasn't there before. There has been high

inflation, high unemployment, high bankruptcy rates and a shrinking

gross national product. But the point is that neither of those

countries is in imminent danger of collapse. What concerns me is that

government over there taking orders from the Chicago boys in the Fraser

Institute. They are taking orders from the same people who have been

the economic advisers to Pinochet in Chili, to Galtieri in Argentina,

to the colonels in Brazil, to the recently resigned Israeli Premier and

to the governments of Mexico and Paraguay. What has happened is that

many, if not all, of those countries are in danger of collapsing,

perhaps bringing down the banking system of the western world and

certainly imposing a major depression upon the western world.

That government over there is taking financial, political and

economic advice from those same people. Mr. Speaker, that is a

tremendous worry to me as a British Columbian, that we are seeing more

and more centralized authoritarian control, more megadebt, more

inflation, more unemployment, more shrinking gross national product and

more bankruptcy while the government insists upon taking these

doctrinaire, dogmatic authoritarian advisers to their bosom.

We have, on the part of the government, a sort of bunker mentality.

It has been suggested to many of them, including their friends, or

people who were once their friends, that if on bills such as Bill 6 the

government would merely communicate and consult with some people who

wish the government well.... They don't wish to see a change in

government, but they fundamentally disagree with what the government is

doing on this particular bill. They should consult with them without

fear that there would be a proper transition on some of these policies.

There is nobody on this side of the House who disagrees with

restraint. There is nobody on this side of the House who does not

recognize that the economy of B.C. Is a mixed economy and that the

people who provide the goods and services that we need most for growth

are the private sector. We recognize that. That's not a philosophical

point; that's an obvious point. Crown corporations in government

deliver the sort of necessary services that don't produce goods, such

as ferries and hydro. We don't buy our hula-hoops and lumber and so on

from Crown corporations or the public sector. Everyone recognizes that

the private sector economy must be healthier if we are to have a

healthy B.C. But with bills like

[ Page 1563 ]

this, you cannot have a confident retail sector or

investment sector, and you cannot and will not have a confident

education sector.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago the enfant terrible was your predecessor. He

was the person who was striking fear into the hearts of trustees and

taxpayers all around the province. One of the reasons that they were

concerned about him was because the former member for Surrey actually

consulted. People didn't like what they heard in their discussions with

him, but at least he went out there and talked to people and visited

people. He went out to school boards and he went to conventions. He

wasn't afraid to put forth his policies, and what he hoped would be

government policy. He even issued White Papers and draft legislation.

We don't see that now.

Now that the minister is back, I want to say a few more words to him

directly, because I know that he is such a goodhumoured fellow, who

really enjoys being in the Legislature here day after day and night

after night. While I would never be party to this sort of thing, I have

a feeling that there are some of my colleagues who want to keep him

here day after day and night after night. However kindly and caring in

his heart he might be about the educational system in this province,

the fact is that he is unlikely to be a benevolent despot. Now a despot

he is going to be. It is the fundamental principle of this bill that

control and authority, which were out there with the electorate in the

school districts — the people who raise the money.... As I mentioned

earlier, an increasing amount of the proportion of the money for

schools is raised out there by people who are directly responsible to

the people they elect. He is taking that authority unto himself.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the government is taking the

same authority unto themselves in an educational service such as the

kindergarten to grade 12 program that the government has long had in

other areas of resource development. I don't wish to depersonalize

education and treat students, teachers and the children in this

province as units, but the fact is that that tremendously important

human resource, our own children — and many of us in the House have

children within the school system — is a resource. It will add

immeasurably not only to this province but to this country.

The government has always had, and still does have, total authority

in the protection and enhancement of other resources such as the forest

resource, and in participation with the federal government in such

projects as salmonid enhancement. They have had the responsibility to

protect and enhance our land resources and water resources, and our

fossil fuel and mineral resources. Their track record in these areas

has been one of total neglect. If they have total authority when they

neglect the reforestation of our most important resource industry, when

they neglect our salmonid enhancement programs which have been

initiated by the private sector and the federal government, when they

neglect our land and water resources and when they give away our fossil

fuel resources, what kind of confidence can the people of B.C. have in

that government to protect and enhance the human resource in the school

system? When they grab authority from the duly elected people at the

local level, who also have a mandate in this regard, and take it unto

themselves.... However nice a fellow the minister may be, the track

record of the government he is part of is very, very bad in this regard.

I know that eventually the minister or some of the apologists around

him in the government benches will get up and tell the people of B.C.

exactly what areas he, in playing God, is going decide are not

important in what school districts. Is he going to decide that music is

important in Castlegar but not in Quesnel, for instance?

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'm being advised by the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard). As long as he is not a member of Solidarity I am prepared to....

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of this august body.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada