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 )

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8077 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Public trusteeship of Vancouver General Hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 8077

Travel expenses of Minister of Human Resources. Mr. Hall –– 8078

Urea formaldehyde in schools. Ms. Sanford –– 8078

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates, (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 25: post secondary colleges and institutions –– 8080

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 25 –– 8080

Division

On vote 26: independent schools –– 8080

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 26 –– 8080

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Dailly

Division

On vote 26: independent schools –– 8081

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Kempf

Division

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 63: minister's office –– 8093

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Barber

Mr. Lorimer

Presenting Petitions

Mr. Mussallem:

an Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter –– 8099

Municipal Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1982 (Bill 49). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Introduction and first reading –– 8099

Tabling Documents

Criminal Injury Compensation Act of British Columbia annual report.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8099

Law Reform Commission of British Columbia annual report –– 1981.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8099

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us today are two people, Mr. and Mrs.

Doug Williams, visiting from Calgary. Doug is wearing two hats these

days. He's vice president of the Alberta Social Credit Party and he's

also vice-president of the national Social Credit Party. I would ask

the House to make them both very welcome.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent as a part of the

Cowichan-Malahat constituency the largest native Indian tribe in

British Columbia. The Chief of that tribe and his wife have been

visiting myself and the member for Victoria today to discuss his native

Indian language institute bill. I would like the House to join me in

welcoming Chief Dennis Alphonse and his wife Philomena of the Cowichan

Indian Band.

MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today are two fine gentlemen from the constituency of Kamloops,

both members of the mining fraternity. It's my pleasure to introduce

Mr. Al Ablett and Mr. Norm Blake. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the

House to welcome two residents of the district municipality of

Mackenzie, which is 120 miles north of Prince George: the mayor of

Mackenzie, Bill Whalley, and the city administrator, Vern Ciccone.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC TRUSTEESHIP OF VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE:

I would like to address a question to the Minister of Health. In his

report to the Socred caucus, he described the Vancouver General as one

of the most inefficient hospitals in the province. If, by his own

admission, public trusteeship — since August of 1978, incidentally — of

Vancouver General has proven to be a failure, can the minister offer no

more positive solution than to threaten all acute-care hospitals in the

province with a blueprint of failure — public trusteeship?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The statement and question or combination thereof is most interesting.

The member for New Westminster has for some reason suggested that in a

report to the Social Credit caucus I have described the Vancouver

General as one of the most inefficient hospitals in the province.

Perhaps he was in attendance, because no one else heard that statement.

I leave that open to

interpretation. I certainly didn't make the

statement, but perhaps the member knows more than I with respect to

what goes on in our Social Credit caucus.

If I heard correctly, the member for New Westminster says the Vancouver General

Hospital is under public trusteeship. Peter Bazowski was the public trustee

for a period of time. I believe the Minister of Health of the day then took

over and gave up that responsibility soon after. The Vancouver General Hospital

has a board of management; George De Brisay is the chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Reporting to whom?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Reporting to the board of management. If the member would like a list

of the trustees of the Vancouver General Hospital I would be pleased to

provide it for him. I would be very pleased to ask our legal counsel in

the Ministry of Health if for some reason the member for New

Westminster could possibly be correct in that the Vancouver General

Hospital remains under public trusteeship. If that is so, I think we'd

better advise that board; because they have been presuming for some

time that they are not under public trusteeship. Perhaps we will have

to have a legal opinion with respect to that.

MR. BARRETT: What's the question?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's a good question: what is the question?

is difficult to respond to that member because his so-called question

is based on misinformation, and another factor that I think demands

immediate investigation. I will be on the phone immediately to our

legal counsel to determine if that member is correct for once.

MR. COCKE:

I'm not quite sure whether the minister knows very much about his

department. but he certainly must understand that when he appoints

every trustee at the hospital....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please.

MR. COCKE: There will be a question, Mr. Speaker. Allow a little latitude, if you will.

it necessary for the minister to go to his council to ask whether or

not that hospital is under trusteeship, when he appoints every member

of the board, which is an advisory board?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, since the question was addressed to you. I'll try to respond.

There

are a number of hospitals in the province whereby numbers of the

trustees are appointed by order-in-council. The makeup from hospital to

hospital differs. Under the Hospital Act — I believe it's

section 44 —

there is specific authority granted to the Minister of Health to

appoint a public trustee to run the hospital. That's what occurred. If

the member is correct. In August 1978 "hen a public trustee was

appointed to the Vancouver General Hospital. taking over the duties of

the board.

That is not the situation today. There is no

public trustee responsible for Vancouver General Hospital, If the

member for New Westminster is now rewriting the legislation and

offering his

interpretation of what that statute means. I'll have legal

counsel verify his

interpretation. I'm sure it comes as a great

surprise to the members of Vancouver General Hospital's board that they

don't have the responsibilities which have been entrusted to them. I

suggest the member is inadvertently misinterpreting the meaning of the

act.

[ Page 8078 ]

MR. COCKE: The minister can go along and do his own

interpretation of whatever he likes.

Does the minister believe that health care is a privilege and not a right?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

During my address to the B.C. Medical Association there were a series

of questions and comments made with respect to the medical system we

have in Canada: the medicare and hospitalization programs. It has been

suggested by some NDP candidates that health care, as we know it in

Canada today — our medicare and hospitalization programs — is a right.

our country today we have a governmental process and a society in which

we do have rights granted to us, most recently by the new Canadian

constitution. We also have privileges granted to us by way of statutes.

It is suggested by some NDP candidates that a legislative assembly or a

parliament cannot take away your rights if they are granted to you by a

system such as a constitution. However, if you are granted privileges

by way of statute, a legislative assembly or a parliament can rescind

those privileges by rescinding such a statute. Such is the difference

between a constitution and a statute.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is embarrassing.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, it's embarrassing to that member across there, because he tries to twist whatever he can to suit himself.

a citizen of Canada and British Columbia, I consider it a great

privilege that I can take advantage of the health-care program we have

for our citizens. As I said to the BCMA delegates, I consider our

health-care program in Canada, which offers medical care plus hospital

care — and dental care and other forms of care in British Columbia —

not only a privilege but also a responsibility. I simply will not

accept a statement from someone that it is a right, without reference

to what form of right it is, whether it's in the charter of rights or

in a constitution, or to where the authority is to determine that that

is a right which you will never be denied. I think it is the

responsibility of the citizens of this country to fully understand how

these programs are developed and funded, and what the responsibility of

every citizen is, if we are to see these programs continue.

When

it is politically expedient for an NDP candidate to make statements or

slogans to try to attract votes, such as " $25 car insurance," then we

must be concerned about what information the citizenry is receiving.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister. The hon. minister well knows that we cannot go beyond the scope of the question in answering it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister really told us that the Socreds are reserving the right to take it away.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You have destroyed it more than any group in the history of the country — right now. It's your fault!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We'll not proceed with question period until we have order.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, with respect to his report from the Royal Columbian

Hospital that he read to us, I would ask the minister why he did not

read us information from the 250 doctors who unanimously backed the

other report.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in

response to the member for New Westminster, I read into the records the

report from the hospital, which had been forwarded to me in response to

my Telex. I have not received a report from the doctors at Royal

Columbian Hospital. I am unaware of what the member refers to as the

other report. Perhaps the member is referring to newspaper articles.

The doctors have not corresponded with me in respect to those

incidents. I received a report from the executive director, the

chairman of the board of Royal Columbian Hospital. I have received no

communication from the doctors at Royal Columbian Hospital or from one

of their committees — unless it is en route. Perhaps the member has

already received a copy.

TRAVEL EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took a, question from the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall) as notice. The second member for Surrey asked if I

had travelled from Ottawa to Vancouver on Tuesday, February 23, 1982.

The answer to the question is yes, and the cost of that trip was

$573.75.

MR. HALL: I thank the minister for bringing

the information to the House so promptly. However, there is a third

part to the question: why did she decide to travel first class?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The supplementary is in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to yesterday's Blues where I answered that question.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE IN SCHOOLS

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. The Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) has failed to have the portable

classrooms in the province tested for formaldehyde gas levels. Children

in these portables are suffering from numerous health problems as a

result of the formaldehyde gas. Have you, as the Minister of Health,

decided to have all of the classrooms constructed in the last six years

tested so that the children will have a safe environment in which to

attend school?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in some

areas of the province the medical health officer has been asked to

investigate complaints from citizens and school boards, I would think,

with respect to urea formaldehyde compounds which may be contained in

some portables. My understanding is that any time such a request has

been made, studies have been carried out. The member for Comox says

that children are suffering from innumerable health problems because of

this, and I'm not arguing with the member, but I would like to see

[ Page

8079 ]

those innumerable health problems produced in an

identifiable way so we may communicate with the medical people to see

if they agree. I'm not about to accept a medical opinion unless I have

some reason to have some documentation from a medical person.

Our

medical health officers have responded, as far as I know, in each

instance where there has been a request for a medical investigation. I

would be pleased to contact our senior person responsible for the

medical health officers to determine if they're having any difficulty

in responding to specific requests. I will also ask the general

question if there has been any information gathered about innumerable

health problems, and I'll be pleased to bring back such information as

may be available.

The member has asked if I as Minister of

Health will take on a responsibility which she has determined the

Minister of Education — apparently, in her opinion — is not doing. I'll

speak with my colleague to determine what needs to be done with respect

to such inspections, and if the Ministry of Health can assist the

Ministry of Education in any way, that cooperation will be forthcoming.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Skeena seeks the floor.

MR. HOWARD: Before orders of the day are called, Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MR. HOWARD:

This is not an ordinary question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but the

question strikes at the fundamental roots of accountability to the

public. It is regarding statements made by the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). This is the earliest opportunity available

to me to raise this question of privilege, because I have just this

morning received a document upon which it is founded, to which I'll

refer, which I'll table, and which I'll submit shows and will show that

there is a conspiracy to mislead this House and, indeed, to mislead the

general public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. I would remind the hon. member again that

on a matter of privilege no extra licence is granted, in stating the

matter, to use terminology which could be abusive.

MR. HOWARD:

Both the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the

Minister of Finance have said that no mechanisms are in place to deal

with hospitalities, notably theatre tickets, extended to ministers in

visits to New York — one on June 11 and 12 and the other in the fall of

1980. I exclude the February 1980 trip by the Minister of Finance from

this question.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: You'll have an opportunity, Mr. Minister of Finance,

to deal with this matter. I wish you would have dealt with it earlier.

June 7, the Minister of Finance tabled two documents — one he

identified as being Financial Administration Act regulations, R (2),

pages 1, 2 and 3. He said that the date of those regulations was

October 29, 1981, and indeed that document has written on it — in ink

presumably, because this is a photocopy — "October 29, 1981 " and the

initials "TB," presumably Treasury Board.

The second

document was budget and administrative policy. with an issue date of

December 1, 1981, and an effective date of December 1 1981. The second

document tabled — the budget and administrative policy one — deals with

hospitality expenses and states that certain hospitality expenses would

be paid for out of public funds. Part of that second document is a

comptroller-general's instruction which states that it is: "issued

under

section 9 of Treasury Board directive no. 1081, dated May 20,

1980, which defines the policy for hospitality expenses." Where is that

Treasury Board directive dated May 20, 1980? Why wasn't it tabled and

what does it say? Note that both the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Finance have said they had no

knowledge that the hospitality extended on the occasion of their visits

to New York after May 20, 1980, would be paid for out of public funds

of the province of B.C., and have said no mechanisms were in place to

deal with such matters. Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources blamed the system and

exonerated themselves.

I want now to refer to that Treasury

Board directive. The full content of that Treasury Board directive

dated May 20, 1980, is repeated in the budget and administrative policy

document dated December 1.,1981, which the Minister of Finance tabled

on June 7. The only changes in the two documents are grammatical and

one dollar is changed, namely: the Treasury Board directive of May 20,

1980, puts the demarcation point as between prior treasury board

approval in writing and ministerial, deputy-ministerial approval in

writing at $2,500. In the document tabled in the House by the Minister

of Finance, that figure is $2.450. Otherwise, the document tabled in

the House by the Minister of Finance and identified earlier as budget

and administrative policy, having an issue and effective date of

December 1, 1981, is identical to the Treasury Board directive dated

May 20, 1980.

The Treasury Board directive of May 20, 1980,

was sent to all ministers, deputy ministers, ministry comptrollers and

ministry personnel directors. The subject of it is identified as

hospitality. Its effective date. reading from the last part of it, was

May 15, 1980. It was signed by Hugh A. Curtis, Chairman, Treasury

Board. I want to table that particular document, Mr. Speaker.

submit to you, Mr. Speaker. that the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) knew of that Treasury Board

directive, dated May 20, 1980, for it was sent to all ministers and he

was a minister at the time. He got it two or three weeks before he went

on that trip to New York.

I submit that the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), by tabling the documents which he did table

on June 7, and by refusing to table that Treasury Board directive of

May 20, 1980, thereby — and I had an editorial comment in here, which I

won't include — misled the House and protected himself and the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It is my view that such

behaviour — and as an aside, the Premier knew about it as well — by

both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and

[ Page 8080 ]

Petroleum

Resources is intolerable and, I submit, calls for the immediate

resignation of both ministers. A motion to that effect is presented

herewith.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. We will consider the matter and return a

decision to the House. But before we proceed, I would caution members

raising matters of privilege that, in stating the matter, they do not

embark on a debate in their method of proceeding to bring matters which

would be considered by a committee, should a committee be appointed.

They should not bring that into the statement itself. I know hon.

members will take that into consideration in future matters. I allowed

quite considerable latitude in this instance.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 25: post secondary colleges and institutions, $279,335,383.

MR. LAUK:

Under this vote the travel portion has been increased by a very

substantial amount. The office and advertising expenses have again been

increased by a substantial amount. The opposition is opposed to those

increases in a time of restraint. Not one dollar out of those budgets

goes to educate a student. Not one dollar goes to keep a classroom open

or towards the very needed courses in vocational training that are

required in this province. It's just another needless increase, and it

shows the double standard of the government.

I therefore move that vote 25 be reduced by $93,050.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillip's

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Journals of the House.

Vote 25 approved.

On vote 26: independent schools. $17,734,328.

MR. LAUK:

One thing in dealing with independent schools is that we're trying to

cut down on the bureaucracy and expense of dealing with independent

schools. Travel is up 20 percent, professional special services is up

23 percent, office expenses are up and advertising and publications are

up. There wasn't even a budget item for advertising and publications

last year; I don't know why we need it this year. Is the government

planning to place these funds in various departments under various

votes because they want to use it for their own Social Credit

advertising at public expense? We think so. Twenty-five hundred dollars

is a lot of money. That's almost one trip to Broadway. Professional and

special services are up by $27,600. How many trips to Broadway is that?

therefore move that, in a time of restraint vote 26 be reduced by

$32,597, being only the increase over last year in this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH:

The increase in the number of qualifying schools and qualifying

students in the independent school system, together with an increase of

more than 10 percent in the student body in those schools, has led to

an increase in activity and responsibilities. The increased costs of

external evaluation teams has been quite marked during the past year.

There are new applications for grant status, and there have been a

number of additional external team evaluations. Also, there has been an

increase in the number of teachers who have been issued certificates in

the independent school system.

If the government is going to

provide not only funds for independent schools but also some inspection

services to ensure that there are standards, both as to the

certification of teachers and the quality thereof, I think it's

necessary that there be some increase in cost.

The point I

would like to make in this Legislature is that the independent schools

of this province save the taxpayers of British Columbia more than $40

million annually in operating costs. The grant system to these schools

contributes to a strong education system in the province, to taxpayer

savings and to freedom of choice.

MR. NICOLSON: The

minister has talked about new funding and the need for people to travel

out...not only when new applications are made, but also after they've

been granted and in order to bring some official recognition. I would

ask the minister: when members of his staff are travelling to meet with

independent schools, are they instructed to inform the people in charge

of those schools and the parents that if an NDP government is returned

they would probably lose their funding?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: They should be.

HON. MR. SMITH:

No, they certainly are not; but all the parents would have to do is

listen to the speeches of members opposite or read the Blues.

[ Page

8081 ]

MR. NICOLSON: I heard the interjections of some of the

backbenchers, saying that they should be. I would ask the minister

then: if they are not so instructed, why did any of them take it upon

themselves — as I've been informed by parents at the Vallican Whole

School in Slocan Valley — to do that when they were granting level 2

funding?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll certainly investigate

that matter, hon. member. I've not heard that before in relation to

that school. They certainly have no such instructions. I would be very

surprised if anything along those lines was said by any members of my

department.

MRS. DAILLY: I have one question for the

minister. Could the minister tell the House if any schools in the

independent school framework that are receiving grants practice sexual

or financial discrimination?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we're on an amendment for reduction of salary at this time.

MRS. DAILLY: I'll leave it until after the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member defers her question.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Journals of the House.

On vote 26: independent schools, $17,734,328.

MRS. DAILLY:

I'd like to repeat my question to the minister. Are there any

independent schools that are receiving money from the government which

practise discrimination with reference to sex or finances?

HON. MR. SMITH: The main principle is that these schools are run on

the basis of institutional freedom, and I know of no case or decision where

it has been found that any of these schools have violated the Human Rights Code.

It is certainly true that preferences are given in some schools on the basis

of it's being a boys' school or a girls' school and some preferences

are given on the basis of religion, but those are the very preferences that

are exempt from the provisions of the Human Rights Code under

section 22.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I address this through you to the member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly), who was the Education minister in the New

Democratic Party government and who denied aid to independent schools

as the policy of that party as government. It's a fundamental

commitment of this government to offer an opportunity of choice in

education. The member for Burnaby North has consistently opposed aid to

independent schools on behalf of her party and thus opposed the

individual choice of both parents and students when seeking an

education. It is because of her opposition, both as a member of the

opposition now and formerly as the Education minister and the most

intelligent critic on that side with regard to matters of education,

that I rise to speak on aid to independent schools.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order. Mr, Chairman, there is ample opportunity for any

minister or any member of this House to make general remarks on the

administration of the minister's office. Vote 26 is on independent

schools, and it should be restricted to the amounts and so on. The

debate on aid to independent schools took place several years ago. I

have a list of speakers from this side of the chamber. We could have a

general debate on independent schools under this vote, but please rule

one way or the other. Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the Chair would be very hard pressed in this case not to

allow some discussion under vote 26. Its classification by subvote is

"independent schools."

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can

understand the fear of this issue that would cause the member for

Vancouver Centre to rise on his feet and attempt to stifle the

government — use that big, oppressive opposition to stifle this little

government from speaking up for independent schools and the students

and the parents who could utilize those services.

Let me

relate it then to the dollar value. To the member for Burnaby-North.

who has most eloquently expressed the view of the New Democratic Party

as being in opposition to independent schools. It does relate both to

education and the right of choice; it does relate to something that's

fundamental to our democracy, and that is the right of parents to seek

the institution that would provide their children with the best

education to equip them for life. The government or the public should

not run a state monopoly on the minds of our children. State monopolies

are a major policy plank in the New Democratic Pam — state monopolies

when it comes to business; state monopolies when it comes to government

taking over more of the private sector; state monopolies, as government

grows. The have publicly stated in the past — and they practised it as

government — that they would have a state monopoly on the minds, the

education and the training of our children. We're opposed to that.

Mr.

Chairman, I see the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) shaking his

head. But this also relates to what they're talking about, and that is

saving money. The independent schools providing an alternative

education save the public

[ Page 8082 ]

treasury — and t herefore the taxpayers of this province — $40 million annually.

I would expect, then, that we should be encouraging the independent schools

not only for the quality of the education and the right of individual choice

and opportunity, but also to get down to what is preoccupying the minds of the

New Democratic Party, for saving money. We just had a resolution dealing with

some $50,000. Let me tell you that independent schools, while meeting the philosophical

commitment to right of choice, could save millions for the taxpayers of this

province, which could be diverted to health care rather than just giving it

in tax reductions. It is a very substantial amount. That's what shows the

hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party. Their minds are capable of dealing in

amounts of $100 or $150, but when it comes to actually saving the taxpayers

millions of dollars in a very realistic way, when it comes to actually dealing

with the important principle of right of choice against big-statism — statism

which is carried to the extent that they want a monopoly controlling the minds

and the educational opportunities of our children — then they will be exposed

as being most cynical and hypocritical.

Now

I pose a question to the member for Burnaby North and I would like to

sit in this Legislature until the member, as the most eloquent

spokesman on education in that whole group, answers it — because the

member has told me publicly and privately that she is opposed to public

funding of independent schools. I would like her to clear it up for her

colleague, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who is worried

about it somehow affecting him at the ballot box — his only concern —

by standing up and stating her opinion on this particular issue. I

think the public are befuddled by the New Democratic Party position on

this issue, as they are on other issues. It is easy in British Columbia

to identify what that group is against. They're against everything that

doesn't work to their political advantage. It's hard to know what they

stand for. They work on the principle that if you don't stand for

something, you'll fall for anything, and that's the way they have

conducted themselves during this session and during the last

parliaments.

I also know that the independent schools are

able to save money for the people while providing a quality education.

Sometimes the emphasis, over and above a good education, is on

character-building. How can they be against that? Sometimes the

teaching, over and above education and also beyond the school day,

emphasizes spiritual values. I don't know why they're against that as

well. There is a lot to be learned in life in the educational process.

It is not just the narrow educational process that you would get under

statism, as advocated by the New Democratic Party — state control,

monopoly control.

MR. BARBER: It's another lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I will ask the first member for Victoria to

categorically withdraw the remark that he just made. He knows better in

this chamber.

MR. BARBER: The Premier is deliberately misrepresenting the position of the New Democratic Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I did not ask the hon. member

for a speech. I asked him for a categoric withdrawal, or to remove himself

from the chamber — now.

MR. BARBER: The Chairman will get a withdrawal, and later the Premier will get a speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member withdraws the remark.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I take it the last comment was a threat which is hardly a threat except

for the ears and sensibilities of those who have to listen to the

member for Victoria.

Let me go on to state how the

independent schools save money for the people of British Columbia. Let

me talk about a matter relating to independent and public schools, how

all the financial problems could be resolved. I know the member for

Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is interested, because when she was

Education minister she brought in such experts as John Bremer and

Stanley Knight to guide the education program which went in several

directions during her tenure as a minister of the Crown and as the

whole intellectual wing of educational development in the New

Democratic Party government.

Let me say that she made a

commitment to class reduction. That is not an imposition that is on the

independent schools. What they go for is not some arbitrary, slide-rule

projection. They talk about giving the child an education. I want her

to know what the direction she set for education has cost this

province. Rather than concentrate on quality she talked about numbers

in that cold, calculating, state-dominating way that characterizes that

party. Do you realize that for every drop of one student in the

pupil-teacher ratio, which is now 16.5 to 1 , it costs the taxpayers of

this province $42 million? Do you realize that the quality of education

our children are getting in the public schools today is being

questioned more than when we had a ratio of over 20 to 1? I defy that

member to prove that our children are better equipped today under the

ratios she targeted for and the formula....

I have heard the

NDP talk about teacher-pupil ratio until they are red in the face. I

want to say that we could fund education and get greater productivity

from our educational institutions and those dedicated teachers who work

in them. We could save $42 million for every drop in the pupil-teacher

ratio, as they do in the independent schools. There would be enough

money there to talk about tax reductions and about providing additional

millions of dollars for health care in this province. There would be

enough money to help many social areas during this difficult economic

period and to meet all the obligations that we want to meet, if it had

not been for the directions started and the preoccupation of the New

Democratic Party with big-statism and numbers rather than quality and a

system that provides an alternative to the big-government system.

think one of the fundamental things in rights and opportunities in a

democracy is that the minds and education not be controlled by monopoly

by the state. One of the best opportunities we have to make this

country grow and to ensure its success is to have alternative education

systems so that our children will be equipped in various ways. We will

not have them all come out as if they were stamped out by a cookie

cutter, for good or for bad. They will be given an opportunity to

choose the educational system of their choice that meets acceptable

standards.

I think it is very important that this issue with

all the implications — financial, educational, and of democratic

principles.... The public of British Columbia must be

[ Page

8083 ]

made very aware of those three areas of the importance of independent schools in British Columbia.

can remember the debate, and the member for Burnaby North will remember

it well. I remember it because it was most difficult for me, as Premier

and leader of a party, to change a philosophical position that had not

been the position of the party before. It was not easy, either in this

chamber or within the party, but the decision was right and the

decision was fair. Members of this side of the House did not run and

hide when the vote came. I still remember the tragedy of the once proud

party shamefully running and hiding in their caucus room when the vote

came up on second reading because they didn't want to state or vote

their principles. It's like all other aspects of statism — you know

what you're going to do, you whisper it privately in the hall, but you

don't stand up in this Legislature and vote it. You don't stand up in

this Legislature and defend the position, You run to your caucus room,

you hide, and you sit and giggle nervously as you listen to the

speakers of the debate has going on. That was a debate that has not

ended in this province, because that party never clearly recorded its

position, or was afraid to reaffirm its position. I knew its position

when they weren't afraid to state it because they felt comfortable in

government. It was stated many times in this Legislature as recorded in

Hansard , by that minister and that party when they were

government in this province. That is the only time they have felt

comfortable in stating their position to do with independent schools.

Independent

opportunity goes far beyond education and right of choice. It has

financial benefits for the people of this province that extend to the

taxpayer and provide dollars that could be utilized for other social

services at a time when times are difficult. That party has as its flag

that they're out to save nickels and dimes, and that's right. But when

they consistently oppose a public restraint program that will save the

taxpayers hundreds of millions and over time billions of dollars, and

when, as in the past, they have taken a very strong stand against

independent schools, I was surprised at the amendment they proposed. I

would like to see the amount of money going to independent schools

increased. I would like to see more of our students given the

opportunity of having a choice to seek an alternative educational

experience and system to the one big state system which is very much in

question by the public of British Columbia. The teachers are the ones

providing the education, and even in a survey taken by the BCTF they

find some dissatisfaction with the system.

Our government is responsible for direction, and we are responsible for money.

We raise that money from the taxpayers, and that's why I say in those areas

where our government is responsible we have taken the hard choice. It wasn't

hard for me inasmuch as I believe very strongly in this. When we introduced

it, it wasn't just to save money, but we know it will. We know it will give

many times the millions of dollars back to the people of British Columbia that

could be directed to other services — many times the amounts that they have

chosen to talk about in this Legislature. We also know it provides a right of

choice. We also know, Mr. Chairman, that philosophically it meets the fundamental

principles of anyone who is truly a democrat, not by label but by commitment

and persuasion. I've always been a democrat. and so has my party. Democracy

is not new to us, so we call ourselves the "old democrats." Those

that discover the label for partisan political reasons might call themselves

new, but democracy is something that's been fundamental in this world for

years.

I'm

therefore much prouder to be an old democrat and committed to the

rights of the individual, and that extends to educational opportunity.

Their

commitment to more and more statism, government control and ownership,

and what that does to the private sector, gradually eroding the rights

of individuals in an economic way, is not nearly as fearful as what

they practised and said as government when they were against

independent schools. It meant they wanted to control the way in which

our young children are taught and learn to prepare themselves for

society. They could easily be taught, through persuasion by the teacher

or the direction of government, that the private market system doesn't

work. They could be trained to be socialists without knowing it. They

could be trained into some sort of political persuasion. They could

also be trained to be something else equally unacceptable.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Victoria is yelling things like "nuts"; all the clever

things he yells when he gets embarrassed, giggles and is nervous in

that unusual way. He's chewing gum, with all the etiquette that that

demands.

I want to say very clearly that this is fundamental

to our government. I agree with the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) that the public is undecided as to the future of independent

education. What may be stifling the growth I anticipated and others

would wish is the uncertainty that elections do change governments. All

the good things that have been done and the basis prepared.... People

are not prepared. as groups and individuals concerned about their

children, to put their money into providing an alternative education

system when there is the threat of a government that will, at the

earliest opportunity, if not destroy them, then at least stifle them.

I want to speak strongly for this vote. My one concern is that I wish it were many times more.

MR. STUPICH:

There are times when it's difficult to sit here and listen as the

leader of a government of opportunistic coalitionists addresses us as

hypocrites. If he wants to address hypocrites. he should look in a

mirror and get a good view of one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you in 1977 when the legislation was passed?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the member for Nanaimo has the floor, and he will be

afforded all the privileges which that position, when speaking, demands.

MR. STUPICH:

He spoke of the old democrats of the Social Credit Party. I can

remember the day when the old Social Credit Party had some principles —

not the principles espoused by the present leader of the party, the

principle of supporting special privileges for the elite, but the

principle that not one cent of public money should go to provide

education for the elite. I can remember a discussion with the then

Premier of the province, another Bennett, W.A.C. Bennett. Frank

Richter, another member of that government, was in that same

discussion. Frank Richter was a Catholic and supported private schools.

but he also supported the Premier in the argument that not one cent of

public money should be

[ Page 8084 ]

used

for private schools. That was the principle of the government which

lasted in office for some 20 years. They believed that to be the case.

Never

at any time was there any suggestion that students or parents should

not have the right of choice. They had the right to provide special

education if they wanted; they had the right to send their children to

special schools if they wanted; but they did not have the right to come

to the public purse and say that taxpayers generally should be

supporting education for special privileges that they wanted for

themselves. The government and opposition of the day supported that

view. The freedom was there. They had full freedom to do whatever they

wanted, but they did not have access to the public purse to preserve

their elitist ideas with respect to education.

The Premier

spoke about state monopoly: that we want the state to have one

educational system so that we can control minds. I remind you that

public education in this province right now is under the control of

this administration. I remind you that from the day this administration

was elected in December 1975, they have gradually taken the rights of

school boards, college councils and everyone having anything to do with

delivering educational service in this province, and put the control of

education more and more in the hands of the Minister of Education and

the government of which he's a member.

The Premier was

speaking on behalf of a government that has done the very thing of

which he has accused us: more and more they have been trying to

completely control the kind of education that the students throughout

this province will be exposed to. He talks about saving taxpayers

money. Mr. Chairman, I'll remind you that it is the public school

system that is obliged to provide education for everyone in this

province. As has happened on occasion in the past, when a private

school has, without notice, decided to close its doors and not deliver

that service any more, it is the public school system that has the

obligation to provide education. It saves money only as long as these

particular organizations delivering that service choose to do so, only

as long as they feel they are getting the kind of money they want.

There's no obligation on their part to continue providing educational

services. It's up to the public school system; it has the

responsibility to deliver educational services. It has the right to

collect money from taxpayers; it has the obligation to provide

education.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If the Premier were to continue his argument to its logical conclusion — and

I have some concern that that's exactly what he has in mind — then he will

provide this same kind of right to people who want medical services. Medical

services may be available to the elite; special hospitals will be set up; people

with the money to do it and the desire to do it can have their own hospital

system, and they can go to the public purse and say: "We want support for

our hospitals." What's happening? Where's the end to this? If the

Premier's argument in favour of this is that it's going to save the

taxpayers money, knowing full well that in the event the private schools decide

to close their doors the public is going to have to put up the money in any

case, is he opening the door to providing other services to people on the basis

of what may be their ability to pay for their services, so that we'll have

two tiers, two classes of people for medical services, two classes of people

for educational services, two classes of people for every other service provided

by government'? Is that what this Premier is really leading us into?

is the public that has to provide the funds for education. There was

freedom of choice during the 20 years of the W.A.C. Bennett regime.

There was freedom of choice during the more than three years of the

Dave Barrett regime. Freedom of choice has been ours over the whole of

the history of the province of British Columbia. Freedom of choice has

always been there; we've never denied that choice. We have argued, and

the governments of the day have argued, until 1976 or 1977, in support

of freedom of choice, that if you want that freedom of choice, then you

pay for it. You don't come to the public and say: "Help us to do what

we want to do with our children." Go ahead and do whatever you want,

but don't come to the public and say: "You have to help pay for it."

The decision was made. Legislation was passed in this House in 1977; we accept the decision that was made then.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You weren't here. You weren't in the House. You all left.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo is speaking, and will speak uninterrupted.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I've been a member of the Legislature for some 17 years.

A lot of decisions were made in the province before I entered the

Legislature; other decisions will be made after I leave. When those

decisions are made, I will accept those decisions.

While I

didn't support the decision made with respect to starting the use of

public funds to support education for the elite, nevertheless it is

part of the policy of British Columbia right now. That is what we have

in British Columbia right now. To the extent that we have it, I support

it; my party supports it. We opposed it coming in. We never supported

the principle that the public generally should be levied taxes that

would go to any special group. That was our position; it's still our

position. But we recognize that we are also now in a position where —

I'm not sure what the vote is — some tens of millions of dollars are

going for that purpose, and we accept that it's going to happen. We'll

vote for this vote. That's our position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH:

Yes, we're on the record. We have said all along that there should not

be taxes from the public generally to support education for the elite.

But it is now established policy in the province that there shall be

support to this level, and we'll live with that. That's our position.

We support it to the level that it is policy in the province of British

Columbia, but we are not prepared to go beyond that. There will not be

withdrawal of aid, to the extent that it is already part of the policy

of the government of British Columbia, whether it is that group of

opportunistic coalitionists in power or whoever. We'll support it to

the extent that it exists, but we will not go beyond that.

We'll

support this vote because it is part of the established policy, and it

wouldn't be fair to those people who have been led down the garden path

by this administration talking about principles to suddenly rip the

ground out from under them. As long as they are prepared to provide

quality education within the guidelines that have been established,

then we are

[ Page

8085 ]

prepared to support that, but that is as far as we are prepared to go, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that what we are dealing with this

afternoon with the members of the official opposition is not a policy;

it's a passion. It's a passionate dislike of aid to independent

schools. I am sure that there will be many thousands of British

Columbians tomorrow — if they are given an opportunity, which I doubt,

to read the words of the members of the New Democratic Party in

defining them as "elite".... These people are often among the lowest

income people in British Columbia and have made the greatest sacrifices

to provide an education for their children. They will want to know —

and they should be told — that the members of the New Democratic Party

accuse them of being "elite."

Let it be known that this is

the official position of the member for Nanaimo, a former Minister of

Finance, and the member from Burnaby, a former Minister of Education.

They consider all of these people, who are making sacrifices as well as

paying their full share of the public education system, to be British

Columbia's elite.

Those are the twisted arguments of

passion. That is what happens when you don't dare articulate your true

policy. Mind you, it did surface. It surfaced when the members of the

New Democratic Party ran from this chamber rather than reveal their

passions. They attempted to hide them as they hid in their caucus room.

It provides no reassurance for the member for Nanaimo to stand up and

accuse these people of being elite and then say: "But we accept what

has been done." The opposition has no choice, because they are not the

government. It's when they become the government that they have the

opportunity to exercise their passions and to make their true policies

the policy of government.

Mr. Chairman, is it frightening to

all of these people? You know, it's one thing to have legislation on

the books, in which case you have to face debate in the Legislature to

have that legislation repealed, and it's something else to render that

legislation meaningless with a budget. Therefore, when the former

Minister of Finance says that he accepts the legislation, of course he

has to accept it, but the question is: would he, knowing his passions

and given the opportunity, render that legislation worthless by means

of his budget? That's why it's so important for the public of British

Columbia to know what these people say in debate. Can they curb their

passionate dislike of this legislation? I can see no evidence of their

ability to control their passions on this matter, because it always

surfaces in debate.

The only conclusion that I can draw from what has been said by the opposition

in this chamber is that given the opportunity they would render the legislation

useless and would cripple the program brought forward by this administration

by denying to the independent schools of this province the support which is

essential for them to carry out the services which the Premier has so articulately

described. Nothing could be plainer than the policies of this government in

giving both freedom and choice to the citizens of British Columbia, through

our public school system. our hospitals, our colleges, our institutes and our

universities. We can't do this to the extent we would like to be able to,

but as all members in this House know, the public purse is the taxpayers'

purse. What governments have to spend on all of these services is only what

the taxpayers can provide and, therefore, our wish to do more is only a wish

that the taxpayer had more to give.

But,

of course, as the New Democratic Party itself discovered to its

considerable dismay when it was in power, the resources of the taxpayer

are not bottomless. The suggestion that there are people who are not

paying their full share, whether it be in business or as

individuals.... The thing to do was to reach the spending ambitions of

the New Democratic Party by taxing the resources of individuals and

businessmen to the point where they could no longer perform. Truly, Mr.

Speaker, that was an example in practice in this province of a

government throttling the goose that produces the golden eggs that

support all of the services we provide — services to the public school

system and to the independent school system.

Mr. Chairman,

if there is time and response left from the opposition party this

afternoon to speak on the subject of independent schools.... We know

their passions and their prejudices but, in heaven's name, will they

tell this chamber and the people of British Columbia once and for all

what their policy is and precisely what they would do if — heaven

forbid — they were ever to be government again in this province.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman. earlier in this debate, the Premier of British Columbia

attempted to mislead himself. He attempted to persuade himself that the

New Democratic Party was a party of state control and mind control, as

he put it. The argument — not necessarily the person who made it — is,

in a word, demented. That argument is simply demented. For any leader

of a major political party in this country to make that kind of

argument about the policies of another equally democratic and

democratically elected party is to say something that is so patently

foolish and so patently untrue that the only word used to describe that

sort of argument is demented.

Mr. Chairman, do we stand up

and accuse the Socreds of wanting to use the educational system to

preach capitalism? No, because that would not be a rational argument.

We're not going to make that sort of argument. They are a party that

believes in private ownership and private enterprise, but we're not

going to be so mindless as to try to persuade anyone that their secret

ambition is to turn everyone into one of the great pirate capitalists

of the nineteenth century. That would be preposterous. We're not

prepared to make that kind of lunatic argument about our opponents.

because we know it's not true.

The public educational system

teaches many things about many systems, and many alternatives. It did

so under W.A.C., it did so under Dave Barrett, and it does so today

under this administration. That hasn't changed, and for the Premier to

stand up and say — as if he believed it — that it was the secret policy

of the other major party of the province to engage in some sort of

state control and mind control by taking over education is to say

something that is utterly reprehensible and false. It is a slur on

every public servant who designs curricula, on every teacher who

presents curricula, and on every school board that helps administer

them.

The course content taught in British Columbia is not

determined in this House. It is not determined by political parties,

theirs or ours. It never was: it never will be. For anyone, least of

all the leader of a party that is one of the two major political forces

in this province, to accuse his opponent of something as unspeakably

false as that is to do a terrible

[ Page 8086 ]

disservice

to the people who work for him in the Ministry of Education, and the

people who work for all of us in the school system. That argument is

and was again, in a word, demented. I don't know why he would make such

an argument. It's completely ludicrous.

To dismiss that

argument and to deal with the problem, my colleague the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has indicated that we are not prepared to

withdraw, nor will we withdraw, funding at the current levels along the

current formula for independent schools. He said it, I say it, others

will say it, and in a moment we will vote in favour of this

appropriation for independent schools. We do so because in major part

no other course would be fair to the individuals, the parents and the

kids involved.

Let me illustrate how Social Credit had to

deal with the same distinctions of fairness and policy when they

assumed office. A brief illustration, Mr. Chairman. When the Socreds

were in opposition they voted against ICBC. They said that they

couldn't believe in the principle of public ownership in the

auto-insurance business. They said as well, even further, that when

they got back to office the first thing they would do would be to

dismantle ICBC. They voted against it, they voted against its

appropriations, and they actually said they would tear it down when

they were returned to office. Well, Mr. Chairman, they have now been in

office, regrettably, seven years. They have not torn down ICBC; they

have not repealed the statute; they have not cut off the

appropriations. Why? Because they were faced with the perfectly

practical problem of what happens when you disfranchise people who come

to expect that a law will remain a law, and that a policy will remain a

policy in the special way that ICBC has. Now, even the Socreds realize

that it would be grossly unfair to the individuals involved simply to

wipe out ICBC, to withdraw its appropriations, and to repeal its

statute. The Socreds who voted against ICBC, as we voted against the

independent schools act, were faced with a similar problem of fairness

and the application of policy. The Socreds have not wiped out ICBC,

although they voted against it in the first place. Do we stand up and

accuse them of being hypocrites for not wiping out ICBC? They said they

would, Mr. Chairman. No, we don't, because we acknowledge that they

faced the practical problem of government, and the practical

consequences of disfranchising and cutting off the insured drivers of

British Columbia who came to count on that program, for whom it became

a part of the structure of their working and professional lives.

Similarly,

Mr. Chairman, there are now thousands of individuals in British

Columbia who, for the last five years, have come to count on the

structure, the financing and the flexibility that results from a law

which we voted against in the first place but which we now, as they do,

recognize is law, policy and part of the common franchise for these

individuals. We don't propose to be as unfair to those individual human

beings as the Socreds would try to persuade them we are. We were not so

unfair when we were in office, and may I point out, Mr. Chairman, that

faced with the same problem and issue of fairness and policy, the

Socreds didn't simply cut everyone off ICBC either, even though they

voted against it and said they'd shut it down.

Do I make my point, Mr. Chairman'? A government once elected has to deal

with the legacy, the expectations, and the law which it inherits. When those

expectations include, in this instance, the public financing of aspects of education,

then what do you do, Mr. Chairman? Do you cut them all off?

you deal with them as heavy-handedly, as unfairly and as cold-heartedly

as that? Or do you acknowledge that the public of British Columbia has

come to expect a particular policy and program, and has come to expect

that it will be maintained?

MR. SEGARTY: They won't let you talk, eh, Eileen?

MR. BARBER: My colleague will follow me in just a minute.

The

first remarks of the Premier were intellectually unsound. I think they

were also emotionally unsound, but that's another problem. The second

remarks of the Premier related to the problem of how to deal with an

existing policy, an existing statute and body of social obligation.

We've indicated that we are not prepared to cut these folks off; we

will vote for this appropriation. Why? Because for five years these

people have established a level of entitlement that no rational or

fair-minded person can simply take away arbitrarily, coldly and without

consideration of the human consequence. We're not going to do that. We

don't like to be arbitrary, we don't like to be cold, and we're going

to try not to do that in any of the policies and the laws that we will

be responsible for, I expect, after the next election.

The

Premier made another case. He said we should support independent

schools because the Social Credit Party is the only party that believes

in what he called freedom of choice, the only party that is opposed to

state control. That argument is again intellectually unsound.

Let

me briefly illustrate. It was Social Credit that brought in the

following statutes of state control and centralism, giving cabinet a

far greater central control over the affairs of this province than was

ever exercised under any previous administration: the Government

Reorganization Act; the Financial Control Act; the takeover of regional

colleges; the shutting down of locally elected resource boards; the

takeover of justice councils, the subsuming of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission into the bureaucracy and away from the community that it

formerly represented; the amendment to the Municipal Act, called Bill

42; what they've done to the agricultural land reserve and the clear

takeover politically for the purposes of the central government of the

important former independence of that agency; the political takeover of

the lotteries fund for the purposes of advancing the centralist party

that now controls it; the land-use act, which is fortunately not yet

law, but which will establish colonial status for local government and

enormous central power for the provincial government; the educational

finance act, which creates an educational czar in the office of the

Minister of Education, a position and level of authority that never

existed before.

Eleven statutes — and that's only a partial

list — were introduced by the coalition, creating a level of state and

central control such as this province has never had to suffer before.

None of these statutes was supported by the New Democratic Party; none

were proposed during our term in office. It is intellectually unsound

for the Premier to pose as a believer in local government, when you

look at what he's actually done. One brief illustration serves: we

established, when in office, a system of resource boards, which was an

attempt to decentralize the administration of health and human

resources policy in British Columbia. It was an attempt to decentralize

out of Victoria, and to return to the

[ Page

8087 ]

community, authority over the administration and execution of public policy in those fields.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the hon. members to come to order. Perhaps the member now speaking could return to the vote.

MR. BARBER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice you did not advise the Premier to

cease and desist in his comments about centralizing as a philosophy,

and I'm glad you don't so advise me. It was his argument, this is our

reply. Each is, I think, fair.

Resource boards were an

illustration of a fundamentally democratic impulse against central

authority and in favour of local authority. We did that when we had the

chance; when Social Credit had the chance, they shut them down

altogether. They did so in the name of central and state control over

the administration of health and human resources policy. For the

Premier to try, like the poser he is, and fashion an image for himself

as a believer in local control and freedom of choice is to try to

pretend something that no one can take seriously, not even his own

colleagues in cabinet, who know better. No more authoritarian premier

has existed in this province than the current one. His father was more

democratic than he is, for heaven's sake. But the Premier tries to pose

as a believer in freedom of choice when he practises something that is

just the opposite.

How does all this relate to the question

of independent schools? It does when you examine the history of

privilege that Social Credit has always advocated. Social Credit has

always been the party of privilege in this province. You don't see, by

and large, millionaires from Shaughnessy flocking to the New Democratic

Party, the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party. They flock, rather,

to the party that represents their interests. That party has always

been Social Credit. Social Credit has always been identified as the

party of privilege in British Columbia. Lately it has become identified

as the party of corruption. I'm not just referring to dirty tricks. I

am referring to ministers clearly misusing public funds. In order to

avoid that criticism, we see the debate of the Premier today.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I will not withdraw. It's certainly true.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: You never worked a day in your life.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I ask the Minister of Tourism to come to order. We are

on vote 26, and I advise all members of the committee that we must show

moderation and temperance of speech in committee debate.

MR. BARBER: Social Credit has always been the party of privilege. It is now, probably, a party of corruption.

The Premier, in his unusual speech today — he doesn't ordinarily participate

in Education estimates — is attempting, he thinks, to win back a few allies

whom lie has lost, especially since 1979. What's dangerous and unacceptable

about it is that the real agenda is to appeal directly to prejudice and to some

of the sectarian interests that have from time to time identified themselves

along religious lines in regard to the policy issues concerning private or independent

schools. What he's trying to do, I think, in a very dangerous way, is stir

up ancient prejudices that should have been put to rest by statute as recently

as 1977, when the law was changed, a new policy was enunciated and, at the very

least, one consequence was that the issue was settled.

The

Premier, because he is in desperate trouble over the revelations

concerning three of his colleagues — believe me, Mr. Chairman, there is

more to come — is now attempting to revive a sectarian debate in a way

I think is not acceptable here. It's not acceptable because it appeals

to the worst prejudices of a few of our citizens. It appeals to the

worst prejudices of a few people who have always taken sides at one

extreme or the other — pro or con — on the issue of public financing of

private schools. There have always been extremists taking those

positions of hate, because they identify the issue as, in their view,

fundamentally religious or sectarian. That kind of appeal to prejudice

by the Premier, in his speech concluded a few minutes ago. Is beneath

the office he holds.

MR. BRUMMET: There's nothing beneath you, is there?

MR. BARBER: If you want to speak in the debate, why don't you do so rationally, rather than making noises from your seat.

The

attempt of the Premier to divert public attention from the desperate

dilemma his government faces in regard to recent revelations of

misappropriation of public funds is understandable, but not acceptable.

If he wanted to debate the issue, he could have done so in a

constructive way. If he wanted to debate the issue. he could have

indicated what other steps he would take as Premier to enhance the

point of view he has. But instead. he has tried to deliberately stir up

ancient prejudices in regard to this issue that he has no business

raising at all. Those prejudices should have been put behind us long

ago — most certainly since 1977, when the law was changed, a policy was

enunciated and expectations were founded upon it.

reiterate that we are not prepared to simply throw out into the cold

the people — parents and students — who have come to expect a certain

level of public financial participation in the education of their kids

through the independent school system. We won't do that for the same

practical and fair-minded reasons that I hope motivated the coalition

when they realized they couldn't shut down ICBC and leave all those

drivers out in the cold either. You can't do it. No rational group in

government is going to do it. Fortunately they didn't do it with ICBC.

Just as fortunately, I expect, they may feel that we're not going to do

it with independent schools. They voted against ICBC; we voted against

independent schools. Nonetheless, the law is there. Expectations have

been created, and human lives are at stake. No major party in this

province, I don't think, is ever going to deal with those lives in as

callous a way as the Premier would have you believe.

The

Premier's speech was a sad effort to distract public opinion from the

economic depression that British Columbia faces and from the political

failure that his government clearly faces in this province. For him to

appeal to prejudice as he did is a regrettable thing: for him to so

badly misstate the nature of a public education in this province, its

content and its philosophic direction is to grievously wound and insult

professional educators, who would never behave in the

[ Page 8088 ]

way

the Premier seems to think they would, under this government or any

other government. For the Premier to carry it off as if he had won some

great victory, when in fact he has inflicted further damage on himself,

offers further evidence of the fundamental foolishness of his approach

to public life. The Premier's speech was regrettable. It will certainly

remain in Hansard . With any luck, it will never be heard again.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

In speaking to this particular vote, I would not only support it but

also wish that perhaps it could be a whole lot more, as the Premier

stated. I'm looking to the day when a far greater portion of the total

cost of education in independent schools might be provided through the

tax collection mechanisms of the government.

I'm very

disturbed by what has been stated by various members of the opposition.

First, they repeated several times that they would certainly support

the amount provided for in this vote, and that given the opportunity at

some time in the future — heaven forbid! — to hold the seat of

government, they would carry on with this program, at least at this

level. But a lot has been left unsaid. They have not told us whether

they would continue the legislation as it is, whether they would impose

a lot of restrictions on independent schools or whether they would

permit the amount to increase according to inflation or according to

the growth of the independent school system. None of that has been

said. Frankly, as one who is and always has been extremely supportive

of independent schools, I have a tremendous fear of what could and

would happen to the independent school program if somehow the

socialists gained control.

I was pleased to hear the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) repeat very clearly several times that

they voted against independent schools. I must assume that the vote was

somehow taken in their caucus chamber while we were voting in the

House, because as I recall they all ran like scared rabbits when the

time came for the votes to be counted. At least we now know where they

stood and where they stand: they're against independent schools.

Mr.

Chairman, I am of Dutch origin and proud of it. As it happens, a large

portion of the Dutch-Canadian population in British Columbia have their

children attend independent schools. Maybe that's because they come

from a system in Holland where they had a choice; possibly it's because

they are very strong on the principles of discipline and high moral

standards, all the things they feel can best be provided to their

children by the independent school system. Coincidentally, my wife

Lillian is of Croatian heritage, as is the first speaker for the

opposition, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). Canadians of Croatian

background also have a large proportion of their children attending

independent schools, once more because the Croatians by nature and from

history certainly have been freedom fighters. They believe in certain

things very strongly. They feel very definitely that the things they

feel best for their youngsters can be provided through the independent

school system.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

All of those people — Dutch Canadians, Italian Canadians, Croatian Canadians,

Polish Canadians, and people who belong to these large ethnic groups who make

up the population of British Columbia and Canada — have somehow been categorized

today by several of the members as the privileged and the elite. I'm wondering

what the message would be if the member for Nanaimo were speaking to the Croatian

society in Nanaimo or the Canadian Croatian society in Richmond or Vancouver.

Would he dare carry forth that same message? I guess not, Mr. Chairman. But

I'm sure that message will get back to all those people, and so it should,

because they need to know just where the NDP stands with respect to the question

of independent schools, how perhaps they would consider the future of them,

and how today they somehow labelled and categorized all those people as the

elite.

These

people who have their children attend the independent schools pay all

their taxes like everyone else, and pay a lot more. The funds provided

for in this particular vote only pay for a small portion of what it

costs to educate a youngster in the school. As was mentioned by the

Minister of Education and the Premier, the savings, because we're able

to provide this amount in the vote, to all British Columbians as

taxpayers is $40 million per year. It's not only the savings. At least

the people do have some assistance when they make the choice as to

where their children will be educated.

The NDP has stated,

as the member for Nanaimo very clearly indicated in his opening

comments, that somehow the people have a choice anyway, that they

always had a choice, that they could attend the independent school or

the public school, and that really the public school should be the only

system. What he didn't say, though, was that the people don't have a

choice when it comes to paying taxes. They're not given a choice to pay

or not to pay. They have to pay those taxes, and if they chose an

independent school, they, in times past, had to pay the whole of the

cost for that as well. Now at least they're getting just a fraction

back for the moneys they contribute to the overall system.

will not comment too much on the remarks made by the first member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber), who kept saying that all the comments made by

the Premier and others were intellectually unsound. He, as comes out so

often, considers himself to be such an intellectual. The problem is

that some of those intellectuals — he in particular — have never really

had to put their shoulders to the wheel to work as those people are

having to do who are sending their youngsters to the independent school

system, putting forth a lot of money annually to make that happen and

to have that choice come true.

I repeat once more that I not

only support this particular vote but hope that we could provide much

more in future, because every dollar spent here certainly gives great

returns, not only in the savings to the taxpayers, by providing a very

economic way of developing an educational system for the youngsters in

our province, but also in providing us with a lot of young people who

have received a very sound education. As a matter of fact, I would

personally stack a youngster who had received an education in an

independent school against my own or any others who had received an

education in a public school. I would wager anyone here that chances

are, by and large, that the level and type of education they received

would be far superior in those independent schools.

MRS. DAILLY:

It's been a most interesting debate. It's become quite clear that the

Social Credit Party is in so much trouble politically across this

province that the Premier and that former speaker, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), are desperately trying to

build up a major political issue over aid to independent schools in

1982. What they don't understand, Mr. Chairman, is that they brought in

[ Page

8089 ]

the bill five years ago. There are many of us in

this party and here now-who objected to many things in that bill. One

only has to read Hansard to see where many of our members stood

on that bill. As the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) pointed

out, many of the people over there do not believe in ICBC, but when the

time came they had to agree that the machinery was there and had to

continue. Many of Lis on this side of the House have very strong

opinions about independent schools for various reasons.

This

Premier stood up, waved his hands and made a dreadful speech. He was so

concerned that the NDP might not do what he wanted — vote against

independent schools — that he tried to whip up the old business again

about state control and how the public school system is a massive

monopoly controlled by the state. The interesting thing is that he is

government. His Minister of Education is a Social Credit minister. And

yet the Premier of this province says that the public school system in

B.C., under the Social Credit government, is controlled by the state

and is a monopoly. That's what he said about the public school system.

and it's run by the Social Credit Party. The speech made by the Premier

was unbelievable. In desperation, the Premier went on to say that he

must, and he wishes he could. give more money to the independent

schools. He wants to give more money to the independent schools in the

same year that he has cut back on the public schools and in the same

year that the independent schools got a greater increase on a

percentage basis. So much for their attitude to the public school

system.

We've just had the Minister of Municipal Affairs

actually stand up and make a generalized statement that the independent

schools of B.C. are far superior to the public schools. Well, he has

his right to say it. All I want to point out to him is that, just as we

over here are responsible as legislators for all the people of this

province, I wish he and the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie), who only speaks on private schools during an educational

debate, would realize that there are thousands of children out there

who go to public school. The public school system is your

responsibility. What kind of a public school system can we expect from

the Premier of a party, and from a cabinet minister, who only talk

about giving more money to one small system and about how much better

it is than the public school system. No wonder the public school system

of this province is badly served by the Social Credit government.

Mr. Chairman, I have said in this House and outside this House, and will continue

to say, that I do not believe in the principle of independent schools. That

may not necessarily be the belief of all the members of my party. I know it

is not so. The fact that you have brought in this bill.... I do feel that

I must say again that I will support my party for the sake of all the independent

school parents out there who have been told that they have a structure in place

now and that the money is available. There is no way that I am suddenly going

to turn my back on those people who have been brought into a partial system

by Social Credit. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I want to just say two little

things about my basic principles regarding the whole existence of separate schools.

Primarily it is that I would like to see a peaceful and united world. I do not

think dividing children is the answer to that. I also do not believe in the

principle of public funds going to certain elitist schools in this province.

The independent schools are not all elitist, and nobody on this side of the

House ever said so. I do not believe that public moneys should go to schools

which charge enormous tuition fees which means that the average student who

wanted to go to such a school would be denied admission because his or her parents

could not afford it. There isn't one member over there who can tell me that

is not so. The Minister of Education cannot deny that there are independent

schools in this province that charge enormous tuition fees and deny admission

to students who can't afford them. Yet our public taxpayers' money must

go to support that kind of school. I say that that is wrong. The NDP does

not believe in that. They believe in open admission. They do not believe that

public funds should go for schools that only admit you on the discrimination

of sex. We do not think that is right. We do not believe a child should not

be admitted to a school because his parents cannot afford the money.

Another

point is that the public school boards of this province have to account

for how they spend their money, and there is no basic accountability

set up in the independent school act in this province. I ask you why

one sector of our school system — if we call the independent schools

the school system — should not be as accountable as the school boards.

I don't want to repeat the arguments. I still feel very strongly that

those are the things that should be changed in an independent school

act. Across this whole country there is not one other independent

private school act that has such a wide-open, non-regulatory system as

the one provided by the Social Credit government. I have even heard

people within the system say they are not happy with it.

simply want to say that the NDP believes in education. We believe in

the right to education for everyone. We believe in the public funds of

British Columbia going only to schools.... If they want to call them

independent schools, fine, but if taxpayers' dollars are going to them

they cannot be based on discrimination of any kind, and they must have

open admission.

The money is here to be voted upon. There

are thousands of parents out there who have been brought into this by

the Social Credit government. The NDP respects the feelings of those

parents, and we will support this.

MR. BRUMMET: The

topic, I believe, was policies and philosophies of funding for

independent schools. Once again the first member for Victoria (Mr.,

Barber) spoke all around it. I must admire his skill at circumlocution:

he does it very well. Faced with the issue and having, been asked to

state his position about independent schools, he chose instead to

attack the Premier, to do the name-calling and also to indulge in

almost every other ministry of government with his own distorted

version of what those represent. However, that is typical of that

member. He is the opposition's first-class diversion tactician, and he

did it well.

I was somewhat surprised that the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) raised the issue of elitism. Others have

supported him in that, yet here we have a situation where the

opposition refuses to accept the funding for independent schools

because they label them as elitist. Yet if you remove all public

funding from those schools, only then under those policies do those

schools become entirely elitist. To start segregating, as the member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) does in saying that certain schools are

elitist and others are not.... It should be remembered that people then

have the freedom of choice whether they want to send their pupils to

these schools that charge high rates. They don't have to send them

there. Certainly to say that providing tax money.... The parents who

send their children to independent schools

[ Page 8090 ]

pay

full taxes. They get approximately one-third back towards the education

of their children. It is freedom of choice. I think the member for

Burnaby North said that they do believe in education. Who doesn't?

Certainly I do. But do they believe in freedom of choice? In other

words, they would like to remove that choice.

I will tell

you something about freedom of choice, and I'll put it on the record in

this House. I was a member of the B.C. Teachers Federation for many

years. During the 1972 election campaign the BCTF, which at that time

was led by radical socialists, told me that I and every teacher in this

province had to donate one day's pay towards the NDP election campaign.

I refused. I said, "No one on this earth will make me decide where I

put my money politically, " and I was threatened with expulsion from

the B.C. Teachers Federation which meant that I could never teach in

this province again. I told them point-blank that if that was the

condition for teaching in this province — that I had to donate my money

to the political party of their choice — then I would rather not teach

in this province. Naturally they left me alone, and later on, when most

of the teachers in this province were deducted a day's pay for that NDP

election campaign, two teachers on the Island here took that to court,

the decision was reversed, and they had to refund all the money,

because I think the courts in this country still believe in freedom of

choice, and people should be allowed freedom of choice.

you want to go on with this business of an education.... I spent 28

years in education, and I think they're still at it, because now there

is an anti-government campaign being led by some of the BCTF leaders.

I've been in this Legislature for three years. The B.C. Teachers

Federation representatives have been to Victoria on many, many

occasions, and they claim that they're lobbying for educational causes.

Well, just because I'm a Social Credit member, does that mean that I

have forgotten all my loyalty and all my concerns about education? But

I think I should put that on record that not once in three years have

any of these BCTF executive members ever even attempted to approach me

or to find out what my opinion was on an educational issue. So let's

not talk about this business of non-partisan.

As I said

earlier, the member for Nanaimo, I think, made the greatest

contradiction when he said that he was against independent schools

because of their elitism. Yet by withholding any public funding for

those schools — and they are not asking for full funding.... I have

independent schools in my own district. They have never asked for full

funding, because that would take away their independence, and they want

their independence. But since they provide an equivalent basic

education to what the public schools do, then certainly, if it's a

principle in this province that we assist pupils to get a basic

education, why should we say: "But you must do it in the public school

system"?

During the many years I spent in the public school system, I never at any time

felt threatened by freedom of choice. Pupils had the choice of whether they

came to our public schools or not, and I think it was a sad commentary on the

public school system when some of the leaders in the public school system sent

their own students to private schools. I would never be a principal of a public

school and then send my pupils elsewhere because I thought they would get a

better education. I think pupils get a good education in the public schools

of this province. I think they are getting a better education all the time,

but I don't think we have to do it by captivity. I think that choice is

there, and if some people choose to send their children to other educational

institutions and are willing to pay an extra price for that, then surely they

should be entitled to it. But surely there is also an obligation on the people

of this province to assist with the basic education of the pupils who attend

the independent schools.

never felt threatened. One of the members in the opposition said it

creates different classes or different groups. I've had the experience

of pupils transferring in and out of the public school system,

interchanging with the independent school system on numerous occasions

— some of the same pupils would try our system, try the other system,

come back to our system. I never noticed any class distinctions there.

These pupils were normal human beings like anybody else, but they did

have freedom of choice.

Of course, freedom of choice is

always a threat to the socialist philosophy, because that freedom of

choice means that people can decide whether they want to go their way

or whether they want to go the state way, as determined by socialism.

For that reason, because I happen to believe in freedom of choice and

because I feel that independent schools are not a threat to the public

school system, there is no need for protectionism, and I think we can,

as a public, certainly provide some funding to these people.

think we have an obligation, since they pay taxes and are providing a

basic education, to assist with their funding. I certainly have no

quarrel with evaluation — in other words, if their contributions, their

grants, depend upon providing a basic education, then there must be an

evaluation to determine that that basic education, in fact, is taking

place. Whether in the private school system or in the public school

system, there are extra items that can be incorporated into the

curriculum without interfering with the basic education system. Just a

little brief research indicates that NDP philosophy and policy is that

there should be no government financial aid to independent schools. I'd

like to be corrected. I'd like those members to quit attacking me, the

Premier, ICBC, the lands and everything else. I'd like one of those

members to stand up in this House and say if that policy has been

changed at any time.

The basic issue is this: if ever they

get that power, would they or would they not adhere to their philosophy

and wipe out funding to independent schools? That is the basic

question, and for all that we've heard from the opposition, not one of

those members has yet answered it. The closest, I guess, was the first

member for Victoria, who manages to work words very well. He said:

"Well, we're certainly not going to interfere with the funding that is

in place," and so on and so forth. Certainly they're not going to,

because they don't have the power to do so at this time. What we're

asking is if they will change that. Will they remove that funding if,

heaven forbid, they ever get the power to do so?

MR. COCKE:

I suggest that this member who has just finished speaking, who's done

this brief research, should have done a little research into his

original statement. When he stood up at the beginning of his speech he

said that during the 1972 campaign the BCTF was led by "radical

socialists," and that each member was dunned in order to participate in

the NDP's campaign. Would that great researcher like to know what

really happened? In the first place, a fellow by the name of Robertson

was president of the BCTF. Do you remember that? Mr. Robertson was the

president and it was his policy. There is no question.

[ Page

8091 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Twist, twist. He was a

well-known Conservative who was disgusted with the Socred government of

the day, so they mounted their own campaign and supported the now

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). Yes. they did, and he knows it.

They supported the now Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom). Yes, they did. They supported Liberals; they supported

anybody but Socreds. That's precisely what that campaign was all about.

It was not a campaign directed at anybody other than the Socreds of the

day. Adam Robertson must be just delighted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Adam Robertson?

MR. COCKE: Adam Robertson is the man you've accused.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

He was talking about somebody else. Who was he talking about? Come on,

I know who it is. Why doesn't he get up and have courage enough to....

Now that he's found to be totally inadequate in his argument, he starts

jumping around trying to find somebody else to throw rocks at. Mr.

Chairman, it's amply clear.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, so do I, whoever said it.

would also like to comment on the member's brilliant speech about how

full funding means the independent school system is controlled, but

partial funding means it isn't. Is it partially controlled under those

circumstances? Tomorrow he may read Hansard and discover what

lie he said. We know perfectly well that he didn't know what he was

saving when he was standing on his feet, because I heard him say that

full funding means control; they lose their independence.

When

this whole matter came up, we asked one question: to the government's

knowledge, is there now any kind of discrimination? All the rest of

this balderdash that was started by the Premier, who talked about state

monopolies.... My good Lord, if there was ever a monopolistic

government, this is it. This is the government that is so great to deal

with in terms of freedom. Let me tell you about their freedom. The

Minister of Health said that if the hospitals in this province don't

comply, he'll take them over. That's freedom of choice: either you do

what I tell you or we're going to take over.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: At one time or another somebody accused you of having some common sense, but that person was wrong.

MR. KEMPF: Sit down and I'll tell you about freedom of choice.

MR. COCKE:

Don't blow your stack like that, because it's bad for your health.

You'll be dependent upon that health minister to get you a hospital bed.

I guess we're going to hear that old saw from the member for Omineca about

how I went up there and started a medical system that worked.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

I hope that we don't have to continue going over and over this. Freedom

of choice is not the question with that group, because that government

has given no freedom of choice to anybody that I can see.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Where do I stand on independent schools'? Where I've always stood on

independent schools. I take exactly the same position as my colleagues:

that is, they now have their funding. and as far as I am concerned they

will continue to have heir funding.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Where do you stand on ICBC? Where-abouts? Where do all of those people

over there stand on ICBC? Those are the people who were going to

dismantle it; they've been government for seven years and they haven't

yet dismantled ICBC. All they've done is get tight control and they are

running their own nice little empire. Nonsense!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Somewhere we seem to have strayed just a shade from vote 26.

MR.COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I hope we can act away from these

stupid arguments about mind control. I listened to the Premier's

foolish statement about mind control and how we want to get the school

system.... The school system was decentralized until this group came

along; and it's be coming increasingly centralized. I'll tell you where

the real mind control is. It's in the millions and millions of dollars

that they spent on advertising, on promoting themselves in B.C. Government News , and all the rest of the influence-peddling

that they do. That's where mind control is, and that's where mind control

will be as long as these people are government. Hopefully, it won't be too much longer.

MR. KEMPF: I'll be very brief.

What

utter and total hypocrisy. That member talks about freedom of choice.

He's the one who opened the subject and I'd like to close it here

today. I'll talk about freedom of choice. I remember a situation in

Houston under a different administration, when a different Minister of

Health came to town. and that member has the audacity to stand in this

chamber and talk about freedom of choice?

I was mayor of

that community at that time. I won't mention any names, but I remember

when a dictatorial minister came into that community with his goon

squad and forced down the throats of the citizens something they didn't

want. He stood up on stage. I remember it distinctly, and so does the

member. He remembers me walking out of that meeting and saying exactly

what I'm saying today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was this on independent schools'?

MR. KEMPF:

Yes. Mr. Chairman. It all has to do with independent schools and the

freedom of choice of those independent schools. That member, when he

was Minister of Health, stood on that podium and crammed down the

throats of the citizens of that community a health system that they did

not want and that did not work. For several years we were

[ Page 8092 ]

saddled

with that particular health and human resource board concept —

socialized medicine. I remember that member standing up on that podium

and saying great things about how he was cramming this system down the

throats of those people in that community who didn't want it.

Fortunately, after many years, we have done away with that most

socialist situation. But that member talks about freedom of choice.

Mr.

Chairman, if you are worried about what I am talking about, I stand in

support of vote 26, as I stood in 1977 in this House in support of the

independent schools act. The socialists over there who were here at

that time — not all of them were — ran from the vote and hid. The

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was here. He remembers full well how

they ran from this House when the vote on the independent schools act

was taken. They ran and hid like ostriches, sticking their heads in the

sand, thinking that maybe the problem would go away. They couldn't

possibly stand and vote for that particular piece of legislation,

however they thought, because it didn't meet with the approval of their

political friends out there in the public. They ran from this chamber

and hid. I remember it well. Some show of leadership! The hypocrisy of

the way they talk about freedom of choice! They ran from the vote

giving freedom of choice to the people in this province who want to

send their children to independent schools.

I wasn't going

to get up on this vote, because I don't have to. The people of my

constituency know where I stand in regard to aid for independent

schools. But when I listen to that hypocritical bunch over there talk

about the elitists going to independent schools, I've just got to stand

up and talk about it and ask them to go out into my constituency and

ask the Dutch community, the Mennonite community and the Catholic

community which of them are the elitists. I have been through all the

independent schools as well as all of the public schools in my

constituency. I try to do it every year. It is a very large area and I

don't quite make it, but at least once every two years. I have been in

every independent school in my constituency, and I have yet to see any

children there who are from the homes of what you members opposite call

elitist. It would be interesting for those members over there to travel

to my constituency and to ask all those native Indians who are

attending the Catholic independent schools in my constituency which of

their families are elitist, or to ask the millworkers' and the farmers'

children in the Dutch independent schools in my constituency which of

their parents are elitist, or to ask that very large Mennonite

community who send their children to independent schools which of them

is elitist. I dare them to do that and I dare them further to find any

one of those people in my constituency who send their children to

independent schools who are elitists.

They stand up in this

chamber and talk about elitists, and they talk about freedom of choice.

We know how much freedom of choice that group over there cares about.

We saw them in glorious action for three and a half years. I remember

how much freedom of choice they believed in. I remember all that

socialist legislation — much, I am sad to say, is still on the books on

the books — that they brought in when they were government in this

province. I will never forget that, and neither will the people of

British Columbia.

The vote calls for some $17 million to be paid out on behalf of the independent

schools from the provincial budget in this fiscal year. I wish it were twice

that much. There was a catastrophe in this province when those people, wishing

freedom of choice, were sending their children to a school of their choice,

and were not only paying the full amount but were paying taxes to promote, build

and operate the public school system as well. That's some freedom of choice!

1977 this administration did away with that catastrophe. I was proud to

stand in this chamber and vote for it. I would ask the members opposite

who were sitting in this Legislature at that time — and I see many of

them over there right now — where they were when that vote was taken.

Now they try to come down with both feet firmly on either side of the

fence. They told their supporters out there: "Don't pay any attention

to how we're going to vote from now on on issues regarding independent

schools, because we're got to vote for it. We've got to show some

support, because maybe there are some votes out there that we might

need in the next election."

One of the members over there

made some allusion to the government being in political trouble in this

province and therefore having to speak strongly.... I'll tell you

something: I'm not in a political problem in my constituency.

MR. LEA: That's right.

MR. KEMPF: I'm not, Mr. Member!

MR. LEA: I know.

MR. KEMPF:

Well, you better check your own. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, in

political hot water or not, I would support any amount of money in this

chamber for the promotion of independent schools in this province.

MR. COCKE:

The member for Omineca told us he would support any amount; I'm

suggesting $4.5 billion — how's that? What's the matter with him? He

makes about as much sense as he always had.

He accuses me of

going to Houston. Listen, an accusation has been made. Do you know what

I did in Houston? Just for the edification of the rest of the House....

Just for fun, I'm going to tell you: I demanded that they have freely

elected boards. That's all I wanted: a freely elected board. Because he

was part of a clique, he decided....

MR. KEMPF: Not so!

MR. COCKE:

What do you mean, "not so"? You didn't hang around, you big dictator,

to even listen. Lord, it's the most amazing misinterpretation! And he

keeps bringing it up every year. A freely elected board. Now wasn't

that dictatorial!

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense! It's all over.

Vote 26 approved unanimously on a division.

Hon. Mr. Williams requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I clearly heard several members of the opposition speak

[ Page

8093 ]

against this particular vote. I'm wondering if you

would take it under advisement, to see how come they voted for it when

they spoke against it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor for...?

MR. LAUK: To make an announcement. No, leave to make an announcement!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, it has been determined that in committee we cannot seek

leave. We are governed only by the rules which the House gives to us.

MR. LAUK: It could be my resignation. Shall leave be granted? I said it could be. No promises!

MR, CHAIRMAN: The Chair regrets that it cannot so consider.

MR. LAUK:

All right. All those who wish to attend the meeting of the committee

for the lobotomy of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), it'll be at 4.

Vote 27: financing transactions, $ 10 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 63: minister's office, $205,621.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, again I want to take this opportunity of thanking my

deputy minister, John Taylor; the inspector of municipalities, Chris

Woodward; and all of the others in the ministry. You've given so

capably during the year to have our ministry function so efficiently

and so effectively, especially in assisting the municipalities and

regional districts throughout the province. Thanks to all the staff in

the ministry.

Mr. Chairman, the main function of the

ministry, of course, is to provide a liaison between the municipalities

and the government of British Columbia. Although the initial emphasis

was on preserving the financial integrity of local government through

financial and administrative advice, the ministry's objectives now

include a number of other things. Firstly, to add to the list, I should

mention at least several that are of special import. We provide a legal

and policy base for the structure and conduct of local government. We

provide financial advisory resources and support for local government

operations. We coordinate planning and regulation of land use for the

settlement areas. Under the financial assistance program we have

revenue sharing, downtown revitalization, the commercial-vehicle

licensing program, and the Urban Transit Authority, which are all

operated through the ministry. As you are aware, there has been

considerable growth in all of those various programs in the ministry.

I particularly want to make reference to the downtown revitalization program,

which was an initiative of the ministry only a little better than a year ago:

it's certainly a program that has been tremendously well received by a large

number of the smaller communities throughout the province. We have approximately

75 communities in some stage of the downtown revitalization program, and there's

tremendous enthusiasm, not only in the local community groups — the chamber

of commerce, the board of trade or whatever is heading it up — but similarly

with the municipal councils. As well, Mr. Chairman, we provide a lot of information

through our staff in the ministry, and that obviously takes a lot of time. It's

a service which is well provided and is appreciated by the municipalities.

We provide

interpretations of the Municipal Act and give information on elections

and bylaws, on council and administration procedures, on preparing budgets,

financial statements and audits, on planning and land use, and even on such

things as engineering. The ministry has a great many involvements in assuring

the local government functions well. I am proud to say that it functions better

in British Columbia than any here else in Canada.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

During

the last year we have had a number of boundary changes, extensions and

incorporations. Once more the inspectors' department has had a hand in

assuring that these changes were done effectively and smoothly. We have

had good support from the municipalities and the people in the area.

There has been no outcry from any one area that perhaps there was

pressure put upon them for boundary extensions, incorporations or

amalgamations. It has all been done in a very cooperative effort

between the ministry and the municipalities involved.

The

building standards branch certainly has every right to take

considerable pride in our being able to lead all the provinces in

Canada with respect to the building code and its application. We have

especially had good comment on part ten of the buildings code, which is

now in effect and provides a special assist to the handicapped.

you are aware, too, we have a program for custom transit services under

the Urban Transit Authority. It has been expanded tremendously in many

communities throughout the province. The custom transit service, for

example, in Victoria has increased about 500 percent over what it was,

I am sure, and we have nothing but good remarks and compliments from

all those people in Victoria who use and need this service to assist

them in getting to work, to a place to shop or to a place of

recreation. It is a good service that is not only necessary but I think

that we as a government and as people in British Columbia can be

extremely proud of where it has gone in the last year.

Similarly,

under the downtown revitalization program, we provide outright grants

for all those facilities that give special attention to assuring the

ease of movement for the handicapped in the communities following the

implementation of a revitalization program. All in all we have

certainly done our share during the last year — it being the Year of

the Disabled — in making certain that we would continue to lead the way

in providing all the assists which the handicapped in British Columbia

are so deserving of.

I think all of us in the ministry are

very proud of our accomplishments and progress that is being made.

Certainly these are not easy times. We have our difficulties when it

comes to perhaps granting every municipality or regional district what

it is they seek, especially when it comes to finances, but we have had

good cooperation. They have been able to meet all the requests we have

made of them, and we have been able to respond to the requests they

have made of us. There is a good liaison and a good rapport between

local government and the ministry responsible for local government in

the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 8094 ]

MR. BARBER:

Every year he has been minister we have heard him make the same dead

speech at the opening of his estimates. It is a speech of hollow boast,

of incomplete accomplishment and of an utter lack of imagination,

boldness and vision in the administration of urban policy in British

Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to come to order.

MR. BARBER:

In the same dead speech that the minister gives every year, we see the

same evidence of a lack of genuine concern for the development of a

competent urban and land-use policy in British Columbia.

However,

there is something new this year. For the first time this year, in an

otherwise dead speech, the minister has admitted that he has run into a

bit of difficulty with municipalities. He attributes that to their

understandable concern over a decline in revenues. What he fails to do,

as usual, is tell the whole story.

On May 18 of this year

the Union of British Columbia Municipalities issued a most

extraordinary public statement. Let me quote from the last paragraph of

it. I will table the whole document if the committee wishes. It was in

regard to the revenue-sharing program but it goes on to talk about the

way in which local government has, for the first time in our memory,

lost confidence in the provincial administration, which serves the

public interest. Never under W.A.C. and certainly never during the

administration of Dave Barrett was the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities moved, of necessity, to condemn a provincial government

in the language I'm about to read into the record. On May 18, the

president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and mayor of

Coquitlam, Jim Torm, said:

"Local government

opposition could have been avoided if the province had been upfront in

its dealings with local government. Instead, they have chosen to change

the rules and move the goalposts in the middle of the game without

bothering to talk to us. The province is naive if it expects local

government to roll over and play dead on this issue. The wrath of local

government is aroused and won't be quelled until the province makes

good on its previous commitments. The province has welshed on its

commitments to local government, and in the process they have shaken

the confidence of local government in this administration."

What

has happened in the last year is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

has lost the confidence, the trust and the respect of local government.

The record of Social Credit urban policy in the last year is a record

of betrayal, disappointment and doublecross. I will read into the

record a previously unpublished set of letters between the minister,

his executive assistant and representatives of the Islands Trust. The

Islands Trust has been betrayed and double-crossed by this government

in regard to a commitment they had in writing as recently as months

ago, and which the minister has now indicated he has totally undermined.

The record of betrayal and mistrust that we have seen in the last year includes,

for planning purposes, the beginning of the collapse of public transit in British

Columbia. The headless horsemen who attempt to run transit in this province

are the victims of the most incredibly clumsy structure that any government

has ever imposed on that issue. The three planners — the UTA, the regional districts

and the MTOC — are finding it increasingly difficult and, in certain instances,

absolutely impossible to execute their duties under the burden of incompetent

legislation and inadequate finance. This too is the record of failure during

the last year of the administration of urban affairs in this province.

The

record of failure includes as well the attempt to return local

government across British Columbia to a kind of colonial status. The

record of failure includes the clear attempt by Social Credit to

scuttle Pacific Coach Lines under the guise of objective public

hearings, and it turns out that the decision has apparently already

been made. It would seem that what they have done to Pacific Coach

Lines is what they did to its predecessors and what these same

incompetents did to the Princess Marguerite .

They attempt, as best they can, to make it impossible for these public

enterprises to succeed. Once they have made it so impossible, they then

turn around and blame the enterprise for that failure rather than

themselves, and once they have done this, they can justify selling off

these profitable services to their privileged pals in the private

sector. This is what they did with Grey Line; that's what they tried to

do with the Marguerite ; and that's what we now suspect they are doing with Pacific Coach Lines.

This

is a record of failure; it is a record of malfeasance; and it is a

record consistent with the centralist and state controlling approach

that Social Credit has always taken to local government. In the last

year this record includes the vicious efforts of the Social Credit

majority on the private bills committee to thwart the democratically

expressed will of the people of Vancouver in regard to a ward system.

In the last year this minister has not only actively aided and abetted

this politically criminal attempt to deny home rule to the people of

Vancouver, who have always exercised the expression of their will under

their charter in view of their unique status in the province of British

Columbia, but he now indicates that he's going to bring in another rule

as well. He now indicates that he is going to require 60 percent or

more as the minimum level of popular support before he will even

acknowledge a request for neighbourhood governance and a ward system in

the greatest city in the province of British Columbia, which is, of

course, Vancouver. He does that in the real name of state control; he

does it in the real name of centralism; he does it in the real name of

awesome and sweeping powers which he was not, in fact, elected to

exercise and which he is not entitled to have.

The record of

failure this year includes the failure to acknowledge the principle of

home rule and democratic rule as it has long been established in the

city of Vancouver. The farm team of Social Credit in Vancouver has

always been the so-called Non-Partisan Association. This Socred farm

team includes several past candidates for the Social Credit Party, and

apparently one of two future ones as well. This minister, realizing the

failure of his party's farm team in the city of Vancouver to succeed in

their efforts to block a ward system and authentic local governance in

that great city, has instead used the majority power of Social Credit

in this Legislature to deny those efforts. This is centralist, it is

undemocratic and it is potentially tyrannical.

We see this

when we look at the Land Act; we see this when look at Bill 42, as it

amended the Municipal Act some years ago. We see this in the way the

minister now wishes to

[ Page

8095 ]

set a standard for public elections that he himself

has never met. Even when he ran with his arms around Pierre Elliott

Trudeau as a Liberal in 1968, the Minister of Municipal Affairs never

said that you had to get 60 percent before you could get your way, but

that's what he's now saying to the people of Vancouver. Even when he

was a Liberal candidate, he didn't want to apply that so-called

democratic standard, but now that he's a Socred, a coalitionist, now

that he is in charge of local government, he seems to think it is

acceptable to impose that on the city of Vancouver. It is not

acceptable: it is tyranny. In