[ 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?

It 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.

Is 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.

In 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.

As 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.

On 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.

I 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

NAYS — 28

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?

I 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

NAYS — 28

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 therefore 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.

I 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.

I 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?

It 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?

Do 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.

I 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.

I 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.

I 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.

If 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.

We 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.

I 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.

I 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!

In 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.

As 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 this instance it is literally the tyranny of the 40 percent over the 60 percent. This is not democratic. It is, regrettably, legal, as I'm sure people have advised him, but it's not right. It's simply not right for this minister to kill or to cripple the democratic impulse and judgment of the people of Vancouver in regard to ward systems. They voted in majority in favour of a ward system. The minister will say: "Yes, but it was a slim majority." That's true, and that's irrelevant. The slimness of it is not, in our system, the final factor: it is the simple charge of a simple majority which sees us put into office. In fact, Mr. Chairman, for some of us — including the minister — it's not even a majority, it is a simple plurality. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has never won 50 percent of the vote. In his riding he won slightly in excess of half of that last time. That's all he got. If I recall correctly — and I stand to be corrected, I'm working from memory — all he got was about 28 percent of the vote in Surrey.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if he thinks it's okay for him to get elected with 28 percent but it's not okay for the people of Vancouver to make a choice with 50 percent plus one of the vote, what sort of hypocrisy are we dealing with? What sort of intellectual hypocrisy are we facing? If he thinks it's okay for him to get in as an MLA with less than 50 percent 4 the popular vote — and he did — then how on earth can he tell the people of Vancouver that they require 60 percent of the vote? You did not get 50 percent of the vote; you're in a two-man riding where other persons contested it. By the way, Mr. Chairman, I'm in the same position too. I'm also in a two-man riding, and I've never had 50 percent of the vote. In a two-man riding it's out of the question. It doesn't happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps we could return to the administrative actions of the minister and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARBER: His administrative actions include desperate political attempts to thwart the political will and democratically expressed view of the people of Vancouver. We're debating this. We're debating this here, and we've debated it elsewhere. We will continue to debate it until we win back the right of the people of Vancouver to make decisions for themselves. We will debate it here and everywhere else until we've won that right for them.

The record of failure of this minister includes his failure to help protect the agricultural land base of this province. This is, in fact, an important part of the planning responsibilities of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Together with the Agricultural Land Commission they are the two primary instruments of the provincial interest in land use. This minister, covertly and openly.,has sought to undermine the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia. He has done so by encouraging a few local governments to apply for exclusions from the ALR. He has done so in concert with the Minister of Agriculture, the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). He has done so in concert with the privileged princes of Social Credit, who, not having earned the money, believe it is their right to take the money in any case from their speculation in farmland and their conversion of it to some non-agricultural purpose. This minister, together with the Agricultural Land Commission, is responsible for the implementation of that broad body of policy that will protect farmland in British Columbia. Instead of protecting it, as he is required to do through that system of approvals and land development which exists within the ministry, he has in fact taken the other approach — the narrow and the stupid approach — to land use in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair must remind the committee that we must be temperate and moderate in our language in parliamentary debate. We cannot allow personal allusions to another hon. member. If the first member for Victoria has made any personal allusions to the hon. minister. I will have to ask the first member for Victoria to withdraw.

MR. BARBER: Withdraw what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Withdraw any personal allusion.

MR. BARBER: I made none. However, I described the approach as stupid. I described the policy as stupid. I described the regime as stupid. It is stupid and self-defeating for this province to abandon the agricultural option. It is stupid for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to stand by and allow that to happen. It is stupid for the policy-making apparatus of the ministry, whose estimates we are debating, to stand by and allow certain greedy and selfish interests to successfully obtain farmland and convert it to some non-agricultural purpose.

We charge that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is in fact obligated to assist local government to develop better plans for the continuing agricultural uses of agricultural land. What this minister has in fact done is subvert the agricultural land reserve system. He has actively and openly encouraged selfish elements in local government to subvert the agricultural land reserve system. What is stupid about this policy is that 20 and 30 years from now, if these stupid policies were to remain in force, that land would be lost for agriculture, lost forever from the agricultural option, and the quality of food in this province would be far lower and the price far higher than they need be.

It is a matter of record that British Columbia currently imports the bulk of its food from Mexico and California. Mexico and California are growing at a rapid rate within 20 years they will not be able to provide food for us because they will need it for themselves.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What are you doing about it?

MR. BARBER: We are trying to protect farmland in this province. In order to do so, we're trying just as hard to defeat the likes of you. who are prepared to prostitute the agricultural land reserve system to serve the interests of speculators and developers and the other princes of privilege who have always sought comfort and found it in the Social Credit Party — the princes of privilege like Spetifore, Gloucester, Wenger and all the others.

[ Page 8096 ]

A competent land-use policy in this province must include a declaration by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that farmland is here to stay, that it is not to be converted to some other, non-agricultural purpose. When we do that, we foreclose the future. When we do that, we condemn generations to come to dependence on foreign food and on foreign supply, at the prices our foreign customers may decide to set. That is a self-defeating policy, which, 20 years from now when we are faced with shortages — high cost and low quality — will be found to have been one of the most stupid acts....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point the Chair must remind all members of the committee that parliamentary language, good temper and moderation are features of debate. There is such a wealth of vocabulary available to us in English that I am sure all hon. members can be parliamentary and moderate in their debate.

MR. BARBER: When I know in my heart what my feelings are about the kind of people who would give away farmland to speculators, believe me, the word "stupid" is temperate. What I actually feel about the kind of government that would give away farmland to developers I will not say, because it would be unparliamentary. In my vocabulary the word "stupid" is mild, compared to the words that should be used to describe such a betrayal of the public interest.

It is betrayal of the public interest for this government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to stand idly by while certain local councils — on spurious, technically unsound and, from the long-term planning view, self-defeating bases — make applications to exclude farmland. It is absolutely the case that it is easier, cheaper and faster to build housing on farmland. All those things are true and all of them are immaterial. Local government must be given the opportunity and encouragement to plan innovatively, to build on non-agricultural land wherever it may be found, and to redevelop those lands upon which building has already occurred. What is this government doing? Just the opposite. They are allowing certain interests, the princes of privilege, to persuade them — local government and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has to approve, because that's how the bylaw process works, Mr. Chairman, as you know — to use spurious and ultimately self-defeating arguments to abandon literally thousands of acres of farmland in this province.

The New Democratic Party is extraordinarily proud of our achievement in saving farmland when we were in office. It was understandably one of the proudest moments for any administration in North America, and it was a proud moment for us to be able to create this system. When we did so, my colleague Mr. Lorimer, then the Minister of Municipal Affairs, together with my colleague Mr. Nicolson, the first ever Minister of Housing in this province, made it very clear that we were prepared to offer assistance to local government in order to deal with the inevitable problems that result when you take farmland off the subdivision market and make them find land for building that is not agricultural. We freely argue and concede that it is in the public interest to help local government deal with the problems of development of nonagricultural land. In the bad old days, they could develop anything. In the bad old days immediately preceding 1972, we were annually losing 20,000 acres of farmland to development. All of that development had to be approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which sees every bylaw that every municipality puts forward.

MS. SANFORD: Is that when he was a Liberal?

MR. BARBER: I don't know whether or not he was a Liberal then. An opportunist always; whether or not precisely a Liberal, we don't know.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I could buy a home for $10,000 in the bad old days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I'll remind the committee about personal allusions, and ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs not to interrupt, please.

MR. BARBER: I know it's an insult in western Canada to call someone a Liberal, Mr. Chairman, so if you ask me to withdraw that, I will. Opportunist is apparently a compliment, at least as the Socreds receive it.

We charge that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has been derelict in its obligation to the public interest. Instead of developing policy to assist local government in providing housing and other services on non-agricultural land, they have stood idly by and allowed certain special interests to proceed with bylaws and plans to abandon, and ultimately foreclose, the agricultural option for the people of British Columbia. This is betrayal and abandonment of the public interest. This is, within the circumspect world of planning, a kind of treachery. Surely planning should advance the interests of all the people, not just a few. Planning, when it's competent, intelligent and has foresight, is designed to serve the interests of all the community, not just of a privileged few who happen to make the right kind of campaign donations to the right party. Planning, when it's intelligent, authentic and reflective, should surely represent the whole of the public interest. That public interest in British Columbia cannot be served if we lose the agricultural option or if we condemn our children to serfdom through their dependence on foreign supplies of foreign food. Regrettably, that kind of serfdom is now being allowed to occur again. For three brief years farmland was safe in this province and the agricultural enterprise of this province was protected. Ever since Social Credit came blundering back to power we have seen that government and this ministry standing idly by while developers, speculators and their pals in government profited from the conversion of farmland to some other use. This is an unacceptable public policy. It is both a failure of design and neglect on the part of this minister.

It is a matter of public record that he has fundamentally alienated local government in British Columbia. I have read statements from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities into the record on this and other occasions. I would like now to read into the record a statement from the chairman of the Islands Trust in which he draws to the minister's attention the doublecross that the Islands Trust has suffered at the hands of this minister in the last year.

I see that the light is on. My colleague, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, will take his place. When we return to it, we will disclose to this committee how the Islands Trust has been betrayed, how a promise has been broken, how confidence has been undermined and how planning for one of the most rare, beautiful and important pieces of real estate in this province is about to be crippled by Social Credit.

[ Page 8097 ]

This letter has not previously been made public. I do so with the consent of its author, who is prepared to verify every statement made in it, and who is prepared to do so publicly as of today.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I want to spend most of my time dealing with the transit system. It's a subject I have been interested in for a number of years. I want to say a few things about it, but at the present time I'd like to hear what's in the letter that my colleague has referred to. I will I take the opportunity, when he has completed telling me about this letter, to deal with the transit problems in this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In response to the charge that there has been a great condemnation, the first of its kind, of the ministry by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, let me say that we have a meeting scheduled very shortly — I believe it's next week — to discuss with the Union of B.C. Municipalities the various matters of concern to them, as we have done each and every year. Certainly the rapport continues: I continue to meet with the executive of the UBCM. I agree that they did speak out on a particular issue, and that's understandable. I don't fault them for having spoken on the issue, even though they were perhaps looking at it from a fairly narrow perspective. That, too, can be understood.

Unlike the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), I served on a municipal council for ten years. So I think I can safely say that I probably have a far better understanding of the workings of local government than he has — so he's excused. I was there as an alderman for four years and as a mayor for six years. But to charge that one letter, written in a moment of some concern, to say the least. by an executive member — or possibly by the whole UBCM executive — is the greatest condemnation of a Ministry of Municipal Affairs that has ever occurred in the history of British Columbia is absurd and ridiculous.

I can refer the member to his colleague, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who was then the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He can recall that last year of NDP rule, when the then Premier, Mr. Barrett, and the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Lorimer, came before the UBCM convention. I think there are probably many people who served on municipal council on our side — far more than what you have on the opposition side — so they could attest to this a little more easily. The whole of that convention, 1,000 people strong, booed in unison and threw them off the stage. Perhaps that was the greatest condemnation that ever occurred. To liken a letter or a paragraph in a letter to what occurred then is ridiculous. I hope that the explanation I have given to the member will satisfy him and assure him that there has been no universal or great condemnation of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. One paragraph of one letter is not the greatest condemnation when you compare it to those years of NDP rule, when certainly the condemnation was not only obvious but very recognizable to anyone anywhere in this province. I think perhaps that explanation might satisfy the member on that particular issue.

The first member for Victoria, the critic for Municipal Affairs, also made reference to the transit organizational structure. He mentioned UTA, GVRD and MTOC. I believe he called it the "headless horse" and said it couldn't function, didn't work and was absolutely unworkable. Possibly a little later in the debate the member will tell me why or how he thinks this is unworkable. I realize that there have been letters, especially from the GVRD and their transit committee. Possibly the letters were written by some of their bureaucrats and signed by some of the members, I can't say that for certain, but I assure the member that those letters were critical of the structure and were seeking to take all the authorities with respect to the management of transit planning under the umbrella of the GVRD. Again, from the narrow perspective of one serving on the GVRD board of administration or perhaps as a member of the transit committee for GVRD, maybe that is understood.

Oftentimes in many quarters there is the tendency for empire-building. Oftentimes various organizations will strive and struggle to take unto themselves as much authority as they can possibly get. If you look at it strictly from that narrow perspective. Mr. Member, I can understand why you may react the way you do. If your research is restricted simply to a statement you've read in the paper from some administrator serving the GVRD, or from some GVRD politician, and if you take that to be gospel truth and a reason to condemn the system, okay, that can be. However, let me quickly add that I'm certainly not averse to receiving good and positive suggestions with respect to any future changes.

I certainly can speak for my ministry and for the government, I'm sure, when I say that we're always receptive to good suggestions. Certainly this forum is an opportunity for you to make good, positive suggestions. Rather than simply criticize and say it doesn't work, it can't work, tell us why you think it can't work and how you think it might work. That I would welcome. This sort of information would be of assistance, and I think it would be seen by the people of British Columbia as the opposition serving its role, rather than simply standing there and using all sorts of language which the Chairman has to call you to order for. If instead you could make positive suggestions, I would appreciate that, I would welcome it, and I sought such information from the downtown businessmen's association, who wanted to present a brief; from the GVRD, who wanted to present a brief; from the UTA; and I would seek a similar brief from the MTOC or any other body interested in making positive suggestions. If the NDP opposition could give some positive suggestions, that, after all, is why you're here and that's why you're being paid. At some time during this debate please give some positive suggestions in that regard.

The member mentioned that PCL was going to be destroyed and the government was out to get it. He made all sorts of assumptions with respect to PCL, and he said it's another example of where the government will sell out to the privileged pals in the private sector. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, just to clarify that.... I don't want to put words in the member's mouth, but if he means by "privileged pals in the private sector" that we, the people who are privileged to have a system of private enterprise, should be or are pals — I can agree that we are a privileged people to have a private enterprise system — and if, in fact, a private entrepreneur can deliver a service, be it PCL or anything other, at less cost, deliver it better and eliminate the need for huge taxpayers' subsidies, I say: "Great! More power to the private sector! " For the member to stand up and condemn this possibility.... I don't want to say it's there, but if that were a possibility, to condemn that as a sellout to privileged pals.... If it's intended as a condemnation, I would ask him to reconsider, to think about this.

After all, our prime concern should be to ensure good service to the people. If that service can be provided by the

[ Page 8098 ]

private sector as well as or better then it might be provided by government, by golly, let's get rid of it! After all, we — certainly, we on this side — don't want government controls where, hopefully, the private sector can provide the service instead. He likened this possibility to a centralist or state control approach. Once more there is a tremendous inconsistency, because only when the state says, "We're the business in the people and we won't let the private sector in," do you have a centralist or state-control approach. If, in fact, there is the possibility of taking some segment of operations from government and returning it to the private sector, that could hardly be termed a centralist or state-control approach. We would expect that from the socialists; that certainly isn't for a free enterprise type of government such as we enjoy in British Columbia now. So that likening is totally out of place, and I would ask that member to reconsider those statements, because they do not in fact make sense.

Again, Mr. Chairman, we did take to the people in all the communities throughout Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley the whole question of what the problems are with respect to PCL, what the subsidy is, why the subsidy, and how we could possibly bring economies into the system by making various changes. We did this because, after all, it's the people's business. The first member for Victoria, who is so critical of that approach, was at one of those very meetings, and he too was given an opportunity. I chaired it; I was there. I said: "We have with us the hon. first member for Victoria, and I would ask that he make a presentation to this meeting here this evening."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

That's democracy. What's wrong with practising a little democracy? Why should that be so foreign to the socialists? Consider that, hon. member. We did travel through the province and we gave the people an opportunity to meet and speak out and say whatever was on their minds, and we included the members of the opposition. I was a little disappointed in the first member for Victoria, to say the least, because I went to North Island, where the member spoke, and he was reasonably positive in what he had to present. Similarly, of course, we had a meeting in Nanaimo. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) doesn't attend that sort of meeting, so he didn't have the opportunity.

We went to other constituencies on the mainland, but the first member for Victoria was a little political in the presentation he made there. However, while that may by unfortunate and while possibly more positive suggestions could have been made, he was given the opportunity. And for him now to stand in this House and find fault with that approach with respect to PCL or any other facet of the ministry seems ridiculous. We gave the people the opportunity, and I would do so again.

As I said, the member likened this going to the people on PCL to a centralizing or a state approach. I would remind the member that during the NDP years they were out to buy Vancouver Island Coach Lines, Pacific Coach Lines and every other little bus line or taxi service. You name it and they were trying to buy it, and the losses were compounding and piling up. That was their approach to it; that isn't our approach. We know and recognize that there is a considerable difference between the socialist approach and the free enterprise approach.

The hon. member spoke about the ward system — home rule. I have made my position very clear with respect to the ward system. I will do so again and will continue to do so. I don't see the ward system serving democracy at all well, nor do I think we as a people can afford the horrendous cost that would come with the establishment of a ward system. In the initial Vancouver proposal there was a suggestion that perhaps they would start with 12 wards. From there they would go to 15, to 25, I suppose that in not too many years they could end up like so many other cities in other parts of the world that are burdened with this sort of system — with perhaps 50 members. That wouldn't be at all unexpected for Vancouver — if they once adopted the ward system — at some time in the not too distant future to end up with 50 wards, because the tendency is to break down those areas more and more as little feuds or differences develop in a particular neighbourhood.

To pay 50 politicians — or even 25 or 15, as opposed to 10 — is one thing, but each one of those politicians in a ward would obviously want a ward office, a local office, a ward administrator, a ward secretary and a ward receptionist. You can see the bureaucracy that would follow. But putting the cost of it aside.... Perhaps, given all the information, the people could decide on that particular question. If you look at what happened in Toronto.... I can quote from a particular article about the government there which was written in the Globe and Mail on May 5. I would be pleased to make a photocopy of this article available for anyone who wants it:

"The government believes greater power in the hands of municipalities will mean greater responsibilities by municipalities, but its reasoning is flawed because of the ward system and the absence of cohesive groups on councils. Local councillors are incapable of being made accountable to the voters outside of their own wards. For example, if the federal voter wants to punish or reward Finance Minister Allan MacEachen, he can vote against or for his local Liberal candidate. The constituency system prevents his voting directly for or against Mr. MacEachen himself, but the party system overcomes the fragmentation of the constituencies and allows him to voice objection or support for Mr. MacEachen's policies. Most municipal elections are fragmented by wards. A voter can reward or punish only the councillor in his own ward; all others are beyond his reach."

So if I were a taxpayer in the ward of Vancouver South or in the ward of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett).... If I were a taxpayer in the ward of Point Grey, perhaps living in a beautiful home — like yours, Mr. Member — and paying all these high taxes, and that one ward member, as a part of council, was making decisions with which I could agree but the council was making decisions contrary to those I wished promoted in the city, I could only get at that one ward member. That council could continue to do whatever else, and you would not be able to get at that council — only at that one ward member. How do you see this as a greater democracy? It would deny the people the opportunity of voting on the issue. It would end up as a bureaucratic, costly, total disaster. It would remove from the people the opportunity to boot out a council if that council was moving against their wishes.

I've said this before and I will repeat it: it could assist a socialist group if they wanted to develop a bunch of little cells and gain control; it may be a good vehicle for that. But it's not

[ Page 8099 ]

a democratic system. It's not the sort of democracy that really gives the people the opportunity to get at their council instead of at just one member. I hope we can devote more debate to that particular question. Possibly the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) may change his mind. He should realize that it's not like constituencies, where you can get at the party. In 1975 the people were unhappy with the socialists. and they booted out the whole lot of them; you can't do that in a ward system.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, asked leave to sit again.

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

Presenting Petitions

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is the petition of the City of Vancouver praying for the passing of an act intituled an Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter. I move that the rules be suspended and that the petition of the City of Vancouver be received.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

Hon- Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant- Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982.

Bill 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled an answer to a question standing in his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled answers to questions standing in his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled the tenth annual report of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act of British Columbia, and the annual report of the Land Reform Commission of British Columbia for the year 1981.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.