[ Page 9467 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill M209). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading –– 9467

Oral Questions

Inland Natural Gas. Mr. Macdonald –– 9467

Salary of Expo '86 management consultant. Mrs. Dailly 9467

Jem Productions. Mrs. Dailly –– 9467

Release of dangerous offenders. Mr. Levi –– 9468

Export of electricity. Mr. D'Arcy –– 9468

VDT operators. Ms. Sanford –– 9468

Job creation in B.C. Ms. Sanford –– 9468

School Services (Interim) Act (Bill 89). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9469

Mr. Lauk –– 9470

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 9473

Mr. Gabelmann –– 9476

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9478

Mr. King –– 9480

Mrs. Jordan –– 9481

Mr. Skelly –– 9484

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 9486

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, today is a fine day in the British Columbia Legislative Assembly because one of the fellows who is known to you, the president of the press gallery, Mr. Charles LaVertu, is today celebrating a birthday. I'd ask all members to join with me in wishing our best to M. le président.

Introduction of Bills

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

On a motion by Mr. Howard, Bill M209, Industrial Development Act Amendment Act, 1982, 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.

Oral Questions

INLAND NATURAL GAS

MR. MACDONALD: In the absence of the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Smith), I ask the Premier this question, with a very short three-stage preamble.

Last February Jim Anderson and Ben MacDonald, fair-haired friends of the government, took over, without putting up a dime, Inland Natural Gas –– 93 percent control. Recently they began to take over Trans Mountain, using Inland's treasury and the banks. The third unexpected development is that the Bronfman boys, Peter and Edgar, are now moving in to take over both Inland and Trans Mountain. Since Inland is applying before the Utilities Commission at Kelowna for an increase in the rate of natural gas, will this government intervene in time — as it failed to do during that takeover period — and make clear their position that there should be no increase whatsoever in the price that Inland Natural Gas charges its customers while it is the object of these international capitalistic playboys? If it is so rich that all of these people are after it, why should the people of B.C. pay more? Will you intervene?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll take the question on notice for the minister.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary question...a new question, totally new. Does the Premier know that that hearing for a rate increase — commercial, residential and business — was scheduled to begin in Kelowna today?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: My final question: does the government not have a position at this time? Are you going to wait until it's too late, sleeping at the switch and doing a little shadow boxing, as happened the last time? Do you have a position, or are the boys going ahead on schedule?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I've taken the question as notice. Quite often that member gets away with making highly political, volatile and incorrect statements when framing his questions. It makes it very difficult to have an orderly question period when that member continually, flagrantly, uses the period for that type of statement.

SALARY OF EXPO 86 MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANT

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Yesterday, when I asked you to confirm the fact that Mike Burns had received approximately $258,000 — over a quarter of a million dollars — for acting on behalf of Expo, and apparently was also a former Social Credit campaign manager, you implied that the answer to that question would be brought back to me and to the members of the House quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forthwith.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, forthwith. Could we now have the answer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I used the word "forthwith." "Forthwith," to me, means almost immediately. Under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that I must determine that information from officials in my ministry, I'm almost positive that I didn't use the word "forthwith." I probably suggested to the member that I would attempt to secure the information as quickly as I possibly could retrieve it. I don't know whether the information is held in the books or in the computer; nevertheless I'll retrieve that information, because I know that the member is anxious to get it as quickly as possible. Under the circumstances, I will attempt to expedite securing that information so that I'll be able to bring it back to the House for the member as quickly as I possibly can.

JEM PRODUCTIONS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, as the Provincial Secretary is not able to answer my former question quickly, I wonder if he could therefore answer a question which he took on notice several weeks ago. That is the question regarding Mr. Dave Brown and Jem Productions. At that time, several weeks ago, I asked the minister if he would tell the House what the cost is to the taxpayer of the Socred propaganda film clips which are being made through the auspices of Jem Productions, using the equipment provided by the people of British Columbia. What is the cost? You took that question as notice several weeks ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with that question because the question is based on a false premise. First of all, the member wants to know the cost of the Socred TV clips. There are no clips being made. If there are clips being made, they're not Socred propaganda or Socred press clips.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a final supplemental. Apparently clips were made. and used by Social Credit ministers, using the same message as appears in the brochures which have gone out to the people of B.C. through delivery and in other

[ Page 9468 ]

forms. Can the minister explain to us why the same partisan pitch was being used in the media centre here, at taxpayers' expense, as that of JEM Productions in the media centre here?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not aware of any political clips being made in the media centre by government information services.

RELEASE OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

MR. LEVI: A few days ago I asked the Attorney-General a question of a crime-prevention nature. He admitted later that he misunderstood the question. I'd like to put it to him this way: is the minister prepared to give an undertaking to the House that he will approach the Solicitor-General of Canada and ask the Solicitor-General to make sure that all provincial authorities, particularly this one, are informed beforehand of the impending release of dangerous criminals, so that the authorities in this province will be aware of what kinds of problems they might be facing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Following the question that was posed by the hon. member some days ago on the same subject, I took action to communicate directly with the Solicitor-General in that regard. Meetings are being convened between the commissioner of corrections for the province of British Columbia and the director-general of the federal organization to ensure that that kind of communication in fact takes place.

MR. LEVI: What can I say? The minister has finally acted.

EXPORT OF ELECTRICITY

MR. D'ARCY: On page 10 of the recent Socred election catalogue, published at great expense to taxpayers, the Minister of Energy declares that the Socreds have a program to export electricity to the United States. Can the minister table studies showing where in the United States these electricity export markets are, and what price can be reasonably expected?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't accept the first premise. I think the member is aware that interrupted short-term electricity exports have taken place and have been sold in the United States. No such sales would take place, of course, without a review by the Utilities Commission. I will certainly make a fuller and more major statement on that subject at a later date. The member knows that sales do take place and have taken place. He also knows that there is a review process in this country, set up by this government and this province, to ensure that any energy exports are to the benefit of the public of British Columbia. It does exactly the opposite to what he believes — that is, they keep jobs in British Columbia; they don't export them.

MR. D'ARCY: The question was not about past electricity export policies. The question was regarding the statement by the minister, published under his signature and paid for at taxpayers' expense, where he says that he has an aggressive marketing program for new — not existing — electricity export markets. Can the minister tell us where — in Washington, Mexico, California, Florida, Fiji, Korea — these electricity export markets are, and at what price?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think I answered the question, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly make public further information along that line.

VDT OPERATORS

MS. SANFORD: I would like to welcome back the Minister of Labour and pose a question to him. In view of the widespread concern about the increasing revelations of miscarriages and abnormal births amongst operators of video display terminals, has the minister decided to make the necessary changes to the Employment Standards Act to ensure that VDT operators have the right to transfer to other work, without loss of pay or seniority, during the term of a pregnancy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: All legislation in British Columbia is continually under review to see if it can be improved.

MS. SANFORD: Has the minister decided to take any action whatsoever on this serious issue?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think the first question and answer suffices for the second.

MS. SANFORD: The only assumption I can make from that is that the minister has decided to take no action. Everything is under review at all times, and therefore no action.... It's not good enough.

JOB CREATION IN B.C.

MS. SANFORD: I've another question for the minister on another topic. Ministry of Labour figures show that 85,000 jobs have disappeared from the province over the last year, which would seem to indicate that there are no more jobs in the province today than there were when this government took office in 1979, some three and a half years ago. Can the minister confirm the forecast of the Employers Council of B.C. that we are retreating to the 1979 level of employment, which means that in net terms this government will have created no new jobs for the province of B.C. during their present term in office?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've never heard such nonsense in my life. The record of this government in creating jobs is better than that of any other government in the history of British Columbia. If that timid little opposition would stop hiding and get out and support the kinds of programs, like northeast coal and B.C. Place and the natural gas programs in British Columbia, which are creating jobs in British Columbia today — 6,000 people working on northeast coal right now, 450 on B.C. Place, thousands and thousands of new jobs that that timid, petty little opposition opposes....

MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to introduce Motion 29, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

[ Page 9469 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion on the order paper — number 33 — that deals with an emergency debate on unemployment. I ask that the rules be suspended and the House proceed immediately to Motion 33.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As acting House Leader, Mr. Speaker, I move to proceed to public bills and orders. I call second reading of Bill 89, School Services (Interim) Act.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It gives me pleasure to move second reading of the School Services (Interim) Act. As you know, Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier and I met with representatives of the BCTF and the BCSTA with regard to restraint in education. In many ways the meeting was a tremendous help in allowing us and them to air the issues. However, there was considerable disagreement in the positions expressed by the two organizations. As an example of that, the BCTF argued at the meeting that restraint measures should not apply to education, while the trustees indicated very clearly that they agreed with the need for restraint but wished to be assured that education was not being singled out in the process.

I've had our officials double-check the figures, and they have assured me that even with the July restraint measures, school budgets will increase by 15.9 percent over last year, well ahead of other areas of provincial spending, which have increased by an average of 8.5 percent. I commend the school districts that set out to come forth with various resolutions fairly early on, after having been advised by my predecessor. They did the very best they could in many places in coming forth with their recommendations. We also commend those teachers who sat down with their school boards and in many instances agreed to give up at least several of the professional days in order to accomplish the necessary savings and the savings that those school districts agreed were necessary as their part and involvement in restraint which was so much needed in all parts of the world, including Canada and, in particular, British Columbia. They did recognize that all sectors had to support the restraint program. It's not just a matter of talking about restraint; each of us must participate in some way to bring about the desired results.

We know that in the private sector there are natural constraints in that if business is down, obviously then the private sector has to make certain moves or take certain actions to make sure they can be viable and continue in producing whatever it is that they produce as an industry or business. Only in doing so will they survive and continue to provide the jobs and the economic activity so badly needed at this time. We've seen great examples by the private sector in many parts of the province. The most publicized was the sawmill in Quesnel, where the operators and the employees agreed very early on that some action had to be taken if the people were to continue working. After a number of meetings, they agreed that the employees would take a 10 percent rollback, and when things picked up again, and the markets were as viable as we hope they'll be soon, they could then return to receiving the amount of pay they had previously received. But those people in the private sector, at 100 Mile House, certainly took that initiative, which we've seen in many parts of the private sector in many parts of the province. Again, they're all to be commended for that.

We have seen similar examples in the public sector, or with those the public sector deals with. The example of the various groups involved in health services, the example of the BCGEU in their negotiations, and their willingness to recommend to their membership an avenue or an approach which recognizes restraint, is also commendable. It's certainly encouraging to see that the BCSTA has also recognized the need for restraint and will do whatever they can for their part to help make it workable and have it come about at an early date.

It was also agreed at the meeting that there was obviously some need for legislation to resolve the situation, although the agreement was lacking in that there wasn't unanimity with respect to how this could best be brought about or what such legislation should contain. Therefore I'm very pleased to move second reading of this particular bill, because it certainly provides the school districts the means of implementing the restraint required. It also allows the teachers to participate in this restraint program, to save jobs and to ensure that education in British Columbia for our students, our pupils, will remain intact and continue on as healthy as it has been.

Mr. Speaker, what is needed, certainly, is that all of us consider this and resolve the issue in a calm manner. In spite of the initial protests in each of the affected areas, I believe all but one major group signed up voluntarily in the government's restraint program. This legislation will certainly afford everyone the opportunity to bring about a good resolution not only for 1982 but also for 1983. The agreements that we've seen take place in the private sector and those that have taken place with those groups that deal with the public sector — I mentioned the health people and the BCGEU — have not always been easy to secure, because it goes against long-established practices that date from more buoyant economic times. But agreement has been secured, and it has convinced me that British Columbians do wish to cooperate in a program of economic recovery.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This legislation will restore confidence and certainty to our public education system. Future generations will evaluate our society in terms of the men and women we develop. The legislation that is being introduced here today is designed, as I mentioned earlier, to maintain the quality and diversity of educational services available to the students of this province.

The legislation will also give additional management flexibility to school boards and ensure that layoffs will not be necessary in the 1982-83 school year. I'm sure that all the professionals and other staff involved in the educational system will breathe a little easier, Mr. Speaker, knowing that we've taken this initiative to provide that type of security. In these times of high unemployment, we must do everything possible to ensure that as many of our people as possible are working. This is why the principle of job-sharing has been fundamental to our restraint program from its inception. By taking a little less now, teachers, as well as other public sector employees, will be in a position to ensure that as many of their colleagues as possible are kept working.

We will be asking teachers to make a small contribution to restraint by agreeing to two measures: first, that they forgo being paid on some of the days that they do not actually teach,

[ Page 9470 ]

and agree where necessary to undertake professional development and training on their own time; secondly, that teachers and school boards agree to shorten the school year by five days, without reducing the hours of instruction and without affecting the quality of education available to our youngsters. We will leave the flexibility to local school boards to achieve these legislative goals, but I should note that a maximum of six non-teaching days in the first term and an average of 13 minutes per day additional instruction in the second would be sufficient to meet these targets.

Although some would advocate that we not apply restraint in education, and in fact have opposed the restraint program in its entirety, proposing that we borrow to pay today's bills, I believe that teachers wish to participate along with other British Columbians in our program of economic recovery, and will agree to this contribution as a means of preserving jobs and services. I should note that these measures are similar to the proposals of the BCMA executive to give back some $30 million to preserve essential health services, and that on average the contribution is equivalent to a rollback of this year's 17 percent increase by 4 percent.

I want to make it clear, however, that we are not asking teachers for a rollback and that the salary base in future negotiations will not be affected. Over the past four years teachers have had significantly higher settlements than BCGEU members. For example, as you know, the executive of the BCGEU has recommended to its membership that they endorse a significant contribution to economic recovery. In good times, past levels of settlements may have been reasonable. In difficult times such as we now face, the people of B.C. need the cooperation of our teaching professionals if jobs and services are to be preserved.

I am hopeful that school boards and local teacher federations will quickly implement these measures so as to restore a measure of order and confidence to our public education system. It gives me pleasure to move second reading.

MR. LAUK: This bill is a cynical, crass, political bill. It's designed to give the appearance of settling "the education issue," but in fact exacerbates it and is deliberately designed to create more chaos and demoralization in the education system.

I want to direct a remark to the Premier of the province, who's escaping now. I wonder if he remembers that on December 1, 1981 he made several speeches in this chamber. I want to bring them to his attention; they're short quotes. As you know, the Premier is seldom in the House, and he seldom speaks here, but at that time he did say: "All members of this House and political parties are going to have to live, and perhaps some of them die permanently, on the things they have said and committed to."

MR. SKELLY: He said that?

MR. LAUK: You better believe it.

On the same day, the Premier of British Columbia said: "Northeast coal and British Columbia Place will pay for itself. It will not threaten the programs that you expect from government." I wanted to remind the Premier of that commitment which he made in this chamber just a short while ago.

On April 13 of this year the then Minister of Education stated in this chamber, when he was bringing in the first intervention cuts into the education program: "The other option would have been to underfund the system, produce cuts in programs and effect major school closures and layoffs, but that would have destroyed a number of the positive and cherished gains of the past and would have impacted upon the lives and futures of children." I adopt that statement wholeheartedly. I am going to use that statement as the fundamental building block of the remarks I am going to make about this bill.

He went on to say: "There are other features in the principles of this bill which I commend to the Legislature. I have underlined that the bill provides for significant new funding of $75 million, with a commitment for a further $175 million next year." May I remind you that the Premier of the province said it very well: "The members of this House are going to have to live, and some of them die" — politically, I think he means — "on the things they have said."

In the same debate the former Minister of Education went on to say: "The interim act" — and I'm only talking about the first intervention into education funding in this province — "sensitively addresses the interests of children, teachers, school boards and taxpayers, who still count in this province." I take it from the fourth intervention by the new Minister of Education that teachers, school boards and taxpayers don't count any more in this province. "It does so," he says, "by giving students access to soundly funded educational programs and policies, and prevents school boards and schools from becoming the enemies of the taxpayer." Shall we go on, Mr. Speaker?

On May 27 of this year — a short while ago — the financial wizards over there, the people who couldn't even foresee four months into the future — it was less than three months.... Are you telling me they didn't know what their circumstances were on May 27, 1982, when a little more than three months later they decided to make another — the third — intervention into the education system? It is recorded in Hansard that on May 27 the Premier said: "What we've said is that all of the public sectors have the guidelines. The provincial government, the municipalities, the school boards and the hospital boards have a responsibility and an opportunity to negotiate what's fair in this fair climate."

Why have they chosen this time to bring in this bill? The bill proposed does not achieve what the government claimed to be its purpose. The government argues that it will protect against teacher layoffs and protect school programs for children on a fair and equitable basis. It is suggested that this bill will try to undo the demoralization and chaos caused not only by the Minister of Education but also by the government's inconsistency and contradictory education policy over the last year. I've outlined to you the several interventions and confusions that were injected into the system.

Let's point out something more. On September 17 of this year the following statement purports to be the minister's statement. He can get up and deny it, but it comes from a news release quoting "the Hon. William Vander Zalm." They don't sound like his words. We know he's been developing policy unofficially on hotlines, in extemporaneous speeches and quips. This news release of September 16 — a few days ago — said:

"Expenditure reduction plans have been received by or are on the way to the Ministry of Education from 74 of the 75 school districts, in compliance with restraint orders from the ministry. 'Of those reporting, to date 52 have filed plans complete enough to be analyzed,' said Mr. Vander Zalm. 'It is satisfying for me to note that in 25 of those school districts the

[ Page 9471 ]

necessary savings have been made without teacher layoff proposals.'"

The last paragraph of the press release states:

"'I am impressed with some of the creative solutions advanced by a number of the districts,' says Mr. Vander Zalm. 'I certainly do appreciate the unselfish manner in which trustees have reduced their indemnity and some administrators have taken a voluntary rollback in salary and so on. I particularly commend those teachers who have accepted the seriousness of the economic situation and have worked out solutions with the boards.'"

The contradictory and inept policies of the government have been applied on an ad hoc and inconsistent basis since February of this year. In the last six weeks the Minister of Education has announced changes in policies over hotline programs and in extemporaneous speeches, so that parents and children, trustees and teachers have been demoralized and confused. The overwhelming evidence leads to the unacceptable conclusion that this process was deliberately designed to achieve those ends. That being so, the government succeeded. The people of this province can no longer trust government, and in particular can no longer trust the minister at his word, or the sincerity of this proposed legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the last statement imputes a personal reflection on another member's honour. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw any imputation of dishonourable motive to another member of this House.

MR. LAUK: I am not saying that as an attack on the minister directly. I'm talking about the contradictory statements and saying that the minister's word can no longer be trusted by the people of the province of British Columbia. That's not unparliamentary; that is to do with the role of the minister, his statements on policy and his retraction of statements on policy in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have reflected on the word of another member of this Legislative Assembly. I will ask you to withdraw that statement.

MR. LAUK: I won't withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that I mean no improper motive on the part of the minister, nor do I reflect upon his honour in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I'm sure that we can maintain that position during the rest of this debate. All hon. members are aware of our parliamentary rules and improper reflections on another member.

MR. LAUK: The provisions of this bill add to the chaos and demoralization that I just mentioned. School boards have been sitting down with teachers across the province to try to fulfil their perceived duty to achieve the cutbacks imposed on them in as fair and equitable a manner as is possible under the circumstances. I report that in almost all cases the school boards and the teachers achieved this goal. On the eve of settling these matters on a district-by-district basis the government now makes its fourth intervention in a dictatorial and centralized fashion, and once again has created chaos and demoralization. They have deliberately provoked, in a blatant and reprehensible manner, both teachers and trustees across the province. So where settlement was imminent, it may no longer be possible.

The second point I wish to make is that the stated purpose of this bill is a fair and equitable solution to current education funding. The ordinary definition of "fair" can be stated to include the concept of justice. The government argues for the need in bad economic times for cutbacks. Yet the only area where the government is making drastic cutbacks is in the education system — nowhere else. All other public sectors are receiving increases — including Crown corporations, with an increase in their user charges and fees of 6 percent, and including civil servants. It is only the education system that is being asked not only not to take an increase but to take a cut. That will be perceived, particularly by teachers but also by parents and trustees, to be unjust.

Similarly, for this bill to be equitable, all of us must see that cutbacks and so-called restraint is applied to all sectors of government involvement, not just to the education sector.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I would like to deal with that with the minister just leaving the chamber. I understand that in my absence, Mr. Speaker, he made a sleazy attack on me in committee. He knew he could make it when I wasn't there. I'd like to get him in committee on that very soon.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order.

MR. LAUK: He's a school principal, and he has joined for the pure motive of power and ignored the education system that brought him to this stage in the first place.

The third stated purpose, I take it, is the protection of education programs for children. The bill does not address the serious cutbacks and elimination of programs already made across the province. In special-education programs, in particular courses or other legitimate school activities, these cutbacks have been made. There is no provision in this bill to protect that which has already been eliminated in the past several weeks and months as a result of this government's insensitive and drastic action. In addition, the bill does not guarantee the implementation of existing programs — for special education or other programs. I'll explain why.

Section 153(l), which is the addition to the School Act in this bill, states that the minister shall have the power to consent or not if the board, because of money, requests to cut back special-education programs. Yet the section itself includes the phrase, "special-education programs established under the regulations." Anyone even incidentally aware of the education system knows that most special-education programs are programs established by boards themselves. A strict reading of that section, therefore, indicates that no protection will be in place for those programs and that boards may be forced to cut those programs. So section 153(l) becomes really deceptive. It is designed to give the appearance of protection for special programs, but it in fact does quite the opposite. It is clearly a politically drafted bill. If there's sincerity in protecting special-education programs, let them say so in the bill, because we don't trust the Minister of Education — nobody in the province trusts the Minister of Education.

[ Page 9472 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My wife is offended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All members will come to order.

MR. LAUK: The fourth stated purpose of Bill 89, as I understand it, is that the government will prevent termination of teachers and other personnel. I'll retract the statement "other personnel" — on my fifteenth reading of the bill. We'll just say that they're moving to protect the termination of teachers. The Minister of Education has so conducted himself in the past six weeks that the mere statement that such terminations will require his consent is not only irrelevant, but simply not acceptable to this Legislature or to the people of this province. The bill, while purporting to provide job security, has placed school boards in a catch-22 situation. Although terminations in the strictest definition of that term may not be made, many school districts will still be in the position of not being able to pay teachers' salaries in the face of these increasing cutbacks. Even with the reduced school year and the elimination of part of the teachers' payroll achieved, many school districts will not have sufficient funds to maintain current programs and current complements of teachers in the districts.

The government may argue that section 3 of the bill will allow them to dip into their non-shareable capital funds. Non-shareable capital funds are funds that are raised by the school boards; there is no contribution from the provincial government. It suffices on that issue to point out that many school districts have no such funds, and have no means by which to get them either through taxation or the provincial government. Now I've heard a rumour — we're hearing one story from the Deputy Minister of Education and another story from the Minister of Education; but I've heard a rumour, so I'm not going to label the deputy minister or the minister — that these special non-shareable capital funds.... If they're not available in school districts, there may be an order for a provincial levy next spring, raising homeowner taxation on the backs of homeowners to provide non-shareable capital funds.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, please. The Chair is well aware of what the hon. first member for Vancouver is probably concerned with, and it concerns me as well. There have been many personal reflections during this debate upon other members of this House. These reflections have emanated from both sides of this House. I must advise you that these are most unparliamentary and will not be accepted. We are on Bill 89, School Services (Interim) Act. We are all aware of what proper parliamentary debate is. I will remind the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and all other members that personal reflections are not allowed.

MR. LAUK: As I was saying, the section with respect to the prevention of layoffs is again deceptive. Superficially, it seems to be the case, but it places school boards in a catch-22 situation. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) intervened with a cross comment. He laughed as if I were sowing the seeds of distrust; he suggests that I'm sowing the seeds of distrust. I argue that the government, through its inconsistent policies and, its unfair and inequitable treatment of the education system, has sown the seeds of distrust. They shall reap what they have sown.

If the rumour is correct that there will be a provincial levy and a mill rate specially designed to raise homeowner taxation.... You can't do it on industrial and commercial anymore. That's been confiscated by the government of British Columbia — $800 million that no longer goes to education. It's the story of broken promise after broken promise, of political deception by a government of the province of British Columbia and the people who are in the education system. They shall reap what they have sown.

It suffices to point out that at this stage, however, the school districts that don't have non-shareable capital funds and no means by which to get them, either through taxation or from provincial funding — and there are many of them — are going to be left in the catch-22 situation of trying to ask for cutbacks in some other area they can't find. The minister can fold his arms, placing the school district in that catch-22 situation, and play God with the future of an entire generation of school children.

There are other points I wish to raise that may be of concern to the chamber on this bill. Section 5 of the bill is very complex, and I'm sure shall be dealt with in great detail in committee. I say it's deliberately complex and confusing. Reading the plain words and meaning of section 5 — and they may not intend this because I have not heard them say so straightforwardly — I reckon that some teachers can lose up to 17 working days' pay in the 1982-83 school year. The press and the official statements have indicated up to 11. This is either sloppy draftsmanship or political dishonesty in the representation of the impact of this bill.

Section 5(l) says there will be no paid non-instructional days during the 1982-83 school year. That equals five days' pay. If everyone has their pencils out, put five down on the page. Subsection (2) says subsection (1) will not apply if there is an agreement between teachers and school boards for a specific number of non-instructional days: an agreement, by the way, that in many cases is unachievable, because that agreement must be to achieve drastic budget reductions to comply with the government's directives. As I have already said, if that agreement cannot be made, subsection (3), the penalty section, says the teachers will lose an additional six days' pay. If one adds those 11 days to the additional time required for a teacher to be in the classroom, as imposed by section 4, which I am told means the five working days, that is 17 days in total.

It is conceivable then that through no fault of their own teachers and trustees in some districts will be sacrificing 17 days' pay. If they didn't intend that, that's what the bill says. There is no qualification. If my learned colleague, who is a member of the bar, will kindly turn to section 5, we can deal with this in committee. I'm sure that if the government does not intend 17 days, they can make the appropriate amendment. If you look at section 4, it says five days — that's five days off the top. You're expanding that silly nonsense of 12 minutes a day; I don't know what that means. Does that mean they all hang around the washroom or the locker bay and whistle, or do the teachers get everybody to wash the erasers? I don't know what the 12 minutes are for. If you know the blocking system and how they set up their courses in high schools, even in elementary schools, this is ridiculous. Nobody's fooling anybody about the 12 minutes. I think they really got the 12 minutes from the time they took to consider

[ Page 9473 ]

the drafting of this bill. Section 4 says five days — no disagreement?

Section 5 says: "There shall be no paid non-instructional days during the 1982-83 school year." That's six days, including the administrative day; that's off the top, there are none. Subsection (2) says if there's an agreement.... Okay, eliminate that. If there's no agreement then subsection (3) applies; that's the six days' penalty. That's six more days, which adds up to 17. Now if by saying there are to be no paid non-instructional days that is to be a statement of policy, and if subsections (2) and (3) were the operative sections, you should have said so. That's what they call legislative drafting. But when you draft legislation in the hallways to plug political holes as soon as you hear from Decima Research about how you're doing out there with the folks, that's the kind of sloppy legislation you get.

It also should be pointed out that this government has argued, both when they were in opposition and since 1976, for the sanctity of private contracts. A few days ago this government moved a motion to include property rights in the Canadian constitution and gave glowing but hypocritical speeches to that end. Yet they are now willing, with a stroke of the pen, to confiscate the property rights of individuals — those rights enshrined in private contracts. Ask yourselves what that does to the foundation-stone of the free-market system: a person's word is their bond; a contract is sacrosanct, in order to make our very economic and social system function. It's down the tube. This section is carefully designed to alleviate any legal intervention by the courts of this land to enforce private contracts. "This act supersedes private contracts," it says in section 2, and it alleviates liability for contracts under section 6 of the act.

Now what is the problem with the Minister of Education and the government of this province? Why are they picking on the education system? They've got provisions for printing money in the basement coming before this House. They are borrowing money and getting into further debt in the northeast coal project and in B.C. Place. They are getting into debt upon debt in this province. They do not cut back on their ministerial travel. They are spending $100,000 on glossy campaign pamphlets. Why are they attacking the education system of this province? For two years in this House, the New Democratic Party opposition moved motions in the debate on the budget that would have restrained ministers, that would have cut back ministers by $192 million in total. What did we do? We didn't eliminate their travel budgets. We didn't eliminate their advertising budgets. We asked them to cut them back to 1980 levels, and they refused. They'd sooner take it off the backs of a whole generation of kids in this province; that's their approach to restraint.

But I think there's also another motive, and I want to deal with that right now with the Minister of Education. I'm going to quote both the Premier's statements and this minister's statement, when he was not the Minister of Education, from a short while ago, June 1982. On June 9, 1982, the Premier of this province stood in the House and said: "Do you realize that the quality of education our children are getting in the public schools today is being questioned?" He used that as his basis for supporting increased aid to independent schools, in June 1982.

What about the minister? In Hansard, June 9, 1982 — little did we know then that before long the fox would be guarding the chickens — Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm said:

In speaking to this particular vote, I would not only support it but also wish that perhaps it could be a whole lot more....

That's a 40 percent increase to independent schools this year.

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 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....

That is, to that received in the public education system.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of this bill, certainly in the long term, is placing in the hands of an erratic and dictatorial minister absolute power over the educational system. The bill places all school districts in this province under trusteeship. The people of British Columbia don't trust or accept the word of this single most powerful trustee, who has no commitment to public education — none! No thought for its future and no wisdom to understand the critical importance of education in a democratic society. For these reasons, we oppose this bill and make this solemn prediction: if a provincial election is held shortly and this government is returned to office, no provision of this bill will be worth the paper it is printed on. In storm trooper fashion, the government will then make its fifth intervention into the public education system.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

The bill is a cynical, crass attempt to plug political holes, to enable the government to go to the people, under the guise of having settled "the education issue." The New Democratic Party has committed, as its number one priority, to preserving, maintaining and enhancing the educational system in this province. It is our solemn duty, and our only real responsibility to the next generation of British Columbians. They must be ready to take their places in a complex, technologically advanced and uncertain world, and I will not be the one to take away their preparation for that onerous task. I will not be the one to destroy their chance of survival. I will not preside over the destruction of public education in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Education critic has offered, I presume, his legal and technical interpretation of the various sections of the act and has reached certain conclusions, based upon his financial acumen. The second reading of the bill gives us an opportunity to speak on the principle of what the act is attempting to accomplish.

I listened with interest to the statements made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) with respect to our public educational system. We talk about the reduction of professional days — or non-instructional days, as they are technically referred to. I think it's important that the citizens of our province understand what a non-instructional day is; I presume most parents do. Parents who still have youngsters in school would be familiar with the notes brought home, saying "No school on Wednesday," or whatever; "It's a professional day." What it means to the taxpayers in the school district, of course.... It's a day that instructors take advantage of to improve their skills, to hear lectures and to have seminars to further improve their skills as teachers and instructors. It's well worthwhile to engage in that activity. The question in the minds of many people is whether they should be paid for the upgrading of their skills. Many professionals in our society constantly engage in upgrading

[ Page 9474 ]

their skills by attending seminars or professional days, and they frequently do it on their own time or even on weekends. This bill suggests that eliminating these non-instructional days is one method by which school districts can assist themselves in balancing their budgets and meeting the restriction guidelines which were produced for them. I really feel that most taxpayers and parents will not be offended that non-instructional days shall perhaps not be paid for for a period of time.

The second part of it suggests that during the second half of the school term next year the number of instructional days be reduced by five. But the hours of instruction remain intact. It has been said that this averages out to about 12.8 minutes a day. That is instructional time. We are advised that the average instructional time for teachers is five hours a day. It means that they would be required to instruct for approximately 5 hours and 13 minutes a day.

Many school districts have modified their own timetables to accommodate the needs of their areas. There is preparation time, which is employed by teachers and instructors in schools now. There is supervisory time, and various other aspects of their working day that may be considered non-instructional. The people who know best how to resolve what could appear to be a dilemma to some are those people responsible for the management of those individual schools, who fully appreciate whatever aspects may be unique to their schools. I have no hesitation in believing that the people who manage the schools — be they the principals or whoever else — have the capability and management skills to see that it can occur with no interference in the youngsters' normal school day. There may be a number of methods employed at the local level to accommodate the requirements of the bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, many organizations of people in British Columbia have been asked to take part in the restraint program. To the surprise of many in our province, I think, these people have come forward and said that, yes, they will take part. Not long ago, I asked members of the British Columbia Medical Association if they would consider modifying their fee schedule to accommodate the restraint program. The BCMA executive advised me that, while they did not believe in rolling back their fee schedule, they would recommend to their members that they give back $30 million, the equivalent of the requested rollback. Their recommended action indicated that they recognize that we're in a recession. They recognize that the taxpayer has a limited capacity to pay, and they also recognize that they're part of this province and that they, too, have a leadership role to play in trying to battle the recession. Now whether they will convince their members to agree to their recommendation is yet to be seen. Other professional organizations have gone along as well.

In the education world, school boards were asked to develop methods whereby they could achieve the savings required. I believe that 50 of the 75 school boards were able to report to the Ministry of Education that they had achieved savings under the guidelines. The balance apparently have problems. I have been speaking to some school trustees with respect to what they previously saw to be the problem. The most common report to me was that they felt they did not have the legislative authority to make certain changes which could accommodate the restraint program. I was told by representatives of the Richmond School Board that if the provincial government would provide them with the authority, they would be pleased to accommodate the figures under the restraint program. I spoke to them again last night about this bill.

Mr. Speaker, a technical person may argue the bill in that narrow technical way, but I don't think we can avoid the principle of the bill, which in its simplest form is providing a mechanism whereby school districts, in conjunction with those employed by them — or on their own, if agreement cannot be achieved — have the mechanism to stay within the guidelines and assist in the restraint program across British Columbia. The school teachers will be asked in the second half of this term to provide 25 hours or five days of instructional time without compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that you and most members of the House are personally acquainted with a number of teachers, and I'm sure everyone has been in communication with teachers over the past while. I am not familiar with many teachers in my municipality of Richmond who are not prepared to take part in a restraint program. I've heard from them directly that they are prepared to take part. They feel that they, representing their profession, have a role to play in the leadership aspect of our society, along with professionals such as doctors, other health professionals and other persons in our society. Some teachers have advised me that they are offended by what they believe is the image some people believe of teachers — that they are greedy, that they are interested in pay and holidays but not in their profession. They're upset, and I don't blame them for being upset, because many of the teachers — most that I know — are very dedicated to their profession. We must at all times consider who benefits from our education system. Some of the first to benefit, we hope, are the youngsters who attend.

The critic was speaking about our education system being undermined, destroyed and a few other things. We're talking about five instructional days, of which none is lost as far as the hours go. We're talking about the non-instructional days, which as far as I know do not benefit the children in instruction, since they are not in school. We talk about reducing the school year by a few days. If any members here went through the school year this year, on one of the instructional days — the first day of school — my children were there 40 minutes, on average. Part of the instructional days are the last week in June before they are turfed out.

MR. LAUK: No, that's a half-day.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: My youngsters averaged last June, I think, about an hour a day in their schools, if they were required to go at all. Some were out on June 23 and some on June 27. Some children right now are not required to be in school beyond 1:30 in the afternoon. To suggest that the education of the children is going to be undermined by reducing the term by five days, when the time is not lost on instruction; when right now, from school board to school board and from school to school, you will see different schedules and different hours.... I can provide for you, Mr. Speaker, days where students are receiving perhaps three hours of instruction on a regular basis, some are receiving even less. We may be charitable and call spares and other so-called subjects instructional time. We talk about what's happening to the children because for some reason there's going to be a catastrophe if the year is reduced by five days. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the teachers who work can provide those children with that instruction in five days less than the school term is now with no ill effect. I would

[ Page 9475 ]

suggest that the capacity of the youngsters to learn and the capacity of the teachers to teach is adequate to compensate for any slight modification of the school term.

I don't know which teachers some of the members of the opposition speak to, unless it's to themselves, but the teachers I speak to believe not only in the capacity of their students to learn, but in their capacity to teach under whatever conditions may be there. I'm not underestimating the professionalism or capacity of our teachers, nor am I underestimating the capacity of the students to learn.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill were a revised School Act, I would offer a great deal more comment about our school system generally. But I think we're restricted somewhat to just what this act provides. I would suggest that the modification of the school term by the time mentioned in this bill is not endangering the education of our children.

MR. LAUK: You are.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, that funny little member over there, Mr. Speaker, with his silly comments and his mathematical genius about banks going broke and other ridiculous statements; this master of economics, finance and now, education; this person, who every day of his life is in communication with schools, with teachers, with trustees, with students, and knows it all, is now going to tell us that this bill is threatening the education of our youngsters.

MR. LAUK: What are you upset about?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm upset because you are so ill-informed and malinformed, and because you attempt to twist and to put the fear of God into the students and parents of this province. That's what I'm upset about.

MR. LAUK: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver-Centre.

MR. LAUK: I rise under standing orders, on a point of order. Under standing orders, the word "twist" is an unparliamentary expression. My speech is recorded. If the minister wants to respond to it, he can, but to use unparliamentary words like "twist...." I ask the minister to withdraw the word.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I speak to the hon. first member for Vancouver-Centre: I must say that his words to the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) were rather pointed. He drew out that conversation, and the Chair would prefer to ignore those remarks.

MR. SKELLY: It's an unparliamentary word; that's all there is to it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not recognize it as an unparliamentary word.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized for the moment, under standing orders?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On what point is the first member for Vancouver-Centre rising?

MR. LAUK: On the point of order that an unparliamentary expression was used. I'm not going to pursue it, Mr. Speaker, but when one member brings that to the Speaker's attention, the Speaker must do his duty.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but I have not heard anything that I consider unparliamentary. I've considered unparliamentary several words prior to that by both sides, and I prefer not to recognize either one of them.

MR. LAUK: You're going to ignore them, then. Well, then, so will I, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, to complement it further, if it offended the member, I withdraw. I didn't mean it to be offensive.

I am very concerned — as the member asked why — after speaking with parents and others that there is the possibility of fear being expressed, by people who are deliberately attempting to spread fear, that parents in our province may feel that their youngsters' education will be seriously eroded. I do not believe that to be the case, and I think that during a time of recession, during a time of restraint, all of us as citizens of this province have an obligation to take part. I believe that the vast majority of those employed in our school system are prepared to play their role. Times are difficult. The methods of resolution are not simple. Our school system is very, very complicated — further complicated by the independence, to whatever extent, of the school districts.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I believe that this bill is an attempt to resolve the matter, at least for the time being, to take away some of the uncertainty, and to permit school trustees to accommodate the requirements of the restraint program. I believe that with consideration by everyone involved it can be achieved, and I think it will be achieved. A great deal, of course, depends on how those involved — be they parents, students, instructors or others — would like to see it resolved, or whether they would like to see it resolved at all. I don't think it's asking too much to ask those engaged in education to take part in the restraint program; I don't think it's too much at all. I strongly believe — at least in the Richmond area that I represent — that the teachers in Richmond and those employed by the school district are prepared to assist in this program of restraint in government spending.

So I reject the alarm that is being offered by the critics of this measure. I reject what they see to be a serious attack on the education system. The complications of this bill may not be understood by a large number of people and may be misunderstood by others; but I believe the intent will assist greatly in resolving what seems to be a situation in our school system that otherwise may never be resolved.

I know that members of the Teachers Federation, School Trustees Association and others involved in education have had, and I believe will have, meetings with representatives of the provincial government to try to resolve some of the outstanding issues. I strongly believe that a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation is the only method by which we in the province are going to overcome some of the effects of recession without unnecessarily or inadvertently affecting the level of services to the citizens. I speak strongly in support of Bill 89.

[ Page 9476 ]

MR. GABELMANN: The Minister of Health laments the fact that the education system is complicated. He yearns for a day when things were simpler than they are now. He yearns for a day when he and his colleagues could simply issue an order and it would be obeyed throughout the province. He says that the "difficulties" that exist in the school system are "further complicated by the independence of the school districts" — what little independence they have left now. What we obviously have is yet another step in the dismantling and disbanding of a school system that is based on local autonomy, one that allows parents and the public in communities in this province to make some decisions about their own children's education that have some relevance to their own communities. What the Minister of Health laments, together with his colleague the Minister of Education, is the fact that that means that some control is taken out of the hands of the centralist Socreds in Victoria.

There are two things that are clear in my mind that make me proud today to be a New Democrat. One is that we happen to believe that the greatest resource this province has is its children. That sets us aside from the Socreds. Clearly and unmistakably, another major division between us is that we believe education should be controlled and run at the local level, by local people and not by the minister and his staff here in Victoria.

We have an education system in this province that is in utter chaos this year. It has had directive after directive from the government, from one minister and now from another, month by month, telling boards to do something different than they did the month before. Approvals that were granted early in the year by the previous minister were changed a few months later and then changed again and now changed again. How does the minister and his government think that school boards are going to be able to operate a functional education system in their districts? They can't when they have to spend all their time responding to yet another ministry directive or yet another piece of legislation.

What section of this bill does anything for any child's education in this province? What section of this bill improves or enhances or even protects the education system in this province? Not one word in this bill has anything to do with better education. The only reason we have this bill, concocted in the Premier's office on the weekend, is that he can't find an election issue. We get one bill after another. Hopefully, the Premier thinks to himself, one of these bills will trigger an election issue so he can start those buses that are already rented running. That's what it's about. There's nothing in here for education.

The minister and his colleagues say there is something in here about restraint. The boards and the teachers were dealing with restraint. Most of them had created solutions, arrived at solutions. The others were close to solutions, some of which were going to be reached last night, until they heard the news of this bill yesterday afternoon. Those proposed solutions went out the window.

The bill is not an education bill; the bill is a political bill. It is not even an economic bill. If the government had its economic priorities straight they would say, even in these times of restraint, that $60 million is not too high a price to pay to preserve an education system in this province. The fundamental issue at stake is that boards have entered into contracts with their teaching staff, legal, binding contracts which, as the Premier would say, like a shake of the hand, one never goes back on. He would say: "When I shake hands on something, that's it. There's no going back on that." Yet the Premier is prepared to go back on this handshake.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, a signed contract, but that's not the major point, in my view. The bill is not an education bill. The earlier Minister of Education, when asked for various amendments to the School Act a couple of years ago, in effect said: "I don't want to bring in piecemeal amendments to the School Act. I want to consider the legislation and then bring in a comprehensive amendment to the whole act." Instead, what do we have? Earlier this year, a piecemeal amendment which takes away from local boards in many districts the power to raise most of their money. Now we have another piecemeal amendment which is totally contradictory to the stated public intention of the former minister. Why do we have it? Because the government is desperate for a political issue and they think — they're wrong — this might provide one for them.

The bill is different things to different people. For the Premier it is a political bill designed to give him a political weapon; for the Minister of Education it is just one more step on the way to his coveted county system. The Minister of Education wants to take away from this province any authority that local people have to run education. He wants to centralize it and create new elected bodies in newly designed areas of this province that would be responsible not just for municipal affairs, but for other functions, including education — on the side. He says it wouldn't be too onerous a task for them because all the decisions would be made at the minister's desk anyway. So why do we need local government?

If the Minister of Education has another motive, it is clearly to make sure he can destroy the public education system — I say that directly, and I mean it — so that he can go back to his coveted, private education system where everybody can be taught by the Dutch Reformed Church, or by whatever other group of private educators he would prefer taught children in this province. That's the motive behind this bill. Why else would the minister and his government do everything they can to destroy the education system in this province?

MR. RITCHIE: Are you against the Dutch?

MR. GABELMANN: I cited one example of one group.

Nothing in this bill is good for children, or does anything for children. All it does is create further tension, further stress, further uncertainty — and less education. The Minister of Health tried to argue that you've got the same block of time: if you add 12 minutes a day it equals five days at the end of the year. And so it does — quantitatively. But what does it do qualitatively to the education system? What does it do to the quality of education when teachers don't know from one day to the next whether they're going to have a job, as they haven't had all year long, and don't know now about next year? This is this year's bill; this is to get you through an election. When the election is over we'll get a bill which takes that away, and the teachers will lose their jobs. That's the design; that's the goal. What kind of security is there in classrooms today when both teachers and students know that every month we get a new direction, a new bill and a new

[ Page 9477 ]

instruction from the ministry and the minister? What's next month's instruction going to be?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's wrong with independent schools?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'll ask the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) not to interrupt or interject. There will be appropriate time for all members to speak during this debate.

MR. GABELMANN: Another good thing about being on this side of the House is that I believe in public education. I believe the public knows best about education. I don't believe that small groups, private sectors or the minister know best. I think parents know best.

I want to talk about what the education system is like this year, now, in my riding, as a result of the activities of the government — further complicated and threatened by this legislation. We have home economics classes in high schools with nothing to do except theory, because there is no food to prepare. Why? No money. The government would rather spend $60 million on interest payments to B.C. Rail than put it into education. So what happens in a home economics class? No food to prepare. It's kind of tough learning how to cook when you haven't got any food. That's a reality in the high schools in my riding. Field trips are cancelled — totally absent this year. The kids in logging communities in northern Vancouver Island know that when they go out of grade 12 they are going to go to work in the bush — if they can get a job. They're not going on to further their education elsewhere. They can go into the bush with their teacher who specializes in forestry matters and do various things and learn some of those things. Those programs are cancelled. What kind of an educational system do we have when that reality exists in this province?

I want to deal specifically with section 10 of this bill, the special-education section. Last year in one district in my riding there were 40 special-education teachers; this year there are 17. And the bill says you are going to protect special education. Those 17 teachers are available 25 hours per week. Last year there were 40, many of whom were on a longer program. Yet the minister said in his press release and in the bill that he's going to protect special education. It so happens that some of the money for those programs came out of the CHANCE program, which was cut back and eliminated for the most part in that district. Also, some of the money for those special-education programs came out of locally raised funds, which were expropriated by the earlier legislation this year. Yet we have this high-sounding sentence in this bill which says that a board shall not reduce services under a special-education program established under the regulations. Last year in that district there were 40 people; there are 17 this year. That's not a reduction, eh?

Let me describe to the House the effect of that kind of restraint — that's the $60 million we're talking about, and that's the earlier legislation taking away the tax base. In one school in my riding a kindergarten teacher with more than 20 five-year-old kids in her class had a special-education support-staff worker last year. This year she does not, and will not, as a result of this bill. Among those 20 kids one has Down's syndrome — what we used to call mongolism — and another has cerebral palsy. How does the minister, or his government, expect that teacher to cope with 20 active five year-olds, one of whom has cerebral palsy and another Down's syndrome, with no support staff whatsoever? Yet the money goes into the roof for the stadium, into northeast coal, into B.C. Rail and into various grants to the government's friends, through programs like TIDSA and others. Can you imagine what it did to that teacher when she heard about this bill yesterday? What did it do for her and her kids this year? Not a damn thing. How do you think that woman and her colleagues are going to be able to get through the rest of this year, offering quality education, not the quantity education which the Minister of Health talks about? I'm not concerned about how many minutes they teach; I'm concerned about how effective they are when they are teaching.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In my riding there's a class in a logging camp, with kids in more than one grade. In this logging-camp situation, where there is more than one grade in the class, one teacher has 18 kids in her class, age 8 to 12. One of the kids has Down's syndrome — this is another example of a Down's syndrome case; it's not the one I referred to earlier; this child is older. She is expected to teach 18 kids age 8 to 12, who are obviously in various grades, in a logging-camp situation without any assistance whatsoever, despite this act and section 10. She is also expected to cope with a child with Down's syndrome. What kind of priorities has this government got? Why, when that is happening in this province, is a stadium in Vancouver for professional sports more important? Where are the priorities?

There's another class in another community in my riding, Mr. Speaker, where a teacher who, because, included in her class.... And I agree with inclusion in the class of educable, mentally retarded kids, because the principle of integration is good. But when you put kids who are mentally retarded into the mainstream class, as we should, you must then make sure that the teacher has the assistance and assistants to make sure he or she can cope with the class. I've got one classroom where the teacher has no recess or lunch hour because she must spend the whole time with this one mentally retarded kid, because the kid can't be off by himself. There is no special-education program to assist that teacher. What happens to the education of those other kids in that classroom, or does the government care? It doesn't.

In another community in my riding, one that's well known in this province — and I've heard this from both the teachers and one of the parents — one of the kids is so badly retarded that when they withdrew the special-education teacher the child could no longer go to school. I keep saying "kids," and some of my colleagues prefer that we use the word "children." They're interchangeable, in my mind. The child is educable; the child could be educated and has been educated. This year, because there is no assistance in that class, that child is at home not being educated. If ever there were crimes against humanity; if ever there was a need for Amnesty International to spread its wings and look at us once in a while and at what we do in this province.... Cases like this, I think, merit a wee bit more public attention than they've had. If ever there was a cause or if ever there was a reason why this gang should be thrown out of office, these are the reasons why.

[ Page 9478 ]

Mr. Speaker, every teacher, every principal and every person involved in education knows that some kids are slower than others and some kids need additional help. In one high school in my riding last year, 140 kids were in a program of catching up, in terms of communication skills — English and a variety of other communication skills. Last year one teacher, with an assistant, was able to provide this kind of remedial work for 140 kids. This year, despite this bill, despite section 10, and despite all of the claims by the government that they're not cutting back in special education — that they won't allow that to happen — there are only 80 kids taking advantage of that particular program. So what happens to the other kids? They sit at the back of the class and they don't learn. Because the classes are too big, the teacher is not able to spend the extra time that's required for that child. Then the Minister of Health talks about the quantity — how many minutes they are being taught. What matters, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, is that there is some quality.

In one district in my riding a speech aid therapist was not rehired. We've got one therapist, with a caseload of close to 400 kids. In that same district the hearing-impaired teacher was not rehired this fall. It's in microcosm in my riding, all as a result of the government's failure to find a measly $60 million to make sure that education could be funded at the same level as it was last year.

Mr. Speaker, we are entering a technological, computerized age, which requires that education begin to deal with the changes that are occurring in society. In recognition of that one of the districts in my riding purchased some computers. Then they said to the teachers' association: "There is a ten-hour program that's required to teach you to be able to use the computer to then in turn teach kids how to use these computers." There are two of them in that district. The teachers and the trustees sat down together and said, okay, we will take advantage of the professional days for the teachers that will be required for this particular program, and we will share, so that the teacher can take that ten hours of training partly on school board time and partly on their own time — donated time. Keep in mind that people have to come in for two or three hours — and in some cases it's longer, because they have to come by boat from outlying schools for professional days, not for the computer program. Therefore you need to do it in the day; you can't do it in a evening program.

They agreed that they would do a ten-hour program and would share the cost of that program between the teachers and the trustees. Those professional days are now ended as a result of the government's failure to fund education properly. No teachers are being trained to use these computers, so the computers are sitting idle. I don't mind that so much, but it's typical Socred economics. It doesn't matter if the expensive machines don't operate and aren't used. What really bothers me is that the kids aren't having the opportunity to be able to learn to understand computers in that particular district as a result of the denial of a professional day. Is that what the government is trying to achieve? Is that where its priorities are?

There has been $120,000 raised by parents in my riding to hire special-education teachers to partially fill the void created by the absence of provincial funding. It so happens that these parents are native Indians. It so happens that they're to fill the void for native Indian programs. That shouldn't matter, but it so happens that they are. The money is raised in four different bands. Why should it be necessary for parents to go out and raise, on their own, money that is earmarked for other purposes so they can hire special-education teachers to help their kids, hopefully, to get through the school system?

I'm not going to say any more, other than that I hope and pray that the writ is dropped today or tomorrow so we can have an election in this province and restore some normalcy to our education system.

HON. MR. SMITH: I rise in my place in support of this bill. Listening to the remarks of the two members who have spoken on the other side, I found it very difficult to know whether they're against or in favour of the bill. Indeed, we understand from listening to them that they invented caring about children and that they alone are the ones who have a thought for people and people issues in education. The record, of course, is very different from that. This bill preserves quality of education while effecting restraint.

I heard speeches about how special education was going to suffer and has not been protected. The minister very clearly under this bill, under section 10, has the power and duty and has made the commitment to protect special education. What could be clearer than that? Spending on special education in this province this year, with two levels of restraint brought in by government, is still up over 19 percent over what it was in 1981. Mr. Speaker, $108 million was spent on special education in this province this year. New programs were developed this year. Regional resource centres were opened and funded. Programs all over this province were preserved under restraint. These members opposite refuse to acknowledge that, and make speeches along the lines that special education and the needs of children with special needs are going to suffer under restraint. It is tommyrot.

The legislation brings about a rational solution to the very difficult problem of trying to restrain budgets in the middle of a budget year. It's a problem which a number of school boards have valiantly wrestled with over the past couple of months. Many of them have been able to make arrangements with their teachers and staff; some have not, and some have made arrangements that have faded away. What this bill does is to provide a fair framework for those school boards to conclude their arrangements. They have until October 15 to complete their arrangements. If they don't complete their arrangements or are unable to do so, then there is a formula there for non-instructional days, namely six, for which the teachers will not be paid in the calendar year 1982. There are no non-instructional days under the bill for the year. That is true. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the opposition critic for Education, tries to indicate that there may be some 17-day payback. That is not the way I read the bill, Mr. Speaker. I read the bill as meaning that paid non-instructional days disappear during the school year, and those six non-instructional days become instructional days. The teachers will not be paid for those six days if no agreement is made in the district. But in districts where agreements are made before October 15 the only non-instructional that is required to be specified and not paid for is a minimum of one. They will not lose another six non-instructional days' pay, or a total of 17, as the member suggested.

It's a maximum penalty of six days in 1982, and then in the second term in 1983, across the board, in all school districts, five instructional days' pay is given back. Those five instructional days shorten the school year to end on June

[ Page 9479 ]

23, but no instructional time is lost, because the minister has expressly preserved instructional time in this bill. I noticed also there was some pooh-poohing of the ability of school districts or schools to manage the instructional time of 25 hours, which would have to be made up during the year. There was some kind of laughter that maybe with the block system this would be ridiculous and couldn't be done. But there are many ways of managing the add-on of that time during the school year for elementary school classes. It may well be very convenient simply to add on 13 minutes to each school day. At the junior secondary levels it may well be that each block period will be lengthened by two or three minutes, or it may be that an extra block will be added on one day a week.

There are a whole range of solutions for dealing with the making up of that 25 hours. It can be managed by dedicated educators, and they will do so. The bill is not centralistic. It leaves solutions to school boards. It respects agreements that have already been entered into in a number of districts, and it gives all school boards until October 15 to work out an agreement with their staff. So the six-day payback solution in section 5 will not apply in those districts, but the unique solution with a one-day payback will apply.

It's important that this bill does preserve teaching jobs, because where some school boards have brought in proposals to meet their budget restraint levels, those proposals have contained layoff proposals. Under our system, unfortunately, the teachers that get laid off are the young teachers, with not very much tenure or experience, and they are the first ones that go. Often they are the most enthusiastic and the most vital. These teachers will keep their jobs and will continue teaching.

Another feature of this bill which the minister is to be commended for is a section in which he allows school boards additional flexibility. For instance, administrators who are now on term contracts may be a superintendent of instruction or have some title like that. An individual on a term contract doing that at present, under the old legislation, can't be moved during the term of his contract. Under this bill these administrators will be capable of being moved to another job, including being put in the classroom to teach, if there's a vacancy. That can occur without a loss of salary to them, and will allow them to be used more flexibly and to be used to fill positions that become vacant without hiring an additional teacher. So there is quite a bit of flexibility. There is also the flexibility that allows the non-shareable capital section of the budget.

I certainly concede the observations that were made by the member for North island (Mr. Gabelmann) that some districts don't have non-shareable capital. That is correct. But for the opposition critic to suggest in this House that this minister and this government have some plan to raise some additional levy or tax from property tax to deal with the lack of a non-shareable capital account in some districts is a preposterous suggestion and one suggestion that is designed to try and promote fear and uncertainty. It was this government, earlier in the year, that designed a fairer, new financial formula which alleviated the burdens of property tax and prevented increases in some 50 out of 75 school districts, which would have been major had that legislation not been introduced. The minister has been very wise in building flexibility into this bill to assist school districts to meet their problems. He's very wise and he's to be praised for having built in provisions to protect teachers' jobs and special education.

In the debate, some comments were made about independent schools and the attitude of the government towards the public education system. Arguments were made that this bill represents a reduction, a cutback. Two measures of restraint in education were brought in during the original fixing of school board budgets, one to reduce provincial funding by $29 million, and another to reduce it by $60 million. These were brought about by an economic condition which is not unique to British Columbia but common to the entire world, and particularly to parts of North America. Even with those reductions, the budgets of school boards in this province are still up approximately 16 percent over what they were last year. That is a real cutback, isn't it? There are places in North America and the United Kingdom where reductions in social services, because of the economic crisis, have brought about actual 10 and 15 percent reductions in spending over the previous year. In this province, our government decided to continue vigorous support of social services, including education. The support in increased funding that was given to education this year was remarkable, even with the two restraint programs, in a year of rapidly declining revenues and economic stagnation internationally,

So the funding has been up considerably this year, even with the restraint. As the minister said in his opening remarks, to ask teachers and administrators to take a number of days in the school year to a maximum of 11 — and for some it will not be 11 because of arrangements that have been made with their boards — to bring about a reduction in income which could amount to something between 4 and 5 percent at most is surely not too great a sacrifice to ask once, and once only, of that professional. We have had similar requests to and responses from the health profession. Members of this Legislature have taken reductions of 10 percent. Many of our neighbours and the neighbours of school teachers are not working, or are working in the private sector, with four- and three-day weeks, when their spouses have been laid off. All over this province there are people who cannot work because of stagnation in the international economy, because the lumber industry is depressed, and for a variety of market reasons. It is surely not too much to ask that this sacrifice be made once, evenly and fairly, in a way that will not erode their bases for next year. It is not a rollback.

Indeed, many teachers expected, as a result of the restraint program, rollbacks to be introduced this year. A number of boards had negotiations concerning rollbacks. This is a payback and it is a fair way of doing it. It's a way that will preserve programs. To say that this bill does not help children and does not help education.... The members opposite simply do not care to address the facts. They believe, along with the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, that the quality of education is measured only by the quantity of the lolly, and if you reduce the lolly, if some reduction is required in teachers' salaries, the profession that received increases this year of over 17 percent plus increments — and there is a once-only reduction by way of a payback for 11 days — then the quality of education is going to suffer. That argument will not wash with the public of this province.

The quality of education is no more determined solely by the quantity of the dollars than is the quality of life determined by the cost of living. The quality of education in this province is determined by the dedication that teachers have, and have demonstrated in the classrooms of this province,

[ Page 9480 ]

and which parents who are involved in education have. I am confident that their involvement and dedication is going to continue, despite the chaos and confusion that may be spread around this measure, and despite attempts of people, for political gains, to try to obscure the true purpose of this bill, which is to bring about harmony to preserve jobs and programs, and to bring about a measured level of restraint for only a period of emergent funding. That is the purpose of this bill. The minister is to be congratulated; I urge you to support it.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I've listened with great interest to the debate this far. I'm not sure who made the most perceptive comments, but certainly the former Minister of Education, who just took his seat, indicated that the matter is a highly complex one. I certainly have some difficulty following it.

I'm not quite sure what the distinction is, what that refined and very narrow technical distinction is which he draws between a "payback" and a "rollback." Perhaps his legal mind can spring like a steeltrap and make that interpretation to the House, because certainly I don't appreciate the relevance of that rather inane illustration that the minister used.

I think the other perceptive thing that was said came from the Minister of Education himself when he introduced the bill. I listened to him very carefully and jotted down some of his observations. At one point, Mr. Speaker, he said: "This bill will restore certainty and security to the education community." Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the question: who destroyed the certainty and security of the education system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The NDP.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we have had that minister, who is a disaster looking for a place to happen, juggled out of his former portfolio because he developed it at crossed swords with the Premier, and I think as penance the Premier imposed him on the education community and knew that, with his traditional diplomacy, he would not survive long in that role either.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The other remark the minister made was: "We have to restore a measure of order and confidence to education." Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask: who destroyed order and confidence in the education system in this province? None other than that government.

My colleagues have said it very clearly. I am not going to belabour the point very long, but it is clear that what we are debating here is a matter of priorities, which clearly separates the Socreds from the New Democratic Party opposition. We place a higher priority on the public education system in this province than does the government. We say that our priority would be proper funding for the education system, which would honour contracts of a private nature and which would recognize the independence and autonomy of local school boards as being duly authorized to enter into those contracts. We see that as a higher priority for us — even if it costs $60 million — than would be the allocation of $1.5 billion of the taxpayers' money to the northeast coal rat hole for the benefit of another country, to create jobs offshore. Mr. Speaker, we say that education is a higher priority for us than the construction of a football stadium in the city of Vancouver. As much as I am a football fan and as much as I enjoy professional athletics, I happen to believe that the security, maintenance and integrity of the public education system in this province should take precedence over professional athletic playpens. So it is a matter of priorities, isn't it?

I also happen to feel that some of those ministers on the other side, some of those people with the profligate ways, might curb their appetite for Pouilly Fuissé wine at the public expense, might curb some of their visitations to Broadway shows, might curb some of their expensive tastes for dining in expensive restaurants at public expense. I say that that money would go a long way to meeting the special needs of education in this province. Indeed, the opposition in this Legislature over the last two years has moved to trim fat from that government's budget to the tune of $178 million in ministerial expenses. Oh, they didn't believe in restraint then, Mr. Speaker. They opposed every amendment to cut those funds and that fat from their own expense accounts. But here they are talking about restraint for the public school system. They're being very reasonable now, aren't they? They're applying with a heavy hand.... That minister is notorious for his statement to the welfare people of this province that they go get a shovel. We know about his tender mercies. He's applying the same kind of intolerant, stupid philosophy with respect to public education in this province. Make no mistake, this is the thin edge of the wedge.

I want to deal with three concerns that I have about this bill. I want to tell the House that I have talked to the educational community in my riding, in Revelstoke and Salmon Arm, both on the school board side and on the teacher side and among parents. The majority consensus was — there wasn't total agreement; there were some who thought, "Well, we don't yet altogether understand the bill — number one, this bill breaks private contracts. And it does, indisputably. There is some irony here. Just a couple of weeks ago the Premier, in shouting the praises of how he did business as a little merchant in Kelowna, said: "Oh, we don't need to deal, like those city slickers do, with contracts and legal jargon. When you're in business in Kelowna a handshake is your bond." But a private contract negotiated between a legally constituted committee of school trustees and their professionals is no longer sacrosanct. It's not as good as a handshake, eh? It can be wiped out with a piece of legislation such as this, without a bat of the Social Credit eye, without a flutter or any qualm of principle over there. It's the same government that, I remember, back in 1975, when my former colleague Bob Williams made alterations to the Pacific National Exhibition board of directors.... You should have heard the debate that went on in this House about: "How dare that terrible socialist interfere with the sanctity of a private contract!"

Under section 2 of this bill the statutory authority is given to this government to override a contract of any kind. Private contracts are no longer valid in the province of British Columbia; they can be overridden with a statutory stroke of the pen by this government. There's no respect for private contracts. If that is the measure of respect this government holds for the sanctity of private contracts, then I say to you that no contract in the province of British Columbia is safe, whether it be a small business contract, whether it be a corporate contract, or relates to the mineral field or the forest area, or whether it's with the professional employees of the government itself. What a precedent to set! They come in here with

[ Page 9481 ]

the most brazen of faces and ask the opposition and the people of British Columbia to accept that this kind of an attack on the sanctity of private contracts is good for the education system. Some handshake! There he is. Maybe a handshake meant something to Colonel Sanders in the old days, but not today. There's the Premier who is presiding over the destruction of private contracts in the province of British Columbia. So much for his handshake. I want to tell you that his father's handshake meant something. He was indeed a man of principle. When he gave his word, whether or not there was a handshake, he stood by it. But here, in law, is disrespect and disregard for private contracts. There is no way they can wiggle, slither or dive out of that responsibility. It's not good enough to run down the hall ahead of the reporters. This government is going to have to answer directly for this attack on the sanctity of private contracts.

The other area I worry about is the continuing move toward centralization which this bill carries on — that is, the removal of authority from local, democratically elected boards and agencies. This minister who is now the Minister of Education was previously the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Everyone in this province knows that he made an attack on regional district boards. He said: "I want to get rid of them. I'd like to set up a county system." We have a county system south of the border, where the political administrations appoint their own deputy sheriffs and hacks at various municipal levels — who used to be democratically elected. Is that what the minister wants? In this bill he is certainly removing the authority and autonomy of local democratically elected boards and centralizing that with the ministry in Victoria. It's a direct attack on the democratic process at the community level. It's a direct attack on the autonomy of local school boards, hospital boards and so on.

The final area I'm concerned about is the chaos that has been caused in the education system. In Salmon Arm, School District 89, the school board and teachers sat down and negotiated, and the teachers had agreed to give up three instructional days. Yesterday afternoon they were sitting down, preparing for the signing of that agreement. Half an hour before they were to sign that agreement, which would have brought them within the financial guidelines dictated by this centralist government from Victoria, they were advised that a new bill had been introduced in the Legislature which directed them in an arbitrary fashion to act in a certain way and which dictated what would happen with professional non-instructional days. They withdrew from the agreement they were prepared to sign yesterday. I'm advised by the representatives of the school board and the teachers' association that they are now meeting and there is some question, because of the arbitrary interference by this government, whether or not they will be prepared to go ahead with that amicable agreement they had negotiated. The observation made to me by both the supervisory staff and the teachers was: "How do we plan when conflicting statements keep coming out of Victoria, when the goalposts are constantly changed and when we get arbitrary dictums from the minister, not consultation and cooperation?" The other observation made was that superintendents of instruction are so busy trying to react to the conflicting policy statements emanating from Victoria that they have little time to deal with educational programs for the children within their district.

So the minister's comment was accurate. He gave us a glimpse and admission of what has happened when he said: "This bill will restore certainty and security." He's admitted that he's destroyed that certainty and security. He's admitted that there is no measure of order and confidence any more after education came under his tender care just a couple of weeks ago. That's the state of affairs. This bill does absolutely nothing to achieve any of those goals. It's born of political cynicism. It was developed for a political purpose. I just hope that, contrary to what the Minister of Education said about his boss when he said, "My colleagues have no guts" — do you remember the Minister of Education saying that a couple of weeks ago? — the Premier finally musters the intestinal fortitude to dissolve this parliament and go to the people so these kinds of questions can be tested before the electorate of B.C.

MRS. JORDAN: I think the debate as put forth by the opposition today has to be the weakest ever and perhaps a new position for them in this House. They've talked about such things as: "thin edge of the wedge. " Call in Amnesty International" and "gross inhumanity." Mr. Speaker, the last member just spoke about the sanctity of a contract. Then he related this to the PNE board and the actions of the former Minister of Forests under their government, a man whose lack of respect for the sanctity of the contract was legendary in this province. Our government is very much attuned to the sanctity of the contract, but our government is also very much aware of the realities of the day, not only in British Columbia but also in Canada and the rest of the world. I would remind that hon. member that history has shown us that when there are extreme circumstances such as we're experiencing in Canada and the world today, and in our province today, the sanctity of a contract, if one sits solely on that as one's philosophy, will mean nothing if in fact there is not the wealth or the ability to meet the needs of the contract. This is not a direct attack on the sanctity of a contract. The teachers, the school boards, the administrators and the public of this province realize it.

As was said before, it is absolute tommyrot to suggest that this is a direct attack on school boards, a direct attack on teachers and a direct attack on education. I would suggest that that is what the debate from the NDP has been today. If I were a teacher, if I were an administrator, if I were a member of the public in this House and heard the content of their debate today, I would be insulted. There are many people out there today who realize that what is being said by the opposition is in fact an insult to the abilities of teachers, administrators and school boards to deal with responsibility and reality in the classroom as well as outside. They understand that the circumstances within which we are working today, whether it's in British Columbia, other provinces in Canada or the world, are extreme and that the world has not seen for many years, except in areas behind the Iron Curtain and areas of the Third World. For North America and western society, they are realities which most people are willing to deal with, recognizing that we have come through an amazing period of prosperity and benefit to all. The majority of people — the teachers, the school boards, the administrators — are prepared to do their fair share in dealing with that reality. A direct attack on the school boards, centralization of administration.... What absolute nonsense!

The members from the opposite side forget that there has been a good deal of dialogue taking place in this province between teachers and school boards at the local level in order to try to resolve what is a reality in life: financial difficulties for all concerned. The school boards and many teachers, at

[ Page 9482 ]

their own level, asked that word be sent to the government that legislation be adjusted so that they, in their wisdom and their willingness to be part of the team and meet the concerns of maintaining a high standard of education, with the objective of maintaining jobs in this province, could have the type of legislation needed, so that they could have a framework within which they could work. That's what Bill 89 does.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) embarrassingly regaled the House with concerns in his area. I'm sure there are concerns — very real concerns. But I wonder what that member has done in his area to assist in the solving of those problems and concerns. Certainly his debate here, if that's what he's saying there, would not contribute to the solution of their problems. My suggestion to them is that they get a new MLA who is positive, who understands, who doesn't demean voluntarism, who doesn't demean the teachers, who doesn't demean the effort of people to work together with the highest of principles — and that is to assist each other.

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows for adjustment at the local level and continuing dialogue in the future to solve some of the other complex issues that the educational system is facing today. This bill preserves jobs. This bill preserves educational services. This bill preserves special education. It is fair to the teachers, who are only being asked to bear their fair share along with other British Columbians. What is equally important is that it is fair to the students and to the taxpayers. I think it's shocking the way the NDP opposition during this debate — and I'm sure many people will be shocked — have tried to paint teachers and administrators as being fragile, insecure people, suggesting they're incompetent and not able to shoulder responsibilities and the realities of life outside the classroom. I'm sure many of the school boards will be concerned to know that the NDP have suggested in their debate that teachers and administrators are fragile, insecure, incompetent and not able to shoulder the responsibilities and realities of life. The teachers and school boards knew what this was all about before this legislation was ever introduced. Over 43 of the 75 school boards in the province had already arrived at a way of adjusting to meet the economic needs of today. They are the ones that asked for this legislation. This will assist other school boards in doing the same thing.

What solution is the NDP offering? The member for North Island suggested that $60 million would be the solution to the economic problems of today. He said that no price was too high — if I quote him correctly. Even in this time of restraint, $60 million is not too high a price. Removing $60 million from this year's budget still allows for a 15 percent increase in the budgets to the school districts of British Columbia over last year's budget. This means that some $1.5 billion per year is available for the Education budget this year — the second highest budget in the government. First is the health budget. That $1.5 billion from a more than $7 billion budget is in fact a very fair share to be made available for education, and underlines the importance that this government places on the quality and availability of education for all parts of this province.

If you listened to Mr. Broadbent yesterday on television, you'll know what the NDP answer is. He said on Jack Webster's show that if he were the Prime Minister of Canada today he would print more money. He would borrow his way into further debt; he would borrow and print his way into further economic chaos. If the $60 million was borrowed, as the NDP suggest, to forestall the shortfall this year, what would it do? It would go towards a 17 percent wage increase, instead of a 15 percent wage increase. It would go towards paying teachers for six days of non- instructional work and it would go to make up five days' pay. I'm sure the teachers themselves would say that as much as they would like to have those benefits, they recognize that in today's economy, $60 million outlined and spent the way the NDP would borrow to pay it would really not do anything to increase the quality of education in this province.

The members opposite said that teachers were afraid for their jobs. How misleading of him, when he attacks this bill, in trying to pose that question. This bill in fact does what is necessary, with the cooperation of the teachers and the school boards, to ensure that they do have jobs this coming year. While the minister has no authority to bring in legislation to relate to the rest of the workers in the school system, we are very sure that the school boards and the teachers will want to see that other people in the school system also maintain their jobs and have their opportunity to take part in assisting the rest of British Columbia at this difficult time. You have to create wealth before you can share wealth. You have to create wealth before you can develop the type of social services and educational services to which we all aspire. They just don't seem to believe that you can't go on printing money forever. There has to be labour, productivity, marketing and the return for effort, to create the wealth to undertake what we want to do.

Bill 89, which aids in the school endeavours to assist, isn't in isolation from anything else within the province. Our government has embarked, even in these difficult economic times, and is leading Canada in job creation. They are leading Canada in capital investment, they are leading Canada in paving the way for future revenues to ensure that we do maintain a high standard of education in this province. I don't need to go into the details, but right at this time — as I mentioned, even in these difficult economic times — we have such major developments as northeast coal, where approximately 5,000 people are working today. Where would they be working, and what wealth would they be creating if that project wasn't going ahead? It's a project, may I remind you gently, that the NDP have not supported. The Amphitheatre and B.C. Place in Vancouver — more jobs and more capital creation, not just for today but for the future. You can't live on philosophy, eat philosophy or provide jobs on philosophy. You can only do it through production. The new industrial sites in many communities in this province, where they didn't have the opportunity to be competitive with other parts of Canada and even other parts of British Columbia, have secured new industries, new capital investment and new jobs, not just for today but for future revenues.

The government is embarked on an aggressive marketing program for B.C. products in new market areas, all job creating and revenue-producing. These are the areas which produce revenue to provide educational services. It is these areas that will produce the revenue, not only for today but for tomorrow. It is these areas that build the confidence of the economic community to look at British Columbia as an area to invest. It's these areas that develop the personal confidence in individuals to work in British Columbia and to plant their homes here. It is these areas that will provide the wealth for tomorrow to assist in maintaining our high standards of education. These areas are creating jobs today here in British Columbia. They are providing the dollars for this program.

[ Page 9483 ]

Along with this we have the restraint program. I don't want to go into the details again, but this restraint program is part of the economic recovery program and part of the refining of our priorities and spending so we get maximum value for our dollars at all levels of government. It is part of the refining of our methods so that we are efficient in British Columbia in government, in Crown corporations, in local governments, and, yes, in the health-care and educational systems.

If there is anything shameful about that, then I ask what your idea of construction, production and benefits is. We're proud in British Columbia, and British Columbians are proud to take part in an overall program which is a framework for restraint during these difficult times. British Columbia is the only province that is doing this. If you compare what is happening in other provinces, you see absolute rollbacks, wage freezes, cutbacks in services and cutbacks in budgets. This has not happened to British Columbia.

We see other provinces and countries singling out certain groups of people. This is not happening in British Columbia. Our program in restraint and economic development is the fairest we've seen anywhere in the world. It is as fair as you can possibly make it in the complexities of today's governmental process and economy. It is flexible. It has been brought about with as little disruption as possible, and it has maintained a free collective bargaining environment. There is room in our restraint program for adjustments to see that those on the lower end of the income scale have the opportunity for a slightly larger margin of increase than those on the higher end of the economic or remunerative income scale.

The opposition should be praising our Premier. They should be giving him credit for the way in which he has strongly but sensitively called upon the best of the people of British Columbia as human beings — called upon them to recognize that we have had good times and have benefited, but that now there's a time to readjust our priorities and join together and work to solve our problems. He's done it with a minimum of disruption in our economy with respect to the rights of the labour unions, the professions and the taxpayers. The Premier has kindled a new understanding on the part of the people of British Columbia and a willingness to work together and share. It's a new understanding of what the realities of life are and how to deal with it, not to look for giveaways but to reject giveaways; to look for arguments with substance, to look for the truth, to look for constructive suggestions and to look for those with the ability to stand firm and make those constructive suggestions work.

Our restraint program has cut government costs. It has cut Crown corporation costs. It has limited rate increases for next year on all Crown corporations. All are doing their share to keep our funding as efficient and productive as possible.

In debating this bill, let's not forget what the situation is in British Columbia in the educational system compared to other parts of Canada. There are schools in some other provinces in our country where they still have dirt floors. I think the teachers would be proud of the fact that in British Columbia the average teacher salary of September 1982 was $33,934 compared to the average salary in 1981, which was $28,516. This reflects the negotiated increase of 17 percent plus an annual 2 percent increment for experience and qualifications. We're all very proud of that, but we compare that to the rest of Canada and we see that our teachers in British Columbia are well paid. Even with the reduction of $60 million, grants from provincial general revenue to school districts increased by 15 percent in 1982-83 over 1981-82. No teacher in British Columbia is required to offer instruction for more than five and a half hours and 15 minutes daily. It's well appreciated that other hours of the day are needed for course preparation and paper analysis and marking. It is a very favourable instructional time compared to other parts of Canada and the world.

B.C. has the second-highest total operating cost per pupil in 1982 in Canada. Only Alberta ranked first. B.C. ranked highest in 1981 on a Canada-wide comparison of salaries and ages and benefits of all school employees as a percentage of operating costs, As I mentioned, B.C. teachers ranked third in the Canada-wide 1982 survey of salary comparisons. This is something we're very proud of in British Columbia. It also does not exclude the fact that teachers and administrators understand what is happening to the economy. They understand that we all should be and are working together. Salary costs per pupil have increased by 76.2 percent over the same period. I think that's a record of which we can be proud, and it's a record which we will ultimately maintain in the future. At this time, it's a record that will be added to by diligence and by dedication through assisting the economy and our schools.

The bill in itself gives legal authority to achieve the objectives we all want. The questions may rise in the public mind or in the teacher's mind as to how together we're going to achieve what is necessary. They ask the teachers to participate during this school year with other British Columbians in the economic recovery by not being paid on non-instructional days — approximately six days throughout the year. These are times when teachers would not be working in the classroom but would be utilizing that time in the pursuit of their own education. We are accomplishing it by shortening the spring term by one week and making up that time so that the students do not suffer. That amounts to approximately 13 minutes per day to see that no loss of instruction occurs in terms of the meat of the education that our children need. What would this amount to? The record should show, and many know, that teachers received an average settlement of 17 percent last year plus their 2 percent annual increments. By agreeing to these proposals, the teachers would give back the equivalent of approximately 4 percent, on average — much less for some teachers.

They might legitimately ask the question: wouldn't a rollback affect the salary base for next year? I would say the purpose of this adjustment is not a rollback for next year. The salary base will be preserved for next year's negotiations. This proposal is similar to that of the doctors. People are asking if there will be layoffs. Are we not just applying a band-aid? No, we're not. This proposal would solve the problems for the entire 1982-83 year. These show the commitment of our government to education.

The teachers are joining others who are in the private sector. Many companies in the private sector are actually borrowing money in concert with their employees, who have embarked on job-sharing, days off without pay or anything to keep the economy going and to keep people working. There are many people in the private sector who have felt the cruellest restraint of all: the loss of their jobs. Many people in the public sector — the British Columbia Government Employees Union, the health-care workers and people in Crown corporations — are all working together, one way or another, to become part of the restraint program in the true spirit of British Columbia.

[ Page 9484 ]

This bill preserves jobs in the educational system. It preserves the educational services. It preserves special education. It is fair to the teachers — it keeps them employed. It does not cut down the instructional time in the schools, and therefore it is fair to the students. The students will have every opportunity to benefit from their education. It does save $60 million of the taxpayers' money. It is a very strong endeavour as part of our restraint program and as part of the economic recovery program, all in one well-thought-out plan to maintain the high standards of education in British Columbia that we have and to maintain the high quality of instruction and the high standards we have in the members of our school boards. It does call on each of us to do our part.

The bill makes provision to give time for adjustment through discussions at the local level among teachers and administrators and school boards to solve some of the other complexities within the educational system. This bill is presented with harmony. It is being responded to in a harmonious way by the majority of teachers, administrators and school boards in this province. In the area I represent there has been a great deal of dialogue between the teachers and the school board. They had come to these conclusions some time ago. To their credit, they were one of the school districts that set an example and showed the way for the rest of the school boards and school districts of British Columbia. They have responded most positively to this type of assistance.

In our area and others in this province we have new schools opening where they're needed and new colleges being built, or that have been built and are opening. I have them in my area. We have the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network, which provide opportunities for people of all ages and in all parts of the province to continue their education. We have one of the highest enrolments of people not of so-called school age taking advantage of educational opportunities. With this legislation and with the help of those in the system, those opportunities can be preserved and expanded in the future.

On behalf of the people of North Okanagan, I'm very pleased to congratulate our teachers and school board for their efforts towards bringing about this type of harmonious and responsible action, and to support the legislation that makes it possible.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to congratulate the member who just spoke on her new appointment. I would also like to ask the member a question. It comes to my attention that this member used to be the adoptive MLA for my riding and was responsible for carrying the government's message down to Port Alberni. I hope she still retains that position, although in her current position she's a shadow of her former self. I think if she was in Port Alberni during last night's Social Credit nominating convention, perhaps they wouldn't have elected a federal Liberal to oppose me in the next election, and would probably have been a lot better off.

My main objection is her comments with respect to the salaries and percentage increases won by the teachers throughout the province during their negotiations in the last year. It seems to me this government adopts a selective approach with respect to salary increases. They seem to think that teachers' salaries are much too high; yet at the same time, even after the law has expired for appointing special mediators — for example, in the construction dispute — they were so concerned about getting those megaprojects off the ground and completed that they were willing to provide 22 percent wage increases, or better, to the workers on those projects in order that they might go ahead in accordance with the political timetables of the Social Credit Party.

So it's not a question here of whether wages should be increased by 22 percent or 17 percent, or that some people are getting too much or too little. This government is obviously willing to increase the wages of construction workers far beyond the guidelines in order to complete those megaproject monuments. But when it comes to teachers, for some reason they want to cut them back from the 17 percent that they earned in contract negotiations with the local school boards to something a little less, and perhaps a little less again, and perhaps a little less again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do construction workers all work 12 months a year?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All hon. members will come to order. The member for Alberni has taken his place in debate and will be allowed to speak uninterrupted.

MR. SKELLY: I am simply saying that the government seems to treat different people in different ways for political reasons. That is the matter we are dealing with in this case.

I have consulted with the trustees and the teachers in my riding. They were in the process — a difficult process — of arriving at some means of resolving their disputes in order to achieve the budget cuts unilaterally imposed on them by the provincial government with little consultation, with even less warning. These people were in the process of working out solutions to the problems, understanding that restraint had to be exercised, and that the best way to achieve restraint is through a cooperative, negotiating approach. Suddenly this legislation comes down. It's called a truce between the government, teachers and trustees. But what is a truce? It's nothing but a temporary cessation of hostilities before the final struggle of the war.

These people see this so-called truce as an axe remaining over their heads. Trustees and administrators in School District 70 are saying that this minister, previous ministers and this Premier have now interfered three times in local school board budget establishment procedures. What's going to happen next? If they run short of the $57 million they require to pay for the highway contracts in the northeast coal sector, how much more are they going to bleed out of the school system? If they run short of money to pay for the B.C. Place stadium, how much more are they going to bleed out of the school system or the health system? If they run out of money for their advertising campaigns, for their movies, for the Social Credit propaganda that's poured out of government offices at taxpayers' expense, how much more is going to be bled out of the school and hospital districts of this province in order to pay for Social Credit megaproject monuments and political propaganda?

Those are the questions that trustees, teachers, parents and students are asking in my riding. This minister has created a great deal of uncertainty in dealing with the education system, and they're asking: "When is the interference going to stop? When are we going to be allowed to run our system the way it was designed to be run, the way it had been improved over the years to be run as a local government, with local authority in educational matters? When will the chaos

[ Page 9485 ]

end?" They don't see this bill as ending that chaos, but simply as another in a long line of interferences into the operation of local government and the way education is treated at the local level. They asked: "When will the government stop using local school boards as hatchet men for the minister in his vendetta against teachers, students, local school boards, parents and taxpayers?" When is the minister going to stop crying on the shoulders of the public with stories about his youthful experiences in Holland, and stop gutting the education system of this province in order to ensure funding for the megaprojects of northeast coal and B.C. Place? How many educational careers is this minister willing to place into jeopardy in order to engineer a confrontation between the electors of this province and those who serve the public sector in the critical fields of health and education?

The problem is that no one believes that this is the last incursion into the jurisdiction of local educational authorities. Until this minister achieves his goal of total confrontation with teachers; until his goal of total chaos in the province's public educational system has been achieved; until his goal of disrupting the educational careers and aspirations of thousands of young people around this province has been achieved, and the system completely gutted, he will not be completely satisfied. Then will he turn his mind to some other destructive object somewhere else in the cabinet. In this minister's legislative career, Mr. Speaker, he's been removed from every job he's ever held down in cabinet, because he's been an embarrassment to the Premier. When he was Minister of Human Resources he insulted the poor by suggesting they were doing nothing, that they were lazy, and they should pick up shovels. He insulted Indians by suggesting that they were a nuisance where they were and that they should return to their reserves. He insulted one of the founding cultures of this country by attacking their language and their traditions and demeaning their language and traditions. In his role as Minister of Municipal Affairs he threatened to wipe out the Islands Trust and to undermine the legitimate authority of municipal governments. He threatened to wipe out school districts, which is in the bill we're dealing with now, and to place management of schools under a county form of government. It was only when he became too much of an embarrassment to the government that he was sacked from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. He said that the Premier was gutless in not forwarding those sections of the Land Use Act which would have annihilated the Islands Trust.

Where has this minister, who has been such an embarrassment to the current government over his total career in cabinet, been assigned, Mr. Speaker? To one of the key posts of government. To a post which requires concern for the educational future of our young people — not the solutions of the 1930s, which he advocated over the radio and television during his meeting with the trustees. This is a position that requires, at least, a measure of sensitivity and respect for the rights, traditions and practices of local school authorities; a position which requires an understanding of the role of educators and the special relationships that they have with students, parents, local government authorities and taxpayers. To appoint this minister, with his previous record, to such a sensitive position can only be interpreted as an effort by the Premier to create chaos in the school system, to gut it financially and to use the teachers as a scapegoat for the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned about this bill for a number of reasons. I'm concerned because my constituents have brought it clearly to my attention as a concern of theirs, but I'm also concerned because I have two young children in elementary school — children who trust me, who trust teachers, who trust local school boards and who trust the provincial government to provide them with a stable, assured system of education that will prepare them for the future of this province and for their role in the future of this province. That stability, that assurance, that future has now been cast into doubt and pessimism by the actions and threats of this minister and his Premier.

The member for Okanagan North (Mrs. Jordan) talked about demeaning voluntarism. In the attacks made on the teachers by members of the government opposite, they've done nothing more than demean the voluntarism that those teachers willingly take part in. I'm concerned about this bill because my wife is also a teacher. She is a teacher who is recognized as an expert in her field — one of the best in her field — and that is the field of music, something that previous Social Credit ministers have called airy-fairy or frills. This is a woman who is committed, Dot 5 hours a day, not 5 hours 12 minutes and 48 seconds a day, not 5 hours and 13 minutes a day, but occasionally and often up to 16 and 18 hours a day, to supervising concerts. accompanying student musicians, individual training of musicians, individual instruction and supervision after hours. She has spent all of her weekends travelling around with bands and musical groups — in addition, sacrificing her weekends for conferences and upgrading sessions. Hers is not the exception that proves the rule. It's been my experience that many and probably most teachers sacrifice their time willingly, because their main concern is the children of this province and the quality of education in this province. They are dedicated to the quality of education in the province and to the children they serve. They sacrifice a tremendous amount of time with no pay at all in following that service.

In spite of that free service given by teachers in this province, we are now saying that they should cut back on their payrolls and should contribute five professional days in order to help finance the school system. What we have here is a bill that taxes teachers to pay for the educational system. It's a whole new philosophy of taxation, to tax teachers to finance the educational system. It's a whole new element in Social Credit philosophy. Pretty soon we're going to be taxing public servants in order to pay for the operation of the government. Right now we pay them off in bonds they don't know what the interest rate is going to be on and don't know what the term is going to be on. We pay them off in script. This must be the first government since the turn of the last century that has paid them off in script — in bonds they don't know the value of. It's the first government that went into debt to pay the salaries of its workers.

Now this government wants to tax the teachers to pay for the educational system. Right now, in my riding, there are some 5,000 people unemployed. Four thousand of them are on unemployment insurance: another 1,000 are on welfare or receive no assistance whatsoever and are trying to survive on their own savings. That is the number of people that this present government said were going to be employed in the northeast coal development. That number is already unemployed in Port Alberni. Any jobs they've created have been totally wiped out by the mismanagement of the economy, which they must take responsibility for in large measure.

Those are the people who are going to be voting in the next election. How do those people feel about this bill? How

[ Page 9486 ]

do those people feel, having lost all hope that their own jobs will be returned? Many of them have been told that they're not simply laid off or terminated indefinitely, but that their jobs have disappeared entirely. How are those people going to feel? The last hope they have in the future of this province and in their families is in their children. All of their lives have been invested in their children and in the future of their children. That future revolves around a number of things: good health care for their children so they can survive into the future and a good educational system that will provide their children with a solid educational background so they can survive in a future that some of us can't even perceive today as to what it will be like.

The hope of those unemployed citizens in my riding was that the critical services — health and education — would remain intact and that their investment in the future, their children, would be protected and would be able to carry on in their names into the future to develop this province. Now this bill turns around and scuttles even that hope. These are the people who talk about optimism. These are the people who say that prosperity is just around the corner. These are the people who say that they have a recovery program for this province. These are the people who say that they are the key to the future, and yet every opportunity they get, they slash those critical programs that will guarantee, for us and our children, a sound economic and prosperous future for this province.

I cannot vote for this bill. As a parent with children in school, I cannot vote for this bill. As a spouse of a teacher, I cannot vote for this bill. It demeans the voluntarism of teachers. I support the rights and traditions of local government. This government has interfered in those rights, traditions and exercises, and has totally emasculated local governments who are most concerned about what's happening in our area because they live there and their children go to school there. This government has refused to allow them to deal on a face-to-face, negotiating, cooperative basis with their teachers. This government has destroyed and interfered with their rights and practices. On that basis alone, I refuse to vote for this bill. I think it's the worst possible thing that this government could have done for the educational system of the province of B.C.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all...

MR. LEA: This should be interesting.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: ...congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on being elevated to the deputy's position.

To the member for Prince Rupert, I appreciate your confidence.

First, I think congratulations are in order to the Minister of Education for having the courage to bring this particular piece of legislation before the House. What are the real objectives? One is to preserve jobs. Why do teachers approach me in my riding and elsewhere? Yes, they are upset about some of the uncertainties. The uncertainty really involves job security. One of the objectives of the legislation is the preservation of those jobs; that's guaranteed. Another is to preserve the educational services that we now offer, including special education particularly. It's rather interesting to note that when the former Minister of Education held that portfolio, he said: "I don't really quite understand the criticism from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)." He may have a specific problem in his area, but that's not for me to comment on one way or the other — if in fact there was a 19 percent increase in that particular area. I think what is most important is to preserve jobs within the ability of the taxpayers to pay. They don't have unlimited funds.

When I go through the litany of all those who were involved — doctors, dentists and other health professionals, municipalities, members of the government employees' union, MLAs and cabinet ministers — I think the only ones who didn't mount an advertising campaign, or hit the media, were the members of this House. Yes, the doctors had a vested interest; we heard from them. But I don't know whether there was a day that went by when members of the opposition weren't wearing a badge supporting so and so: "I support so and so; I support this cause; I support that cause; I support that cause." When you are in government you've got to take a position sometime. I'd like to know where the Leader of the Opposition was when we were worried about compensation stabilization. Where was the Education critic when we were having the debate over these items? Neither was around. They are sporting tans which many of us have never been able to avail ourselves of.

The Leader of the Opposition.... You talk about opportunism. I don't know of anybody...a Premier of the day, making comments across the floor that some of us won't be back here again. Do you know something? I never knew of a Premier of this province losing his own seat. I wonder if perhaps then there were too many trips to California.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I perceive they are protesting too much.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, methinks thou protesteth too much — I love that. I don't really have the correct lisp for it, though.

In each case, when we came into compensation stabilization and the restraint program, yes, there was some opposition to it. But when it comes down to the vote, whereabouts are the members of the opposition? They stand up, and how many times have votes been unanimous? I hear a lot of opposition to the Homeowner Interest Assistance Act. The Small Business Development Act went on forever. The Rate Increase Restraint Act.... They all spoke against those acts. It's the same thing today.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is reflecting upon votes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken, although the Chair must observe that an awful lot of latitude has been allowed during the debate on Bill 89.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The objective of the legislation really involves restraint. It is the last group of individuals, professionals who are dedicated, and what's happening when it comes to dedication? I don't blame the opposition for taking a position with the BCTF. They've aligned themselves with its leadership. But I wonder about all the others who are teaching, who are dedicated, and who just want the problem resolved. At least the message that has been coming to me is for the resolution of the problem. They are always prepared to

[ Page 9487 ]

recognize the difficult problems which we in British Columbia are encountering through the economic period in which we now find ourselves.

The doctors came through. The municipalities passed a resolution on the main floor of the UBCM last week endorsing a zero to 5 percent increase. Out for ratification right now is the contract between the BCGEU and the provincial government, with a recommendation for ratification. The MLAs have all taken a reduction. I think we have to remind ourselves of some of those things.

Not too long ago there was debate in the House involving the introduction of the budget and the compensation stabilization program. At that particular time, I made a statement that I think still holds true today: "In the private sector there has always been the bottom line on the financial statement. In the public sector there is only the resolve of governments to say no when common sense dictates that it must be said." Let's make no mistake about it: there must be a bottom line. We cannot have two classes of citizens in the province, one which is always vulnerable to the business cycle and one which is not.

Frankly, this particular piece of legislation, which provides a framework for those school districts that have been unable to resolve the difficulties with which they are faced...have now got an avenue through which to pursue those goals. As well, it gives them the opportunity to make their contribution toward steps for economic recovery in British Columbia. And what are we asking? An increase of something like 17 percent last year will probably net out to a reduction of something in the order of 4 percent. We're asking for five days at the end of June. We're asking that the instruction time be preserved at 935 hours and we're asking if that could be added on a daily basis, or as the legislation provides, to give flexibility between the staff, their administrators and the school board involved. Another point that I think is most important, as far as the administrators are concerned, is that the administrators and supervisors are also caught within the parameters of the legislation. They will be required to work without pay.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Minister of Education made reference to the fact that even with the restraint program and meeting the budget as proposed, there is still a 15.9 percent increase. Many school boards have been able to accommodate the directives, but some have not. It seems to me it's the responsibility of government, where in fact resolution does not seem possible, to lead the way. That's exactly what happened in the restraint program. In my opinion, the restraint program has enjoyed considerable success. In difficult times the leadership was provided. The Premier did take that lead in British Columbia, and with the passing of each week or two another province in our dominion follows through.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, the opposition doesn't believe in restraint. They keep sporting badges. If we supported every particular vested interest group, there would be nothing left and the deficits would continue to roll in. It seems to me that just the Teachers Federation and the NDP advocate not saving the taxpayers $60 million.

I think it's important that we look at some of the facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they vote for it or against it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It seems to me that they constantly vote for things, although I've heard an awful lot of rhetoric over the last two or three weeks about everything that's been introduced into the House. Yet, when it comes to voting time when we're involved with restraint, and that's all this is, what happens?

Some of the facts that came out are really astounding. One that was given to us involved this: when you start comparing the private and public sectors.... Teachers are usually paid for 193 school days in one year. That's their contract. They fought for that and are entitled to it. But also remember that the private sector and the taxpayers are involved in paying that particular price. I note that those in the private sector, with four weeks in holidays and ten statutory holidays, still work for 230 days. So we're asking for a few minutes in the spring from the teaching profession. In my humble opinion, most of them are more than prepared to be given an opportunity to do their part in assisting us on our road to recovery.

I look at the amount of money involved as well. In the May 1982 budget, $1.594 billion is the second highest item. As of August 1....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, they were reduced somewhat, but reduced to $1.557 billion. There is still a substantial increase involved.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They come from the taxpayers, that's right. You keep talking about the taxpayers.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What we want to ensure, Mr. Speaker, is that the taxpayer can continue to afford to pay. It doesn't matter what program you go to, or which country you go to: unless you have a good economic base, you're not going to be able to continue to afford to pay. I can't believe the criticism that I hear in this particular House with respect to major projects. There was an article in the Province two or three days ago, and what it says is this: a restraint program is fine, but you need something else; you need industrial development. But every time we've come up with an industrial development project.... All afternoon I have heard criticism of the northeast coal project, the upgrading of the CNR, the port facilities in Prince Rupert, the proposed LNG plant. Who do you think pays the revenue so that we can have it? Those people can read as well as anybody else can. They know exactly what the revenues were from the forest sector in the month of August this year as compared to the month of August last year. It was something like $5 million versus $70 million. Restraint is not enough. Production and industrial investment are what it is all about. You know what they say? I could never understand it. Three hundred million dollars are going to be thrown into municipal works. All they have to do is look to see that over the last five years roughly $1.5 billion has been put into the municipalities. So $300 million? Where is it going to come from? Borrowed against gas sales, the export of which is controlled by the federal government? You want money and you can't

[ Page 9488 ]

get it because you can't sell it because they've got their own residuals.

MR. LEVI: Hey, your time's up. Sit down.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It won't be long before I'll miss you, Mr. Member.

The Education critic made comments with respect to what we're trying to do. One of the members made a comment about private schools. Do you remember the famous letter that went out in the fall of 1975? "We're going to change our position. We're going to give you support, private schools." Opportunism you accuse us of, and you do it every time.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You talk about development in the mining industry? You're concerned about the Mineral Royalties Act? I remember that. Suddenly the minister of the day is sent away and the Education critic is thrown in, and he says: "Well, we're going to change the deal." Like daylight saving time — on again, off again. And you talk about opportunism.

The objective of the legislation is to preserve jobs, education and the system that we have, and to support those school boards which have been unable to resolve their dispute. As a matter of fact, those which have resolved their problems have done so pretty well within the guidelines of the proposed legislation. I think the Minister of Education is to be commended; all he's doing is asking the teachers to bear their fair share along with other British Columbians, and they want to.

It's rather interesting to look at the private sector. In the district municipality of Mackenzie in my riding....
There's a town which was pretty well certified from the day it was born. A major company is involved, B.C. Forest Products. Most of those people, without a system of job-sharing, would not have their jobs today. What happens, as you probably all know, is that on the fifth day of each week they don't work, but they're entitled to unemployment insurance for that day. The amount of money they get from unemployment insurance is not what they'd earn if they did work that day, but they're grateful that they've got four days and can share on the fifth. The amount of money involved, if you want to work it through in percentages, is not anywhere near what's being asked from the teaching profession — 25 hours, or five instructional days, in the last part of June. I don't really think that's asking too much.

School district expenditures on professional salaries have risen from $656 million in 1978 to $1.123 billion in 1982. That's a 68 percent increase. The members opposite know these facts as well as we do. The salary costs per pupil have increased by 76.2 percent over the same period. In 1978 it was $1,824 per student; in 1982 it is $3,283 per student. What we're asking this fall is $37.5 million between August and December. In 1983 it will be something like $22.5 million. I don't know, even with that decrease in the budget, if we can really apologize for increasing the provincial budget for educational purposes by 15 percent for 1982-83 over 1981-82.

I think one of the interesting items in this particular piece of legislation is that it cuts across the board. It doesn't only apply to teachers, who are on the front line — and frankly I don't blame the teachers for kicking up their heels a little bit and saying: what about others? Well, it does apply to others. It applies to those who are supervisors, assistant superintendents, principals or superintendents. They will also have that opportunity to make a contribution, as have those in the public sector who have resolved their problems.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know of one dispute in which I was involved when Minister of Labour in which there wasn't some headline...or some particular interest which was being affected somehow, and which wasn't immediately directed so that the dispute would carry some degree of profile.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, it was the first one I was involved in.

MR. HOWARD: When were you Minister of Labour?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Can't remember, eh? It was the last time you were in your riding, Mr. Member. That wasn't too long ago, was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't remember where his riding is.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I disagree; I think he does know where his riding is.

In each one of those it became a profile. We remember what happened when we were talking about teachers' pensions a year and a half ago. Well, we know about that, and we know what happened with the doctors last time around. They've voluntarily made a proposal. The dentists have agreed to a proposal. The BCGEU has got a contract out with a recommendation for ratification. As a rural politician, Mr. Speaker, I haven't had any complaints from the people in my riding — or the medical profession. They want that opportunity to make their contribution. I don't apologize at all for the money which we've been accused of putting into projects, which is in fact going to enhance the economic base of British Columbia, and which will provide us with the revenues to preserve our system of education and our hospitals.

How much longer do you want me to go on with this thing?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're doing great.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They keep sending me notes, Mr. Speaker. It's not cricket. I was just looking at the time.

Another item is professional development days, non-instructional items.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Maybe we could both go there, Mr. Member.

I don't know of dentists, doctors, lawyers or other professionals who have gone off to their particular seminars without doing this on their own account and not receiving pay for it. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was when the members opposite were government that that particular policy was brought in. You wanted to pay for professional days.

Interjections.

[ Page 9489 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have listened to some material in here for the last two weeks that I sometimes wonder why....

We know that B.C. has the second highest total operating cost per pupil in 1982. Alberta ranked first. We know what the increases have been over the last little while: 76 percent between 1978 and 1982. All we want is that the opposition just once support a restraint program. How about preserving jobs and just satisfying the people out there? Are you prepared to agree to that?

The clock is going on, and I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.