[ Page 9491 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial statement: Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9491

Mr. D'Arcy –– 9491

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

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 9491

Mr. Cocke –– 9492

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 9494

Ms. Brown –– 9496

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 9500

Mr. Levi –– 9502

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, today we have a gentleman — he was up at I don't know what hour to catch the 7 o'clock ferry — who is anxious to see this House in session. He is from Vancouver. I'd ask the House to welcome Mr. Frank Hendy to the Legislature and to Victoria.

VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I wish to announce today that the government has established an accelerated review of the proposals relating to the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. We have appointed Mr. Robin Abercrombie to conduct the review. Mr. Abercrombie will work with the ten proposals that have been received to bring natural gas to Vancouver Island. He will immediately do a full economic and technical review of those proposals. That review will be completed by the early part of December, following which public hearings will be held by the Utilities Commission to determine the site and feasibility of the project. The Utilities Commission will have most of the technical and economic data that it needs to make that decision and will be able to deal with the concerns of the public at that hearing. It is anticipated that the public hearings will be completed in January, and we would expect that an early recommendation would come to cabinet.

I should also tell the House that Mr. Abercrombie is a very experienced pipeline executive. He has been a senior vice-president and director of Nova for a number of years. Also, during the past six years he has been involved with the trans-Quebec and maritime pipeline project. His experience as a businessman and as an economist will be absolutely invaluable in giving a technical and economic review of these projects.

I should say that the commitment of this government to bring lower-cost energy to Vancouver Island remains strong and that the reason for the appointment of Mr. Abercrombielis to expedite that procedure, to ensure that this matter is dealt with and that the selected project can go ahead. I have great pleasure in making this announcement this morning.

MR. D'ARCY: We in the opposition welcome the announcement, as we have welcomed every government announcement regarding natural gas to Vancouver Island since the Socreds started to make them in 1956. We're hoping that this accelerated review which the minister is announcing now will move a little bit faster than things have moved under Social Credit during the last 26 years regarding natural gas to Vancouver Island.

We have long taken the position that Vancouver Islanders should not be denied access to B.C.'s major fossil-fuel resource, natural gas, in the same way that Vancouver Islanders are not denied access to hydroelectric power generated on the mainland. We hope that as part of the terms of reference for the review, Vancouver Islanders will enjoy a postage-stamp rate at the wholesale level, as other British Colombians do.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M205, Mr. Speaker.

RESOURCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT (VOTING RIGHTS)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I notice the absence in the chamber of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber).

AN HON. MEMBER: He's sick.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again? I'm sorry.

Second reading of Bill M268, Mr. Speaker.

JOB CREATION COUNCIL OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: That member doesn't appear to be here either, and the next ones not printed.

Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT
(continued)

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm glad we concluded on a note of levity and good spirits on both sides of the House yesterday. It was really a treat to see, as it so seldom occurs.

In the few minutes left to me, Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to go over in a capsule form what I feel to be some of the main points. The first item is that the bill proposes a framework for school districts and teachers' associations to resolve a problem which some of them were unable to. I don't think it was without some effort on their part, but a little assistance was required. The legislation now provides that framework. I think it also gives them the opportunity to resolve their problems prior to October 15. I think we should remind ourselves that the budget, even with the reduction and with restraint, still provides an overall increase of 15.9 percent. It is also interesting to note that many school districts in the province responded prior to the introduction of the legislation. But with the number that were outstanding.... I think the people of the province are not interested in confrontation at this time, but in resolution of problems.

To repeat, the objective of the legislation, in addition to providing the framework, is to preserve jobs. Preserving jobs seems to be the major concern of those from my constituency who were faced with some degree of uncertainty. It's also to preserve education services. It seems to me that with the addition of some few minutes each day in the spring it provides the opportunity for not only the teaching staff, who are quite prepared, quite willing to give a little bit more time so that they may make their contribution to our steppingstones to recovery during a difficult economic period.... It's fair to teachers and administrators who want to contribute to the restraint program. The administrators will be losing some income but will be required to work. Most important of

[ Page 9492 ]

all, I think, is that we have to consider the taxpayers and their ability to pay.

I would like to repeat one item which has been mentioned by other speakers, and that involves special education. As the former Minister of Education and the present Minister of Education have said, the budget in that area had been increased by 19 percent.

With the idea of flexibility and the date which was put within the bill, October 15, the flexibility is there to work out some kind of resolution. I don't think that it should go unnoticed that in every area, wherever there is a particular organization, association, professional association, or group having a vested interest, in this day and age they always elevate any such disputes to a profile which is well covered in the media. We experienced this problem, and the subsequent resolution, with the medical profession. We experienced it with municipalities. The UBCM passed a resolution on the floor of its convention last week adopting the restraint program, entitling it "Partnership in Restraint: a Partnership Between Local Government and the Provincial Government in Zero to Five." With the exception of one.... No. I think there were about half a dozen delegates out of close to a thousand. You could really say it was unanimous.

Also with respect to restraint, the government employees' memorandum of agreement has been recommended for ratification by the leader of the membership. It contains the parameters of restraint and was adopted and acknowledged by both parties; other professionals have done the same.

It seems to me that only the MLAs on both sides of this House, who showed leadership, with the support of a bill reducing the amount of our pay, which I suspect probably works out to something like $400 per month.... It seems to me that we find again and again and again.... Every group in British Columbia which feels as though it has an interest to protect.... Their leadership is elected to protect that interest, but their leadership is also realistic. Before long we find badges, and it seemed to me for a while that there was not a day without a badge that was being sported by the members of the opposition.

I don't think we should lose sight of the fact, when we compare the costs of education on a per-student basis.... In 1978 the cost per student was $1,824 per year; in 1982 the cost was $3,283 per year — a 76 percent increase. I think when you take that 76 percent increase and you look at that, and compare it to the cost of living over a period of time and the increases with respect to other people within the public sector, you will find that it's being most generous. The budget allotted to education by the province of British Columbia is the second highest item, next to health, and now it's well in excess of $1.5 billion. So what's the bottom line? The bottom line is a few minutes of extra teaching time in the spring to preserve the instructional periods of 935 hours. That's to be preserved, and I think that is what the public is interested in.

I go back to a statement which I made yesterday and have made before — and it doesn't matter what dispute we've been involved in, Mr. Speaker, with every association, organization or trade union in the public or private sector. The statement is that in the private sector there has always been the bottom line in 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.

We can make no mistake about it: there must be a bottom line. We cannot have two classes of citizens in this province, one which is always vulnerable to the business cycle and one which is not. When we talk about contracts and the sanctity of a contract.... In my view, those people who are members of the INA and working for the forest industry also have a contract. but economic circumstances and the fact that global market conditions are rather depressed mean that they are laid off. In their case it's not a matter of losing a day a week or working a few more minutes in the following year with no pay; it's one week, one month, two months or three months without employment. Therefore I don't really see why there should be any objection to this type of request of the administrators, the supervisors, the teaching profession and the local school boards to be given an opportunity to put their shoulder to the wheel.

Knowing that my time has run out, Mr. Speaker, I still think this is a bill worthy of support from the opposition. I have constantly heard an awful lot of opposition to debate any proposals put forth by the government, but when it comes down to the crunch I notice there's always support from the opposition.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would again like to congratulate the Minister of Education for having the courage to face up to what was a difficult situation and introduce this legislation. I support the bill.

MR. COCKE: I want to make it amply clear that the opposition does not support this legislation and will not support this legislation under any circumstance.

This bill says how to fight fire with gasoline. That's precisely what this bill does. On the backs of our children, the Premier of this province has the audacity to try to find an election issue. The children in this province will never forgive this government for turning their backs on education. We've seen barbarism in this province under Socreds. The creation of chaos in the classroom is what's happened.

I go back to September 17, when the minister acknowledged that the boards had pretty well put together all the situations that were required by his guidelines. But that wasn't enough. The Premier went to the minister and said: "For heaven's sake, we've got to get something going out there. We've got to start a fire." That's precisely what they have done, I would suggest that later this morning we're all going to see what's going to happen as a result of this bill being put forward. If they think that they can make political footballs of the children of this province and win an election on that issue, they're crazy. The people in this province know the issues. They know it's because there are close to 300,000 people in this province out of work. They know that the Socreds have been laying on the oars for the last seven years, and they will turf them out.

Meanwhile, back to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I guess one could, at this late hour, call for a plea for sanity. I've seen very little evidence of it to date. I saw less evidence of it when I saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the former Minister of Labour and before that a lawyer, stand in this House and tell us that it's okay to break a contract. Imagine! A lawyer, a Minister of Labour and now Minister of Municipal Affairs telling us that it's okay to break a contract. That's precisely what this bludgeon does.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where are you going to get the $60 million?

[ Page 9493 ]

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Education will have ample opportunity to reply to anything I say when he closes debate. "Where are you going to get this, and where are you going to get..." I'll tell you where I'll get the $60 million, if you really want to know. I'll take it out of some of those monuments that you're building to Socreds and put it into looking after the children in our province.

Mr. Speaker, we hang our heads in shame in this province. Why do we hang our heads in shame? I'll tell you why. We are one of the lowest provinces, in terms of expenditures on children and the education process, in all of Canada, Not only that, we are the very worst province in all of Canada in terms of the percentage that the government puts up vis-à-vis what the property owners do. After the July restraint, the government now puts up 32.6 percent of the total money going into education; the remaining 67.4 percent comes from the property owners in our province, They've been divesting themselves of their obligation ever since they've been in office. Alberta — compare it.

HON. MR. FRASER: Socialist arithmetic!

MR. COCKE: These are the B.C. School Trustees Association statistics, and when you go home you might tell your school board what you called them and every other school board in this province, Mr. Minister of Transportation and Highways and Blacktop.

Mr. Speaker, compare us with Alberta: 62.1 percent comes from the government, 37.9 percent comes from the homeowners; Saskatchewan — 53 percent from the government and 47 percent from the property taxpayer; Manitoba — 54 percent from the government and 48 percent from the property taxpayer; Ontario is almost fifty-fifty — 50.6 percent from the government and 49.4 percent.... But listen to this. What an abysmal record! B.C. gets 32.6 percent from the government and 67.4 percent.... And they are crying poverty, but they're not too impoverished to subsidize northeast coal, not too impoverished to buy monuments such as stadiums, convention centres and so on. They are impoverished when it comes to spending money on the children of our province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Garbage! What a bunch of crap!

MR. COCKE: If that minister would get in his truck and move around from school to school, he would know what I'm talking about. He has heard example after example from this side of the House, where children are being sacrificed at the altar of the bottom line that all those people know, Mr. Speaker, except when it comes to building monuments to their own grandiose ideas.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Turkey!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Minister, when you call me a turkey it comes not as an insult; it comes as an expected remark.

I have talked to school board after school board. When this bill first came in, one wondered, looking at it — not being a lawyer — what the results of it might be. I have talked to school board after school board in this province, and what have I heard? "They are taking out our ability to transport children in sports." There will be no more interschool sports. You say: "Well, so what? They must be restrained." I would say yes, Mr. Speaker, you have to make certain cutbacks, but you don't make those cutbacks on the backs of children. You don't make those cutbacks on the backs of health care, and that's precisely what we're doing in this province, what we have been doing ever since day one of their concern over our finances. That wild bunch of spenders over there, who can go to New York, rent limousines, go to Broadway shows and just have a gay old time — drink Pouilly-Fuisse.... Then they come into this House and tell us to restrain, restrain, restrain. I think it's absolutely devastatingly disgusting.

What has this bill done? It has created pandemonium in our schools. It has created the lowest morale that we've seen in our history. It was bad when McGeer was there, but it's worse now that Bill is there. Guess who's pulling the strings? It's the Premier that's pulling the strings, and he's prepared to ride on the backs of children to find himself an election issue. Shame on him! Shame on all the Socreds for being party to this disastrous situation that we face.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you a few ideas about what has happened in the school system since they have introduced this "restraint program" — not this one, there have been three in a row. Administrators' and teachers' time alone has been estimated in excess of $5 million to try to juggle budgets and spend all their time working at that level instead of teaching our children. What happen beyond that? The morale starts dropping. When the morale starts dropping, with everybody uncertain, who suffers? Your kids and mine suffer. It's an absolutely shocking situation.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Baloney!

MR. COCKE: That member for Dewdney can very well say "baloney," because he's not going to run again. He's not going to have to face the public and answer for being party to this disaster that's been put forward in the name of restraint.

This bill, Mr. Speaker. Is not really a piece of legislation. Let me tell you why. Have you ever heard of embellishing legislation with flowery words? I have read legislation since I've been in this House since 1969. Mr. Member for Dewdney, have you ever seen a bill that says words like: "in order to maintain the quality and diversity of educational services in the province and to preserve jobs..."? Have you ever heard anything like that in legislation? Where's the legalese? Have you ever in your life seen such a disgusting piece of political propaganda that if you really get to the heart of it, then you know the government will stoop to anything, because they know there will be people that will pick this bill up and interpret it properly. Teachers will pick it up and say: "What are they trying to do to the system?" Then the government will turn on the teachers and say they are only worrying about their own hides, in spite of the fact that they are saying: "Protect the system for the children." It might be interesting for you to know that the B.C. School Trustees Association is no longer being the pawn of the government through the present president. No, because they are now demanding this bill be withdrawn for a week so that they can meet and discuss the whole question. You'll get the letter momentarily. It's ridiculous!

A fledgling Socred candidate announces from Toronto that it looks like not a bad bill — a bill he'd never seen. How could lie have? He was 3,000 or 2,500 miles away. Mr. Speaker, this bill was never designed to be anything more than political propaganda for a government that is worn out,

[ Page 9494 ]

for a government that lacks any kind of credibility, and for a government that lacks wit. Yes, we're all ready.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was not drafted in the normal area of drafting bills, by legislative counsel. It was drafted by science fiction writers. What an utter disgrace, that we should be standing up in this House having to defend our children, and then read a bill that has that kind of flowery language, trying to make itself something that people will like. Oh, yes, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but that government has been fooling the people in our province for far too long. This one will not wash.

It won't wash for several reasons. It won't wash because people have a sense of fair play. People are prepared to demand that the sanctity of contracts be honoured. Imagine, a "free enterprise party" who destroy contracts by legislation. Can you imagine? Secondly, it won't wash because virtually every school board had already negotiated days off, etc. to meet the demands of this autocratic group across the way. Those are two reasons. But third, and most important of all, it will not wash because people realize the most important resource that our province has is children. The whole future of this province, country and world is invested in children. If you deny children access to proper education for any reason, you're turning your back on the future. That will not wash.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Doom and gloom.

MR. COCKE: That minister doesn't like the truth, but he never has. He and his colleague beside him obviously wouldn't recognize it if they saw it staring them in the face.

It's very easy for me to talk about the children. I've already seen enough examples. I've had examples of my own. It strikes me that when you treat children in this disgraceful manner, you can be put in the category of child-beaters.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Did you say child-beaters?

MR. COCKE: Child-beaters, yes. I'm accusing the government of battering our education system. I'm accusing the government of battering our children. As far as I'm concerned, it's unforgivable. I'll tell you something right now: the public will not forgive you for it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You must be sick.

MR. COCKE: You've created pandemonium out there. I have talked to school-board person after school-board person across the province. Phone your own school board, Mr. Member for Boundary-Similkameen, and find out what's happening up there. There's the same kind of disgraceful pandemonium there, in Prince George, in Chilliwack and in every other area of this province. Nowhere are they happy.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I spoke to them last night, and they're all in favour.

MR. COCKE: Smile when you say that one. They burnt your ear right off.

I guess that what we have to do here is just say that it's bad legislation and it's really nothing more than the kind of political propaganda that this government has been putting forward for the last three weeks. Nothing is going to committee stage and nothing is going to third reading. It's just window-dressing so they have an opportunity to go out and fly the flag. I made a prediction yesterday that the bill we were discussing then would not go to third reading in this parliament. I make the same prediction on this bill. It will not go to third reading during this parliament.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I make that prediction, and nobody knows better than the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) what I'm talking about.

I talked to somebody yesterday who has been a school trustee for years and years. This person is a highly respected school trustee. This person said that this bill does not treat the illness. It treats the symptom, not the disease. It will create nothing but pandemonium. Further, it is the heavy hand of centralism epitomized. I have to smile. The Minister of Education looks at me with a sort of stunned glance and says: "Hurrah." The fact is, I have never seen a more centralist minister in my life. He reminds me of Joseph Stalin, with all the reins of power in his hands. He was a fascist autocrat and it would seem that the kinds of things that this minister does....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He was a socialist.

MR. COCKE: He was no socialist. What are you talking about?

There is only one way to cure the disease that we have here, and that is to restore the funding required for education in this province. If that is not enough of a priority.... If a rich province, with our heritage of always having had a good, decentralized school system — a good system in which the local people have input into the way that system is run.... Suddenly the Minister of Education, with his iron hand, has moved in and said: "I'm taking over, brothers and sisters, whether you like it or not." Disgrace! They're riding on the backs of our children. They will never be forgiven for riding on the backs of our children. They will never be forgiven for having created pandemonium in our school system and chaos in the classroom. to the end that the one who suffers most is that child trying to get an education.

One or two of my colleagues were out yesterday, meeting with people in schools. What did they find? The morale of everybody is down the tube. Well, I can't say congratulations, but I can assure you of this: you will not find the member for New Westminster voting in favour of this bill. I will oppose this kind of legislation as long as I have breath in my body.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I have listened to a lot of exaggerated language here today and yesterday. I thought I would like to take part in it. Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to exaggerate to the same extent, I think we can not only have some fun here this morning but perhaps we can also put to bed some of the myths being expounded here.

I would like to ask a few questions. How did we get to the problem that we're discussing today? How do we solve the problem that we're discussing today? Who will need and who will want to solve the problem? Can all segments of society do their share in helping solve the problem? How will the program that is suggested as a solution work? What are the alternatives to the program here? Those are the things I want to discuss for just a few minutes.

[ Page 9495 ]

There is a myth out there which the opposition would like to amplify. They would like the citizenry to believe it: they would like the teaching professionals to believe it; they would like the school boards to believe it. But when you come down to the hard rocks, the truth has to be known. The myth is this: that the money we're talking about, the money we anticipated at the beginning of the fiscal year, would be there. The myth says that it is there. The myth says that a stingy and irresponsible government is priorizing expenditures, that it has wilfully singled out certain segments of society and said, "Money will be withheld from you, and money will be withheld from you, only because you were bad boys, bad girls or whatever, or for some other reason." The myth is that the ideal, which we had anticipated at the beginning of the fiscal year, is still possible. That's just not true.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Whenever you budget at the beginning of a year, you look at the tax structure that is in place and anticipate what that tax structure will generate in dollars. Anticipating, playing God one whole year in advance, you say it is going to generate, in our instance, $7.2 billion for the year. Having played God — foolishly — it is then the responsibility of an administration to take those $7.2 billion dollars and say: "Okay, according to our policy and philosophy of government we will apportion this money hence: $1.5 billion for education, $2 billion for health." Having designated those dollars for those purposes, believing they will be there, and having made those budgets public — indeed, having debated them right in this chamber to see whether or not they were enough or not enough.... In some instances, apparently, according to the opposition they were not enough, because they voted reductions in these. Assuming that the Legislature in its wisdom has apportioned the proper amounts to each publicly, then the expectation of each segment is raised — and the Ministry of Education is no stranger to this fact — that $1.5 billion will be available, and they are asked to arrange their own budgets internally. They designate their dollars, hire their people and put their programs in place, expecting the $1.5 billion to be there.

Along goes the fiscal year, Mr. Speaker — my, how you've changed — and by the time you get to the halfway point in the fiscal year it is obvious that changes will have to be made; although ideally one-half of the $1.5 billion for education would be available now, it's not. Therefore everyone needs to be told that it's not there, and everyone needs to be told that the expectations cannot be realized and that everyone is going to have to contribute to some kind of savings which will allow us to survive the shortfall in cash. That's not just true in education; it's also true in health. It just so happens that when you add health and education together you've got $3.5 billion, which is half the total budget for the province. Those two segments are going to feel the impact the hardest, because they happen to be the two biggest segments.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

How did we get here? We got here because the anticipated revenue is not here, and as a citizenry each and every one of us has to accept the responsibility to operate with a few dollars less than we originally anticipated would be there.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) discusses morale. Of course it affects morale. If I tell my wife she's got $350 for groceries this month, she goes out, does her shopping as only Little Red can do, and buys the most for a dollar. But having now come to the halfway point of the month, if I say: "Sorry, Little Red, but you don't have $350 for groceries; you've only got $300; were going to have to find savings for $50 somewhere," sure it affects her morale. She says: "Holy mackerel, Harve, I've already bought certain things. I've already made commitments." Sure, it affects morale. The member for New Westminster tells the truth. But does it assist that morale if we have an irresponsible opposition that goes to these people and says: "The myth is really true. The money is there; somebody is just withholding it from you"?

Guess what the Leader of the Opposition says to those people out there who are trusting this administration to administer properly? That Leader of the Opposition goes out onto the highways and byways and says: "If I were Premier" — Lord help us — "I would spend the S60 million." What $60 million dollars? Tell me, what $60 million? It's not there. How is he going to raise $60 million that's not there? Is he going to borrow it? How did we get here? We got here because what we anticipated at the beginning of the year is not materializing. How do we solve the problem? Each segment is going to have to say: "Hey, we're willing to do our share." Do you know that the first people to say that were the ladies and gentlemen who sit in this chamber; not a whisper in this chamber — I commend every member. They said: "We'll do our share and take a rollback of an increase which was earned in the previous year." This was not an increase that was anticipated for the next year, but one that was earned in the previous year. The members of this chamber said, "We'll do our share," and they did.

The civil service did their share. Sure, they didn't do it as willingly as \we may have wished; but they were confused by someone who was "ranting them to believe the myth that I was talking about. When somebody finally told them what the case really was . they said — — 'Oh, well, then we're willing to do our share, " and they did,

The medical profession. I have a keen respect for the medical profession. I owe my life to them. But after they understood what the problem was, were they willing to do their share? You better believe it. It's not completely solved yet. I don't think the cheque for $30 million has been deposited. But they sat down as a group and said: "We want to do our share." The medical profession is to be commended. How do we solve this problem? We'll solve it if every segment of society says: "We'll do our share."

Now we come to education. Is education capable of doing its share, and is its share the lion's share? Is it a heavier thing we're asking them to do than we've asked anybody else to do? Some say no. I say yes, because they happen to to be the lion's share of the budget. They're going to have to be willing, in total number of dollars, to do far more than anybody else, although, if every one of them cooperates and participates, then the load is no heavier for each one.

My question is: do they want to help? The answer is yes. The second question is: could they help? Not under the legislation the way it was. Could salaries be reduced for professionals in the education field under existing legislation? No. So we had to have some kind of a change so that the teachers and other professionals in education could do what they already wanted to do, having got past the myth that that

[ Page 9496 ]

crew over there would like them to believe. Guess what? If they will do their share and join the other groups that have already committed themselves, I think we can survive this year in which our anticipated revenues are not materializing and each one of us is going to have to do something which is not fun.

We're going to have to say: "Hey, we don't have all of the money to do all of the things which are legitimate, desirable and necessary, some of them even critical. We're going to have to bypass a few of those things for a short time. That's what most people seem to overlook. This is for a short time, because when recovery happens, all of these things which are necessary, reasonable — and critical — can and should and must be done. But we must recover first. Anybody who was thinking reasonably should have said: "Harv, you should have been carrying out your responsibility to this chamber as a member and as the MLA for Chilliwack. You should have been here. You said you would. You were paid as though you were, and everybody expected you to be here." But, bless your socks, I had to recover first. That's all that's expected of our economy. When we recover, those dollars which had been anticipated to be spent on education most surely will be spent there again.

What I like about the program that's in place is that if every individual wishes to contribute the part that is suggested by the legislation, all of those gory stories that are being suggested by the opposition as to what's going to have to be cut out...it will not have to be cut out at all. If the $60 million can be saved by each one participating, none of those programs will have to be cut out. Am I telling the truth? Of course I am. So they can put all those gory stories to bed each one having participated.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this program to you. I can't believe that every member of this chamber, knowing the economic facts of the day, having already committed themselves each to his own share, wouldn't join hands with everyone and say: "Okay, let's everybody do it. Let's make the load as light as possible." But do we hear that? No, we don't. We hear from the opposite side that they're going to oppose this. I can't believe it — ten bills in a row in which we constructed the economic recovery of the province, and they said: "Yeah, man, go for it." These are the programs that are going to be dollars expended. The minute we bring in a program that says we're going to have to create the revenue so that those programs can exist, they say: "Uh, uh." It tells me something about the economic philosophy — the non-existence of the economic philosophy — of that crew over there. They have no idea that if your're going to have some expenditure, you must first have revenue. That's the problem with the bill that we're discussing today. They believe that you can have the expenditures without revenues. That's the myth that I talked about when I started, Mr. Speaker. I can't believe, from people that won't even bring their files back....

MR. LAUK: No wonder we made you Speaker.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Thanks, Gary.

I would think that the only reason the opposition is opposing this measure is that they've made a promise to the leadership of an organization which believes they have the responsibility for teaching professionals in the palm of their hand. They have made a promise to those leaders that says: "Hey, if you vote for us, we'll promise you the $60 million we haven't got." I think it's for political advantage that they are opposing this bill, I think the leadership alliance that they have been themselves and that leadership, which believes they represent education when they really don't, is strong enough for them to try to extend the myth — right here in this House, out on the hustings if necessary. But to make a promise they know they can't keep....

I think the program can work. It's not perfect. Perfect would be if the dollars were there and everyone's expectations could be filled. That not being the truth, we've got to take second best. This is what I believe this is, and, sir, I support the bill.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it was really interesting listening to the reverend member from Chilliwack talk to us about myths. If there is a myth out there that there is a lot of money in the government coffers, it's because that's what the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said when he brought down his budget at the beginning of the session. The Minister of Finance was the one who said there is money out there, and these are the expected revenues. When the opposition critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), said that is not accurate, "You are exaggerating," the Minister of Finance denied this and said this is an accurate budget. The opposition has always maintained that those figures were not correct. The myth that there was a lot of money out there was created by the government and by the Minister of Finance. That's where the myth started.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), to come to order, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the member.for Chilliwack went on to say: "How can you spend money which you haven't got?" He gave us this nice little homily about sending his wife out to buy $350 worth of groceries, then halfway through the month saying to her that he doesn't have $350, he only has $300. She is demoralized by this, and so she should be because she knows that he spent that extra $50 on booze and cigarettes. That's the problem we're facing over here. That's the reason there isn't the $50: it's been mismanaged by that government. Everyone knows that you have to live within your budget, but when you have a profligate person in charge of the budget, when there is profligacy and waste.... The member used the example about the wife not being able to buy the groceries, she is unable to buy the groceries and she knows it is because the money was misspent. That's the reason she was demoralized, and that's precisely what the opposition is saying now.

First of all, the government created an impression that there were revenues coming in, which they knew were not coming in. Secondly, as a direct result of their mismanagement and their profligacy, money that should be there to be spent on the education of children is not there. That's what the opposition is saying. We've listened to these beautiful little analogies, little fairy tales and stories, in the reasoned manner of that member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). He doesn't understand what he's saying. He's suggesting to us that this piece of legislation is going to right the budgetary wrongs in education. It isn't going to do it. If the legislation in fact were going to do that, then the opposition would be supporting it. But the legislation is not going to do that. The member went on to say that the reason the opposition is

[ Page 9497 ]

supporting this legislation is because we've made a promise. We have made a promise. We made a promise to the children of this province that we are not going to allow the education system to be eroded through the mismanagement of a profligate government, and we intend to stand by that promise.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that this government has done since coming into office is to create deadweight debt, and to take money that should be spent on education to try to deal with that deadweight debt. It is not good enough to come into the House and say: "Everyone has to pull in their belts and exercise restraint" so that they can continue to feed that deadweight debt. You don't sacrifice children's education because of your own incompetence. It's one thing to talk about the doctors contributing to help you pay off your debt, and another thing to say that public-sector workers may be contributing to help you pay off your debt. But when you start to sacrifice the education of the children of this province to pay off interest and deadweight debt, then it's time for the opposition to say: "No, we are not going to be a part of that."

This piece of legislation is part of a coordinated, integrated, planned and systematic assault on the children of this province. If you want proof of that, look at the way children are treated by different ministries. Look at the cutback in special services to children under the Ministry of Human Resources. Recognize that this is one of the only provinces in this country that does not have a superintendent of child welfare, does not have a public advocate for children, nobody to look after the children of this province. Look at the cutbacks in health care services for the children of this province, and the disgraceful way in which Sunny Hill Hospital, which administers to sick and disabled children, has its funding cut by this government — the Children's Hospital, the psychiatric services to these children. Look at the way in which every sector, every ministry, when it addresses the needs of children, sacrifices those children — because children don't vote. That's what it's all about. And when the government has to cut the fat somewhere, when they have to make sacrifices somewhere, the first group they zero in on is always the most vulnerable group, the group with the least power. Usually they are the disabled, the children, senior citizens or women. That is why this legislation is just part of a package of the general assault by this government on children.

Earlier this year, the opposition pointed out that this government could have saved $178 million simply by cutting back on their expenditures for office furniture, their advertising budget, their travel, and the various other sums of money that they spend on themselves as ministers. Wouldn't that $178 million be better spent on delivering educational services and health care to the children of this province? But that was not their priority. This government's priority is always to look after themselves first, then to look after their friends, and children and the disabled come way down the line. If at all.

By all international standards, this province stands out as among the worst in the treatment of children, whether you compare us with other Canadian provinces or other nations around the world, even nations without our kind of gross national product. In the treatment of our children we are a national disgrace, by whatever measurement scale you look at. This province in particular has a lot to answer for. Look at the high suicide rate among our children. Look at the high level of death by violence among our children. Look at the poverty statistics: more than half of those on the welfare rolls in this province are children. I want to repeat: by national or international standards this province stands condemned. It is an absolute disgrace the way the children of this province are treated. In addition, now they are trying to service their deadweight debt by eroding and undermining the education of the children of the province, and then they have the nerve to make comments about children being our most important resource.

The last member who spoke — who could ever forget when he was sitting in opposition over here and we were debating the issue of removing the strap from the schools. He was opposed to that. What was his argument? How would the children know that you loved them if you didn't beat them? That was his argument. If you don't thrash kids, how do they know that you love them? That was the argument and basis of his opposition to that piece of legislation. You prove your love by beating up on them. You prove your love by assaulting them. If that's the case, this government loves kids, because it sure has beat up and assaulted the kids of this province.

Bill 89 is going to result in an increase in class sizes, in chaos and turmoil in the schools, and it is not going to solve the budgetary problems of the school trustees. That is the reason we in the opposition are opposed to it. What kinds of things happen when you increase the class sizes that teachers in the school have to deal with? First, the minister tells us that the solution, of course, is simply to tack on 12 minutes and 48 seconds to each day. This kind of simplistic short-term solution shows that he really doesn't understand how the school day works. What are you going to do when you have eight subjects — tack on one minute and fifty-six seconds to each subject? Is that the way it's done? The minister has children in school, I have children in school. This is what the kids are saying: "What does that mean? That instead of being in the classroom for 40 minutes, I'm now going to be in for 41.56 minutes?" What absolute nonsense! How simplistic! What kind of short-term solution is that? In any event, at the rate we're going we know that next year most of these classes will be shut down as a result of the inept management of this government.

You cannot shortchange children. We are living in a world that's quite different from the world that the Minister of Education was born into or graduated from high school in. It's a different world from the one I was born into or graduated from high school in. In order to survive in the twenty-first century you need more education; you need better skills; you need more knowledge, not less. Part of our problem is that we have a nineteenth-century Minister of Education trying to administer the education system in a province at a time when we're moving into the twenty-first century. It's not enough to say that all you have to know is how to write good and spell good and read good and a little bit of arithmetic. That may have been okay when the minister graduated; it was okay when I graduated; but it's not okay for the world in which my children graduate and in which their children will graduate.

What are we going to do? We talk about a world in which we need skilled labour. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is always talking about the fact that we cannot meet the need for skilled labour in this province. The option then is to import it. Why are we doing that? What we are saying by this policy is that it's okay for our children to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, that the skills should come in from other provinces and other countries. That's what this government's policy is doing. It's

[ Page 9498 ]

condemning the children of British Columbia to be hewers of wood and drawers of water — that's what it's doing — and saying that all the skills and advanced technological education that people must have to survive in this world will come into the province from other parts of the world and from other provinces.

I can't remember which minister it was who stood in his place yesterday and said that to say that special education in the schools was being cut was "tommyrot." Of course the special education budgets have been cut. They have already been cut. They're not going to be restored by this piece of legislation. In Vancouver, for example, the school board asked for $29 million to be spent on special education. They were granted $17 million first of all, and then this was slashed to $14.5 million. Is that money going to be restored as a result of Bill 89 being passed in this House? Of course not.

The children who need that special attention — the children with dyslexia, the children with learning disabilities, the behaviour problem children, the children with English as a second language and the disabled children who are being phased into the public school system, of which I approve — are not going to get the kind of service they need as a result of this legislation being passed. Burnaby School Board asked for $5.2 million to be earmarked for special education. They were granted $4.8 million.

Within the Burnaby School District there is a school known as the Donald Paterson School for the disabled. It's one of the best schools in British Columbia, and probably the only one that really caters to the multiply disabled child — the child who has more than one or two disabilities. Do you think this government would recognize the importance of the service delivered by that school, and see to it that it was adequately funded? Not on your life. The Donald Paterson School has had to cut aides and staff. There is no one on the staff to help those children who are so disabled that they have to have help to go to the bathroom, put on their clothes, put on their shoes or whatever. A vital therapy those children need is swimming. That had to be cut.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), the member for Chilliwack, stands up and talks about myths. The way this government treats disabled children in this province is not a myth. It's an absolute disgrace. If the minister is going to bring in legislation that says: "Let us move money from here, helping these children who don't need as much assistance, to help those children who need more assistance," that's one thing, but that's not what happens at all. What the minister does is to bring in legislation that takes money and sucks it right out of the educational system altogether so there is money to surface the dead debt that government has managed to accumulate during its short term in office.

The school board of Delta had $22,000 cut from its special education budget. Always, when this government cuts, it goes for the most defenceless first. It always attacks the most vulnerable first, every single time.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) to withdraw that remark. It's unparliamentary. Please withdraw.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, at your request, I'll withdraw.

MS. BROWN: As long as the minister is listening and hears, that's all I care about, because this is information that has to get out to the members on the government benches. They have to have some understanding of what they're doing, so as long as he hears what I'm saying, that's all I care about.

At Hawthorne School, another school that works with disabled children in the province, aides are being laid off. Autistic children, for whom attempts are being made to phase into the general educational system, are being returned home. They're being told that without aides the teachers can't cope and so they cannot be fitted into the system.

The district of Langley — three full-time equivalents in special education lost. As I said, the money is being taken from the children who need it most: they're the ones who are losing. That's why the opposition cannot support this piece of legislation.

Let us look at Burnaby, for example. The homeowners in Burnaby were told that they had to pay increased taxes toward the education system, because it was necessary. And they paid it. Many of them couldn't afford it. Many of them went into debt, had to borrow the money to pay it. But they paid it. They paid their taxes so that the educational system that their children use would be funded adequately. Now that they've paid their taxes, they are being told that they can't get the kind of education they paid for. Where did that money go? That's what the residents of Burnaby-Edmonds are asking. "We've paid our taxes. You told us to pay the taxes; we paid the taxes. We made the sacrifices, we borrowed the money, we paid the taxes, because we believe in the education of our children. Now you're telling us that our children can't get the education we paid for. Where did the money go?" The money has gone to pay off interest on the dead-weight debt which a financially irresponsible and incompetent government has built up during its term of office. That's what's happened to the money: sucked out of services to children; sucked out of their health-care needs and their educational needs to service deadweight debt, which a financially irresponsible, inept and incompetent government has built up during its term in office.

In Burnaby five schools have already been closed in an attempt to consolidate the educational system and save money. Every time they come to the school board and say, "Cut back, cut back, cut back, " the school board does. It tries, it really tries. Five schools closed — two senior secondary and three elementary schools. Special programs and class contact time have been shrunk, reduced. Library hours, physical education, music, French immersion, counselling time, learning assistance — all of those programs have been cut back. The time allotted to them has been contracted, shrunken.

Now after all of that, when the children are at this point getting a skeleton education, they are being told again that that is going to be curtailed further. They are going to have fewer course options. What we're going to find, of course, is that, as the class sizes get larger and the teachers become less capable of dealing with these increased class sizes, behaviour problems in the school are going to become behaviour problems on the street. They are going to end up under the auspices of Human Resources, then under the auspices of the Attorney-General. Instead of putting the money in at the beginning of the educational system to prevent that and to save a child, we're going to put the money in at the end to pay for the incarceration of an adult who was spewed out, thrown out by a system that didn't care for him or her.

[ Page 9499 ]

That's the kind of thinking that that government exercises over there. Instead of spending money in a positive way, in preventive services in the educational system — cut down on the class sizes, give the children more options, give them a better education, make them better prepared, fund your special services, deal with the children with learning disabilities, deal with the children with other disabilities — that doesn't happen and that money is sucked out of the system. Then it's going to have to turn around and put it back in services through the Attorney-General's department, through the Minister of Human Resources, or through the psychiatric services of the Ministry of Education. Short-term thinking. Mr. Speaker, I just want to read a couple of letters into the record. One is from a special-education teacher. She says:

"As a teacher of special-needs children, many from poor, single-parent families, I see the writing on the wall as far as their future is concerned. I have worked incredibly hard for 17 years as an advocate for the underprivileged child, only to see my hard work and that of many other teachers destroyed by the stroke of a pen. These children are now going to be forced to compete with average or above-average children in classes of 35 or 40, only to experience frustration and failure and eventually drop out of school to join the ranks of the undereducated."

That's from a teacher. That's her response, Mr. Speaker, to what is going to happen to those children as a result of this piece of legislation.

It doesn't address itself at all to.... The B.C. teachers, in a paper they released recently, told us that British Columbia has more students completing their education with more problems and special needs than ever before. Bear that in mind at a time when we are cutting back on funding for special-needs children.

"Studies show that these modern children have less motivation and less power of concentration. They are more violent and combative and have a lower sense of self-esteem, say educators. So teachers must not only teach, but they must also provide new language, emotional and other counselling services. Today, after disabled children have joined the school mainstream, 23 percent of British Columbia's 500,000 students require special services of some kind."

That's an estimate provided by the Ministry of Education. That is the situation in British Columbia today, at a time when this government has decided that the time has come to cut back on funding to schools, so they cannot supply the kinds of special-needs services and special-education services that these children need.

I have a number of letters here from teachers in various community schools. Stride Avenue Community School in Burnaby says: "Surely a social and fiscal problem should not be solved at the expense of future generations." Another says: "As the librarian in an elementary school in Burnaby. I anticipate severe detrimental changes in the quality and quantity of library services." Another teacher says:

"Seven of the children in my class will be deprived of assistance in language arts. Six children will be unable to get extra tuition in math. Two students will no longer have special-help tutors. Handicapped boys' support is severely reduced. Field trips, an essential part of learning in this community, will be curtailed. The music program will be cancelled."

And a government minister over there told us yesterday that to say that there have been any cutbacks in services to children is tommyrot.

Another letter from another teacher says:

"I have three children in my class who have severe learning disabilities and many other children with behavioural and learning problems. At present, these children spend a large portion of each day in the learning-assistance centre, thus enabling me to give more time to the other children in the class."

This learning-assistance centre is now going to have to be closed in this particular school. What's going to happen to the quality of education for the rest of the class when this teacher has to spend more of her time with these children needing a special education?

Another teacher says:

"In my grade 1 class at Stride Avenue Community School I anticipate the following detrimental changes will result from a loss of support services: increase in class size; reduction in counselling. learning assistance and time spent with the nurse: reduction in basic supplies, such as paper and books; reduction in the staff working with us, such as secretaries, janitorial staff and teachers' aides; and the daily field trips, P.E. and French are all going to be curtailed. I urge you to apply pressure on behalf of all the children in our province."

It goes on and on.

Do you know how the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, Gary Begin, refers to the action of this government? He says:

"It has become more and more apparent that public education in B.C. finds itself in a state of crisis, because the provincial government insists on pursuing political objectives which hold the best interests of education in callous disregard. Their position is morally indefensible."

I want to associate myself with the statements of Mr. Gary Begin, the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association. The government's position and attack on the education of our children is morally indefensible.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite sure how much more time I have.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Too much.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Forests says that it's too much, because he doesn't like to hear the truth.

I want to talk about another group of people who are going to be affected as a result of this piece of legislation. We heard the member for Okanagan North (Mrs. Jordan) talk about the teachers and their average salary of $33,000 a year — I think that's the figure she presented to us. The problem with statistics is when you start talking about averages. Fifty two percent of the teachers in the B.C. school system are women. The average salary of a woman teacher in the classroom, according to the Ministry of Education's statistics, is not $33,000, it's $25,000. but nobody mentions that. Everyone stands up and bandies this $33,000 around as if that were a truth which we should hold to be self-evident. The Minister of Education's statistics tell us that 52 percent of the teachers in the system are women, that most of these are in the elementary school system, and that their average salary is $25,000 a year. What that means is that some of them make

[ Page 9500 ]

less than $25,000 a year, and some of them make more. But on an average the figure is $25,000. We know that a large percentage of these women teachers are single parents; they have a family to support. So when we start talking about "greedy teachers" and "gouging teachers," I want us to keep that particular statistic in mind, that 52 percent of the people we are talking about make an average of $25,000 a year and that a large number of them are single parents with families to support. So let's use that statistic, Mr. Speaker, which comes from the ministry and is more accurate than the statistic used by the member for North Okanagan.

Cutbacks. Women in the system really have already been hard hit by the cutbacks. The majority of the people laid off have been substitute teachers, temporary and part-time teachers. There's where the women are. They are the substitute teachers, they're the part-time teachers, they're the temporary teachers — 1,000 of them have already been laid off. They've already felt, as the member for North Okanagan said, the ultimate restraint in terms of their jobs. They have no income at all. The teacher's aides, women who were cut, were primarily in the elementary school system. Another statistic I think we should know about the elementary school teachers is that they have something in the neighbourhood of 0.2 preparation time.

Everyone over there talks glibly about non-professional days. What do they think teachers do on non-professional days? Do you think they go to the racetrack? Education, if it's any good at all, is continually changing. It's dynamic. We're getting new knowledge and new information every day. We want those teachers out there keeping up with the new information and the new knowledge, and that's what they do on those days. They're upgrading their skills. They are keeping up with the changes in scientific information, the changes in technological information, and the changes in philosophical thinking. That's what they're doing on those non-instructional days: upgrading their skills so that they can be better teachers. I don't want anybody teaching my kids today who hasn't improved on their body of knowledge since they graduated in 1950. Those teachers cannot do a good job for my children or for your children. We should be giving teachers more non-instructional days. We should! The minister said: "Doctors don't have it. Lawyers don't have it." That's not true. Family practitioners, general practitioners — all of your professionals in medicine, whether they're surgeons, neurosurgeons, psychiatrists or whatever — are continually taking time off to upgrade their skills. They continually have to bring their body of knowledge up to date with the results coming out of continuing research and experimentation that's going on. The kind of education that the Minister of Education says the children need.... Sure, teachers who are only going to teach children "to read good, write good, and do a little arithmetic" don't need any days to upgrade their skills, but those teachers have no place in today's school system, because they cannot do the job — certainly not for the children who are going to become the adults of tomorrow and try to run a society much more complicated and sophisticated than the one in which the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and I were born and in which we now live.

Vital programs are going to be lost; vital skills are going to be eroded if the teachers have to give up those professional days. They participate in workshops in the latest that's going on in their particular field, whether in science, music, maths or in new fields of consciousness-raising such as learning through women's studies programs, learning more about the development of children and the various advances taking place in society. They upgrade their skills, and they participate in developing their communication skills. I don't want teachers to lose those professional days. The member for North Okanagan, as a nurse, knows how important it is to keep up with changes in the medical field. I don't want anybody nursing me who hasn't gone back to read a medical book since they graduated in 1932 or 1947. I don't want anyone teaching my kids who is not keeping up with the changes going on in our society today. To deprive teachers of professional days is to deprive the children of the best education they can possibly have.

Mr. Speaker, another group is going to be affected by this legislation. When the schools close, the support staff are out of work too. Most of the support staff in the school system are the maintenance staff, clerical staff, teacher's aides and janitorial staff, and a large percentage of these are women. Sixty percent of the members of CUPE are women clerical staff. In the Burnaby local alone, 50 percent are women, and 260 of these women are on clerical staff. These people are also going to end up losing 11 days. We're talking again about people who make $10 an hour as an average, many of whom are sole-support parents. We're talking about people who have already been laid off — 24 full time positions have disappeared in terms of support staff in Burnaby. When the minister introduced this bill and talked about preserving jobs, he's making a mockery of reality. The jobs are already lost and more jobs are going to be lost as a result of this piece of legislation. Clerical jobs are going to be lost. Teacher aides are going to lose their jobs. Maintenance staff, cleaning staff and janitorial staff are going to lose their jobs too. When the schools close down, the support services don't continue.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you got the basis of what I had to say as to some of the reasons why I'm not supporting this legislation. First, it is a continuation of the assault of this government on children. Secondly, it is a continuation of the assault of this government on the most vulnerable and unprotected group in our society. We cannot afford as a society to let our educational system to be destroyed and eroded by people who are only interested in financing and servicing the bad debt which they have managed to develop over the years as a result of their fiscal incompetence and ineptness.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't suppose we have heard as much exaggerated rhetoric over any issue, or any bill, in the close to 20 years I've sat in this House. I think the speaker who just took her place may have set a new record for irresponsible exaggeration. It seems to me that if you want some credibility to your position, you need to have some solid basis upon which you can raise your arguments. In the last couple of days we've seen headlines talking about slavery of teachers. Did you read that? We've heard the member who just took her place telling us that we had destroyed the school system with this particular bill. We now have the opposition firmly on record as being opposed to this bill. Frankly, I think that is the issue. It separates very clearly the members on that side of the House and their demands for special interests — and I'm going to come to that, Mr. Speaker — and the members of this side of the House, who speak for all of the people of British Columbia, and who stand for responsibility. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? I say it because today in British Columbia one person in eight is unemployed. One person in eight has no wages or salary at all to take home. One person in eight has to keep a family going and be able to pay

[ Page 9501 ]

school taxes in order to benefit others who are employed. This bill is not about education; it's about teachers' salaries. That's what the bill is about.

Today we have a headline, "School Heat's Off Because Of The Budget Freeze." Somehow the school district in Victoria can't manage to turn the beat on in the schoolrooms. Are we really to believe this? This is a time of record unemployment in British Columbia, when there is genuine suffering because of the downturn in the economy; poor markets for lumber, poor markets for lead and zinc, poor markets for pulp, poor markets for coal, people who are wanting to work and willing to work, unable to man the plants because the production can't be sold abroad. Faced with all of that, are we to believe that a 17 percent increase isn't enough? That at a time like this, teachers' salaries in British Columbia up from $28,000 to $33,900 isn't enough? That at a time like this school budgets were supposed to go up 21 percent? That was not set by this provincial government, not set by the taxpayers, not set by the unemployed; that 21 percent was set by arbitrator's bargaining between teachers and school boards.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill says, in effect, is that at a time like this 17 percent is enough. Many who've lost their jobs, or who are earning less, or who feel their school taxes are maybe a bit too high, might think that at a time like this even a 17 percent increase is a little much. I suppose their reason for thinking so is that practically nobody else in society is able to enjoy a 17 percent increase. Some with no job at all are able to turn the heat on and keep the youngsters warm at home, when apparently they can't be warm enough in school because all the money has gone into teachers' salaries.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

I honestly do not believe that the average teacher in British Columbia is that selfish. I think the average teacher is just as embarrassed and ashamed as we are by what the president of their federation is saying, and by what the members opposite are saying. The teachers, in their communities, have to face the parents and the electors, just as we do. They have to be able to justify to the people in their community why it is, when people are unemployed in their community, that 17 percent isn't enough for them. One of the people who is eloquently crying for more, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), was part of an arbitration panel that gave one of the highest increases in British Columbia this past year.

Is it too much to ask that maybe those who are in control of the school system, whether members of the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C. School Trustees Association or heads of school boards, should give just a little bit of consideration to everyone else in British Columbia? After all, this bill does only three things. When everybody else is accepting a little restraint — those in the health system and in the university system, those in the private sector who have no choice — it says that maybe it's fair that those in the school system exercise just a little bit of restraint and keep their demands down to 17 percent. The second thing it says is that you're going to have to share around. It isn't fair that some get 22 percent and others get fired. You take the money that's there, because 17 percent is not a bad extra helping, and you share it around. The minister can move in if there are those who say: "Seventeen percent isn't enough; we're going to take more and fire some," and that's a reasonable thing to do, it seems to me. The third aspect is that it says if you've got to trim, don't trim from the people who most need protection. Perhaps it might have been included in the bill, if anybody could have anticipated it, that the head of a school district would need clearance from the minister before he shut the heat off in the schools. That would have been a reasonable thing to include, along with retaining special education for the handicapped. Of course, most of us would not have anticipated that the least important thing in the school system was the heat for the classrooms, but apparently those are the circumstances in the city of Victoria.

Mind you, the members opposite have clearly gone on record as saying that 17 percent is not enough: "Even in a time of unemployment and restraint, we have to have more." Perhaps the opposition could help out the members on this side of the House and the public of British Columbia. I'd like to ask them, how much is enough" People have to pay their taxes. If the school system is going to be destroyed by a 17 percent increase, then I think the members opposite have an obligation to tell us — and through us, the public of British Columbia — how much they need to send in, in the way of taxes, so that the heat can be turned on in the schools, so that Johnny and all the other people can get some kind of service and the teachers' appetites can be satisfied. Can they give us a number?

Here's what has happened in the last four years. We have respected education. We've made it a priority. We have contributed generously to sharply increasing budgets. What's happened? Salary costs per pupil — not the heat, light or all those things — have gone up over the last four years by 76.2 percent. What salary-cost-per-pupil increase, can I ask the members opposite, is enough? If 76 percent over four years is not enough, what will do?

We don't want to be accused of inflicting slavery on the teachers. We don't want to be accused of denying special education to the handicapped. We don't want to be accused of turning the heat off in the schools. But we do want to be able to tell the unemployed, the taxpayers of British Columbia and those who are trying to manufacture and export their products, but have to pay these school taxes, how much is enough. Seventy-six percent in four years isn't enough. An average salary of $33,934, up from $28,516 last year, isn't enough. The 193 days, less five or six non-instructional days, is too many. The five hours and 15 minutes of daily instruction is such a heavy burden for 187 days a year that the proposal of the Minister of Education is unreasonable. That workload is more than people can bear.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the members opposite can enlighten us on this. Tell us how much is enough; tell us how much work is too much — not for our benefit over here, but for the benefit of the unemployed, the taxpayers, the businessmen who are going bankrupt because they can't pay these costs, the senior citizens who have to bear their share of it, and all the others who contribute to this system that we as a government have allowed, if not encouraged, to increase this much. At least this year, we've said that maybe, if salary costs have gone up 76 percent while the cost of inflation has gone up 44 percent, if five administrators in the city of North Vancouver who together are collecting close to $400,000 a year — it's in that $65,000 to $90,000 range to be an administrator of a relatively small school district.... This year maybe that's a little heavy for the taxpayers to bear — just a bit. That's what this bill is about.

We didn't think that by bringing the bill in, saying 17 percent was enough, that we were destroying the school

[ Page 9502 ]

system, as was suggested by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). They have said that. They have told the taxpayers and the unemployed that it's not enough — send in more. So we ask the members opposite: if what the government has done is so cruel and unreasonable, if it's going to bring about slavery, as some have said, or destruction of the school system, as others have said, what must we do to provide freedom for the teachers in the school system, and what must we do to prevent its destruction?

Translate that in terms of taxes and increases, and make that your program for the future, but make it convincing — certainly more convincing than the debate we heard from the member who just took her place and those who sit in this assembly now. Because if it isn't more convincing, it could just be that the public will consider the members opposite as unreasonable as they did in 1933 in rejecting them; as unreasonable as they were in 1937, 1941, 1949, 1952 — when, heaven preserve us, they nearly won an election — 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966 or 1969, because in all those elections the people felt that the CCF and its successor, the New Democratic Party, were putting forward unreasonable arguments on behalf of vested interests and some segments of society, trying to turn those segments against others, never speaking for the population as a whole or for the genuine common man, only speaking for the people they represent, the special interests, those with a peculiar approach to economics, those in the labour movement and now, apparently, those in the Teachers Federation. That's not good for British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, yes, you won an election in 1972, not because you spoke for a higher percentage of the population or because you received more popular support, but because there were too many people trying to improve the free enterprise side of British Columbia. As the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Strachan, said, if the former member for Oak Bay, Scott Wallace, hadn't appeared on the scene to offer his special brand of free enterprise, they'd have had to invent it. Even Mr. Strachan, one of your great figures of the past, realized that the New Democratic Party, in all the arguments he offered over the years, weren't speaking for all the people of British Columbia. They were speaking for limited vested interests. The hope was that the average person would become so confused by the free enterprise competition that they could slip in the back door, and they did. The tragedy was that they were able to put all of their policies for the vested interests into action. What a disaster it was for British Columbia. The public regained their common sense in 1975.

MR. LAUK: What's a vested interest? Children?

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, speaking on behalf of one group, it might be for 17 percent increases for teachers. As I said, Mr. Member, this is not a bill that has anything to do with education at all. It has to do with teachers' salaries.

Should one professional group in society have a 17 percent increase and want more, when others, including MLAs, doctors, professors, etc., are taking cuts? Should one get very special treatment? And is it right for the opposition to speak on behalf of one special interest group? They're opposing this bill, and therefore they are speaking on behalf of the special interest. That's the only point that I'm making, Mr. Speaker, and why I'm saying that the New Democratic Party lost in 1933, 1937, 1941, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1966 and 1969 — because they spoke for these special interests. They did win in 1972 not because they stopped speaking for the special interests. They won in 1972 because the public let their guard down. The problem when they were government, why we had our own made-in-British-Columbia depression — our New Democratic Party's special depression just for British Columbians — was because they put these ideas into practice. When 1975 came along, the public had its common sense; when 1979 came along, the public had its common sense. I only give to the members opposite some little advice from a long-time member who was going to retire until I heard some of the things the members opposite were saying: please gain some insight. Please recognize why you keep losing elections. Please stop speaking on behalf of the vested interests. Please begin to look at the overall good of British Columbia and what's necessary. Please understand that this bill isn't doing the things that the members opposite are howling about. That's rhetoric that discredits itself. Go to your caucus over lunch, think it through, repent on your ways and come back this afternoon and support forward-looking, responsible, fair and reasonable legislation.

MR. LEGGATT: Will there be an exam on this?

HON. MR. McGEER: I tell you, I'd hate to have failed as many exams as your party has failed with the electorate of British Columbia. Except for one time, when they got a C minus, the only grade they ever got from the electorate was F — failure. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if I ever saw failure in debate it has come from the members opposite on this particular bill.

I appeal to you....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're so charming!

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm being objective — not partisan, objective.

MR. SEGARTY: Get them a learning-disability teacher.

HON. MR. McGEER: Slow learners — 50 years, Mr. Speaker and still not able to get the basic lesson. The basic lesson for government is govern for all the people, never for the special interests.

MR. LEVI: Where is the member for Vancouver–Point Grey? He's gone. That 20-year veteran of this Legislature is gone forever. As a ghostly figure he stands over there, and in a quiet, obsequious way, he lectures those poor people on his side. The whole drama of that man's hyperbole is gone. He doesn't put his hands in his pocket anymore; he doesn't look up at the ceiling. He's obviously been taking lessons from the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) — little homilies.

Once that member had the audacity to write a book. I was just looking at the very last page of that book. Every now and again when he gets up to speak you can ask for the book and always find something that will hit him square between the eyes. On the very last page — this is after....

[ Page 9503 ]

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You've got to listen to this, Pat, because one day you will eat these words. He said: "My own conviction is, and I know this will be taken as my political statement, as perhaps it should be, but it is also my deep, personal conviction" — there he is; he's setting out to lay the groundwork for this incredible statement — "that the verdict of history will be neither that the Bennett administration achieved much in the areas of province's growth, nor that it was less successful in such fields as schools and hospitals." What incredible foresight that man had! He wrote this book in the sixties, and he's talking about the Bennett government. Don't tell me again that he's talking about the other Bennett government, because it was this kind of acumen from that member when he was a Liberal that couldn't win an election in 1963, 1966, 1969 or 1972. Then he found the secret to winning an election: you just double-cross your party, cross the floor, and go to the Titanic. He joined them.

He goes so far back that grandparents in this province wince and twitch that he's still around.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Do you know why he's like that? This is the Minister of Education. He's on one end of the scale. He's defending the bill which was brought in by the intellectual leader of the Social Credit Party. They both have PhDs. He has a PhD in some science and the other one has a PhD in bombast, piled high and deep. That's what his PhD is in, in this case.

There's a guy, a minister, and he has a hat trick — three times. He's the minister of mishap. First he became the Minister of Human Resources, but what a mess he made of that. He cannot stand up and say in this House that he produced one program that worked, but he did come into the House — the great intellect over there — and said: "We have a program, PREP." I thought he was the Minister of Education when he came in that day. He was going to do it. Then they had to get him out of there, because after all he had so many shovels hanging on his wall that the foundations of this building were having trouble.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, he shovelled it off the back of a truck.

MR. LEVI: No, the front of a car — that's where it went, not the back.

It's no longer currency, because after all, when we have the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who gallantly shovelled out $150 million in overruns in one year.... Of course the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) doesn't remember that. That member has real problems. I was quite sorry to hear last night that there is going to be a separatist candidate running in the Fraser Valley, and that we ain't going to see this guy back in the House again. That's a great disappointment to me.

It's interesting that the minister tells us that what the bill is really about — I'm not talking about the minister who introduced it, I'm talking about the former Minister of Education — is teachers' salaries. Here's a government that's been mucking about out there in the political arena for a year. First they sit in the cabinet room and say: "Who are we going to take on so we can get an issue?" So they take on the BCGEU.

They're going to go after the public servants; they're making too much money; they've got to cut back, give it back. Then unfortunately....

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting, but out of courtesy to the students of British Columbia, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: It is indeed a pleasure for me to introduce to the House students from St. Augustin's school, who are accompanied by Mrs. Brown. It's a real pleasure indeed, as one who represents a constituency with a great deal of strength in the private school system, to introduce these students. Would the members please extend a very warm welcome to them.

MR. LEVI: I too would like to welcome the students. Stay around, This place is going to get a lot hotter before it cools off.

The minister told us that it really is all about salaries, and it is all about salaries. He's still looking for somebody he can hit over the head, someone they can push into some action that would give the government an opportunity to do what they've been wanting to do ever since they've been in government: (a) send some group of people back to work legislatively; and (b) maybe make that fly as an election issue.

I'm speaking from the point of view of the riding that I represent. We share School District 43 with my colleague from Port Moody.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I would say en passant to the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) that you must not say things like that. First, you are just a one-timer; you've only been here once. You've got to be careful.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Bring that member to order. Do you two want to go for lunch early?

On September 16, 1982... We've got to have that guy brought to order. We can't run two debates in this House, Mr. Speaker. Otherwise, you will be accused of running a disorderly House, and at your age that's not very complimentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We must have order.

MR. LEVI: The Board of School Trustees wrote to the Premier on September 16. This was the time when there was great chaos in the education system. We didn't have that well defined until the minister himself, when he closed his speech on introducing the bill, said: "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 school education system." There is great chaos out there in the education system. He puts it a little more mildly and he talks about "a measure of order and confidence." Those are the two basis ingredients. Order in

[ Page 9504 ]

terms of which groups make the decisions about the education system, and there are at least three groups: this Legislature, the school trustees, and of course the taxpayers.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The minister indicated yesterday that he wants a measure of order and confidence restored. That was actually the tone of a letter that School District 43 in Coquitlam wrote to the Premier on September 16. This is what they said in part: "We wish you to know that this board took seriously its responsibility to provide for local choices and input for the educational program to be offered District 43 in 1982." These are the people, the elected school board trustees. "We also took seriously the provincial government assurance that it valued the principle of local autonomy on educational matters." This is where I and the former Minister of Education, the member for Point Grey, differ. He says this bill is about teachers' salaries. It is not only about teacher's salaries, Mr. Speaker; it's also about that thorny question of local autonomy. We've had the minister in his previous role as Minister of Municipal Affairs, and we know where he stands on the whole issue of local autonomy, input and decision-making, so much so that he brought in the Islands Trust bill. The bill was not brought forward again.

Now we have the same theme, the centralist's theme: "We know better. We will make the decisions." He did not explain, when he introduced the bill, why it was that he was determined to take over the job that the school boards were attempting to do. He said the deadline was September 15. Deadlines are not written in stone. They could have been given more time. So what they've done is simply to create a great deal more chaos and a lack of confidence. Those are the two themes that are out there; that's the great tragedy.

In all the years that I've been in public life and in this House, it's always been that the whipping boy of every politician — whether on the government's side or in the opposition, when going after the government — has been the educational system. It's amazing the debates that have taken place in this House around the question of education. Yet the theme that we've been attempting to.... I listened this morning very carefully to the little homilies of our blessed father from Chilliwack; it was very interesting. I couldn't quite actually understand how he could send Little Red out with three hundred bucks, then tell her that she didn't have three hundred bucks. What was he doing — printing his own money or something? Those kinds of homilies have no place in this particular debate around the education bill.

Mr. Speaker, the minister who introduced the bill is.... He's completed a hat trick. He's had three "people" portfolios. Human Resources is a people portfolio; he failed miserably in that one. Municipal Affairs is a people portfolio; that's dealing with a lot of people at the local level. He failed miserably on that one. And here he is, the Minister of Education. In all of the wildest possible dreams and horrors that could take place with any citizen in this province, you'd have to have had at least three or four doses of LSD, compounded by listening to a couple of speeches by the former Minister of Education.... You would never have said in your wildest dreams: "While I live and breathe in the province of British Columbia the first member for Surrey, the former Minister of Human Resources, will be made the, Minister of Education." I can see that susceptible little smile on the former Attorney-General's face. He, knows what I'm talking about. I mean, after all, reaching is one thing, but, good Lord, to make that man the minister.... It's very difficult. What he's done is to apply in dealing with the problems in education.... He's taken out the shovel, he's taken out the hammer. He knows best; he's going to do it all and nobody else can have a say in it at all.

Who is that man over there? He looks like King George V.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: That's right, it's King George V. I'm sorry. Just to go back to the letter, I want to finish the last paragraph of the one from the school trustees in Coquitlam:

"We ask that you consider our views and our concerns. We ask that you consider that our motives are those alone of serving education in this district. We have no hidden agenda.

"Finally, we ask that you add your voice to ours in speaking out" — and they're talking to the Premier here — "for the principle of local autonomy in public education matters, and for the maintenance of a progressive quality system of public education. We ask that you call upon the provincial government to rescind its cutbacks in public education."

Mr. Speaker, compared to the rhetoric that has come from the other side.... These are people with a mix of political philosophies. There is no one party dominating the school board. All of them shared an opinion about school and put it to a motion. The motion was then translated into a letter. Regardless of that, the minister decides he knows best.

Last week they worked hard to produce a bill. Let me just tell you, Mr. Speaker, what they have produced a bill for. It is to do nothing more than stir up the waters, agitate the various groups involved. Perhaps they can get what they haven't been able to get for 11 months: an election issue. That's what it's all about. It's not about education. It's not so much about the issue of salaries. After all, you had control of the purse strings. You were the people who said that you had enough money to do everything. Of course, they are the same people who someday are going to complete a piece of legislation which is going to give them endless amounts of money in any case. I have very much come to the conclusion that we basically are talking here about an attempt to develop a very strong election issue. It has nothing to do with education. It's simply one last attempt to pitchfork the Premier into an election on the basis that he can really go on a high.

Well, it's going in the same way as all of the other attempts that they've made. It's weak, it fritters away, and basically, we have no trouble voting against this. They say over there that I have commitments. We don't have commitments. There has been no change in the basic approach of this party in education in all the years it's been a party. People know specifically where we stand. It's in writing, and people can follow it. What we can't follow is where the government is going. We have not been able to follow that. I think that when the members over there get up — they had better come out four-square — and talk about defending the bill, they'd better talk about the point of view from which they're offering that defence. There's only one way that they're offering it, in my opinion. They're out to continue the teacher-bashing that

[ Page 9505 ]

they've done for years, with the hope that they can get some kind of issue out of it.

It's cynical, very unprincipled, and it completely disregards the basic reason for the school system: to see that our children get an education and that they will have a chance, as they grow up, to participate in our society. As it's nearly 12 o'clock, I 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 11:58 a.m.