[ Page 9507 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Letter to Premier from BCSTA. Mr. Lauk –– 9507

Natural gas rate increase. Mr. Macdonald –– 9507

Hiring of Human Resources executive directors. Ms. Brown –– 9507

Replacement for CNIB residence. Mr. Gabelmann –– 9508

Payment to Winfield Ranch. Mr. Howard –– 9508

Government fee increases. Mr. Stupich –– 9508

Steel contract for McInnes overpass. Mr. Leggatt –– 9508

Native Court Workers. Mr. Macdonald –– 9509

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1982 (Bill 88). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9509

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

Mr. Hall –– 9509

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 9511

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9513

Mrs. Dailly –– 9514

Mr. Ritchie –– 9515

Mr. Nicolson –– 9518

Mr. Waterland –– 9519

Small Business Development Act (Bill 82). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On section 5 –– 9520

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lea

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Ree

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Bennett

On section 7 –– 9526

Mr. Stupich

Division on third reading –– 9526

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

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 9526

Mr. Ree –– 9528

Appendix –– 9530

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have the pleasure today to introduce to the House foreign students who represent Columbia College. They are learning English as a second language, preparing for university entrance, and are here with their instructor, Mr. Roberts. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

I am very honoured today to make another introduction. The national council for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind has been meeting in Vancouver since Sunday. This is the second visit of the national council to British Columbia. With us today is one of the directors, Mr. Fredenburg of Toronto, and his good wife Mrs. Fredenburg. They are accompanied by their cousin Mrs. Payzant of Victoria. I would ask the House to give them a very warm and sincere welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have two introductions today. One gives me a great deal of pleasure, and that's to introduce the gentleman who conducted prayers today, Rev. Gordon Faraday, and his wife Ann, who are sitting in the gallery. I want a special welcome for this gentleman. He's the man who conducted the wedding ceremony for my wife Dorothy and me,

Secondly, in the gallery today are Mr. John Pierce and Mr. Allan Jenner from the Morguard bank, which is one of the newly incorporated banks in Canada. I would ask the House to bid those two gentlemen welcome as well.

MR. HYNDMAN: In your gallery today are two very special visitors from Vancouver. They both trained as teachers at UBC; they've both taught in B.C.'s public schools. They're here to watch the education debate and I'm convinced that their vote in the next election will be determined by the quality of the debate they see today. Would members join me in welcoming a special friend, Jennifer Burke, and a very special person, my wife Vicki.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Visiting with us in the gallery today is Mr. Miles McMahon from London, England. Mr. MacMahon is with British television. I hope the House will give him a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

LETTER TO PREMIER FROM BCSTA

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Education. Can the minister confirm that he has this day received a letter, addressed to the Premier, signed by Mr. Gary Begin of the BCSTA and dated today?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I did receive a copy of a letter addressed to the Premier from Mr. Gary Begin of the BCSTA.

NATURAL GAS RATE INCREASE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the former minister of Education, the Minister of Energy. In view of the hearings before the Utilities Commission in Kelowna, where a 1.6 percent increase has already been granted on an interim basis against the consumers of natural gas in the interior, and in view of the fact that Inland is obviously regarded by Peter and Edgar Bronfman, and others, as a goblet to be drained, and that Trans Mountain has a $50 million kitty that they're all after, with its tax write-off possibilities, has the minister decided to intervene in that hearing and say that no rate increases should be granted while this is going on?

HON. MR. SMITH: The short answer is no. The longer answer is that the member would like me to intervene not only in the Utilities Commission hearings but also in all corporate affairs in this province.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary for the minister. The fact is that the government of B.C. did intervene before the Utilities Commission during the takeover, but they did it too late to be of any effect; it was a charade. So the intervention is perfectly reasonable and proper. When it comes to protecting 100,000 residential, commercial and industrial users of natural gas against an unwarranted rate increase — an application brought by a company that nobody knows who owns at the present time — why will the minister not intervene on behalf of the public?

HIRING OF HUMAN RESOURCES
EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

MS. BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. At a time when there's a freeze on the hiring of auxiliary staff in her department, when clients in some regions are having to wait up to ten days for appointments and appointments are being reduced to 20-minute maximum duration, and the number of people going on welfare is increasing at the rate of 500 a month, can the minister explain her decision to hire another executive director at $65,000 a year in her ministry rather than three or four front-line staff to give direct service to people in need?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The question presupposes a few things. First of all, the waiting periods the member refers to have not been a matter of fact throughout our ministry services. I'm very pleased with the fact that the Ministry of Human Resources is coping with a very difficult time in our province's economy and doing a very good, dedicated and professional service to the people we serve.

On the question as to whether or not we have hired an executive director, I will take that question as notice. I imagine what the member is referring to is a replacement for an executive director in the ministry offices at the deputy minister level. I will certainly bring the answer back to this House.

I would like to share with the House the fact that our ministry has an exceptionally good executive staff and does not have a series of overloaded executive people, but we do have a very efficient executive staff. If there has been a vacancy in that staff and it has had to be filled, it is simply to keep the complement up in order to give the service to the people in need when they need it.

[ Page 9508 ]

MS. BROWN: This is a new question, because the minister has indicated that she doesn't know anything about the ads which are running under her ministry's signature.

Apparently two executive directors are being hired, not just one. I realize that one is a replacement. I wonder whether the minister will tell me if her ministry has decided to cut staff everywhere, except at the senior levels of bureaucracy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question without having to take it on notice. The answer is no.

REPLACEMENT FOR CNIB RESIDENCE

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Has the minister decided to assist in the funding of construction of an alternative housing facility to replace the CNIB residence at 35th and Main in Vancouver?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

PAYMENT TO WINFIELD RANCH

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. In 1981 a payment of $700 was made to Winfield Ranch Ltd. That's a company in which the Premier has disclosed a financial interest. Can the Attorney-General advise whether he intends to undertake an inquiry as to just what that payment was made for?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, without further particulars as to the agency by whom the payment was made and the purpose, I couldn't answer the question.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, because that information is not available in any public record, I asked the Attorney-General whether he would conduct an inquiry into it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the matter is not a matter of public record, and hasn't been brought to my attention, I don't see how any steps can be taken by me at all. If the hon. member can give some hint of his source of information and its reliability, then perhaps it could be considered.

GOVERNMENT FEE INCREASES

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On April 5, 1982 — almost six months ago — I asked the Minister of Finance to confirm that the government had at that time already imposed tax increases for 1982-83 of some $300 million to $500 million in the form of increases in government fees and user rates. To date the minister, despite repeated requests, has neglected or failed to answer. Has the minister now been advised, and can he inform the House, what effect these increases will have on the taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia in 1982-83?

HON. MR. CURTIS: There is a question on the order paper to that effect. I will not end my comment with that observation, but the member for Nanaimo has placed a question on the order paper with respect to fees, licences and permit charges which are levied. It is a matter of record in his office and mine that we have exchanged correspondence through the interval following July 29 and the end of August. My correspondence indicated to him the approximate number of fees which were altered and my willingness to provide more detailed information as soon as it was available. That commitment, made in writing, is now made in this House. I explained to the member that it was going to take some considerable time, because these increases cover virtually all ministries, and certainly cover a number of agencies. I stand by the commitment to provide that information to the member as soon as it is made available to me through the Ministry of Finance.

MR. STUPICH: I do acknowledge receipt of that correspondence, and acknowledge it to the minister, saying that I accept his word that that information will be available, and I agree it takes time. The question now is about a gross figure of the total amount involved. When I first raised the point in 1982, my question was that in preparing his budget, the minister must have had some idea — a ballpark figure, at least — what the gross effect of the total increases would be. Perhaps he would share that with the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will attempt to return to the House with the "ballpark figure" — to use the member's phrase, which I clearly understand. However, it should be observed that at the time of the asking of the question, some fees had been increased and others had not; fees were increased following that approximate date to which the member has referred. I will take the question as notice and try to return with a global figure at the earliest moment. That is not to exempt myself from the earlier commitment to provide more detailed information.

STEEL CONTRACT FOR McINNES OVERPASS

MR. LEGGATT: My question is to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. On September 28, I asked the minister responsible for the ALRT why he failed to protect B.C. jobs by not insisting on B.C. steel.

I now want to ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business about the McInnes overpass. That's a $3.2 million development, but it's not using any B.C. steel either. Would the minister advise why British Columbia steel — that is made-in-B.C. steel, not imported steel — isn't being used on a project that the taxpayers are putting up their money for?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be happy to take that question on notice and get the answer, but I'm sure that as is usual in this House, the member's assumptions are entirely wrong. I'll get back to the House with the answer.

MR. LEGGATT: The major supplier for these government contracts is CanWest Steel, who largely import their steel from Korea and the United States. Would the minister explain why his government seems to be preferring that particular company for their steel supply, rather than using a British Columbia company which uses scrap and manufactures steel right here, and which is dying on the vine because it's not getting government contracts?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I've already told the member that I would be quite happy to get the answer to his question. As I said, the member's assumptions and most of his questions in

[ Page 9509 ]

this House are based on erroneous information, so I won't put too much stock in them until I have a chance to get the answer.

MR. LEGGATT: When the minister is looking into that question, would he see whether my information is accurate that Mr. Cecil Cosulich is on the board of directors of CanWest Steel?

My second question to him on this is: when you're looking into this, would you supply the House with a complete list of all government contracts which have been supplied to CanWest for the supply of steel?

NATIVE COURT WORKERS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a friendly question, if that's permissible to the Attorney-General. The native court workers program, I think, has suffered only a reduction of $52,000 from the budget figure. I would ask the Attorney-General, in view of the importance of this service for the native people particularly, whether he can confirm that there will be no further cutbacks in that particular program.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm advised that there is no intention to reduce the limits of expenditures over those announced in any of the programs for which the ministry is responsible.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of that great city of Vancouver, I ask leave to introduce the amendments to the Vancouver Charter, motion 29 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the rules of the House be suspended and that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please; leave, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I ask leave of the House that the rules be suspended and the House proceed immediately to motion 33, an emergency debate on unemployment.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 3), 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 88. As in previous instances, the bill is designed to remedy minor clerical errors in the legislation, plus, in this case.... There are a number of statutes in this province that still provide that where fines are imposed but not paid, imprisonment results. This is not in accordance with the policy of the government, and a number of statutes are being modified to ensure that imprisonment does not result in those cases. I move second reading.

Bill 88, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

(continued)

MR. LEVI: I defer, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL: Every Thursday afternoon when we're gathered here, we go through this agonizing period of getting through until 5 o'clock. For the benefit of the galleries, that means that when we're on red alert for elections, we have to twiddle our thumbs until 5 o'clock to find out whether the government has plucked up its courage to call an election on a Thursday.

Interjections.

MR. HALL: In that case it might be a yellow alert, if they choke any more.

We want to restore some calm and orderly behaviour to this important debate on education. Notwithstanding that there have been a number of contributions on this bill which have indicated the various positions on both sides of the House, as the second member for Surrey, and sharing a riding, as I do, with the Minister of Education, it seems to me I should place my feelings on the record. In the eventuality of our getting through this next few days and having to put our records, so to speak, up for examination, those in that fine, burgeoning School District 36 will know where both the minister and I stand on this bill he introduced.

Let me say right off the bat that I can't support my colleague from Surrey in this bill. It's disruptive. [Applause.] The applause I'm getting is obviously from those members opposite who share that view; they can't support that member either. It's disruptive, for the fourth time, to the district that the member and I share. The public school system in this province has been disrupted not specifically or specially by this minister, but by this government. This minister has been instructed to bring this bill in. I don't know whether he's the author or not; only time will tell. But disrupt the system he has — for the fourth time. In our district an agreement had been reached to, in effect, meet the basic aims of the trustees and the ministry officials, to produce a final expenditure result in keeping with the overall guidelines that had first been announced in February, then announced a couple of months later, and amended for the third time just before this minister took office.

When you disrupt something four times in that period of time, especially when all these other things have been going on, especially when we see the language in which this bill is couched, as the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned this morning — certainly not the language of a legislative draftsman, but the language, I would suggest, of a political science fiction writer — then I would suggest we are looking at a political bill. We're looking at a bill that's been written and drafted upon the instructions of a very political Premier, nervous over a political enemy. Who that enemy is I'm not too certain. It might well be the Minister of Education. It might be part of the school system. It might be us on this side of the House. But there is certainly no other way one

[ Page 9510 ]

can look at this bill than in those terms. That's on a first glimpse of the bill.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

However, like all members of the Legislative Assembly, when we get an important piece of legislation like this, I chose to get in touch with the leadership of both the school board and the school teachers in School District 36. What do they have to say? The trustee reaction for a start. Well, it was interesting. "They're creating" — "they" is always the ministry or the government — "an administrative nightmare." "Why didn't they have the guts to legislate rollback?" "For the past months they've been operating purely on crisis management and not accomplishing the work required." This simply causes fresh chaos. It removes the termination power from the school board.

MR. KEMPF: How do you want to see it done, Ernie?

MR. HALL: I want to see it done, Mr. Member from the north, by consultation, as it was indeed being done until this gross interference by Bill 89.

"They will be running everything from Victoria," complains School District 36. "They" — the government — "caused the problem in the first place, and now they want credit for producing these draconian solutions," says School District 36. "It's interference with agreements reached this past week," says School District 36. And then when they get into the details.... I don't want to get into the section-by-section analysis, but as they say, if they had been asked about it all, they would have pointed out that one day off per month would have been much better than that which is suggested in the bill — five days off at the end of the school year. Total chaos in the busing plans for School District 36 has been caused by this gross interference on the part of the ministry.

The interesting thing was that the day after the bill was introduced, in my mail slot came press release number 119 from the Ministry of Education, which was boasting about the agreements that had been reached across the province in the way that I've just pointed out in an out-of-order fashion across the floor to the member from Houston or Vanderhoof or somewhere like that — the whole of that area. Wolfman Jack. Two-Story Jack.

Why does my colleague from Surrey boast in this press release? "Expenditure reduction plans have been reduced by, or are on the way to, the Ministry of Education from 74 out of 75 school districts, in compliance with restraint orders from the Hon. William Vander Zalm." Why does he boast, in the first paragraph, on the day after he introduces this piece of legislation?

In the third paragraph he says: "Of those reporting to date, 52 have filed plans complete enough to be analyzed, and it's satisfying for me to note that in 25 of those districts the necessary savings have been made without teacher-layoff proposals." Since that, Mr. Speaker, moving from School District 36 to the province as whole, we received today the letter from the chairman of the School Trustees Association.

"Mr. Premier:

"In July your government announced the imposition of the second phase of restraint on 1982 public school budgets. The BCSTA appealed for appropriate legislation before the Legislature adjourned on July 29, 1982. We met with you on September 24 and discussed the following: morale, equity and management flexibility. You acted quickly to bring in legislation. I thank you for that. We must now consider if Bill 89 meets the objectives that we discussed.

" 1. Morale. School boards need time to study Bill 89 to discuss its terms with employee groups and determine its potential impact on the critical stage of employee and student relations.

"2. Equity. The negotiations which the bill envisions as being complete by October 15 require boards to draft 1983 budgets. We cannot begin to negotiate in good faith until we look at 1983 budgets, and we cannot look at 1983 until you have answered our questions pertaining to equity.

"3. Management flexibility. We commend you for responding to many of the points we raised, but we need time to consider the impact of the prescriptive legislation. We had hoped for permissive legislation.

"Mr. Premier, I've been asked by my executive to canvass our membership for their response to Bill 89 to ascertain how this legislation will meet the objectives we have discussed. We ask that you postpone further debate on the bill for a period of one week to ten days to allow for necessary consultation."

That's what the trustees are saying today: no response from the government whatsoever; bull her through, boys; push her through. It's political. That's what it is, and you know it, and I know it.

What did the teachers say, Mr. Speaker, when they were contacted by the second member for Surrey? The same kind of things, the same kind of concern about the system, the same kind of concern about interference when they had met face to face with the trustees and worked out an agreement with the very guidelines that this very government had laid down.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do they have a problem?

MR. HALL: Yes, they have a problem, because now you have destroyed that agreement by imposing further cuts on them — more than you'd asked for in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much would you give them?

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about sitting down to negotiate the best quality education system in this province, given whatever figures you want to spend on education. You don't do that by shouting out loud from the rooftops, here in the central city — the capital city — on the lower part of Vancouver Island, and telling school boards what to do.

Mr. Speaker, we've contacted the leadership in Surrey. I've given you those quotations and the further quotations from the BCSTA. What happens next?

MR. SEGARTY: More money!

MR. HALL: Nobody's asked for more money, and this little chipmunk to my left should really shut up and listen if he wants to know anything at all about the educational system in this province.

Mr. Speaker, what is next month's interference going to consist of? There's been consistent interference in the school

[ Page 9511 ]

system in this province since February. Why do we have to have this savage attack on contracts? A little while ago the Premier said he was just a country boy. He wasn't used to any of these United Kingdom labour-boss tricks in negotiations. Now he's shown the United Kingdom labour-bosses a thing or two. He just wipes out contracts. I've never heard of that happening in the United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker. I thought a country boy shook hands and said: "That's a deal, a deal for all time." The sanctity of contract means absolutely nothing to the Premier of this province. I'm beginning more and more to believe that this bill was written in the Premier's office and given to his Minister of Education to swallow, because not one of the things that are in this bill have I ever seen my colleague from Surrey promote. In fact, every time anybody suggested anything in this bill to the Minister of Education, he said no to them. It's on the record. He said no to every one of these elements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit picking on him.

MR. HALL: I'm trying to defend him from the bully from Kelowna.

As I said to you as recently as yesterday, when I received press release 119 from the ministry's director of information services, we got the news that said:

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

Then, when that was going on, he stabbed every single one of them in the back by producing Bill 89 — under instructions, I would suppose.

Why, then, do we have Bill 89? Why, then, do I say that I cannot support it? Simply because it is politics. You know, and we know that this is politics, pure and simple, and that this is the issue that the Premier thinks he might be able to whip up into some sort of frenzy for the election. It won't work, Mr. Speaker. We know, and you know. Before the month is out, the province will find out the depth of this issue and the depths to which politics will enter into legislative drafting in this House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wanted to take my place in this debate for a few moments. I always appreciate the opportunity of following the second member for Surrey. He speaks so well in this House. He deals so well with the issues as he sees them that there is a danger that those who might be listening to his words would think that he was right. I think it is appropriate that we take the opportunity to show where he is wrong.

He talks about it being Thursday afternoon and the time being wasted. This has been typical of the debate from the opposition with respect to this particular matter concerning the crisis that faces education in this province. They don't want to debate it. Their principal critic who spoke yesterday, I must say, struck a new high for him. He made absolutely no sense at all yesterday.

The second member for Surrey has read the bill. There's only one difficulty about reading the bill. When it comes to dealing with legislation in this chamber, I think the second member for Surrey should take a remedial reading course. He can read the press releases that come to his office, and the correspondence and communications that he gets from the outside, but in anything as significant as a piece of legislation, he can't read the clear words. I would think that one of the things that could be done in this province is to take this bill into every school and allow the students to be able to tell the second member for Surrey how clear language is to be read.

We have had a number of months since the Premier first announced the need for restraint in all areas in this province. We've had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the medical profession, with government employees and with other significant elements in the community. The teachers and school trustees have had the opportunity of examining what their role should be in achieving the benefits of restraint and at the same time having the least possible effect on the education system in this province. There is no question that if we had unlimited funds available to us from the taxpayers, education would receive all of the money that the opposition has asked for and more. But the taxpayers of this province and their children in the schools recognize that in these particular times that is not possible.

When we left the teachers, through their associations and the school trustees. to discuss the resolution of the problem, it is true, as the second member for Surrey has said, that a significant number of school districts, by negotiation between the teachers and the school boards, were able to resolve the budgetary problem facing them this year, up to December 31, 1982. They are to be given credit for the responsible way in which they accomplished that difficult task. But there were many school districts that had not achieved such agreement. Some school districts acted on their own and saw the only solution as being the laying off of teachers, apparently without regard to the consequences it might have for the school system and the students. There were other school districts which, by arrangement between the teachers and the school boards, saw their way to solving their budgetary problems by cutting back on the programs and services to which the students are entitled.

Faced with that variation throughout this province, it would be irresponsible on the part of the government to sit back and allow this to continue. We are now at the end of September, we're getting close to the end of the year, and those school districts could only achieve budgetary restraint in those draconian ways: by laying off teachers — "which, it is suggested, some school trustees would like to do, but the government does not — or cutting back on school programs, which some school districts might want to do, but the government does not. Therefore in this situation the government moved at the appropriate time and in the simplest of ways, by saying to all of the school teachers' associations and school trustees in this province who had not reached the kind of agreement that was reached in Surrey: "Ladies and gentlemen, we'll give you until October 15 to sit down and seriously bring about the kind of result that others have done or, I'm sorry, we're going to have to impose it upon you." That's a decision no government wants to make. But what can you do in the face of threatened layoffs of teachers? Surrey, for example, was threatening to lay off 90 teachers; but they didn't need to when they finally got down and saw some sense.

All the while this was going on, the officials of the Ministry of Education were examining what was taking place

[ Page 9512 ]

in the school districts in this province. Lo and behold, what do we find? In the school districts of the province there are five, and in some cases six, days in the school year for which the teachers are paid, but no instruction is given to the students. It was found in many cases that if as few as two of those days were given up, it would solve the budgetary problem until the end of December 1982 — as few as two days. In the last round of negotiations last December and into January the teachers received pay increases of 17 percent. No one denies that they were entitled to that. But in a period of restraint, is it too much to ask that they consider giving up two days for which they are paid, during which they do not teach, to solve the problem of potential layoffs of their colleagues or cutbacks in educational programs, which the teachers themselves have publicly said they oppose?

School districts other than those that have not agreed have seen this solution — it's been pointed out to them — and they have solved their problem by adopting it. At this particular time the government has said: "With respect to those who have not seen the opportunity, we point it out to you clearly. We will give you until October 15 to make up your minds what you're going to do."

I am confident that the school teachers in this province who responsibly discharge their obligations to the students in this province and the school trustees who have the responsibility for managing the educational system at the local level will recognize the opportunity they have been given, and will, between now and October 15, achieve the kind of resolution that is possible. If in so achieving it, they give up one or two or three of those paid non-teaching days between now and the end of December, then they will have made a significant contribution to the restraint programs in this province which are so desperately needed, and at the same time will have ensured the continuation of educational programs in their school districts. That's the responsible way to deal with the problem that confronts us. The doctors have done it in their way. The British Columbia Government Employees Union members are doing it in their way, but they didn't get a 17 percent increase last December, Mr. Member. You must remember that.

MR. SEGARTY: They didn't get 47 percent over the past three years.

MR. LAUK: Well, so what? You still gave them an increase — in a depression.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, you're keeping a disorderly House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask hon. members to pay attention to the debate and not to interject.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a couple more remarks.

The hon. second member for Surrey indicates that in this legislation we are interfering with contracts. We don't want to. We're asking the people who are first able to resolve this problem to sit down and rethink the arrangements that exist in this province themselves. We have indicated that if only a few of them find that they can't take that opportunity, then in order that there would be equality in the way in which all school districts, teachers' associations and trustees resolve their problem, and so that there aren't a few who are left out, for whatever reason.... Therefore, yes, the government has interfered with the contracts with regard to teaching days and so on.

MR. KING: It's easy to interfere when you're a Liberal, isn't it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke continues to chatter across the floor and make irrelevant, immaterial comments with regard to me and my remarks. It's the kind of debate we've come to expect from him. I think if he would go back to his constituency once in a while, and leave his home in Victoria, and talk to the people, he would find, as we are finding, that throughout the length and breadth of this province the people want two things: they want restraint in expenditures, they don't want people laid off, and they want to have the educational system preserved.

MR. LAUK: That's three things.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They want four. They want to get rid of these people over here, but they insist upon hanging onto those safe seats that they've had for so many years.

That's what the people of this province want, and they are receiving this in this legislation. The legislation makes it clear that those special programs that are so necessary and valuable to those persons in our schools who suffer from various handicaps and require special programs are to be continued. That, too, is laid down.

MR. LAUK: No it isn't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is clearly spelled out.

MR. LAUK: No.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the education critic, is here spouting off absolute nonsense. I don't know why he doesn't go and do another bank job. What he did to the banks was bad, but what he's trying to do to the schools is worse than the Brinks holdup.

MR. LAUK: Are you denying that you drove the car?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I wasn't interrupted so often I'd be able to conclude more quickly. I must say that you're keeping very good control of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, if you would address the Chair instead of the other side of the House, I'll try to defend you from the other side of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You may have found yourself a new future, Mr. Member. You control this House so well.

I know that we'll get into this debate when we get into committee stage and go through it section by section, but there's another section which I suggest that the members are concerned about: the interference with contracts, I just wish they would take the time to look at the School Act.

MR. LAUK: I did.

[ Page 9513 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If you've read the School Act you should realize why it was necessary to do what we've done in respect to term contracts. It doesn't offend against contractual relationships. Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is that he needs to take some better legal advice that he can give himself.

The bill also looks into next year. It is appreciated, and the school trustees have recognized that if they have budgetary problems in 1982, they will have even greater budgetary problems in 1983, a new budget year. When they approach that new budget year, the government, by this legislation, has indicated that there will be some additional relief available to them: one in the matter of using non-shareable capital expenditures, and the other with regard to the number of days they will be teaching, the number of days the schools will be open. We preserve the number of instructional hours in the school year, leaving the opportunity to those school boards and their teachers to make the determination as to how those instructional hours will be used, but we ensure that there will be a saving in the number of days the school is open.

The member for Surrey says this rule is going to create havoc with the busing system. It will do just the opposite. It will enable the boards of school trustees and their teachers to work out all those problems. They have the responsibility. They know what can be done in their particular school district better than anyone in Victoria might know, and we leave it to them to make those orderly adjustments of their school system which best suit their particular circumstances.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is to be congratulated on his restraint in bringing forward this legislation, and for showing the clear way by which the principal participants, who are the school trustees and the teachers, can themselves resolve the problem concerning education in their district.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The Attorney-General, in explaining the bill, was far more eloquent than I could be, but I do feel that I'd like to make a few comments in this debate. Of course, the most obvious point is that, for whatever purpose, members of the opposition have tried to get out to the public a misreading of what this bill actually says. The bill deals with the problem where the problem has not been resolved. It is very clear, to anyone who reads the bill, that it is not intended to be a heavy hand from Victoria, undoing what has already been achieved. The bill makes very clear that where settlements have been reached without teacher layoffs, without the cutting of special programs, those agreements stand. Yet we've had a great deal of public reaction, and reaction from some representatives of the teachers and representatives of the school board; a great deal of outcry against things that do not actually exist.

We heard, for example, the second member from Surrey (Mr. Hall) talking about the horrendous busing problems it would create. Different parts of this province have different busing problems, transportation problems, weather problems, that sort of thing. and that has been deliberately left flexible. There is very little difficulty in picking up a few minutes a day, in adding a few minutes a day to the timetable.

There are many ways it can be done. I am fully convinced that the people in the schools, in the districts, will adjust that best to their own particular situation. To use one example — and not as a guideline because in some cases it may not suit the purpose — in any secondary school having five scheduled periods in a day, adding 13 minutes to that day means less than three minutes on each period, which would hardly be noticed. It can be done by picking up time from the noon hours, at the beginning of the day, at the end of the day — in various ways.

To say that this is going to create a difficulty is something that is hard to believe. The only way, in effect, it can be used is for whatever other purpose. Of course, it has been the opposition's purpose to try to make this into a political bill. They have accused this of being a political bill. This is a very practical piece of legislation. The only political thing that comes into it is that they have seen some possibilities in here — their usual concern for education only as long as it provides political ammunition for them. That is certainly true, This government has done more, and is very interested; it has increased education grants and done a great many things to preserve education. Even this bill, the actions taken in the restraint measures, are to preserve education. They are certainly there to preserve education, because some minor remedial action now to cut expenditures when the revenues aren't there is certainly a great deal better than major surgery later on.

This is what this government has done, over and over again. Many school districts recognize that it is necessary to accept this; and many teachers. Obviously they negotiated those agreements. Where, for whatever purposes — I think in many cases these are political — then we try.... The opposition has tried to spread a great deal of unnecessary fear and paranoia throughout the public, saving: "Your children are going to suffer." The children are not going to suffer from this. The teachers are not going to suffer.

In effect, this legislation and action does not take away local autonomy or destroy the collective agreement. The collective agreement remains intact. The teachers' salary base for next year remains what they negotiated. That means their pensions, all of those things that are in the agreement, basically remain there. This government has said: "Where you haven't been able to sort it out, where you can't reach an agreement without hurting the students by taking away programs, and without hurting your fellow teachers by having them laid off, then, and only then will we step in. Where you have reached agreement, fine. Where you can reach agreement by October 15, fine." I suspect there will be very few districts left where this act will have to be imposed, yet the opposition has seen fit to spread the message that this is an imposition front Victoria trying to run the whole province, We've left it to them and many of them have responded responsibly. The intent of this bill is very clear.

The other thing that perhaps enters into the confusion is that the school districts' financial year runs from January to December, so whatever cuts are necessary in expenditures in this year's budget must be applied by December 31. The school year runs from September to June, and teachers on staff don't want the insecurity of wondering what's going to happen to them in January. For that reason, this legislation had to move in. To save that kind of insecurity and confusion, this legislation had to move into the area of dealing with the problem until next June as well. That was dealt fairly to everybody in this province by cutting out five actual working days. and for those days when teachers did not teach, when the year was shortened, their pay would be shortened.

In order to preserve the instructional hours for students, they were asked to spread that over the rest of the period. Anyone who has worked in a school or had anything to do

[ Page 9514 ]

with timetabling at the elementary level — I've had experience at both the elementary and secondary levels — realizes that picking up those 12 or 13 minutes a day on the average — some schools may chose to pick it up on one day — can be done rationally, without creating a great deal of problems for teachers and without actually creating any extra work for them. It will mean a little more time to restructure the bell system and the timetable, but very little extra work needs to go into that. I'm sure that most teachers and districts will have no problem with that, because it has not been imposed; it has been left with them to do it. We just ask that students not lose instructional time because of these measures that need to be taken. No special programs should be cut.

We've had to deal with the situation to December 31. We said that where individual districts and individual teachers' associations have in effect dealt with it and solved that problem, fine; that stays. We've also had to deal with the situation until next June, because teachers are hired from September to June and shouldn't be wondering whether they're going to have their jobs in January just because the financial year ends and begins at the end of the calendar year. That insecurity has been removed, so those pupils can count on the programs. The programs stay, teachers' jobs are preserved and their salary base remains in place. What is making all of this possible is that contribution — voluntarily made in some districts, and imposed as a last resort — of the days when they do not teach children. As I pointed out, they give up their pay for the non-instructional days. As the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said, it doesn't even have to be all of those; it only applies where the other voluntary measures haven't been taken — two or three days of that time. I think it indicates the responsiveness of teachers in this province that many of them came up with this and solved the problem.

One thing that the opposition often forgets in their debate.... They talk about government money as though it came from a magic-mushroom tree or something of that nature. Government money is, in effect, the taxpayers' money. This legislation — the policies and the philosophies encompassed in this legislation — is saying that the educational system does not need to be hurt; but we do have to cut expenditures if we want the good things that have been established to survive.

We've had a genuine concern for education, a genuine concern for the students, and that's what education is really all about — trying to preserve the system for the students of this province. It behooves some people, for whatever reasons, to try to make out that this government is the enemy of education. It is not. It certainly is trying to preserve the good educational system. I think that most parents — they are taxpayers — and most teachers in this province are interested in the same thing, which is to preserve that educational system.

Mr. Speaker, many of the accusations.... I would urge those people who have been reacting to the erroneous interpretation that has been passed out by many people — for political purposes — that they not judge this legislation, the policy or what's happening on the basis of that. They're reacting to misreadings of the bill. When they are criticizing it, they are reacting to misinterpretations, to deliberately fiery rhetoric. In a sense, that is the only issue the opposition has. They've got to try to make out that there's something wrong here when in fact it is not wrong, it is right. They've got to try to make out that it's an imposition on everybody throughout the province when in fact it's an imposition only where the districts cannot settle. Would you have us, as the provincial government with the final responsibility, leave it, even if only one or two districts cannot settle in some responsible form? Would you have us leave that and go on, or would you rather have it resolved? I think it is our responsibility. Where people cannot settle this issue, somebody has to step in and resolve it. Many of the accusations are erroneous. Many of the fears that are being sent out as messages are completely unnecessary. I think that when the school districts and the teachers of this province can read for themselves what this says, they are going to feel that they have been badly misled by those who claim to be their friends, those who claim that the Social Credit people are their enemies. You can only misuse friends so long and expect them to remain your friends. I think that in this case the opposition has been badly misusing the responsible teachers of this province for their purpose. I think they are wrong in this case.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm going to be very brief. My remarks are going to be very short, because I don't really believe that this bill presented by the Social Credit government deserves anything more than a few basic remarks.

This bill is the culmination of a government that has an anti-education bias. This bill is only presented in this House because of the way in which the Social Credit government has handled education from the time they assumed office. Since 1975 when they took over again we have seen a gradual — and now it is a rush — erosion of all educational standards in this province. That has been done basically from a financial point of view.

Since 1975 this government has gradually decreased their input into educational costs to the various school districts of this province. They've reached a point now where, despite their bill, which claims to put 75 percent of school costs into education, we now find that they have confiscated all the commercial and industry taxes and have left the school boards having to raise everything from residential. Why I'm mentioning this, very briefly, is that this bill is only here because this government has given education an exceptionally low priority throughout the last five years.

They have strangled the school boards of the province in their attempt to provide good education in this province. Because they have mismanaged the school system, because they have centralized and because they've basically starved the local taxpayer, now they find themselves in a situation where the school boards have not only been asked to accept further cuts but have been ordered by a centralized ministry to move in and do things which boards and teachers have never been faced with before.

That's why it is not necessary for the official opposition to go into any detail with this bill. We reject a government that has an anti-education bias and that has basically shown that megaprojects always come first. To listen to the Attorney-General pontificating about this school bill, as if he has not sat as a cabinet minister since 1975 and been responsible for the erosion of education in this province.... We should never have to be handed a bill like this even to deal with.

We all simply are ready to go to the people and show the people of this province that this is a government that has a basic anti-education bias. They are not concerned about the children of this province. Any government that was would never have allowed the educational system to deteriorate to this position. I know that the minister who has brought this bill forward wants to conclude this debate. I know we're

[ Page 9515 ]

going into committee where further questions can be answered. I want to conclude my remarks on this bill by saying that we reject all aspects of this bill because the students of this province are going to suffer even more because of this bill.

MR. RITCHIE: The bill before us is actually a bill to preserve jobs. That's exactly what it's going to do. Speaking on behalf of the teachers of School District 34, many of whom I know personally.... They are very good friends of mine and people who I have a tremendous regard for because of their dedication, the many hours that they put in on their profession, the way they're prepared to go way further than duty calls in order to do what they feel their profession demands in order to make sure that those students get the quality of education that they deserve and require, because they, like us, recognize that the most valuable resource in this province is our young people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Those teachers I speak for were asking for leadership of this nature in order to bring some sort of quiet settlement to some little misunderstandings here and there in respect to how we were attempting to apply the restraint program to the education field. Those teachers know there have been no cuts in education, that the education budget was not cut but increased by, I believe, an average of about 15.9 percent across this province.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: That's an excellent question: where are they? We have had this session interrupted many times by the opposition, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition who is attempting to bring about what he called an emergency debate concerning the economy. Then they get into a great flurry about education. What have we got? At this moment we've got one member of the opposition in the House and he doesn't have any interest whatsoever in this bill or in education. He hasn't spoken; he hasn't said a word; he may yet. I understand that some of them support the bill and may not speak, so he could be one of those. I think it's a real disgrace that here we have such a very important piece of legislation before us and there's only one member of the opposition in his seat.

As I talk to my teachers — I had one of them visit me just last Sunday at my home — they are very concerned. They are not concerned about some of the things this government is doing in respect to education, to improve on all the services, but because some of their colleagues were facing the possibility of layoffs. That teacher told me that they could understand the restraint program. They know it's not something that's being applied just to one section. They understand that doctors, dentists, public employees, MLAs, and indeed the many unemployed and those who have had difficulty in their businesses and are facing bankruptcy, have all shared in it. The teachers are prepared to share in it. Oh, yes, we have a few radicals — there's no question about it: they're all over the place. As a matter of fact, we witnessed their attempt to instruct students on what they should do to defeat this Social Credit government.

I came over here as a representative for my constituency, fully convinced and satisfied that the majority of the teachers in my area are very fair, dedicated professionals whose duty to their profession comes before politics. It is because we as government don't wish to see anyone unemployed. If we can help it, that we are asking each and every one to share. The whole restraint program has been designed on a very fair basis, to give those of us who are fortunate enough to be employed and receiving income some opportunity to take a little bit less so that we can help our friends and neighbours. This is designed to do the same thing in the field of education.

I have spoke publicly many times and have had many opportunities to speak with students and teachers. I can recall telling them that I am nervous, indeed frightened, at the ever-increasing cost of two of the most essential programs in this province and indeed in this country — the costs of health and education. The reason I have been concerned and frightened is that I have experienced how the runaway cost of such programs can be detrimental to the programs themselves, and how damaging it can be if you don't keep a tight rein on costs. I've come to the conclusion that any time two programs reach the point of being almost 50 percent of the total budget — and I don't take any exception to the increasing cost of these services — then it's time to take a hard look to see just where we're going. I think, in my own humble way. that while this recession is very hard on some and not so hard on others, it's going to do us all a great deal of good in that it's going to cause us to display that courage and ability to search around for areas where we can cut out unnecessary spending. That applies in education, as it does in any other area of spending.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: I don't think you've spoken yet, but I'm sure you'll get your turn. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) hasn't said a word yet, other than to make the odd catcall from across the way.

Here is an opportunity for all governments to take a look at what has been going on in the area of spending, and to make sure that they're going to bring some sort of control without jeopardizing the quality of services, particularly those essential services such as health, education and help for the elderly. I don't care whether it's in the home. In business or in government: if you're reckless in your spending, you can't expect to continue getting all of the things you really want.

The bill also ensures the preservation of the quality of education services. We've heard over the past few weeks how these services are going to suffer, how children are going to be denied quality education. One has only to look at the source of this sort of comment to understand that it's now being applied in education as it was in health. Those members, for their own political gains, would ride on the backs of the sick as they did during the debates on health, and now they're attempting to climb on the backs of our students. This bill is going to ensure that jobs will not be lost in the field of education. It is also going to ensure that our education services will be maintained, including those special services. I would consider that to be a very responsible approach indeed.

We have heard many comments from this side of the House during this debate, all very constructive and well put, explaining why this is necessary, why it's the responsibility of this government to bring about the opportunity, through legislation, for those teachers who want to share. The member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), our Minister of Agriculture and Food, did an excellent job, as he usually does

[ Page 9516 ]

when he gets on his feet to speak. He talked about the myths, about why and how restraint. Some of our members have talked about the fairness of the restraint program. The debate has covered areas such as how it's being supported by other sections of society; how the doctors have come along willingly and said: "Yes, we'll share the load."

We've heard severe criticism from the opposition benches about the public employees, who also said: "Yes, we'll share the load." They certainly bargained, but they did not bargain according to the philosophy of the New Democratic Party, as was clearly stated in this House by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). He claims that their idea of free collective bargaining is to bargain for all you can get, and then when you think you have everything, you go on strike. Not only is that irresponsible and greedy, but it's absolutely stupid. Why would you sit there and allow the member representing your party to take his place in a debate to make such statements on your behalf?

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: Check the records.

We heard one of the members talk about his spouse, who is employed in the education field, and how terrible things were out there. I have four children who have all come through the public education system, and I am indeed proud of all of them. They are doing exceptionally well for themselves as a result of the tremendous education they received. One of them is now employed in the field. We talk quite frequently. Oh yes, there are times when she will convey to me some concerns, but after we've been able to communicate, there is a good understanding. But she just shakes her head when she hears some of the things that are being said by just a few of those involved in the field of education. But then, as one really concentrates on what's being said and attempts to put together statements and words, it is very plain to me — and we must make sure that it's going to be plain to the public, and particularly to the students — that there is a political game going on. I read recently where the president of the Teachers Federation, in his comments, used words identical to those used by the education critic, words such as " sleazy." As one really concentrates here, we can quite easily see that the problem that appears to be out there is not one of dollars; it's not one of quality of education. It's one, Mr. Speaker, of political interference.

I heard one member talk about a disease in the system. If there is a disease in our system, it has to be the disease created by the philosophy of that party over there. I believe that the greatest....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke rises on a point of order.

MR. KING: The member that is speaking has put his colleague the Minister of Education to sleep, and I think he should be entitled to listen to the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: My colleague concentrates better with his eyes closed. What I am attempting to show here, in these few remarks, is that the problem we are hearing about is not one of dollars, because we know that those who are employed out there are prepared to share. It is not a question of quality of education, but one of political interference.

I would like to read from a document which has had me concerned for quite some time. This may have been read into the record before, but I think it's very timely that it be read in again during this particular debate. We know that with the debate that has gone on so far, all they're attempting to do is to stir up problems and get people upset for their political ends. I'm reading an article here from a document of the NDP:

"The socialist transformation of society will return to man his sense of humanity, to replace his sense of being a commodity. But a socialist democracy implies man's control of his immediate environment as well, and in strategy for building socialism, community democracy is as vital as a struggle for electoral success. To that end, socialists must strive for democracy at those levels which most directly affect all of us in our neighbourhoods, in our schools, and our places of work."

This document, Mr. Speaker, is the NDP Waffle Manifesto, which was signed by the Leader of the Opposition.

"Tenants' unions and consumers' and producers' cooperatives are examples of areas in which socialists must lead in efforts to involve people directly in the struggle to control their own destinies."

That's a very frightening influence in our schools, Mr. Speaker, and that's the document that has me concerned, as far as education is concerned, in the debates that are taking place here today.

Mr. Speaker, this is a document that was signed by a number of the members over there, including the Leader of the Opposition. He said: "I only signed it to get the debate going." That's like the member for North Island, who said: "Oh, yes, I remember saying those things. That was ten years ago. I've changed my mind." They don't change their minds at all. Once a socialist, always a socialist. It's very frightening to me that here we have a group that has gone against restraint all through this program and that is now using the students of this province to further promote socialism in this province.

MR. LEGGATT: It's a red plot, dictated from Moscow. It's Brezhnev behind it.

MR. RITCHIE: There is the member over there from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who only two days ago stated on a television show that absolutely no dollars of public money would be used to create jobs for anyone other than unionized B.C. workers.

The argument they're bringing forward here is not one in the interest of education costs, not one in the interest of education quality, but one in the interest of their own socialistic philosophies and programs that they want to push on the people of our province.

The comments that are made continually reflect it also. The member for North Island mentioned in his remarks the other day.... He made some remarks the other day to the effect that we are now going to see our children all being taught by the Dutch Reformed Churches of this province.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't say that.

MR. RITCHIE: I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that I have many Dutch Reformed Churches in my constituency. I

[ Page 9517 ]

have many Dutch people in my community. I can assure you that if you, Mr. Member, would take a little time to see just what they are teaching, then maybe you'd be a little envious of them. I would think that that member would be well advised to take a little time out not only to research some of the comments that he makes, but also to take a look at what the Dutch Reformed Church people are doing throughout this province.

Mr. Speaker, he also said that parents should have a choice. Does that mean that parents who support the independent school system should have a free choice? Does that go so far as to say that if they wish to direct all of their tax money into the independent school system they should? I just find it so devastating, as I really study the remarks that are made from that side. It causes a great deal of concern to me and to many people, certainly in my community, knowing that such a document exists.

This bill is a very fair bill. It is a bill that is extending the restraint program. The program has been introduced as fair, as a program that is going to make it as easy as possible for all concerned. It is going to give those people who are employed in the education field an opportunity to share. Above all, it's going to protect the programs that are being provided.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed proud to support this bill. The opening remarks, I believe, by the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association.... He said: "This is good. It's too bad that it wasn't a little bit sooner." Again, I want to repeat that the only reason we're getting this stalling is because of their socialist approach, of their ambitions and desires, and the fact that they feel that they're losing ground.

We have the Leader of the Opposition going around the province promising $300 million. Now he's talking about the $60 million he'll find to put back into the education field. Where is he going to get it from? Is he going to get it from the seniors? Is he going to get it from the unemployed? Is he going to get it from those whose businesses are suffering? Where's he going to get it from?

MR. KING: You mean there's no money left?

MR. LEGGATT: Where has it gone?

MR. KING: You spent it all on French wine!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There has been some levity, but that type of interjection cannot be permitted.

The member continues.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, the $300 million that he promised he would bring into the communities would be restricted to unionized employees only, according to the statement by the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who admitted that he always is factually wrong. You talk about fairness, and you talk about democracy; you don't know what fairness and democracy are. He's going to get $300 million from future sales of gas that he said some time ago wasn't there. It must be laughing gas. Where's he going to get $300 million from? Maybe it's just like what he did just prior to the 1975 election, when he said they were going to raise gas 10 cents per gallon to support ICBC. Is the $300 million going to come from the unemployed?

MR. LEA: From the Premier's personal trust fund.

MR. LEGGATT: We're going to send a diver down and get it from Lake Okanagan.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. Perhaps if we could return to the principle of Bill 89 we could return to more orderly debate. I would commend that to all members and to the member now taking his place in debate.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I haven't really deviated from Bill 89. I'm attempting to respond to the far-fetching, far-reaching debate from the opposition benches, if we could call it that. I'm attempting to prove here that any of the comments that we've heard from that side so far are not genuine. They're hollow. They're socialistically influenced, because their plan for this province and indeed for this country is to socialize it, using schools, colleges and cooperatives. They have listed them all here — every opportunity they get to ride on the backs of those unfortunate people. Now they are objecting to this bill. and the way they're doing it is they're going to try and ride on the backs of our students. Three hundred million dollars — the Leader of the Opposition says he'll borrow against gas sales to create jobs. He says he's going to pour $60 million back into the education system. Where is it going to come from? They want to close our northeast coal. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) called it a rat trap yesterday. He wants to cancel LRT. Where's the money going to come from?

Mr. Speaker, the whole debate during this question of Bill 89 is identical to the debate that took place during the debates on the health program. I have an article here out of Hansard by that member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I enjoy this because it points out what we have over there. "But I have come to an overwhelming personal conclusion that before we can have an integrated community and integrated health-care system, we must have a more segregated one for some years to come." That tells me something. That tells me that the member who is opposed to private ownership believes that you get onto the bandwagon with these small self-interest groups and you help to divide. At this moment they're working on attempting to divide our teachers, to separate teacher from teacher, teacher from trustee. But I want you to know that it's not working. It's not working because there are only a small handful of teachers out there that are taking the lead from that president of the teachers association.

I know too that the majority of the public are saying: "We need restraint." We need it in a very fair way. The teachers are saying: "We would like to share, but we need the vehicle to do it with." Some of our boards that were unable to come to a settlement that was going to be satisfactory under the restraint program, they required this. There's no need for any question as to whether or not it can be done. There will be no loss to education and no loss of jobs. It's an excellent bill.

I just wanted to try to point out to this Legislature, and I will continue to point this out as I move out through my community, that this whole debate does not revolve around the question of whether there's going to be enough money for education or not. It's not revolving around the question as to whether we're going to be able to provide education or supply those special services. Those will all be supplied, and no one will lose their job.

The big loss is going to be to the NDP's plan for socialism. They can see that being threatened here. We have teachers out there who are saying: "Why, certainly we want to

[ Page 9518 ]

share. We're not being influenced by them at all. We want to work, and we don't want any of our colleagues laid off." That's what this does: it protects them. Because of the developments that are taking place, the biggest fear that they have is not dollars and cents, it's not quality education, and it's not special services. It's their own political ambitions, as stated in the Waffle Manifesto. We have their number. It's getting smaller. We've got a few more in the House now. But as one who came to this country many years ago, one who has experienced the philosophy of the NDP of British Columbia and see it at work, seen what it could do to education, health, free enterprise and initiative, I see a repeat of it here. We have a responsibility to tell the story and make sure that they don't get the opportunity to use our schools or use our students.

This bill is something that is going to cool everything down. It's going to assist those boards who are having difficulty arriving at the solution in order to meet the restraint as designed. It's going to make it easier for them because it's spelled out here exactly how it can be done. My teachers were most anxious to have the opportunity to share in the way that's been suggested here, but their leadership wouldn't allow it to go.

The legislation, as it was written, made it difficult, as was already stated by the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). This clears it up. There are no problems out there. The only problems we have out there are those who would agitate, those who would follow the recommendation and the belief of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who says: "You've got to divide them. They've got to be desegregated. You've got to split them up and get them fighting." That's the way to socialize. We know it. There's no point in you shaking your head. I can repeat this again. This document was signed by five of your members, including your leader.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Is that the Waffle Manifesto?

MR. SKELLY: Can I sign it? I didn't get a chance to do it.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, you should sign it because you certainly believe all of it, the way you talk and act.

"A socialist democracy implies man's control of his immediate environment as well. In my strategy for building socialism, community democracy is as vital as the struggle for electoral success. To that end socialists must strive for democracy at those levels which most directly affect us all in our neighbourhoods, our schools, our places of work." And it goes on. They say that they will use all of these vehicles, including schools, to further their socialist cause.

It's signed by the Leader of the Opposition. Why did he sign it? He said: "I signed it only because I wanted to get a debate going." If the people of this province are prepared to elect as their Premier someone who would sign such a dangerous document only to get a debate going, that would be a very big disaster.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, to the bill.

MR. RITCHIE: On Bill 89.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Fraser Valley is now advised that he has three minutes left.

MR. RITCHIE: The contribution I wanted to make to this debate was to point out that the opposition members are not really discussing dollars and cents, quality of education or these special services. They are discussing, protecting and defending their political cause through the school system, because it is one of the vehicles they intended to use. They can see the erosion of this. That is why they are so viciously opposed to the independent school system, in spite of the fact that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would write to that group and say: "If you give us your vote, we will continue that support." As long as this document signed by the Leader of the Opposition is floating around, the people won't believe it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: I signed that.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm not going to answer that, because maybe you did. I know who signed it. Five of your members signed it. Would the sixth one please stand up?

They will use our tenants' unions, consumers' and producers' cooperatives and schools to further their political ambitions. They can't fool me and they're not going to fool many people out there. We know the game. We saw it through the debates on health. We saw them attempt to get on the backs of the sick, and come in here with these gory stories. We don't believe it at all.

This bill is a good bill. It's a bill that should settle the problems we have been witnessing out there that could quite easily have been resolved by a simple sharing; but it was being aggravated by the political interference of that party and those they work with in the system. Fortunately, there aren't too many of them. Certainly in my community they are only a handful. I support Bill 89 fully. I look forward to seeing our opposition members stand in their places to vote in favour of it.

MR. NICOLSON: We've heard some rather incredible arguments from the other side, some wandering and some stalling on this particular bill. I just hope that the teachers of the member for Central Fraser Valley's riding read that particular speech. Then I think they'll know what kind of commitment that member and his government give to education.

I want to make a few very short and simple points about education in this province. This province has the worst record of financial support for its public school system of any western province, or Ontario. British Columbia now gives less than one-third in provincial dollars, and requires over two thirds to be raised by local property taxation. The province of Alberta has almost the reverse of that ratio. The province of Alberta gives grants of 62.1 percent, while it raises only 37.9 percent off the backs of local property owners. In Saskatchewan 53 percent of the education program is paid by grants from the provincial government and only 47 percent is from property owners. In Manitoba 54.2 percent is paid by the provincial government and only 45.8 percent is from local property owners. In Ontario it is about a fifty-fifty split.

We have seen this erosion take place ever since this government took office. In fact, those figures were almost the

[ Page 9519 ]

reverse. They've been turned right over, so that instead of government paying its fair share, as this province should be able to afford to do if it were properly managed, instead of this province paying two-thirds of the cost of education and local property owners having to pay only one-third, we have the reverse of that in this province. It's the worst and sorriest record of all. That's why last year we saw this government seize even the local industrial and commercial tax base, which meant that the dams which were taxable in Nelson Creston — the school taxation for those dams.... Even the federal government building grants in lieu of taxes for education were being poured into Victoria coffers, then poured out on their megaprojects, the high-risk ventures that this government has gone into, without any regard for ever getting into times like this.

We saw the lie of the last provincial budget, only six months ago. And how the tune has changed. Where did that $1.5 billion go in six months? How could you lose $1.5 billion? What a bunch of misfits. What a bunch of financial bunglers and misfits.

Mr. Speaker, I am up, and I am mad. I'm not going to be long. I'm just going to tell you that this Premier has conscripted little children into his political manoeuvrings, and into his political war against the rest of the people in British Columbia. He has conscripted poor, innocent children. I know some of those children. I know a little girl who was born with congenital heart defects. I know that her homebound program — the program for a child who cannot get out of the home and needs some education — is in jeopardy. I know an autistic child who was neglected by the previous Social Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett until 1972, and it wasn't until the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) was the Minister of Human Resources that any program was set up for that girl. She was school age and there was nothing for her. An autistic girl: they didn't know if she could hear; they didn't know if she could communicate. He set up a special-needs program for that girl, and she learned how to sign, how to communicate. Today that little girl has no program because this government has cut out all teacher aides in School District 7.

I represent three full school districts and part of a fourth school district in this province. I represent an area that has generated the very wealth that built this building. I represent an area that once was represented by four MLAs at one time in this House, when there were only 41 members.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring out the fact that this government has done nothing about employment in the forest industry. In Salmo, there is about 80 percent unemployment today, and there is no recreational opportunity for any of those children. There are no bus trips into Nelson so that they can take part in the swimming program, the ice skating program, various other recreational programs. These things were already cut out before this bill was brought into the House.

This government has the worst record on education. This Premier will do anything to try to get an election issue. This Premier will put anybody up in the front lines, but he'll be hiding in the background. He'll be taking his polls. He doesn't have the guts, I think, to call an election. That is the only way we can fix the mess in education, the mess in unemployment, the mess as far as jobs are concerned in this province. The only thing we can do is call an election. Let's get some confidence. You guys get out of the way, and let's get on with the job.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, Bill 89, is entitled School Services (Interim) Act. In fact, I think the bill should be entitled the school employment and program preservation act, because that is what it does.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who feigned anger and is now charging out of the building, said that this government is bringing children into the political arena. It is his party. and speeches like the one he made, that are attempting to drag the children of this province into politics.

He remarked about programs for handicapped children in one of the several school districts which happen to be in his riding, yet he says he's against this bill. This bill provides the opportunities for school districts to maintain special programs, programs for handicapped children, and to maintain the current level of employment by school districts. It allows them to maintain the level of teachers they have now. Yet he is going to vote against the very bill that will allow the continuation of the special programs which he seems so incensed about. He is in fact going to vote against the opportunity for those handicapped children whom he mentioned to continue the programs they so sorely need. So I really don't understand the logic of that member.

The last two members from the opposition to speak on this bill spoke for no longer than two or three minutes, and said really nothing related to the bill at all. They refuse to face and accept the fact that the purpose of this bill, the reason for its being, is to continue the educational programs and the jobs for teachers in the education system. Yet they want to vote against it. At least, they say they're going to vote against it. Of course, they have spoken against quite a number of bills in this Legislature and then voted for them. I don't know if that's what their ploy is this time or not.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The members say that they're not going to vote for this bill. They're not going to vote for a bill that will allow the continuation of special programs in the education system. They're not going to vote for a bill that will allow teachers who are employed now to remain employed. They, then, are the ones who are really against education.

[Mr Mussallem in the chair.]

The Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), said that if he were the government — which, of course, he'll never be — he would restore this $60 million to the education system. As has been asked several times this afternoon, I don't know where he's going to get that money. What he is doing is offering a $60 million bribe to the politicized leaders of the B.C. Teachers Federation. That's all it is. It's a bribe to attempt to act them, once again, to mount something like the so-called apple campaign they had in 1972.

Let me tell that member that regardless of what they say or what antics they go through regarding this bill or the education system in British Columbia, the teachers in this province will not be involved in that way, because the teachers in this province recognize the fact that this bill will ensure their continuing employment and the continuation of many of the special educational programs which they and we know are so important in this province. The leaders of the BCTF have

[ Page 9520 ]

turned that once professional association into nothing more than a radical trade union through the positions and antics with which they carry on. They have politicized the spokespeople for the teachers. Yet if you talk to teachers.... My wife is a school teacher. She has taught school most of our married life. I, through her, have contacts with many educators in British Columbia.

The real educators' concern is not with the number of dollars that are spent on education, but with the continuation of quality education. I speak to many of them on an ongoing basis, and they are quite pleased with the fact that this bill will assure a quality education in all the school districts in British Columbia, and particularly in those school districts which have not come to grips with the economic realities of the times we live in, and have not done what they can to trim away some of the waste, fat and frills that really add nothing to the education system, but perhaps make the life of a school teacher somewhat more comfortable. But that doesn't help education.

The Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite say that they will do away with this restraint measure which is necessary in British Columbia because of the very radically reduced revenues the government has to work with. They're against the cost-saving measures carried out by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the health-care system. They're against the cost-saving measures that are imposed upon all ministries of government, and yet somehow they say that they really don't object to constraint. They don't object to constraint; but they don't like to take the heat that is always generated when constraint is imposed on any sector of government or on government-funded services.

I mentioned the politicization of the BCTF, and there were a few raised eyebrows and guffaws from members opposite. But indeed it has happened. The present president of the BCTF is a known political activist. He's a known socialist from Kamloops. He never makes any bones about that. He tells people where he is politically. He thinks that because he is a socialist he can impose his socialist thoughts on the rest of the teaching profession. School teachers aren't socialists any more than anybody else in society is. School teachers are primarily educators. They're people who quite often — more often than most people — don't have strong political leanings, because they're so interested and concerned about delivering quality education that they don't really have time to get politically involved in the type of thing that the members opposite are talking about.

I'll give you a good example of the political involvement of school teachers right in the classroom. I remember that in late 1975, when I first had inklings of political involvement, my eldest daughter was going into grade 12 in Kamloops. She went to her grade 12 English class, and the teacher said to the class, when they came in and sat down for their first lesson: "I am NDP. If you kids are NDP, you're going to get along very well with me." Then he assigned an essay to the class and said: "I just want to judge your writing ability. You can write an essay on any subject you wish." My eldest daughter was somewhat turned off by his opening remark about being NDP and their getting along well with him if they were also NDP, so she wrote an essay entitled "Socialism versus the free enterprise system." It was a good essay. My wife, who is an English teacher, read the essay, and as far as the English content and the structure, it was a good essay. She got an F on that essay from her teacher. Obviously, she took the position in her essay that the free enterprise system was superior to socialism.

A couple of months went by, and my daughter's father became involved in politics; he was elected and was now a minister of the government that kicked out the socialists. He then assigned her a special essay to write. He said: "Terry, will you write an essay supporting the policy positions of the Social Credit government," and my daughter did. The essay was about the same calibre of writing as the previous one. She handed it in. But now her father is a cabinet minister and, lo and behold, she gets an A.

Political involvement in the classroom is something we should not allow in British Columbia, nor should the teachers allow their professional association to become politicized to the extent of the attempts now being made by the likes of Mr. Kuehn.

The members opposite have taken very little interest in this debate. They have not really talked about or accepted the fact that the purpose of this bill is to continue educational programs and employment. For that reason, I move adjournment of this debate until later in the sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. STUPICH: My colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) made quite an argument in favour of including service industries in this particular legislation. I thought it was a convincing argument. I hope the minister was listening when the argument was made. I am inclined to think the amendment may be ruled out of order by the government, but that would not stop the minister from bringing in a similar amendment, and I would urge him to do so.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is out of order, as it would impose an impost on the Crown. I so rule.

MR. STUPICH: I cannot quarrel with your ruling, but I would like to have some response from the minister on my invitation to him.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I understand what the opposition is trying to do. I am certainly not unsympathetic to the service industries of our province. However, as I have said on the hustings — and I'll say it in the Legislature — we would have to have a bill that involves a lot more money than $200 million if we're going to go into the service industry. Basically, we would actually be replacing the banking system if we were to loan money to the service industries of the province. I am looking at some other methods whereby we may be able to be of some assistance to the service industries,

[ Page 9521 ]

but I'm afraid that at this time.... I have told those service industries that at the present time we are not prepared to go into the service industries.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, not to go into the service industries with the money in this bill is not going to solve the problems that the small business community faces in the province. The minister says that he has sympathy for the small business community, but they need more than sympathy; they need help. The government talks about no handouts. but about giving them a helping hand. The opposition asks the government and the minister to give these industries in the service area a helping hand.

The service industry is the hardest hit in the small business community. There may be some help in this bill for small businesses that are in the manufacturing industry, the processing industry, high-tech and transportation, as it relates to the primary resource industries. But when you look at this, it becomes a little ludicrous, because what this bill is going to do is to say to the manufacturing industry: "Listen to us. We've been telling you that there's no market for your goods. Now what we're going to do is lend you some money so you can expand your business to produce some more goods." To the processing industry, they're going to say: "We know that you don't have any place to sell those things that you process, but we're going to lend you some money so you can expand your plant, open another store or open another factory. We're going to lend you some money to do that."

The problem is not that we don't have some capability to produce; we don't have anyone to sell our goods to. If we had the opportunity to sell our goods to someone, then the service industry would be all right, because people in the processing and manufacturing industries would be working and would have money to buy from the service industry. You wouldn't have to worry about the service industry.

I'd like to make one more brief comment before I sit down on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. LEA: Yes, to the section, because this section rules out the service industry and puts in the processing and manufacturing industry. I'm going to talk about the processing and manufacturing industry and say why this section is not the one that should really apply.

We do have economic problems, not all of our own making, but now that we have a downturned economy and factories and processing plants sitting idle — or factories and processing plants that are partially idle — this is the opportunity to bring those industries in our community up to efficiency. Now is the time to replace machinery and to build up our industry so that when good times do come again we are a more efficient, productive and energy-conserving province than we were in the past. Now is the time, when our industry is partially idle, to go in there, give it a boost and put ourselves in a position to be more competitive in international trade.

But we don't do that by acting like big daddy. This bill, in essence, is the wrong direction to go in. What we should be doing with this section is saying to the business community that we are going to use the tax structure for incentives so that the small business person can make up his or her own mind whether they want to expand. With the tax structure there so you can easily recognize it, you know exactly what you're faced with in terms of incentive and taxes so you can make the decision yourself.

This bill is going to make the small business person in this province go to the government, speak to a clerk 6 and an economist 3, and say: "We've got a good idea that we'd like to go forward with, and we'd like some funding under this section." The clerk 6 and economist 3 are going to have the power of life and death over your idea; neither one of them probably having been in business before in their lives; neither one of them probably ever having been an entrepreneur; neither one of them probably ever having gone out into the world and make money by competing with other people in the business world. Yet those are the people who are going to tell the business people in this community whether they can go ahead with an idea.

The business community has told me that they do not want grants. They want tax systems that are fair to everyone and reasonably priced loans with an interest rate that's reasonable. This bill is a big-daddy bill. This section is the key to that big-daddy legislation, because you're going to have to go to government and beg.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's another proposal?

MR. LEA: Tax incentives within the system and some low-interest loans. You don't have to go to the government; you do it through the financial structure that's there. At least those people have had some experience dealing with business people. Who wants to go to the government and have an economist 3 and a clerk 6 tell you whether you can go ahead or not? I know the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) doesn't agree with the principle of this bill. He's going to vote for it, mind you, because he's become partisan in the last couple of weeks. Up until then we thought he actually was one of ours. You know how the Speaker is non-partisan?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I was.

MR. LEA: You were.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is not the bill that the small business community asked for. The processing and manufacturing, industries told me and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) specifically, from one end of the province to the other, that they didn't want this kind of financing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about depreciation allowances?

MR. LEA: Depreciation allowances also. In fact that's in our paper "Let's Get to Work." It's all in there. What they asked for is in our program of "Let's Get to Work." They said they didn't want this, and yet they've got it. Who's left out? The service industry. Do you know why? For the very reason that the minister said: they do not have the money to help the small business community. The other reason is that because this bill isn't necessarily applicable to the needs of the small business community and manufacturing and processing, there won't be any applications for this bill. When they get there and find out that they're not eligible or that it doesn't apply in their particular situation, they're going to be darned angry. They're going to find out about it, they hope, after the election. Business people have been calling me in my riding

[ Page 9522 ]

and have been calling me from all around this province. When I tell them they are left out of this legislation........

The small business community isn't known to be an NDP-supporting group. When I told them they have been left out, one who has been a lifetime member of the Social Credit said: "What in hell are they doing?" I said: "I don't know. You'll have to phone a Socred and ask them, because they're the ones who left you out." As the member for Coquitlam Moody (Mr. Leggatt) said, they still have money for this kind of a program sitting in the bank that nobody's eligible for. This section is a hoax. What they tried to do is make the small business community think that they actually had help coming. This section is no help at all. There may be a handful of small business people who can take advantage of it in the province. That's why we're going to vote for it, even if a handful are helped. But we are on record, in our "Let's Get to Work" program, of using tax incentives and depreciation allowances to help the manufacturing industry in this province. This is not the kind of bill that is going to do the kind of job that's needed for the small business community in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before proceeding on further debate on section 5, the Chair has allowed some latitude with respect to speeches concerning a failed amendment. The Chair has allowed some latitude with respect to debate on principle, which would have been better covered in second reading. I'm sure all hon. members are aware of the stages that we go through in committee and the type of debate that is relative and specific in committee.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I have to respond to the member for Prince Rupert, who again made his philosophical speech and went around the mulberry bush. He is just a little mixed up when he talks about taxes. It always makes me laugh when that member stands up and talks about what should be done. As I explained to the Legislature not too long ago when they brought out their great recovery program last March, there wasn't one word in the whole deal about interest rates to the small business community. Now that we've come out with a program to help the people who want to create something new through the manufacturing expansion and into the international marketplace and high technology, to assist and create a vacuum for the service industry, to keep our economy strong, they're great "me-too-ers," They can tell us how to reorganize a program, but when they brought out their program, there was not one single word about the small business community and low-interest loans for them. Their great leader goes out to the UBCM the other day and lays out another program of great recovery, with nothing about the small business community. All he wants to do is build a post office on every side street in every community in British Columbia. Then, of course, the communities have to go along, and staff them and sweep them. That's the kind of thinking....

I listened to the member for Coquitlam-Moody on the Jack Webster show the other day, and I don't think he thought anybody was listening, because he said: "Oh, that minister has had all kinds of money, and it's still in the bank and he hasn't put it out." Mr. Chairman, the programs that we have had have been responded to by the business community. We have put out, and provided jobs for thousands and thousands of people. As a matter of fact, just one portion of the assistance which the member for Prince Rupert was negatizing a moment ago, saying it was a no-good program for providing seed money for the entrepreneur.... That member is against providing seed money for that small entrepreneur who wants to go into the manufacturing business, who can't really have time to deal with his banker — just a little seed money so that he can get established. My theory is that all big businesses usually start out as small businesses, and this is just a helping hand. I'll have to tell you again that we've put out $9,572,183 in that program — 536 projects.

MR. LEA: Whoopee!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You say: "Whoopee." Well, it was a $10 million program, and we've put out $9.572 million. The member for Coquitlam-Moody says the money is still in the bank. How silly can you get? You thought there was nobody watching you on the Webster show. You stand up in this Legislature, and every time you open your mouth you're wrong, wrong, wrong. You went on the Webster show and you were wrong, wrong, wrong. That member there wants to put up a picket fence around British Columbia so that we can't have any imports or exports. My friends, that type of policy has ruined Canada. That type of policy has kept the manufacturing in central Ontario. That type of policy brought me out here from my native New Brunswick, where they put a wall around it and we could no longer trade with the great United States. I'll tell you that member is still thinking in 1921 terms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. This is section 5. We are in committee on Bill 82. Perhaps we could remember standing order 61 (2), which commends to all members of the committee that debate on a section or clause in committee must be strictly relevant to the section or clause under debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS; Mr. Chairman, I'm just responding to the arguments of the member for Prince Rupert. We certainly don't want to stifle debate on this section.

I want to go on to tell you that they say we haven't done anything in the low-interest loan business. I want to tell you that just last year, in the period ending March 31, 1982, the Development Corporation created or preserved 948 jobs just through one little program. Yet the member for Coquitlam Moody says we've left the money in the bank. He said over the Jack Webster show that the money is still in the bank and the minister hasn't put it out. I don't know where you guys are listening, but the program has been a great success. This is another step to bring stability to the manufacturing industry so that they will know that when they take out that loan, the interest rate is going to be solid for three years. That's about the time that the small business man needs to get established and to get his business running. It's a good program.

I am listening to the members opposite, and I won't take time to talk about the service industries. I won't take the time of the Legislature this afternoon to go through all of the programs that we have available for all small businesses. I won't talk about the 16,000 inquiries. I won't talk about the seminars that we're putting on all around the province where people are coming and getting advice. I won't talk about all the other programs that we have. This government has done more for the small business community than any other government in British Columbia, or than any other province in Canada is doing. They're not the staid, old programs. They're new and innovative programs. We have helped the

[ Page 9523 ]

small business community. Over and above that, Mr Chairman, we have kept this economy moving, so that the small business community and the service industries have opportunity.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like the minister, perhaps when the committee has reported, to come with me and meet a small business man from Port Hardy who is in the buildings today. He has met with a number of government people over the last number of months and is attempting today to meet with people who hopefully can make some decisions. He met, in fact, with the minister's deputy when he heard about the possibility of getting some assistance. I think it might be useful to bring the debate down to some more relevant level, one which relates to an individual person who in fact thought he might benefit, having heard news reports of this bill. I think what I have to say is appropriate to section 5.

The gentleman concerned has run a fairly successful small business in the community of Port Hardy. He is primarily involved in brushing contracts for the Ministry of Highways, the Ministry of Forests, various logging companies — that kind of activity. He was also involved partially with silviculture programs as well. Once the cutbacks came in August in highway contracts, in forestry contracts, in private industry brush-cutting and other programs, he was forced to try to keep his employees going. He tried to figure some way of making sure they would have some income, and make sure too that he would be able to keep them so that when times were better he would have his employees still working for him. He's a typical small business person who has provided jobs in this community and, if he's allowed to survive, will continue to provide jobs in this community, in this province.

It's all well and good to talk about creating new jobs in high technology and manufacturing, but for a lot of people in this province there's a real crisis just to maintain the jobs that have existed, and will exist again in the future should people survive this winter. The gentleman I'm referring to — as I say, he's in the buildings right now trying to solicit some support from government people — met with the deputy, and the deputy said: "Well, there's nothing in here for you. You don't qualify." I gather he doesn't qualify under section 5, as I read it, because it's not new technology and it's not new jobs. It's not a new program. It's simply maintaining jobs that have existed and should continue to exist.

Even more important in some ways is the impact in a small community like that when this person is not operating his machinery. The fuel dealer suffers, the tire shop suffers, the guy who operates a heavy-duty mechanics shop suffers because this guy isn't taking his equipment in there to be repaired, maintained and upgraded on a constant program. He's eventually going to be faced with not being able to maintain his equipment. It eventually will run down, and he's going to face immense capital costs having to buy new equipment. What kind of logic is it to have a program that doesn't allow him to maintain his programs?

He said to me: "Well, there are a whole variety of government programs for the small business man. Let's look at EBAP. Maybe I can qualify under that program." Of course, the bureaucracy there is such that only 1,000 instead of 10,000 have been able to be employed. All the bureaucrats in all of the responsible ministries threw up their hands and said: "Forget about trying through that program because it's just a waste of time." There's no one who would deny that statement.

So a small business man thinks when he listens to the radio and reads the newspapers, that the government is providing a variety of programs that might help him to survive this difficult fall and winter. He travels to all of the government offices throughout the island, coming down here today hopefully to see political people who might be able to make some decisions, suggesting to them that these airy-fairy pie-in-the-sky electoral promises are not doing a thing for him, not allowing his business to survive. Worse than that, they are not allowing his neighbours' businesses to survive, and even worse than that, not having the kind of programs in the woods, on the highways, and on the roads in the woods that are important for silvicultural purposes, that are important for basic maintenance purposes. He's not eligible under the section. I think that's ridiculous.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister indicated that the program announced at the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting of some $330 million for job creation in terms of local initiatives and projects did nothing for small business. The minister fails to understand that the best thing that can happen for a small business is to provide customers to small business. That's what they need. They need people with money in their pockets, who are working, to buy those products. The amount this Legislature authorized for assistance to small business, in spite of what the minister tells the House, was not expended by the minister over the fiscal year. Either there weren't enough applications or the minister didn't sell his program; it's one or the other. If there weren't enough applications, it's because the economy is already down so low that this kind of money \von't bring it back up. Just pouring money at a problem doesn't solve it. They have to change the atmosphere for small business by creating customers.

Under section 5, since the amendment which was to include the service industry has been ruled out of order, I'm still interested in knowing the terms and conditions under which those businesses that loan money will have their loans forgiven. The act says: "The liability of a borrower to repay a loan made under this part may be wholly or partly extinguished subject to terms and conditions the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prescribes." The minister is asking us to buy a pig in a poke if he asks us to vote for a bill when we do not know — I apologize to the minister if he's already made the announcement, but I did not see it — what the terms are under which these loans will be forgiven. I'm going to guess at what the terms will probably be.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, to the section.

MR. LEGGATT: Section 5 deals with loans, and some of those loans are forgivable. If you want to have an argument about relevancy, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest to you that it's perfectly relevant under this section to raise the question of forgivable loans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, I continually have to keep helping that member out with his legislative program. He's been in this Legislature now for quite a while since he arrived from Ottawa. The forgiveness part of the loans is not under this part. It's low interest loans: none of it is

[ Page 9524 ]

forgivable. If he wanted to talk about the portion he's talking about, Mr. Chairman, he should have talked under part 1, section 1, and not part 2, section 5. I continually have to keep helping that member out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The minister will be allowed to enter into debate on section 5 if he wishes. The point of order, as explained by the minister, is correct and well taken by the Chair. Section 5 does not include forgiveness.

MR. LEGGATT: I see. Can I take it then that the minister is advising the House that no loans made under this section 5 are forgivable? Is that what the minister is telling us?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When you sit down, I'll answer you.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm not giving up the floor. I'm just asking the minister to give us some....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You don't have to give up the floor. You can stand up a thousand times. I'll have to advise the member again that this is a debate on.... I don't put through too much legislation, but under this, you could stand up a thousand times. You can get up and down like a yo-yo.

I want to advise the member that a low-interest loan is exactly as it says: it's a low-interest loan. We take the normal rate that the British Columbia Development Corporation loans out money at, divide it by two, and give the individual a low-interest loan. The loan has to be repaid with interest. There is no forgiveness.

MR. LEGGATT: I wonder if the minister would then take the House into his confidence and tell us the terms and conditions under which the loans that are forgivable are forgivable.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You want me to go back to section 1. We have brochures on this that outline the whole program. I'd be most happy to have my staff provide the member with all the criteria for loans under section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good point. Section 1 did cover that.

MR. REE: I was listening to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and rather liked his idea, because I'm not too averse to using taxation to assist businesses, or reducing taxation, or some sort of incentive taxation. But I find it very hypocritical coming from the member for Prince Rupert. Businesses are having a lot of trouble, and they do need some assistance, whether it be in the service industry or otherwise. But certainly one should not assist one service-industry store or merchant in the block, when they have a competitor in the same block, without providing equality to both of them. Otherwise, it doesn't provide for fair competition between them.

The question as I said, as far as tax incentives and the statements from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) being hypocritical are concerned, is that I find that the farm team of the NDP certainly did not adhere....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The word "hypocritical" when applied to a member does impute an improper motive. I would only caution the members of the House about that statement.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, the word does impute an improper motive.

MR. REE: If it does, I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman. I find that the farm team for the NDP throughout this province, when it comes to establishing taxation, goes the opposite way. They feel that businesses — any form of businesses — are a bottomless pit of dollars. Businesses can be taxed; business will be taxed to the hilt. You'll find nearly any socialist council in this province have opted for option (A) or option (C) on municipal property taxes, to the detriment of small businesses. They will not take the option (D) level, where it's equitable as far as value goes. The socialist councils do not wish to help small businesses. They do not wish to give any assistance to small businesses. They'll use this taxation, which was allowed, Mr. Chairman.... The debate on taxation incentives was allowed by you from the member for Prince Rupert. That is the attitude of the socialists. The socialists do not assist small business. Socialists think that small business has a bottomless pit.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's absolute nonsense!

MR. REE: You tell me, Mr. Member, any municipal council which has got a preponderance of socialists on it in this province that has municipal taxation under option (D). There isn't one in this whole province. There are some with option (D) for municipal taxes, but they're not socialists. They provide assistance to the small businesses by helping them this year, particularly when there was a serious increase in small business taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I support section 5. It's not forgivable. It's repayable by a corporation or small business borrowing from the Development Corporation, and I think will be of good benefit to this province.

MRS. WALLACE: I was interested when my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was speaking, because he was raising a similar argument to the one that I want to raise. I was particularly interested, in that the minister didn't respond. So perhaps there's some hope. Maybe he's going to think about it.

What I'm asking is that the terminology here as to the uses of this particular loan — manufacturing, processing or high-technology industries.... I'm wondering if the interpretation is going to be a bit broader than it has been under existing programs. We found that under ASEP, for example, when people applied for funding, the interpretation of "manufacturing" in particular was very narrow.

I know of one instance where a young chap was wanting to go into the firewood business. He needed a bit of funding to get himself established. He needed to get a few pieces of equipment and so on, and it was decided that changing a tree into firewood was not manufacturing, and therefore he was not eligible.

Another instance was a chap who has a very successful mushroom farm in Cobble Hill, and he wanted to enlarge that operation. He had an ample market to sell twice as much

[ Page 9525 ]

product as he had, but it was decreed that changing those spores that produce mushrooms into a food product was not a processing or manufacturing process. Therefore he was not eligible. I'm wondering if the minister can assure the House that, under this newer program that he's now introduced, he will put a broader interpretation on those terms.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I think the program the member is really talking about is the first portion of the program. What we're really trying to do is create something new, but in the case of mushrooms, you're getting pretty close to getting into the agriculture end of the business. Firewood — well, you're always going to have some areas where a fellow in the long run can always sort of try and get it in the program. I think we have been fairly liberal in the interpretation of the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I think we have. I have gone over some of them on my desk; I've phoned my staff and said: "I think maybe you stretched it a bit here." But the fellow was creating something new; he took the initiative. We'll be liberal.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Very briefly, for the record, I want the minister to know, as I am sure he is aware, that there are dozens of small businesses going under or into receivership in my riding. This bill, particularly this section, will not help most of those people because many of those businesses are in the service industry. The reason for getting to my feet is simply to let the people of this province and that government know that after the election is called and we form the next government of this province, hopefully, we will bring in legislation to assist all of these smaller businesses and people in the service industry as well. I just want to remind the minister — I see the Premier is in his place this afternoon — that, after two years of promises, he has not kept his promise to start a new viable industry in Ocean Falls. That was a promise that the people up there and in other parts of British Columbia will not forget.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have a question for the member for Mackenzie, because I didn't quite understand the policy he was announcing for his party. It's your intention, then, for all the business in this province.... If there are six dry cleaners paying taxes and one is going broke, you're going to take the taxes from those six dry-cleaning businesses to keep the seventh one going; is that it?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, you did. That's what you said. Mr. Member, you said you'd take the taxes from businesses that are having a tough time functioning to keep their competitors going. That's what you said. Perhaps you can elaborate on it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'd be pleased to elaborate a bit for the benefit of the Premier. The Premier is saying that all these small businesses that are currently shutting their doors and going into receivership, in some cases, throughout the province — quite a few are in my riding — deserve to go broke because of pressures of the marketplace. That's what he's saying. That's just what he said in this House this very moment. I'm going to tell every one of my constituents what the Premier's remarks were in the House this afternoon.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not what I said. I asked him a question. The member is now running like his leader. Why don't you just answer the question. You said that if you became the Government it would be your policy to help all the businesses that are having difficulties in the province. That means you are going to take taxes from businesses that are struggling — not going broke — to keep their competitors going. That's what you in fact said. I just want it clarified. So you're going to take the taxes from someone else. I see. You can't have it both ways. I just want you to clarify it so that the six will know.... They're humanitarian. They're probably going to like what you say, that when they're having a tough time, you'll take what little taxes they can send to keep their competition going.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will withdraw that remark.

MR. HOWARD: What I did say across the floor, Mr. Chairman, was "twisty Bill." If you find that offensive, I certainly will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The remark has been withdrawn.

MR. HOWARD: How about "deceitful Bill"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the hon. member to withdraw that word also.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, all right.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, did the member for Skeena withdraw the second outrageous remark he made across the floor?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is satisfied that all unparliamentary remarks were withdrawn.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wanted him to remember he was in the Legislature.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What I'm saying under section 5 is that this act quite specifically cuts out opportunities for many of the people who are engaged in the service industry to obtain long-term loans or forgivable loans or whatever. These are the people who are really suffering in this province today. These are the people whom we will assist should we become the government of this province again. These grants from an honest New Democratic Party government will be handed out not just to friends of the government but to people who need it, unlike that government does over there. Mostly the money goes just to their political friends.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can't let that young fellow from Mackenzie stand up and mislead...or try to endeavour to talk about something that might have a tendency to be misinterpreted by certain people within the province. I just have to

[ Page 9526 ]

remind that member that he'd better go talk to his leader. You'd better attend caucus, because when you brought out your program....

I've got to remind that member again. He stands up here and pontificates, but when you and your little group over there brought out your program for recovery, there was nothing in it to assist the small business man, to assist the small community, or to assist the small business community, whether they were manufacturers or the service industry. You brought it out back in March. Now you stand up here: "Oh, if we're elected...." They're going to shovel money out of the back of a truck. Mr. Member for Mackenzie, you just unveiled your leader's plan again to build a post office in every little hamlet across the province and give out $300 million, and said nothing about the small business community.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good program. All of the programs that this government has brought in have been innovative, good programs for the small business community. That member over there stands and says that it's been handed out to the friends of the government. Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow that to go by, just because that member doesn't work for his constituents. There are a few NDP members who do work for their constituents, and they assist them in getting some of these small loans. I sign all the letters; I know what's going on. I suggest that that member hasn't been a good member, doesn't represent his constituency, doesn't come into my office, doesn't fight for the small business community in his constituency. Yet he thinks he's going to stand up here in this House and try and send Hansard back to his constituents to show them where he talked about the small business community. I would suggest that if that member was really working for his constituents, he would come to my office and sit down, and we'd discuss the problem of his....

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point the Chair must intervene. A personal attack on another hon. member cannot be allowed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I withdraw any personal attack. I'm just trying to help the young member to be a better MLA....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Order! That is finished.

Shall the section pass?

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, very quietly, may I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper — to achieve the same purpose as the one before. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Regrettably, for the same reason, the amendment to section 7 will fail because it does impose an impost on the Crown, and I so rule.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 82, Small Business Development Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

(continued)

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, what was the adjournment motion, Mr. Speaker? Was it adjourned to the next sitting?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the motion was to adjourn until later this day.

MR. NICOLSON: What are the other bills for second reading on the order paper, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the motion has been called for adjourned debate on Bill 89. The member was recognized on a point of order. Does he have a further point of order?

MR. NICOLSON: I would suggest that we have orders of the day to follow, and that having already had debate on Bill 89 once today, we should be onto one of the other bills that are up for second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, standing orders allow for the government to call in the order that the government determines. At this point the House Leader has called adjourned debate on Bill 89, which was adjourned earlier until later, which is in fact now.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm glad that we now have the opposition back in the Legislature so they can perhaps play some meaningful part in the debate on Bill 89, the School Services (Interim) Act.

I mentioned in starting my discussion in this debate that the Leader of the Opposition had offered the politicized leadership of the BCTF a $60 million bribe, by saying that he would put this money back in the education system if they helped him create havoc in the education system throughout the province. In discussing the necessary constraint measures, not only in the education system but through all government and government-agency spending....

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggested that I get in my truck, go out to the schools in my constituency and see what's going on. I'll have that member know that I spend a great deal of time travelling throughout my constituency, not to the schools but to the five school

[ Page 9527 ]

districts which are within Yale-Lillooet constituency, all of whom are dealing with the problems of constraint in education in a very responsible manner. They all recognize the necessity of continuing programs in the education system, of maintaining employment and of yet conserving the amount of money that is spent, because they recognize the fact that we are in a difficult economic time in British Columbia. The responsibility for constraining spending falls not only to the education system, but also to all ministries of government and all bodies that spend tax dollars. This is the basic principle of our restraint program.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

The members opposite are not for restraint. At least they are not for restraint in any of the areas where restraint has been necessary and where it has been very successful. They say, "Perhaps, yes, we realize some restraint is needed in British Columbia," but they're not for restraint in the education system; they're not for restraint in the Highways Ministry; they're not for restraint in my ministry, they're not for restraint in health care or education or in any areas of restraint where it is being imposed and where it is difficult at any time to constrain government body spending, even if it is accomplished through forcing efficiencies within those systems. They voted all those reductions last spring. Yet somehow they are not for the real restraint measures, those measures that can save massive amounts of taxpayers' dollars without reducing the level of service beyond an acceptable level in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the private sector has constraints imposed upon it by the marketplaces in which they deal. Those who are employed in the private sector have had the cruellest kind of constraint imposed upon them, even though many of the unions in the private sector have bargained for higher wages this year. That is an illusory thing. In spite of the fact that most of them are getting a higher hourly wage, the time off — short-term and longer-term layoffs — has caused a tremendous decrease in the earning power of most people in the private sector.

The universities have played their part and have accepted constraint and they have done it in a meaningful way, recognizing that they too must play their part. The doctors and health-care workers in British Columbia have recognized the need for constraint and are doing it in a meaningful way, recognizing the fact that they too must play their part during these difficult times. We have recently concluded negotiations with the B.C. Government Employees Union. The government employees, through their leader, have recognized the fact that constraint is indeed necessary. They have now got out to their membership an agreement for ratification which shows considerable restraint. I think most of our public-sector employees are responsible enough to know that we must continue services, and yet we must constrain the cost of those services. They are playing their part.

I know that the leader of the B.C. Government Employees Union is mad at the NDP because somehow they never supported him. The NDP are mad at Mr. Fryer because he did show constraint in a responsible way in their negotiations. I'm sure the members opposite would be very happy if Mr. Kuehn and his left-leaning leadership within the BCTF would create havoc in the education system by continuing to promote the myth that somehow education quality must be reduced. Mr. Speaker, Bill 89, is a bill that will save $60  million of taxpayers' money within the education system, and yet do it in such a way that there is no layoff of school teachers and no reduction programs important to the students of British Columbia. Yet our opposition is trying to perpetuate the myth that the children will suffer. They keep bringing up examples of special programs for handicapped or otherwise disadvantaged children, or for children with special abilities. They're saying that these special programs will be cut away or reduced somehow if this constraint program is carried forward. This bill assures us that the cost constraints can be realized without reductions in these special programs and without any layoff of teachers.

Many school districts in British Columbia have been extremely responsible. They've been cutting costs in those areas where it will have a minimal impact on the quality of education and no impact on the number of teachers employed. Many of the school districts have already come forward with cost-saving measures that can be carried forward under this bill, without having this bill imposed upon them. They are the responsible school districts, just as the five school districts within my constituency have acted in a very responsible manner. Some of them still have some problems which must be sorted out. This legislation, Bill 89, will give them the ability to resolve those last few outstanding problems without any cutbacks in programs in the schools, and without any cutbacks in the number of teachers employed in those five school districts. They are acting in a very responsible manner. They haven't gone running to the press, as have members opposite. and as some of the leaders of the BCTF have done, not only creating fear in the public generally but also directing it specifically at the children in the education system. That is cruel indeed. They, keep saying that we are making children in our education system political pawns, when in fact they are the ones who are doing that very thing. We are the ones bringing, forward legislation that will allow that constraint program to be put in place during these difficult economic times, without any reductions in the quality of our education services in British Columbia.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said: "The Socreds hate kids." What a ridiculous statement to make. The Social Credit government, which has been in place in British Columbia for 27 of the last 30 years, has brought to this province probably the highest standard of education anywhere in this country, right from pre-school through to university graduates and post-graduate studies. We have the second-highest expenditure per student of any province in Canada, higher than the socialist provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and, until recently, Saskatchewan. It is this government that has brought forward the tremendously high standards of education, at great cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Our priorities are is education, health care and human resources. That is why over half of the provincial budget is spent in these areas by this government — and has been so spent for many years now.

For example, total school district expenditures in May 1982 were forecast at $1.59 billion — 23.5 percent over 1981, in a year when total government expenditures have increased by perhaps 8 or 9 percent. Even with the constraint program that we have found necessary to put on the education system, total expenditures by all school districts in the province this year will be $1.6 billion, which is still 20.6 percent higher than in 1981. Those are some cutbacks in education — a 20.6 percent increase! Yet some people say that's not enough. Educators — not those political servants of

[ Page 9528 ]

the NDP who happen to be spokesmen within the BCTF, but the real educators in this province — understand that they too must play a part in difficult economic times such as we now have. They are concerned that the quality of education should continue in this province, and they realize that they have to play their part. As I mentioned, all other sectors — the private sector, government ministries and agencies — are playing their roles. School teachers too are willing to do that, if we can just get out of the partisan political arena and put this bill in place so that the school districts can carry on the standard of education with the programs they have, and with the teachers they now have.

The basic education cost in British Columbia, as I have said, is the second-highest in Canada. Yet those members opposite say that we have no interest in education, that we hate children, that we want to constrain government spending on the backs of the students in our education system in British Columbia. What absolute and utter nonsense!

The school teachers are willing to play their part. Indeed they are. In 1978 $656 million was spent on salaries for professionals in the education system of British Columbia. Four years later that had increased to $1.12 billion. That's an increase of 68 percent in salaries paid to school teachers and educators in British Columbia. The salary cost per pupil has gone up over 76 percent in that same period of time, and yet they say we are against teachers and don't have any interest in the very excellent education system we have in British Columbia.

During that same time of an increase in education salaries of 68 percent, the average increase in earnings in British Columbia was some 44 percent. I think our educators in British Columbia are treated very well indeed, because we as a government recognize the important role that they play in the development of our citizens of the future. Our educators are educators; a few of them are attempting to be politicians and to make education a political issue.

The cost of education in British Columbia in 1978 was $1,824 per student; in 1982 it totalled $3,283 per student. In a four-year period of time that's a 76 percent increase. That is some crisis in education. That is done by a government that according to the members opposite has no interest in education or the quality of education in British Columbia, has no interest in the students in British Columbia and is somehow against teachers. The education system we have in British Columbia is of the highest quality in this nation and probably among the highest anywhere in the world. It's been brought about by Social Credit governments in 27 of the last 30 years in British Columbia.

The members are also saying that we're taking the local autonomy away from the school boards and the various school districts in British Columbia. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the reasons that we had some of the uncertainty that made it necessary to bring in this bill was that many school boards were attempting to go about reduction of expenditures in ways that will....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has learned to count, obviously. One, two, three.

Mr. Speaker, local autonomy is not something we're trying to interfere with. Many school boards attempted to bring about their cost savings in ways that had a detrimental effect on the quality of education and on the number of teachers employed. This bill makes it possible for the school boards to bring about the cost savings without reductions. The local school boards still have the autonomy to bring about these savings, if they can, without having to resort to this legislation. If they need the assistance required by simply removing a few non-instructional days from the paid days that the school teachers receive, which all school teachers did willingly until a few years ago.... My wife told me that when she was teaching before this payment for non-instructional days came about, before the professional development days were paid for, all school teachers very willingly took their own time during Easter vacation or Christmas vacation, during weekends and in the summer to do their professional development. They did it willingly, because they wanted to upgrade their ability to teach our children in British Columbia. We're talking about five or six non-instructional days for which the teachers will not be paid. That is not a big cost to pay. Some school districts attain their cost-saving measures with as few as two non-instructional days not being paid for. They have this tool now so that they can carry on delivering the high-quality education which our children deserve, without laying teachers off.

I think this bill is a responsible bill. It's a bill that provides some order out of the disarray that was created by different approaches to a common problem throughout the province. It's a job-sharing bill that will maintain employment among the teachers. No teachers need be laid off. It's a program and a bill that will provide for non-reduction of any needed educational programs, and it will put the responsibility for achieving these savings right back with the school districts, so that their autonomy will be maintained and we can get on with the job of providing the ultimate in educational services to all our children, right from kindergarten through to and beyond university.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I congratulate the Minister of Education for bringing it forward.

MR. REE: It's my pleasure to rise in this debate on this particular bill. I think the Minister of Education should be complimented for his part in presenting this bill toward the restraint program in this province. Today we are facing very serious economic problems and we must cut down where we can, cut frills where we can, but still maintain as many jobs as we can. That is what this bill proposes to do. It protects the educational system in our province. It's an excellent system, administered by a very dedicated group of teachers. Certainly the majority of them are very dedicated. I think this bill goes a long way toward protecting that educational system and their jobs.

With respect to the teachers, I find that most of the teachers are very conservative. That's certainly small "c" conservative. Most of the teachers are very professional in their approach to education and in their administration of the educational system for the benefit of the students. They're very concerned that the students receive the best education they can get. I believe that is being administered. The public relations we see is excessive, I think, compared to the dedication of these teachers. It misrepresents what is going on in our schools. This public relations is generally, I think, being created by a very small, dedicated and radical group of teachers who are professional agitators interested only in political power and political gain. They do not have the

[ Page 9529 ]

interests of the students at heart. They do not have the interests of their colleagues in the educational field at heart. They are only interested in their own political glorification.

This, I think, does not go well with the majority of teachers. I don't think it reflects well on them. I said they are dedicated, concerned and conservative. But I think the silent majority of the teachers is not standing up and being counted as it should. They go along with this bill we are putting forward. The ones I have talked to are concerned about the economy. They are prepared to share. They do not think they should be sitting in ivory towers, alone and overpaid, in a sense, when a lot of people are out of work. They are prepared to sacrifice and be responsible members of the community, but they are not standing up and being counted. I've talked to a number of them who have gone to various meetings of their group in their school districts. Questions are put forward to them, not on a secret ballot but as a general question which is not binding on the teachers' union. But they are made to feel embarrassed if they don't support the question. A number of them have come to me and said that they don't support the question. But they were there, and they felt intimidated by the method of voting. If they don't follow the leader, they will be prejudiced; they'll be further intimidated in their jobs and at their workplaces by union members. I feel something has to be done to encourage these people. I think these teachers in the majority should stand up and be counted, because they are the ones who are concerned about the students, not the leaders of the teachers' union, who seem to be following a course directed to reducing the effectiveness of our educational system. Mr. Speaker, I call upon the majority of the teachers stand up and be counted at this time, so that the people of this province will get the proper perspective on their dedication to their jobs.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Part of this bill has a bearing on professional days that teachers enjoy at the moment. I, as you know, Mr. Speaker, am a member of the Law Society. Lawyers in some circles have been called professionals, doctors have been called professionals, dentists have been called professionals, even some ditch diggers are called professionals. But a person is a professional by his attitude toward his job. And a professional who wishes to improve his position and his qualifications will take the time off to improve them at his own expense and on his own time. Nobody ever paid me when I took a course to improve my knowledge of the law. Nobody pays a doctor when he takes a course to improve his knowledge of medicine, or a dentist, ditch digger or anyone else who classifies himself as a professional. I think that to call these days off professional days is a misnomer, if the teachers expect to be paid for those days. I think it's their responsibility to maintain their standard of teaching, to upgrade their standard of teaching, to improve their own standard in the organization. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because I do not believe that people in the education field should be paid for professional days.

We have listened to some members of the opposition here talking about how this province, this government, only pays one-third of the cost of education and the school district pays two-thirds — the money comes through the school district from property taxation. I think a great deal is being made of this issue, which again misrepresents, because the province doesn't pay one-third; it's the people of this province who pay 100 percent of our school costs. It's the people of this province who pay this cost. This government does not have any money of its own; it gets it from the taxpayer. It's the taxpayers who pay the 100 percent regardless of which tax organization it is collected through.

Mr. Speaker, at this time we do not enjoy the tax revenue to pay the cost of education that is being asked for in this province, without the restraint that we're looking for. There is $1.5 billion of tax revenue, people's revenue, in this province that is going toward education. That sum alone indicates the priority that this government gives to education of the young. I support that priority. I have three children, Mr. Speaker, all of whom have enjoyed a good education in this province. I have encouraged them to take post-graduate education. One has graduated from university. I have two other children, one in a college and one at university. I am a great supporter of education and educating people, but there are times when, if the money is not there, you can't do it.

This bill allows a sharing, a cutback — not actually a cutback, but a reduced increase — so that we can maintain the standard of education so, that these people can have that education. There is a sharing among the teachers who are administering it. I certainly support it for that purpose. With the costs today, if we're spending $1.5 billion on education, which is the second-largest expenditure in our budget, with the reduced economic activity we're going to have to implement the sharing attitude.

We've been accused of not supporting education. We certainly do support education. The two priorities of this government are the education and health of the people, the two prime needs that are difficult for people to provide for themselves. This government provides more than 50 percent of the budget, from its revenues, for the health and education of the people of this province. We're very fortunate indeed that we're in this position.

Today, with revenues down the way they are.... In the case of education the leaders of the teachers have refused to negotiate, or to make any suggestions on a method of sharing, or to assist the school boards with any suggestions on how costs can be reduced. It is for this reason that we have to bring in this legislation at this time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the union bosses.

MR. REE: Yes, they're the ones creating it — the union bosses. They will not allow the teachers to share when they want to share. How the heck can we allow one group of people in this province to maintain that standard when there are so many others who are without? There are 300,000 people out of work. Small business men are having trouble keeping their doors open because the market to which they sell is reduced or not there. They are having great difficulty. They are not earning the money they would hope to in order to pay taxes, to maintain the standard that union leaders want. We have teachers in this province who are earning an average of $34,000 a year. That average is higher than we get as MLAs. I don't object to that. We've indicated our sharing; we put through our reduction, at the initiative of this government, and reduced our salaries. We have tried to show some leadership. Thirty-four thousand dollars a year for ten months' wages, plus holidays at Christmas and Easter. That represents more than $40,000 if it were on a 12-month basis; I don't know how many people in this province look at that.

[ Page 9530 ]

Many teachers certainly support the sharing. They would go along with a reduction, because the net reduction is not that great when it comes off the top end of income and income tax is applied to it. They're prepared to take that reduction. It is a reduction of an increase only. It is not a cutback; they are getting a reduced increase. Where else could one, without increased productivity, get a raise greater than the cost of living? Raises should come through productivity. I don't know whether there's been any greater productivity as far as teaching is concerned. We're getting more teachers and we have fewer students to teach, so in a sense the productivity is being reduced. We're having a reduction....

Interjection.

MR. REE: What factories? That's what the NDP would do. The NDP would set up a factory to clone everybody so they follow the socialist line. That's what they would do, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). They would stereotype everybody. We would have padded jackets as their uniform in school. That's what would come.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, when I was at school, the NDP were not much of an issue in this province and had very little bearing, if any, on the educational system. But our teachers were professionals, as a lot of them are today. We did not have teachers in the classroom teaching us the political ideology of one party or the other.

Mr. Ree moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

82 Mr. Stupich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 82) intituled Small Business Development Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 5, line 5, insert the word"service" after "processing" so that the list of industries eligible for assistance reads "manufacturing, processing, service or high technology industries".

SECTION 7, line 5, insert the word "service" after "processing" so that the list of industries eligible for assistance reads "manufacturing, processing, service or high technology industry,".