[ Page 9547 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

British Columbia Railway subsidy. Mr. Stupich –– 9547

Sale and leaseback of UTA buses. Mr. Stupich –– 9547

Government borrowing. Mr. Stupich –– 9547

Pornographic films. Mr. Ree –– 9548

Canadian benefits from LNG and other B.C. resource projects. Mr. Leggatt –– 9548

Student loans. Mr. Lauk –– 9548

Pornographic films. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 9549

Steel contract for McInnes overpass, Hon. Mr. Phillips replies –– 9549

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

Mr. Strachan –– 9550

Mr. Barber –– 9551

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9553

Mr. Lockstead –– 9554

Mr. Hanson –– 9556

Mr. Macdonald –– 9559

Ms. Sanford –– 9561

Mr. Mitchell –– 9562

Mr. Lea –– 9565

Mr. Howard –– 9568

MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd ask all hon. members to extend a very cordial and western welcome to a number of our good neighbours from Fiji in the South Pacific: Hon. T.R. Vakatora, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Hon. Isikeli Nadalo, the opposition Whip; the hon. Senator Joeli Sereki, nominee of the Great Council of Chiefs; and Mrs. Lavinia Ahkoy, Clerk of the Parliament.

MR. BARRETT: I would like to add my welcome to the visiting delegation from Fiji, and I would ask the opposition Whip to meet in my office in ten minutes as our whip is absent today. I'd also like to extend to them very warm congratulations for picking British Columbia as part of their visit to Canada. I would ask, too, that their Clerk stay away from our table and avoid bad habits.

MR. COCKE: In our gallery today is a member of the B.C. School Trustees Association executive and also a very valued friend of mine, Anita Hagen, with her husband John. Would you extend them a very good welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On behalf of the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), I'd like to introduce residents of Penticton, Oscar and Wally Dimler and Dennis and Marge Jeffery. I'm glad to have them in my home town as constituents of Boundary-Similkameen.

Oral Questions

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY SUBSIDY

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. With respect to cutbacks in education, can the minister advise the House how much has been paid to date from consolidated revenue to the BCR for purposes of northeast coal development?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In order to be completely accurate, I will take the question as notice. That presupposes that there has been a payment out of consolidated revenue in this fiscal year. I will come back to the House with the information for the member.

SALE AND LEASEBACK OF UTA BUSES

MR. STUPICH: Just so the minister is clear on the question, it's "to date."

I have another question for the Minister of Finance. On Friday, October 1, 1982, the minister announced that a policy of selling B.C. ferries to eastern financiers has been extended to the bus system, in that 42 UTA buses have been sold to eastern financial interests, using the same giveaway lease-back scheme that applied to the ferry system. Will the minister confirm that it will cost B.C. taxpayers an additional $12 million to lease back these buses over a 15-year period?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Let me first return to the first question. I heard what the member said. He wants the information to date. I understand that. That will be encompassed in the return.

With respect to the second question, I take issue with the use of such words as "giveaway." In fact, this is not an unusual method to be followed in both the public and private sectors. Rather than have a question which implies criticism, I would expect the member who asked the question, who briefly served as Minister of Finance.... I would have been more pleased if he had congratulated the government on this particular move.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Some members opposite giggle, chuckle and laugh. but I think that there are some members opposite who clearly understand the logic of this move and recognize that it is a common practice in transportation activities with respect to railway rolling stock, vessels, aircraft, intercity as well as suburban and urban buses, and even motor vehicles. What we completed last week is eminently sensible for the people of British Columbia as well as for B.C. Transit: that is, the leasing of vehicles with a life expectancy of some 30 years. I will stand today, tomorrow and in days to come, happily defending the lease process, which is not unique to British Columbia, not unique to British Columbia Transit. As I said earlier. It is eminently sensible and provides a very good deal for B.C. Transit and the public of British Columbia.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister was carried away with his own oratory and missed the question. Is it going to cost B.C. taxpayers an extra $12 million to get these buses out of hock?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry I missed the question. It's sometimes not difficult to miss the question posed by members opposite.

The assumed cost framed in the member's question is not necessarily correct. The point is that it is an extremely satisfactory arrangement for the public purse in this province,

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether or not the minister is taking the question as notice, but he didn't answer it. The partial answer that he gave leads us to suspect that it may be more than $12 million. Hoping that he is taking it as notice, I will ask a different question. Will the minister now confirm that it is government policy — that is, this administration's policy — not only to borrow to acquire new assets, but to mortgage our existing assets to pay for groceries?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't a question: that was a brief speech containing at least four elements of negative-doubting-people policy. Again I would refer the member and other interested members in the House to examine the success of leasing arrangements, particularly with respect to equipment used in transportation, whether it's to move goods or people, and to examine the extent to which that is used not only in North America but in other parts of the free world. In his question, Mr. Speaker, the member again

[ Page 9548 ]

looks at the worst possible case, and that's the trouble with the party opposite, those socialists. "Is it going to cost more than $12 million?" asks the member. I indicated that the $12 million to which the member referred may not be correct, and I leave the answer at that.

MR. STUPICH: If I may be permitted an unprejudiced opinion, I think the questions are better than the answers today.

I'll try one more easy one: can the minister confirm that the government has decided to consolidate all outstanding loans and lease-back obligations under a deadweight corporation called "Megadebt Unlimited"?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member is a little stale. That line was moving through the corridors about ten days ago. It's not too original; it was better the first time I heard it. But with respect to the leasing of the vehicles by B.C. Transit, may I say that even with their incompetence in government, the NDP administration of 1972-75 would have found this particular move very, very attractive. I give them credit for that.

MR. STUPICH: Will the minister confirm that this lease-back arrangement is appropriate to people who want to defer corporate income tax, not to governments who have no income tax to pay?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is a question that is largely dependent on the particular arrangement made. It can vary. There is one other aspect that may sink through to the opposition, and that is that by using this particular procedure, we have involved the federal government in participation, where otherwise it would not have occurred.

PORNOGRAPHIC FILMS

MR. REE: My question is to the Attorney-General. Last June I expressed to the Attorney-General my concerns and the concerns of my constituents with respect to the proliferation of the distribution of hard-core pornography on the North Shore of Vancouver. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General whether any action has been taken with respect to the distribution of this type of questionable entertainment and whether any charges have been or are being laid.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I take the question as notice.

CANADIAN BENEFITS FROM LNG
AND OTHER B.C. RESOURCE PROJECTS

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada has revealed that only foreign-owned engineering companies will be allowed to bid on the western LNG project. Did the company give any indication to the government of British Columbia regarding the use of Canadian engineering services prior to the government giving the green light on the Dome proposal?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: The Association of Consulting Engineers has stated that high-technology and industrial benefits for Canadian industries from this project "will be virtually nil." In view of the fact that Dome was awarded the right to build an LNG plant in British Columbia, can the minister explain why the bulk of all the major equipment in the plant will be manufactured outside this country?

HON. MR. SMITH: The member's assumptions in his question are premature. First, Dome has not received the approval of the National Energy Board for its project. The project is now before the National Energy Board. The matters raised by the hon. member with respect to technology and the components of it I will take up with the officials of Dome, and get back to you.

MR. LEGGATT: That's precisely why it's so appropriate that these questions be asked now rather than after the contracts are awarded.

My last question is: would the minister explain to the House why his government has not introduced a program that will guarantee jobs for British Columbia workers and work for British Columbia companies on all B.C. resource projects in this province?

HON. MR. SMITH: That assertion is really incorrect. The jobs that will be created for British Columbians from the LNG plant, if it goes ahead, will be many and will be important. Just as this government has created upwards of 10,000 jobs in the northwest as a result of the northeast coal, there will be more jobs for British Columbians in the next year through these policies than through any of the make-work projects of the members opposite.

MR. LEGGATT: My final question. The minister didn't address himself to the question specifically. It deals with whether this government will, as policy, provide guarantees on these projects so that British Columbia workers and British Columbia companies can see a guaranteed employment when tax money goes into the project or when it is a B.C. resource project. Would he confirm that this government has no guarantee policy on providing first British Columbia workers and first British Columbia companies?

STUDENT LOANS

MR. LAUK: I thought the Minister of Energy would answer the question. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has said that we always state the worst possible case. Well, we're getting used to that from this government, Mr. Speaker, and we always follow that route.

This is to the Minister of Education: On September 21 I asked the minister whether he would move quickly to provide the $18.6 million of provincial grants to college and university students who have qualified for provincial assistance. To date, no notices have been sent to applicants and no decision on the amount of student grants has been made, although the minister undertook to give me that information. Can the minister explain why the government is continuing to sit on these allocated funds?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'll pursue the question further.

MR. LAUK: A new question, Mr. Speaker. This year, the Legislature approved $18.6 million in grants to students in post-secondary education. No funds have yet been paid out.

[ Page 9549 ]

Has the minister decided that these funds will be paid to the students who have applied for them, or have you decided that they won't be?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have decided that they will be paid out.

PORNOGRAPHIC FILMS

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: During question period I was asked a question by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) which I took on notice. I did that because I didn't want to risk offending against the rules, because it might be construed that my response was, in part at least, a statement.

With regard to the matters which arose out of certain video cassettes which were sold by a firm in North Vancouver, no decision has yet been made with respect to the laying of a charge or that a charge will not be laid. The owner of the establishment which made the cassettes available to the public has voluntarily agreed to remove the offending material from his shelves. In many respects, that is a more appropriate resolution of the problem than to mount a criminal prosecution under the code provisions with respect to obscenity and face the possibility of a loss or, if successful, merely the imposition of a fine. However, the matter doesn't end there.

We have now before us, with new technology, the offering, for sale or rent, of video cassettes comprising so-called movies, by a number of entrepreneurs in the province. In some cases it may be concluded that they are sellers of smut or purveyors of pornography. It is not the intention of this government to allow that to continue,

We have legislation in this province with respect to motion picture films in the usual sense and the opportunity, through the film classification director, to examine films which are displayed in motion picture theatres in this province. They must be approved in the first instance and, if approved, appropriately classified. Our legislation, however, does not enable us to use that process with regard to these video cassettes. Neither do we have the authority by legislation to deal with the further emerging technology which is producing pay TV. There is currently a dispute between the federal government and this province as to which jurisdiction can appropriately license pay television outlets.

As a consequence, the officials of the criminal justice division of the Ministry of Attorney-General, under instructions, are in the process of preparing amending legislation and appropriate regulations which will enable us to impose the approval requirement, both on video cassettes and on material which may find its way into the homes of people in this province through pay TV under licence from the Utilities Commission.

It is necessary that we take appropriate caution, because in this initiative we are running up against the sensitive issue of censorship. Therefore we have both a constitutional problem and one which may involve consideration of the implications of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would be unwise to be precipitate in the preparation of such legislation, but I wish to assure the members of this House and the people of British Columbia that we will be moving in this direction as quickly as we can.

One of the problems with regard to video cassette material is the inability to examine the multitude of titles sold or made available for rent in these various retail establishments.

We are, therefore, clearly indicating today that if merchants who deal in this material do not take the time to examine the contents of the material that they are prepared to sell or rent and are not prepared to take account of the guidelines with respect to prosecutions for obscenity, then we may find it necessary, when a proper complaint is made under the provisions of the Criminal Code, to proceed with the in rem provisions of the code and impound their entire stock of video cassettes until such time as we can examine them at our leisure. This, I suppose, would have the result of putting such a merchant out of business.

We know that they have a code of conduct in the film industry. We know that there is a code of conduct in the television industry. If the pay TV operators and the merchants who sell and rent video cassette material are prepared to sit down and establish a code of conduct, they may then avoid some of the, serious problems to which I have referred. Any merchant who is in doubt as to whether or not any material he has for sale or rent offends against the obscenity provisions of the Code can ask us for assistance. We'll be happy to examine the material and give him advice.

STEEL CONTRACT FOR McINNES OVERPASS

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to answer a question posed to me recently by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) with regard to contracts let for the McInnes overpass in New Westminster, that great development that's taking place as a result of planning by this government and employing thousands of people at the present time in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You wish to make a speech or...? You're against that as well. Along with the rest of that group of Negative Nellies over there, you're against everything that this government is doing.

The basis for selecting the successful general contractor was, as is usually the case, the lowest bid meeting all specifications. Hansa Construction, a New Westminster company, was low bidder and has executed a contract with First Capital City on the basis of a total project cost of $3.2 million, of which only $100,000 or 3 percent of the contract is for the supply of steel.

In assembling the contract price, Hansa Construction solicited prices from a number of subcontractors — electrical, mechanical, precast concrete, reinforcing steel, etc. — one of which was GM Steel for the supply and installation of reinforcing steel. GM Steel in turn called for prices for supply of reinforcing steel bars, and apparently CanWest was the low bidder. CanWest, a wholly-owned B.C. company, makes major purchases of steel for various purposes from Canadian steel mills and very minor purchases from foreign sources. In fact, CanWest's representatives have advised that of approximately 6,000 tonnes purchased annually, only 200 tonnes are purchased from Korea. So again the member for Coquitlam-Moody has, of course, been wrong. In this particular case, the material that was in the inventory happened to contain a very small....

Interjection.

[ Page 9550 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're wrong again. You're always wrong in this Legislature. I don't know how you can be so consistently wrong.

In this particular case, the material that was in the inventory happened to contain a very small proportion of Korean steel bar, estimated at about 5 percent, so that the foreign content is in fact only about $5,000 in an overall price of over $3 million.

The very fact that the member, who wants to put up a picket fence around the province of British Columbia, go back to policies that have ruined this country — centralist policies of barring trade.... Oh, I'd love to have more time, Mr. Speaker, to talk to that member.

In the case of direct purchases, it is our policy to utilize B.C. or Canadian labour and materials to the greatest extent possible. In the case of supplying reinforcing steel for the McInnes overpass, the purchase of materials is the responsibility of Hansa Construction and its subcontractors, and beyond the direct control of First Capital City. It should be remembered that the project, in fact, has a very high local content, in that close to 100 percent of the value is represented by British Columbia labour and materials.

In answer to further questions posed by the member, I'd like to state for the record that CanWest does buy some steel from Korea and some from the U.S., but at least 85 percent of the steel it purchases comes from Stelco — Stelco buy their coking coal in the United States of America.

Mr. Cecil Cosulich is on the board of directors of CanWest, and he's also the owner of RivTow.

In answer to a further question posed by the member, CanWest has no direct contracts with the B.C. government. However, it has four contracts with general contractors connected with government projects and they are: ALRT prebuild, $345,000; Murray River bridge, $135,000; Port Alberni courthouse, $124,000 — all projects going ahead because of the forward planning of this great government, providing thousands and thousands of jobs at a time when they're needed — McInnes overpass, $800,000. All of these contracts were low bids in fair, open tender. Now I hope that that answers the member's question.

Orders of the Day

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

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

MR. STRACHAN: I know all Members of the Legislative Assembly probably didn't sleep at all over the weekend because I informed the members of this House Friday afternoon when I adjourned debate that I was going to speak a bit more about the pill — not the bill, the pill — as it affects this bill. I'll delve into that briefly, Mr. Speaker. There's absolutely no question in anyone's mind, if they look at the history of the Canadian birth rate in the last 20 years, that there have been some significant changes and some significant impacts upon the education system in British Columbia and also throughout North America.

The engine that moved our education system in the last 30 years was in fact the incredible baby boom that we enjoyed on our continent, North America — in Canada and British Columbia — from 1951 to 1965. During that time, the average Canadian birthrate was 407,000 children per year. It made a significant impact upon the education system; I don't think there's any question about that. However, the economy changed, medical science changed, and we're all aware of what the pill did. From about 1965 on, the average Canadian birth rate declined from that 475,000 births per year to around 275,000 births per year — a decrease of around 200,000 per year. That's the Canadian average. This had a significant impact upon education financing, education administration and the entire education system in Canada, and indeed in our province.

The significant thing to consider is that if we did have this decline beginning in 1965 — as my good friend from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the mathematician, will agree, I'm sure — if you subtract 1965 from 1982 you end up with the number 17. The youngest people of the Canadian baby boom are now 17 years old and essentially through our public school system. That is one of the dilemmas we face now in the North American education system. As a matter of fact, it's ironic to note, Mr. Speaker, that even in a dynamic community such as Prince George, which I represent, a community which has trebled in population since the mid-sixties, we have seen since 1978 a declining school enrolment, in spite of the fact that our general population enrolment has increased significantly. Prince George is now identified as British Columbia's second-largest city. Nevertheless, the facts are there; they're clear. We can talk about the pill. We can talk about whatever we want. The education population is declining — most significantly in our province — which leads us to the dilemma that we currently face.

[Hon. Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

As I said on Friday, the other problem we've seen is that while we had the significant increase — particularly in communities such as mine, Prince George — we built for it, we hired for it, and we put all these people in place. Regrettably we didn't plan for the time when we in fact would have a declining enrolment. To give you an example, in School District 57 in Prince George, which is huge — it's identical in boundary to the ridings of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) — we declined from a high of 22,000 students in 1978 to a full-time equivalent now of 19,000, a significant decrease. The fact is that we built for those 22,000 students. We hired for those 22,000 students.

Regrettably none of us — and I'm equally to blame, because I was a trustee during those growing years — saw the writing on the wall. We didn't act soon enough to be in a position to look after this declining enrolment which we now face. One of the regrettable things in our district is that we have added five fairly high-priced administrators since 1980. These were people who were not in place during the high enrolment years but who are in place now, and I don't think that there's any question that our district and our school board are going to have to seriously consider the golden handshake in a few of those cases, or at least some redistribution.

I think it's important to point out here that the legislation that we're dealing with now, Bill 89, includes everyone — administrators as well as vice-principals, supervisors, directors of instruction, etc. — and those people who do have teacher qualifications could be transferred back into the classroom before the end of their administrative assignment. I think that's an essential and interesting facet of this bill, because it will give the local school board the discretion to

[ Page 9551 ]

move these people around as they see fit, and enable them to enact cost savings.

I had the opportunity this morning to review briefly the A section of the School District 57 budget. The A section is the part of the budget that deals with administrative costs. I note with some alarm that the per-pupil cost of administration in district 57 is well over what one sees in other school districts. Of course, a district as large as district 57 is bound to have a higher administration cost. It's probably 30,000 square miles in area, and it does take extra funds for administrators to supervise an area that big. Many professional development sessions and administrative sessions will be held in Vancouver or Victoria, so an administrator from district 57 is going to have an added transportation cost. There is no question that on the basis of an equivalency rating the administrative costs are going to be higher in a district such as district 57. However, there's also no question that they are far too high at this point, especially when one considers the declining enrolment that we now face.

The last thing I would like to talk about in this bill is the fairness that it applies to the teachers. A lot of mixed messages have gone out in the last week or two. As a matter of fact, this morning I spoke with a teacher from Kelly Road School on the Hart Highway, who was concerned about having 12 minutes per class added to his day. I had to explain to him that it's 12 to 13 minutes per day, not per class. In fact, in terms of the classes in his school, about three minutes per class would be added to his day. Regrettably, we do have some mixed messages going out. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about this bill. It's my hope, at least, that some of these messages will be straightened out so that boards, teachers, local teachers' associations, the teachers federation and the people who have the best interests of everyone at heart will study the bill and understand which direction we're coming from.

I think the important thing to point out here.... The bill is silent on it, but as you read it and follow it through, anyone who knows the education system must observe that in fact the teachers' salary base and pension base is maintained. Certainly there will be a net decrease in a teacher's salary under the terms of this bill; nevertheless, the base that he agreed to, the base that his next increase will be based on, his pension base, is maintained at the 16.8 or 17.5 percent, or whatever it was. I think that is eminently fair for the teachers. Earlier we were discussing rollbacks of education expenses, and unquestionably a big concern of teachers is the impact it would have on them in later years; if we did roll back their salary base for this year, we of course get into their pensions. However, they are aware now that their pensions are in place, and their salary base is in place for future negotiations and future pension considerations. I think that's one commendable part of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say much more. I would just like to say that I do support the bill. It's eminently fair and addresses the concerns of British Columbians — as taxpayers and the people who have to support the education system. It addresses the concern of contact hours in the classroom. It points out — and it's abundantly clear — that the contract hours will be maintained. Finally, in defence of the teachers and the members of the teaching federation, it does protect their salary base and their pension base. It's a good bill, its eminently fair, and I support it.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago this Premier appointed an anarchist as Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). The anarchic approach of this minister has culminated in a bill which has simultaneously managed to win the disfavour of both the school trustees and the teachers on an issue of restraint, wages and benefits. That's really a remarkable achievement when you come to think of it. Only an anarchist whose real intention was chaos and disruption could possibly achieve such remarkable results.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the member of something we've been reminded of so often: that is, that moderate language is the hallmark of good debate. I would ask the hon. member to remember that we are in second reading of a bill, and personal allusions should be avoided.

MR. BARBER: The anarchist approach of the government, the anarchist tendencies of the government's minister, and the anarchist implications of the government's strategy in the field of education are those which concern us, at least in the opposition, in a very serious way. Ordinarily, if a government is going to come down on one side or another in a salary, bargaining, wage, income, or some other form of benefits dispute, they generally manage to establish a position that's fairly clear to both sides in the dispute. They take the side that they think is fair and reasonable, and one side is a little more happy than the other.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I've read the bill very thoroughly — all morning long, as a matter of fact, returning phone calls I couldn't return last week to teachers and trustees who wanted to express an opinion, among other things.

The remarkable achievement of this bill and of the anarchist strategy behind it is that they have simultaneously managed to alienate and offend both trustees and teachers. That's really something. I think the minister deserves about five seconds worth of credit for that, because not a lot of people could do it, but this guy can. If we see a pattern in government relations, provincial and municipal, we see a pattern that we've observed before. Let me allude to it briefly.

What this minister is doing to Education he did to Municipal Affairs. The centralist, heavy-handed, control-everything-in-Victoria approach that he took in Municipal Affairs, he is now taking in Education. I have some experience in that, having been the critic for municipal affairs for almost seven years, I'm well aware of the absolute alienation that he created within the ranks of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and which he is now creating again within the ranks of trustees and teachers both. The policies they are adopting are fundamentally anarchist. They are destroying the basic architecture of a system of education which has taken decades to establish. That architecture of the British Columbia system involves those weights, balances, checks, counterweights, means and mechanisms whereby parents, teachers, trustees and sometimes even students are consulted, advised and have a chance to participate. Victoria, by and large, stands back and helps with the money, and avoids dealing with the local prerogatives. benefits and views.

The anarchist strategy this government has followed in education has been to upset all of that. This minister has been doing it every day since he became responsible, What they've been doing deliberately is attempting, I think, to destabilize a

[ Page 9552 ]

situation which had served, by and large, the people of this province pretty darned well. The deliberate policy of destabilization serves not an educational purpose but a political one. The educational purposes are not served when teachers don't know who will be on staff the following day. Educational purposes are not well served when trustees do not know what programs are going to be in place the following week. The highest educational ambitions are not obtained when the trustees, teachers and general public cannot authentically know and guarantee that the programs, disciplines, apprenticeship and achievements of a good formal education can, in fact, still be made available any longer on the basis that they are entitled to be made available to every student in British Columbia who is in the system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You must have written your speech before you read the bill.

MR. BARBER: I've read the bill. I've listened to your speeches through Hansard.

The policy of destabilization which this government has introduced and the chaos they have deliberately created have a political aim that is completely unrelated to education. They have hoped to separate and divide — thereby conquering — the agreement, consensus and professional belief in the quality of education and the resources required for same that have been created between the trustees and the teachers in this province. That's a very powerful alliance, and Social Credit doesn't like to know about it, doesn't want to be confronted with it and will do anything to destabilize it. The anarchist strategy of this minister, implicit in this bill, has been an attempt to break an alliance in the name of quality education that has been forming between teachers and trustees both.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Ordinarily those groups are antagonists or, if you will, Mr. Speaker, adversaries. Ordinarily teachers and trustees, for a number of good and historical reasons, have taken approaches that have led to different conclusions on each part. They are not often allies, except when they are under attack by Social Credit and a minister who tells us that we have to learn "to write good," and thereby tells us what he means by a quality education. It's the sort that apparently he didn't receive.

A minister who has the nerve to tell other people to "write good" has got more than enough nerve, I suppose, to bring a bill in like this, the purpose of which has been, the government hoped, to destabilize the relationships that have been worked up, built up and created in the last weeks and months between the trustees and the teachers. The trustees aren't fighting for their jobs — they don't pay very much. The teachers, glory be, although they are fighting for the job security of their colleagues — which they are entitled to do — to the horror of this government have responded not by talking much about the salaries, benefits, wage package or the other stuff the government thought they would greedily debate; no, the teachers haven't talked about that at all; that for them too, as for us, is secondary. The teachers, the trustees and the people who care about education have been talking about kids, about the realm of the mind, the power of imagination and the gift of intellect. The teachers and the trustees have been talking about the future of mankind in this piece of the planet, which is dependent on the skills, the apprenticeship and the discipline of a first-class education.

What is the point, do you think, of preparing people to work in the Discovery Parks of British Columbia at the highest end of the scale at the same time as the same government, through its policies of anarchism, is tearing apart the elementary, junior and senior high schools of British Columbia? What is the point of addressing the power and prospect of a Discovery Parks system to aid — the government argues — both industry and intellect at the same time as you're busy wrecking the fundamentals?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Chair recognizes the member for Dewdney on a point of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: My point of order is based on my assumption that anarchy is illegal in this country. He referred to anarchist policies. There is no such possibility of an anarchist policy. I'd like that withdrawn.

MR. KING: On the same point of order, I would think the minister would accept that term since he used it on the weekend on television to describe the teachers of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke does not address the point of order raised by the member for Dewdney. With respect to the comments by the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), I guess we all have to appreciate that the term the member for Dewdney finds offensive could be construed as being quite unparliamentary when applied to another hon. member of this House, and it could be suggested that that member did not have honour for the parliamentary traditions, which would be imputing a very improper motive to another hon. member. I would commend that statement to all members of this House. Perhaps we can avoid using the term; it would offend our parliamentary traditions and would impute a very unparliamentary motive to another hon. member. I'm sure the hon. first member for Victoria and other members of this House, on both sides, appreciate that concern.

MR. BARBER: The motives of the government concern us — motives that have nothing whatever to do with a quality education. They have nothing whatever to do with those interests of intellect and imagination that have to be spurred and animated by a good educational system in B.C. The motives of that government and this bill are one and the same. Those motives are to destabilize educational relationships, to destabilize an educational structure and to destabilize a system of public education that has served us, by and large, pretty well.

The motives of this government are clear. The performance of the minister in question is clear and infamous in the sense of those who care about local control. What he did to municipalities he is now doing to school districts. It's the same pattern and the same performance, based on the same principle. I say that this government is following a policy of anarchism in the school system. I'm not attributing violence or the violent aspect of anarchism, which, of course, is a Criminal Code offence, which was referred to by the member for Dewdney. I don't accuse this government of that at all; that would be preposterous. But what I do say they are doing is a kind of damage that is almost as irreparable as physical

[ Page 9553 ]

damage; they are damaging hope, trust, confidence and professionalism. They do so in the name of fair play, yet, peculiarly, not one single element in the public educational system has so far called this bill fair. Both employer and employee have said that the bill is unfair. The students, teachers and trustees who have spoken to me about it have clearly and authentically demonstrated their view of the unfairness of this bill.

On all these bases, given the political record of this government and this minister — the centralist approach in particular — I would ask that the bill be withdrawn. It is a mistake in policy. It is a mistake in administration. It will prove a mistake in law. On those three counts, I ask the government to withdraw the bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I extend my sympathy to the first member for Victoria, who has a terrible cold. I'm sure that is why his speech was as short as it was. He usually goes on at great length. I would say, however, that some of his information was a little out of line. He mentioned that the now Minister of Education, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, alienated municipalities in the province of British Columbia. I seem to recall that at the recent UBCM convention this minister, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, was appointed a lifetime member of the UBCM. I'd suggest to the first member for Victoria that the vast majority of representatives of municipalities in this province said: "Thank you, Mr. Vander Zalm" — I apologize for using the name, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure that's what they said — "for a job well done as Minister of Municipal Affairs." I lend my support to that statement as well.

The first member for Victoria says that the teachers won't know who will be working on a day-to-day basis. He said that teachers and parents won't know what programs will be available on a day-to-day basis. He also mentioned several times that he had read the bill. If he had read the bill, he would have found out that the purpose of the bill is to preserve jobs and to indicate that there would not be teacher layoffs. It preserves the teachers' jobs in the schools and lets them know what the future holds for them. It also preserves the programs. By carrying out the purpose of the bill, services would be maintained, and most importantly — because there was a lot of talk about it — services or classes for the handicapped would be maintained. I'm sure that concern was expressed by a lot of parents. This bill addresses itself to the services to be maintained to people with regard to programs and classes, and it also preserves jobs in the schools.

We must recognize that we are in difficult times. Nobody has denied that for the past several months we have been debating and dealing with fiscal restraint. We've had a tremendous amount of cooperation. Everybody involved in the economy of British Columbia has attempted to do their fair share. The minister has had discussions with school boards and with teachers' groups, asking them to do their fair share. When you look back at what's gone on from the time the Premier announced the restraint program in February 1982, and the amount of cooperation and the amount of discussion that's been going on, to achieve the goal we've achieved — and that is to control government spending, to attempt to bring it back into some form of realism.... The economy of British Columbia could not afford to pick up the tab. It's not us in this room who pick up the tab. It's not us who pay the bills for the hospitals or the bills to the doctors, or pay for our schools and our teachers. It's the people of the province. It's everybody who makes a profit and pays tax. It's every logging company that cuts trees and pays stumpage. It's every mine that pays royalty on the minerals they take out of the ground. It's everybody who pays sales tax on every consumer purchase. Everybody participates. Because of the economic downturn and the reduction in the number of housing starts, our forest industry, instead of paying into government somewhere around $70 million a month in revenues from logging, is only contributing $5 million a month. So you can see the impact that that has OD revenues to the government, those revenues which are used for education and health and other functions of government.

So when we recognize how the revenues generated by the economy have been reduced, we have to bring our spending back into some area of reality. The doctors, in their discussions and meetings with the Premier and Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen ), determined that they could give back to the province some $30 million. The dentists, instead of, I believe, a 12 percent increase, looked at 6 percent. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), in dealing with the municipalities, said: "Here are your limits, here are your guidelines, and you must live within those." Municipalities do the same as we do as government: they raise funds from taxpayers. Yet we said that we have act to control spending — "Here are your guidelines." The BCGEU, after some work stoppage, but through discussion and recognizing the seriousness of the problem, agreed to their 6.5 percent increase. And I guess I could go so far as the MLAs in this House. We had a contract. It's called a piece of legislation. It was a piece of legislation, a law of the land, that said we would be paid an increase of 11.9 percent, effective January 1, 1982. In dealing with the restraint program. we changed that contract and reduced our increase to 1.9 percent for 1982 and a zero increase for 1983.

All that we have attempted in discussion — the Minister of Education, dealing with the school boards and the teachers' group — was to let them play a part in this recovery program. In this effort to bring our expenditures into line with our revenues. Many school boards and teachers' groups agreed with that, and achieved that, goal. Some did not.

The bill that has come forward before the House was an attempt to identify what had to be done and set out a method as to how it would be done. bearing in mind the impact of such legislation. But, we said (a) that we should preserve our standard of education in this province, that we shouldn't penalize the education programs for the handicapped; and (b) that we should have job preservation or job-sharing as opposed to layoffs of school teachers. Now that wasn't too serious a request to put to the teaching profession. We've done it in such a way that their salary base will be preserved, which was of concern to them, although I must say that the MLAs in this House took a rollback and, in effect, have not preserved our salary base. But I can understand why some teachers would be concerned about the loss of that 17 percent increase or a rollback in it. Which thereby reduced their base for the next increase. But it's not a major problem to, say, maintain the base, and we'll achieve the cost savings another way. That's what the bill has done with regard to the paid professional days off. Which we are saying should not be paid for, and to the shortening of the year by a period of time at the end of the school year.

But in doing that. as you mentioned, Mr. Speaker, in your comments, we maintained the standard number of days of instruction in the province. Instead of looking at reducing the

[ Page 9554 ]

hours of instruction to our young people, because we recognize they're our greatest asset for the future, we've said that the number of minutes of instruction per day would be increased, and thereby we would achieve the standard 935 hours per year. That could be accomplished by an extra 13 minutes a day, and in doing that the teacher could adjust his instructional time and make sure that the work he or she is required to do with the students — the hours of instruction, the number of units of instruction — would be maintained. So the bill does two things, primarily, and those two things are to maintain the standard of education in the province, and at the same time achieve job preservation so we don't have closure of school classes and layoffs.

We have to recognize that these are difficult times and that it's time for cooperation in all sectors of our economy. We know, and many of us have said it before in this House, that the controlling factor in the private sector is the marketplace. I'm sure many people in this province have felt the impact of that control, that check and balance in the private sector, that impact of the marketplace. If you have a product and can't sell it, if people have cars on the lot that nobody's buying, if you have a store full of furniture and people are laid off and they can't purchase your stove or your fridge or your chesterfield suite, then you as a small businessman are in serious difficulty and you have to cut back. The man who works in the mill and is laid off has some difficulty in making ends meet, and he has to cut back in certain areas. So the public sector, in my opinion, is no different than the private sector. We have to recognize that our income is down. As a result, we have to tighten our belts, so to speak, and attempt to adjust our programs in such a way that we can maintain the standard, but at the same time reduce the costs that we're placing on the taxpayers of this province. It's time for the cooperation of all sectors of our economy. The key to all this is that it will be a major test of the mettle of our system. Can our system — when I say "our system," I mean the public sector — work and respond to the challenge that's put before it? I suggest to you that it can. It's been basically proven in many areas.

As I mentioned, the BCGEU, hospitals, doctors and even the MLAs have recognized that they all have to play a part in this program. This particular piece of legislation looks towards the education system and how best we can give some assistance and guidance to having that sector of our economy meet the challenge. The information in the bill allows a full understanding on the part of school boards and teachers of what can be done to achieve the goal that's been set out by the Minister of Education and this government, so that they can play their part in this restraint program. With those comments, I'm pleased to support Bill 89. I compliment the minister on bringing this piece of legislation before the House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will take my place briefly in this debate. I was shocked to hear the member just leaving the chamber, who just spoke — he's not leaving the chamber; he's just coming over to say hello — saying that he was defending a bill which nobody in the province is defending except some government members in this House. I was really shocked to hear that.

Under this bill, non-teaching staff will be greatly reduced. There's no question about that. School boards have served notice to their staff all over the province that this will be the result of this bill. Special programs will be curtailed. There's no question about that. The minister knows that very well. I'm going to present evidence to the minister of that charge in just a few moments.

Support staff for teachers, including aides, will be reduced in some school districts, probably in most school districts, under this bill — there's no question about that — as will special education for seniors and adults and the government's own programs for adult education. By the government's own admission, "grants for school board night school operations will be reduced by 33 percent over two years, with a 19 percent reduction in 1983 and a further 14 percent reduction in 1984. The continuing education project system has already been reduced by 78 percent through 1982-83." Those are the ministry's own figures. "College community education programs will be reduced by 65 percent, with a 27 percent cutback in the 1982-83 allocation and a further 39 percent cutback in 1983-84." Those are figures from the ministry, and not from anybody else.

Transportation assistance will be cut back. I want to give the minister a small local example of those cutbacks in transportation assistance right now — assistance which, I might add, was brought in by a New Democratic government and minister some eight or nine years ago. How time flies!

AN HON. MEMBER: When you're having fun!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's not much fun these days in here. We have five children on Savary Island who have to travel approximately two miles every day from Savary Island to Lund in order to attend elementary school at Lund. The school district, because of the recently announced cutbacks, will be terminating the subsidy allowance to the water taxi operator to bring those children over to attend school. That allowance came to approximately $150 per month per child, in order that those children may receive an adequate education. They have been told that this assistance will be cut off at the end of October.

When I spoke to people in the school district about it, they said that they wanted to continue the program, but their hands are tied. They simply don't have the money because of the other cutbacks they're going to announce or bring to the minister's attention shortly. Although I've already written them, I have now received correspondence from Savary Island, and I will be sending the minister a copy of the letter outlining the problem within the next couple of days. I hope that something will be done in that particular case. Those children, by the way — at least the parents of those children — were told that they could take correspondence courses. We're all very much aware now of the problems relating to correspondence courses in these situations, particularly where these children do have the opportunity to attend a regularly structured school.

Perhaps the most condemning thing I can say about the bill now before us is to read a letter that was sent home with every one of the 3,000 students in School District 47. This letter was signed by the chairman of the school board, and reads in part:

"The board will do its utmost to continue to provide education of a high standard, even with this decrease in revenue, and as much consideration as is possible will be given to reducing costs in areas that do not directly affect classroom instruction. Transportation assistance will be cut back. Money for sports trips and band trips will be eliminated. Non-teaching staff will be reduced. Community use of schools will

[ Page 9555 ]

be curtailed. Support staff for teachers, including aides, will be reduced, and so will special education services. Field trips and the use of recreational complexes for cultural and athletic programs will be decreased or eliminated."

Those are some of the programs that are being cut. Every parent in that particular school district — I have three school districts in my riding — received a copy of that letter.

The minister probably knows by now that there was a meeting of concerned parents, and it was not sponsored by the teachers, the school board, the BCTF or the BCSTA, in School District 47. That meeting, which was packed, was called by a United Church minister and was held at the United Church hall. The parents expressed their concern over the legislation now before us and over previous cutbacks — cutbacks that affect the quality of education in this province. This bill does exactly that, in my view, and in the view of the several hundred concerned parents who attended that meeting after receiving this letter.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Who's sending out the letters?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Marion L. Williams, Chairman, School District 47.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get in the crossfire but the minister asked me a question.

We'll quote some more from School District 47, Powell River. This is a letter that went to the Minister of Education, Mr. Vander Zalm, with copies to a lot of people, including myself. That's why I've got it. I thought it might have gone to the Premier; some have, this one didn't. It's a three-page letter, I'm not going to quote all of it, but I do want the minister to understand and realize what some school districts.... School District 46, theSun shine Coast school district, has said something similar, as have many other school districts in the province, I'll quote in part from the board of school trustees' correspondence to the minister dated September 16, 1982:

"We fear that the real improvements in standards and services to individual students will suffer a setback as a consequence of the ad hoc decisions being forced upon us that may take years to correct. With the business" — they're speaking to the minister here — "you are in (I mean nursery, not government) I don't have to remind you how important long-range planning is and how disastrous ad hoc planning is."

I read that paragraph to indicate the attitude of that particular board towards the legislation now before us, Mr. Speaker. To quote another paragraph:

"No matter what your intent, the real losers are our students and, in the future, this community and province. These children pass by only once in our schools, and a one- or two-year disruption in their education can well reduce their potential for many years to come."

The letter goes on to give 12 areas of immediate concern related in part to this legislation and to previous decisions made by the government in terms of cutbacks and other decisions. I don't think I'll read all of these. I am sure the minister has heard these concerns a hundred times during the course of this debate and has received hundreds of letters. I don't think we're going to get an answer anyway. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that the government is determined to proceed with this legislation. no matter what.

I have received some concerns from the Sunshine Coast School District 46 teachers' association about Bill 89. This went to the minister as well. The concerns that they list relating to the quality of education and the decrease therein are things like this. The bill will inevitably increase the pupil teacher ratio, which has gone up considerably over the last couple of years. It will mean further loss of special services and increased tensions in the classroom. Already the cutbacks have resulted in the loss of the native environmental study program, which the board has said it may reinstate next year, pending funding and a decision by the minister, That program won't be reinstated under this bill next year, Mr. Speaker. How can it be? This program that's so vital to our native Indian children in that part of the coast that I represent — how can that program be reinstated under this bill? It can't be and it won't be.

They are naturally opposed to this legislation and appalled at the assault on the collective bargaining progress. I agree, this bill is an assault on the collective bargaining process, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps nothing puts the matter so much in context as a piece of correspondence that I received late last week. It is dated September 23 and is from Sherilyn Stedham in School District 47. In this correspondence she encloses a letter from the then Minister of Education, Patrick L. McGeer, dated March 8, 1978. This letter is from Mr. McGeer to this teacher.

"I am very pleased to express my deep appreciation to you for the outstanding service you have rendered during the past school year.... On behalf of myself and the government of British Columbia I congratulate you for the high level of competency which has been recognized in your teaching, It is because of the efforts of dedicated persons such as you that the educational system continues to receive such high respect from the public of this province."

What does she have to say on September 23, 1982? This is a letter to the minister with a copy to me and one to the Premier.

"I am distressed about the way your ministry is handling the restraint program. I enclose a copy of commendation I received from your ministry. Regardless of the quality of my teaching and my eight years of seniority in Powell River School District, I face job termination on January 1, 1983."

She is going to be laid off — fired! Under this bill, that is exactly what will happen, and don't tell me it won't. She has been taken out of the classroom, as I understand it, and currently placed on a substitute list in that school district. That's the kind of thing that's happening. That's why under this bill you can have no effect on that decision. That's what's happening, Mr. Minister, and it is happening to 11 other teachers in that one district alone as of last week — now. She goes on to request fair legislation so that school boards can take seniority into account, etc. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is well aware of all of these matters, because this kind of correspondence is coming in from all over the province. I have a long list of facts, figures and cutbacks, but I think I'll refrain from going into that. It's been gone over and canvassed in speech after speech in this House, and I'm sure the record is full of facts and figures. My main concern in getting up this afternoon and speaking in this House, Mr. Speaker, was to let the minister know that I am talking with

[ Page 9556 ]

school board members, that I am talking with teachers, students and parents, but most important of all the students and the parents throughout my whole riding. The reaction is almost unanimous: don't bring this bill forward; drop it, leave it on the order paper. It's bad legislation.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, for some time the members on this side of the House have been telling the government that their spending priorities are haywire and totally backward. We saw it over the last couple of years in the area of health care, and now it is glaringly obvious in the area of education. They have a megalomaniacal obsession with their large resource-extractive projects, to which they've hung their political futures in the northeast of this province. They have assigned the taxpayers' dollars of the general treasury of this province to those projects at the expense of fundamental services in health care and education. For them to say that this is a recent restraint measure is untrue. This process has been underway for some time now, and has accelerated over the last year. Since October 1, 1981, at least, a contrived and deliberate attack on education has been in place and underway in British Columbia. I'd like to document that in my remarks.

I have just a couple of comments by way of background about the performance of this minister. I don't think any minister in the history of British Columbia has been so successful in terrorizing the young people of this province as this minister has in his six or eight weeks as a minister of the Crown in this particular portfolio. That shouldn't surprise us too much, because he is one of these people who likes to win his political epaulets on the backs of those who cannot fight back. I think you are aware, Mr. Speaker, of his performance when he was first made a minister of the Crown in this province in Human Resources. He went after those people on social assistance in a way we had not seen since an earlier predecessor, Mr. Gaglardi, had undertaken a similar course of action in this area.

The people of the province did not respect the minister because of that. They realize that people on social assistance are most vulnerable to that kind of attack from a minister of the Crown. They cannot fight back. They're totally defenceless. His political record is a series of these battles where he attacks those people who are most defenceless in our society, so he moved from Human Resources and created total chaos in Municipal Affairs. He managed to mobilize even the most conservative elements of local government against his highly centralist policies. He's on a power trip. He loves to centralize and run things out of his bottom drawer. He wants to assume all the power himself. No sooner had he assumed the Education portfolio than he started to introduce a form of county government into the education system of the province, attempting to strip, right off the bat, local control over education, which is a long-standing form of government in this province in terms of the administration of education through duly elected officials taking cognizance of local needs and participation of citizens in that process.

They don't want one minister controlling education. The school boards, teachers, parents and children of this province do not want that minister controlling their education, because he doesn't appreciate or respect the system. He has an elitist notion of it. He does not respect the egalitarian aspects of the public school system. You know, Mr. Speaker, that a public school system is an egalitarian system that assumes that every child, no matter what the economic circumstances of its family or situation, deserves every opportunity to achieve excellence in academics or any other aspects of education. We know that that is an objective that the public school system is aspiring to in philosophy.

We know it is not achieved, because economic factors of a child's family and so on clearly do impact heavily on their aspirations, achievement and the kinds of goals they set for themselves, their parents set, and so on. I think that it's clearly documented. If you were draw a line north and south through Vancouver, you'd find the number of people attending university far higher on the west side of Vancouver than on the east side. It's not genetic or biological. It's cultural, financial and economic factors. First citizens tend to live more on the east side of town, and so on. What I'm saying is that the goals of a public school system — the egalitarian notion that every child, no matter where it resides, its economic circumstances or the geography of its particular area — should not affect the quality of education granted to it, nor should the price of real estate in the area dictate the number of dollars going in to provide that education.

For some time now we've known that the Social Credit government has no commitment to the public education system. They are basically elitist in their approach. When it comes to spending tax dollars, to their spending priorities, they are enamoured with the political objectives of having megaprojects that they can point to — projects of dubious economic value, where no cost-benefit analyses have been carried out. They drain tax dollars into those capital sinkholes at the expense of quality services such as health and education, which is clearly false economics. Certainly that is so with respect to health care. The public of British Columbia is well aware that quality health care will not be restored in this province until Social Credit goes the way it should, the way of the dodo bird, and there's a new political realignment. Anyone in the health industry, anyone who has been waiting for health care, is aware of that particular issue. Cutting back on the amount of money to children's education is, in the short term, totally wrong in terms of economic planning, and in the long term it's going to be disastrous and will cheat the children of the province out of future opportunities, which no government should have the right to take away from children.

Earlier I said that the cutbacks didn't start in the Premier's February announcement on restraint. They started here in Victoria in October 1981. The first realignment within the budget for the Victoria School Board occurred when the pupil-teacher ratio was expanded and 22 teachers were cut. There was a second round of cuts in January 1982 that resulted in an additional expansion of the pupil-teacher ratio, and 40 more classroom teachers were cut from the list. In addition, six professional support staff were cut. One was a speech therapist, another was a psychologist, one itinerant teacher moving from one problem child to another within the district, three elementary school counsellors, a district planner and one additional half-position for a community relations officer. A further round of cuts occurred in March 1982, a further $617,000. Classrooms were enlarged, the number of split classes was increased, and an additional 60 teachers were cut out of the system.

So here we had an impact on the educational system within the Victoria district, whereby learning disabled children will receive less help. These are the diagnostic services in terms of counselling and those professionals on staff who could alert teachers to difficulties that a particular student is having, could expand the district diagnostic testing to signal

[ Page 9557 ]

or red-flag the difficulties that students will have. If they're not alerted to those facts, if parents are not made cognizant of the difficulties their child has, in the long term those have a negative impact all the way through the child's educational experience.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Children who speak English as a second language are going to be forced more and more to cope on their own. This is clearly a move away from the egalitarian objectives of our public school system toward a more elitist approach. Survive as best you can. If you're lucky enough to have large amounts of money, get private tutoring, private education and so on; if not, then tough.

Larger classes with less individualized attention for children is also an impact of the cutbacks in education. Clearly, when children they have the opportunity to work in a classroom of 18 or 20 students, and all of a sudden an additional four, five or six students are brought into the class and the teacher has less time for each child, more learning disabilities go undetected. People who, for one reason or another, are slow learners don't get the added assistance. Aides are no longer there to assist in the mainstreaming of disabilities and so on. The teacher is forced to pick up all of these extra burdens, the added stress, and is less able to give the needed care and attention to the child, and so on. Obviously, larger classes with less individual attention are a negative in the educational system. Split classes are chaotic; they are more dislocating to people having one class in the morning, classes in the afternoon and so on. French programs are being reduced in number. Enriched courses for gifted children are being dropped and so on. Clearly that cuts into the notion that every child, no matter what their abilities are, should have the opportunity to achieve to the best of their abilities, to achieve excellence in areas for which they have a predisposition and an aptitude. We're going to be moving backwards, as we have been doing in British Columbia for some period of time.

Counselling services are seen as a frill by this government. School boards have had to cut back in this area, where clearly if children are given an opportunity to canvass interests and ideas they will have a better idea of where their abilities and interests lie, what their long-range career options may be, or will just have exposure to possibilities that they had never entertained — perhaps going on to post-secondary education, or some kind of professional career or vocation; options that save time, prevent anxiety and so on, if those decisions are properly made with all the information at hand. When counselling services are extracted from the school system, who is hurt? It's the children, as in all instances.

Modified programs in core subjects for children with limited abilities are going to be curtailed more and more. The government is cutting back on some 1940s notion of what an education is in this world, when we all know that technology, information systems and education are becoming extremely sophisticated. Here in British Columbia we're being left behind. We've been behind for many years in the production of professionals in the areas of engineering and nursing. Currently there is obviously a downturn in the economy, which in many ways is being exacerbated by the policies and programs of this government. As you know, they don't plan: they don't anticipate future needs. When we know we're going to have a shortfall in engineers, nurses and other professionals in the future.... Rather than gearing up and ensuring that our young elementary school students and post-secondary students are aware of the long-term job market trends and where the possibilities are going to be so they could have some goal to aim towards, in actual fact we're cutting back areas of post-secondary and elementary education, which will impair the possibilities for these younger people when they get to the age when they could be going on to some other professional career.

Library services are being reduced; that, as much as anything, characterizes this government's approach to education. They don't believe in libraries; they've never been great supporters of a good public library system in this province. It was not until 1972, and the efforts of the now second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and his movement to expand the public library system, to make sure that libraries were supported, so that small communities had access to metropolitan library services.... We're going two steps forward and three or four backwards.

It doesn't surprise me that this government is cutting back in education. They've never been great supporters of the public education system. They have allocated any surplus tax dollars — even operating tax dollars — to projects without planning, without cost-benefit analyses and without proper regard or the establishment of any, and of infrastructure for our province. We have always been drawers of water and hewers of wood. It's no accident that we are the chain-saw operators. We are the people who drive the bulldozers. We are the people who use our wages from those endeavours to try to buy the digital calculators, electronic equipment, automobiles and so on which are produced in other jurisdictions.

As a young British Columbian growing up in B.C., in elementary school, some long time ago now, it was pointed out to me in early social studies classes that we were a primary resource-extractive province, that we didn't have secondary processing, and that it was something we should have because we would then tend to be less seasonal and less cyclical. We would be able to stabilize our economy. We'd start managing our primary resources more properly. We would add value to them and we'd get more jobs out of them. Here we are 30-odd years later in virtually the same position. We just provide the raw materials for other people; we're the cupboard for the world. We don't even own our fish resources. We are clearly losing control of our mineral resources to other nations. At the same time, we have people in government who are ministers of the Crown, charged with the responsibility of educating the young people so that we'll be able to break out of this cyclical culture of poverty, in the sense of being just the chain-saw operators — and I don't mean that to disparage people who work in the woods carrying chain-saws, but there are many other things that we can do as British Columbians.... We're a highly-skilled workforce in some respects, but we've never been given the opportunity within our own economy to apply our skills for ourselves and our families.

This minister has characterized to the public, as clearly as possible, the Social Credit government's commitment to education. He has stripped away the tweediness of his predecessor, who, with his pipe and his tweed jacket, had the aura of someone who cared for or perhaps had some commitment to education. But this minister has stripped naked the Social Credit approach. To see the concern and the anxiety and the real fear in children's eyes, and to hear what they say to me and to others in this society, is no accident. I don't

[ Page 9558 ]

know how you did it, but you managed to do that within six weeks of assuming your portfolio. You managed to create anxiety in almost every child in this province, because they saw in you someone who wanted to take away local authority, to influence the educational system in a very negative and backward way, to move it back into some kind of simplistic sort of pre-telephone notion of what education is in this province.

We rank among the lowest in the entire country in the production of engineers. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) is an engineer himself, and he knows that we produce fewer engineers than almost any other province in this country. At one time we ranked as almost the best in the world. You write those beautiful little letters to the editor, and you give little speeches in this House, but when push comes to shove you vote with them every time, because if you actually put up once and voted against them, you'd probably shake these guys loose a little bit.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said it was terrible then.

MR. HANSON: I'm saying it is terrible now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will please address the Chair.

MR. HANSON: It was amusing to see at the end of the last session, just as the minister, who was stewarding his last disaster through this House — the Land Use Act for doing away with the Islands Trust and virtually doing away with local government in this province.... As soon as he was reassigned and that bill was pulled, he said that his colleagues were gutless. It's interesting that he calls his colleagues and the Premier gutless, but only when they leave town, or from a great distance.

Here he had the opportunity to be an advocate for the children of the province — and a minister really should be an advocate in his portfolio. The children of the province are looking to him — they have looked to that ministerial portfolio — for someone who would be an advocate for their own futures. But, you know, it's got to be the supreme act of cowardice — as he's demonstrated on previous occasions — to attack the children of the province. He's not acting on behalf of the children of this province at all. For him to talk strictly in terms of making some kind of phony economic argument to rationalize stripping the public education system in this province, to move on to some elitist system, and also to funnel those tax dollars into some projects which he feels will save his political skin is absolutely immoral — politically immoral, Mr. Speaker. I've seen very clearly what his policies and his predecessor's policies have done over the last year a half within this particular district, within Victoria. I know the teachers are under stress. They are carrying a heavier load, attempting to meet their own professional and moral commitments to the children. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, those who say the teachers of this province don't have a commitment to the children of this province don't have a clue what they're talking about.

I've met with many teachers here, and discussed the situation with them, and they are prepared to work as best as possible. They understand that economic times are not as strong as previous times; we all understand that. But then you see the spending priorities: $125,000 to put Social Credit logos on buses; $100,000 for a study to put a tunnel between Vancouver Island and the mainland; $100,000 or more to make political films using tax dollars; over $100,000 for the fancy 28-page brochure about all the wonderful things you're doing for the children, the disabled and the elderly in this province; $250,000 for furniture for the Ministry of Finance last year. I saw the furniture that was taken out of the Douglas Building, and the government employees looking at it shook their heads because they couldn't believe you were replacing that furniture. It was perfectly good; there was not a thing wrong with it. It was replaced by furniture that was prefabricated in Ontario, brought here to have the nuts and bolts screwed together on the lower mainland. For $250,000, people in the Douglas Building got new desks and they didn't even want them. They wanted that money used to fix up the Glenshiel Hotel, to have more....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask that the debate stay with Bill 89.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to point out to the minister that the spending priorities of the government are wrong; that the provisions of this bill strip money from the commitment to our children and to education and reroute it to northeast coal and other projects, when the money would be better invested in our children's future. That is the logical sequence of the argument I am making, Mr. Speaker. It is entirely consistent with the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is to take money from the children of this province and to allocate it to a capital sinkhole in the northeast of this province, one of dubious financial value to the province, where the cost-benefit analysis has never been laid before the public so that they could see any return in the future.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am offended by the fact that all of this debate does not relate to the bill. The member from downtown Victoria probably hasn't been off the Island for a good long while, and hardly knows where northeast coal is. How he relates northeast coal to the bill is beyond me, and I would ask that you draw this to his attention again, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria continues, but I would request again that he keep nearer to the bill, He has been wandering too much and I think he knows that.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the House are aware that there are only so many tax dollars to provide the various services within the provincial government's authority. There are only so many tax dollars, and when we see the government stripping away $67 million from education and tunnelling that same $67 million into northeast coal, my remarks are entirely relevant.

My opening remark was that the spending priorities of this government are absolutely haywire; they're backwards. You don't extend your house and build a deck and a sunporch, then tear the furnace and the electrical system out to do it while living in Winnipeg. This is what this government is doing. They're taking away the basics. As my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said, they're stripping away the basic architecture of the education system and using that revenue to try to enhance themselves politically with some economic venture, when the people of the

[ Page 9559 ]

province have never been given a frank and candid explanation of how many dollars have been spent, to what extent the Crown corporations are borrowing, adding to the indebtedness of the province, and so on.

Our commitment is to education. We feel that when you take money away from a learning-disabled child, you are not only impairing the future of that child, but you are adding to the long-term social obligations that may be incurred as a result of the support network that may have to come around that child through his entire life. It is false economics. When you take a Canadian whose first language is not English and you don't afford that person an opportunity to acquire the dominant language of our province, then you are going to make it more difficult for that person to become a functioning productive member of our community, and that makes bad economic sense as well. When you cheat a child and a child's future, you reap the negative benefits further down the road.

To not offer enriched or gifted programs, larger classes, split classes, taking away counselling, taking away field trips, taking away the ways in which children become more aware of the broader community and their role in it, their responsibilities and obligations, taking away and cutting back on library services and so on, are clearly the hallmark of Social Credit education policy. The teachers are now very aware of it. The children are aware of it. I hope that when the election comes the people of the province will help us, because we cannot stop you. We win the debates in this House on every issue, but we lose all of the votes. We cannot stop you. If you want Bill 80 and you want seven seats or 15 seats, we cannot stop you. Only the people can stop you. And we're hoping that come the next election the people will stop you in your tracks.

MR. MACDONALD: I would be the last one to want to repeat the arguments that have been very ably made from this side of the House. But I have a few things to say about Bill 89, and the Speaker will be listening to my words to ensure that I do not stray from the bill.

I continue, however, to be amazed at this session of the Legislature, which led to the introduction of Bill 89. It has been a comedy of errors on the part of the government unparalleled in the history of this province. We came here on September 13 in sort of a rush session with very little notice. I relate that to the bill in this way: the government did not try to consult the educational community, by which I mean the good teachers of the province, the trustees, the parent-teacher organizations and all those who have an interest in the very excellent educational system which has been developed in this province but which is now in very serious difficulties. We were called in a rush session for purely political reasons to gerrymander, through Bill 80 — and I make just a passing reference to that — and pass one or two goodie bills, and then, with the good sage advice of those political operatives from Ontario, the grey-flannel suits in the Premier's west wing, we were to go to an election.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand we are debating one specific bill at the present time and not reviewing the whole session. I wonder if the member could possibly talk about the bill under debate.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that interjection, let me say how what I am saying relates to Bill 89 now before the House. It is a measure that was rushed through in desperation without consultation with the educational community. There would have been time for consultation if we had not been rushed into session for the political purposes of the Premier. That's the reason I have brought up the strange session in which we are engaged, which has been called purely for political purposes.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The result of this sudden surgery on the educational system which we see in Bill 89 is that it has taken place quite needlessly. The problems of education could have been solved out there by cooperation and leadership instead of confrontation. So the Legislature sits through this very strange session into which we've been hurried for political purposes. Then we get Bill 89, not because the people within our very good educational system are not meeting — they're well aware that there is a recession. and perhaps worse than a recession — and working on the problems that a recession entails for education. We were given Bill 89 because the Premier, wanting to go to an election to survive politically at all costs, perceived that there were dangers in the educational system in terms of the politics of consutation, rather than cooperation and consultation, that marked this government, particularly in the last year or two,

It was the Premier who appointed the Minister of Education some very short while ago — only about six weeks ago. Oh, it's more than that now. Yet on the weekend before last, it was the same Premier who, for political reasons — not educational reasons — decided that he would intervene with his grey-flannel advisers from the province of Ontario who are running this province for political reasons. That's what's happening in British Columbia. I don't think the cabinet knows what's going on or what's coming next — that he would be Mr. Big Guy, and take the Minister of Education to the woodshed and publicly humiliate him.

This bill doesn't represent the authorship of the Minister of Education at all. It was drafted in the west wing. It was drafted as one more attempt by the Premier to shore up his political image and that of this faltering government, with a view to an election. That's what we have. There's no reason to switch this often in educational policies within a single fiscal year. Come on! How long ago is it since we were here debating the Education (Interim) Finance Act? Because of the recession-cum-depression, which was already plainly visible — the projects were there — last June we debated a bill under which sweeping powers were given to the Education minister. The homeowner school tax was increased as a result of that by about 30 percent. The industrial base, which is part of our educational formula. was swept out from under the control of the local school boards and given to the government.

If this government had any foresight that that was what they had done for education. surely it would not be necessary to rush back within three or four months with a new bill that represents another attack on the educational system. I wonder, when you think of the necessity of this bill, whether the budgeting process hasn't gone completely out of the window in the province of British Columbia. Does the budget mean anything today? The budget was debated last spring. The economic forecasts could have been made at that time. The teachers negotiated their salary conditions for the coming year. The school boards prepared their budgets. Since that time there have been four interventions by government in the educational system.

[ Page 9560 ]

No wonder there is confusion out there. No wonder the whole educational system — I mean the trustees as well as the teachers and parent-teacher associations — believe that this government has run out of control and that it doesn't know what it's doing. If we pass this bill, how long will it last before some other intervention is planned by this government? A government so desperate and unable to plan its finances that it leases off and puts buses in the public transportation system that have to be recovered at some later date by the taxpayer at an additional cost of some $12 million, into pawn, just doesn't know what it's doing. It's plunging the province into debt.

I don't think the minister who is now presenting this bill was the author of it. I think he's defending it as best he can. I think that so many inconsistent statements made about education have sown confusion and concern in the ranks of all British Columbians. The bill itself will also dump another load of taxation on the homeowner at the local level and save money for the provincial Education budget. It allows for the non-shareable capital-cost budget to be used for operating expenses.

I don't know of any other province in Canada that could not have planned better for this period of hard times than the government we see opposite. Had there been planning, some foresight or some consultation, the school system would have solved its own problems — financial as well as educational — by consultation, and you wouldn't have needed to bring down this kind of hammer bill, after all the switches that have already taken place within a very short period of time in the educational system of the province.

We have a government that is governed by polling, not by educational requirements, health requirements or the requirements of prudence in the management of resources. We have a government that has imposed a surcharge on northeast coal which, when the project is working, will recover one third of the interest on the new debt incurred by B.C. Railway and the government for northeast coal. That is good management, good husbandry? Had it not been for these ill-considered megaprojects, negotiated on a most unbusinesslike basis, with no conception of the cost, just concern for the political glitter, we would not be here debating this bill at the present time. Had the Premier not called the Legislature into session last September 13 for the purpose, as I said, of the gerrymander bill and an election, we would not be here debating Bill 89. The process of consultation would have made Bill 89 unnecessary.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That's relevant to the bill. Even the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is smiling a little bit, because he knows perfectly well that what I'm saying is true. Bill 89 wouldn't be necessary had there been consultation. There's consultation in the health field at the present time, as I understand it. Why not with education? Why bring in the hammer, in the form of this bill? Why switch policies every three months? Can we be sure that this is the last of your sudden switches in policy'? After this bill, can we be sure that what's left of the educational system can live until the next budget? When we hear the next budget — if it's brought in by this government — can we be sure that it will have any meaning at all for Finances, Education, social services and health services? The budget delivered by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), including the Education estimates, has had no meaning whatsoever in this current fiscal year. It's just a joke to took back on it. Those Education estimates have been altered in a major way at least three times. Where is the foresight and planning? We're told that this is a government of businessmen who know the bottom line, who are prudent and who plan. I've never seen on the part of any government such chaotic staggering from one crisis to another.

Here I am in the Legislature debating Bill 89 — 1 haven't forgotten the number. I've come back to 89 because that's my touchstone to keep me in order. Here I am, taking issue with some members opposite, many of whom are ministers of the Crown with their own portfolios — the Minister of Education is included. In the case of the Minister of Education, the Premier swooped in with those grey-flannel advisers, produced this bill and undercut him. Each of the other ministers has been undercut, and they all know it. They all know that we have a one-man government — or, let's say, a clique in the west wing. It's government by people who are more concerned with the polls and with popularity, whether we should go for an election now, whether this mega will look good to the people of the province, regardless of expense. Every one of them knows that he is not in charge or participating fully in the planning of government policies.

This is a very bad bill, and I think that it's most regrettable that you should have so many switches in. an educational system — switches of policy, switches of finance, switches of financial formulas — in one short fiscal year, which is only six months from the time the budget was brought down. That's what we've had. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is smiling. He knows that everything I say is true. He knows that in his own department, if there are some political brownies to be won, and the guys down in the west wing in the Premier's office and the publicity people and the polling people see it, that he'll just have a new policy foisted on him so quickly his head will be spinning, and he won't have anything to say about it. Never mind if it's good for the forests, or reforestation, if that has to go. It doesn't matter. It's all politics. That's what this bill is. It was to solve a political emergency, but it's done irreparable harm to the educational system. You don't tinker with that kind of a system. You don't tinker all through a fiscal year without doing harm to an educational system of which we had reason to be proud before this government got its hands on it.

You say in Bill 89 that you're going to save some special classes. Heavens above, already the educational system has been gutted of some of those special services to children that made it an important service which was as fine as any in Canada or any in the world. Now you destroy morale, now you cut further, now you put more on the local taxpayer, and you can't even last with one policy for three months let alone for a fiscal year. This bill and the other legislation we have been debating in this short session should have been deferred until the government came up with some real planning, after consultation with the people of British Columbia. It's a government that's proceeding by the blind staggers. As I say, I feel little sympathy for the minister who has been so severely undercut. After all his statements, one way or the other, which spread confusion and confrontation throughout the educational system, finally the Premier comes in with his and adds additional chaos so that morale is bad. Why don't you trust the people of the province in the various services? Give

[ Page 9561 ]

the teachers, the trustees and the parents who are very concerned about the educational system a chance to make their contribution to the solution of the problems of British Columbia, and you'll get cooperation,

If the Premier were to get over his jitters and call the election this year, if the indecision is not terminal in his case, I can think of no better way in which this opposition could go to the people of British Columbia than by suggesting that we should begin consultation with people in a common effort to resolve problems rather than using the confrontation tactics of the government that are tinged with politics all the way through, and that's a lot of what we see in this bill. I oppose this kind of interference in the educational system of B.C.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone who has been watching the Social Credit Party over the years should be surprised about the cutbacks in education, because the Social Credit philosophy has never made education a priority. They've never considered that our children are our number one resource. So there's nothing new in finding that the megaprojects are going ahead without any cutbacks whatsoever, but education and health are being cut back by this government. There's nothing new at all about that.

The Minister of Education is rubbing his hands in glee as he views the first steps that he has taken in dismantling the education system. Sitting there in his ivory tower, he just can't wait to dismantle, little by little, through more and more cuts — at least two more cuts next year — the system which provides an education for the children of this province. We all know what he wants: he wants a county system. He wants a system whereby school boards are eliminated entirely and the minister down here in his ivory tower in Victoria can dictate exactly what's going to happen within the school system in this province. This is only the beginning, and it's a tragedy for the kids of the province.

I've never seen the teachers of the province as demoralized as they are now as a result of the actions of the government. This is the fourth time that the goal-posts have been moved, that they have been told that there will be cuts here and additional cuts there, and then again something else changes, and now we have this bill before us today. The reason that we have this bill is that (a) education is not a priority and (b) the government is so desperate to try to come up with some issue on which they can go to the polls that they are prepared — as blatantly as they have in this bill and with other cuts — to dismantle the education system. They're prepared to do that. Education is not a priority with them. It doesn't matter if the education cutbacks are made. It doesn't matter if the teachers are demoralized in the school system. Think of the kind of education that the kids in the province are getting when you have the teachers of the province as demoralized as they are as a result of the actions of this government. It's difficult enough to be a good, effective teacher day after day in this province without having the kind of attitude towards education that we have seen exhibited by the government during the last few months.

The parents are dismayed, the school boards are dismayed, the teachers are dismayed, and it's the children who suffer. They'll continue to suffer for the rest of this year. and they will suffer even more next year. If this government is re-elected again, we will continue to see a dismantling of the system.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's when, not if.

MS. SANFORD: Help our children if that minister stays in Education, Mr. Speaker. Let us hope that there is an election so that at least that change can be made.

Within districts 69 and 71, which I represent, a number of problems have come to my attention as a result of the cutbacks that the school boards have been forced to make as a result of the cutbacks in the education funding applied by this government. Do you know what it's like, Mr. Speaker, for a child to arrive in a classroom of 27 or 28 children, or sometimes more, when there is no teacher? One of the things that has happened in my school district — and I hope the minister listens — is that when a teacher is ill and is not able to attend that class, it has been ordered that there be no substitutes hired. Do you know what kind of chaos results in a school when there is a teacher away, with 26 or 27 or however many pupils who are without any kind of instructor, and the other teachers are somehow supposed to fill in and make up for that absence because the school board is unable to afford to hire a substitute? This is a policy that has been adopted, and it is a policy which the school board members themselves are saying is resulting in chaos in the classrooms. Has that made any difference to the attitude of the government or to the attitude of the minister towards the funding cutbacks? Not one iota.

The other thing is that this government has such indecisive leadership and is so uncertain as to what to do at this moment that they keep changing those goal-posts. They keep forcing an issue which they hope will lead them to the polls. It's a seat-of-the-pants operation, that's what it is, and it's the students of this province that are suffering as a result. What we see is an increasing trend toward centralization, and we are certainly aware of the attitude of the present Minister of Education with respect to centralization. We saw that very clearly in a bill that he had to abandon when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Even his colleagues could not accept at that stage that much centralization all in one bill, but this is the centralization that"s taking place under this legislation.

The school trustees from the two school districts within my constituency tell me that the amount of time that they have had to spend — or that they've been able to spend — as school trustees discussing the education that's delivered in the classrooms of those districts has been virtually nil, because of the fact that they've now had four separate changes from this government. relating to education and education funding. The staff of the school board offices spend all of their time drawing up budgets. If the minister keeps changing the goal-posts in the way in which they have, then obviously that's all the school boards are going to be able to do anyway. They were elected locally to help provide a better education for the students within that district that they represent. The only thing they can do is to readjust the figures because of the cutbacks that occur time after time through this government.

I'm wondering how the various small business people in the province feel, who may have any kind of contract with the provincial government at this time. It's become clear through this legislation — and I know others have spoken on this — that it matters not to the members on the government's side that contracts are broken. A contract has been broken through this legislation. Where does that leave anyone else in this province who may have a contract with government? This government cannot be trusted to keep a simple contract. Here we have a prime example of a contract being broken without any reference to the people who are affected or to the school boards who were involved in negotiating the contract in the

[ Page 9562 ]

first place, even though most of them have been settled through arbitration.

One of the things contained in the bill is a provision for the expenditure of non-shareable capital on operating costs. I know that others have also mentioned this, but it is very unfair to expect school districts who have at this stage larger sums of money in the non-shareable capital funds to be able to use those for operational costs, because it puts at a disadvantage those school districts who do not have very much set aside in their non-shareable capital funds. For instance, the difference in the amount of money that's available now to various school districts for operating budgets is so wide that in some areas there is absolutely nothing that they can add out of the non-shareable funds for operating costs. In other districts they may be looking at several million dollars that they can now apply to their operating budgets, and it's unfair. It seems to me that if the government wishes to take this route, they should ensure that there is some equity in the amount of money that's available to the various school districts.

We know what that section is all about. It's just the first step in increasing the amount of money that the homeowner is going to have to pay for education costs. With the use of these non-capital funds for operating budgets, school districts, who are so hard-pressed as a result of these cutbacks — and the cutbacks that they're about to face next year — will be increasing the taxes that the homeowners pay in order to meet their operating budgets. It's inequitable; it's unfair. I'm wondering if the minister, when he winds up debate of second reading, could make some reference to the use of those noncapital funds and give this House some assurance that he will attempt to make the expenditure of those funds more equitable throughout the province. School districts are going to be penalized. Some of them have zero dollars to spend under that fund. I would like the Minister to give us some assurance that he will attempt to bring in some equity.

This is a typical approach of Social Credit: charge ahead with the megaprojects and deny children the basic right to develop to their full potential. It's criminal when students in this province are denied the right to attain their full potential. It is a wrong that we on this side of the House cannot and will not support.

The other thing is that because of these cutbacks we will be finding increasingly that young people are not able to cope within the system. Special programs are going to be reduced, eliminated or altered. The pupil-teacher ratios are going to increase. Teachers are demoralized. School boards will be spending all of their time trying to work out budgets; finding ways to cut, cut, cut. There are going to be students in this province who, because they cannot cope within the system that has been provided by this Social Credit government, are going to turn to antisocial behaviour. There's no doubt about that. The costs involved in the antisocial behaviour are going to have to be paid by the taxpayer as well.

It's a costly approach, in the long run, that this government is taking to providing education for our students. We cannot accept the approach. I hope the Premier finds an issue on which to go to the people, because I would like, first of all, to remove that minister from his portfolio in education; and secondly, to remove this government from office.

MR. MITCHELL: Rising to enter into the debate on Bill 89, I think each one of us should look at how it is going to affect the province of British Columbia and our particular tidings. I think it's really important that when you look at the two contexts you also look at why this particular bill was brought in. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) referred to it when he said that this is a political bill. Basically, this is a political bill. It is designed to do one thing: to draw a red herring or put up a smokescreen in front of what happened in the original one and two restraint programs the government brought in. A lot of taxpayers and parents of students didn't realize the impact that happened when the other bills and restraint regulations came out of the ministry, and how they were going to affect their particular school district and the school their children were attending.

Before I get into that it's important, for the record, to establish some of the procedures that take place when a school board is preparing a budget and the community input that comes to those who are elected to a very responsible position as a member of a school board. Mr. Speaker, you with your past experience know that in every community there are a few people who spend hours and hours preparing — would you say — the factory or facilities so that the children of this province and those who are going to inherit it can have the background and groundwork needed to face the changing economics, changing technology, the changing approaches to social disorders — to build the security that a country as rich as Canada and as rich as B.C. can produce.

One of the major school districts in my particular riding is Sooke School District. It is known within the ministry as School District 62. It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note that not only are they School District 62, but they were also number 62 out the 75 school districts in this province in terms of cuts to their budget. To put it another way, they were sixty-second as far as any increase in their budget over 1981 was concerned. As the minister knows, and as I imagine his deputy has explained to him, when they start producing a budget — normally in the school year.... The school boards are working on their budgets for the next year in September, October and November. They are going through the facts and figures and predicting what the costs are going to be, and what their enrolment is going to be. In the Sooke School District it is no different. When they brought in their budget in the fall of 1981, at one of their early meeting in late 81-82, they brought in an original budget which called for a 21.77 percent increase over 1981.

Then they realized from their figures that that was a ballpoint high mark. As a responsible group of elected people, they knew that that was not going to be the budget that they would end up with. Being a group that believed in public input, they held five meetings throughout the school district, where they had delegations from various ratepayers' groups — parent-teacher groups, business community groups and chamber of commerce groups — give input as to what the community needed. When you realize that Sooke School District is mostly composed of an area which is the largest unincorporated area with the highest density in all of Canada, then you realize that public input is essential for an elected group, not only to get the best schooling but also to get the type of interest from those who are going to benefit. After their five meetings and the input that they felt was justified, the budget was cut to an 18.19 percent increase over 1981.

Then what happened? They presented that budget that they felt was a viable budget, a budget that fitted into the restraints they felt the community could absorb. It was a budget they felt reflected some of the wealth of British Columbia. At that point, though we had had a glowing provincial budget given by the Minister of Finance and were told

[ Page 9563 ]

that British Columbia had never been in such good condition — excellent condition, I believe he said — that we had a future in which the money was there and that the strength of British Columbia would support the budget that he brought in, the then Minister of Education brought in his first restraint program. Their budget was submitted to the Ministry of Education. The first restraint program cut the budget to a 16.34 percent increase over last year. While we all realize that the teachers may have negotiated a 17 percent increase, that is only a part of the budget. The main concern of any elected body is to prepare for the education needs of the student population. What did the first restraint program do to that area and that particular budget? It cut out a lot of needed programs and planning.

They rewrote the budget. They followed all the guidelines of the ministry. As I say, this is the third budget they were working on. The first was the one that came in in the beginning of the year. The second was the budget they brought in after the public input. And then they, were on their third budget that took in the first restraint program. They got that all written. They came within all the guidelines. They did all the necessary cuts that they had to do to come within the guidelines.

Then we had a change in the goal-posts, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said. They changed the goal-posts again and brought in another restraint program. Another $60 million had to be cut off the budgets of British Columbia, and in particular to the Sooke School District. Their budget then was cut to 13.84 percent of an increase over 1981 — from 21 percent to 18 percent to 16 percent down to 13 percent.

What did this do to the Sooke School District? I know it's easy to confuse people with facts and figures and percentages. But what did it do that this bill now says that we are not going to do? This bill — getting back to Bill 89 — said we are not going to cut out any special — education programs; we are not going to cut out any school teachers; no school teachers will lose their jobs. But because of the restraint program of the Social Credit government, in the Sooke School District alone, they have cut out 23 school teachers. I'm using the figure of 23 because the teachers tell me it's 24 and the school board tells me it's 23. Being a very law-and-order and conservative person, I use the figure of 23. It also cuts out 12 custodians, employees who maintain the school so that it's in excellent shape. It cut out eight maintenance workers, who lost their jobs because of the restraint that cut into the school facilities in the Sooke district. It also eliminated five secondary school librarian aides.

The one thing that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister.... Again, if you want to use statistics, one school lost 25 percent of its teachers. Not only that, but they lost 100 percent of the special-education teachers. I know figures may confuse you, but there were only four to begin with in that particular school. That was the school in the west end of my riding in Port Renfrew — an area with a lot of native Canadians, a lot of children from loggers' families. There were only four teachers in that particular school.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that the hon. member, probably in good faith, has stated that there are certain people who have been discharged from the school system. This bill prevents exactly that, and I hope he understands it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order from the member for Dewdney. Any member of this Legislative Assembly is allowed to bring an opinion to this Legislative Assembly, and stands on his own word.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for supporting my position, and I am glad that the member for Dewdney reinforced what I have been saying, because this bill is only a political smokescreen to hide the facts of what has happened under this government. This was brought in to hide the facts. It was a political smokescreen, and these teachers have been eliminated.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wanted to correct a statement. The Speaker,yourself, sir, did not support the position of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, but supported his right to speak his views in this House. I think that should be on the record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order either.

MR. MITCHELL: To reinforce what I said to begin with, and what the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said, even the Whip of this government, who has read this bill, actually believes the propaganda in it, that this bill makes it illegal to lay off any...that no teachers will lose their jobs. Teachers have lost their jobs in 1982 in the Sooke school district because of the policies of the Social Credit government: 23 teachers, 12 custodians, eight maintenance workers and five secondary school library aides have lost their jobs. I know the groundswell that was coming from the general public because of these cutbacks. The parents were realizing what was happening to their school district. They were beginning to understand what effect it was going to have on their children. Then they brought in a bill that is an insult to the intelligence of the voters of British Columbia, and says that no one will lose their jobs and there will be no cutbacks.

I would like to tell the member for Dewdney that there have been cutbacks. and the quality of education in British Columbia under this government has deteriorated throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia, especially in the school district I represent. It doesn't matter how you put up a smokescreen or what type of political propaganda you use the facts are there. The effect of this government on the school district is being felt. To bring in a bill that's going to try to hide what is happening out there is not going to work. If anything, it's the policies of this government to the population.... Rank and file workers, professional people and grandparents who have children going to school are not going to be fooled by a piece of political propaganda known as Bill 89. One of the previous speakers has already said that not only are the teachers concerned and realizing the danger of what's happening, but so are school trustees and people from all walks of life who have no particular axe to grind. They have no vested interest in it.

A lot of dedicated people have put hours, days and months into trying to understand what particular regulations this government's going to come out with next. They tell me that normally by the end of April their school budget is in place. They then have a few months to rest in the summer before getting back into the new budget for the fall. But this year school trustees in my area have lost their summer holidays, They spent August rewriting a budget because the

[ Page 9564 ]

government decided to change the goal-posts. This is not a small group. They have a budget of $26 million. With the cooperation of about three supervisory personnel, they have lived within that budget. They have less than one-half of I percent of a surplus. With a $26 million budget, this government could not bring in.... There's not one ministry in this government that brought in an original budget and lived within it, yet they came in with less than one-half of 1 percent surplus. They ended up with a $70,000 surplus. This is a responsible, well-disciplined and well-organized community and they have a right to complain.

Even before the restraint program the taxpayers within the community paid over 65.7 percent of the cost of education. In British Columbia, the province gave only 34.3 percent to the public school system. After restraint, the taxpayers, those who are picking up the tab for public education in British Columbia, still pay 67.4 percent. The British Columbia government, with all its resources — forestry, mines — is only paying 32.6 percent. They say we are second to Alberta. Alberta pays 62.1 percent of the cost of public education; Saskatchewan pays 53 percent of the cost of public education; Manitoba — a very poor province — pays 54.2 percent of the cost of public education, which comes from the taxpayers and from their resources; Ontario pays more than 50 percent, which comes from the province. But under the Social Credit government in British Columbia, under their second restraint program, the provincial share of public schooling is down to 13.6 percent. That is why that group of elected officials, members of school boards, feel that they are not getting the help they should be getting from a province as rich as ours.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

This government and this particular minister have done more to galvanize the people in my riding to take positive action, to stand up together — teachers, parents, school trustees, students — and protest about the erosion that has taken place in the school system, so they can fill the grandiose sports palaces in Vancouver — which I know all the members for Vancouver think are great.... But when the money to finance those projects comes out of the Education budget, it is a false economy. It's a fact of life that children are going to be put back two or three years in building up the groundwork that they need to go on to higher education.

I think one of the first requirements is that a Minister of Education pass some kind of a test...to realize that the education system that we have in British Columbia is not something that was ordained by any government. It evolved from the community, the culture of this province. School boards were elected throughout the area to do a job, preparing their children to go on, to do a better job than many of us and to pick up where we left off. School boards aren't something that can be put into place and wiped out. They have evolved. They have served a purpose within the community. They have taken more and more responsibility. As I said, their budgets are getting larger and larger every year. They have far more complicated problems to face than school boards had ten, fifteen, twenty, fifty years ago when they started. I know the minister, in all his wisdom, when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, wanted to wipe out the school boards and bring in the county system. I think that was the forerunner of.... This government wanted to centralize everything in Victoria. They wanted to centralize planning and development. They wanted to wipe out the Islands Trust. Now they want to wipe out the power of those who run the school districts in the province. We talk about how this will affect communities further on down the line.

I remember my first or second speech in this House, under Highways estimates, when I brought the attention of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to the complete lack of any road system that looked after the residents and pedestrians. I mentioned that it was a necessity in that part of the community for the children walking to school to have a safe shoulder on the highway. Although this particular section of British Columbia is the largest, heaviest-populated, unincorporated area in all of Canada, the Highways ministry, in their wisdom or lack of it, have not laid out a proper pedestrian walkway, sidewalks or anything else to look after that population. The school board, because of their responsible part in the community, have accepted a policy of picking up all students who live in areas that either the Minister of Highways or Highways ministry or the RCMP have decreed as not being safe for children to walk along, and busing them to school.

What has this new restraint policy of this government done? Mr. Speaker, maybe you're not quite aware of all the complexities of what is a cost item for buses. The only children that are picked up in buses are those going to kindergarten, those who are handicapped and those who live outside what is commonly known as the walk limit. The walk limit means that all those under grade 4 who live more than two and a half miles from the school are picked up. Over grade 4 they have to live three miles away from the school. In the past, because of the unsafe roads, the school board has picked up those living in areas that were decreed to be unsafe, and under other ministers the Ministry of Education has accepted some of the partial funding for those areas that were the highways or roads that were decreed as unsafe. But under the last cutback the cost sharing of all those children that were picked up in that area was denied. They are going to the very fine letter of the law; they are being very cheap. They have to be handicapped, be going to kindergarten, or live within the decreed walk limit. The school board has requested that there be some consideration given to areas that the RCMP and the Highways ministry feel are unsafe for children to walk along, but this government has denied that. They would rather take those extra dollars that they are saving by cutting 34.3 percent to 32.6 percent, to use that in their sport palaces in Vancouver.

The people in my riding are not happy, and I know that out of the thousands of letters that the Minister of Education has received throughout the province against the cutbacks there are a number from that area, from responsible school board trustees and active people in the community. They're not all NDPers, but they are fast becoming anti-Social Credit. I am convinced this bill was only brought in to put a smokescreen up, to say that they weren't going to do the things they'd already done, to say that no one is going to lose jobs, that no special programs were cut back. In Port Renfrew they cut back 100 percent on special education. They just wiped out that teacher, and now that small community does not have any teachers giving special education for those who need it. I say it's a shame that the government feels it's important that they should make these cutbacks on areas that I feel were not right.

I didn't complain when you cut my wages back, because I wasn't hurting, but there are a lot of kids out there who will be

[ Page 9565 ]

hurting. I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to that little man from the South Peace River and to the Minister of Education, that it is going to affect kids. When somebody is killed because they have cut back on the busing, when some student has to drop out because special education was cut out in Port Renfrew, when the maintenance of the school system deteriorates because you've cut out maintenance workers.... When the vandalism, because of cutting back on some of the programs.... One of the programs they had to cut was the coordinator of the anti-vandalism program. Maybe it wasn't important to the ministry, but as one who has worked as a policeman, I know the damage caused through vandalism around school buildings. I have seen it from experience. That was one of the programs that was cut out: the coordinator to develop some type of anti-vandalism program and sell it to the children and the community. That is a program that was cut out because of this budget.

So was the coordinator for adult education. The Minister of Education and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) know the retraining that is needed because of the changing technology in the community, and adult education is one of the programs helping to get that training across to the community. That is one program that was wiped out.

Elementary French was wiped out. I know a lot of us never really mastered our second language. The coordinator for family life was wiped out. Some of the English teachers, those with special learning, were wiped out.

A lot of programs had evolved from the community, not because some bureaucrat within the particular school district thought it was a good thing. It was something that had evolved because of input from the community, the school boards, the teachers, the students. But all of a sudden the goal-posts were changed; the new regulations came in and they were wiped out. It is not teachers who are going to suffer; it is not school board trustees who are going to suffer; it is the children of this province and the children of that community who indirectly are going to suffer.

As elected people, we cannot sit back and allow that erosion of our education system. In British Columbia only 32 percent of public education is funded by this province. But it's this province, this ministry, and because of this bill they are nibbling away. They are cutting back and cutting back, and it's the people of British Columbia and the students who are going to suffer.

MR. LEA: This piece of legislation that we're discussing isn't evil in itself. It is only symbolic of an attitude of government — an attitude of the Social Credit Party. It's an anti-education party and an anti-education government.

They're very fond of saying: "We have to get back to the three R's. We have to get back to the fundamentals, the basics, and then everything will be all right." But the three R's — in other words, learning to read, write and do arithmetic — are only the beginning of the educational system. They are the tools by which you can go in many directions.

I think the school system should be designed to do two things. First and uppermost, the school system should be designed to teach young people the art of good citizenry. That's the main purpose of the school system: to teach us about history, about philosophy, about the previous experience in parliament; in other words, to teach us where we're from, what the experience of our forebears has been, what has taken place to lead us to where we are at any point in time: to teach us how to be good citizens, what democracy is all about, how our particular system of British parliamentary democracy has evolved, what the problems were, what the pitfalls have been. The main purpose of education is to teach young people to be good citizens of this province, of this country, and of the world. Secondary to that, we should be teaching young people in schools the art and skills of how to make a living. Secondly. the educational system should be a vocational system. Firstly, it should be a place to learn about good citizenship, and secondly, a place to learn how to make a living — how to feed yourself and your family.

This government is preoccupied with the latter part of the educational system. They believe that the only purpose of a school system is to teach you how to make a buck. If it doesn't teach you how to make a dollar, what's the point of it all? They say: "Isn't everything the bottom line?" How much do they care about our past, except in economic terms? I suppose they could point back and say what a great thing it was that we had steam machinery come along in the nineteenth century and push us into the industrial era. They don't have to take a back seat to anybody on those sorts of things. They do understand, I think, the value of education, in terms of making a living for the individual. They lose a little bit when they talk about the value of education in order to have a society not only of good citizens, but of wealth: not just wealth in dollars and cents. but the kind of good things that can also come out of creating wealth such as art. In every society it has been the wealth of a society that has allowed the kind of art that's come down to us over the years.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This government. and their attitude towards education, is incredible. When that government and its members have called this side of the House everything they can call us — red, dirty, commy, pinkos, fuzzy-headed socialists and people who couldn't run a peanut stand — and are really exasperated, and have laid out every dirty name that they can gather out of their minds and called the opposition that name, when it's all said and done, there's one they reserve for when they're really mad and angry. That's when they look across at us and say: "You bunch of intellectuals." It's a dirty word to them. Thinkers, to them....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You — intellectuals?

MR. LEA: We don't say that we're intellectuals. That is what the charge is coming from the other side. because we have the audacity to think and because we haven't allowed ourselves to be programmed into robots — like the unthinking conventional-wisdom proponents on the other side.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I'm deadly serious, and you, my friend, are the head person who puts that across. Why that particular individual would be put in charge of education is a mystery to me. In the past, to my knowledge, he has not made any statement about education. He's never shown publicly that he's had any interest in education. He has only shown that he's an absolutely cliché-ridden conservative. In each portfolio that he has had it's been the same: clichés designed to appeal to the most base in our society, designed to appeal to the people who break the world down into good people and

[ Page 9566 ]

bad people, good people and evil people. He's always trying to take advantage of that part of our makeup that is base, not uplifting.

When he was the Minister of Human Resources he had no qualms about writing out the cheques. Welfare didn't take a drop when he was the minister; programs didn't die. The money went out the same way as in every other government. But the things that he said were designed to pit citizen against citizen. Good politics! The only problem with that kind of politics — and now he's doing it in education, pitting one person against the other — is that it's an easy kind of politics in which you can appeal to people's greed, you can appeal to their fear, and you can appeal to the base side of people by that kind of political rhetoric. It's not good enough for education. The only way we are going to have a decent educational system in this province is not through competition in the education service itself, but through cooperation, through getting school boards, teachers, parents and government at every level to cooperate with one another, to come together and decide what the common goals are, and to sit down together and say: "How do we reach those common goals?" If we do that we have some chance of reaching those goals — never a perfect world, never a perfect education system, but at least the opportunity to strive for that perfection, because that's what makes life worthwhile, meaningful and uplifting.

Even the students are confused, and I am talking about young students. Young students are coming on television and being interviewed, and are saying: "Why should our school system suffer when this government is putting money into northeast coal that could be used in education? Why is our school system suffering because of the megaprojects?" We cannot speak about this piece of legislation without speaking about those megaprojects, because the reason this piece of legislation is before us in this Legislature is that the government has chosen its priorities of spending. The government is very fond of saying: "We only have so much money. How do we spend it?"

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Tell me that you'd close it down.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, he's going to have his chance. He'd love us to say that we were going to close it down. No one on this side has ever said it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if the hon. members who are now interrupting would not interrupt, the member now speaking could return to Bill 89.

MR. LEA: It's true, unless you raise taxes, that there's only so much government money that you can spend. You have to choose your priorities in spending. What this government has done is to decide that their priority is not health or education. That is not their priority, because it doesn't serve their political purpose.

They can take money out of education when they already know from doing their polling and going out and talking to people that there is an attitude towards the educators and the education system that is not healthy in our society. The government, instead of looking at that unhealthy attitude towards our educators and educational system, have decided to take advantage of it. They even push it further: there's a little hate out there, so let's get some more. If there's a little unwarranted hate, they build on that hate. It's the same with civil servants. People out there think that all civil servants are lazy, no-good bureaucrats. Let's not tell them about the good work that teachers do. Let's not tell them about the good work the civil servants do. Let's build on the hate. It's good politics.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're running away with yourself.

MR. LEA: I'm running away with myself. There's a little bit of embarrassment from the Minister of Finance because he knows it's true, and he's part of it. He is taking part in the political game to turn neighbour against neighbour, and to put hate in this province. As I stand here and as they sit there, they know it's true. They don't even like to look in the mirror because they know it. They are a government that intends to divide our people, individual against individual and group against group, for their own political reasons.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who are you talking to down there?

MR. LEA: I'm talking to your Whip.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask all the hon. members to come to order. The hon. member for Prince Rupert will address Bill 89 and the Chair.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, in Bill 89 they have decided to take money out of the education system because they think it's politically palatable, because of people's discontent with the system, to build on that discontent and to build hate as much as they can. They've decided that they will put that money into megaprojects in downtown Vancouver and hire people in the construction trades in downtown Vancouver as they cut programs in the educational system. They believe that there are more people living in Vancouver and more votes in Vancouver, and that's what this government's priority is: votes, not education. They know it's true that they have not been good citizens, never mind a good government, they have not been good citizens. Good citizens don't turn neighbour against neighbour. Good citizens don't turn one group in society against another and try to build hate and discontent and take advantage of it for political purposes. But this government has, that political party has, and the individuals in this particular government caucus have. I don't believe the parties that they come from — the Liberal, the Conservative and the Social Credit parties — agree with them.

Many of the school trustees in this province are Social Credit. Many are Liberal, many are Conservative and many are NDP, but I don't know of one school district where people run on political partisanship for the school board. People run for the school board because they have a belief in education, they have a belief in good citizenship. They have a belief in cooperation, and they believe the answer to bringing all of those things to fruition is a good educational system, and that's why those people are trustees. And that's why now, when this government spreads hate and discontent within our society, those trustees from all political parties say enough is enough. We may belong to a political party; we may go out and work for any political candidate. But when the government in this province attacks the educational system, they've gone too far. When this government takes jobs out of health care, when they take jobs out of education, and transfer that

[ Page 9567 ]

money and therefore the jobs to their pet construction projects in this province, they are playing a dirty political game.

Is their answer, Mr. Speaker, that if we're going to have a good educational system, then we have to shut down the economy? Is that the question they ask? That's what they're asking. They say that if we want to have good education and if we want to have a good health-care system, then they're sorry, but we'll have to shut down the economy. That's what they're saying. They have done nothing more than transfer the money out of health care and education into megaprojects in downtown Vancouver, and, Mr. Speaker, you know it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rubbish.

MR. LEA: And, Mr. Provincial Secretary, you know it. Every rural member in this building knows it. Rubbish? Baloney? It's true and you know it. You would sacrifice our children's future and the very future of society for one more election and one more pension cheque and your own political hides, and you know that.

When I take a look over there at the people who have had the advantage of the educational process, such as the former Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, an educated man, both in law and liberal arts, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), who has a degree in theology, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is a lawyer, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is a lawyer — there's an accountant sitting over there....

These are people who have had the benefit of a liberal arts education, along with some vocational training, and they turn their backs on their own training and background for political reasons. That is heresy. They're not proud of themselves, but they will swallow their pride and vote for something that is disruptive to our society and the educational system so as to further their own political ends. They have become politically corrupt in office and they will do anything to stay in that office. They feel they can do it with a moral value. Better to starve the educational system, our students and our future than to let the dirty socialists back in. Better to take from health care and not have the facilities to get better available to the sick in this province. "If we make people suffer, at least we're saving the province from the dirty socialists."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They're really embarrassed. They have to drag in their little old grab bag of tricks, because they know I'm speaking the truth and they don't like to hear it. They have dragged down those things in our society that mean the most to us: good health and good education. Every dollar you invest in good health and education means a tenfold return further down the line. During a recession those are the very areas you shouldn't draw back on at all, but they've chosen to.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You can do better than that.

MR. LEA: You have never heard me do better than this, because you know, Mr. Minister, it's the truth you're hearing and you don't like the truth. At least the minister of economic development, as far as I know, has always been a Socred. But the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is just leaving, at one time put himself forward as a progressive; mind you, a Progressive Conservative, but nevertheless a progressive. Now he is in charge of the financial system in this province that is ready to throw education and health to the dogs as long as Social Credit and those particular members of government come out okay.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: We'll see.

I do speak the truth. The reason I know is because of the catcalls from the other side. Their conscience is just a little bit pricked: not enough to stop them from voting against something, they don't believe in, but enough to feel just a little uncomfortable where they sit.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: We have in common our hate of bigots.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is a liberally educated man who is willing to play with his ear and watch the education system go down the tube because he enjoys being the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if we can just get a little order in the House, one member speaking at a time is sufficient. Hon. member, if we could refer our remarks a little more closely to Bill 89 and less to possible personalities....

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put some hypothetical questions to my fellows in the House here. Can you imagine a man of the cloth voting to get rid of some of the good things in education we have today? Can you imagine these well-educated new converts to Social Credit from the Liberal and Conservative parties voting to do away with some of the.... They call them frills, you see. They call frills having a program in the school system that might help a child with dyslexia.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, they are embarrassed, but not enough to vote against the legislation, because the legislation means that they can perpetuate themselves. After three terms they've got a pension. and they're not going to give up that for anything if they can help it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hogwash!

MR. LEA: "Hogwash." says the minister. The fact of the matter is, the facts speak for themselves. All you have to do is take a look where this government has chosen to spend the taxpayers' money, and you've pretty well got the story in a nutshell.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you get an arrow in the forehead, Frank? [Laughter.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, should I wait for their embarrassment to end? Do you notice that when you start telling this group over here the truth, they start yelling little innuendos across the floor? They're joking with one another, and they're laughing with one another, and they're having such a

[ Page 9568 ]

good time, but down where they live they know that they're doing a wrong thing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Have you been on the Johnny Carson show?

MR. SEGARTY: No, on ''Beverly Hillbillies." [Laughter.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I believe that most people in this province are pro-education. I believe that most people detest bigotry. I believe that most people in this province see our future in our young people. I believe that most people in this province want a good educational system to do those two things that I spoke of earlier: to train people for good citizenship and for a vocation. I also believe that most people would put good citizenship as the number one priority in the educational system, and vocational second but not far behind. I believe the priority of the citizens in this province would be that the handicapped would have every opportunity to reach their fulfilment. I believe that they don't think it's a frill to have sports programs in the schools. I think they think that good sportsmanship is part of our educational system. I don't believe the people in this province think that music is airy-fairy. I think the people in this province believe that the arts and culture in education are the very fabric from which we come, the thing that will lead us into the future — a bright, clear-thinking future. Without proper funding, without the proper attitude and without the proper administration, the educational system is doomed to failure; therefore our future is in jeopardy. For a political party to put our future and our children's future and our children's children's future in jeopardy for an election, you have to ask yourself how low they will go in order to achieve their own political purpose.

I think the citizens in this province are angry. I believe that for the first time they realize what a bunch of boors we actually have as a government — not bores, boors. They really believe that to be educated is to be some sort of airy-fairy species in our society. And even though we can take our place in this Legislature and point it out to them and we know that they know it's the truth that we speak, their desire for their own political hides will make them vote for this legislation, will make them disrupt the educational system, and the future be damned. As long as they're okay, Jack, the world's all right in their eyes. Mr. Speaker, it's a shame.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in my view we've just listened to one of the most instructive, eloquent and perceptive speeches about education that this chamber has ever heard, from my colleague from Prince Rupert. [Laughter.] These giggling Gerties on the other side can laugh about education if they want. They can sneer at education, which is what they're doing right now: giggling and tittering and sneering at the problem being faced by schoolchildren in this province as a result of this government's anti-educational stance, not just today, but going back over quite a number of years.

Bill 89 is not the problem. We could defeat Bill 89, and the problem would still exist, because the problem is not in the bill. The problem is in two other Bills in this Legislature, Bills of another nature; two Bills that are bad Bills, two Bills that this province would be well advised to get rid of. If it were to eliminate those two Bills that I have in mind, then education would have a chance in this province. But so long as they remain here education is in jeopardy. Scissor-bills perhaps is a way that one might describe those two Bills. That's a declaration in a statement from the early days of the development of the industrial trade union movement in North America, which is perfectly parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, as you know.

Education just doesn't take place in the school. It doesn't start at the commencement of the school day and end when school gets out in the afternoon.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did you get educated over the weekend?

MR. HOWARD: There's yappy Dan, that honourable empty barrel from South Peace River, Mr. Speaker. If you could just keep him contained for a while, perhaps we could get on with talking about something sensible.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you get hit by an arrow?

MR. HOWARD: That, Mr. Speaker, I consider to be one of the most obscene racial slurs that this House has ever heard from Jackboot Jim of Columbia River. Make it again and it will be remembered by many people.

Education — and that's what we're talking about; that's the bill before us — is not just a thing that goes on in the schools. Education also takes place in the homes. Education is a matter of parental influence, whether they be married families or single parents, brothers and sisters, etc. It's a family influence that should supplement what takes place in the school, as what takes place in the school should supplement what takes place in the home. The two are companions. The factors influencing the growing up of our children to be decent, respectful, hard-working citizens are not confined to the schoolroom. When there is disenchantment in the minds of parents in this province — as there is about education — then the school kids don't get the necessary support, supplemental activity and help that they might otherwise get at home. And education suffers because of that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where were you when Bill 33 was passed?

MR. HOWARD: This ass from South Peace River wants to know where I was when Bill 33 was passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, if he is going to dish it out then he better be prepared to take it as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Nevertheless, hon. member, we must maintain an air of dignity. I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. HOWARD: If that reference is offensive, sir, to you, I certainly will.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: The only thing that member from South Peace River is interested in is creating a depression in this country, which is what he's contributed toward doing. I'll get to deal with what he did — the way he mishandled money in

[ Page 9569 ]

this province and created a situation which resulted in there being a shortfall in educational money right now. We'll get to that in a moment, if the member can just contain himself.

We were talking about the necessity of having pride; parents, families and whole communities having a pride in their educational system, in what's being taught to their children in school, and the necessity of supplementing what is taught in school. But where there is disenchantment, turmoil and disrespect for government and the educational system, we don't get the type of education our children deserve.

Let's go back to 1976, when this particular government came into office. Look whom they foisted upon the people of this province as a Minister of Education: a person who will go down as an infamous intruder into education; a minister who had no concern whatsoever about education in this province; a minister who nearly destroyed education. That is the legacy of the current Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer): a virtual near destruction of the education system. He is a person who was disliked immensely by educators, school boards, teachers, and by many people in his own department.

That's the commencement point of troubles with respect to education in this province, not this bill before us, not the current minister. It didn't all start with him. There is a history of this government's seeking to create turmoil wherever it could, and to set one group against the other, as was pointed out so lucidly and carefully by my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) a little while ago. They hoped that within that turmoil and because of that confusion the government would come out of it as the saviour. Divide and rule was the perception they used.

The sole function of our next Minister of Education, in trying to do something with education, appeared to be to run around the province developing all sorts of white papers, but to do nothing concrete or worthwhile about it. And now we have this particular bill before us reflecting what I hope is the finale for this government in its intended course of destroying the educational system in this province and making it not as worthwhile as it might otherwise be.

This bill is a travesty of justice. It's an intrusion into school boards. It's an intrusion into the independence which school boards had had up until now. It's an intrusion into that careful planning and that considerate attitude on the part of honest, upright citizens running for school board office on the basis of what they think as individuals they can contribute to the educational system in the province and within the school district in which they live. That contribution, that declaratory cooperative spirit which motivates people to run for school board and motivates them once they get on to school boards has now been interfered with on more than one occasion in this particular year, and it has been interfered with even more by this particular bill before us.

School boards are local authorities, as we all know. School boards are elected within the communities and from the communities that they serve. They're ordinary citizens. They're not full-time public servants. They contribute their time on a voluntary basis. There are members in this chamber who have been members of school boards, so I am advised. School boards have had that honour and that distinction of wanting to serve out of the depths of their own conviction about what they think they could contribute to the educational system. They have a responsibility to their neighbours, to the people in the same communities wherein they live themselves, a responsibility to the electorate, a direct responsibility to the parents of the children being educated in the schools under the jurisdiction of those school boards. And that is being interfered with. That is being intruded upon. That is being pushed to one side — not particularly by this bill, in an exclusive sense: it has been a matter of stated government policy, ever since this current Premier became the Premier, to put education to one side, to put it on the back burner, to give it less consideration than it should have. The delivery of education by school boards operating out of the conviction that they have as individual citizens, volunteering their time, volunteering to run, volunteering to take all of the flak that school boards get from time to time.... They tell you that we're not really concerned or interested in seeing you pursue the convictions in your heart further in the direction contemplated by this particular bill. We're going to stop some of that. We're going to intrude. We're going to make the decisions in Victoria. The minister, whoever it might be, is going to have the final say about certain items. The Minister of Finance, whoever it might be in this government, is going to make the final, arbitrary decision with respect to funding. That's happened here on more than one occasion.

The relationship of parents, in the initial sense, as we know, is to the members of the teaching profession and the school boards. They are the people who live in the community. They are the neighbours, the ones whom they know. The relationship between parents and the minister, parents and the educational system functioning out of Victoria, is very remote indeed. Their association is with teachers and with school boards; many of them are on school boards.

Are you trying to give me a hint, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we have reached that time? If I get some indication from the government House Leader that it's an acceptable course of action — you don't have to use that obscene gesture; you've got the wrong finger up, you know — then I will carry on.

I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.