[ Page 625 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Five-year forest and range plan. Mr. Skelly –– 625

Mr. Lockstead

Government poll. Mr. Howard –– 626

Financial irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Cocke –– 626

McKim advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 626

Annacis Island crossing. Mr. Reid –– 626

Fired Ministry of Human Resources' employees and trade union involvement.

Mr. Hanson –– 627

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 627

Mrs. Dailly –– 630

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 634

Mr. Cocke –– 636

Mr. Strachan –– 640

Mrs. Wallace –– 641

Mr. Passarell –– 646

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to introduce Lynn McDonald, who is visiting us from Ontario and is the MP for Toronto- Broadview-Greenwood. A native of New Westminster, B.C., she is now Justice critic for the NDP federal caucus. Would you please welcome her.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we have visiting us from London, England, Mr. Albert Sasson, and from Victoria, Mr. Bill Glover. Both these gentlemen have observed the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster on many occasions, and I know they'll be watching our assembly this afternoon with great interest. I ask all members to bid them special welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery this afternoon are two young visitors from Manitoba. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Shirley Van Shie and Jim Sanford.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make welcome, from Langley, Aldermen Caroline Gran and Len Fowler.

Oral Questions

FIVE-YEAR FOREST AND RANGE PLAN

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. A five-year forest and range plan tabled by the minister last week shows the total spending on silviculture this year will be more than $90 million less than the level forecast by the minister when the five-year plan was introduced in 1980. The current plan further shows that backlog reforestation is almost 33 percent below target and that juvenile spacing is only 7 percent of the original forecast level. Can the minister explain to this House why his government has all but abandoned the 1980 forest plan as presented to this Legislature?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't. because the government has not abandoned forest planning or management that was laid before the Legislature over the last four years.

MR. SKELLY: On a supplementary, will the minister confirm that between July 25 and July 27, 20 to 30 tonnes of seedlings from Koksilah Nursery in Duncan were incinerated at Koksilah Road Incinerator? Why were these seedlings incinerated when the current five-year plan indicates that they are 33 percent below their 1980 plan for backlog reforestation? There are several hundreds of unemployed forestry workers in the province available for planting, and clearly thousands of hectares of NSR backlog to be replanted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know where the member gets his information from. No, I cannot confirm that. I will state that every year a certain number of seedlings are culled from the production that is produced in the various ministry nurseries. It's unreasonable to expect that every seedling turns out to be suitable for planting, and we did have some seedlings which were grown for specific areas, which, because of the very serious downturn in the forest industry over the last couple of years, the areas for which they were designated were not harvested and these seedlings were of course in the nurseries up to two to three years prior to that period. We have no way of knowing what specific areas will be harvested, especially when a downturn comes. Many areas are not harvested that would have been planned for harvesting during that period of time.

[2:25]

MR. SKELLY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there are tens of thousands of hectares of NSR land in the province. Backlog planting is required on these sites. There are hundreds of workers out of work who have been trained to plant these trees. Our sources of information in Duncan tell us that 20 to 30 tonnes of seedlings is far in excess of the number of seedlings destroyed each year by the Ministry of Forests. Surely the minister will take it upon himself to investigate the situation to find out why those trees were destroyed when there are tens of thousands of hectares of NSR land, and hundreds of people out of work who are capable of doing that work.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I never detected a question in the minispeech just presented by the member. However, surely he is not naive enough to think that if a seedling was grown for a specific site you could automatically take that seedling and plant it somewhere else and expect it to survive. That would be a waste of time and effort.

MR. SKELLY: My supplementary then. If the minister didn't understand it, is this. Will he take a look into this destruction of 20 to 30 tonnes of seedlings at Koksilah, to see if those trees are suitable to be planted in B.C., and the reasons they're not being planted but in fact are being destroyed? This represents 80 to 100 years' future for the province of British Columbia being destroyed in a single year. Will the minister investigate to see if these trees are suitable for planting at some of our NSR sites? The sites and the planters are available. I ask the minister to look into that issue.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Again, it is very difficult for me to draw a question. He's asking for a commitment from the minister. I would tell him that I'm quite aware of things that happen within my ministry. If we had had a site prepared for planting for which those seedlings would have been suitable, they would have been planted, but we did have to destroy seedlings that were grown for specific areas which were not harvested and so could not be planted. The member will just have to accept my statement unless he wants to get into another minispeech.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A short supplementary. I wonder if the minister, while he's not looking into this matter of Koksilah, would be good enough to look into the other areas where seedlings are being grown and find out how many tonnes of new seedlings have been abandoned there as well.

[ Page 626 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If the member has any information he'd like to provide me with, I'd be very happy to investigate any matter he might wish me to.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Did the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) wish to ask a question as well? He seems quite vocal in his seat.

MR. BARNES: You've got the wrong member.

GOVERNMENT POLL

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might pose a question to the Premier. Inasmuch as the government spent some $70,000 of taxpayers' money last year on a poll conducted by Goldfarb Consultants, and inasmuch as many of the questions in that poll seem to have found their way into actions of this government subsequent to May 5, could the Premier explain to the House, particularly as taxpayers' money was used, why the government has not to this point tabled the questionnaire, the results thereof, and any analysis of that particular questionnaire conducted by Goldfarb?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the member for Skeena, the government does do research from time to time, and at a suitable time in the future it will make it available to the public.

MR. HOWARD: I have one supplementary. Would that suitable time be in this century?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If it is, I'm sure I'll be here.

FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES
IN THE MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. COCKE: This is day 16 of stonewall. I'm going to ask the Attorney-General a question. Since July 19, 16 days ago, I've been asking the minister if he has decided to bring the police to investigate financial irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism. Has the Attorney-General now decided to stop stonewalling and bring the police into this situation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Where were you yesterday?

MR. COCKE: The Premier is the one who is doing the stonewalling, through the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: In response to that non-leading question with no assumptions in the preamble, let me say that the investigation into that matter has already continued, as the member knows, through impartial officials of my ministry. If it proceeds to another level as a result of preliminary investigation, that will be made apparent. But no steps will be left unturned to examine the material brought forward by Mrs. Morrison.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: I'm going. to direct a question to the Minister of Tourism, if he can pay attention. The auditor-general reported that an agency — since identified as McKim Advertising — spent $5.3 million of public funds without authorization. They failed to account for such cash advances operated as a slush fund for the ministry employees, and laundered accounts for other agencies, charging double commissions. Now that the minister has had two weeks to reflect –– 16 days, as a matter of fact, since I originally asked the question — has he decided to suspend McKim Advertising as agency of record for the Tourism ministry?

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious situation, and the government is not taking it seriously, so I am going to ask one more.

I direct the question to the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll answer it.

MR. COCKE: Old filibuster Sam!

Mr. Speaker, on July 19 I asked the minister if he had decided to suspend McKim Advertising as agency of record for the provincial government. Knowing all he knows now, now that the minister has had these two weeks and the opportunity to fully re-peruse the report of the auditor-general into such serious financial irregularities as those of the Minister of Tourism, has the Provincial Secretary decided to cancel McKim?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's an interesting question, but I think if the member for New Westminster would examine the record — in other words, if he would examine Hansard — he would find that I gave him an answer on July 19.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I will wind up by asking the Premier if, since three of his government colleagues have decided to stonewall in this situation, he will now order his three colleagues to suspend McKim. And because of this $5.3 million misappropriation, will he call the police himself?

ANNACIS ISLAND CROSSING

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. On the weekend there was a major announcement made in one of the newspapers on the lower mainland indicating that the Annacis crossing was going to be downsized. As a representative of Surrey....

Interjections.

MR. REID: It's important to the residents of Surrey and Delta to have an indication from the Minister of Transportation and Highways: is the program changed on the Annacis crossing? I would like the minister to answer that.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Surrey, I read that article, but it isn't factual; there are a lot of

[ Page 627 ]

things printed in it.... The Annacis crossing is going ahead as scheduled, and we'll be calling the first tender in September 1983.

MR. COCKE: On a supplementary, is the Minister of Highways going to move the Capilano suspension bridge over to the Fraser?

FIRED MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES'
EMPLOYEES AND TRADE UNION INVOLVEMENT

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources regarding selective firings for trade union activity in the BCGEU. As the minister is aware, the first vice-president, John Shields, and the second vice-president, Diane Wood, were both fired without cause. Wood is the only administrative assistant in 20 regional districts to be fired. John Shields is the highest level within the bargaining unit and his program will continue. On what basis were they fired?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, notices of termination to any employee in the Ministry of Human Resources have been done on a very non-selective basis — on the basis of need to the ministry or program and of downsizing government. The minister is not aware of the personalities involved, except through the press.

MR. HANSON: A second question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister confirm to the House that the real reason for the firing of John Shields, the first vice-president, and Diane Wood, the second vice-president, was that they were on the bargaining committee and dealt with her ministry officials'?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not confirm that. I get very tired of the socialist tactics of always trying to attribute to other people the kinds of actions that they would probably take if they had the kind of responsibility we have. Unequivocally no!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Together with the Leader of the Opposition, I have just returned from the office of the auditor-general. We left with the auditor-general documentary evidence of what we believe to be a serious breakdown in internal control in the Ministry of Finance. This is something that the auditor-general has been complaining about in the last six reports. The original documents were left with the auditor-general. I have a list, signed by Mrs. Morrison, as a receipt, listing the documents, and photocopies of the documents to leave with the House.

The list includes a vendor-delinquent notice made out to Gas Appliance Centre; a certificate of registration made out to Check It Out Fashions; a money order payable to the Minister of Finance from Jo-Lor Industries Ltd.; a cheque made out to the Minister of Finance in the amount of $1,332.62 from Bella Bros. Auto Supply Ltd.; a cheque made out to the Minister of Finance in the amount of $1,508.69. These documents were made available to me this morning and I made an appointment with the auditor-general to refer them to her.

I am informed that this matter has been going on for some time, that it has been reported to the ministry, and that on one occasion, some months ago, included in similar mail that was consigned to the garbage, was one cheque made out to the Ministry of Finance for three-quarters of a million dollars.

These were all recovered from the garbage.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the information that has been received it is very difficult for the Chair to make a definitive ruling at this time on the matter of privilege, if, in fact, one exists. However. I will take the matter under advisement and bring a return back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

As members should be aware, however, the matter of privilege or a member raising a matter of privilege is most important and should be carefully researched, at least to see if it does, in fact, fall within that very slim ambit.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 6.

[2:30]

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT –– 1983

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To begin with — to be on safe ground — I'll move that the bill be read a second time now.

Mr. Speaker. before getting into some of the contents of the bill, I thought it might be an idea to put some of the material in perspective, and the reason for it. I think it is important that we look at a number of the facts which are before the government. First of all, the Education budget, despite some of the statements to the contrary, in fact is up about 7 percent for 1983-84. Despite what we find in the old book of $1.4 million, in fact the actual unaudited expenditures for 1982-83 were in the order of about $1.314 million.

I think there is some indication, and we recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there is expected to be a deficit in the order of about $1.6 billion for this fiscal year, and when added to the deficit from the previous year we will have a direct debt something in the order of $2.4 billion. Keeping that in mind, I think it was important that we examine the education budget over the last few years and find out — and in fact we did dig in to find out — what the cost of education was and is. In 1976 the total bill was in the order of about S910 million. In 1983 the total budget is approximately $1.9 billion. That's a staggering increase over a period of seven fiscal years.

Another factor which we must keep in consideration is the cost per student. In 1976 it was $1,738. In 1983 it was about $3,935.

Another item seems to be increasingly apparent; it's a matter of enrolment. In 1975-76 enrolment was approximately 524,000 students. In 1982-83 it was something in the order of 482,000.

One of the things that I have done since assuming the ministry is attempt to put out what I see the facts to be. I'm not attempting to point the finger at any particular group, whether it be the trustees' association, teachers, superintendents or the government. I think what's important, though, is that we examine what the cause has been. Really, what in fact

[ Page 628 ]

has happened is that everybody has operated under the parameters which were available, and no one really did anything more than what they had been led to think was expected of them.

An item we should keep in mind as well is that of property taxation. Consolidated revenue — that is, from the province of British Columbia — is responsible for roughly 51.5 percent of the education budget. Property taxation — and I don't think it's really necessary to start drawing a line between nonresidential and residential; I think what's important is that they are funds which are paid by our taxpayers.... The total amount which all taxpayers pay out of property taxation is roughly 44 percent. There's a small amount, roughly 5 percent, which is paid in the form of grants. I think the message has been very clear from the electorate: whereas they do not want funds taken away from education, they are concerned that a reasonable cap be placed on them. It seems to me, with a budget in the area of a 7 percent increase in what we have introduced, to have worked reasonably well.

The process which we have gone through since the legislation was introduced has been a series of meetings with school superintendents, secretary-treasurers, some chairmen of school boards, and the BCSTA. I found in each case the following statement made, with total consistency: "We support the restraint measure." The only issue which seems to come before us is the matter of that part of the bill which makes reference to "or a portion of its budget."

When we established the service levels for a new funding formula for school districts in British Columbia, they were prepared on the basis of the enrolment within each district, their present programs, busing — a host, as a matter of fact, of items.... But one thing which was critical, I thought, in preparing that material was to look at service levels which have been established by teachers through the BCTF. I can say that in setting those levels to which they have referred, they all comply, with only two exceptions. For example, kindergarten: the service level that you find is 22 to 1; the BCTF guideline is 20 to 1.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Member, that you always respond like that when we come out with some facts. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that when we worked on this thing and threw out....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I see. Well, I'm glad they had a nice weekend. I want to know why, for example, in the ridings that you represent in Vancouver, in the budgets which were presented and stood for three years, we find such discrepancies.

MR. LAUK: That's because you've got a Socred school board chairman, Kim Campbell.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll make a comment about that in a moment or two as well.

I can go up to the interior or some of these other areas and find some of the school districts have been doing a great job managing their budgets.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In some cases that might be true, but in the list that I've got it's the exception rather than the rule.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister will address the Chair, other hon. members will keep their interruptions to a minimum, and maybe we'll find where we're going.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: One of the objectives which we had in mind, and always have in mind, is to try to place some reasonable cap on school budgets. Interestingly enough, I will read to you in a moment or two from telegrams and letters which are coming to me asking: "Would you please do something about the way the school system is managed on a financial basis." You know, it worked.

MS. SANFORD: Where's Vander Zalm?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I understand he's presently having a press conference. I'm not sure where he is.

In preparing the service levels, we took into consideration existing budgets, funding and the fiscal frameworks, including service levels. The interesting thing about this information was that when we had our major meeting with all of the trustees and chairmen of school boards, school superintendents and secretary- treasurers, they accepted the fact that it was a difficult and tough decision. After the process had been filtering throughout the districts we asked for some constructive comments. They're coming through. Every Friday since that meeting day in Richmond we have met with districts in various parts of the province. They will all be covered, and they've all come in with some ideas. I was asking for ideas so that any changes that were necessary ... so that there would be fairness and equity in the system. We would achieve that and we would accommodate them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One of the items which comes up often is what we're trying to achieve. One way of doing that is to use what is often called the pupil-teacher ratio. I've made one statement before.... I think it's necessary. I don't know why, but it seems to be historical. There's a custom in the game to always use pupil-teacher ratios. Why do we always have to have the teacher at the end to draw the comparison? The fact of the matter is we're talking about pupils and certificated staff — certificated staff within the district, which means everybody, while certificated, may not be in the classroom.

MR. LEA: So it's worse than it seems.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As a matter of fact, I know that the former Minister of Education....

MR. LEA: Who? Bill Vander Zalm?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I saw them trying to achieve these pupil-teacher ratios of 17 to 1. Well, I want you to know that the member did not achieve it while she was the Minister of

[ Page 629 ]

Education. As a matter of fact, it was something in the order of about 19 or 19.5 to 1. It was achieved in 1983. The fact of the matter is, it's a little bit expensive. All we're asking for with this entire system is to have the ratios go up from 17 to 1 to 19 to 1 over a period of three years. I think that that can be achieved. Remember, we've got a declining enrolment, budgets are going like this....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Like what?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I'll tell you what....

Are your eyes ready? One thing I would like, Mr. Speaker, is.... The opposition is always breaking the rules of the House. In they come with their charts and everything. There's an advantage. Well, I have a couple of dandies. I don't know if he can see that or not, but that's about all they'd permit me into the House with. I just wanted some evidence of.... There's the line. It's going straight up on a 45, and it's costing a lot of money.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope you'll take this minister to task. If you don't put your foot down now, the next thing he's going to bring in are his slides from the last trip to Hawaii and the wedding pictures. There's just no end to it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure all members are aware of the parliamentary rules which state that no displays or exhibits are allowed in the Legislative Assembly.

[2:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I suppose there's always the argument with respect to the size of classrooms. There are some statistics on the number of students in a classroom; interestingly enough, we find it could be 22, 23, or 24. Then, of course, out comes the old chestnut that class size affects the quality of education. To comment quickly with respect to that, I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that class size, whether it means one, two or three more people in a classroom, is going to affect the quality of education.

One of the biggest of the items coming out constantly is that we have eroded the autonomy of school boards.

MR. LEA: Not true, not true. You have eliminated the autonomy of school boards.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What we did was give them budgets over a period of three years — something they had asked for. When you look at all of the powers exercised by trustees and school boards, you'll find there is a significant amount of work to do.

MR. LAUK: Name one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll tell you what. I've got a list of these, and perhaps I'll wait for my critic. When he gets up and has a run at me, we'll respond with some of them.

I will tell you, Mr.... ah .... Mr. ...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...Speaker. Is this your maiden speech?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I realize that the members opposite have had a number of days off and I can understand why they're so bubbly and happy, but some of us were working long and hard and we want to get to the facts. There is not a great deal of humour in all of this.

Mr. Speaker, they raised a comment about the chairman of the Vancouver School Board. It seems to me that as far as the socialists are concerned, the only people in this province who have a licence to be critics out there are their own. Isn’t it strange that somebody who happens to be a chairman of a school board, and who happens to be a member of the Social Credit Party, is suddenly, if making a comment, not right. What are you leading us to? Let's be fair to her. She said she was impressed that the boards were asked to criticize and tell the Education ministry what problems they had with it. Her remarks didn't mean she was giving her blanket approval. All she said was that the funding formula looked like a good step, and she appreciated the way it was being presented. However, the headline is: "COPE trustees rap Socred link." Who is COPE? We know who COPE is.

Regarding some of the comments made here about meetings with the BCSTA, I do not know, and do not think, that many of those comments in fact reflect the support and encouragement which comes from a number of school districts in British Columbia. When telegrams come to me from the BCSTA saying, "Don't be concerned about what the press is saying; we really want to come and talk....

MR. LAUK: Name one. Have you got one? There are a thousand trustees; get us one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Here's a telex that came in. I suspect you even got a copy of it, but did you read it? No, I don't think so. This is signed by eight chairmen in British Columbia — some in the interior, some out in the valley. Their clarion call is for a more equitable distribution of opportunity, not necessarily increased provincial expenditure. I quote from the telegram:

THIS WOULD BE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAMMED BASE-BUDGETING SYSTEM THAT WOULD INCLUDE AN EQUITABLE FRAMEWORK FUNDING STRUCTURE, THEREBY ENSURING FUNDING THAT WOULD TRANSLATE INTO EQUAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY FOR PUPILS ACROSS THE PROVINCE. THE NEED FOR CONTINUED RESTRAINT, AS EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 8, IS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED.

I thought that was a pretty good start.

One of the things that I'm having some difficulty with in school districts....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody rises on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: I was just wondering if the minister would care to indicate.... He quoted from something, which obviously had a signature too — it must have. I wonder if he would be kind enough to either table it or quote from it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to forward to you a photocopy of the telex which I have here. It will be delivered to you at the adjournment of my speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

[ Page 630 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I've got to find it. It's right here.

AN HON. MEMBER: It could have been absolutely fraudulent. You might have made it up.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: One of the concerns we find as we go through the district is the attempt to try to justify why it costs $2,900 or $3,000 or $3,100 per pupil in one district, and $3,800 or $3,900 in a district close by. Obviously one of the concerns may be the cost of special education, but it seems to me that that difference requires some examination. I want to know why one school administration office has 57 or 58 people and another has something like 38, yet they're both serving approximately the same number of students. It's all coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. I think there ought to be some fairness and equity built in, instead of allowing these offices to build up, so those funds get into the classroom. That's really all we're asking.

With respect to service levels — and I know there will be a little fund with respect to all the functions, of which there are nine, and the categories below.... It's the first time we have ever been able to get any information of substance from a school district.

I admit, when we look into the bill, when it makes reference to a portion thereof, that there is vested in the minister of the day that power to inject himself into it.

MR. LEA: But you'll be fair.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You understand me perfectly, Mr. Member. There's only one thing I'm looking for. We have made the statement again and again to school districts: their allocation of funds as between the function is in their discretion, but when it comes down to function number 4 for administration we want them to be particularly careful.

This particular telegram is from the following people: the chairmen of the Central Okanagan, Hope, Abbotsford, Langley, Delta, Cowichan, Coquitlam and Mission school districts. I'd be pleased to send a copy to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose).

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I'm not going to table it, Mr. Speaker, because I'm retaining the copy.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to. You quoted a document.

HON MR. HEINRICH: I'll forward a copy to the critic.

MR. LAUK: Don't worry; we'll find it in your garbage.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They really are quite humorous this afternoon; I concede that point. I don't want to bring their good time to an end.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They're going to block you in anyway, no matter what,

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, they're not.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of putting out predictable budgets over a period of three years, trying to bring some equity and fairness into the school system and into each of the districts by bringing up service levels which is forcing those who may be required to manage those funds a little better up to the top, by responding to the chairmen of school districts who want a system that works, like the one we've got here, and in view of the encouragement which has come from a number of people, I feel quite confident that the budgeting program that we've introduced is going to achieve exactly what we set out to do.

I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MRS. DAILLY: I know that we've rather enjoyed the atmosphere in the last little while, listening to the debate from the minister. I must admit that I somewhat enjoyed the humorous remarks going back and forth from both sides.

If I may I will change the tone of the chamber and say that I have to be pretty serious about this bill. Like Bill 3, which is attempting to gut the public service of British Columbia and all the programs that go with it, this bill is attempting to gut education. I cannot find anything humorous in that. The minister has a somewhat beguiling, gentle manner, not the kind of manner that could provoke a person too much on this side of the House to become angry. But I have to put aside the personality of the minister and think very seriously about what that minister is presenting to this House in this bill.

For all his attempts to make it appear as if this was just a nice way of carrying on with that famous word "restraint," this bill is simply a coverup for the Social Credit government's inherent bias against education. It has always been there. We have had a few more perhaps sophisticated ministers in the past who attempted to cover it up, but now it's out in the open. It just follows the same thing about education that is tragically happening in the United States today, where President Reagan has selected education for his own political, base purposes of re-election. He's attempting to make education a scapegoat for his next election, and I accuse this government again of doing the same thing. They feel that if they just say, "we're trying to save money; look at the millions of dollars we spend on education," they can get away with anything. Well, the opposition does not intend to let them get away with it. The people who are involved in education — the parents and the children who are going to suffer — will not let this government get away with it.

I'm being quite serious when I say that this is a dangerous political trend happening in this province. President Reagan is running around the United States making outrageous statements, and this minister is going to start, with the backbenchers aiding and abetting him with outrageous statements — all for the so-called word of "restraint". Let's see what they are really doing.

First of all, the B.C. School Trustees' Association have always agreed, as has the opposition, that we're in a time of recession, and we know money is not plentiful. We know no government can spend money with abandon. But to use that term restraint to bring in autocratic centralization of education in this province, the type of centralization that we only see in countries which I would say are more communist than democratic.... This government is going to bring in a centralized education system all in the name of restraint. What we have to say to ourselves is: does the public really care? The interesting thing is that we have to ask what centralization of education is going to do. Big government, as we see now espoused by this government, particularly in education, is not the best government. The interesting thing is that this group over there ran around this province for

[ Page 631 ]

years, and still do, very hypocritically saying that they don't believe in big government. Every step and every bill they bring into this House is creating further big government and centralization. The education bill is the outstanding example of big government — Big Brother knows best.

[3:00]

The best government is that government which is closest to the people. You know, it makes you nervous when you live in a province where you see in the area of education, which is so sensitive and important to the development of our future citizens, that we're going to have a Big Brother approach to education. You may ask: "You're talking about this one little bill?" This one little bill gives that minister, and primarily his bureaucrats, the power to make all the major decisions for the school boards in this province. Do you know what's left for the school boards? The school boards are left with the dirty work — having to deal with the teachers when they have to fire them. Do you know what they're left with? Most school trustees would say: "Sure, we like doing that. That's our job." But do you know what they say: "If that's going to be our job, why have you taken away everything else from us? Why have you increased our load when it comes to property taxation?"

If you want to centralize, and if you back-benchers want to go out in the province and wave this bill around and say how good it is for education, I think you'd better stop being two-faced. If you believe in centralization of government, you had better centralize the money also. You'd better go the whole way. If you really believe in centralization to this extent, you'd better not leave the school boards with having to raise the money alone, primarily through property taxation. Every year since the Socreds came in the property tax load on most of the districts in this province has increased immensely. My own district doubled since the Socreds came in in Burnaby, Mr. Speaker, and at the same time they are taking all the decisions unto themselves.

I ask you: who would want to run to be a school trustee under the Social Credit? Yet I have enough faith in the school trustees of this province, and the new ones who will be thinking of running, that I think they will want to stay on there and fight this government. I've found that the people who go into education and who are on school boards are not really partisan, and I know you found that when you were a school trustee. They're there because they are interested in education and children. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that very few of them do bring partisanship. The only time you see it is when someone happens to decide to run as a Social Credit candidate as we saw in Vancouver Centre. To quote the chairman of the board in support of the Social Credit policies, "it is ludicrous." That very chairman who doesn't see anything wrong with the Socred policies ran as a Social Credit candidate, so let's not bring forward some of these very noncredible sources.

But back to the bill. What I'm concerned about is that this new minister, because of this bill, is going to find that his bureaucrats are going to be making all the decisions. The people of British Columbia did not elect the Deputy Minister of Education to make all their decisions. They want the elected officials to make them, but the local elected officials are going to have no opportunity to make decisions that really count. The minister himself will not have that opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: People on the other side keep saying: "Oh, this isn't true." Maybe the time has come to outline this for the benefit of the minister and the minister who is sitting beside him, who is also very interested in education. I know both those men are genuinely concerned with children and with education. What I'm trying to point out to you is that the government you are involved with is caught up in this Reagan-turn-the-clock-back, all in the interest of restraint theories that are not going to assist the children of this province. They're not going to benefit the children in the classroom. For example, this bill that the minister just stood up and spoke about so mildly gives extraordinary powers to the Minister of Education to control school board budgets. No minister has ever had it before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MRS. DAILLY: If the back-benchers think that's good, then let them stand up and say that they don't believe in school boards; abolish them. They don't believe in local taxation; it should all come out of the central. You can't have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, the power given in this bill will extend to dictating the amount the school boards may spend on any specific item in their budget. Can you imagine it? The point I'm making is: what's the point of the school boards? If you don't believe in autonomy, then don't stand up and trv to cover it all up under the term "restraint." Up to now the Minister of Education has had the authority to only issue directives relating to total spending and the special education portion of their budgets. The arrangements established are permanent in this bill and the directives issued by the minister remain secret. He's not even obliged to make them public.

Speaking of special education, Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that one of the ministers said in defence of this: "No, we have to make sure that the proper amount of money is spent on special education." At the same time his own ministry's budget has cut special education programs by 12 percent. That's pretty hyprocritical, yet they are using this as a guise to say: "We want to protect special education."

The pupil-teacher ratio. I'm not going into a debate on the smaller class size. The NDP made it quite clear that they believed in it and it was for the betterment. That's for another debate. The Socreds don't believe it makes any difference.

I want to get back to the bill. On special education, the minister mentioned the pupil-teacher ratio as not making that much difference. I want to point out to him that many of the problems that the school boards of B.C. have had with increased budgets and with finding that the pupil-teacher ratio didn't make the regular classroom that much smaller are because of this government's premeditated policy to decentralize special-education facilities and get them back into the local area. That may be a good philosophy, but the point is that if you're going to order boards to do that, you have to give them the resources. At the same time as this government creates these new policies that are going to create increased educational finance problems, they're taking more money away from the school boards. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the district of Burnaby, I want to repeat, is going to have to work on 83 percent of last year's budget? Can you tell us that the board is not going to face any inflationary costs at all? Is everything going to stay the same? Yet this board is being told, by some kind of strange formula which I hope the minister is voting to be able to explain in detail and which I

[ Page 632 ]

know some of my colleagues will be asking specific questions on....

The minister said, as he waved some papers in his hand: "Why is it that some districts like Vancouver have these enormous budgets and then you go to other areas and the budgets are smaller?" I want to suggest to the minister that he personally visit the Vancouver school board system, travel throughout it, and look at the services which a large cosmopolitan district must provide, but which you don't have to provide in some of the rural areas. My God, Mr. Speaker, how can he not see that a large district like Vancouver is deluged for requests for specialized services because people come down to that area? It is larger. Their demands are far greater on that school board. Yes, they raise more money, but at the same time, naturally their budgets are going to reflect the fact that it is a huge cosmopolitan area with very special demands.

When the minister makes that kind of statement, I really get concerned, because I feel that he is simply repeating in this House facts and figures brought to his attention by his own bureaucrats to suit the debate. They are taking advantage of this new minister by giving him facts and figures to embellish and help out with this debate, but those facts and figures are only half-truths, and they're based on myths. That minister, I hope, will get out for himself and find out what the true facts are when it comes to school board budgets in this province, because he will then find out that some of the statements he is making now hold no weight or basis in fact.

Another red herring.... No, I won't say it's a red herring; it's really a fact. The minister mentioned the fact that some districts have dozens of supervisors and others get by with very few. On that statement I have complete sympathy with what the minister is saying, but the interesting thing is that prior to the defeat of the NDP government the Ministry of Education under the NDP had prepared a regulation which would limit the number of supervisors per district. It just suggested to the boards.... At that time we knew that we were moving into a period of recession. We knew that we had to cut back expenses. I remember, if I may digress, telling the colleges that they could only have 15 percent, and I remember a considerable uproar at that time. How times change.

I just want to point out to that minister that the NDP, in wanting to provide good education for our children, doesn't have its head in the sand about the fact that a lot of extra supervisors in school districts creates a better educational environment for the children. We recognize that. What I want to know is why the Social Credit government, who have been in office since 1975, with a couple of ministers — I can't blame that minister; he just took over — didn’t move on this. Why didn't they do something then, if they were so concerned at this particular level?

All I'm saying is that many of these problems which are being brought to the attention of the taxpayers today in an attempt to whip up an anti-education feeling, I believe, in this province were there for the last ten years. They were there for the last seven years. The NDP had a completely different philosophy. I know that in many cases it caused much controversy, but in the last eight years the Social Credit have been in charge, and many of these problems which are being thrown at the taxpayer today are problems that were aided and abetted and created by the Social Credit government itself, and nothing was done about it.

[3:15]

Suddenly we find thrown at us a bill that for some reason or other is going to change the whole scene of education in the province of British Columbia, and not for the betterment of the children. I think this is what we must keep coming back to. How can you expect the schools and school districts of British Columbia to provide adequate education and a good learning environment if the local school board is no longer able to reflect what the local people want? The local school board now must reflect what some centralized bureaucrat in the ministry thinks should be done for that district. I ask the minister and the other members of the Social Credit government: "Do you really believe that you can provide good education if the major decisions are being made out of an office here in Victoria?" I don't believe that that minister and the other ministers sitting beside him now have so little interest in what happens to the children in our schools that they could sit back and let the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education make the major decisions. That is what this bill is doing.

The school trustees of the province have bent over backwards, I think, to be cooperative with the new minister. The new minister started off by being cooperative with them, but I know — and he is discovering — that the honeymoon in Education is very short for any minister. I think you and I would agree on that. I accept that Education is a very difficult area to be in. But putting aside the difficulties of any Minister of Education trying to please the public, all of whom have different ideas, there is a basic principle inherent in this bill that is wrong — that there will not be a great difference. The majority of people in British Columbia will reject this. They do not want the decisions for their children to be made primarily in Victoria. That is what this bill is doing. No matter what the minister says in its defence, the only way he can show us and the people of B.C. who are concerned that this is true and that it's not going to help the children is by withdrawing it.

Let's talk about this whole matter. I know that the minister and the back-benchers will use this bill over and over again, not in the interests of the child, unfortunately, who is the centre of the educational system, but in the interests of appealing to a vocal, loud minority, who are saying: "We're paying too much for education. Bring down the cost." Nobody disagrees with the fact that costs have to be brought down, but, Mr. Speaker, just like the right-wing government in the United States, this government is using this talk about bringing costs in education down to emasculate the whole system and to destroy it.

The minister must have received a brief from the BCSTA. When you really look at this bill and relate it to whether it is going to help when it comes to costs, do you know what the trustees say? They actually say that this stupid bill is really going to increase costs. Not only does it centralize, but it is not going to help with the so-called purpose. I'll quote from the BCSTA report, and I know that the minister must read them too.

When a ministry brings in a bill like this it is a direct insult to the intelligence, hard work and dedicated attitude of those hundreds of trustees out there. What you're really saying is: "You can't manage your budgets. You may be elected to run the district, but we say you can't really handle it, so I'm going to make all of the decisions out of the ministry." Do you know what they say? They say: "We concur that restraint is needed." The brief went on to say they concur with the need

[ Page 633 ]

for ceilings, and then they explain how management costs — now I hope the minister is listening to this — will increase under this bill due to diseconomies of scale and incentives to keep some costs high. The brief also notes trustee concerns regarding the funding formula and points out that it does not take into account specific problems in specific districts.

To go back again to the whole theme of big government, this so-called "little government, " as the Premier and his father used to like to say, is always complaining about Ottawa — that great, big government in Ottawa. They want the government in Ottawa off their backs, and they want to be able to do their own thing. Well, why don't you apply that same principle to your treatment of the school boards of this province? Have you no faith in the trustees, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker?

I challenge the Socred government. If you don't have faith that the trustees can run the district — and that's what this bill is saying; it has no faith in the school board's ability to manage — then why don't you bring in a bill that completely eliminates school boards? Actually, this bill might be called that — The Abolishment of the School Boards of British Columbia — because you have left them so little to do. I hope the minister will explain to us how he sees the need for school boards in this province when everything is now centralized in his office.

I know that the trustees have come forward and tried to talk to the minister about this. May I say I find this rather appalling: here, on a beautiful summer day in August, when I'm sure the minister is aware that many of the trustees are at the beach, on holiday with their families and so on....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Lucky!

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, they're lucky. But the point is we're all here doing what we consider we have to do — they want to have lots of discussions with that minister on a vital bill like this that's going to change the whole school board structure in the province, yet you're bringing this bill up on a hot day in August when most of the trustees aren't even around. You're going to slide through a bill that is emasculating them, that is taking away their true role as school trustees. I ask the government and the minister how you can do that if you have a conscience, a feeling for the work that has been done by hundreds of trustees of this province. How can you, with this one bill today, present it in the middle of the summer when they're not here any more to discuss it with the minister? You're just saying: "We know what's best." Do you know what you're really doing? You're just catering to a very small group out there because you think that that small, loud, vocal group — in many cases, ignorant about education — is the majority.

The interesting thing is, when you get right down to it and have polls on education and on how people really feel about education, teachers and the school system, that in most of the polls I've read most of the people are satisfied. I'd like to know, then, why this government has decided to whip up this anti-education bill. For what purpose? It can't be just restraint, because, as the trustees have pointed out to the minister, it's not even doing that. As a matter of fact, it's increasing the costs. Can you imagine the stupidity of a bill that centralizes, that takes away the rights of the school trustees of this province to govern and to do their job, and at the same time even increases the costs? Do you know why? The trustees have no flexibility any more. They're told they have to pay so much, for example, to a district superintendent, and that's it. Trustees like to feel that they have a bit of choice in this. They pick their superintendent. Sure, maybe some school boards have overpaid, but the way to change that is through the public, education and knowledge. You do not change it with a hammer like this that is taking away all the rights of the school trustees.

The problem with this government is that they pick up on a few of those things — too many superintendents, teachers getting a few more holidays than they should — and they magnify it, Do you know what they're doing? They're actually doing a disservice to education because those things can be handled locally and will be dealt with in time. I know if you, Mr. Speaker, when you were chairman of a school board, continued to misspend money, to misappropriate it — in the sense of not spending it on the right programs, and wasting money.... I don't think you would have found yourself back in office. That's the whole beauty of local autonomy. Instead we have this centralized government that think they can pull in all the purse-strings out there in the public, and they're not even doing their job.

The school trustees have come before that minister and past ministers and have laid out to that minister and others the basis and the criteria for a good education formula. Isn't it strange that all this has been ignored? Why has it been ignored? Let's look at some of the criteria that they're asking for. They're saying that the funding of education should be on a program basis with programs defined on a course or subject basis. I'd like the minister to tell us what's wrong with that. They're saying that the costing of educational programs must reflect increases in the prices of goods and services as well as in quantity, yet my own district of Burnaby is going to find its funding dropped lower than what they had to deal with before, yet everything is still going up. You can explain to my district of Burnaby how they can possibly provide even the adequate basic education in 1983-84 with what this government is doing to them. I've got a responsibility to speak up. It's not just for the school board; it's for the children in the classrooms who are finally the ones who suffer from this kind of stupidity.

Another criterion is that it must be recognized that price levels are determined by the marketplace and are beyond local control, That is so true. There are times when the school board is unable, because of what's happened in the marketplace, to control. Yet this is used against the school boards. Your own provincial budget has had to reflect this. Unfortunately nobody could fire you as a government at this particular time but the time will come.

The price increases should be related to an appropriate educational price index. Quantity levels should be related to educational criteria, not politically determined to vary the level of funding needed. This is something that is really of concern. I'm not going into the details of this, because other speakers will. But how is the funding going to be determined now? What guarantee have we that it is not going to be done strictly on a political basis? I'm sure the minister means well, and he could say "never." But how can he assure us, when you've got centralized funding, that each school district is being treated fairly and equitably, not on the basis of who happens to be in that district and on the political tenure of the board?

MR. REID: Shame!

[ Page 634 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I would hope so. What I'm trying to point out to that member and to the rest of the House is that as long as you have a bill on the statutes left like this it leaves it open for those things to happen. The only way you no longer have to say "shame" is to vote against it.

The school boards must retain the authority to determine the quantity levels and their accounting structure. We understand there are certain things you render unto Caesar, etc., but this minister is apparently wanting to be the Caesar of all the school boards now. He wants to take over completely and make all their decisions for them; and he's a new minister too. You know, Mr. Speaker, somebody said he wants to be the headmaster for all of British Columbia and the whole province. The point is, what good is that going to do? Even if he were perfect — and I know he's just a shade short of that — it would still be dangerous to have one person think he alone knows what's best for some local district which deals with the people themselves. That minister can't possibly get out and know how the grass roots in each little local school district in this province really feel.

[3:30]

What's really happening with this bill is that the trustees of the province are being reduced to mere puppets, and we have Big Brother pulling the strings on the school boards. I want to say why we're concerned about that. The public out there may say: "Well, does it really matter who's in control?" Isn't it interesting that when you go to the local levels, the parents want to meet the school trustees right there. They want to meet with the people who make the decisions, such as the principals and teachers. What are they going to do now? When something happens in a district that's really bothersome to the parents and to the child, are they all going to have to line up outside that minister's door? He could end up with all these problems sitting at his door. The tragedy of it is that we all know he won't be able to cope with it; no minister could. Yet what's going to happen to the people of that district? Who do they turn to? The local school board, the trustees, will have to say: "I'm sorry, it's not my decision. The only thing I can do around here is to try to make sure that I explain your tax bill to you; that's all. I have very little left to do. I have to tell the teachers when they have to go. I don't have much to do with anything else. I can't make the decisions any more." I don't think the parents in British Columbia are going to be too happy.

The problem and the tragedy of a bill like this, similar to the other bills brought in by the government, is that the real impact and the negative effect won't be felt tomorrow, won't even be felt next week or for several months; it could be over a year before the true impact hits the parents and the children of the district. I'm afraid the problem is that this government counts on that. They hope that somehow they can shove through all these bills in the heat of the summer, and they're going to get away with it. But the effects are going to be out there for you all to live with.

Remember, the minister, the cabinet, the Premier and all the back-benchers are all responsible for this legislation. The NDP will work to fight it. We are going to do everything we can to make sure that education remains in the hands of the local people of this province. We want to be sure that the school boards are not singled out — nor the educators, nor the children of this province — as scapegoats for some political move of the Social Credit government. We reject that. Mr. Speaker, we reject the bill.

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 29

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

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It does make one wonder whether there's any point in getting up and trying to debate this bill on the actual issues when the NDP have more or less served notice that they intend to block any and every piece of legislation that this government brings to the House. That is their intention and we've just witnessed more evidence of it. After each of their speakers they move adjournment of the debate; for what purpose I'm not sure, other than to waste more time. It seems that it's part and parcel of their tactics to deflect attention from the real issue. The real issue is that there must be a measure of restraint, and it must be exercised if we are to preserve the services in this province which include the continuance of a quality education system.

I suppose it's politically advantageous for one after another of their members to stand up and say: "That government is anti-education." This government is not anti-education; this government is pro-education. We want to be certain that that educational system serves the children, the students, of this province rather than the system.

The accusation is repeatedly made that this government intends to centralize all control over education. That is not the case. Those members know it, and school boards know it. This bill proposes that some limits be put on certain portions of school board budgets. I see that as a measure to preserve quality education in this province, despite tactics that people might try to use for partisan political purposes in order to create emotional feelings out in the public. I can tell you this: these are limits. These are caps that are put on in certain portions of the budget. This is not legislation to tell the school boards how to spend every nickel and dime that they get in their budgets. The member asked if we had no faith in the responsibility of school boards. Yes, we have a great deal of

[ Page 635 ]

faith in them. Those who are acting responsibly in the interests of the students and of what the educational system should primarily serve — that is, the students and the children in this province — will not find these limits onerous. In other words, they will be able to function quite well without these limits and the limits will not need to be applied. There are responsible boards out there.

[3:45]

What this bill does is prevent, should someone, somewhere, some board.... And let's not kid ourselves, there are some elections that take place strictly along partisan lines, sadly enough, because I know that the NDP put their machine into every election they possibly can — municipal, school boards, and so on — to support them. And you tell me that is not partisan? So it is possible for a school district somewhere to decide that the biggest emotional reaction might be obtained from cutting out the special education programs and blaming the provincial government. These formulas say: "No, you can't do that." But I think that if you study the formula that has been put forth you will find that it does allow for responsible management of a quality education system for the students, not the teachers.

Certainly my background was in education, and I wanted a great deal of autonomy as a school principal. I felt I was qualified to run that school. When I was appointed to that position it was recognized that I must have some qualifications and some ability and some experience and some skills to run that school and the budget in that school. But at no time have I ever asked a school board to say: "You can do anything you like and we will never take a final authority over you." I think any board has to have a final authority. It doesn't need to be used very often, but it certainly has to be there, and I would not want any school district to say: "In the interests of local school autonomy" — just to use that analogy — "once we appoint a principal he can do anything he likes and we will never interfere." I don't think that would be right. I would have never asked for that. I don't think, when boards stop to think of it, that they are ever saying: "Local autonomy means that regardless of the educational philosophy, policy and programs that are set for this province, we want the right to do anything we please, and no one ever shall have the final authority; just send money, no instructions." I don't think that will ever happen in this province or anywhere where a provincial government or a higher government that has final authority can give that up entirely in the name of local autonomy.

It is very interesting to note that the socialists have principles, but they have principles to suit particular occasions wherever they happen to appear, because here we have local autonomy. The member made this statement: "Isn't it true," or "would you not agree," or words to that effect, "that the government closest to the people is the best one to make the decisions?" In this case, because it is convenient for them to argue that, they say the school board should be the final authority.

When we said that municipal councils should have the final authority to make decisions, then they say: "No. you must impose regional planning on those councils." In other words, it depends on the situation as to where their principles lie. Yes, local autonomy, but only when it suits their purposes.

During the election campaign, on many occasions you heard them say: "Oh, yes, we're in favour of restraint. We recognize the definite need for cutting some costs because the poor taxpayers pick up the bill." But then, during the election campaign, they said to all of the teachers in this province: "If you will vote NDP we will restore all cuts that have been made in the educational system, regardless of the economic climate; the NDP are the party that will make sure that you get the wage increases that you asked for and that you get anything you ask for." That's what they told the teachers in letters directly to the teachers, but they didn't tell the public....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, and I happen to still be a member of the BCTF, so I happen to be on the mailing list and I get these documents from them.

MR. LEA: Well, bring it in and table it, because you're not telling the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask the member for Prince Rupert to withdraw the statement.

MR. LEA: What statement?

MR. SPEAKER: That the member was not....

MR. LEA: Oh, that he's not telling the truth? I absolutely withdraw it, and I hope he'll table the letter so we can see what the truth is.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll see if I can dig that document out of my files.

MR. LEA: I'll check it against Hansard too.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, check it. The point is, that statement did get out and there was a statement in there — and I'll do my best to find that document and table it in this House — which said: "We will restore all cuts that have been made in education if you will vote NDP."

MR. LEA: That's not true.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, I'll see if I can dig it out and do that.

I think the point is that they talk about principles to fit the occasion. They're in favour of restraint in government spending, in favour of preserving the educational system for students. That's what they say. But when it comes to the other set of principles which they use, they say: "We will pay people; we will give them guaranteed tenure. We'll support that." Regardless of whether there are any pupils left in this system, you still want the teachers hired. You want the people in place to be paid full salaries whether or not there are students to teach. I suppose they are now going to deny that they support the position of those unions who want guaranteed tenure in the educational institutions. Let them stand up and say so, instead of constantly condemning this government.

The statement was made that the funding should not be politically determined. I'm making the point that that is correct; it should be objectively determined. Here is a formula that brings in as many factors as the ministry can to say

[ Page 636 ]

objectively that this is how the funding will take place, not on a political basis, not on the basis of political abuse. It's a fair formula, one that is there to try to protect the education system for the students.

A lot of the arguments used, as were used last year, are that the only way.... I find it so difficult to follow that education is better for the children if we pay the teachers more money; that somehow or other the students are going to benefit if we put in more money. I'll tell you what students in the educational system benefit from. They benefit from the many dedicated teachers who are working in those classrooms and who will not work to rule despite their union instructions. Those people, when they were told to work only 9 to 3 to teach this government a lesson.... Many of my teacher friends went on coaching teams after school and on weekend trips to give those students an opportunity. They worked with them after school. They didn't work 9 to 3. They didn't take those instructions, which were for basically partisan purposes to try to attack this government. They went ahead and did the job they were hired to do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Good. If you can learn to read, you've got it made. You have the letter; now learn to read it.

If I might go on, there are many dedicated teachers in this province who are interested in what's best for the students. They do not support this constant tactic of: "Give us more money. Put more money into it and that will improve education." It doesn't. It's the attitude of dedicated teachers that improves education. This has been found out in many jurisdictions. The United States, over a number of years, simply poured money into education. If any of you read the report "Nation at Risk," you will find out that a follow-up study said that in the last 15 years, when more money than ever before was poured into education in the United States, educational quality went down. So it isn't money and shorter hours that make quality education. It's dedicated teachers.

What we are trying to do as a government is to say: "We want to preserve a quality education system in perpetuity — not just for this year, not for political purposes. We want to keep it in place." You can't keep a quality educational system in place if you spend so much on administration and teachers' salaries that you're going to run out of money and then can't afford to carry on with the basic education system. So we're looking in long-range terms. To preserve quality education in this province, you have to say: "Let's go back to the fundamental principles that make education work" — teachers in the classroom, not a great deal of spending at the district level, and not a great deal of extra spending or programs, and so on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can make all the interjections that you like. You can make all the inaccurate statements that you like in this province, but the people out there — and I talk to a lot of people in my constituency as well as in other places — are saying: "We want good education for our children. We want our educational system to serve our children, and we don't want it to serve the teachers or the bureaucrats." What we're doing is putting a lid on funding more teachers, more bureaucrats, fancy programs, and higher levels of pay for people. What we're saying is yes, we're doing what the people in this province are asking, and let's remember what the education system was designed for. It was designed for the students, and we've got to preserve it for the students. I think we have many people in this province who are committed to that cause, and many teachers who are. They are not all committed to "gimme, gimme more," which their central organization is trying to give the impression of. I think that central organization, and some of the lobbying and political activities of the BCTF, is doing a great disservice to many dedicated teachers in this province who are interested in the benefit of the kids.

I think the NDP, in this House and elsewhere, is doing a disservice to many dedicated teachers by saying to their organization, "Join us and we'll give you what you want, " in the pretence that they're really interested in the students of this province. If you're interested in the students of this province, you will try to keep an education system in place in this province, not just this year, for your partisan political reasons, but over the next one, two, five and ten years, and so on. Do not try to use the children and the dedicated teachers in this province for your own personal political gains.

[4:00]

I would think that if those members thought objectively, just once, and if they would support this bill; if they would look at this formula and say: "School boards can operate within these limits.... They're not being told what to spend on a day-to-day basis. The school boards have far more autonomy than the NDP is trying to make out. They will have a great deal of autonomy; they will have the right to deal with the teachers, the schools and all of this. What we're saying is that if you, instead of putting that money into student programs, decide to pay superintendents or some of your higher-priced administrators, for whatever reason, $100,000 a year, then no. You limit it to whatever amount is sensible. Maybe it's $70,000, and you give the other $30,000 to students. That is where the money should go: to the students, not to the administrators.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to admonish the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) to read the bill. It would have been a good idea, but now he's rushed away to try to find some correspondence that he managed to dream up, misquote or something.

If any party in this province has shown by its record, and by its constant diligence and attention to the needs of children and families ... it's the NDP. When I see a member of the government stand up and indicate, somehow or other, that our attention has been misdirected toward selfish people — and he manages to dream them up, as he does many other things.... I believe that he was quite right in his opening remarks, when he said: "It makes one wonder if there's any use in debate." There is only one use in debate, and that's when you can stand up and convince somebody somewhere that you have an argument. That minister convinced no one, in my opinion.

He went on by indicating that what they're trying to do now by this heavy hand of the Minister of Education is preserve the quality of education. I'm not sure how you preserve the quality of education by rolling back for a three-year period to a pupil-teacher ratio of whatever kind of ratio you want to talk about. If the situation is to preserve the quality of education, the government should be remembering what the blazes they've been doing for the last few years. On

[ Page 637 ]

one hand they've been mainstreaming into our school system children who are usually called "exceptional" children, some disabled children, some with learning disabilities, some with physical disabilities and some with other mental disabilities and so on. What does it call for when one takes this course? It calls for a very much heavier utilization of teachers. We're not suggesting that we want to hire teachers and have classes of ten to a class across the board and so on. We are suggesting that there should be an adequate supply of teachers in this province to do the job, to actually care for the needs of those children we're trying to educate.

I smiled to myself when I heard the minister quote an American situation, saying that they've been pouring vast quantities of money into the American system and have been getting worse quality as a result. Have you ever read that particular piece of work? I'm not sure who did it, but let me tell you that when you use the same kind of indicators as they do in this English program that we have going here, looking at our children from time to time, you're actually just broadening the system. There are people within the system who had no access to it before but who now have access. Therefore, when you take an assessment of the entire group, you could say to yourself that the quality has gone down; but it hasn't.

Quality is very much an individual situation. There are those who can meet standards far higher than others can. If you care about the greatest resource we have in our province — that's the human resource — then you have to set the standards. You have to set the situation in such a way as to make it universally accessible. I can't believe that a minister who was formerly an educator and an administrator in education would get up here and tell us that it’s just a few people out there who are dissatisfied with what's going on. It's across the board. It's not from a few teachers in the BCTF who happen to be the leaders of the teachers' federation; not at all. It's from the B.C. School Trustees' Association, from Socred teachers, from a former Socred candidate in Burnaby-Edmonds who said that had he known what this government was going to do he wouldn't have run for them. These people over here under the thumb of the Premier and the cheque-losing Minister of Finance have the audacity to jump up and say they've got great support out there for this kind of program. The support they have is because of this mystical argument about restraint. Believe me, that support is fast waning, because people are seeing through this whole thing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let me go back to the genesis of this whole question of interim financing. Let me quote the minister on April 23, 1982, when the minister was the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith). When he got up and introduced the Education (Interim) Finance Act, what did he say? He said: "This bill is an important transitional step between the old education system and the system of the future." Interesting, isn't it? "It is a bill that will be in place only until the end of 1984. It will be replaced with a revised Public Schools Act."

MR. LEA: Who said that?

MR. COCKE: The member for Oak Bay, the then Minister of Education. His name was Smith.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it now?

MR. COCKE: It's changed, because he daren't look the public in the eye. I wouldn't say he's typical lawyer, would you, colleague?

I'm just going on with this quote: "The revised Public Schools Act will be made public during the next three or four months" — that's back in 1982 — "as an exposure bill for comment." Well. let's say we had lots of comment on that one, didn't we. "It will embrace a number of reforms and will set out a framework to cover the education finance of the school system following the restraint period."

So this bill is the bridge bill, if you like. It's the bill that takes us through restraint into the new Public Schools Act. What's the last section in this bill that we have before us? Section 61 is repealed. Does anybody know what section 61 was in the Education (Interim) Finance Act? It was the section that makes it go out of force in 1984. But we've repealed it here. We're repealing the sunset provision. That's what it says; that's the explanatory note.

His predecessor, who, it's rumoured, was also a Socred, came into this House and promised us we had before us an Education (Interim) Finance Act. Before you know it, we get an amendment. He promised us that within three or four months of the time that he introduced the bill there would be a white, green or yellow paper, or something, floating around this province suggesting exactly where we were going with education.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation should not have seen the light of day. I defy anyone to move around this province and talk to people who are intimately involved in the education process and find any kind of even near majority that would favour what we have before us here. We have, as usual, government taking upon themselves the mantle of complete and total centralization of power and decision-making. You tell me this is only concerning itself with finance. Ha! That's everything. He who pays the piper calls the tune. In New Westminster we're bitter because we're paying the piper and they're calling the tune. Over 100 percent of the money required for New Westminster School District is raised there, not here.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right. Not a nickel is coming from that government. Then they come along and say, "Well, you've raised the money to operate your school system. Now, as Minister of Education, I'm going to tell you how much you can spend and how much we're going to divert into other areas, etc., etc., etc." Pretty heavy-duty. That is centralization.

There was a man in history noted for centralization; his name was Joseph Stalin. Somebody over there must have read a book that he wrote, because they want to centralize, control and have power over everything that creeps, walks or breathes in this province. Here again we have before us a centralizing piece of legislation that gives the minister all power, with just a few lines, because he calls the shots no matter where the money was raised. "Any board has the final authority," said the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), and then he ducked out of here. Can anybody say that with a straight face when he's got this bill before him? Final authority to what? Quit? We know perfectly well they're told that they've got to fire a teacher or two, and that if

[ Page 638 ]

they don't the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is going to dock them 2,000 bucks or send him to jail. We know perfectly well that the Minister of Education is going to move in on them, despite the fact that he's loaded them with more work. He's going to tell them: "You've got to go back to a period three years ago in terms of ratios."

[4:15]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that there have been partisan elections of school boards in this province worries me as it does the Minister of Environment. It should. I guarantee that most school boards in the province are dominated by Socreds, or have been traditionally. Mr. Speaker looks a bit quizzical and then goes over the school boards that he knows in his mind.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not in Surrey.

MR. COCKE: I know not in Surrey, and hopefully it won't be....

MR. REID: Not in Coquitlam,

MR. COCKE: And not in New Westminster. You go across the rest of the province, Mr. Speaker, and the fact of the matter is that there is very little partisanship, regardless of the politics of the people on school boards. Most of the people who run for schools boards run because of their concern for children, and that's why I'm not a dam bit concerned. I believe that they do.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) doesn't. He says: "If I believed that.... " The Minister of Tourism, who is noted for keeping on the McKim agency and other high-ground stuff, shouldn't be talking very much about anybody and their political direction.

I think that there is a real place for local autonomy. That place should begin in the school system. You don't have local autonomy with this bill. The minister also charged that we are maintaining our stance on another bill that's before the Legislature with respect to local autonomy and maintaining that there should be some planning on a regional basis. I'm not ashamed of that at all. I believe that regional planning, as is the case in regional school districts, should be done at home and not by the government in Victoria. So what we're doing here is saying exactly what we're saying there: "Give them the responsibility."

Certainly there has to be a formula, but it has to be a formula that can be lived with. What's wrong with the present formula? In the first place, it was ill-thought-out to the extent that.... It's been pointed out over and over again to the minister — and he hasn't made any amendments or suggestions — that if, for instance, you have an older group of teachers within a district, because of the formula you're more likely to hang onto them whether or not it's good for your district, by virtue of the fact that your percentage increases would be badly affected were you to go the other way. The same thing applies with high-priced administrative people, superintendents, high-priced principals and so on. It doesn't make any sense. It suggests to me that in one fell swoop, along with the other 25 stupid pieces of legislation, what we have before us again is a minister grasping for power at the local level; a government that does not trust people at the local level to make decisions.

I'm going to reiterate what my colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said. This bill gives extraordinary powers to the Minister of Education to control school boards. This power will extend to dictating the amount that they may spend on any specific item in their budget — not just how much they can spend overall, but how much on any specific item in their budget. Until now the minister has had the authority, under the Socred restraint program, only to issue directives relating to total spending and the special education portion of the budget. The arrangements established in this bill are permanent. The directives issued by the minister remain secret and he is not obliged to make them public.

Well, there you are. If the minister has anything to say about that, let him say it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He might be a nice guy, but he's sure changed since he became a Socred, I'll tell you. That does it to you all. I can remember when you weren't a bad........

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I wonder what that voice from the wilderness is talking about. He never gets up in this House and defends anything. All he can do is sit there and make loud noises that nobody can understand. Eventually I'm sure we'll get him to supply us with somebody who can interpret what he's saying.

MR. SEGARTY: I can't help it if you can't understand my Newfoundland accent.

MR. COCKE: Isn't that brilliant? Honestly, it's one of the most brilliant things I've ever heard in this House. It's been pointed out to me that sitting right there in this House is the original Newfoundland joke.

There will be, as a result of this bill, increased legal costs, increased costs resulting from court decisions....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Because there's going to be litigation. That's why, for crying out loud.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, there won't be. As far as I'm concerned, the minister has made a mistake. It's not his mistake; we know that. Everybody was brought into that cabinet room subsequent to May 5 and they said: "Bring out the most outlandish legislation you possibly can and we'll push it through, shove it down their throats, and maybe folks will forget it in three or four years. We're here to tell you it's not going to be easy. We're here to tell you that we're not elected to come here and play patsy, summer, winter or fall, to a group that is bullying people in B.C., and is trying to bully the opposition. We're just not going to accept this kind of legislation which is so completely incompatible with the needs of a democratic society. Nobody knows it better than the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). A number over there don't know any better, so you can forgive them, particularly the Newfoundland joke. But some of them do, and that's tragic.

[ Page 639 ]

People are speaking out all over the province on this bill. I'm not going to go through them all, but what do we see in terms of headlines? "Death of B.C. public education." That's an interesting headline.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Crawford Killian of the Province. What's wrong with him? Do you hear the minister sneering? What Crawford Killian probably says about the minister is: "The Minister of Education for the province, ugh." Same tone, same thought. He says: "Trustees can still negotiate with their teachers, but it will be an exercise of futility." Is that right or wrong? Certainly, as far as I'm concerned, when I was listening to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who seems to know so much about it, it seemed to me that Crawford Killian is telling the truth here.

Who else have we got? The B.C. School Trustees' Association vice-president said: "Schools on a three-year backward roll," and there's a whole article telling how they feel about it. These are responsible people. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a bill designed to wrest the power or authority away from locally elected boards and to provide that authority to the Minister of Education, who owes his allegiance to the Premier, and obviously the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is mixed up in this situation.

I just find it a travesty that we should have to go over and over the same kinds of bills, hour in and hour out, talking with a government who won't listen. We're talking to a government that will not divest any of the authority that they can grab back to the place where it's best taken care of. Think about it. Local people with local responsibility have to very quickly answer for their mistakes. What does the Minister of Education know about New Westminster or its environs? Obviously the Minister of Environment knows nothing about Vancouver and its environs. I suggest that what they should have done is what the former Minister of Education promised he would do prior to an election, and that is present an entirely new act. He said that he would have the proposals within three to four months. Here it is over a year later, and now we're amending that bill with the sunset clause and removing that sunset clause.

I just wish that we could believe a government that talks out of both sides of their mouths, but we can't. Here's a government that made a promise in the opening statement of the presentation of the original bill. Now, just over a year later, they're totally going back on their promise. Not only that, but they're not even providing a new sunset clause. Last time they at least said it was going to go out of force within a little over a year. Now there's no end to this thing. He doesn't have to come back with a bill or a piece of proposed legislation for years to come. He's got the reins now, and whoever is going to be the next Minister of Education, if this one moves over, will have exactly the same reins. It is not a healthy situation.

[4:30]

1 could imagine the furor in this House if the NDP had brought in a piece of legislation like this when we were government. There would have been pandemonium. There would have been all those charges that we heard when we brought in excellent legislation. But this kind of legislation would have brought hysteria to the opposition. We wouldn't have done it. The pathetic part of it is that you did, and you're supporting it. You're going to go home and tell them something like old two-story Jack does over there — the one who has a story for those at home and one for us down here.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, he's not from Atlin; he's from Omineca. You know, you're getting more like him every day.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sure, it's a survival game, isn't it? The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) says: "It's a game of survival." He admits going home with a different story than what is being told here. Here, here, there, there, everything is fine. It's not a very tough piece of legislation and so on.

Anyway, that's what we see before us. We see a piece of legislation just a few lines long that gives the minister absolute and total control. Financial control is total control over every school district in the province. That's not good enough. That's not what we have a Minister of Education for. We have a Minister of Education who should be catering to helping and assisting with his bureaucracy for a better and more economical school system. But no, it's heavy hand; that's the easy way to go. Thoughtless, heavy-handed, centralist philosophy is not good enough.

I want to give the minister time to think over just what he can do in terms of getting this bill out of circulation. Will he let it die on the order paper? We can surmise that he could. On the other hand, will he just withdraw it? I don't think it's amendable, do you? One thing he could do to show a little sense of integrity would be to include an additional sunset provision in this bill. In other words, this goes out of force, along with the rest of the interim finance act, a year or even two years from now. His predecessor said a year and a half. Now he wants an indefinite time. Obviously he hasn't got quite the confidence that his predecessor had.

In order to facilitate all of these things, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 29

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

[ Page 640 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, is it correct that only 15 members of the opposition voted in the division?

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. could the government explain whether the Minister of Finance is out grovelling in the garbage, looking for more discarded cheques?

[4:45]

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, I'm proud to take my place in debate this afternoon. I know it's not common for the Deputy Speaker to take the place in debate, but I will this afternoon. Having been drawn into debate ever so kindly and gently by the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), whose opinions I always admire, I felt I should leap into the breach and maybe explain to members of the assembly the full implications of Bill 6, the bill before us now.

As we all know, Bill 6 has been most adequately and abundantly explained to the British Columbia School Trustees' Association. We had the good fortune to have them in our caucus. It's been explained to members of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, explained in depth to administrators throughout the province and in particular to secretary-treasurers.

Interjections.

MR. STRACHAN: You want some comedy, do you? Well, I'll tell you something relating to education. My young daughter, who is in grade one, is a little slow with reading, but she's catching on. She was asked to do some reading during the summertime, so my wife got out one of her old reading textbooks, and my daughter just loves it. It's from 1946, "Dick and Jane." My daughter has never had so much fun with a reader in all her life. She's reading it religiously every day.

Speaking of "Dick and Jane" and reading, I would really commend to all members this act and the implications and the statements the minister has made. In fact, there has been an awful lot of conversation and dialogue — and when I say "dialogue, " I mean a two-way street — with respect to this bill and its implications for education within our province. I would commend to all hon. members who seem concerned about the lack of negotiation that they talk to the School Trustees' Association, to members of the Teachers' Federation, to administrators and secretary-treasurers in particular, and find out how hard the Minister of Education has worked to explain this legislation to all who are concerned.

I think the essential thing in this legislation, the thing we all must consider, which I'm sure all school board administrations have considered — at least the ones I've spoken to have, the administrators of School District 57 — is the fact that this act and the attendant formula proposed by the minister addresses two specific areas. Number one, the minister is going to have a hard and serious look, and a formulated look, at education administration. That's clear; and it's something that has to be taken into account. In my own School District 57, the administration costs, administration staff personnel, certificated administrators, have in fact increased exponentially, it seems, far more than the student population. As a matter of fact, in School District 57 we have as many students in 1983 as in 1974. I can assure you that the administration costs in terms of salaries and positions have risen far higher than the student level. At this point that's a sincere concern of our government; and it's a concern that must be addressed and is being addressed in this legislation. The other thing is that, as we did in the previous legislation, the Education (Interim) Finance Act, we are protecting those special education programs. I think that's commendable on the part of the minister.

So we are looking at two items: administration costs and special education. You might ask what school board would be so heartless as to whipsaw special education children and make cuts there so they could support administration overruns and increased administration. Well, I can tell you, lots of them would. It's not a very nice thing to say, but that has been done. You get a special education group who of course can get the motherhood support of all those people, of the press and of school trustees, and school boards, as much as they say they won't, will whipsaw that and in fact make the government look bad. I had the same thing happen to me last fall, when the school district administration in District 57 cut a winter busing program to the tune of $40,000, a minor amount considering their budget, which is large. District 57 is one of the big six or seven in the province, and yet for $40,000 they kept on an inflated and overstaffed administration and cut out a winter busing program — totally inappropriately, I think.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

That exactly is what this bill does: it tries to address problems like that and the fact that school boards will sometimes try to whipsaw the Ministry of Education and the government of British Columbia into providing extra funds when in fact all they want the money for is administration. So clearly this bill does identify that we have some concerns with those administration costs. We realize that most districts are prudent in their administration, but there are some that aren't, and I will admit that District 57 is one of those that could be a little fat when it comes to administration salaries and positions. I can assure you that that board is looking at those problems.

I was encouraged to hear my good friend the member for Burnaby North, who as we all know was a previous Minister of Education in another administration, mention that that government had indeed attempted to introduce regulations restricting supervisory staff in the school boards. Unfortunately we don't have those regulations before us. I think the member would be well served in supporting this legislation — I'm sure the member for Burnaby North does support this legislation — to bring those regulations to this House, or at least to share them with some of us, and indicate how the NDP did support limiting supervisory and administrative costs. I think that would be commendable upon the member for Burnaby North, and I would certainly ask her to do that if she so wishes. It was a good idea then and it certainly is a good idea now, and I think all of us on this side support the NDP and thank them for their support for us in this legislation.

The legislation in Bill 6 has been said to take away from school board autonomy and do all sorts of horrible things and just eviscerate the whole trustee movement. I really think that's an improper thing to say. As I said, we are looking at two items only: administration budgets and special education

[ Page 641 ]

programs for handicapped children. School boards will still have a great variety of things they are allowed to do, things they have been traditionally allowed to do and that they still have a challenge to maintain. For instance, capital facilities: the selection of sites, design of buildings, renovations, overall planning facilities, busing and boarding, and community use — something that every school trustee should be well aware of. They still have total control of programs with the exception of special ed. They have a responsibility for boundaries, grade groupings in school, locally developed courses — something, I might add, that's been very popular in our district is the development of locally developed courses. They still have the authority to have elective courses from the provincial curriculum, summer schools, adult education, special education and many, many other decisions.

I don't think autonomy is being eroded at all. They have the responsibility for the transfer, evaluation, promotion and dismissal of staff, the reduction in staff for declining enrolment, and establishing support staff levels. They are still the paramount authority in school disciplines. They have the setting of health service standards, and they're responsible for student attendance. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I would commend to all members of this assembly that in terms of what a school board can and cannot do they still have all the authority that they have ever wanted and should have, with the one exception of administration and special education programs. I think this is a good time to be a trustee. It has been asked: what is there left for a school board to do? I would commend to all members and to the public, and to new trustees anticipating running for election this fall, that there are quite a few things they can do. They have all the autonomy in the world with the exception of those two items, and they have a large responsibility to do this.

There's no question that education has been a problem since about the mid-sixties. I mentioned this last year while speaking about similar legislation. One of the problems was the Pill. At that time we had a Roman Catholic Minister of Education, and I had to tread on this one lightly, but I will say it again: the Pill clearly caused a declining birth rate. The numbers, as I remember them, indicated that throughout Canada we went from about 475,000 to around 250,000 births a year, beginning in the mid-sixties. That's a fact of life, my friends, and there's nothing we can do about it. Those facts are there. There is a serious decline in that population. Well, of course, that wave that we continued to expect to come through school didn't come through. When you have a declining birth rate you're bound to have that falldown. Now it's natural that school trustees, supervisors, administration staff and everyone concerned with education are not going to want to see a cutting back of what they're doing. I think inherent in all of us, when we get on school board.... As has been mentioned, I was on one for a term and a half until I had another incident happen in my life that caused me to have to resign. I was on a vibrant school board, we thought: good programs, good education system, and producing pretty well. We had to recognize that we had a declining population, but we didn't, and as a trustee I'll admit it to you. We didn't want to admit that we weren't increasing and that we couldn't be ever building and growing. We didn't want to realize that there was no more potential for growth, but we had to do that, and we have to do that now.

Essentially, that's what this bill addresses: the fact that there is a declining enrolment. It's serious, as I've said, and you just have to look at birth rates. It's happened since 1965.

There's a bit of a wave coming on now, and I understand from our district and from other districts that there probably will be a little bit of a bubble in kindergarten enrolment beginning in September 1984, and maybe in September 1985. This bubble will continue, of course, up until grade 12. But we have had a declining population for the last ten years. Even in a growing population like Prince George, the area that I represent, in fact, the school population has declined.

The point remains that it was a tough decision to make. A lot of us who should have made those decisions didn't make those decisions in the mid-seventies and going into the eighties. We couldn't recognize that we had a declining population. We still kept building schools; we still kept on hiring teachers. The BCTF, of course — and maybe with some justification — said: "Maybe we should have a lower pupil-teacher ratio." That was a good thing for them to say. I guess if I were a member of the BCTF I would say the same thing, but we all know why they said it. They wanted to increase employment for their membership. That's commendable if you're looking at it from that point of view, but it's not commendable if you're the taxpayer who has to pay for lowering the pupil-teacher ratio. And it really didn't happen. We didn't get a lower pupil-teacher ratio in the classroom. What we did was we provided more supervisory staff and other certified people and applied it to a PTR, which brought it down to 17, but, in fact, the net result in the classroom was that there are still classes of 25 to 30 students, and that more money is being spent on certified people doing non-teaching and, in some cases, non-productive functions within the school board. That's the big concern that faces us now as governments, and I think that we have to recognize that.

Essentially, this bill says: "Let's put those services back into the classroom, " Not that librarians aren't important, not that many other functions aren't important, but students in the classroom are, and they have to be served. That's what this bill attempts to do. Let's take it away from the administration — all these functionaries running around doing this, that and the other thing; program advisers, you name it — and get back to teaching in the classroom. That's what this bill attempts to do, and I'm sure all members are aware of that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence, and I thank you, hon. members. I am supporting this bill, and I would urge all other members to do so.

MRS. WALLACE: After listening to the member for Prince George South, I'm glad that as Deputy Speaker he doesn't participate too often in the debate, because he certainly makes a much better Deputy Speaker, as bad as that may be, than he does a participant in this debate, where he comes in and brings us a Dick and Jane approach, something that is a long outdated approach to education. That's about where that member is sitting: a very stereotyped view of education and very far removed from the actual things that we're dealing with here today. When I hear him talk about what happened in Prince George when he was on the school board, I don't wonder that those things happened if that was the kind of approach that he took. Those things are not happening in 99 percent of the school districts in this province, where school trustees are really working to cut down on their administrative costs. He talks about getting rid of the librarian. I guess he doesn't think that kids need a library. They don't need to read.

[ Page 642 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: How about the chairman of your district?

[5:00]

MRS. WALLACE: I guess you're talking about your telegram, Mr. Minister. I would just like to talk about that telegram, as a matter of fact, because you were next on my list. I heard you reading excerpts from the telegram, and I heard you mention that it was signed by the chairman of the Cowichan School Board. That twigged in my head, because I knew I had a copy of that telegram. Talk about selective reading! I'm going to take the time of the House, because that minister just read a couple of lines from the telegram; I'm going to read into the record the entire telegram. It's a telegram to the Minister of Education dated June 18, 1983:

THIS LETTER REPRESENTS THE CONCERNS OF A NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH RESPECT TO SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCING AND THE EFFECTS OF SUCCESSIVE APPLICATIONS OF RESTRAINT.

THE BASIS OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT INEQUALITIES IN THE CAPACITY OF DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS THAT WERE IN PLACE BEFORE RESTRAINT STILL REMAIN AND INDEED HAVE BEEN WORSENED.

THE INEQUITY IS KNOWN TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND TO YOUR OFFICIALS. INDEED, SOME DISTRICTS HAVE ADMITTED TO HAVING MORE FUNDING THAN IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIVE TO PROTECT JOBS.

HOWEVER MANY DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDING. THERE ARE REASONS THAT CAN BE CITED FOR THE INEQUITY.

HISTORICALLY, FRUGALITY OF SOME DISTRICTS WAS MORE FORCED THAN CHOSEN. IT TENDED TO BE MORE OF A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF THE ASSESSED VALUE PER PUPIL THAN A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO BE FRUGAL.

IN 1981 A BASE WAS CREATED WHICH PRODUCED AN EXAMPLE OF SOME DISTRICTS WITH A PER-PUPIL COST IN THE $2,800 RANGE HAVING A MILL RATE OF 55 MILLS AND OTHER DISTRICTS WITH A PER PUPIL COST IN THE $3,500 RANGE HAVING THE SAME MILL RATE.

I think the minister will agree that this is the same telegram.

WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW FINANCE FORMULA IN EARLY 1982, BEFORE RESTRAINT WAS APPLIED IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE ILLUSTRATION, RECOGNITION WAS GIVEN TO THIS INEQUITY OF THE $2,800 PER PUPIL COST DISTRICT HAVING A SIGNIFICANT REDUCED MILL RATE WHILE THE OTHER REMAIN AT 55.

THE NEW FINANCE FORMULA (60, 30, 5, ) WHILE IT RECOGNIZED THE INEQUALITY, DID NOT ALLOW DISTRICTS TO ADJUST THE MILL RATE TO ENSURE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUPILS AMONG SCHOOL DISTRICTS. RESTRAINT MEASURES WERE IMPOSED ACROSS THE BOARD IRRESPECTIVE OF HISTORICAL VARIATIONS AMONG DISTRICTS.

THE MINISTRY, IN APPLYING RESTRAINT IN THE SPRING OF 1982, ALLOWED AN INCREASE IN BUDGET WHICH DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT (1) DECREASES IN PUPIL ENROLMENT (2) DIFFERENCES IN COST PER PUPIL OR (3) THE PERMITTING OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO INCREASE THEIR MILL RATE (I.E. BACK TO 55 MILLS) TO PROVIDE EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY.

FURTHER PROPORTIONATE REDUCTIONS IN AUGUST 1982 DID NOT TAKE EXISTING INEQUITIES INTO ACCOUNT EXCEPT IN A MARGINAL WAY. AS AN EXAMPLE, AT $2,800 PER PUPIL COST THE REDUCTION WAS $1.2 MILLION AND AT $3,500 PER PUPIL COST, THE REDUCTION WAS $1.3 MILLION.

IN 1983 THE RESTRAINT PARTIALLY ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM BUT THE NET EFFECT WAS TO INCREASE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOW- AND HIGH-COST DISTRICTS. THE NUMBER OF TEACHING POSITIONS IN ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS WAS PROTECTED REGARDLESS OF DECLINING ENROLMENT IN MANY, THEREBY REDUCING THE PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO IN DECLINING DISTRICTS AND POTENTIALLY INCREASING THE PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO IN DISTRICTS THAT WERE NOT DECLINING.

THERE IS A SOLUTION THAT COULD BE PUT INTO EFFECT ON A PHASED-IN BASIS IF NECESSARY OVER THE FISCAL YEAR 1984.

Here, Mr. Speaker, begins the minister's quote:

THIS WOULD BE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM-BASED BUDGETING SYSTEM THAT WOULD INCLUDE AN EQUITABLE FRAMEWORK FUNDING STRUCTURE, THEREBY ENSURING FUNDING THAT WOULD TRANSLATE INTO EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUPILS ACROSS THE PROVINCE.

Then he skipped some more, Mr. Speaker. He skipped this part:

THIS SYSTEM HAS ALREADY HAD CONSIDERABLE WORK DONE ON IT WITH THE MINISTRY, AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT IT WOULD BE FAVOURABLY RECEIVED BY MANY SCHOOL DISTRICTS WERE IT IMPLEMENTED AS IMMEDIATELY AS FISCAL YEAR 1984.

Then he began to quote again.

THE NEED FOR CONTINUED RESTRAINT AS EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 8, 1983, IS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED.

End of his quote. The telegram goes on:

THIS GROUP IS SEEKING MERELY A MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF OPPORTUNITY, NOT NECESSARILY INCREASED PROVINCIAL EXPENDITURES.

[ Page 643 ]

INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAY HAVE FURTHER SPECIFIC CONCERNS WHICH THEY WILL LIKELY ADDRESS TO YOU.

THIS GROUP IS EAGER TO MEET WITH YOU AND YOUR STAFF IN THE MINISTRY AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS THIS LETTER OF OUR IMMEDIATE CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO FUNDING IN 1983, AND WE ANTICIPATE THE PROSPECT OF YOUR MOST FAVOURABLE RESPONSE.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that was very, very selective reading and did not give the intent of that telegram.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm quite prepared to table this draft copy, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Draft?

MRS. WALLACE: This is a copy that I had to have phoned down here because my file copy is in my Duncan office.

MR. REID: Maybe it's not correct.

MRS. WALLACE: I have another copy. I'm quite prepared to table it, Mr. Speaker, but I would prefer that the minister table it and then you would have the original document.

MS. SANFORD: He said he wouldn't.

MR. HOWARD: Did he quote from it?

MRS. WALLACE: He quoted from it. I think the rules of our House are quite clear, Mr. Speaker. When you quote from a document you are required by the rules of the House to file that document.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm quite prepared to file mine. Yes, I'll file it right now.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I'll ask permission of the House to file it when I'm finished then. I think I can file it now; we're in second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member asking leave to table the document?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who is no longer in the House, spoke of his support of this bill, and I was interested in what he had to say, particularly inasmuch as when a similar bill was presented last year, the Education (Interim) Finance Act, he spoke on the bill. He said at that time: "I support the basic principle of this bill. I'm not entirely happy with everything that it does, specifically to the people in my constituency. However, I will not accept that I have done nothing simply because I have not gotten involved in a partisan political debate." This is the now Minister of Environment, who was talking about this bill when it was presented last year. He goes on to say: "Some of our back-benchers have been working diligently to try to resolve some problems...." The point that I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is that he didn't like the bill at the time. He goes on to say:

I think there is a solution in this bill. There is the basic principle of restraint and there is an attempt at equalization. I'm quite prepared to discuss that the intent did not come out quite as it should have because of the calculation, a point that is overlooked time and time again in this province. We look at averages, and those average figures, particularly in unique circumstances, are meaningless.

I think the Minister of Education would be well advised to pay attention to his colleague who talks about the meaninglessness of average figures. Because when you use averages, you run into some very real problems.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) referred to the former Minister of Education twice removed — not the last one but the one before that; they keep revolving like whirling dervishes — who said when he introduced this bill: "This bill is an important transitional step between the old education system and a system of the future. It is a bill that will be in place only until the end of 1984. It's a bridging bill." Those were the remarks that he made, and that same Minister of Education, in his introductory remarks in the "Report on Education" which he filed, was talking about the hearings which he held around the province:

"At both the professional and public forums that I conducted I was impressed with the dedication and sincerity of members of the educational community who presented superb and thoughtful briefs. I will always be indebted to teachers for their openness and for the creativity they displayed in their presentations. Also I'd like to commend the administrators and trustees who made strong and positive contributions. And finally, I'm grateful to parents and members of the public who cared enough about the education system to make their views known."

That was the assessment, Mr. Speaker, of the local elected officials, the teaching staff, and the parents and public generally by that former, former Minister of Education, when he conducted his tours around this province.

What has changed so suddenly? Why are school boards and trustees suddenly wastrels of the public money? Why has it become so important to ensure that we really put our thumb on them and make very sure that they behave themselves? Why are we not paying any attention to the parents who are concerned about the status of their children's education? What has changed all of a sudden? This was the sort of assessment that that minister gave of the general participation from the public, and the stature of the school trustees and their interest and concern and abilities. Yet suddenly we have come to this interim supply bill, which was supposed to be phased out. It was supposed to be a bridging piece of legislation. We were supposed to have a new School Act which was going to really deal with the problems, be based on the work that was done in these public seminars, and put to use some of

[ Page 644 ]

the information that was gathered and spoken so highly of by the Minister of Education. But instead of that, we see that all scrapped, put to one side, and we have this interim finance bill brought in that's supposed to be phased out in one year. Here we are now discussing not just having it for another year or two, but having it for who knows how long — forever being enshrined in lasting legislation that will go on and on. In spite of the things that the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) says about the autonomy of the school boards, I think that he's a bit of a voice crying in the wilderness, because that is not the assessment of the school trustees, the public or anyone else but a few government members. That's not what it does. When you control the purse-strings, you control what happens in the education system, and this bill allows the Minister of Education complete control of the purse-strings.

MR. REID: Hear, hear! That's a good idea.

MRS. WALLACE: The second member for Surrey interjects that that's a good idea, that that's the way it should be.

The idea was certainly there that we should simply eliminate school boards. In fact, that was suggested by the deputy minister when he met with the school trustees. He said that they had considered that possibility, the idea of simply eliminating school boards, but they had decided against that. I guess they felt the public outcry would be just a bit too much. Certainly, when I speak about school boards, I like to speak about the two school boards in my particular area, Cowichan and Cowichan Lake. I get very annoyed when I hear people stand in this House and say something that they absolutely must know is incorrect, when they talk about giving more money to schools. After all, this is the government that confiscated the industrial and commercial tax base, and is now collecting that tax. All that's left to the local taxpayer is the residential base. So, for goodness' sake, if the government isn't contributing more dollars, there's something wrong. But if you look at the percentages, you'll find that they have dropped continuously. It's simply because of the fact that they now have the major portion of the tax base, and the local residential taxpayer is the only one who's being taxed locally.

[5:15]

The figures from the last few years certainly indicate that that's exactly what is happening. In 1972 the local property owners were paying 56 percent of the school costs; in 1983 they were paying 74.2 percent here in British Columbia. So that indicates very clearly that the provincial government's share has really gone down. This is from a report on taxation done by the school trustees' association. One of the very interesting and important things it shows is the fact that in Quebec, where the provincial government has taken complete control of education, the cost per pupil has gone up constantly. It has gone from $258 in 1961 to $662 in 1969, and in 1980 it had escalated to $3,400 per pupil. That's under provincial control, where there's no local control. Compare that to B.C. In 1971 we were paying $373 per pupil; in 1969, $619; and in 1980, $2,638. So the increase in B.C., considering 1961 as 100 percent, was 707 percent as compared to 1,318 percent, almost twice as much, in Quebec, where you have that provincial control. I think it shows that the local people, who know exactly what the local needs are, are far better able to spend that dollar in the most effective way for the education of the local students. That is a control that is gone because of the very rigid controls that have been placed upon the local school boards.

I have two headlines here from the weekly Cowichan News at the time that our school trustees met with the ministry officials. One says: "Province Strips Boards of Local School Power." The editorial says: "Trustees Attend Own Funeral." This is the interpretation that is put, not by the opposition in this Legislature, not by the school trustees, but by the local press, news writers and editorial writers in the Cowichan Valley. The acting chairman of the Cowichan School District said: "We seem to have the same power as the PTA." That's all the powers they have. They're gone. Another trustee said: "Decisions we had previously made about allocation of funding are now totally out of our hands." This is the article that says: "...the deputy minister told the trustees at the July 12 meeting that the ministry had even considered doing away with school boards completely but rejected the idea for the present." They have decided to leave the boards in at present to do their dirty work of firing and cutting salaries. That's how the school trustees see it. That's how they see their powers.

I think they're in a position to know what their powers are, because they know that when they submit a budget it has to have approval and every portion of that budget has to be allocated for that particular portion and cannot be changed around if they happen to have a bit of a surplus somewhere that they could use somewhere else. They can no longer do that. They know their hands are completely tied.

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's not entirely true.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's their interpretation of this bill, and this is my interpretation of this bill. If you read the bill, Madam Member, you'll find it talks about the various portions. That's what your colleague said when he was speaking: that that would not be allowed, that would not be possible. There they are. Their hands are tied. Their budget is less than it was last year, and they were....

MR. REID: Think about the taxpayer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. REID: I was just trying to help her with her speech....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MRS. WALLACE: I'm just about at the end of my rope with that member. I am going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to name him one of these days, because he is absolutely irresponsible in this Legislature.

One of the things that has not been spelled out in the bill, and one of the things that the trustees are asking, and one of the things that I hope the minister will clarify for us is the five days. You will recall that this year's budget is predicated on last year's budget. It is reduced from last year's budget. Are they going to be able to reduce the school year by five days this year, or are they going to have to include those five days? If they're included, it makes a difference of.... Well, the salaries in Cowichan amount to $92,000 a day, so you multiply that by five and you see the kind of difference that it

[ Page 645 ]

makes in the budget. That's something that the school trustees have not been able to clarify at this time. They're certainly flying blind on that one, and the minister will decide. He may tell them yes or no, the schools are open those five days or they're not, but there will be no dollars to compensate if they're open those five days. At least, that's their understanding. I think it's time that the minister clarified some of these points. That's just one of the points that they're really concerned about, because they haven't had any instructions on that.

They're concerned too, because Cowichan has always been considered a lighthouse district, if you want to call it that. It's a district that has had a lot of innovative programs, because we have a lot of non-English-speaking students, a high population of Indians and Sikhs. We have managed to involve those groups in the schools. Those are the kinds of programs that we have been experimenting with. We have an Indian language course. We've had some very good music courses. We've had French immersion. All those things are lifestyle types of classes that help to train young people to adjust and adapt to today's very complex society.

It's important that we have that opportunity to involve ourselves with those kinds of classes, particularly in times of economic downturn, where the chances of a young person being able to go on to university are becoming more and more limited because of lack of summer employment, high tuition fees, and lack of income on the part of the parents. We need to get those lifestyle courses into the schools so young people are better able to cope with the economic difficulties they face, and to enable them to function until such time as they are able to go on and improve their education, take the training that they want to take, get the jobs they want to get. Those are programs that are important in the school system. Because of the very drastic controls that are put on school boards by the ministry, it's very unlikely that those programs will be able to continue.

Certainly the concern of the local trustees and the parents is very great. As the chairman of the board recognizes in signing that rather lengthy telegram which I read, they recognize the need for restraint. They are concerned about the method by which it's being applied — the fact that there is no opportunity for an equitable distribution of the funds. The government's position that the funds are to be reduced makes it extremely difficult for them to involve themselves in any of these lifestyle programs within the schools. I think that's a very sad thing and very important as far as the well-being of our young people goes. We are going to find that we run into more and more people in difficulty with the law. We're finding it now. We're finding that there is more of a problem with teenagers involved with alcohol and drugs. We're finding that graduates from high school who have not been able to find jobs or to go on to further education because of restrictions in their funding are spending a lot of time around just outside the senior secondary school. There have been real problems with vandalism, with younger students falling in with these people. These are the kinds of things that result when you get into this kind of a program, when you put the kind of curtailed spending that is happening with this bill on your education system.

These are the kinds of things that will continue to result because of the elimination of the sunset clause and because of the fact that now we are going to centralize the authority for education in Victoria, to allow the minister to make all the decisions relative to education, and perhaps in the end to phase out the school boards entirely. Certainly the fact that the deputy minister has indicated that the ministry considered this as a possibility but decided against it indicates that the thought was there. That's not very encouraging for the people who give of their time and effort and allow their names to go forward for school board work.

[5:30]

I would just like to read a bit from this editorial, "The Trustees Attend Their Own Funeral," because it leads into something else that I want to talk about.

"School boards have been stripped of all local power by government. In the name of restraint, all educational authority has been centralized in Victoria. Trustees can no longer even have the authority to decide who they can fire, and you can be certain the firings will come. Six months ago, then Education minister Bill Vander Zalm was the scapegoat for the bloodletting within his ministry. Now, with three ministers having filled the post within the past year, the message is still the same. The real power of Bill Bennett's hand is becoming clear."

What the editorial writer has decided is that it's really the Premier who is coming down with these ideas and that one after the other he's using ministers of education as scapegoats in presenting the programs. The editorial goes on to say:

"Education, far more than civic affairs, is something almost every homeowner can relate to. It represents the highest proportion of your tax dollar and it directly affects you if you have children. Sewers, specified water districts and all the rest have marginal appeal when compared to the impact of a reduced bus service for primary pupils. There will still be school boards and there will still be dedicated souls who will put their hat into the ring to fill them. But once there, what will they do? With no power to levy taxes or to relieve them. boards will be nothing more than flak-catchers for the government. All control is now in Victoria with the purse strings. We have lost an important part of our local autonomy through the government’s power play. It will affect this valley severely, where school affairs rank high. Boards will still be able to listen to concerns. They will be able to sympathize, as the board now does, with the south end parents seeking safety busing for their children. But in almost every case, just as in the south end, in the final analysis what the board decides or what the board feels will be irrelevant. All that will matter is who controls the funds to do something about it. And, with the safety busing, it is now in Victoria."

It's on the safety busing that I want to speak, because it certainly relates to this bill. I've spoken about it before in this Legislature. I have written to the minister on a couple of occasions. I had a visit from one of the local people concerned, who had written very recently. All they're asking is for an audience with the minister, and they can't seem to get that. I'm asking him again if he will meet with those people. His officials have said it's up to the school board. I don't believe that's right. I believe this editorial writer knows what he's talking about. It's the minister who controls the purse strings. It's the minister who can decide whether those 300 children will have to walk across the Trans-Canada Highway with no protection or whether they will have some busing. That's an issue that is extremely critical in my area. It's an issue that relates very closely to this bill. It's an issue that I

[ Page 646 ]

would hope the minister would answer more completely and without any attempt to cloud the issue by just telling us that he will meet with those parents to discuss that point with them.

I'm opposed to this bill for all the reasons I was opposed to it last time. It's bad legislation, basically because it destroys local autonomy. It's a power grab by the provincial government. It takes away from that right of innovative ideas in local communities. In the long term it will be more costly, as has been proved in other jurisdictions, than has the previous direction in which we've been moving. We need an overhaul, sure. We need that complete overhaul that the former former minister talked about. That's what we should be talking about in these chambers today, not simply a one-liner bill that extends a very bad piece of legislation for one year ad infinitum. For that reason, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 28

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

[5:45]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Atlin.

AN HON. MEMBER: Passarell for leader! [Applause.]

MR. PASSARELL: That's the greatest ovation the government's given the opposition since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) had shoulder-length hair.

Since we're discussing Bill 6, an education bill, I've got a test.

MR. REID: Tell us what Bob told you to say.

MR. PASSARELL: We're coming to Bob. Bob's already told me what to say after this week. I'm glad to see the Premier sitting here because I was getting concerned seeing him wandering up and down the hallways today in search of....

MR. SEGARTY: Black bears!

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairy tales!

MR. PASSARELL: Well, it could be a fairy tale too.... In search of some lost union leaders to have a discussion with.

Here's the first test question. I want the government, if they think they know the answer to this, to bang their heads on their desks.

I want to emphasize the complete autonomy that this bill gives municipal councils to set their municipal tax rates. We have to forge a partnership in restraint with local government, and this is a further demonstration of our trust. This is a realistic position because we believe in responsibility of local government. Elected official councils know local circumstances.

Now, who said that? Bang your heads if you think you know. I'll tell you who said that in relation to Bill 6: the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). He said that this morning. It's in Hansard. And here we're discussing a bill to take away local autonomy from school districts. How can he say that this morning? And then what happens? He went up to Tumbler Ridge or wherever, and all of a sudden they bring in a new bill this afternoon. These people don't even understand what they're doing. Every day we come in here and they bring in a new bill. The Minister of Municipal Affairs says this, and then we bring in this Bill 6 to take away local autonomy.

Another question, since the Premier is still sitting here. Just bang your forehead if you understand. I'm quoting again from Hansard in relationship to Bill 6:

Bill Bennett has put it another way. Government should do things not to people, do things for people. Either this province will develop through individual initiative in a large measure of local control over community development, or it will sink into a state knows best, state does best philosophy, leading to central government control of people.

I'll give you a little bit more. I mean, this is a pretty difficult question for you people here, so I'll give a little bit more:

The British Columbia Social Credit party believes that the future of British Columbia rests on the idea that individuals can he asked to take a great deal of responsibility for themselves and for the development and fulfilment of the communities in which they live.

One more, Mr. Speaker. We're getting to the end. The last one:

It is a matter of historical record that the great advances within public education in British Columbia have always come from either the classroom itself or from locally elected boards who saw a community need and acted upon it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who said that?

MR. PASSARELL: My question: who said that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bennett.

MR. PASSARELL: To the front of the class! It's Bill Bennett. To the Richmond Rotary Club....

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: It's in Hansard. Why did you forget?

[ Page 647 ]

MR. BARRETT: Was that before or after the election?

MR. PASSARELL: Ah, two stories here. None of you got the right answer. What are we going to do, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go bear hunting.

MR. PASSARELL: I wouldn't mind going bear hunting with any of you people out there — especially that guy sitting right there. I wouldn't mind getting in the bush with him, as long as he keeps his two security officers away from me. Dangerous Dan McGrew over there, huh? You don't know what that guy could do to me in the bush — a little innocent man like myself from the north being with a city boy like him. Ooh, he scares me, that man over there. I think he also scares a lot of people in British Columbia with some of the legislation he's bringing in, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now to the bill.

MR. PASSARELL: Bill 6. S-i-x. See, the opposition has to spell for the government. With Bill 6 they're going to....

AN HON. MEMBER: Try Bill 7.

MR. PASSARELL: We'll get on to it, and we'll do it again, sure.

We see this government bringing in this legislation, and for what purpose? We have a Premier who says one thing before the election and something else afterwards. We have a Premier who said something prior....

But I just couldn't understand this quote here: "It's a matter of historical record that great advances within public education in British Columbia have always come from either the classroom itself or from locally elected boards who saw a community need and then acted upon it." The Premier said that and then all of a sudden brings in this bill after he gets his mandate. I was surprised that the Premier didn't recognize his own statement or want to give acknowledgment to it. But then, who can blame him? The man is under a lot of pressure — terrible pressure — walking up and down the hallways looking for lost union leaders to have a discussion with, to have somebody to talk with, to give him some kind of moral backing.

MR. BARRETT: A "breakthrough."

MR. PASSARELL: The light that came through from the skies — a breakthrough, in which people are supporting his legislative program; the breakthrough that happened a week and a half ago. But nobody except the Premier seems to know about this breakthrough.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a nervous breakthrough, but it's a little strange to my way of thinking.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the time...

MR. SPEAKER: ...when hopefully, hon. member, we will address Bill 6.

MR. PASSARELL: Since the Premier is just swinging around in his seat, trying to get dizzy, 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.