[ Page 649 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Passarell –– 649

Mr. Nicolson –– 652

Mr. Michael –– 656

Ms. Sanford –– 657

Mr. Lea –– 662

Tabling Documents

Committee of Selection report.

Mr. Ree –– 663

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions to make today. In the House today is a member of the executive staff of the Ministry of Human Resources. He is on vacation but is visiting the House today, which I think is very nice. The reason he is here is because he has his son Jon with him. Would you please welcome Associate Deputy Minister of Human Resources, Everett Northup, and his son Jon.

Also in our House today are visitors from Terrace, British Columbia, Mr. and Mrs. David McKeown with their son Darcy and daughter Margot. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that's a very important part of our province. Our Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has just announced, along with the private sector, the second shift of the Pohle Sawmill, along with the Prince Rupert initiative in the B.C. Timber pulp mill, so we're particularly pleased to welcome the McKeowns here today.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, good morning to you, sir.

I'm quite concerned that the white light is shining on me this morning. The Premier isn't sitting in his chair today, and I had some other things to direct to him. Grizzly bears are looking for lost union leaders.

This weekend, Mr. Speaker, we discussed Bill 6 at my annual garden party up in Atlin. We have more people there than a sell-out crowd to the recent Rudy Vallee convention. This is just using the Premier's A plus B theory, because he seems to elaborate and expand on the number of people who turn out to his garden party.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, could you ask the senior citizens' conference over there to sit down, please. Or go out into the hallways.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have? Lots? Let the light shine in. It's really interesting that the light doesn't shine on the government side. I think the last person who left turned off the light there.

But on to Bill 6.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Serious? I was going to get serious. I was going to dye my hair this week, as a matter of fact, but I couldn't find any fire hydrants to rub up against.

Okay, sorry about that. There we go — we turned it on. We've got the white light, but now we'll turn on the microphone.

Bill 6 gives this brand-new minister extraordinary powers, broad, sweeping, draconian powers, to supervise the budgets and expenditures of local school districts. This bill which is very small in detail, having only three sections — it's one of the shortest bills in history and it corresponds to the three holes punched in it — is a centralization bill: centralized decision-making in Victoria. We're quite familiar with the procedure as it's taken place for a number of years. Yesterday I read into the record a quote from the Premier, who said to the Richmond Rotary Association a few years back that it's 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. Now, ten years later, the Premier seems to have changed in midstream, paddling against his own beliefs.

I'd like to talk on some constituency issues relating to this bill. One of the newest school districts in this province is District 87, where I taught for a number of years. It used to belong to Fort Nelson, District 81, and didn't have its own school board, which was nice at times, because as an administrator as well as a classroom teacher we used to be able to see our supervisors and the superintendent maybe once or twice a year if they came to northwest British Columbia. After pushing on this side of the House for its own school district, something I take pride in seeing happen, each small community has now elected its own trustee to perform for that community. This bill, if it's passed, will make the trustees in those small communities of District 87 puppets of Victoria.

[10:15]

You can't have responsible, quality education by taking away powers from the local school board, as this bill will do, and placing it in the hands of Victoria. Even one of the strongest critics of this bill was going to be a Socred candidate in the last election, but somehow he got shafted out of the nomination. He's still a school trustee for Good Hope Lake. He is quite concerned about this, as are the trustees across this province who have demonstrated their concern and dedication to the job.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The other school district I'd like to talk about is Nishga School District 92, which the NDP government set up under the able leadership of Eileen Dailly, back in the early seventies. It was the first native school district in the province, and, if I'm not mistaken, it is still one of the few native school districts run entirely by the first citizens of this country.

Under this bill you can find a specific school district like the Nishga School District 92 losing its local decision-making powers, and having that power revert to Victoria. I doubt if this is democratic. As some members of this House are aware, teaching in the north has its own complications and idiosyncrasies and problems. I don't think it's easy to teach anywhere in this province. One of the continuing statements coming from the government is the bashing of teachers' salaries. If we don't have a certain northern tax allowance for

[ Page 650 ]

teachers in the north, decided upon by the local school boards, quality education in the north could suffer if this bill is passed with a 35-22 mandate. It could; the possibility exists. Then Victoria could be telling local school trustees and Nishga School District 92 or Stikine School District 87 that they will be the best ones to administrate their concerns and their financial situation. It's a continuing program of this government to centralize decision-making in Victoria.

Some local concerns have been raised with me in the last few weeks since this bill was presented. The chairman of School District 87, Mrs. Sherry Sethen, came to Victoria a few weeks ago, along with other chairmen and trustees. Sherry and I have disagreed over the years, basically because of our political stripes. No one can question Sherry's dedication and deep concern for quality education in the far north. To praise Sherry, under her direction as first chairperson in the district we have seen quality education improved in district 87.

Trustees throughout the far north, regardless of political stripe, have placed dedication and the quality of education well above political stripes, which is encouraging. It doesn't matter whether it includes trustees in Stewart or the Nass, the far north or Vancouver. As trustees, basically their concern is for the children for whom they are responsible.

In the administrative area I've seen superintendents in the far north come and go — they use the north as a training ground. But today, Mr. Speaker, we have two excellent superintendents in the far north who stand out for their honesty, dedication and concern for education: Eric Bansgrove in District 92 and Owen Corcoran in District 87. These gentlemen are concerned about what this bill could do to their authority and decision-making. With this bill you are placing decisions about the financial management of small, isolated rural districts in limbo, since Victoria, if this bill is passed, can override local decisions in the financial area.

I still remember teaching without a local school board in the Stikine when we had to share with Fort Nelson. After a few years we finally had District 87 included as a duly elected school board with trustees from each community. Now this government wants to dismantle it and bring in centralization.

One thing I don't understand is the punitive measure included in this bill, whereby the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) can fine administrators or individuals for whom he makes decisions $2,000 for not following his decrees. It is totalitarian if the government can fine trustees for decision-making.

There are specific cases where this bill will interfere with local decisions, and I particularly mean Section 1(b). In the far north it is the maintenance budget. As the minister is probably aware.... I don't think he has been into District 87 officially as the minister, but I hope he will go into 92 to see some of the problems. Local decisions can't be overruled by Victoria, and this is particularly so in maintenance. In District 87 there are two or three maintenance men who must travel hundreds of miles between schools in the district, particularly in wintertime when school water pipes and furnaces may be frozen. Often the local school board has to make a decision quickly and expeditiously to have funds to correct some of these problems that happen in the far north during winter. Now we find a minister who has authority, if this bill is passed, and who will make the decision on how this money will be allocated. Whatever the motives, quality education will suffer if this dictatorial legislation is passed.

In School District 92, for the minister's knowledge, maintenance men must travel down the Nass River to do any maintenance on the school at Kincolith. In winter they'd have to fly into it from either Prince Rupert or Terrace. There's no road into the Kincolith School. What worries me is that gamesmanship will prevail because the local school board will no longer have the final say in the allocation of their funds, and Victoria, often unaware and unknowledgeable about the situation in the far north, will be making administrative and financial decisions for northern school districts. Often their thinking, when it comes to the far north, is that — and here's a quote from the years past — the north goes "as far as Hope." I would certainly hope that with this bill, if it's passed, the minister will have a special feeling for the far north when it comes to special allocations of funds. When a program is overexpended, for instance, in maintenance in the far north, which, if you look at it percentage-wise, is probably higher per capita than any other school district in this province because of the isolation and the weather....

One of the situations and concerns that has been raised to me by constituents in the last few weeks is the feeling of the centralization that this bill will create by allowing the minister and the government in Victoria to overrule local decisions. A concern that many residents up north have is the feeling that the Prime Minister of this country, who has over the years shown a lack of confidence, faith and honesty to the west, particularly if you look into the far north where he and his federal Liberals make decisions for the west and the far north from their ivory towers in Ottawa.... They very rarely ever venture out into the real world, except if it's to go on a canoe trip.

Another concern that was raised to me concerning this bill was a statement that was made in the budget speech concerning school boards. That's the incorporation of smaller school districts. That still has not been explained, and how this could be effected in this bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll explain it.

MR. PASSARELL: You sit down here. I don't want you jumping up and down like that; you might hurt yourself.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No nervous breakthrough for you. Why don't you get out in the hallway and start looking around for those lost union leaders you had the breakthrough with?

The incorporation of local, smaller school districts, as was pointed out in the budget, is of particular concern to the Nishga people, who have fought hard and diligently for a local school board run entirely by the Nishga people. I am concerned that the statement made in the budget, as well as this bill, could be the first move toward taking away the local autonomy that the first citizens of this country have worked so hard to have incorporated as their own school district. I and the constituents of the Nass would like some assurances from this Minister of Education that you don't have a devious plan to take away District 92 and incorporate it with the larger School District 88 of Terrace.

Another concern raised by Bill 6, the education bill, is why this government has asked for centralization. They've already shown through some of their other legislation that attacks the north, particularly the rural property taxes, where school boards have to generate funds from property taxes. We

[ Page 651 ]

see that this government has pointed it out through its legislation of increasing rural property taxes. We've seen little work done on taxes that we pay, provincial government gasoline taxes. We see little work on our highways up there except when there's an election. A little work is done prior to an election, but once it's over people are pulled out. Bill 6 will take away local decision-making for the far north.

I'd like to quote from a recent publication of the British Columbia School Trustees' Association; it's a brochure that they sent to all of us, an excellent brochure. I'll read into the record a few statements submitted in this three-page brief on Bill 6, the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983.

I think the first sentence of this brief is a concern most residents feel that there must be some levelling of deficits in this country as well as this province:

"The British Columbia School Trustees' Association appreciates the government's concern about increasing provincial budget deficits and accepts the need for ceilings on total school board revenues from provincial funds. However, the Association believes that the provincial government's objective of economic restraint can best be achieved by amending Bill 6 to delete the words 'or a portion of' from sections (1)(a) and (1)(b)."

This recent legislation introduced by the government does affect public education in a number of ways, and speaking as a former school teacher and administrator in the school district, the School Trustees' Association raises a valid concern regarding Bill 6, the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act. The government often points out that the opposition and people who oppose their legislation very rarely, they say — unjustifiably so — give objectives to the government on changes. The British Columbia School Trustees' Association has come up with a couple of objectives to avoid the problem: first, deficiencies in the application of funding formula proposed by the Ministry of Education; and secondly, the creation of a management unit too large to be economic.

They go on to state that in support of this position, they note that the proposed funding formula will produce increased costs of administration, if this bill is passed, resulting from (a) increased legal costs; (b) increased costs resulting from court decisions; (c) increases in the number of administrators in some school districts; and (d) diseconomies of scale from a system too large for effective administration.

That (d) is a concern I have for the far north, this budget and its little sentence about incorporating smaller school districts: that if the government passes Bill 6, we will find small school districts like 87 or 92 getting into a system too large for effective administration.

[10:30]

Another item that they point out is increased cost of teachers' salaries resulting from incentives to keep average teachers' salaries high and to reduce average teachers' salaries by early retirement of the most expensive teachers, and disincentives for teachers to use the collective bargaining process to preserve jobs by reducing salaries. The other suggestion that the British Columbia School Trustees' Association brings forward is...increased cost of plan operation resulting from disincentives to reduce fixed costs and plants as a source of revenue, and a lack of incentives for energy-efficient investments.

Mr. Speaker, this government has moved closer to the objective of the British Columbia School Trustees' Association — as they point out on page 3 — of an equitable system of program-based funding. By the same token, it is also apparent that the proposed outline of July 12 does not take into account the specific problems in some school districts. The British Columbia School Trustees' Association further goes on to say: "We look forward to working with the ministry officials to develop a system which combines cost effectiveness with equality and flexibility."

Mr. Speaker, what this government needs to do is withdraw this bill for the time being and meet with the British Columbia School Trustees' Association, the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, and other interested public and parent groups involved in education in our province, to come forward with a bill that all groups would find acceptable. But what this present Bill 6 has brought forward is not acceptable to many residents, particularly those I speak for in the far north. Smaller school districts are finding themselves caught between a rock and a hard spot. The minister in Victoria can make local decisions for these school boards through a centralization program. The centralization program has shown, through its statement in the budget, that the government is seriously looking at incorporating smaller school districts in larger school districts.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) in his statement yesterday in the House, when he talked about local autonomy, and how this government wants to preserve local autonomy, said: "I want to emphasize the complete autonomy that this bill gives municipal councils to set their municipal tax rates. We have forged 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." Very important words, Mr. Speaker, and they should be taken to heart by the Minister of Education. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has said that local decision-making is very productive, and it should be included in Bill 6 that local decisions by local school boards are often much more relevant than decisions made in Victoria for these local districts.

One of the concerns that the government back benches have raised in connection with Bill 6 is the high cost of salaries. That is something I totally disagree with. I don't think the high cost of teachers' salaries is leading to the problems that this government wants the public to believe in. They often revert to their private enterprise A plus B theorem, but you never hear the government come out and attack when they're talking about salaries. Some of these salaries.... I'm quoting from Allan Fotheringham's column in Maclean's for August 8, 1983.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL I don't know yet, Mr. Provincial Secretary, but knowing some of your dealings, I think you might be able to give them a bail-out. Do we have to wait for new legislation — Bill 32?

"So while you've been asked to eye the macaroni, we know that the total boodle for Imperial Oil chairman, Donald K. McIvor, went from $353,550 in 1981 to $596,820 in 1982. How do we know?" He goes on further and talks about Victor Rice, chairman and chief executive officer....

[ Page 652 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: $441,814.

MR. PASSARELL: There we see the big bucks for the big boys, and very rarely does the government talk about this. I think this bill should be pulled off for six months to allow the Minister of Education to meet with the British Columbia School Trustees' Association, the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and parent-teacher organizations and bring forward a bill which will back up the Premier's statements that he made to the Richmond Rotary Club. He said, once again: "Locally elected school boards have often shown through historical record the advance in public education...." With this bill, Mr. Speaker, he is taking away those powers from the local school boards, from those dedicated school trustees throughout this province, and incorporating them through totalitarian legislation in the hands of the minister.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 17

NAYS — 27

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

[10:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill that we have before us is really an effort to divert attention from the real malaise that has stricken public education in this province. The malaise has stricken more than just education; it has stricken the very economy of this province, and it has stricken the fibre of the people of this province. It is the product of a government that is hopeless, offers no hope, has no vision and is floundering. This is a government that simply seeks to do anything to bring in something that is a little bit different. But let's not look at the root problems. We should really be examining the budget of this province. We should be examining the reasons we got into such a financial mess that we have to come up with such puerile and hopeless prescriptions for fixing the education system. Can there be anything more ridiculous, hopeless or depressing than placing more power in the hands of the Minister of Education?

We saw the introduction of this bill by the minister yesterday. We saw a performance in which, I am sure, the minister proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no concept of the new financial management system being put forward — which he is going to make the decisions on under this bill — or of the guide to the new budgeting and finance system, the calculation of the fiscal framework, the list of cost factors, and the general preparation of school board budgets. What this bill says....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's awfully noisy in here.

MR. NICOLSON: I can speak louder, Mr. Speaker, if you wish. I can go up a couple more decibels.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm concerned about courtesy, hon. member, and I will ask all hon. members to keep the noise level down. If they wish to have conversations, they can certainly have them in other places than the Legislative Assembly.

MR. NICOLSON: What this bill proposes to do is make the step which heaps upon the shoulders of this one, poor, single individual in this House — this very human individual with human failings, like all of us — the burden of making every decision in terms of education finance for every school district in this province. The thing that people most object to is that this bill says: "The minister may issue directives at any time before May 1 in a year establishing the amount of or a portion of the budget...." In other words, it is now the responsibility — if he is going to take upon himself that power — of the minister to take total responsibility for every portion of every budget in this province. If he is going to second-guess school boards, then they might as well get out of the way and let him do the whole job. If he thinks that he can do it better than the hundreds of elected local officials that have devoted a darn sight more of their political careers, in many instances, to preparation of school board budgets than that minister has ever shown the willingness to undertake the responsibilities for understanding the duties that are under him....

It will be up to that minister to decide whether a child qualifies as being autistic, because he will be defining that portion of a school board budget. It will be up to that minister to define whether a child is gifted, because he will be defining that portion of a budget. It will be up to that minister to decide what level of learning disability a child has and where they fit into that flow chart. That minister is taking all of this upon himself, and that's what this legislation does. I'm surprised that an ex-administrator in school systems doesn't realize that and doesn't realize that apparently these people have become so detached and elevated by their position, having been sworn into the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as council members, that they have lost touch with reality. They are suffering delusions of adequacy when they are woefully inadequate.

This group across from us has not looked at the root causes of the trouble that we're in. They haven't looked at the fact that since 1980 they have paid no attention to budget. They squandered $2 billion of savings left to them by the previous administration of the W.A.C. Bennett government, the NDP government, and the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Evan Wolfe. Since the present Minister of Finance (Hon.

[ Page 653 ]

Mr. Curtis) took over in 1980, this government has been going through $2 billion. They're going to go through another billion dollars this year. They will really have gone through our bank account. In excess of revenues, they will have spent, since 1980, $3 billion, and that's the problem.

Here we are with Bill 6. We've got a problem in education finance: there isn't enough money. Why isn't there enough money? I'll tell you why: there aren't enough people working in this province. Their solution is not to go to the root cause of the problem; their solution is to allow this minister to fix any portion of any school district budget in this province. We're in trouble because they allow three-quarters of a million dollar cheques to go out in the garbage. There's no fiscal control. Woefully inadequate financial systems are in effect in this province: cheques burned or garburated or shredded. That's why we're in trouble in this province. But they say no, the way to fix that is that we have to centralize control even more. If ever there was a wrong prescription for a very sick patient, this is it. We should be taking power out of the hands of this government. We should be putting it back into the hands of locally elected people, because they have to face people on a daily basis, and they have to ensure that those dollars are spent in the most correct way.

This piece of legislation is going to lead to more bureaucracy. It's going to lead to more paper being spewed out of the B.C. Systems Corporation looking at every little portion of every little budget. Things are going to be sent down here. Mr. Speaker, we're going to have to get the minister to adjudicate whether little Carmen — a child whom I happen to know — is autistic or what her learning disability is. How are you defining all these things?

The real thing we need in education is a predictable system of education finance. We also need a system in which local taxpayers can express through their initiative and their support of locally elected people the level of extra educational services that they might feel would be desirable for their local area.

I have four school districts in my riding, two of which are operated by the Castlegar school district. I have most of the Arrow Lake school district in my riding. I have all of the Nelson school district in my riding. I have the Creston school district in my riding. I only have to look at those four districts to see how different, how unique are the needs of each individual district.

We've come up with a flow chart in all of this which is really the companion to this little three-section bill. We're going to try to fit all those individual little districts into one mould so that we can process them through the B.C. Systems Corporation computer and everything will fit into a formula. It doesn't fit into a formula. There are problems in some of those school districts that cry for solution. The electrical system in one high school in one of those districts is a fire hazard because of cost-cutting in the past; it is accessible to any child in the gymnasium. Imagine a high school having the entire circuit-breaker box right out in the gymnasium in this day and age. Think of the hazards presented by that, particularly when for years orders — and encouragement — from electrical inspectors to upgrade.... That has had to be played off against other crises in terms of educational funding. That's just one thing.

What is the government going to do? They're going to try to shut down more rural schools. They're going to fit people into this formula. You talk about consolidating small school districts into larger administrative units. What are you talking about by "small"? Are you talking about " small" in geography or "small" in terms of student population? It would be a lot easier to take some of the administrative units that are small in geography and consolidate them than it would be to take some of these very small rural school districts with their unique programs and their unique problems of transportation. Ferry schedules have to be tied in with busing; that only happens in some coastal communities and in a few interior communities.

[11:00]

This particular formula is centralist. It is not going to serve the needs of education. To give the minister the power to set any portion of any school district's budget is really placing an impossible task upon the shoulders of one person. I am sure that the minister will say that he'll delegate authority. I certainly hope he does. It has always been interesting in the 11 years I've been in this House that when a member moves from the back bench into the cabinet there is a growth process that takes place, but some people grow more than others. With some people one would need a microscope to notice the growth. I don't have the confidence that the present administration is sufficient to the task that they are seeking to undertake.

We see government embarking upon a program for which this year we're borrowing $450 million. The northeast coal program is costing $1 million to create one coal-mining job. They suddenly discover that we're in desperate financial problems in this province. I have a phone message from a very concerned citizen from Creston. This particular person is the administrator in a private school, but he is also very concerned about public education and the effect of Bill 6 on local autonomy. He proposes a few solutions. He's trying to solve the problem, though, just within the framework of the educational system, but the problem that has to be solved goes way beyond the general educational system. The problem is that British Columbia, in a period of four months, went from a have province to a have-not province. That is pointed out by the Conference Board of Canada and by B.C. Central Credit Union. It's taken that nose-dive. Other places have their problems. The prairie provinces have had their problems. There's an oversupply of wheat, because there have been very abundant wheat crops in the last few years and wheat prices have not been strong. We've had problems with our lumber, mineral and coal prices. Every province in Canada has had to cope with some special problem, but this province has not coped at all.

The only solution this government opposite has is to tighten the belt tighter and tighter and tighter and to fire more and more people, thereby strangling the economy. Every time someone gets laid off by these measures.... Somebody looks into a local school board, for instance, and decides that this position isn't required. This portion of your budget is not necessary and that person gets laid off, gets fired, moves out of the province and goes somewhere else where there's a better political climate. Every car dealer loses a potential customer. Safeway may lose the need, after so many of these people have left the province, for one more check-out clerk. It has an effect on the economy. This government is simply depressing confidence when it should be stimulating and building consumer confidence. It is saying: "If you think things are bad now, you haven't seen anything yet." That's what this government is saying in this bill.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 654 ]

I've seen different education finance formulas. I saw the education finance formula when it was based on the level of experience of the teaching staff and the certification of the teaching staff. They came out with a certain dollar figure, then it was changed to be based on the number of pupils. The number of pupils would give you one basic education program unit — one unit in the BEP. You multiply that out and it gives you a dollar figure. Now we have this very detailed system. It looks at the number of people with unique problems, and so on. It was very commendable, but when this program is figured out and you look at the number of kindergarten children as FTEs — full-time equivalents — this government wants to call everybody FTEs. So maybe I should say to the hon. FTE opposite that the government is now proposing that they will compute every kindergarten and elementary school child, and up to 1,600 pupils they get an equivalent of 24 units and beyond that up to 3,600 pupils you get 25, and anything beyond that you get 26. It's all very scientific, but in the end it comes down to a dollar figure. It says that the school boards are going to get a certain amount of money. The argument here is that the school boards, in those local districts, know the kinds of services that they have to give to children. They know what they can do. I know that in my school district we made the decision, as local taxpayers, to support trustees who supported special services for handicapped children. While other school districts didn't have this program, we made a decision locally. It was not imposed upon us by the provincial level of government; we led the way. But if we adopt this bill, there will be no leadership coming — as my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) pointed out. The Premier, in 1977 when addressing a service club, praised local government and school trustees for their leadership role. With this prescription, you are going to stifle leadership. If we wait for this government to take the initiatives that were taken over the past 10 or 20 years by locally elected trustees, then we will be locked into a static position, and as society moves ahead in other areas we will be static. We will be moribund, and education, the whole climate of this province, will be stultifying.

It doesn't work. Centralization of authority is a theory that.... If you've ever read The Art of Japanese Management, why are the Japanese beating us economically?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I have not yet purchased the special issue of Time magazine which I understand devotes 160 pages to it. But years ago I realized that we had to look somewhere to find some better solutions and look at successful economies for what we can adapt.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Am I being bribed here? Am I being told that if I cross the floor I'll be offered a trip to Japan or something, like it's a prerequisite for every member over there to take a trip to Japan?

This particular bill will effectively eliminate the role of the trustee. In those four school districts in Nelson–Creston, I've had communication with many of the trustees on this particular bill. What's been very encouraging to me, in terms of having my feelings about this bill confirmed, is not what some people who I know have always be NDP-leaning have said, but the views that I have from people who have been members of the Social Credit Party, and are elected school trustees — the very strong stand they have taken against this legislation. We have seen some very high-profile people, like Gary Begin — of course I've talked to him about it. When I find that people in my riding.... I won't start naming them, because when they're on a school board they don't wear their political colours.

MR. MOWAT: Have you ever been to Vancouver?

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not talking about Vancouver. I'm talking about the Castlegar School District, the Nelson School District, the Arrow Lake School District and the Creston School District. I couldn't tell the NDPers from a Socred on our school board without a program. I'm proud to say that those people are dedicated and they work darn hard. I think that this minister, in bringing in this piece of legislation, is giving — with an old expression of my grandmother — a main envers, the back of the hand.

I'd like the minister, when he sums up in second reading, to say what ultimate responsibility trustees hold now in our educational system, because they don't have the responsibility for budget. This piece of legislation says that you people can advise; you're an advisory board. But an advisory board is not a responsible body. An advisory board does simply that: it gives advice. It's like a royal commission. It gives its advice and then it's ignored and is put away to gather dust. That's what we're going to have around this province: 80-odd royal commissions every year on the local budget. But the decision is going to be made by that person. That is where the responsibility lies. This act says that "the minister may issue directives at any time before May 1 in a year establishing the amount of...." Well, even establishing the amount of a budget is an intrusion into local autonomy. Where did the day go when local taxpayers could decide that, yes, if the basic bare-bones education program was to be so many millions of dollars, or an average of so many thousands of dollars per child...? "But if we want to do this or this, we can take it upon ourselves." That has been stripped away; not only has that been stripped away, but for the last couple of years the ministry has been setting the total amount. Now it is even going to say how you are going to proportion that amount among the various areas.

[11:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's not true. They can move the money around any way they want, except in one category: administration.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, a portion of the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not very hard to read the bill; it's a very short bill. Usually some of the very worst bills brought into this House are very short. The principle of this bill is that big government knows best, that it will set up the big bureaucracy here in Victoria and do away with all the hours that the local finance committees spend before they make their recommendations to the board. Mr. Speaker, when you take financial responsibility out of a level of government you no longer have a level of government. Imagine what the situation would be if the federal government took all of the financial responsibility away from the provincial government, and

[ Page 655 ]

they said: "Okay, here's the money, but you must spend it this way. You must spend so much on health care, and the money to be spent on health care must be spent in the following manner. We'll give you so many full-time equivalents for every automobile injury and broken extremity. We'll give you so many full-time equivalents for every cranial fracture, etc." That's what we're telling the local level of government.

I find it really hard. I didn't go through that training ground, except.... In a way I did, I guess. I was involved in the finance committee of our local school board, School District 7, in Nelson as an agreements chairman of the Nelson District Teachers' Association many years ago. I did come to have some appreciation for the work they do, but I didn't go through the training ground that many of the members — both on this side of the House and on the other side of the House — went through, and that is the local government level. I don't know what it is that causes them to be so forgetful when they walk into this House; they forget where they came from. They certainly must have forgotten, because what we're proposing in this piece of legislation....

If the federal government ever imposed this on the provinces, there would be calls for insurrection, for disobedience, coming right out of the mouths of all 11 premiers of this country. I think that the trustees have taken things very, very calmly. If they've used any strong language, Mr. Speaker, it has been far less than what they would have been justified in using. The problem is not how we should distribute the money, but how the money should have been prioritized in the past. To say that there isn't enough money, after the government opposite has got itself into a mixed enterprise, in a private sector operation, after it has interfered with the private sector and with the southeast coal bloc by taking sides with the northeast coal development....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against the northeast coal development?

MR. NICOLSON: I don't mind saying that I think the northeast coal project is a disaster. Spending $1 million to create one coal-mining job is not the way to create jobs in this province. I support things that are good — the LIFT program, Billy Bonds. Some of those bonds have been put to good use. I'll support a good program, but I will not support a program in which special assistance in billions and billions of dollars has been given to one part of a private sector operation at the expense of the rest of the private sector and the coal industry. The problems that have been created by that! Any thinking British Columbian can see, by reading Enterprise magazine, B.C. Business Journal, the business sections of the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun and other British Columbia papers, and not by listening to speeches by the NDP, that this is one of the major reasons we're in trouble. We're in real trouble because in good times $2 billion of savings — $1 billion of liquid money in the bank and another billion dollars of special purpose funds — were confiscated and spent by this government. They had to be involved in every little scheme. They thought they could do everything; now they realize there's a price for all those grandiose, premature schemes.

I'm not against northeast coal. The day that northeast coal can make its way with private sector dollars, I'm all in favour of northeast coal. But when we have to put billions of dollars into it, when we're borrowing $4.5 million this year to pay the debts for that project and cutting into the bone and marrow and muscle of education, health, corrective services, treatment of juveniles and all this sort of thing, then I say this is a smokescreen. This bill is a very lousy smokescreen and says the Social Credit government didn't make the mistakes. They're denying that by the end of this year they will have reduced our liquidity by $3 billion, and saying that what this province needs is more centralization: "We have to control things even more." By controlling things even more, they're going to get us into even more of a mess.

This bill says that little minister, who didn't go to a much different school or grow up in a much different neighbourhood than I did — he was touched by Gilmore Avenue School.... We're saying now that this person has all the answers — the combined wisdom of hundreds of school trustees who actually have a lot more time to spend on educational matters than the Minister of Education himself. That's one of the ironies of this level of government. They have much more time. They, I am sure, can ask more questions and show more understanding of these four little documents than can the minister himself. Probably any member of any finance committee on any board of school trustees could show answers which would have the minister fumbling as we saw him fumbling yesterday through his introductory speech.

This bill does not inspire any confidence in me. It doesn't inspire any optimism in me. It fails to spark the kind of thing that we need to get British Columbia moving again. This is the product of a depressed mentality which is even sapping the will of British Columbians, and British Columbians are probably the most optimistic, forward-looking people in this country. For some reason or another, when people emigrate from the east to the west, it does bring a certain type of person. The same thing happens in California. It has its good parts and its drawbacks, but we do get many unusual people in British Columbia. Some of them are very unusual; others are unusually gifted people with vision. These people find a way to make a contribution. These are the people who say it just isn't good enough that I should enjoy the environment and the work and the fruit that has been seeded by other people. These are people who give of themselves, and yet in this piece of legislation we absolutely strip away the concept of locally elected school trustees.

What would this House be if we didn't have control over our budget, or if the federal government tried to dictate to British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, etc. how those particular regions of the country should apportion their budgets? Dictate what proportion should go to Highways, and don't vary that; what proportion of Highway's budget should go to highway maintenance and what to development of new highways; whether you should go ahead with the Annacis Island crossing or the new approach through the Coquihalla Pass. Should those priorities be decided in Ottawa? Of course not. Do you think that these educational matters for small school districts like the Arrow Lake School District, where students have to travel by ferry, should be decided here in Victoria or Vancouver? Of course not. That's why I can't support this piece of legislation. It is centralist, it's a smoke-screen, and it's inadequate.

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

Motion negatived on the following division.

[ Page 656 ]

[11:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 26

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) rose in his place and claimed the floor on a question of privilege, as the hon. member had every right to do under the rules of this House. The Chair listened carefully as the hon. member made his statement, and I have since reviewed that statement as recorded in Hansard. I cannot find any semblance of a matter of privilege, let alone a prima facie case of breach of privilege in the matter raised.

The hon. member made no suggestion to the Chair as to the nature of the alleged breach, nor did he indicate to the Chair the content of any motion to be proposed to the House. See B.C. Journals, April 13, 1982. Standing Order 26, while conferring the right on hon. members to interrupt the scheduled business of the House and thereby take priority over all other business, must carry with it an obligation on hon. members not to abuse that right.

I would point out to hon. members that the Chair has an obligation to prevent any abuse of the rules, and the use of fraudulent points of order or matters of privilege to gain the floor is a practice deprecated in all parliaments.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the member for Nanaimo, I'll bring your ruling to his attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Someone should, hon. member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my speech I referred to a letter from the ex-NDP leader to the teachers, wherein he stated that they would restore full funding to education. I would like to table that document now.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 6, and I speak in favour of this bill. I feel that if the government is to control the cost of the public service at all levels, then they certainly must not ignore the escalating costs of providing education in the province of British Columbia.

I would like the members of the House to perhaps go back 8, 10 or 12 years and have a look at the increase in the cost of living over that period and lay alongside of that percentage increase the cost of education. Whether you take the amount of money expended by provincial governments during that period in time or whether you take the cost of educating each pupil in the province of British Columbia over that period of time, I think that you will see that the cost of education has risen approximately 50 percent higher than the cost of living.

I feel that local autonomy in education is very important. But I suppose it's like putting football players in a stadium and showing them the perimeters where the lines are drawn; some would look at those lines and argue that those lines were restricting their freedom, and they're not able to run all over the place with the ball; others would look at the perimeters and say to themselves: "I've got all kinds of freedom; I can do all kinds of things, as long as I abide by the rules and work within the perimeters of those four lines." I suppose there's a comparison in that with what this government is doing with school district spending through Bill 6. We're going to be telling school boards: "You have X number of dollars to spend. You have certain functions that must be performed. We are going to permit some flexibility among those functions. We're going to be very tight on the administration function, and we're going to demand a basic service for those requiring special programs. Beyond that, you have all the liberty and latitude in the world."

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you that there are classes in effect in the province of British Columbia in the public school system with as few as five, six or seven students. Perhaps if a school board is looking at introducing a new program, they may have to look at the alternatives as to where they're going to get that money from, and perhaps do some cutting if they're going to do some adding.

All kinds of trade-offs are permitted in this bill and in the controls that the provincial government will be imposing on school boards, but there will also be lots of room for changing various programs within that system. An example was recently mentioned in Gorde Hunter's column. He talked about a fact sheet that was being passed around Nanaimo:

"The fact sheet says that salary expenses from 1979 to 1982 in School District 68 have gone up considerably. To start with, the number of students rose by 5.6 percent. The number of teachers rose by 11.7 percent, while the number of other school employees rose by 13.2 percent. Note that the non-teaching increase was the highest. Administration salary expense was up 74.2 percent" — in a three-year period — "teachers' salary expense was up 66.4 percent; janitor salary expense was up 43.8 percent; repairs and maintenance salary expenses were up 55 percent."

I submit that the people of British Columbia cannot afford that type of escalating cost within the education system or within any other large sector in the public system.

I personally believe in local autonomy. Someday I would like to see regulations, procedures and legislation brought into effect that would indeed give local trustees more autonomy. But there are some real problems in the current system of education, not the least of which is the manner and the rules that govern the bargaining relationship between school boards and teachers. I don't know how many members of the House are aware that free collective bargaining, as it is commonly known, does not exist between teachers and

[ Page 657 ]

school boards. There is a bargaining process, and once that bargaining process comes to a certain fixed date — I believe it is November 14 or 15 — the dispute is automatically referred to compulsory arbitration. I should point out to the members of the House that all that needs to happen prior to the middle of November is for two or three boards to settle with the teachers, as happened in 1981. Nanaimo led the way — it's interesting to note that Nanaimo School District 68 is the same district that was talked about in Gorde Hunter's column — and settled for something like 17.4 percent. When we talk about a 17.4 percent settlement, it must be understood that the net cost to the school board, to the taxpayers, comes out pretty close to 19.5 percent, because there are always a couple of extra percentage points thrown in for length of service and education merits and things along those lines.

All that needs to happen in that collective bargaining process is for two or three boards to settle; the other 72 or 73 have to go to compulsory arbitration. When the arbitrators decide what is going to be laid on those other 72 or 73 boards, all they do is add up the settlements to date, regardless of how excessive, and lay that on the rest of the school boards that haven't settled. Now I ask you, what authority does that leave the local school boards who are trying to do a proper job of building curriculum, holding down costs and providing the students with a proper education? I would suggest to you that that system takes away a tremendous amount of authority and does not leave them with the proper responsibility. It's impossible to hold them accountable to the taxpayers when you have a procedure of collective bargaining such as that.

I would be prepared to look at, in future months and future years, proposals from school boards throughout the province of British Columbia and their central organization, the BCSTA, as to how we can change the tax formulas to provide the magic ingredients of accountability, responsibility and authority, because they do not come forward at this time in that package. I would suggest to you that if evidence could be brought forward to me — and, I'm sure, to the Minister of Education — to provide for those ingredients, we'd be prepared to have a serious look at them.

Part of that package would also have to contain the long-lasting problem of collective bargaining. It's evident to me, having been a school trustee for five years, that there is nowhere near unanimity among the BCSTA, the BCTF, local teachers' organizations and teachers in general as to an equitable and fair manner in which the collective bargaining process can be handled. So I would suggest to those bodies, if they have some ideas along those lines, please bring them to the government, and let's have a look to see if there isn't some way we can return more autonomy to the school boards.

[11:45]

For some speakers to stand in the Legislature and suggest that the school boards are being stripped of all their responsibilities is certainly not true. Someone suggested that school boards are no longer necessary. I think that's a deliberate falsehood. Anybody who would spend any time at all looking at the areas of responsibility and authority that are vested with school boards would be well aware that the primary function of a school board is really to set policy. Another important function of a school board is to hire — screen and select — the senior staff who work for the board. Things that follow through from that are property purchases, selling of pieces of property, setting programs within the perimeters within which they will be free to work with this legislation — provided they don't overspend in the particular functions — staff selection, discipline, school closures, personnel policies, staff evaluation and capital priorities; these are all functions that still clearly rest with individual school boards.

One of the other examples that points out the need for legislation as contained in Bill 6.... It's been pointed out to me that there's one school district in British Columbia that, based on what the average is, should have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 38 administrators. It's been brought to my attention that this particular school district has 57 people in administration. I think that looking at things like that clearly points out the need for legislation such as Bill 6.

One of the members pointed out the problem of legislation containing authority to impose penalties and fines on trustees up to $2,000. I have looked into this and asked questions about it, and it's my understanding that something like that would only come about after clear direction was given by the ministry and a clear violation existed. I think that it's incumbent upon the government to see that rules are applied fairly throughout all 75 school districts in B.C. If part of those guidelines were that superintendents' salaries or senior staff salaries were to be fixed, based on the number of teachers or the number of students, and if a school board clearly violated such a guideline, then there has to be some manner of enforcing the rule set by the provincial government, in line with that imposed on other school districts within the province of B.C.

In talking about local autonomy and tax formulas, I can tell you that I was a proud sponsor of a resolution through Shuswap School District 89 that called upon the BCSTA, at its last annual convention, to endorse greater school board autonomy, hand-in-hand with a revised tax formula. It's my view that if a school board wishes to add a particular program, the tax formula should be set up in such a way that the cost of that additional program should be borne directly by the local taxpayers so that the board is clearly and directly accountable to the taxpayers who elected them to pay for that particular program.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that Bill 6 may stand for one year, two years, three years or many more years, but I think that the guideline will be as to what type of input we get from the provincial organization of the trustees, and from the trustees themselves, to come back to us with a better idea than we have here. I really feel that the school boards are going to get along very well with Bill 6. I think they're going to still have all kinds of latitude; as a matter of fact, thinking back to my terms as a school trustee, I would welcome being able to serve as a trustee for another year or two, knowing full well the amount of money that you're going to have under each function before you start to set your curriculum. In my view, trustees spend a lot of time on budgeting and not nearly enough time on the question of the individual curriculum, in line with local concerns. I believe that the freedom is there now to go in and do some cutting in some areas, some adding in others, with a little bit of flexibility between each function.

Mr. Speaker, I close by saying that I support Bill 6.

MS. SANFORD: We have seen some pretty fancy footwork on the part of the member who just took his place in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. He said that he was a trustee, and he supports the concept of greater autonomy for trustees. He wants trustees to be able to make more decisions at the local level.

[ Page 658 ]

Then he talks about not being accountable to the local taxpayer. They certainly are; they're more accountable than the people in this Legislature. They have to face the electorate more often than the people in this Legislature do — every two years they're up for re-election. People have greater access, on the whole, to their locally elected trustees because they are there every day of the week. They're not out of the constituency as the MLAs are.

The member says that they want a finance formula. Well, a finance formula has been available for many, many years. It was prepared by Bob McMath, who suggested that the financing for education, which is an important part of the services of government, should be undertaken 75 percent by the provincial government and 25 percent by the local taxpayer. Now if that took place I could assure the member who just took his place that the school trustees then could spend far more time on the important matters of education and far less time on the matters of budgeting, which they are now forced to do because of the actions of the provincial government. And he stands up and says that he supports Bill 6? I have never seen such a convoluted approach taken by any member in this House. He says he supports more autonomy for school boards, and the bill he stands up to support takes away their autonomy. He supports having more time for school trustees to make decisions related to education instead of budgeting. Now the school trustees, because this government changes its mind every three or four months, spend their entire time working on budgets, but he supports that.

MS. BROWN: He's confused.

MS. SANFORD: Really, that was a bit much. I had trouble with that one, I can assure you.

Yesterday, when the minister introduced the debate on this particular piece of legislation — which, as we have said, takes away the authority from school trustees and centralizes authority into the hands of the minister and the cabinet — he read from a telegram which some school trustees and some chairmen of boards had signed, and he used that to support his argument that this was good legislation. The minister was very selective in the particular sections that he chose to read from that telegram, and it was up to the MLA for Cowichan–Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) to produce the entire telegram and read it in its entirety into the record so that we got quite a different picture of what the school trustees were saying about this particular piece of legislation. The minister was trying to give the impression that the school trustees liked being told that they are to act as puppets, that their major function will be to fire the teachers because of the approach this government is taking to education.

I want to read into the record the resolution that was passed by the School District 71, Courtenay, board of school trustees. It was carried unanimously. I'm going to read the entire thing into the record. I'm not going to leave anything out, just so that the minister can hear it all. It comes from the minutes of the board of school trustees' meeting dated July 14, 1983.

"Legislation tabled July 7, 1983.

"It was regularly moved and seconded that the board approve the following statement outlining its position with respect to the legislation tabled July 7, 1983. The statement is as follows:

"This school board expresses its opposition to the centralization of power and erosion of democratic decision-making processes by the provincial government as shown in Bill 3 and Bill 6.

"Specifically, we oppose the essence of Bill 3. This board believes that no school board, nor other public employer, needs the right to fire employees without cause. In fact, we feel that this aspect of Bill 3 is an attack on basic rights which should be available to all employees in a democratic society.

"As well, this board opposes the centralization of power embodied in Bill 6. This bill essentially removes all decision-making power from local school boards and deprives local taxpayers of the right to develop a school system geared to local needs."

That motion was carried unanimously by the board of school trustees in district 71. We have these members up here telling us that this is a good bill. It's a good bill from their point of view, because they have never supported education. They want centralization of power; they want to be able to dictate what happens in this province. They are afraid of the democratic process and local decision-making, and that's what this bill is all about. They want to centralize all of that authority. They want to dictate, and no matter what kind of fancy footwork we see out of some of those back-benchers who are trying to defend this, that's what this bill is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak to the taxpayers who have to pay the freight.

MS. BROWN: So you penalize the children, do you?

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to get to that. I'm going to show how the children are going to be penalized by this. This bill is part and parcel of the whole package of 26 bills that was introduced on July 7, two of which are opposed strenuously by this motion by the board of school trustees in School District 71. They are not the only ones who are opposing this package and Bill 6 and what it stands for.

[12:00]

Bill 6 is going to penalize the children in our schools. It's a cutback in services, and it's going to be very detrimental in terms of the young people of our province. As a result, we have the World Council of Churches, that is meeting in Vancouver, issuing a statement. I think that this statement indicates their feelings. This is not just school trustees or teachers we're talking about now. This is the World Council of Churches, the people who are concerned about social justice. This is what they had to say — and I'm quoting from the Globe and Mail: "Four of Canada's leading churchmen have condemned the controversial legislative program announced by B.C. Premier William Bennett and asked the provincial government to amend it." Because of the fact that this package of legislation, of which Bill 6 is a part, is so damaging to the social fabric of this province and eliminates social justice, the very basis on which our whole democratic system is predicated, the World Council of Churches felt strongly enough to issue that kind of condemnation of Bill 6 and the other 25 bills that we are so opposed to on this side of the House. This is what they're saying:

"Leaders of the United, Anglican, Lutheran and the Disciples of Christ churches deplored" — and that's the term they used — "the manner in which the budget and 26 bills were tabled on July 7 in a one-page letter mailed yesterday to the Premier. Dr. Russel

[ Page 659 ]

Legge, president of the Canadian Council of Churches, also signed the six-paragraph message.

"Although the Roman Catholic Church did not sign the letter, a spokesman said its leaders did not disagree with its sentiments. The spokesman said that the church's bureaucracy necessitated its B.C. bishops respond to provincial issues and they had not yet had time to study the matter.

" 'I think it is an excellent letter,' Catholic Bishop Remi de Roo of Victoria said.

"In their letter the churchmen said that they acknowledged the seriousness of the financial problems facing the government."

I'm really alarmed when I hear the people on the government side of the House laughing at the comments made by Bishop Remi de Roo. I heard it, all around me. They laughed.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Commie, he says. The minister....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Who said commie?

MS. SANFORD: You did, just now.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did not say that.

MS. SANFORD: Oh well, it's pinko. That's the other word that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) uses with respect to Bishop Remi de Roo. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. You are the ones who are laughing when I quote from Bishop Remi de Roo. You were the ones who were laughing all around me — I heard you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you just call Remi de Roo a pinkie? Did you call him a pinko?

MS. SANFORD: I have heard the Provincial Secretary use that term. Mr. Speaker, they should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm going to continue with this Globe and Mail article.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Two points: first of all, for the record, the Provincial Secretary is not present in the Legislature at this time; and secondly, my comments that the member refers to.... I stated "comment" and not "commie," and that should be in the record as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those are not points of order, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Well, we've all heard what the Provincial Secretary had to say. That was very clear that day. I may have misheard what the minister said at this moment, but I certainly heard what the Provincial Secretary had to say the other day. That's been well publicized as well, in various newspapers and so on.

The letter which the churchmen have sent to the Premier because they are worried about what's happening to social justice in this province goes on:

" 'However', it said, 'this does not alleviate our concern about the harshness of your proposed legislation.... We deplore the fact that (so far as we are aware) the proposals now being made public were not placed before the people of British Columbia as part of your government's election platform. This leaves your government open to the charge of dishonesty in not revealing its intentions, with the result that an air of cynicism has been created in the public mind.' "

This is signed by the church leaders attending the World Council of Churches meeting in Vancouver. Dishonesty: that's what they're saying about this government.

"The letter was released just as public criticism of the government's program was to reach a climax today with a demonstration on the steps of the Victoria Legislature. Labour groups, doctors, teachers, school trustees, restaurateurs and others have already vowed to oppose the program.

" 'I would say that if I was a member of the cabinet and this was sprung after the election by my leader I would be obliged to resign,' Rev. Clarke MacDonald, Moderator of the United Church of Canada, said."

What kind of comments are you going to make about him?

AN HON. MEMBER: Great man.

MS. SANFORD: Great man. I agree with him, too, Mr. Member, and if I were a back-bencher sitting in a government that brought in this kind of legislation I would resign too. I really would.

"In the May 5 vote Mr. Bennett's Social Credit Party won 35 seats to the New Democratic Party's 22." The letter also said the churchmen are concerned about the social consequences of the legislation, and urged "you and your colleagues to take seriously the objections to the proposals, both from within and beyond the province." There are a lot of objections to this particular piece of legislation. I read one coming from my own school district.

One of the things that we have learned through Ministry of Education officials is that a new formula has been developed to implement the particular proposals outlined in this piece of legislation, in which the government takes control of everything as far as school districts are concerned. It's a very highly technical and arbitrary formula that's been developed by ministry officials to try to carry out the wishes of this government. One of the problems, when you bring in legislation of this type that centralizes and tries to administer everything from the ivory tower here in Victoria, is that the dogmatic approach often means the children are going to suffer in a given school district. Let me just point out that this particular formula that's been developed by the Ministry of Education includes a component for program costs and materials, such as books and whatever else the students need in the school. Now the amount of money that's going to be made available for those materials that are required by the students is based on the average provincial teacher's salary. I don't know how you can possibly work out a formula that makes any sense in which the number of materials and books and whatever else is required by those students in order to fulfil their educational needs is based on some kind of a formula that ties it into the average provincial teacher's salary; but that's what they have done.

[ Page 660 ]

Under the new compensation stabilization program guidelines we are told that there can be an increase of as much as 5 percent, or there could be a decrease in salaries of minus 5 percent. Under the CSP you're able to do that. If you have a decrease, a decision by government that it should be minus 5 rather than plus anything, that means the average teacher's salary in this province is going to drop by 5 percent. That's quite possible under the CSP guidelines. If that's the case, that means, based on this arbitrary formula, that the students' needs in terms of materials, books and whatever else they require at school are also going to be cut by 5 percent, because it is applied to that formula. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, based on the arbitrary — stupid I might say — approach taken by government, we're quite clearly going to penalize those students because it's tied into the average teacher's salary. It becomes absolutely ludicrous. It's got nothing to do with children's needs in school or with providing an educational system. It has to do with fulfilling a dogma and a philosophy espoused by that government, which has never made education a priority. They never will.

We know that their interests lie in providing maximum profits for their friends in various industries, not the children in the schools. That's not where their priority is. This kind of dumb formula ensures that the needs of the children in the schools are not even going to be considered, because they're tied to some arbitrary formula. It's ridiculous.

The school trustees are concerned about restraint. School trustees generally are people who are inclined to be conservative and....

MR. MICHAEL: Good people.

MS. SANFORD: You're right. On the whole they're good people. They are certainly not hotheads who go flying off the handle without justification. They are also very concerned about the education of the students in this province.

A year ago they issued a statement, and I kept this statement because I was quite impressed by the sentiments that they were expressing at that time. They talk about restraint in education. Everybody believes in restraint. It's just too bad that this government is using the word "restraint" in order to fulfil its philosophic approach to the problems of the province: eliminating human rights and proper education, eliminating the rentalsman's service, and that kind of thing. But it's all in the name of restraint — firing people all over the place. Everybody supports restraint. As a matter of fact, that's why three years ago we made motion after motion in this Legislature, asking that this government take note of the way in which they were spending taxpayers' money. We said: "There is need for restraint." We are the ones who moved those motions three years ago, one after the other, saying: "You've got to cut back in office furniture. You've got to cut back in ministerial travel. We've got to cut back in advertising. We've got to cut back in all these things." That government that's now using the word "restraint" did not accept one single motion that we advanced in terms of restraint.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, could I have your attention, please. It's a little noisy in here, I'll ask the members not to heckle. Perhaps the member can return to Bill 6.

MS. SANFORD: This is being done in the name of restraint. Let me tell you that we on this side of the House were the leaders in terms of restraint. We are the ones who said that you people are squandering the taxpayers' money. You are the ones who are wasting taxpayers' money all over the place. You are the ones who are not involved in any kind of economic planning. You are the ones who have no interest in ensuring that the return for the resources of this province benefit the people of the province. We are the ones who have been saying that all these years. Look what's happened during those years. Them talking about restraint — they make me laugh.

[12:15]

Mr. Speaker, did you notice the issue put out by the credit unions of the province? They had a chart in there, and I wish I had brought it with me, although I'm not allowed to display charts in the House; I could have looked at it and referred to it. It shows very clearly that the increase in the debt of this province has been phenomenal since 1975 — and they're the ones talking about restraint. They're a joke. All they're doing is using that word "restraint" to carry out a philosophy that I cannot accept, one which does away with services to people, treats people in an inhuman way, and generally eliminates all the good things that have been developed in this province in order to serve the needs of the people of the province over the years. It's done in the name of restraint.

I'll get back to this article produced by the B.C. School Trustees' Association a year ago. I'd like those members to be quiet for a few moments and listen. I'm talking about the school trustees — as they say, "those good people" who work so hard on behalf of education.

MR. REID: We read it and memorized it.

MS. SANFORD: It's over a year old; you weren't even around at that time.

"(1) The Problem. Nobody questions that British Columbia is in hard economic times and that restraint is necessary."

We said that, but they wouldn't accept it three years ago.

"Throughout the private sector many people are now unemployed and businesses are threatened with bankruptcy. In short, we have a society that is not producing the goods and services that people need, and we have many people who are willing but not permitted to produce those goods and services."

This is what they're saying; they're worried about restraint. As I said, everybody is. We are the leaders on this side of the House, worried about restraint.

The article goes on:

"Knee-jerk reactions. As competition for the dwindling goods and services intensifies, people on the edge of bankruptcy and beleaguered by stress look to cut everybody else. The public sector is singled out for special attention, and the proposition is accepted that public sector employees should be laid off to the same extent as private sector employees. In short, the sum total of goods and services is reduced, and the spiral begins again. Recession becomes depression."

This is from an article published by the school trustees, warning about the kinds of actions that lead to depression. Recession becomes depression because of the cycle that develops.

[ Page 661 ]

They propose a solution — don't forget that this is a year old, Mr. Speaker — to produce more of the goods and services that people want and help those most hurt by the recession to re-enter the economy. "The government has gone in the opposite direction. To allow time for this to happen a mechanism to distribute the economic grief fairly, without cutting the heart out of the economy and out of essential services must be found. Laying off people who are doing jobs that need to be done may not be the solution; it may be the problem." This is the school trustees saying this a year ago, and you people have gone in exactly the opposite direction. You are creating the problem, the school trustees are saying.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Certainly if people are doing jobs that are not essential, restraint or no restraint, action is necessary. I agree with that. You are the people who have that authority at any time and you can ensure that without this kind of centralization and this kind of arrogant approach to legislation.

Also, all of us must expect less from the economy. The BCSTA then refers to education specifically in the framework of restraint. They say:

"Education is a perfect example of the truth of this point of view. In these difficult times, any educational service that is not essential must be identified and removed. It must take a full, fair and equal share of the economic grief, but let us not take a hatchet to services that our children may need in the mistaken belief that this will save a significant amount of money and help the economy.

"Consider the balance sheet detailing the layoff of one teacher." What they are doing here is giving some figures, assuming a junior teacher at the minimum of category four. Let's see what the school trustees worked out in terms of restraint, economy and providing services to people. What they're saying is that if you lay off one teacher, you save the salary of $21,467 plus $1,517 in benefits, which makes a total savings of $22,984.

Then they talk about the costs of laying off that teacher, and this is the other side of the ledger.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It's produced by the B.C. School Trustees' Association.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: You just finished saying, Mr. Member, that they're good people, but now they're not good people. Is that what you're saying? Are you suddenly saying...?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it's put out by the B.C. School Trustees' Association, 1155 W. 8th Avenue, Vancouver. The B.C. school trustees are the people you think are fine people — the people who are clear-thinking individuals concerned about the educational system.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It was put out by the school trustees. I'm sorry he doesn't want to believe this. The other thing he doesn't believe is what this government has done. If you heard his speech a while ago trying to justify what this government has done....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, that's right.

So, let's have a took at the costs. We've now saved $22,984 by laying off one teacher. What is the cost? There is a loss of income tax of $1,683; there is UIC payments paid out of $10,080; and there is cost of non-contributory health care of $918. The total direct cost then for laying off this teacher is $12,681, so we have a net savings of $10,303 if you lay off one teacher. Then they go on to say that this $10,303 saving will not be spent by the teacher. Sales tax is lost and businesses will not receive the $10,303 and will be less able to pay their taxes and suppliers. More taxes are lost. The Employers' Council.... I don't know what these people think about the Employers' Council; we know what they think about church people.

"The Employers' Council of B.C. estimates that for every $1,000 no longer available as disposable income, the local economy suffers a $2,000 effect in lost business." The Employers' Council is saying this. My goodness. Thus, the net savings of $10,303 for this teacher produces a net public cost of $20,600, an amount which is almost equivalent to the cost of fully employing the teacher and providing that service in the schools, The teacher may find another job, but this assumes an economic recovery, which is a solution of the first problem. Amazing.

I should tell you again that this is put out by the School Trustees' Association. This is what they're saying about the kinds of actions that this government is taking. They're saying that recession becomes depression with the actions of that government, and they were saying this a year ago. The government is still carrying on. They're getting worse. An incredible bunch of people.

Teachers now bargain with school boards in order to determine salaries. We all know that most of these do not result in any kind of an agreement; we usually get involved in mediation and arbitration procedures. We have determined that it costs about $3 million each year to go through that entire arbitration process — the cost to teachers, to school boards and so on. With the provisions now in place, and the office of Ted Peck, who has the authority to change any decision made by an arbitrator, and he's changed a number of them already.... I would like to submit, for the consideration of the minister, that while this kind of centralized legislation is in place, and while we have the absolute authority by cabinet through this legislation, as well as the CSP and Mr. Peck, that we eliminate that arbitration process; that we simply allow the teachers and the school boards to meet, to negotiate, and if they don't arrive at any kind of a settlement, that we just let the cabinet give it to them. Let them say: "This is what we've decided the settlement is going to be."

We would save a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. The teachers feel they are wasting their time at this point going through the procedures laid out in the public schools act. The CSP is there, the cabinet is there pulling the purse-strings and controlling them entirely, so what's the point? Would it not make sense to eliminate that procedure at this time? It's not benefiting anyone that I can see, because the government is the total,

[ Page 662 ]

lone arbitrator through its CSP program. When the minister winds up debate on this particular bill, I wonder if he would outline for us his feelings on that particular proposal. Three million dollars we are talking about.

MR. MICHAEL: It's not a bad idea.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, yes, I'm sure you people would go for it. Since those people have already shown us what they think about dictatorships, centralizing and a Big Brother approach to everything, why not do away with the facade as well? Save that money.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not good politics. Keep the facade.

MS. SANFORD: Well, they'll probably keep the facade.

The school trustees are saying a number of other things, and one of them is that property owners are accepting a far greater load of the education budget than they should. They've said that time and time again. We have said that. We had the McMath report years ago which represented that. But they are also saying that the amount of money that property owners are paying is greater in proportion than is the increase in the education budget. In other words, what they are complaining about, particularly now that commercial and industrial taxation is collected by government, is that government is taxing on the pretence that it's for education, when in fact they are increasing taxes on commercial and industrial property to make up for a shortfall somewhere else because of their inadequate planning. That's what's happening, and they're saying this.

[12:30]

There is a whole lot of information here that shows very clearly how this government places the burden back on the homeowner and refuses to accept responsibility for education, refuses to ensure that a decent system of education remains in place in this province. It's part of their philosophy to centralize, control, dictate, and the children don't matter much in the whole political game that they're playing over there. It's part and parcel of a philosophy that we saw embodied in the July 7 budget and the avalanche of bills that came down with it. We can be assured that the school boards are not going to get any more autonomy, in spite of the pleadings of the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. Michael). Or the bleatings. It certainly sounded like bleatings because it was a very weak argument he was advancing, trying to support a bill, when the whole time he was saying that he was opposed to it. But this is what we can expect from this government. It's part and parcel of a package that we cannot accept. The teachers don't accept it, the school trustees don't accept it, and the citizens of this province don't accept it.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 26

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the House to welcome a prominent British Columbia pedagogue, now retired, Mr. John William Gilmore, a former associate of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and a brother of the former Minister of Education, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I ask the House to welcome Mr. Gilmour.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: I would ask the House to join with me to make welcome a pair of friends of mine from London, England. They are visiting in Vancouver and came across the water today to see this House in action. They certainly are going to see that. Please welcome Mr. Ronald Bulgin and Mr. Robert Bulgin.

MR. SPEAKER: On Bill 6, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: It's nice to see that the old country is still making them in pairs. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this legislation, and I think that most rural members and, I would hope, the urban city members would understand that when we talk about the downsizing of government, yes, we have people out in the province who do want that. They want government to be more immediate to them and more responsive to their needs and desires. That does not mean they want centralized decision-making; that means they want a decentralized system. This bill goes exactly the opposite way to what most constituents of mine are asking that we do as legislators.

When they talk about downsizing government I'm afraid too many people out there think that we're going to get rid of big government and have the government of the community, which is absolutely not the truth.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 663 ]

This government thinks that downsizing government is putting a few people in charge of everything, therefore having a little bit less government. But a little less government can mean a dictatorship. Mussolini did not have a big government. He had a very small government; it was him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How big was it?

MR. LEA: Just one. When people start talking about a downsized government, they're not talking about decreasing the decision-making to one person or to a few people, they're actually talking about expanding the decision-making process to a great many more people. I never thought I'd see the day that I'd be up in this House defending Bill Vander Zalm and his county system, but this bill sure makes you hark back to the days when Bill Vander Zalm was putting forward a county system of government and wish that possibly he were back in this House over there as the Minister of Education today. As bad as it may have seemed at the time, it looks pretty good today.

What are people saying to us out there? They're not talking about some centralized government or bureaucracy making decisions for them. What they're asking for is that those decisions be returned to the local level. That's what they call downsizing of government, not centralizing. One of the ministries that I had a great deal to do with for a few years was the Ministry of Highways.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You were just a pup in those days. You don't even remember that far back, do you? You were just a young guy.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Really. Now we're going to get into an intelligent discourse here. We finally got the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) talking at least.

There are many ways we can decentralize government. If you want to call it downsizing, fine. For instance, the Ministry of Highways. I don't see the need — as has been going on in the decision-making process at the time that we were in government, was going on before and is still going on — why Victoria should decide which gravel road should get the gravel outside of Merritt in any going year. Why shouldn't that decision be made locally? Because it is the local people who are going to have to drive on that gravel road. Arterial highways are a different matter, but the local roads serving the communities.... Surely the decisions surrounding those roads could be made at the local level through a county system. No problem.

[12:45]

What's happened with the centralization of government is that this chamber is no longer really a Legislature where we pass laws that are going to be administered by someone else. We are passing laws that we administer centrally from Victoria through a large bureaucracy. How can you expect it to work? You pass a general rule, a general law, and say to the civil service: "We want you to go out into the population, out into the province, and apply this general rule to specific instances." We're finding out that it just doesn't work that way; a general rule will apply some times in some places and not in others. If you're really going to satisfy local communities, then the rules have to be made to satisfy the desires of local communities and the direction they want to go. I would much rather see a downsizing of government, see us passing legislation that's going to be administered by people at the local level. We do that in other instances. A Criminal Code passed in Ottawa is not administered by Ottawa, but by the provinces. There's nothing wrong with passing legislation saying.... Let's take health. There have to be health standards provincially, but after we've put those standards into legislation, why not let local people administer the legislation passed in this House? That would be downsizing government.

The county system and regional districts — one and the same thing, except for semantics — are the way we should be going: not taking power away from regions, but giving them more power, taking power away from Victoria and from ourselves in an administrative sense. That's what we should be doing. We have an example of how we did that when we were government, with our resource boards and our health and human resource boards. We passed legislation in this House, then had locally elected boards administer that legislation, so they could more readily and ably deal with local problems, local desires, and the local direction that people at the community level want to go. If the government was talking about downsizing in that context, they'd have no argument from this side of the House. In fact, when they talk about downsizing, what they mean is that we're going to get rid of some civil servants and centralize the decision-making in Victoria even more than it has been in the past. Witness Bill 6.

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

Motion approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a report of the Special Committee appointed by order of the House on June 23, 1983.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, first, that requires leave, but second, because of some knowledge of activities within the committee, I think it would be worthwhile for the House to know what is encompassed within the report. I'm trying to get some information, because if it is the way it was discussed in committee, I want to raise a point of order about the proceedings. Maybe the only way to do that is to have the Clerk read the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, leave would be required, and I gather that leave is not granted to proceed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave is not required at this point. His motion was that the report be taken as read and received. I take it that the leave comes in at a later stage unless I'm incorrect.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, you are.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, to have the report taken as read requires leave. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 664 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Now the next step.

MR. REE: I move that the rules of the House be suspended and that the report be adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena on a point of order?

MR. HOWARD: No, nothing, Mr. Speaker. I have the report in front of me and I was just trying to find something in there. It's perfectly in order.

MR. COCKE: I would like to note, so that it's on the record of the House, that there was a great argument within the committee of selection and that argument....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the problem the Chair has is that business that takes place in committee is the business of the committee, and....

MR. COCKE: Precisely. I acknowledge that totally. I just want the House to know that there is a very bad selection with respect to numbers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I appreciate that.

Motion approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shouldn't we move it be adopted?

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's done that.

MS. BROWN: No, he hasn't.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He moved that the rules be suspended and the report adopted, and that's just been voted upon. And you voted yes. I'm delighted to hear that you did that. It's probably the first time you've had an affirmative vote in this session.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:52 p.m.