[ Page 879 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 879

Capture of killer whales. Mrs. Dailly –– 879

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 879

Assault on migrant workers. Ms. Brown –– 880

Intentional log surpluses –– 880

Treasury Board directive 4-83. Mr. Howard –– 880

Termination of government employees –– 880

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Second reading

Mr. Nicolson –– 881

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Second reading

Mr. Hanson –– 885

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

Mr. Gabelmann –– 890

Mr. Parks –– 894

Mr. Mitchell –– 898

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome some good friends and a visitor to our province. In the gallery today is Mrs. Vlasta Lenko of Agassiz, British Columbia, accompanied by Mrs. Georgina Hraska of Prague, Czechoslovakia, who will be visiting our province for one month. Accompanying his mother and aunt is George Lenko, who is a very good friend and a dedicated public servant of our province.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome two very close friends of mine, Ron and Joyce Hatch. Mr. Hatch has served as an elected official on municipal councils of the city of Prince George as well as the city of Kitimat.

MR. CAMPBELL: I'd like the House to welcome Nicole Arnt, a constituent of mine from Okanagan North.

Oral Questions

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary a question. The day before yesterday the Provincial Secretary professed complete ignorance regarding which agency handles the entire government advertising account. I note that the minister promised to bring the answer back as quickly as possible. I ask the minister again if he will inform the House whether McKim Advertising has been reappointed as agency of record for the provincial government.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is a little repetitious. I took that question as notice the last time he asked it, and I indicated to him at that time that I would bring the answer back as quickly as possible. That is a commitment I have made to that member, and that is a commitment that I will honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: It is absolutely incredible that the minister responsible for government services in our province — and that minister also has under him Doug Heal, with a staff of 200 persons and a budget in excess of $18 million — is not aware of the advertising agency of record for our province. Mr. Speaker, will the minister ask Doug Heal the question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Essentially the question is the same one as asked a few moments ago, and I would start becoming repetitious like that member if I was to respond.

MR. COCKE: I ask the Minister of Tourism whether, after 29 days, he, the minister, knows whether or not the police are involved in an investigation or will be involved in an investigation, since I can't ask the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the attorney general (Hon. Mr. Smith), has answered that question in this House on many, many occasions, and I am sure that if he were here he would give the same answer to that member.

CAPTURE OF KILLER WHALES

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Environment. Sea World of San Diego has an application before the National Marine Fisheries Commission of the U.S. government to capture 100 killer whales. Concern has been expressed that some of the whales to be captured normally inhabit Canadian waters. My question is: has the minister contacted officials of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and asked his own staff to investigate whether this is in fact the case?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

[2:15]

MRS. DAILLY: Would the minister please investigate, and when he does, would he also investigate if it is indeed the case that the U.S. whale-capture program will affect B.C. orcas. If that is discovered, will the minister then assure the House that B.C. representations will be made to the Seattle hearings of the marine fisheries service?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I missed the first part of the question. I wonder if the member would repeat it.

MRS. DAILLY: The first part of my question is: would the minister assure this House that he will investigate this matter, and report back?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can assure the member that the ministry will investigate whatever is necessary, when the information is available.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Some 29 days ago I asked the Attorney-General whether he would bring in the police to investigate serious financial irregularities in the Ministry of Tourism. Has the Attorney-General now decided to bring in the police, or will he continue to delay?

HON. MR. SMITH: I welcome the question from the member.

Mr. Speaker, when the auditor-general's second report was released on July 18 I immediately had officials in my ministry examine that report and also study the documentation upon which that report was based. As a result of their examination they have advised me that they require the assistance of the commercial crime branch of the RCMP to obtain access to further documentary evidence. I am able to advise the House today that the commercial crime department of the RCMP will be continuing the inquiry into the matters raised in the auditor-general's report, and that the investigation is formally in their hands.

[ Page 880 ]

ASSAULT ON MIGRANT WORKERS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Attorney-General, and it has to do with the fact that on Tuesday last, three migrant farmworkers and a child were brutally assaulted in an unprovoked attack near Keremeos. This incident is the most recent in a long series, reflecting a serious climate of tension between community and farmworkers from Quebec. My question to the Attorney-General is: has he instructed his senior staff to review the seriously charged situation in Keremeos?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will have to take the question as notice, not having personal knowledge of the facts, and I thank the member for the question.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is taking the question on notice, would he at the same time look into an editorial in the Similkameen Spotlight of March 30, 1983, which states that transient workers "look like discards from another planet and should keep moving, because we don't need you." I wonder if the Attorney-General would undertake to review this editorial on two grounds: one, to see whether it violates section 1 of the Civil Rights Protection Act; and two, to see whether it violates the mobility rights of workers as protected under the Charter of Rights.

HON. MR. SMITH: I will not undertake the responsibility to police the working press of this province and their editorials to obtain for the House legal opinions, or to violate their freedom of speech.

INTENTIONAL LOG SURPLUSES

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). The report to the minister of the Special Log Export Policy Committee states that a few large coastal companies intentionally contrived a surplus of logs in excess of their own needs last year. These companies embarked on an aggressive program to log specifically for the export market, contrary to the intent of the Forest Act. Will the minister advise the House which companies were involved in contriving those log surpluses?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: The government has to protect somebody, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I take offence at that innuendo in the remark made by the member, and I'd ask him to withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: I'll withdraw and offer a supplementary.

What action has the minister taken to prevent companies logging specifically for the export market?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The remark was withdrawn.

MR. SKELLY: Did you miss that?

The supplementary was: what measures has the minister taken to prevent companies logging specifically for the export market?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That report which was commissioned by me some months back is being reviewed, and appropriate changes in the procedures for log export will be instituted in the not too distant future. The reason I could not answer the member's question is that the hearings and discussions which took place under the review by that committee were confidential, and held to be so, between those people who were involved and the commission. As a result, individual company names were not identified. However, the problem was identified and will be dealt with.

TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVE 4-83

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could direct a question to my good friend, the Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I'll withdraw if you want.

I would ask the minister whether there has been any change made to policy directive 4-83, a Treasury Board directive of August 3, 1982, specifically with reference to a provision in that directive that says that attendance at out-of-province meetings and conferences will be restricted to one representative from British Columbia. Is that still in force or have there been any changes to it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member will know that there are a number of Treasury Board directives, but fewer than was the case some time ago. Since the member has referred to a specific Treasury Board order, which I do not have readily available, I will take the question as notice and answer as soon as possible.

TERMINATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. A survey by the unemployed workers' union in Victoria, with the participation of the University of Victoria, found that the unemployment rate in greater Victoria is 20 percent, some 60 percent higher than Statistics Canada reported. Unemployment in Victoria has increased significantly in recent months, and the rate of increase in the province is far higher than the national average. In view of this alarming situation, has the minister decided to discontinue mass layoffs of provincial government employees?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are no mass layoffs of provincial employees taking place. Some public servants in British Columbia have been given notices of intention of termination. To suggest that there have been massive layoffs is erroneous and false.

MR. BLENCOE: I disagree with him. Indeed there are mass layoffs in the province of British Columbia; there's no question about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, this is question period; it is not a time for argumentation or debate. There are many opportunities before us for that very purpose.

[ Page 881 ]

If we are going to abuse the purpose of question period, then we will waste time in points of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to get to my point.

If the minister won't reconsider the mass layoffs, will he at least delay them to such time as new opportunities are available in the private sector in greater Victoria?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member is suggesting that there are no job opportunities in the city of Victoria, that people shouldn't be laid off or given notice of intention of termination in the public service. He's suggesting that people in Victoria are a special group, that they shouldn't be obliged to go and seek work elsewhere. I don't know what kind of a glass castle he lives in, but if he's suggesting that when economic conditions change in the province, where job opportunities exist in the province, that matter will be taken into consideration.... But I'm not prepared to make any recommendations to government that notices of termination be delayed until such time as the economy of the city of Victoria improves. I know full well that that city of Victoria, the municipal council and many other groups in this community have kicked industry out of this community; they haven't been welcome. He's suggesting that they care about industry in this community. That's sheer rubbish and nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: That is also argumentative, hon. members. This is perhaps an ideal opportunity to point out to members how argumentative questions in question period provoke argumentative answers, and in fact really affect the value of question period. I would commend, again, to all hon. members to review the rules that bind us in question period.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 31.

REGULATIONS ACT

(continued)

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 31 is, in the words of the minister, an epoch-making piece of legislation which will hold the attention of members of this House and keep them in their seats. He also goes on to say that it is a matter of some important legislation reform contained in this bill which they are proposing to standardize various matters and manners in which regulations are conducted.

The Regulations Act really continues a trend which has been set by government: that is, a trend to do by regulation what should be done in the Legislature. I recall when the government brought in the ministries regulation act, by which, instead of creating new ministries in the Legislature, the government was empowered to simply create new ministries of government by regulation. The size of the cabinet grew from what used to be an average of 15, 17 or 18 members, two or three of whom would have been ministers without portfolio, to the size that we see today. I haven't bothered to count the cabinet benches recently, but I've seen them get up to 22 cabinet positions. Little positions were dreamed up overnight by regulation — by this kind of action which we're seeing in Bill 31, the Regulations Act.

[2:30]

We saw the division of the Ministry of Education into two separate ministries by regulation. We saw the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) given sort of a senatorship. I know that we don't officially have senators here in British Columbia, but the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was made as a sort of cabinet member emeritus here in the Legislature of British Columbia. The splitting of this portfolio, which had been carried on quite competently even by that member prior to his semi-retirement.... It was one example of how something could be done behind cabinet doors, creating a whole new bureaucracy: a whole bunch more deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers and executive assistants. Even in this year's budget, when this government is firing all kinds of people.... I had the opportunity today to run into another casualty of this government — you might say three casualties, because it was a family of three people — a person whom I knew in my university days. That's one more professional engineer without employment in this province, because of the cavalier attitude with which the government is finally trying to catch up with some of its mistakes of the past five years.

Mr. Speaker, this government is seeking now to do more things through regulation, not just by thinking things out and writing carefully drafted legislation but by giving themselves, through this bill, the power to clean up messes which are created and mistakes which they make through their sloppy, bull-headed actions. They go rushing in without any thought and create all kinds of problems. Then they say, by this piece of legislation: "We'll fix this up retroactively by legislation." The poor person who gets caught up in being addressed retroactively by this legislation.... It's bad enough to have legislation that is retroactive, but sometimes it's necessary. But now we are empowering the cabinet to make more and more regulations.

Another thing that this government is doing by this bill is removing the action of proclamation. Proclamation is a royal assent. When we come into this House we swear fealty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors. But this government, by this legislation, by changing proclamations to government cabinet regulations, is removing us yet one more step from the Crown. I believe that this is an incremental step; it's not a dramatic step. But it is an insidious invasion of our tradition of a constitutional monarchy, and it is a step down the road toward republicanism. This piece of legislation is a concession to Rene Levesque, who would see all of Canada turn its back on constitutional monarchy and adopt a different code of law — the Napoleonic code, Mr. Speaker — and who would also see this country become more and more a republic in its constitutional framework.

Proclamations are something that have been with us for a long time. When a piece of legislation is passed by this House, it must be given royal assent — His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor or the Administrator enters this House and gives assent to a bill, because of the traditions of proclamation. Mr. Speaker, it's no secret that proclamation

[ Page 882 ]

powers have been somewhat curbed; indeed, the very evolution of legislatures and parliaments was the growth of restrictions on the prerogatives of the Crown. But it reaches a point, and a fine balance, where further erosion of the Crown presents a very serious imbalance. Certainly the rights of parliament have not been threatened or abused by the Crown for many, many years.

For instance, in Todd's 1887 On Parliamentary Government in England, second edition — that's the recent edition, Mr. Speaker — it says:

"From the epoch of the revolution of 1688, whenever the Crown has ventured upon occasions of public emergency to use royal proclamations or orders-in-Council which appeared to sanction any departure from the laws of the land, the necessity for such providing on the part of the government has been narrowly investigated by Parliament. When it has been shown to have been illegal, although justifiable, acts of indemnity have been passed to exonerate all persons who have advised or carried into execution the same."

In other words, there might come the point in this Legislature when the Lieutenant-Governor might realize that things have gone too far. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we could very well be at that point today with some of the legislation that is before us, with an Attorney-General who just a few minutes ago gave carte blanche to "hate" literature by saying that people have a right to publish anything they want; it doesn't matter if it's racist. People saying that certain types of people should just keep moving through town: I never thought I'd see that in British Columbia. I never thought I'd see that in a paper in British Columbia, but having seen it in the paper.... Well, I shouldn't say that. Certainly our memories are short if we forget what the papers used to write about Orientals in this country back in the 1920s and 1930s. I didn't think I'd see that in the 1980s, but having seen it, I certainly didn't think an Attorney-General of this province would give carte blanche.

So there is a point where things may get out of control. We need some system of checks and balances, one which is provided, I'll concede, in most republican forms of government. So the check could come from the Crown.

There was an incident in Spain not too long ago — I might even have to change glasses to read it, because this is very fine print — in which rightist civil guards seized parliament. Lieutenant-Colonel Antonio Tejero Molina is pictured in this extract, one hand raised and a pistol in the other, after leading an assault by civil guards on the Spanish parliament. Who saved the day in that situation? King Juan Carlos I. I doubt if you would know that, my friend. The thing you know is how to lose $2 billion in four short years. That's what you've proven yourself expert at. Then, of course, there's the red-faced minister, the "facha roja" in the background there — that short-tempered Celt.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The King of Spain saved the day in that situation, and did not recognize the junta which was attempted to be set up. He was instrumental in serving the interests of parliamentary democracy by the effect of proclamation.

What we are doing with this bill is removing proclamation. We are, by this bill, taking a step toward republicanism.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I listened to what the minister said. I listened to him and I heard him say that we're replacing a legislative test with another test. But this particular piece of legislation, which changes the key word from "legislative test" to "test," is another manifestation of republicanism in this particular bill. I don't say that in a left-right sense; I'm talking about in the structure of various types of government.

There are many aspects to this bill. Some of the things that this bill does are things which have always been done. It says that before a regulation is enacted, it shall be submitted for examination to a person designated by the minister. Well, Mr. Speaker, I should hope so. I should hope somebody would look at legislation, and look at regulations. It also says that a regulation has no effect unless it has been deposited, and that the registrar won't accept the regulation for deposit unless he is satisfied it has been examined.

All of this is a mask; a mask....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand the second reading is on the principle of the bill. This member is addressing very specific parts of the bill, which I think is better done in committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken: during second reading the principle of a bill is discussed, and the committee stage is more appropriate for specific section-by-section debate.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on the point of order.

MS. BROWN: This is a bill that deals with regulations; the whole principle of the bill is regulations in other bills. You cannot discuss the principle of the bill. If the minister had taken the time to read the legislation he would know it is not possible to talk about the principle of the bill without discussing what it does, which is to deal with section by section in other bills.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If what the member says is true, then perhaps we should pass second reading and go to committee on the bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that late blooming parliamentarian on the point of order.... The fact is, with any omnibus bill, or any bill where the government decides to put together a number of different principles, one has the right to debate each and every one of those principles. Had he even thought about it, he wouldn't have stood in his place in this House and wasted our time.

[2:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you; all the points of order are well taken. Knowing the member for Nelson-Creston, I am sure he can relate his remarks to the principle or principles of this bill during second reading.

MR. NICOLSON: I had actually considered asking Mr. Speaker to examine the bill to see if it might not be best divided into parts. I have several good citations I could bring to Mr. Speaker's attention on several of these bills, if one would seek to keep debating the principle. Certainly, when there are several principles contained in a single bill....

Far be it from me to nitpick, but if one were to get technical

[ Page 883 ]

about these things I am sure Mr. Speaker would agree, after some consultation with his learned advisers, that some of these bills should be divided into parts. There is some merit in what the honourable Minister of Forests has to say. One thing about the Minister of Forests is that he is very often in his seat in this House listening to the debate. While I might take some offence at other members getting up and taking issue with whether or not I am on the principle of a bill, I will allow that that minister, by virtue of his attendance in this House, does have some credence. So I would not be too harsh with him for getting up on what may have been a spurious point of order, because I think he has paid his dues. If he is going to sit here and listen, then certainly he is entitled to have his say.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I have to sit here, but nothing says I have to listen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now to the bill, please.

MR. NICOLSON: I just didn't want any hard feelings between myself and the Minister of Forests. On the other hand, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) is not that expert in this House. Down in the coffee shop people say: "One thing you have got to hand to the Minister of Forests: he knows his rules a little bit; but the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is still a bit damp behind the ears."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now we are clearly straying from the principle of the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; the Minister of Forests got me straying from the bill.

The other major principle in this bill apart from removal of the method of promulgation by proclamation, is the whole business that.... To put it in very simple terms, regulations now can be made retroactive when the minister considers it is in the public interest to do so. This is another piece of legislative semantics which is going to become very popular; it's in fashion in legislative drafting. It's really a tip-off. When you see this caveat, "when it is in the public interest to do so, in the opinion of the minister," look out. It may be that during the election campaign the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) thought it was in the public interest to tell the people that there was not going to be any increase in hospital user fees; so that's what he told them, even though a couple of months after the election we see increases in hospital user fees. That something is considered to be in the public interest in the opinion of the minister does not necessarily mean that it is in the public interest. Those words should be stricken from this bill. This bill is saying that we can now make regulations that will have full force and effect retroactive to some date. It could go back to sometime before my birthdate. This is bad legislation.

The principle of this bill is that if you have a government that is so inept, so humbling and so confused that they can't do anything right, they can always clean up their act by passing retroactive legislation and saying it never happened. It very much reminds me of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four. It even reminds me of some things that are going on in the world today, where people disappear or cease to exist. In certain countries, if you ask about somebody.... Sometimes it happens in corporations. You say, "Where's Bob?" and you get a blank look; poor Bob has gone down the road; he's no longer in the corporation.

This piece of legislation will enable a government to be careless. This power of retroactivity is going to encourage a government to be sloppy. There is no incentive for good government in this legislation. In this government there is only legislation for mediocrity and incompetence. It brings to a new low the benchmarks of achievement. It brings to a new low our expectations of our elected members, who, we say, have been elevated to the cabinet. This legislation is apologetic. This legislation is an admission of incompetence and failure and of a lack of will.

There is an inspiring poem called "Ulysses", by Tennyson. I notice that the U.S. Olympic team has taken a line from that poem as a theme for the next Olympics: "To seek, to strive, to find, and not to yield." But there is no striving by this government. There is no setting of uncompromised goals. Our goals in this Legislature should be uncompromised. We shouldn't be allowing this kind of legislation to come in. There hasn't been a crisis in this province that we could not solve by calling together the Legislative Assembly. There hasn't been a single crisis that we have failed in, even when we wiped out a company because of poor preparation by the minister who brought in the statute reorganization act. Even then, we saved the day; we called together the Legislature. Planes had to be dispatched all over the province; the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) had to be plucked from Skaha Lake, almost in the middle of his water skiing.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: He was walking on the lake. I've heard the two stories; I don't know which one to believe. But we managed that. I can remember about three different occasions upon which we had to be brought into this Legislature.

What I'm saying is that if a mistake is made, sometimes government does have to be a little bit conciliatory and suffer a little bit of shame coming into the House, calling a session together. But this should never be done by regulation. If you have to take a retroactive measure to clean up a goof.... Certainly the wiping out of an insurance company did not defeat the government. It might have embarrassed it a little bit. That was good; it put them on their mettle. This government will not be put on their mettle, because now they will be able to clean up goofs like that without any kind of reprimand, censure or ridicule from the press, or without having to suffer any kind of price, paying in any way for that. If we do not pass this piece of legislation, the government will be kept on its mettle, and we will get better government.

As a member of the opposition, it could well be my purpose to hope that the government would fail. I happen to believe that the worse the government governs, the better my personal chances for success. But I put the people of British Columbia ahead of personal ambition. That is not to deny that I am ambitious. But I put the people of British Columbia ahead of personal ambition. This kind of legislation may lead to the demise of this government, because the government shows every day that it's grown more and more arrogant in victory.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're arrogant in defeat.

[ Page 884 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Am I arrogant in defeat? You read my throne speech, Mr. Minister, and see if that was arrogance.

This piece of legislation, very contrary to what the minister says.... Yes, it is landmark legislation, but this legislation is something we could well do without. The minister said that the recommendations that led to the introduction of this bill came from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, but we have consulted some authorities who say that this goes beyond the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. So I don't accept that this is something that is being done in many legislatures. As with every other piece of legislation that has been brought forward this session, this government is trying to go further than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

One well wonders how we could have survived for over 100 years in this province with the so-called antiquated methods that we have. All I know is that before this government started supposedly streamlining and changing legislative practices and rationalizing and using all the other euphemisms, we had a couple of billion dollars in the bank, and now we're going to be about $1.5 billion in debt this year. That's what I know about the way in which all of these types of legislation have led us.

[3:00]

I watched the government reorganization act, which enabled the government to set up new ministries simply by regulation. I didn't believe that that was good legislation, and I think the facts bear us out on that. We have runaway expenditures in ministerial offices, and now under this piece of legislation we're going to have further control vested in the hands of the cabinet. It is the giving up of some of the power of this Legislature. That's what legislation by and large is about: we have powers. Our power is unlimited, save for the willingness of the people to obey the laws of this land. No less an authority said that — I'm paraphrasing — than Sir Erskine May, who said that in I believe the last edition which he personally wrote: the ninth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. This Legislature should give up further powers to the executive council very grudgingly. The Legislature comprises the executive council, the official opposition and the back bench. By giving up further powers, particularly blank-cheque powers to do things by regulation and particularly blank-cheque powers to do things retroactively by legislation, the bank-benchers are giving up almost any power that they have. The back bench has a vote and no voice. Now they're taking away even their vote. I've heard of many organizations where people are granted voice but no vote, but this is one organization where they're given vote and no voice, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the new members of this House should do some research into the kinds of statutes that have been passed. They should go back to what some of them consider the good old days — the 1960s, when W.A.C. Bennett was in power — and look at the type of legislation passed then, compared to the type of legislation passed from 1972 to 1975 and the legislation passed since 1975.

The reason that this piece of legislation, Bill 31, is so important is that since 1975 there has been an alarming trend toward setting the broadest terms under which government can create regulations under every statute that's brought into this House. It used to be that it was confined to making regulations in keeping with specific sections in the act, but it has been more and more the trend of modern legislative drafting to allow the government to make carte blanche regulations pursuant to the act. Now, with this bill, they can make regulations and they can make them retroactively.

This is a very odious and serious piece of legislation, and I know people who would disagree with the minister that this follows, to the letter, the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. I think there are a few things in this bill that are innovations of the present government. There are one or two things which might follow it, but the Uniform Law Conference of Canada may not be in the best interests in every respect, and certainly the fact is that it isn't being followed 100 percent, in the opinion of some of the authorities with whom I've consulted.

Then we have the other thing about this. Now we can pass regulations, and they must be gazetted, but, on the other hand — and I notice the green light is on, Mr. Speaker — where in the opinion of the registrar it's not all that important — and who is to say what's important? — or it's too lengthy, or the map is too cumbersome or something, it may or may not be gazetted in whole or in part.

This piece of legislation is, I think, a very bad departure. To understand it, people would really have had to have been around here for a little while. It's going to affect all kinds of acts. The Creston Valley Wildlife Act has been described to me by a person who helped draft it as one of the most fascist pieces of legislation ever brought into the House. It was brought in in 1968, I believe, and was passed without debate back then.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly tried, on many occasions, and don't get me on that or we might be here for some time. I might want to ask to be the designated speaker here, but I'm not going to get onto that.

Because there are one or two things in this particular bill, and I would hope to give some of the back-bench members time to review the trend toward regulation in legislation since 1976, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

MR. HOWARD: I want to raise with Your Honour a point of order related to this specific move — calling a particular bill — but also to a similar process and activity within the last day or so. It has specific reference right now.

[3:15]

To lay the groundwork for the point of order, I want to draw Your Honour's attention to some debates in this House on March 30, 1976, and a decision resulting there from. The conversation at that particular time — and I'm quoting the words of the then Premier, who is still the Premier — related to the relationship of the Whips. It is set out on page 396 of Hansard.

... the government Whip and all Whips have the obligation or the responsibility of arranging time limits or arranging goals for debate, arbitrary or not, so that this House can proceed in an orderly manner.

Then he makes reference to the then member for Dewdney, who was the government Whip, and an assurance that the member for Dewdney had given to the Premier at that time. Then he goes on

[ Page 885 ]

and talks about the Whip system having to work, needing to function.

The point I am making in this debate is that in this House the Whip system is not a system to be policed. It is a system of mutual trust. If the Whip system is to work, Mr. Speaker, then members of our party must have confidence in our Whip and we must back him up....

Of course, the same thing prevails here.

...we do have a reason to expect that the orderly presentation of legislation can be achieved with the Whip system and it is regrettable what has happened....

He goes on and on like that. More members entered into it; I don't intend to relate further any of them. But the upshot of that was that the government House Leader of the day felt that the process could be worked out in a more orderly fashion if the House would take a recess. Then Mr. Speaker said:

Order! Because of that, and the fact that I believe that something could be worked out, I hereby declare a 15-minute recess. I'll be back in the chair in 15 minutes.

The House then recessed and came back again as a result of that.

I'm asking Your Honour to attempt to follow that precedent that happened there, declare a recess so that the Whips can consult, and we can approach the progress and the dealing with business in this House in an orderly fashion instead of this hop-skip-and-jump approach that the minister is using now. I ask you to declare such a recess so that the Whips can confer and find out what is in the government's mind in terms of business that it wants to call.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's an absolutely spurious suggestion by the House Leader of the official opposition. The only thing the opposition has been doing since legislation has been introduced in this House is stall. They've not come up with any constructive alternatives, and I indeed wish that the Whips could reach some agreement on time limits and the order of debate. I'll tell you who's preventing that happening: the official opposition is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That's enough, thank you. The point of order is well taken. I will ask the hon. member to take his place. I will cite a ruling from yesterday by Mr. Speaker, who ruled that an agreement between House Leaders or the Whips relating to the order of business should not be brought up in the House, as the Chair could take no cognizance of any such agreement or arrangement. Therefore I cannot accept the point of order made by the hon. member for Skeena. We are on Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we had some hint of Bill 4; it was the only hint we had of this government's legislative package before the May 5 election. It was something that the Social Credit candidates in this area and in Vancouver tried to distance themselves from to a very great extent. The candidates we ran against said: "Vote for us and we'll try to keep the low-income tax credit, and we'll try to keep the renter's tax credit." They knew that to punish the people who could least afford it was the most ridiculous, cruel and idiotic program that any government could ever embark upon.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, taking the renter's tax credit away from the people at the lowest income of the tax scale? What does it mean? It means $150 to a tenant in my riding of Victoria, which I share with the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). Tenants comprise 65 percent of this constituency. As all members of this House know, most of those individuals — or a great number at any rate — are senior citizens on fixed incomes. If there's one thing that terrifies senior citizens, it's being taxed out of their own homes and out of their rental accommodations.

At one time most senior citizens had their own single-family homes. When their children grew up and moved away, and as that particular residence became harder to finance....

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is getting a bit noisy in the chamber. If you have to have discussions, would you please keep them quiet?

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm trying to outline to the government that their nefarious program is hurting in a very cruel way the people of my riding, particularly the senior citizens on fixed incomes, the high number of unemployed and the working poor — there are many thousands of working poor in this city now because of the economic program of this government. I want to explain to the government — through you, Mr. Speaker — that the senior citizens occupying rental accommodation in James Bay, Fernwood and so on at one time had homes, like many of the millionaires across the way. As their families grew up, they sold their houses and took the equity they had from their homes as their nest-eggs to live out the rest of their lives in comfort, not expecting that a government here in the city of Victoria would be so cruel as to embark upon programs that would actually steal those nest-eggs they had.

I would like to outline a few of the ways in which that is occurring. Stripping away rental control is making tenants, and particularly seniors, vulnerable....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, rent control is not a topic in the bill which is under debate. It bears no relationship whatsoever to the amendment act which is before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill does not specifically refer to rent controls. So perhaps the hon. member could direct his remarks specifically to the bill.

MR. HANSON: The point is — and the minister knows it full well — that on July 7 he introduced a budget and 26 bills, which are inextricably co-implicated with that budget. They strip away rent protection from tenants, and they strip away the renter's tax credit. He knows full well that when they strip away the renter's tax credit and take away rent protection, they are doing a double whammy to the seniors and the people on fixed incomes in their constituency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. HANSON: I don't think millionaires can really understand what I'm talking about, and I understand why they want to keep chirping: "Order, order, order." As millionaires they don't understand; they haven't got a clue.

[ Page 886 ]

MR. MOWAT: I wish I was a millionaire; then I wouldn't have to listen to you.

MR. HANSON: There are many millionaires on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Yes, they're largely coupon-clippers; they're not workers.

MR. MOWAT: Come on! Get out of the gutter.

MR. HANSON: They're really nervous when you point out how they get their income, when other people work very hard for it.

MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member opposite just described members on this side of the House as coupon-clippers and non-workers. I'll have him know that people on this side of the House have probably worked more individually than the whole caucus has in their entire lives. I take offence at that kind of statement, and I would ask the member to withdraw it, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest that the comment could be taken as unparliamentary. I ask the member if he would withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since the Chair has already made the ruling, perhaps the member would withdraw before we take a point of order.

MR. HANSON: I'll withdraw, because I think the key point is that they lack any sensitivity or understanding of working people, ordinary people, and the real needs of the people of my constituency — tenants, low-income people. To embark upon a legislative and budgetary program that takes the milk out of the tea of the senior citizens in my riding is absolutely disgusting. One hundred and fifty dollars is nothing to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He's a cabinet minister, he makes $75,000 a year, he has a massive expense account; he has a car; he flies everywhere, as does the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). They don't understand taking away $150 from a senior citizen who makes $500 a month.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the reference to the Provincial Secretary not having concern for $150; I know he has a major concern for $150.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when a member rises under standing orders on a point of order, he should have a point of order; otherwise he is out of order. I would ask Mr. Speaker not to allow any further interruptions of the speaker on this bill by spurious, false or fraudulent points of order; otherwise the debate in this House becomes a circus.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) leapt to his feet before the Chair had the opportunity to tell the previous speaker that he did not have a point of order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to outline to that well-heeled government over there exactly how many dollars a senior citizen in my riding who is on a fixed income has to live on. A single person on old-age pension gets $256.67 a month; if they're getting the GIS, add $257.68, plus $38.88 from GAIN, for a grand total of $553.23. For a couple, the OAP and the GIS come to $455.34 — plus GAIN, $49.83, for a total of $505.17 each. The philosophy of the renter's tax credit was to provide some equity to a tenant. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a person who owns a home gets a homeowner grant to offset their taxes. The homeowner grant is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $550. To offer the tenant some parity, a tax credit of $150 per year was given to help offset personal income tax. In addition, if a person was making a very low income, they were given a low-income tax credit to offer some modicum of cushion against the income tax and to offer parity with people with other kinds of tax credits, such as the people across the floor who can write off interest on loans for stock and what have you.

[3:30]

Let me indicate to you what the low-income tax credit and the renter's tax credit mean to these various categories of individuals, whether they be seniors or are on unemployment insurance or are low-income earners. For example, let's just take an old-age pensioner couple. The personal tax credit bill will strip $266.70 away from them; add to that the $150 renter's credit, and that's $416.70. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, many thousands of people in my own constituency — and I'm sure you have tenants in your constituency — in James Bay would dearly love to have cash — $416.70 — not for luxuries, not to ride on the Marguerite to go to Seattle or to buy some luxury item, but to put groceries on the table. I watch senior citizens in my own constituency shopping on Cook Street and in the Fairfield market, and so on — I'm sure you're aware of these particular shopping areas. I've watched seniors going through the meat and poultry counter and picking up saran-wrapped packages of backs and necks of chicken, and finding them too expensive to afford. I think the members over there probably find that rather difficult to understand. I do not find that difficult to understand at all. That's why I'm on my feet in this debate opposing this bill.

MR. KEMPF: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. member for Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: I don't find it difficult to understand that which the member is suggesting some senior citizens have to do in order to buy meat at their meat counter. I do find it very difficult to understand how that relates to Bill 4, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like you to call the member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the members opposite would stand in their places and oppose this bill and....

[ Page 887 ]

MR. KEMPF: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, again I seek your ruling on this kind of irrelevant debate on Bill 4. Certainly there is merit in what the member says, but not on Bill 4. I'd ask for your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 4, hon. member, as I read it, refers to the changes that will be brought about in the Income Tax Amendment Act, which, I would suggest to you, hon. member, does make the points that are being made by the hon. first member of Victoria pertinent. I would have to sustain him and overrule you.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your ruling, but let me point out to the member for Omineca that he has a point of order, but not one he states....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member for Coquitlam Moody, you weren't recognized by the Chair. Your microphone wasn't on. So I would recognize the hon. member from Coquitlam-Moody. Do you want to speak now?

MR. ROSE: The member for Omineca is indulging in not a point of order but a point of debate. He has a perfect right to do that. I wish he'd stand in his place and take part in the debate of Bill 4, instead of getting up on some phony point of order trying to harass my colleague over here who was making a very valid point on this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think that was taken care of in my remarks. Please carry on.

MR. HANSON: As you so astutely pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us repeals sections in the Income Tax Act that afford some protection to the low-income earners in our society and also to the renters. I'm trying to explain to this House — and I know that it can't get through the thick craniums opposite — what that impact is to people who cannot afford to buy protein to put on their table to sustain their own health. As I indicated what the figures are — to take away from a couple of seniors living in my constituency and elsewhere in the province.... I only say "my" because of the high preponderance of renters here, but in Vancouver Centre, for example, roughly two-thirds of all of the residents are tenants, and there is a high incidence of seniors. To go to these people and strip them of $416.70 is really beyond flesh-and-blood's endurance, because those people do not have that kind of money to support that kind of tax increase. That's really what it is. It's a tax increase.

Let's take the example of a single parent — a single mother with two children. That person would be entitled to a personal tax credit of $147. One hundred and forty-seven dollars in that mother's purse, plus the $150 renter's tax credit, is $297. I'll bet you that that single mother would like to go to Zeller's — and I say Zeller's because that is a store that has low-priced back-to-school goods. I see it advertised on television. For $297 that person could buy a lot of necessary clothing and back-to-school things for her children so she could send her children back to school with some pride.

Take away $300 from that person, and that hurts very deeply. It's something we campaigned on in the last campaign. We said very clearly to people: "You vote for us, and we will not take away this credit from the lowest income people and the people least able to afford it." As I said before, the Social Credit candidates who ran in Victoria were so ashamed of that program that they ran against it. They said: "Vote for us, and we'll fight our government."

MR. REID: That's why they didn't get elected.

MR. HANSON: Oh, boy, Mr. Speaker. We've got people in this House who would shock any semblance of good taste and decency.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his departure from the main thrust of his remarks, it seems the first member for Victoria was casting aspersions on other members of this chamber. I believe that here we are all honourable members, are we not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would support the hon. Minister of Finance and ask the hon. first member for Victoria if he would withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, you're asking the first member for Victoria to withdraw something simply because the Minister of Finance stood up and was upset, over what I don't know. What is this desire to withdraw? To withdraw what?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order, hon. members, is that the hon. Minister of Finance suggested that the hon. member who was speaking had cast aspersions on hon. members of this House, who are honourable members. I supported that and asked the member if he would withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, with respect, you yourself just now said that the Minister of Finance suggested something. Perhaps it's the Minister of Finance who should be asked to withdraw, if he's making suggestions about hon. members in this House. I listened carefully to what the first member for Victoria was saying, and he cast no aspersions on any hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is the opinion of the Chair that aspersions were cast, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. HANSON: It escapes me to what.... I'll withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

I'm trying to convey to the government the fact that they are either unaware or deliberately cruel. They are unaware of the pain to the poor, and I think that's clearly documented. I think every editorial in the province — even in my own constituency of the Times-Colonist — indicated, when this particular proposal was put forward, that the poor were going to be stripped of the low-income tax credit and the renters' tax credit. The editorial staff of the Times-Colonist was aghast as to why, during the depths of a recession, a government with the authority to cushion its citizenry would embark upon a plan to impale the poor on bills which would strip them of buying power, of their ability to pay rent, to put decent food on their tables, to clothe their children.

Subsequently we've seen a much broader program, whereby they've taken away $50 a month from the poorest people on social assistance, the mentally retarded. These people are working additionally for incentive money, $50

[ Page 888 ]

extra a month, which provides some sense of accomplishment and dignity. They work in all sorts of volunteer areas.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing, in principle, Bill 4, and subject to your ruling I have difficulty seeing that Bill 4 deals with the topics which the member has covered in the last few moments.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I would submit that many points of order have been brought to the attention of the Chair, and I think it rather presumptuous of members to assume that Mr. Speaker is not listening to the debate and needs so much intrusive interference.

MR. MOWAT: You just got in the door! You haven't even heard the debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I did hear one member get up, supposedly on a point of order, and embark upon an attack on other members of the House. I believe it was the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) who said we had never worked, cumulatively, as many days as the people on the other side. I would submit that Mr. Speaker should warn members of the House that the Chair is listening to the debate and is doing its job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Even though the Chair is relatively new at the job, I don't think it needs to be instructed or needs any help, thank you all the same.

If I may just, for a moment, hon. member.... To the point of order that was originally raised....

MR. HOWARD: That is what I am rising on, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, all right then. Carry on.

MR. HOWARD: I am rising with respect to the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance, who has such an eggshell sensitivity that he can't see clearly what is happening here. The principle of the bill, and the Minister of Finance is the one who introduced it.... In its explanatory notes on section 1, that is the first point of it all. "Repeals provisions for personal income tax credit and renter tax credit." That is the principle, to repeal those provisions. I submit to you that the member for Victoria is simply canvassing the effect that that would have upon the people of this province — the repeal of those provisions. He is speaking, I want to submit, exactly and precisely to the principle of the bill. The Minister of Finance should just contain himself a bit and not get so desperate in his raising of points of order and let the debate proceed in an orderly fashion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you hon. member. In a bill of this type, I would suggest that by its very nature it would call up a certain amount of latitude in what is being stated. Inasmuch as it does deal with incomes and moneys and taxes, there is some relevancy, but I would please ask the hon. member if he wouldn't stray too far from the bill and if he try and direct his speech more to the bill itself.

[3:45]

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have in front of me a Rent Review Commission report which gives the average price for rental accommodation here in Victoria. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $366 a month. As I pointed out to you earlier, a couple with a one-bedroom apartment have $505 each. To take away $416 would be roughly equivalent to taking away all of their disposable income for one month. That is what it amounts to. Last year they had 12 months of disposable income separate from the rent; this year they have 11 months. Have costs gone down, has food gone down, has clothing gone down? Well, there are some sales and so on. What I am trying to point out to the government is that when you take away $400 from a person on a fixed or low income, it really hurts. It means the difference between having quality food on the table for yourself or your spouse or your family, and not having it; $416 is a lot of food to senior citizens in James Bay.

I can assure you — and I know you know that, Mr. Speaker.... Let's take, for example, a head of household on UIC with two children. The loss of the personal tax credit is $240 plus the renter's tax credit of $150 — $390. Now no one gets rich on UIC; in fact, you usually end up going to the bank and running a line of credit in the hope that you are going to get work. There is nobody that knows better than some of the members on this side of the House, particularly the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), where a huge number of people in his riding are on UIC and welfare.... In my own constituency I am sorry to say that number is increasing constantly as well.

When you take away $390 in an annual lump sum from someone on UIC with kids, that really hurts badly. If you think that offends the government, to know what the impact of their legislation is.... Their legislation, to them probably, is just a nice piece of white paper that comes from the Queen's Printer, that says things on it that makes them feel important. This sort of thing hurts people; it means the difference between chicken legs and chicken necks to people. It means the difference between a new pair of running shoes and having a child.... Kids are funny. The more you are around kids, the more you know that they feel badly if they are not dressed the same way as other children or if they don't have jeans and things that make them feel that they are as good as other kids. I know from Blanshard Court, at Blanshard and Hillside, which is public housing, that that will directly impact the people in that housing.

Everybody in there is going to be affected by this bill. Those kids would love to have a new pair of sneakers to wear to school, and a clean, pressed, brand-new pair of jeans. And they're not going to have them. I know they're not going to have them after this bill.

Various organizations have criticized the government, but they don't heed opposition. We've seen it on the other bills. We've had 25,000 to 30,000 people on the lawn in front of this building and no one listens. We've had 50,000 people in Vancouver. It's high. There are lots of people out there who think you people are really going in the wrong direction. That's why we're on our feet on this side of the House, and that's why we're fighting these bills. If the members on the government side get offended in their thin skin — if I offend their delicate sensibilities by telling them that they're going to affect the nutrition, diet, health and well-being of people by this legislation — they're going to jump onto their feet and

[ Page 889 ]

try and bring me back to order. I'll tell you, we're not going to stop telling you about this, because it really is hurting people.

One thing we're not short of, Mr. Speaker, is statistics. Here's a bulletin — it's called the SPARC Bulletin. It's very interesting, because it gives the basic family budgets for low-income families. They estimate what a person needs just to survive. For example — and they're taking this example in Vancouver, but I think we could extrapolate that to Victoria very easily — let's take an unemployed single person's monthly costs: food, $164; clothing, $40; personal care, $10 — and I'm sure this is right to the bone; there are no extras in this little stat — transportation, $21; subtotal, $235; average cost of utilities and telephone, $39; average rent for a bachelor suite — you can imagine what kind of bachelor suite it is — $285. So that total is somewhere between $559 and $642. Okay, that's how much it costs to keep body and soul together for a single person, giving rent, food, clothing, personal care, transportation, utilities that the person has to pay or else the lights go out, the stove goes off, you sit in the dark on an apple crate or something. This is what the income is. If that person was working at B.C. Forest Products, his UIC ran out, he's now onto social assistance, and what does he get? He gets $375. Well, he needs $559 to survive and he's got $375. How does he do it? If he is absolutely unemployable — in other words, has a physical disability or some other problem — then he gets $430. So where does that put him? That puts him $120 short of his basic requirements.

Let's go on to another case. Example number two: three persons, a one-parent family consisting of a mother, a son aged eight and a daughter aged five living in Richmond. Is the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) here? No, he's not in his place. Well, perhaps he'll read the Blues later on. He may be interested in this. So we have a three-person family where the main grocery-earner is a mother. Food, $294; clothing, $70; personal care, $24; transportation, $39; for a subtotal of $427. You add to that the cost of utilities and telephone — now maybe they can get rid of the telephone — $39. But it's hard to find work if you don't have a telephone sometimes. If you can't get out and are looking after children, how would you contact people? The average rent for a two-bedroom suite is $331, under controls, or uncontrolled it's $528. So the basic monthly income required is $797 a month to support three people. What is the MHR rate? It's $805. So they have $8 more than they need to survive. Just to keep your heart going and your eyes focused, they've got an extra $8. I don't know what they do on that $8. That would get maybe a medium pizza as a special treat on a Friday night once a month. That would be the night out: sitting around — presumably they have a television or something like that.

The members on the government side don't like to hear the hard numbers. They don't want to be reminded that their bill actually does translate itself from the abstract to flesh and blood, to the actual needs and basic requirements of the poor and the 200,000 people who are out of work, and the 200,000 people who are on social assistance in this province — directly affected by this bill.

Let's take a third example, a two-parent family. They are both unemployed. Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not an unusual case in British Columbia. We've got a two-parent family with two teen-age children; in other words, we've got four people within four walls who are feeling pretty frustrated, pretty desperate — maybe a sense of low esteem. Perhaps this has been going on for some time. You can use your imagination — it doesn't take much imagination.

They've got a boy aged 16 and a girl aged 14. They're living in New Westminster. The food they need for basic body-and-soul requirements would come to $449 for the month — that's a little over $100 a week. Clothing, $146; personal care, $48; transportation, $62; for a subtotal of $705. The average cost of their utilities and telephone is $39 and the average rent for a two-bedroom suite.... Bearing in mind, of course, that their rent is no longer controlled and that they could at any time get a rental increase of $100 a month, and not one finger could be lifted to fix that, when you take the subtotal of their food, clothing, personal care and transportation — basic needs of $705 — and you add their rent to that, you come to a total amount of $1,000 a month for that family of four to survive. The MHR rate — if they are regarded as employable — is $870, so they are just about $300 short.

How many beer bottles, coke cans and things can a person pick up to make up that extra $300? How many bus fares can you save to make up $300 a month? What you're doing is cutting the nutrition of your family. Instead of having protein, you're having starch. Instead of the kids dressing properly, they are dressing poorly, and knowing it and feeling it. Nobody objects to getting secondhand and hand-me-down clothes once in a while; but when it's the only clothing you ever have, it affects your psyche indelibly. You start feeling there's something wrong, that you're somehow not as good as other people — and that's wrong.

In British Columbia we live in one of the wealthiest parts of this planet. We have the greatest softwood production in the whole world. We're the largest low-grade copper exporter in all of the world. We have minerals of the broadest range. We don't have a great agricultural potential, and whatever we have we're losing fast under this government. We do have great ability to produce protein from the sea, but we're losing that opportunity, too.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to say to the government that this bill is testament to the lack of care and concern they have for the renters and the poor of this province. Nothing exemplifies that more.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I just want to make sure that we understand the motion. The member said that he wished to adjourn the debate. I'm not sure if that's what he wishes. I think he wants to adjourn the debate until the next sitting, does he not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's the motion the Chair understood.

[4:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6.

[ Page 890 ]

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. GABELMANN: I remember several years ago — and several ministers and several pieces of legislation ago — a promise by the government that no amendments would be made to school legislation without first a thorough review of the Public School Act, since renamed the School Act. That was at a time when I was making some requests that school boards in parts of my riding be elected by ballot, rather than appointed at tea parties. I was told by the then Minister of Education that it was not possible to introduce that element of democracy into the school system, not because the government disagreed with it but because the School Act was not open for amendment. Since that time we have had a series of bills which have in fact amended the School Act in very damaging ways.

I think it's important to review briefly the history of this legislation. Bill 6, which we are debating at this point, is simply one more step, and I fear not the last step, in a series of pieces of legislation that will totally and completely revamp not the education of children in this province, but the structure of the system of administering the school system itself. That process was started by legislation which for the most part took away from school boards their power of taxation, when they lost the right to gain revenue from commercial and industrial property. In some school districts in my riding, it meant that as much as 88 percent of their local tax base was lost. That was one step towards this bill, which is a continuation of the centralization of education in this province.

The next step in that process was the introduction later that year of Bill 89, which was basically a bill designed to reduce the school year and to provide fewer teaching days in order to save some money. Interestingly, in that piece of legislation there was, as I remember, a section that made certain that special needs programs could not be affected without ministerial approval.

We have now gone the next step in terms of centralized control over what can or cannot be offered by local school districts.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Quite frankly, I don't know why any citizen in this province would want to run for school trustee this fall. What will be their power? They will no longer have the power to determine what the educational needs are in their particular district. Let me say clearly that educational needs are very different from school district to school district. The special education needs in at least one school district in my riding, possibly two, are overwhelming. I don't have the confidence that the bureaucrats in Victoria, who are hard-working, good people, know what the particular situations are in Mahatta River, Port Eliza or Alert Bay. Most of the bureaucrats, and the minister himself, haven't been to those schools, to those communities, and don't know what the particular needs are.

One of the most exciting classrooms in my constituency has six kids in it and two teachers; at least it did, until some of the cutbacks last year. One of those teachers was a professional educator, and the other a professional social worker. Those six kids used not to be in the public education system. Those six kids or their counterparts....

MR. REE: Children.

MR. GABELMANN: "Children," if you will. I call them kids; you can call them children; that's neither here nor there. The minister and I agree on that. "Kids" is the vernacular; it's what the kids call themselves.

As a result of the changes that have occurred and are continuing to occur, those six children — not they themselves directly, but those whom they symbolize — who for at least the last few years have had an opportunity to be involved in the school system, will no longer have that right. Those children will be put back into the community, and for the most part they will not receive an education. If they are at school they will, in many cases, disrupt classrooms and make it difficult for teachers to pursue the education of the rest of that classroom, which will have many more kids in it than it now does.

In that regard I just want to deal for a moment with the absurd notion that what the government is doing is to change the class size from 17 to 19. I go to a lot of classrooms, and there are not very many classes of 19. That's the message — not that the Minister of Education has been promoting it, because he knows better, but the Premier has been saying it. All we want to do, says the Premier, is make sure that we don't have 17 instead of 19 kids in class. An absurd notion. Too many classrooms already have 35 and 40 kids in them, and too many classrooms are being eliminated that should have six kids or even fewer in cases where those special needs programs are so essential.

I want to make it clear that no amount of research, homework or special ability on the part of bureaucrats in Victoria will ever allow them to make the kinds of local decisions that can be made by locally elected school trustees. To say, as this bill does, that all of the decisions in each of those little pigeon-holes of expenditures are going to be made here in Victoria and not by the school.... The minister shakes his head.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's not true. You know that.

MR. GABELMANN: If it's not true why do you need the legislation?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, let me just get the bill out and see if I've made a mistake. "The minister may issue directives" — a directive is an order — "at any time before May 1 in a year establishing the amount of or a portion of the budget, including the portion for special education programs, of a school district for that calendar year...."

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right, and if a school district takes away all special needs, the minister has a right to put it back....

[4:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me read it again; the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) didn't hear me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for North Island please address the Chair.

[ Page 891 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have been doing that by speaking in the third person.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, in the first person, if you would kindly address the Chair.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have been addressing the Chair. I have not been speaking to that member as "you"; I'm speaking to him as "he." Therefore it is automatic that I'm addressing the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair doesn't need a lecture from the hon. member. Would you kindly address the Chair.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the member doesn't need a lecture from the Chair either.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask the hon. member to withdraw that, please.

MR. GABELMANN: To withdraw what, sir?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member is completely aware that he ought not to chastise the Chair, and I would ask you to withdraw that.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the place where you sit, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it must be an unconditional withdrawal.

MR. GABELMANN: In that respect it's unconditional. It's unconditional, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in the third person, the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain has not read the bill. Let me read again what I was just saying, and I will read the bill that he has not yet seen or read: "The minister may issue directives at any time before May 1 in a year, establishing the amount, or a portion of the budget, including the portion for special education programs of a school district for that calendar year." In English, Mr. Speaker, that means that the minister can determine what the budget will be for each of the pigeon-hole items that he has established, including special education. It may be that the amounts will vary district to district, and I would expect that they would. But my point is that neither he nor his staff here in Victoria have the ability, or the knowledge, to make those kinds of decisions.

What's wrong with trusting democracy? What's wrong with allowing people to elect their own local people to run their own institutions? Why doesn't this government trust the people? Why do they feel they have to have all of the power here in Victoria? Why do they think that their staff have more knowledge and more moral authority than locally elected people to make these decisions? That principle has nothing to do with restraint. If the minister only has so many dollars to spend on education, he can say so, and he can tell the boards that that's the end of the dollars in that particular year. We might quarrel that there is not enough, but we wouldn't quarrel that the minister has the right to set an arbitrary ceiling to expenditures in this province on education. Nor would we quarrel — we might quarrel in detail but we wouldn't quarrel in principle — that he has the right to determine what those amounts are, school district by school district. But why does he need the power to tell school districts how to spend that money within their own district? What has that got to do with restraint? Like every other bit of legislation we've been presented with this session, it has nothing to do with restraint, nothing to do with fiscal policy; it has everything to do with the government's determination to demonstrate that they are in fact so right-wing, so different, that they want to make Ronald Reagan look like a pinko. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, they've succeeded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. GABELMANN: The member's right. They want to make Ronald Reagan look like a Red.

I used to have a lot of arguments with one of the former Ministers of Education, Bill Vander Zalm. He was going around this province proposing a county system, which would include, as he described it, not just local government at the municipal level but also other forms of local government, including education. I opposed that concept of electing one board of governors, in effect, in each of the counties that would be established, who would then have responsibility for a whole variety of different kinds of things, including education.

But, you know, Bill Vander Zalm looks like a moderate these days, when we're presented with this kind of legislation. At least that guy, as right-wing as he might have been, had the courage to go around this province and express to the public what his ideas were before he came back to the House with legislation. Why is it that the present minister hasn't got the courage to do that? Why is it that it takes a guy....?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister did not go around this province before July 7 telling voters that when they elected him and his party one of the results of doing that would be the elimination of the power of school districts to budget within the budget given to them by the province. He did not campaign on that issue. All I'm saying is that at least one of the former Ministers of Education — in fact another one, too, on other issues — went around this province and talked about some of his ideas. They were concerned about how the public would react and what the public wanted. Why is it that on this piece of legislation and so many others we're presented with, the minister and his colleagues have not had the courage that that former member had? Why no consultation with the trustees? Why no consultation with the teachers? Why no consultation with the parents? Why no consultation with the voters? Isn't democracy in this society based somewhat, at least, on some consultation? Or is democracy fast becoming something which means that if you can bamboozle and lie to the public and get elected, you can do whatever the hell you please? That's what you're doing here.

[ Page 892 ]

The minister is a little agitated by what I'm saying. All I can go on, Mr. Speaker, is what the bill says. The bill says that the minister may order school boards to spend certain amounts of money per compartmentalized item. That's including special education, which is of some particular concern to me, because it's the special education programs that have had a great deal to do with keeping kids in the school system. As a result of the cutbacks so far, I know of three kids in my riding who were in school and who are now not in school because the schools can't cope with them. In one case the mother had to quit her job and go on welfare in order to stay home with her child. What kind of inanity, what kind of insane public policy-making, is that, that you would deliberately put people on welfare?

One of the major increases in the budget this year is welfare payments. I found that curious when I first saw the budget. I thought we were, hopefully, into a time of recovery. But I think somebody in the budget-making process understood that the impact of this legislation, and all the other legislation, would be, in fact, to drive people onto welfare, and that we would therefore need a much increased welfare budget.

It's hard to find calm words; it's hard to be calm, faced with a government that deliberately puts people out of work, that deliberately drives people out of the school system, that deliberately denies democracy, that willingly and happily increases the welfare rolls, and jokes about joblessness — as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) does. Is it any wonder that all of us are speaking on all of these bills? Is it any wonder that the public in this province are concerned as they have never been concerned before? I remember a major demonstration on the steps of this Legislature, when 1,500 people came here to tell us that we should amend our land bill. And we did. But this government can't even respond on these issues when 20,000 or 25,000 people demonstrate their concern. They're not interested in what the people have to say. They're not interested in the consequences of their actions, other than to take a place in history as having actually introduced legislation which will demonstrate that they've been the most right-wing government the western democracies have seen since the 1930s.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not talking about education; you're all around the block.

MR. GABELMANN: I am talking about the bill.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The second member for Surrey suggests that.... I mean the first member for Surrey. Mr. Speaker, I wasn't referring to how many votes they got. I was referring to how loud they are. In that respect I thought she was the second member. I give her my apologies. She's the first member.

She suggests that I'm worried that the public will see that the government was right in this bill and its accompanying legislation. I can assure that member that there isn't the slightest worry of that in my mind. If there were, I might want to reconsider whether I were willing to speak at the length that I intend to speak on all the bills that are being presented to us. There is no question whatsoever in my mind, in the minds of my colleagues, or in the minds of the overwhelming majority of the public that this is wrong-headed, wrong-minded, incorrect, negative policy. The denial of local democracy is a fundamental shift in the direction — as with so many of these other bills — of public policy-making in this society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Think of the taxpayers who are paying the freight.

MR. GABELMANN: I want those taxpayers who are paying the freight to be allowed to make decisions too. I want those taxpayers who are paying the freight to be allowed to have some local control. I want those taxpayers, who include not just residential taxpayers but industrial and commercial taxpayers, to have some local control over where their taxes go. They don't have that control now.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd ask the hon. second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) kindly to come to order. The hon. member for North Island continues.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain wants me to speak about the things that aren't in the bill. I'm not allowed to do that; you wouldn't let me do that. I have to talk about what is in the bill. What is in the bill is a denial of the right of the local taxpayers to determine how they want their taxes spent in the educational system. That's the principle of the bill. There is no other principle, despite the fact that the explanatory notes are misleading. It says it gives the minister powers to supervise budgets and expenditures by school district. If you read the legislation, it says it gives the minister the power to issue directives. There's a big difference between supervision and direction. In this province directives have always — in legislation — meant orders. If the school districts don't obey orders, what happens then?

If the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain is trying to suggest to me that the local boards still have that power....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Unlike Bill 89 of last year....

Mr. Speaker, there are several issues going on. One of the problems when the Chair doesn't control the House is that you get this kind of crossfire. I want to say to that member that if school trustees are not allowed to determine how taxpayer dollars are spent in their school districts, they may as well fold up their tents and go home, because the only other power they have left, if they chose, would be to fire those people they didn't like in the school system.

MR. MOWAT: I'll bet you'll see every seat for election of school boards fully....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain will kindly come to order.

MR. GABELMANN: If I were not an MLA, and I were in the community, I might be tempted too to run for school trustee this year simply to add my voice to those hundreds of

[ Page 893 ]

other trustees around this province who are condemning this legislation. I would like that opportunity, and for that reason alone would consider running for school trustee if I were in a position to do so.

What does the minister intend to do about his program, his policies announced to "rationalize," — and, to use my word, to eliminate — the school districts in this province? Is that part of the agenda in this bill? I think it is. I think before the minister goes in that direction he should take a very careful look at why we have some school districts with a small number of student enrolments.

[4:30]

There's one school district in my constituency which occupies, I would say, close to a quarter of the size of this island. There have been proposals that it should perhaps be amalgamated with a neighbouring school district, Island West. There have been proposals gossiped around in the ministry about that particular district not being needed because there are only 200 or 300 children in the school system. The trustees in that particular district represent communities that are literally three or four hours apart, and in some seasons of our year are not even in contact with each other.

Mr. Speaker, is that part of the intention of the minister? If there is intention — and there may well be good cause for some rationalization — are we going to have that as a fait accompli, or are we going to have it after hearings? What role will the trustees play in that process? How much consultation will there be in order to determine whether or not decisions made here in Victoria are appropriate?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I raise that because it's a very real concern to a lot of us. I'm going to leave it for the moment and trust.... The minister has the message on that particular issue. I want to discuss some of the early reactions of the School Trustees' Association. I can assure you that from my perspective, having talked to trustees in the three school districts in North Island, this is a moderate and very tempered reaction based on their true feelings about this legislation.

On July 21, 1983, the B.C. School Trustees' Association presented a brief to the government.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain wouldn't know, but there is a history over the last number of years and decades of school districts withdrawing, rejoining, in and out of the B.C. School Trustees' Association — as the Speaker well knows.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you suggesting they don't know what they're doing?

MR. GABELMANN: At some points in our history some school boards didn't want to belong to the BCSTA. That's a legitimate decision in a free society. I suppose you'd take that right away from them too, if you could. You've already taken away from the school teachers their right to bargain. What more fundamental right is there in our society?

MR. REE: Returning the rights to the taxpayer.

MR. GABELMANN: I hear from the member for North Vancouver–Capilano that the reason school teachers have had their denial of that fundamental human and civil right to bargain collectively taken away is somehow to protect the taxpayer. How far is that government prepared to go in its denial of basic human and civil rights in order to "protect the taxpayer?" We've seen a demonstration so far of how far they'll go. They'll take away the right of collective bargaining for whole groups in our society. They'll take away the human rights of dispossessed people in our society — and I know that's not quite in order, Mr. Speaker. They would take away any right if they thought their huge salaries could somehow be protected, so they can invest it in the places they want to invest, without any concern whatsoever for the ordinary person, who makes, on average, 10 percent of what most of the Socred caucus makes.

MR. REE: You get the same huge salary I do.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't have your law salary, Mr. Member.

MR. REE: I'm not practising law. I get the same salary you do as an MLA.

MR. GABELMANN: It's no wonder you're not practising law.

Mr. Speaker, if they're prepared to withdraw the rights of locally elected people to govern municipal matters in non-organized areas, and if they're prepared — as they are here — to deny school trustees the right to govern their affairs, is this Legislature next? Is this the next institution to have its powers denied? I suggest that that process has already started, unbeknownst to the public. When we see bill after bill that takes from this Legislature, and gives to individual cabinet ministers, the right to make decisions, the fundamental rights of parliament are also being denied and taken away in this society. Some people will say that's an extravagant and farfetched statement. I'm one of the more moderate people on that particular line, Mr. Speaker; I tend not to use extravagant language. I haven't yet called them fascists, although I sure am tempted when I see legislation like this.

Mr. Speaker, the trustees in their presentation suggested that this "funding formula" as proposed by the government would have a number of effects that would in fact go counter to the government's intention to attempt to save money. For the most part, I think, the trustees are right. They suggest, first of all, that there will be increased legal costs. There's absolutely no question about that. Anybody who knows anything about how the school system works at the local level will realize that the legislation will have that effect for sure. Of course, if you have increased resort to the courts, you are going to have increased costs that come from some of the court decisions that flow from this kind of legislation.

Ironically, in spite of the bleatings from the member from Little Mountain, you are going to have an increase in the number of administrators in some school districts — falsely named because for the most part administrators are not involved in administration per se, certainly not the way the Education ministry counts who is and who isn't an administrator and who isn't an administrator. One of the many ironies of this particular legislation is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with restraint, nothing whatsoever to do with improving education in the classroom. In fact, in some

[ Page 894 ]

school districts it will actually increase the number of administrators.

Any manager in our modern industrial society will tell you that if an institution or a decision-making block becomes too big, or the thing to be managed becomes so big, it becomes more expensive to manage for a variety of reasons. You need a whole infrastructure of bureaucrats just to be able to relay the messages on down and to hear the feedback on back up. Everybody agrees that there is diseconomy of scale when the scale is too large. I know the Premier would agree with that. When he was talking about the CPR not being welcome in this province, he didn't want big companies to become even bigger and to dominate our economy in that way.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I see. The Premier does want big companies to dominate our economy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You just got it wrong. I'll speak for myself. You can't handle your own stuff, so don't try....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I call all hon. members to order.

MR. GABELMANN: As I said, the school trustees are convinced — and I agree with them — that one of the effects of this will be a diseconomy of scale, that administrative costs in the overall education system will in fact become even higher than they are now.

Another irony is that there would be increased costs in teachers' salaries. Why would the minister design a system under this bill that would create an incentive to keep salaries high? That is what the bill does. There is, in fact, as they say, a disincentive to reduce the average teacher's salaries by early retirement of the most expensive teachers. In other words, the most expensive teachers will stay on. There is a disincentive for teachers to use the collective bargaining process to preserve jobs by reducing salaries. A whole rethinking is taking place in our society about that subject. But as a result of this legislation there is no incentive whatsoever for that particular avenue, should it be chosen.

There is a disincentive, as they point out, to reduce fixed costs of operations. Now why, if the government is interested in restraint — as they say they are and demonstrate they are not — would they build into this legislation a disincentive to reduce fixed costs? Why would they build into it a disincentive to use plants, or the buildings and facilities, as sources of revenue? That would be good financial management, if it were allowed. But they don't do it.

There is a total lack of incentive, as a result of this legislation, for energy-efficient investments, which a lot of schools have been getting into and now won't get into. So now we will continue to have the federal government subsidizing offshore oil, and we will continue to waste energy in the way we do, perhaps because of the lack of thinking that has gone into this legislation, but more likely because the Premier has a messianic zeal to go down in history as having not only talked about all these right-wing things that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan talk about, but to actually introduce them in legislation. It's as obvious through Bill 6 as it is through the other legislation that the Premier has decided that three or four more years of being Premier is enough, and that when he goes so goes the party. He wants to destroy the party, but why is he taking the kids down with him when he does it? That's what I would like to know.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the light is going to change colour shortly, so I will begin to wrap up my remarks on this particular piece of legislation.

More than anything, the issue in Bill 6 that bothers me is that the government has taken its next step towards elimination of local government. As I said earlier, that process began with Bill 89 and Bill 27, first of all taking away the right of school trustees to collect taxes locally for the most part, then instructing them how to conduct their business in terms of the school year. Now there is legislation denying them the right to set their own budgets. What's next? Will there actually be trustee elections this November, and if there are, will there be a next time?

MR. REID: Yes. You can count on it.

MR. GABELMANN: I am told by the member for Surrey that I can count on it. Based on what this Social Credit Party tells people and then does, I cannot count on it whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my time is almost up, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

[4:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 33

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

MR. PARKS: It's my pleasure to rise and support Bill 6. It's not just support; it is total, unequivocal support. I happen to have had the honour — and I notice very few members of the opposition had a similar honour — of sitting in this House and listening to the hon. member for North Island (Mr.

[ Page 895 ]

Gabelmann) give what I take is the opposition's position with respect to Bill 6.

MR. REID: They've got no position.

MR. PARKS: That happens to be my conclusion too, hon. member. They have no real position. As the 40 minutes droned on, I heard, "Let the school trustees decide how the local taxpayers' money will be spent on education," and, "What's wrong with the trustees, the locally elected people, deciding where the money will be spent?" or — and it sounded somewhat familiar — "The trustees will not have any control or decision-making power over the educational needs in their school districts." The only concern that I seemed to hear was something about autonomy. I happen to be a parent; I have two young children, both of school age. I'm not an educator or a former educator — my wife happens to be one — but I have a very grave concern that the youth of our province — and I trust everyone in this House will concur — is our number one resource; I trust members will concur that a good, vibrant education is very important; in fact, it's crucial to the long-term growth of this province.

But I have another concern. That concern is as a taxpayer, because I happen to think that my pockets are not bottomless. I'm sure I share that concern with many other British Columbians. The hon. member didn't seem to be too concerned about the realities of this life. Perhaps I can address his attention to just a few of them. This government's 1983-84 budget forecasts some $8.3 billion worth of spending.

Interjections.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to assist me in gaining order in this House so that I may continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, each member will have an opportunity to take his or her place in debate at some time. Right now the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has the floor and should be afforded some courtesy.

MR. PARKS: As I was saying, we are forecasting an $8.3 billion budget. Of that, $1.6 billion is forecast as deficit. That's almost 19 percent. Almost one out of every five dollars being expended we're having to borrow; we're having to go further into debt.

MR. BLENCOE: Resign.

MR. PARKS: I don't think that it's necessary to listen to the tripe about resignations or the necessity to resign. Rather than resign might I suggest....

MR. REID: We represent good government and leadership.

MR. PARKS: Quit stealing my lines.

Rather than resigning, I can stand quite proudly and say that I'm part of a government that has shown leadership. It is unfortunately the only jurisdiction in this land that has shown the....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. When the Chair is unable to hear the remarks of the member speaking because of interjections, the Chair must at that time take some very strong action. I will advise members that if the interjections continue at the rate they are....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would advise the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) that when the Chair is addressing a matter he will remain silent or he will be asked to leave the chamber. I will advise all other members, whether they be opposition members or government members, that an attempt to throw interjections into conversation when, as I say, the Chair is unable to hear those remarks, is neither fair, nor does it reflect the rules of this House.

MR. PARKS: This government was the one that last year introduced restraint into our vocabulary — true restraint. Now we're carrying through. But with respect to education, some very alarming trends have begun to evolve.

In the last six fiscal periods we have seen school district budgets increase by 19.34 percent. That's in real terms, taking into account inflation and the true meaning of real dollars and real growth. In that same time-period we have seen the number of pupils in this province decrease significantly almost 42,000 fewer students today than there were six years ago. That's an approximate 8 percent decrease in student enrolment in this province. However, in the same six-year period we have seen expenditures in this area race some 29.7 percent ahead of inflation. One could conclude, Mr. Speaker, that education spending was out of control. That might not be relevant to learned opposition members, but I'm sure even the members of the opposition, being taxpayers and representing taxpayers, would be very concerned about that trend.

Last year you saw restraint measures implemented which capped, which gave a global budget to your school districts, and you saw school districts having to show the first signs of restraint. However, did that serve the bill? Did that solve the problem? Might I suggest that it did not, because tremendous inequities have developed over the past few years. It has gotten to the point where you have one school district in the lower mainland that has an average cost per student of $2,983, and another one with a cost of $3,920. I would suggest that that's a terribly unrealistic variation in a matter of just a very few miles. The reason it would appear to be is that there hasn't been a truly viable system of financial management. That is what this bill is about.

[5:00]

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is going to bring about, for the first time in many decades, or so it would appear, a viable system of financial management. It is going to give the Ministry of Education, and the minister in particular, the ability to monitor education costs in this province.

When you have a budget in the realm of $1.4 billion — a mere 16 percent increase over the last fiscal period — it would be somewhat difficult to suggest, even for the hon. members of the opposition, that we're not caring or concerned with the quality of education in this province. In fact, of course, we are. That is why the financial management system has been constructed the way it is. It has been constructed with nine separate functions, and within those functions.... I'm really distressed to see that the hon. member

[ Page 896 ]

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who was so concerned about this bill, has seen fit to sneak out, or is about to sneak out of the House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

You have nine functions, and of those nine functions, the one that deals with administration is the one that has been given the red circle, if I may put it that way. The one function that the minister and the ministry staff are tremendously concerned about is the apparent lack of control that there has been in the administration budgets of school districts throughout the province. Having said that I should add, because I would be remiss if I didn't, that my school district and that of the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), School District 43, is one of the more efficiently run school districts in this province. I think that gives me some insight into the other districts that don't show the same financial acumen in administering their school districts.

Bill 6 does not reduce autonomy of the local school boards; rather it increases the autonomy. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to summarize — and I have to summarize because the list could be terribly extensive and almost boring, it's so long — some of the areas in which the local school boards retain autonomy. They have full autonomy over capital in the facilities. Capital budgets deal with selection of sites, buildings, renovations, overall facilities, busing, boarding and community use of schools. They also have total autonomy over programs, school boundaries, grade groupings in schools, locally developed courses, elective courses, supplemental materials, summer schools, adult education and special education programs.

The school trustees also have total autonomy over final approval of staff selection, assignment of staff, transfer of staff, evaluation of staff, promotion, dismissal and reduction of staff.

MR. REID: Do you think they can handle that?

MR. PARKS: Of course I think they can handle that, because I do have faith in the local school boards and the locally elected school trustees.

However, since the vast majority of the budget for school districts throughout the province comes from the provincial government, surely it makes sense that the minister in charge of that function should have some supervisory control, and that is what this bill is all about.

So long as school boards act in a responsible fashion there will be no need for the minister in charge of education to do anything other than assist them with this financial management program. They now have a program where they can compare costs among school districts. They can compare actual per student costs. They're not going to get flim-flammed into this pupil-teacher ratio, with educators or noneducators and administrative staff all being lumped in. Its going to be accurate, proper financial information and reporting. With the actual financial information, proper policies can be implemented and proper programs will be implemented.

It is really unfortunate that the hon. member for North Island has left because he was complaining that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has not seen fit to partake in the consultative program. I happen to have here, Mr. Speaker, a letter from one of the executive members of the BCSTA, and I think the comments he makes in it are worthy of repetition for the entire House. It is actually addressed to the Premier:

"On Thursday, July 21, 1983, the BCSTA executive met with members of the Social Credit caucus. As a member at that meeting, I'd like to offer some personal observations. First, the meeting was very well attended, with 28 MLAs present. Such a reception was not only cordial but impressive.

"The thrust of the BCSTA presentation, which I'm sure you're aware of by now, involves the wording of sections 1(a) and (b) of Bill 6.

"The remarks made by the BCSTA vice-president and our immediate past president following the caucus meeting were, in my humble opinion, irresponsible and neither deserved nor called for as a result of the fair and courteous reception the BCSTA experienced.

"Personally, I have no trouble with any aspect of the new legislation as it pertains to school board governance."

Now it gets very good.

"As a positive thinker and private-sector realist, I can see in Bill 6 a challenge for school boards to assume a greater degree of autonomy than ever before by ensuring in each of their districts that the enabling aspects of that particular legislation" — referring to Bill 6 — "do not have to be invoked by the minister responsible. I also believe that by responding in a locally responsible manner, they may by example pave the way in time for repeal of certain portions of the said act."

I don't need to quote the balance of that letter, because the key point has been made. The legislation is phrased in the enabling fashion. It says the minister "may"; it doesn't say "shall." As the explanatory notes indicate, it's a system being devised, a bill being put forth, to assist in the supervision of school board budgets and education throughout the province.

Interjections.

MR. PARKS: I apologize for not advising the House whose letter I was quoting. It's the letter of a Mr. Don McIntosh from Kelowna. I'd be pleased to table a copy of the letter with the House.

I think the people of British Columbia are beginning to understand what the opposition in their protracted debates, not only on Bill 6 but on the entire legislative package....

This morning there appeared — it was quite timely, I should note — a letter to the editor. Since I've seen members of the opposition grope for support for their position, referring to letters to the editor, I would suggest there is a balance in those columns. I would note that this letter, in my opinion, accurately reflects the opinion of the majority of the people in this province. As I said, in this morning's Province the following letter to the editor appeared:

"Crawford Killian, Province education writer, complains that government actions are brutal measures 'against teachers, administrators and trustees.' Apologists for the system like Killian often miss the point of education. It's for children, not the convenience of teachers, administrators or trustees."

I'm sure that comment is shared by the vast majority of British Columbians. The author goes on:

[ Page 897 ]

"I am fed up with educators and their apologists who always complain about teacher jobs and lack of taxing control when the prime concern should be whether the needs of children will be served. If more parents were allowed in decision-making, you can be sure children's needs would come first!

"If we come down to rock bottom, we don't necessarily need teachers nor masses of money for education to happen. But we will always need good models and mentors for our children. Parents concerned that the public schools will be a battleground this fall are already asking questions about alternatives, such as vouchers, home education, computers and private schools."

I find it most disconcerting that parents are thinking about the necessity of considering alternatives to our public school system. We have, in my opinion, one of the finest public school systems in this country, if not in the Western world. The only thing that a measure like Bill 6 can bring about is a further improvement of that public school system. The author concludes:

"Our present government school system has been steadily, over a decade, losing public confidence and credibility, and until we can institute some strong measures of public accountability, I predict this disaffection will continue to grow."

That's from one Tunya Audain of West Vancouver. I think that is a fine example of what is happening in our province. Rather than listen to the negativism — worrying about teachers and teacher-pupil ratios — it's time to remember that we are coming through some very tough economic times. We do have a horrendous deficit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're taking it out on little kids.

MR. PARKS: The hon. member suggests that the bill and legislation like this is taking it out on the kids. How sad that this hon. member has to throw out that tripe. We are not worried about....

MR. BLENCOE: What happened to the child-abuse team?

Interjections.

MR. PARKS: It is sad, Mr. Speaker, when the opposition have to turn to fearmonger tactics and say that we are picking on the children of this society, when in fact you can see special-education programs specifically mentioned in the bill. They are specifically being guaranteed by the policy of the Education minister. If the concern wasn't there, the locally elected school board could have the special-education program suffer, in a spate of cutting for the mere sake of cutting.

MR. BLENCOE: Evil government.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) mentioned that we were an evil government. I find that remark personally offensive, and I would ask him to withdraw it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On the same point of order, the member, I believe, was referring to the whole government and not to any individual member. Therefore I believe he was in order.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, as a member of that government I find that personally offensive, and I would ask the member to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will ask the second member for Victoria, if he imputed any dishonourable motive to another member, to withdraw it.

MR. BLENCOE: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That is fine.

MR. BLENCOE:...because it's true, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. I will now ask the hon. second member for Victoria to withdraw: an unqualified withdrawal, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the remark that it is true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member withdraws any imputation of dishonourable motive?

MR. BLENCOE: Toward any individual member, yes, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

[5:15]

MR. PARKS: Before the opposition's improper remarks were made, I was commenting on the hon. member for Mackenzie's suggestion that the government and this bill are attacking the children. That's preposterous. In fact, in any meetings that the Minister of Education has had, or in any policy being enunciated by the Ministry of Education, it has been very clearly set out that the proposed changes in this legislation are to limit the amounts spent on district administration. They specifically guarantee special-education programs for handicapped children. Only in other areas do the locally elected, autonomous school boards have full jurisdiction. There has to be the opportunity for the ministry to have some overriding control in different segments of the global school board budget. All the school trustees have to do is work within the boundaries and guidelines that have been set out, and there will be no need for any of the draconian measures that I keep hearing being suggested from my colleagues on my right.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Left.

MR. PARKS: Wouldn't it be interesting if they were on my right?

MR. BLENCOE: You're the extreme right. You're off the spectrum.

MR. PARKS: There's no question, Mr. Speaker. I'm prepared to take some of the remarks being cast at me that I am clearly a little bit to the right of most of the hon. members in the opposition. I don't say that in any sense of shame; I say

[ Page 898 ]

that with a great amount of pride. Not only am I a little bit farther to the right than all of the members of the opposition but I think I have a much keener understanding of the realities and the necessities in this world to endorse the concepts of private enterprise and to endorse the concepts that.... Without an extremely healthy private sector and without an extremely healthy and buoyant economy, how are we going to have the jobs that produce the money that produces the taxes that enable us to pay for things like education? We must have a healthy private sector and a free enterprise system. I don't think anyone who can analyze the situation carefully can deny that, even though they do on occasion try to.

I don't see any great need to go on any longer. The bill is very short. The purpose that is being tendered can be summarized very succinctly: it's going to bring about stable, accurate financial management in the education system in this province. The facts unequivocally show that such a new system is required and long overdue, and I support it wholeheartedly.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Personal references are most unparliamentary, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: I find it quite interesting when we rise in these debates and get into — I guess — some of the traditions of what we're here for and what we are embarking on, and where we're going. Before we get into this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, we maybe should review some of the traditions of parliament and some of the traditions of why we are here, why you are sitting where you are. I've made this speech before and I'm going to make it again; I think it's important, because on that side of the House — and we are discussing education — there are a few slow learners. If you look into the traditions of parliaments, Mr. Speaker, we do have a tradition that we have a throne speech where the L-G leads off and tells us some of the directions we're going to go. He leaves little hints that we're going to deal with Bill 6. Did that get me back on the subject?

Following that, each member rises in his place and gives his ideas and needs for his constituency. Traditionally the government listen to that, they make little notes, and they bring in the budget speech. Then we debate the budget speech. Part of that budget speech was Bill 6.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the hon. member is going to relate his remarks to the bill before us.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm just bringing up some of the background of why we are on Bill 6. Traditionally before we get into legislation like Bill 6 — for you new members, especially "Landslide" down here, who was a little late in coming in — we debate such things as the estimates. We debate the education estimates. We debate the money that is available, allocated in the budget. And we set up the position that we are in today, after we have gone through the budget speech and the estimates; then we deal with the legislation like Bill 6.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I have order, please. The member has strayed a bit during introductory remarks, but I'm sure now the comments are going to be relevant to the principle of the bill before us at this time. The hon. members will not interrupt.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to some of the notes that I've made from the previous speaker, when he talked about the $8 billion budget. You never ruled him out of order when he talked about that figure as part of the budget, when he talked about the $1.6 billion deficit. You never interrupted and said that he was straying. I don't think he was straying. He's straying out the door now. He's not going to stay here and listen to what I have to say, but he has strayed out the door and he's gone.

What I think is important is that when we get down to this particular bill, when we get down to the traditions of debating legislation, when we debate.... The previous speakers talked about the deficit, and we talked about the $8 billion budget that we're into. We should go back a little to the bill that this particular piece of legislation is amending. If you will recall, one of the reasons this bill was jammed into parliament last year was to cut back on the money that was for education in British Columbia. I remember that at that time there were assurances from the then Minister of Education that this was going to have a grandfather clause that would go for one year.

The important part about what happened last year is that schools in my riding had to produce three separate budgets. They produced the first one under the legislation at the beginning of 1982. At the beginning of 1982 they had certain requirements, and they produced a budget which they took out to the community; and the community, especially in my area, was very vocal, very active. They went out and met their school trustees, they talked to them, and they gave their input into that budget. That budget was submitted to the then Minister of Education, and then they were cut back.

In early spring they had to redo their budget to conform with the second set of regulations that the minister brought in. I remember one of the issues that I brought to this House....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You are out of order.

MR. MITCHELL: I am not out of order, Mr. House Leader; I am speaking to the budget. If I am out of order, I know this unbiased, very friendly and outspoken Speaker will bring me back to order.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm talking on the background to Bill 6, which is really important. You can't take a few lines and expect to debate this for 40 minutes, without bringing to the attention of the House that.... We're out of tradition. We are not following the proper order of British parliament, the history that has grown up over the years, the traditions of why we were all elected.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to ask you to call that member to order and have him speak to Bill 6, but I would ask you to have him speak to something.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't know if that's a point of order or not, but if it is, it's well taken. We are reminded that

[ Page 899 ]

in second reading of a debate we should speak to the principle of the bill before us; other discussions are not called for. If the member can relate his remarks to Bill 6, the parliament will be well served.

MR. MITCHELL: I agree with you 100 percent. My friend over there on the other side of the House is completely out of order, because I'm talking about the principle of this bill, which is education. The principle of this bill is the direction in which this province and the Social Credit government are taking children — down the garden path. This is what they're doing. It's the principle of education that we should be worrying about: the principle of the education that must be made available to the people of British Columbia, the children, and those who are coming after us. If we're going to look at education, it's really important.... You won't have education estimates. We can't debate in the tradition that we would have the Minister of Education's estimates come up, and then we could discuss some of the principles and the needs for this province. So we have to hold our debate on this Bill 6, and this is what I'm holding it to: Bill 6 and the effect it's going to have on our education.

The previous speaker mentioned all the different facets of the powers that school boards have. They can hire and fire, and look after night schools; they can look after various types of programs; they can have all kinds of input. This is the important part that we should be discussing. At this point we should be discussing the principles of the education of this province. But we are discussing Bill 6.

I think it's important that there are two major sections in this bill that are going to have a great affect on education. The new technology that is coming into our lifestyle, economy and business is going to affect the workforce of the province immensely. At this time in our society, education should be laying the groundwork for the new training and technology that we are entering into. We shouldn't be worrying about what this bill is going to do. We should be worrying that the kids who are coming into our workforce have the maximum education that they can so they enter into the new technology with a background...and the knowledge that they are going to be competitive and to be able to hold a job and hold their heads high — make their payments, grow up, get married, have a home and all these other wonderful things that this province, as rich as it is, can provide.

[5:30]

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you realize that Bill 6 is going to hinder that. Bill 3, which this particular government is trying to jam through this House, gives all the power to the Minister of Education, who will then delegate it down to his deputy minister. He can go into any school district.... As I said earlier on, in the particular school district in my riding they had to make three separate budgets. If those three budgets are not what the Minister of Education likes, or are something that he delegated down to his deputy minister under Bill 3.... If Bill 3 gets through before the next budget is prepared, he can take out any part of the school budget that the local people — those who know the community, those who know the requirements of the children of that particular school district, the type of training, the type of education, the type of new direction that our new technology is opening up.... The school board in that area, with the input they get from the local community, can decide what is needed — what retraining, not only for some of the students who are under 18 but for those who are in the workforce today, who need to be changed from one job that is no longer needed.... That school board knows what particular population they have and what training and retraining is needed. That takes in not only the grade schools but the community colleges; it takes in the direction of the night schools, as the previous speaker mentioned.

I think that when a minister or a deputy minister — especially a deputy minister, who wasn't even elected — can go into that particular school district and say: "We don't like the programs or the moneys that you are expending on that particular program; you have to cut it back...." As you know, Mr. Speaker, the direction the government is going is to cut back the money that will be expended on education to 83 or 85 percent of what is being presently spent, and this is going to happen before 1986.

We live in a world that does have inflation. We are living in a world where 6 and 5 was the guideline last year, then we had another guideline that was 8 and 10, and now we have a new guideline that's minus 5 plus 5. But none of these guidelines encompass the destruction of our education system by cutting it back to 83 percent of what is being spent today. It's just not the way for a country that is going into a system with a new technology where retraining is needed, where upgrading will be needed by those who are entering the workforce and by those in the present workforce who, because of changes of economics, have to be brought up to a different standard.

In the budget that I know we are eventually going to get back to, when this particular government comes to its senses and the House Leader starts listening to what is taking place, we are going to discuss the estimates. I know that hidden away in all these figures there are sufficient funds that will be and must be made available. The principle of Bill 6, where a particular minister or deputy minister can go in and tell a school district what they have to cut out, what they have to eliminate from their budget.... This is something that their community, the school district.... The school board members are elected to give some grassroots leadership of where we should be going. These are the ideas that, I think, have to be debated in this House, in the context of the principle of Bill 6.

I will have to agree with one of the government members that I may have strayed a little bit, but I am staying to the principle. I find it interesting when we talk about principle. I know I can't refer to a section, but the section does state: "...direct a school district not to expend during the calendar year in excess of the amount of or a portion of its budget." As I said, it is principle that we are debating on this.

We keep hearing about the great results of May 5. For the benefit of all the members who are here, I can recall that in the election that preceded May 5, I had a Social Credit candidate run against me, and one of the letters he filed with the school board....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm right to the bill; I'm talking about the principle of this section where we have deficit financing, where we're not going to allow any deficit financing within the year of the budget.

The Social Credit candidate filed with the school district in my riding a letter he had received from the previous Social Credit Minister of Education which suggested that it would be a good idea if we had three-year deficit financing in school

[ Page 900 ]

districts. The issue we were debating at that time was the cutting of school buses in areas where I personally felt it was unsafe for small children to be walking. They didn't fall within the guidelines of school bus pickup. Both the RCMP and the Highways department had said they were unsafe areas for children to be walking in. There was quite a debate in my community between the school board and the parent groups, the PTAs, the school principals, the MLA and the Social Credit candidate; we all got in on it. The Social Credit candidate got in on it too, which is a wise thing to do. If you want to run for a particular office, you get right out in front and draw attention to yourself. He campaigned, and the public felt that the statements made by that particular candidate reflected the future direction of the Social Credit government. They say he even had a supporting letter from the then Minister of Education, Bill Vander Zalm.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: He's not here anymore, and the other one didn't make it.

When Social Credit candidates and Social Credit ministers state publicly in a letter filed with the school district that they think it's a good idea to have deficit financing for three years to cover some of the necessities of that school budget and school district, when that is on public record, how can this government say they have a mandate to do the particular items they are bringing before this House? How can they take the direction in which they are taking British Columbia, saying they have a mandate?

One of these issues.... I would like to refer to the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), because he seems to be wide awake. I know he is appointed as my heckler and critic.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I give you a father image? Mr. Speaker, can that be classed as unparliamentary? Can I be offended?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a personal reference, and if you are offended I can have the member withdraw it.

MR. MITCHELL: As long as they don't call me "daddy" it's all right.

I want to stick to the bill. These members keep on taking me off the debate. We have to stick to the bill and to the principle.

I wanted to get that in, because I know the Minister of Education, when he winds up this bill, is going to go to the file of the previous Minister of Education, and he will find the letter that was sent to the Social Credit candidate about allowing this particular school district in my riding to have a deficit budget for three years to cover certain costs. Then he's going to come in and apologize to all those people from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, and he will either say that that person didn't have the right to make those commitments or give some explanation of why he feels that they have a mandate to bring in this particular piece of legislation after going out and saying one thing and then bringing in the legislation without referring to statements that were made in the election prior to May 5.

[5:45]

I think it's really important that when you go through all of this legislation that is part of the budget speech.... Mr. Speaker, you might say that there is only one bill before this House at this time, and I would have, to agree with you, because that is the tradition of parliament: there is only one bill. But I think that all the members on the government side of the House, and all the members who sit here in the government overflow on my left, and all those people who normally sit up in the press gallery will tell you that this is part of a budget, part of a package that was tied in to where this government was going to go.

I would like to debate where I think it should go. I would like to debate some of the issues that I believe are needed for education. I think we should debate some of the changes that are coming in our new technology. I know the Premier is sitting there, and he would like to get up and debate where we are going to go. I would really like to know how he's going to tie this all in with the package over the next three years. He's going to keep cutting back the budget. He is going to continue to interfere, with this legislation that is in Bill 6, in the direction of the school boards and those community grassroots elected people — people who know the community, who know the needs, who know the direction that their particular part of British Columbia should go in.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've still got lots of autonomy.

MR. MITCHELL: They have lots of autonomy but they have very little money, and as the old saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The only thing in this is that the provincial government does not pay all the costs of education.

MR. NICOLSON: Not even a third.

MR. MITCHELL: They don't even pay one-third of it, but they have decided, in their wisdom, their power and their ego of having 35 members, that they can jam anything through this particular parliament.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I thought I was designated. I haven't got started. I haven't got down to which school boards are efficient.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you finished your introduction?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I have finished my introduction; we are now getting on to the bill, Bill 6.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know, when you were out, if you were listening to the squawk box and you knew what was going on. Maybe I'd better go over what I said, because we have a new Speaker here, and the only person I am really talking to is you.

I allowed the Minister of Education to go out for two minutes and he sneaked back in without me seeing him, so I want to put it on the record that the Minister of Education came back. I don't know if he took more than his two minutes, but he did take his two minutes.

[ Page 901 ]

As I was saying to the previous Speaker before you kicked him out of his seat, Mr. Speaker, it is important that, when we discuss bills, we do discuss them in the traditions of where they should come in our parliamentary system. It is important that this particular bill is part of the budget speech; it is part of the budget package. I believe the press have called it the budget package. I know that it is unparliamentary to refer to the press, but as they are not here it is all right, I know you will not rule me out of order.

The important part of this bill is that it does interfere.... In the wisdom of the all-powerful government, it does give them power to interfere with the budget of a school district, and in this province there are 75 school boards of elected people. In their own minds they are as important.... In most cases they are far more important, because they make real decisions. Every one of those school board people is allowed to participate, because they have a chairman who listens and takes ideas from various groups within the community; they have input. When you look at the efficiency of these school districts — all 75 of them.... I would like to refer mainly to School District 61, which is completely in my riding. I do share part of the Victoria School District....

AN HON. MEMBER: Do them one at a time.

MR. MITCHELL: I'll just do 61. I'll do the Sooke School District.

I think it's important that we check some of the reasons why school districts are efficient. I think the important part.... Mr. Speaker, will you bring the first member for Vancouver Centre to order? I can hardly hear what you're going to say. It's that other troublemaker who has come over to this side here.... The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) gets my leader going, and they shout and scream at each other.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take action, hon. member. Possibly the two members to my left, if they wish to carry on a discussion, could do so better in the corridor and allow the member to carry on his debate.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad that you ejected the Minister of Municipal Affairs from the House, but I see he sneaked in the other side. I know that he'll go over there and take his seat and listen to what we have to say.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order under standing order 43, I think the orders say something about "boring and repetitious and tedious debate."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has taken cognizance of the point.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, on page 98 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne, citation 299, it talks about relevancy. Mr. Speaker, I can understand how you would have some difficulty here, because relevancy, according to Beauchesne, is not easy to define. To continue the quotation: "in borderline cases the member should be given the benefit of the doubt." I know you'll do that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: As hon. members are aware, as the clock approaches the hour of 6 the debate sometimes strays a little bit. However, I'm sure that we'll return to that, and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will continue.

MR. MITCHELL: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it's really important.... I would like to make one comment and bring the House's attention.... I believe I have the best audience in this House at this time, so I disagree with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Cash in on it — give us the climax.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm saying that when we discuss Bill 6.... I know the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) wasn't here when I went over the initial part of my speech, but I know that he was listening on the squawk-box and I know that he was attracted to the debate that we were having on the need....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to talk about amalgamation, but I believe that's under the Municipal Act, and I know that you would rule me out of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I certainly would.

MR. MITCHELL: This is the type of interruption....

Seeing that I've got all their attention and I've got your attention, I think it's the time that we should move adjournment of this debate to the next meeting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.