[ Page 1565 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

UBCM resolution on Bill 9. Mr. Blencoe –– 1565

Cassiar Packing payments to fishermen. Mr. D'Arcy –– 1566

Placing of provincial parks services in private hands. Mr. Mitchell –– 1567

Sale of Beautiful British Columbia. Mr. Cocke –– 1567

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

On the amendment.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1568

Mr. Lauk —1571

Mr. Barrett –– 1575

Division –– 1580

Mr. Stupich –– 1580

Mr. Blencoe –– 1584

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to introduce four members of the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of British Columbia and the Yukon, who are in your gallery. They are the provincial president, Shirley White; the first vice-president, Joan Currie; the regional president, Anna Thorpe; and the Victoria club president, Phyllis Wrobel. The second vice-president and regional chairman, Suzanne Dearman, although not with this group at the present time, along with Shirley White presented to our Committee on Social Services a very fine brief earlier today. I'd like to ask all members of the House to welcome them.

MRS. WALLACE: As a member of the BPW, I would like to join in welcoming the delegation, with a particular welcome to Anna Thorpe, who is a constituent of mine.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the galleries we have today a group of people from the B.C. Wildlife Federation: Carmen Purdy, president; Laurie Hall, president, Cariboo-Chilcotin region; John Carter, director, Kamloops; Dan McCaughey, executive director; and Mr. Greg Norton, president, Okanagan region. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a very prominent lawyer from Vancouver and New Westminster, who, I hope, will be a Conservative candidate in the next federal election, Mr. Robert Gardner.

HON. MR. McGEER: Those of us on both sides of the House who travel abroad from time to time are never more grateful than when they arrive back in Canada and never more proud than when they meet our Canadian ambassadors abroad. Today in your gallery, sir, is the ambassador-designate for the Philippines, Mr. Reg Dorrett, another member of that corps of which Canada can be so justly proud. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. VEITCH: Somewhere in the galleries this afternoon is a very good friend of yours, the president and chief executive officer of Pacific Vocational Institute, Mr. Henry Justesen.

MRS. JOHNSTON: As a charter member of the Surrey local of the Business and Professional Women's Club, I'd like to add my welcome to the ladies who are with us today. The Business and Professional Women's Club is one of the most prominent groups of women who work very hard to promote and support women in public life. They must be commended for the fine job they do. I would like to add my welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Visiting the Legislature today is a well-known British Columbian from the Sunshine Coast, who is here expecting an apology from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Would the House please welcome that respected journalist, Allen Garr.

MR. CAMPBELL: Two very good friends of mine are here today in the gallery, Bob and Helen McLaren. Would you please give them a welcome.

[2:15]

MR. REE: Today in the gallery we have six people from distant parts of the world. They are guests of the Canadian Association of Young Political Leaders of NATO-based countries, and are under the sponsorship of External Affairs in this country. From Greece: Nicolas Kalteziotis, MP; Basil Bekeris, MP; and Theo Georgiou; these three are from the New Democracy Party. From Portugal: Antonio Lacerda, MP, Social Democratic Party; Francisco Ribeirinho of the Christian Democratic Party. From France: Philippe Briol of the Christian Democracy Party. I'd ask this House to welcome them to British Columbia, to this House and to Victoria.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a tremendous amount of pleasure to welcome back the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett).

MR. PARKS: I take pleasure in advising the House that I have two young constituents visiting with us today. They are Scott Hunter and Grant Duch. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There have been in the galleries and the precincts of the immediate Legislature in the last few days police officers, plainclothesmen, RCMP, I suppose members of the SI. I recognize that it is important, in terms of the security of the building, that we have control over the building, but not in the galleries and not in the parliamentary restaurant. I think that is a matter affecting the privileges of the whole House. It has been traditional in Parliament, in the galleries, like last night — and I think it's important in terms of the traditions of Parliament — that there not be any kind of paramilitary presence in the immediate precincts of the Legislature. That was established long ago, I think in 1644, at the time of Col. Pride's Purge. Therefore I ask the Speaker to take that under advisement and to consider whether or not they should be in the immediate precincts of this House, because I think that's irregular.

MR. SPEAKER: Without prejudice to the member's point, it will be taken under advisement. I must advise members that the individuals in question are here at the invitation of the Chair. Also, hon. members, insofar as the restaurant is concerned, the Speaker has made those facilities available to these people. Certainly I will bear in mind the observations of the second member for Vancouver East, and I will bring back a fuller and more complete decision on the matter as raised by the member. Furthermore, hon. members, I would also bring back at that time additional information on the control in other jurisdictions.

Oral Questions

UBCM RESOLUTION ON BILL 9

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The UBCM convention last week passed a resolution describing Bill 9 as "unacceptable and inappropriate to the needs of British Columbia municipalities." Has the minister decided to accept the UBCM recommendations that those provisions of Bill 9 affecting regional planning be withdrawn forthwith?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I have, up until this point, been quite open and willing to discuss this bill with the members

[ Page 1566 ]

and officers of the UBCM, and I will continue to be open to meetings with them concerning that legislation.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary. Is it not accurate that you said to the UBCM, counter to what you are saying today, that you are not open to any discussions, and that Bill 9 will go ahead?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That is inaccurate.

MR. BLENCOE: Several speakers and convention resolutions reflect on the trend toward centralization of power in Victoria under this government. Again supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has the government decided to suspend the drift toward centralism, and to forge a new partnership with local government?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am going to advise the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), for the last time, that any further outbreaks such as has been the case in the last several question periods, will be dealt with most severely by the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: It's interesting that the minister was not prepared to talk about a partnership with local governments.

A supplementary. The UBCM is also concerned about the prospective cuts in revenue-sharing grants, particularly in light of the decision to privatize parts of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. Has the minister decided to announce that revenue-sharing grants will be maintained for at least the coming budget year?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As announced at the UBCM convention, that announcement will be made when those figures are available.

MR. BLENCOE: Is it not accurate that you made a statement in your speech that they would be maintained, but then in your press conference you said there would be a cut? Can you tell the municipalities of this province which is accurate — a cut, or continuation of the grants as last year?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to that member that he get a copy of my speech, which clearly states that we would attempt to keep that portion of the revenue sharing as close as possible to last year's. If he understands the meaning of "as close as possible," he'll realize that that could be a little bit below.

CASSIAR PACKING PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN

MR. D'ARCY: To the member for North Peace, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and acting Minister of Environment. On August 31, the Royal Bank of Canada placed Cassiar Packing Company in receivership — after the 1983 catch was delivered, but before fishermen were paid, thereby maximizing the Royal Bank's cash position. On September 13 the member for North Peace told this House that the fishermen in question would be paid in full. Two days later, on September 15, the receiver, Coopers Lybrand, said that only those fishermen who kept supplying fish would be paid, and then at only 20 cents on the dollar.

In view of the minister's perhaps inadvertent failure to deliver on his statement to this House and his commitment to those fishermen, has he directly, or through intergovernmental relations, pursued this matter with his Liberal Party colleagues in the Trudeau government in order to ensure that the receiver honour its contracts with fishermen who in good faith delivered fish to Cassiar Packing before the August 31 foreclosure by the Royal Bank?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

MR. D'ARCY: Why is it out of order, Mr. Speaker? I asked if the minister had contacted the federal government regarding this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: That question is in order.

MR. D'ARCY: I'll read what I said again.

Has the minister, directly himself, with his ministry, or through intergovernmental relations, pursued this matter with his Liberal Party colleagues in the Trudeau government in order to ensure that the receiver honour its contracts with fishermen who in good faith delivered fish to Cassiar Packing before the August 31 foreclosure by the Royal Bank?

MR. SPEAKER: Same answer, hon. member.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why it's out of order?

MR. SPEAKER: I would commend page 132....

MR. D'ARCY: I'm prepared to delete any part of the question that the Speaker finds out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the member, in retrospect, could rephrase the question so that it would be in order. The member is free to ask a further question.

MR. D'ARCY: Has the minister been in touch with his counterparts in the federal government to help ensure that these fishermen are paid according to the minister's own commitment to this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The direct answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The other thing is that I would like to say that I said I had received assurance that all the fishermen would be paid. I did not say, as the member indicated, that I guaranteed they would. I had received those assurances; it turned out that they were not accurate. I have since learned by checking into the matter that once the receiver was appointed, all fishermen who delivered fish from that point on were paid in full, in cash. Fishermen owed money by the company from before that were guaranteed at least 20 cents on the dollar, and there is still hope that before the end of the year they will be paid in full. I admit the assurances I had received were not as I indicated.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a further question, but I would like to assure the minister that I appreciate his forthrightness in recognizing the fact that the assurances he gave the House were not completely valid.

[ Page 1567 ]

PLACING OF PROVINCIAL PARKS
SERVICES IN PRIVATE HANDS

MR. MITCHELL: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. The parks branch operates a workshop in Langford where they produce the majority of the tables, signs and outbuildings for the provincial parks. This shop presently employs 15 regular employees and two auxiliaries with a payroll of $350,000 per month. Can the minister give any reason why the parks branch is now deciding to close this operation, displacing the jobs in my constituency?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, considerable reorganization is going on throughout the ministry. To give you full particulars on that question, I will have to take it as notice.

MR. MITCHELL: I believe the parks branch has had various experiences with privatizing or setting out to private contract some of the work they normally do, when they have an overrun, and they have found cost overruns and poor quality production. While he is checking on this, will the minister give the assurance that he will check the previous experience of the department or the shop in privatizing, which it appears the minister wishes to do with everything in the parks branch?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The statement got rather convoluted, and you lose track of the question. Yes, certainly I will investigate that, because the reports I've had to date are contrary to the observations the member has made.

MR. MITCHELL: Many of the employees at that shop are artisans in their work, and many park signs on display throughout the province are produced there. If they put it out to contract, can the people of this province expect to see cheap plastic signs in place of the signs which have been a traditional part of the provincial park sites, or will they maintain the same standard and quality of signs?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We're very proud of the signs that are displayed through the parks branch, and I would assure that member that we would expect the highest quality any way we do it.

MR. MITCHELL: In their reorganization, could the minister assure this House and the people of British Columbia that they have neither made any other moves at the present time to privatize any additional provincial parks in the parks branch?

[2:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think I should correct that member. We are not privatizing parks; we are privatizing some of the operations that take place in Manning, and we are also planning to in Cypress. If you call some of the cutting of wood and that sort of thing privatization of some of those operations, then yes. But the parks are not being privatized.

SALE OF BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism, who was playing hookey yesterday during question period. He came in a little after.

On July 8 the minister set a sale price for Beautiful British Columbia magazine of $2.8 million. I asked the Premier about this yesterday. In view of the fact that the magazine was sold for some $760,000, will the minister advise what became of the other anticipated $2 million?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm very pleased that the member has asked me this question again so that I can respond and set the record straight. I will quote from the news release that I put out on the date in question — July 8. I won't quote the whole thing, but in part it says:

"I pointed out that the anticipated revenue from Beautiful British Columbia magazine, $2.8 million, was being totally credited to the ministry in 1983-1984 rather than to consolidated revenue, as was done in previous years."

That's not the sale price, Mr. Speaker; it's the revenue anticipated before any expenses. The news release went on to say:

"When the estimates were prepared, a final figure could not be established, whether from direct revenue from the sale of individual issues or disposition through privatization. But I did want to reassure the industry that the allocation of funding for the promotion of Tourism has not decreased."

I hope that answers the member's questions and sets the record straight.

MR. SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period.

MR. ROSE: If I might, Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the question raised by my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) having to do with the presence of police officers in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member. The Chair has undertaken the matter, and the matter cannot be raised again a second time, nor can it be added upon. The Chair has given an undertaking to report to the House, and such will be done.

MR. LAUK: Under standing orders, when any point of privilege is raised, it is discussed that the Speaker invites — albeit at his discretion — helpful information from all members with respect to tradition and convention concerning the point of privilege. I wonder if Mr. Speaker would not consider hearing the very distinguished former Member of Parliament, who might be able to assist Your Honour in these matters.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has given an undertaking on a matter raised earlier this day. We are not going to engage in debate at this stage on a matter that was raised and taken under advisement by the Chair.

MR. ROSE: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not attempting to debate the matter but to draw Your Honour's attention to a couple of citations that might assist him in coming to his decision. It's a matter not unique to this House. It's one thing for the Speaker to invite members of police forces — either provincial or federal — within the precincts

[ Page 1568 ]

on special occasions, but I think it's a well-established practice that Members of Parliament should be consulted if there is a condition existing which would justify the presence of police officers here on a more than temporary basis.

I cite Beauchesne's fifth edition. There are two citations on this very subject. I wonder if I might briefly paraphrase them for His Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has now had an opportunity to cite the reference he wishes to use. To read the reference would be to abuse the right that the member has gained the floor with.

MR. ROSE: Could I cite the page number, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. ROSE: It's on page 19, citations 53 and 54, and is headed "Police Within the Precincts of Parliament."

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of standing order 49. I draw to the attention of the House the notice of motion that I gave yesterday. It is a motion of censure against Mr. Speaker, declaring that Mr. Speaker Davidson has lost the confidence of this hon. House.

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

MR. HOWARD: Pursuant to standing order 49, I ask leave of the House to proceed to deal with that motion now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is within his right to ask that under standing order 49 at the stage when we are at motions. As soon as I have ascertained that we are at motions, I will advise the member whether his application can be made at this time. One moment, please.

If the member will consult his Orders of the Day, he will see that at this time we are not yet at motions. When the member does arrive at that spot in the business of the House, the application under standing order 49 will be in order.

MR. HOWARD: You must appreciate a certain difficulty, and I ask your guidance in this, Your Honour. Standing order 25 says: "The ordinary daily routine business in the House shall be as follows." Then it enumerates prayers, presenting petitions, etc., and proceeds on through. At no time does anybody read, under that item, the question "motions and adjourned debates on motions." When question period is over, there is an opportunity for standing order 35 and the immediately following business is the calling of the orders of the day, which moves out of that section of routine business and into whatever the government seeks to call. I submit that the only opportunity of a precise nature available to raise this question as to whether we're on motions or not is under "routine business," which is before orders of the day are called.

If there were an opportunity.... If the Chair or the Clerk would call motions and adjourned debate on motions, then we would deal with it, but the Clerk does not do that. That prevents the opportunity to raise the thing I'm raising, and the only time I have to raise it is right now — unless Your Honour will clearly indicate the other time by saying: "It is now time for motions."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the matter raised by the member for Skeena, firstly and clearly, it is not the practice of this House to call motions. Secondly, Committee of Supply has precedence by order of the House. Therefore, hon. members, there is a problem in getting to that particular stage without leave.

MR. HOWARD: I am asking for leave to do that, Mr. Speaker, just the same as the government House Leader occasionally asks leave on Thursdays to proceed to something other than what is set down as a priority matter. I'm asking leave to proceed to motions in order that I may then ask leave to move the particular motion and have it dealt with as quickly as possible.

Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD: Did you hear "noes" from the government side, ML Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I heard.... Sorry, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, it might be pointed out that it is traditional that if such a motion is standing on the order paper, it is to be moved quickly, and all members of the House usually agree to have the matter disposed with as quickly as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not on the order paper, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The order paper, Votes and Proceedings.... Let's get on with it and clear the air.

MR. SPEAKER: There were several noes, hon. members. The motion cannot pass.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I call adjourned debate on Bill 6.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: I see my good friend from Prince George North is in the House again, looking a little ashen, sallow and sepulchral; but he's a good fellow and he's going to hang in there.

Before I was so rudely interrupted by the inevitability of the adjournment clock at noon today, I was asking the minister if he would pull this bill for six months, hopefully with the support of the more reasonable people on the government side. It is quite clear to the people of B.C., regardless of how they normally vote in elections, that no ordinary mortal would be capable of making decisions on educational matters

[ Page 1569 ]

for each and every one of the diverse communities and school districts throughout the length and breadth of this province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Under Bill 6 as it is presently before the House, the minister would presumably be making decisions as to whether there would be major sports programs and counselling, and whether you would have it in Courtenay or Cranbrook. He would be making decisions on whether a fine arts program would be appropriate in Dawson Creek, but perhaps not in Duncan. He would be making decisions on whether a recreation and fitness program was appropriate in Victoria, but not in Chilliwack. And there are many other special programs in the schools that have been worked up with local electoral mandated support, such as sociology programs and special programs for gifted children.

[2:45]

The minister knows all this, but I'm reminding him; I'm hoping that sweet reason will come through to him. Children with special needs, students who need training in personal management skills to assist them in coping with the regulatory world that they find they're surrounded with when they leave school.... Perhaps of major importance, especially in a constituency like mine, and I think in the minister's as well, are special English programs for students, and even for adults for whom English is a second language.

I know the minister and the apologists for Social Credit authoritarian centralization in this province are going to get up and say they have a problem with ability to pay. I recognized this morning that the education industry, shall we call it, is a very expensive one and takes up a major part of the B.C. economy. Nonetheless, it's a very important one. One of the reasons the government has difficulty with this is that we have in British Columbia a situation where....

Mr. Speaker, I know you're from out of the province, but I believe you've been here for a number of years. When you were in Winnipeg or the Prairies, or wherever, you might have seen Len Norris cartoons from the fifties, sixties, and even the early seventies. We all found them very funny. He used to have this creation on the wall which he called "Ye Socred Cow." That was found very funny by Social Crediters, as well as by New Democrats and people of other persuasions. We now have in British Columbia what we could best call a Socred bear. All around the world — New York, Toronto, Hong Kong, all the stock exchanges — we have a bull market. They're setting records. But in Social Credit British Columbia, the Vancouver Stock Exchange is exactly at the other end. It's setting records by being lower than ever before in its history.

That is Social Credit economic management in this province. The minister knows full well that that gives him a financial problem when he goes to his colleagues on the treasury benches for funding. The economy of B.C. is so badly managed by himself and his colleagues on the government benches that even in a major resource-based economy like British Columbia, the government feels it needs, and will have to bring in, this centralized control of education in order to hide the economic facts from the school boards, students and teachers out there in the communities.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 42. We're talking about a hoist on Bill 6 and it really has nothing to do with the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

MS. BROWN: That's not a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's actually well taken, hon. members. We are on a hoist to an education supply bill. I think 43 would have been the more appropriate standing order, but I'm sure the hon. member for Rossland-Trail can continue his debate in order and without any more interruption from the House.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason we wish the minister to consider delaying this bill for six months is that we recognize that he has an economic problem, that he and his colleagues have an economic problem, and we recognize that they do not wish that problem to be exposed to the school boards, and to the people out there who elect school boards. We recognize that fact.

I want to give the minister a break. I'd like to give him a break, so I have a suggestion for him. They love talking about the mandate, Mr. Speaker. You've heard that: "The mandate of May 5th." At some time in November there will be a new mandate for school boards in this province. I suggest that the minister and his Social Credit colleagues get out there on the highways and byways of this province, organize those elections at the local level and see if, in the democratic process, they can get school boards with a mandate to support the provincial government. Then I would have to agree that perhaps Bill 6 as it's presently written would be more appropriate. I want to give the minister that kind of an opportunity to stand back, take a look, consult with the professionals out there. After all, the minister is a lawyer. I've no idea whether he's good, bad or indifferent, but he is a lawyer. I'd like to give him a chance to consult with the professionals out there in the education field. And when I say the professionals, I'm not talking about just the paid professionals, the educators; I'm talking about the administrators, the business managers in the school boards, the property owners, large and small. I know the government doesn't care too much about the residential property owner, about the homeowner, the apartment owner and the tenant, but I know they care — at least they say they care — about the owner of business property, commercial and industrial property. Give him a chance to go out there and consult with these people, because this fundamentally is a finance bill. This is fundamentally an education finance bill.

As we discussed this morning, the government, each and every year, including the present budget — and perhaps we're not supposed to discuss the budget, so I'll just refer to it in passing — has reduced the proportion of money going into education that the government supplies, and increased.... The government supplies some general revenue, and has increased the amount that comes off local property owners, whether they be large companies like Noranda, MacMillan Bloedel, Cominco, or small individuals such as pensioners and ordinary citizens. Each and every year the government has unloaded financial responsibility on to the local taxpayer, at the same time demanding, and taking, more and more authoritarian centralized control unto itself. If the government is to make a discretionary political decision — not just this year but each and every year — to give more and more taxing responsibility to local property owners, who elect school boards, then the government must

[ Page 1570 ]

grant more and more autonomy for those elected people who have a mandate to make decisions regarding how much money is collected and how it is spent. Instead, they're going exactly the opposite way. While preaching a gospel of "less government is good," and "the government that governs best, governs least," as they like to say, the fact is that they're governing more and more and more in Victoria, taking more and more control.

I have a concern that in this province there is a lack of confidence in that government here in Victoria, including that minister. And because of that lack of confidence, investors, whether they be large or small, multinationals, whatever, are withdrawing their investment plans. Private investment in B.C., in actual terms, is down by 20 percent in 1983. Consumer spending is low. The 20 percent drop in attendance at the PNE was no isolated incident. It's representative of the general state of confidence in this province. That minister could start restoring confidence in this government, in himself, with these hundreds of millions of dollars worth of education money, over which he has jurisdiction. He could start by going out to the people of British Columbia, to the people who give their school boards whatever mandate the local school district electorate wants them to have, and explain that he has confidence in people, confidence in the electoral judgment of those people when they elect their school boards, and he is prepared to consult and work with them. He talks, and so do the government apologists, who are too lazy to stand on their feet and make a speech in this House, but who love to interrupt and chirp.... The government apologists love to talk about their mandate, but they don't recognize anybody else's mandate. They don't recognize the electoral mandate of school boards; they don't recognize the electoral mandate of the GVRD when it comes to planning decisions; they don't recognize the mandate of the federal government. They have a mandate too. We may think they're disgusting, but they have a mandate. Mr. Speaker, the Socreds in this House, in their authoritarian, centralist demagoguery, think that democracy and a mandate only applies to them. It doesn't apply to local government, to school boards, or at the federal level. It only applies to them. It doesn't apply to regional government.

It's been said editorially and in other areas that the government wants to set the clock back. Well, I disagree with those statements. If the government was willing to set the clock back, at least we could recognize where they were coming from. Whether it was Herbert Hooverism or Genghis Khanism or early Maoism, or whatever, we could recognize it. But that government over there is unique. They don't want to set the clock back; they want to invent a new clock. They have these fantasies that somehow they're going to establish authoritarian centralism, and that's going to be efficient. It has been shown that authoritarian centralism, whether it says it's of the right or of the left in government, democratic or autocratic, corporate or trade union.... Large, authoritarian, centralist bureaucracies are inevitably inefficient and do not serve the people who are paying the bills, however benevolent the administrators may be. As I said this morning, the minister may be benevolent, he may wish to be benevolent, he may or may not fill the bill, but the fact is that when he takes all this authority over people under his control — authority which in the past in this province, in other jurisdictions in Canada and in other democratic jurisdictions around the world has, by governmental evolution.... Systems of government do evolve, and that authority has been given out to the local level. By taking that authoritarian centralism here into Victoria, it's not setting the clock back, Mr. Speaker; it's making a new clock. I believe that a case could well be made that even in the colonial period in this province, prior to this province joining Canada in 1870-71, the people of that loose collection of colonies in the western part of British North America in fact had more local autonomy, even with an appointed government, than they have under this rag-tag bunch of neophyte, evangelical, authoritarian people with their dogmatic, doctrinaire ideas about what the future should be.

Mr. Speaker, it's rather interesting that the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett), who's perhaps off receiving his delivery of blankets in his office, at one point didn't think this way — or at least he said he didn't. I'm going to assume that at one point he didn't think this way. This was after he was elected. He was a member of this House and he made a series of statements which — unfortunately, I think, for him — show that he has had some sort of conversion when it comes to local autonomy. At one time the member for Okanagan South actually was in favour of local autonomy — or at least he said so. And you know, many people in this province believed him. They believed that he, or a government headed by him, would never bring in legislation like Bill 6. I would like to give the member for Okanagan South, as chairman of the treasury benches and as Premier of this province, a chance to perhaps reread some of his statements from the not-too-distant past, when he claimed — inevitably — that he did not believe in centralizing authority by a central government. In fact, the member for Okanagan South used to say things like: "The Minister of Education seems determined to gain control of all educational facilities within our province at the expense of local school boards." The member for Okanagan South said that. It wasn't the member for Vancouver East. It wasn't Marcus Roseus. It wasn't even Gary Begin. It wasn't even somebody from the B.C. Teachers' Federation, or the school trustees. It was the member for Okanagan South.

[3:00]

Back in 1975, referring to the principle of this bill, which he perhaps never would have brought in then — or at least he said he wouldn't; but a minister under his jurisdiction, his appointment, has brought this bill in — he said: "We" — in government — "would also work to return dignity and responsibility to individual classroom teachers — trained professionals who deserve more authority" — more authority, Mr. Speaker — "in setting educational objectives for their pupils." Further, the member for Okanagan South said back in '75, when he wanted to be Premier:

"The current system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded and places an unfair burden on the property owner. We would look to tax revenues from our resource-based industries. This new approach would help to hold the line on property taxes, while meeting the increasing costs of education resulting from inflation."

But he didn't stop there, Mr. Speaker. He said that when they were in government they "would increase direct payments to local school boards, while decreasing the cost and importance of the central bureaucracy." I hope that the government members who slavishly back the member for Okanagan South will consider what he said back then, and what some of them said and paid lip service to when they wanted to be government, when they wanted to establish what they felt

[ Page 1571 ]

was going to be a positive regime here in Victoria. They established that regime, but it has certainly not been positive.

For the moment I have one last quote from the member for Okanagan South. He is referring to the policies which he has advocated. He said: "The end result of such policies would be a better quality of education for our young people, a more meaningful education, based on policies developed at the local level" — developed at the local level, Mr. Speaker — "and an educational system which can grow and develop without burden to local taxpayers." Those are the kinds of ringing rhetorical statements that we had in the past when Social Credit wanted to be government. Now in 1983, when they are government, endorsed by 49 percent of the voters and rejected by 51 percent, they feel they have a mandate to take pieces of legislation like Bill 6 and jam them down the throats of the people in B.C. — the students, the professionals, the taxpayers and the property owners out there who have seen their taxes escalate each and every year. Every time there is a 4 or 5 percent increase in school costs, property taxes go up by 10 or 15 percent under Social Credit. It happens every year. It happens in every school district in the province.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to contain myself within the allotted time span.

We on this side of the House know, and the government, in their heart of hearts know, I believe, that their policies are bad for British Columbia. But they have decided that they are going to take this authoritarian, centralist approach because they want to hide their policies as much as they can from the people of B.C., so that the public will not see what is going on. They want to do everything in the back rooms by regulation. They do not want a consultative process out there, where a government is not only fair and reasonable — admittedly, with the financial constraints placed on government these days — but also seen to be fair, reasonable and direct. Everyone who has ever had anything to do with government knows that there are times when you have to make unpleasant decisions and give out the bad as well as the good news. We also all know that if a government is direct and upfront and lets the sun shine in and says, "This, folks, is the true story, this is what our options are, and we have chosen to go this route on this issue because we think that's reasonable and sensible," a surprising number of people, regardless of where they come from politically, will endorse that sort of philosophy. This government wants to hide. It wants to centralize. It wants to take authoritarian control of matters which have never been centralized in this jurisdiction or in any other. I will make an exception to that. I believe that some of these centralization policies have been followed by the authoritarian government in the province of Quebec as well.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed discussing this with the minister. I see he is a reasonable person. He has been listening and he is awake. I want to give him full credit for hanging in there through this debate. I will be delighted to speak again on these matters when the time is appropriate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre. [Applause.]

MR. LAUK: I am deeply moved by that thunderous ovation from the government side. But that won't let you off the hook. You are not going to escape that easily simply because of a demonstration of solidarity. I was thinking that it was a long night. We have all acquitted ourselves very well. I have noticed that the minister is prepared to start taking notes, and I promise that I will not repeat any of what I said in my previous speeches on education.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It was all good, but I don't want to be tedious and repetitious. Do you want to know something? The most tedious and repetitious thing that has ever happened in this House is the total and complete abdication of responsibility and duty on the part of the Social Credit backbenchers.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Are you okay?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Nurse, could you bring the minister's hot milk, please. Are you okay, Mr. Minister?

I am going to keep this a secret within these four walls. I won't go to your constituencies and tell them that you sat on your hands for three months without saying a word on this legislation.

MR. REID: It wouldn't be true.

MR. LAUK: It is true.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. LAUK: It is true, let me tell you. The record is clear. The first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) has spoken twice in three and one half months.

HON. A. FRASER: How do you know? You haven't been here.

MR. LAUK: Every day.

They are upset and I don't blame them for being upset. They have been ordered to keep quiet and they obey orders. That's one thing a Social Credit backbencher knows how to do well — obey orders.

MR. REID: And work.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: When it comes to justice, they say: "Well, I just obeyed orders." Where have you heard that before, Mr. Speaker? "I was just obeying orders. It wasn't my fault. I didn't know what was happening. I was just doing what I was told to do."

This is a government that is trying, as my colleague for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) so eloquently stated a few moments ago, to set the clock back — so much so that I noticed two members from the Buildings Corporation carrying a sundial into the Premier's office the other day. I think they are trying to set the clock back in all of this legislation, and that's why I urge all members of the House to support this motion to

[ Page 1572 ]

delay the second reading of this bill for a period of six months.

I want to quote from a great parliamentarian, a well-known parliamentarian in the British parliamentary system, who said: "With the government demanding rather harsh discipline of them, government backbenchers tend to remain silent during debate, and no other single fact has contributed more to the deterioration of our parliamentary freedom." A great parliamentarian once pointed that out, and I am glad that you are embarrassed to hear those remarks. No other single factor has contributed more to the deterioration of our parliamentary freedom than the silence of the government back bench. It certainly has been a scandal in this Legislature that 31 bills, most of which are attacking fundamental human freedoms and civil rights within this province, have only had one or two backbenchers up to speak once only — a bill or two, and that's it. The record is clear. Cabinet ministers have not defended other ministers' bills, which has been a practice in this chamber for generations. It is the most well disciplined.... I have to compliment the Social Credit caucus as a whole. This is the most disciplined caucus I have ever seen and I have certainly heard of in democratic history. Democracy is not blind obedience. If you support these bills, then for heaven's sake, get up and say so. I know, because I have seen enough of some of the new Social Credit members to know, that there are one or two of you who would really like to get up and defend your government's position. But you don't even do that. You don't do it because you are told not to do it.

I also want to quote for the Minister of Education....

I've just received this little book of quotations. It's not Chairman Mao. It's a great modern philosopher who has a series of sayings that will help us through these trying times, as we're dealing with these draconian measures: Obi-Wan Kenobi. Now Obi-Wan Kenobi is probably the greatest philosopher of the day, and I want to read you some of his great quotations.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Oh, you can laugh. You are laughing. But we might find some comfort.... Obi-Wan Kenobi said this. Are you ready? "Our emotions are the steam which we give ourselves in order to fortify ourselves in the direction in which we want to move." I'm rather partial to that one. "Our emotions always support our real intentions." That's not bad. "No habit is maintained if it loses its purpose." Now if you want to become a Knight of the Jedi, you listen to this very carefully — I say to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), I know he's rather hopeful. And here's something for the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). Listen carefully. This is from the great Obi-Wan Kenobi — speaking directly to the member for Omineca. He says: "If we have a benefit in being sick, we stay sick." That's what he said.

MRS. JOHNSTON: This is really contributing a lot to the debate.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm getting to the point. I wish you'd contribute something to this debate.

MRS. JOHNSTON: The bill speaks for itself.

MR. LAUK: I've heard that before. I wish the hon. member would speak for herself.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Just a minute now. "We become free...." This is particularly for the Minister of Education. "We become free if we stop being concerned with our failures and successes." What do you think of that? That's pretty good stuff, isn't it? Isn't that great? And that's taken up 10 minutes. Now to the bill.

Let's deal with this hoist motion, Mr. Speaker. It's a valid hoist motion. I'm the twenty-second speaker on the hoist motion from the opposition side.

AN HON. MEMBER: They saved the best for last.

[3:15]

MR. LAUK: Hmm? That's true.

Here we have a government that is still stubbornly — ideologically stubbornly, with a doctrinaire, inflexible approach — defending these 31 draconian bills as a restraint measure. I think many of them are giving up trying to sell it as a successful restraint measure, because in August and September of this year we can see what the provincial policies of the Social Credit government have done to the economy of this province. Unemployment is up. It's the highest in Canada. Job creation has slowed to a standstill. As long ago as February we were promised that restraint would create jobs. If we reduced government spending we would create jobs. British Columbians have less purchasing power than anywhere else in Canada now, compared to what we had before. And this is to the minister: we have the worst-funded education system in the country — per pupil. No other province in Canada spends less per student than does the public education system of British Columbia. The figures....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I asked for figures. I'm glad the minister's asking me that question. He's falling steadfastly forward into the trap, perhaps.

I'll give you one more. I'll throw out one more piece of bait for you. Mr. Speaker, I asked for figures from the ministry last year, and I've been able to find out some figures this year. The ministry is designing figures in such a way as to show that in some areas the province of British Columbia contributes more per pupil than some other provinces. But in fairness, if you take what the BCSTA have done and you take the total amount of money per pupil from all three levels of government — if there are special programs — in the K-to-12 system in British Columbia, and compare it to all funding per pupil in the K-to-12 systems in all other provinces, we are the worst-funded per pupil in Canada. And that's the bottom line, the total funding. Don't tell me that you're paying more as a provincial government than some other jurisdiction. Don't turn around and say the homeowners are paying more towards education in some school districts, per province. I've never heard such an argument.... I heard this last year on the first version of Bill 6 from the minister's predecessor. He and his colleagues, and his predecessor, spent the last several years taking the financial responsibility for education away from the provincial government and foisting it on people where there's no test for ability to pay — that is, the homeowner; and commercial-industrial, but the homeowner is the one who suffers — and then turned around in debate last year and told me in a discussion on statistics of funding that if you compare school districts to other jurisdictions, to other

[ Page 1573 ]

provinces, we spend more on our kids. Do you see the devious way in which they deal with statistics? In other words, property taxes, which are overburdened, have a larger share of school taxation in B.C. than most other provinces of Canada. In other words, the homeowner in British Columbia — and the commercial-industrial property tax payer — pays more than in any other province in Canada in terms of taxation for education purposes. This is the disaster that we're asked to accept from this government and that the minister wants to perpetuate in Bill 6: the worst-funded system in all of Canada.

At the same time, we've had — and I'm not directing this critique directly at this minister; we've had a number of ministers in that chair.... If you blink your eyes or turn away for a moment there's a different minister in the chair. We've had more different Ministers of Education — again, we are breaking all kinds of records — in the past two terms of government than any other province in Canada. Now why is that? The Social Credit government has had a hard time in even selling itself on the centralization of the education system. They naturally have that bully instinct, Mr. Speaker; you recognize that. Even though many of you are polite and gracious and gentlemanly, the Social Credit personality is essential that of a bully. Bullies want to control. They're into the power game, into the struggle for win-or-lose, failure-success. This is the kind of narrow mentality that we've had to put up with.

Is it good for education that there be centralized control? The answer is no. Every piece of evidence in the whole wide world indicates that that's disastrous for education. Why is it disastrous? Because it increases bureaucratic officiousness at the central ministry level and decreases the flexibility and input at the local level that makes education interesting, vibrant and something valuable to our children and to our future, our culture and our economy as a province. Do you know that last year in Atlanta, I think it was, at an education conference they used Quebec and B.C. as examples — in the western world — of ultra-centralization of the education system? I wonder if the minister would ask his deputy about getting some of that reference material. It's a scandal. You now represent the most centralized education system in the western world. Two Canadian provinces do. That's very embarrassing. It seems to me that with those facts the government should have a second look at its centralization policies. They don't work. Education is not....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Someone's saying: "What about efficiency? We've got to save money in the education system." Yes, you can do that. There are all kinds of ways to do that at the local level too. But the most efficient thing you can do with education is shut the schools. Shut them all down: you'll save all the money.

Somewhere along the line the government has to discuss what the goals are for an education system. What do you want for your kids? We're running around as parents, for example, talking about the three Rs and the basic core curriculum and so on. Most of us don't have any idea what we're talking about; we don't even know what's going on in school. And I'm not excusing teachers. I know there's a lot of deadwood, a lot of feather-bedding and a lot of people who are uninterested in their profession. I would say that comes to our attention at the community level more often than in any other profession that has the same degree of deadwood. I don't think we should allow any kind of inefficiency, and we have to straighten out the teaching profession and encourage teachers to improve and do better. But as I say, somewhere along the line we have to ask what the goals of the education system are. What are they? Good teaching is only one aspect of it. Opportunity for new educational experiences is another. What do you want for your children?

Someone said to me, "I want to get back to the three Rs, and the basics, that kind of thing." I heard the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) speaking yesterday morning, at around 4:30, and he was quite eloquent. All those in the chamber except myself were asleep, so I heard what he had to say and I was deeply moved. He said that as a university teacher he had found that this nonsense about kids not been literate and so on was so greatly exaggerated that it was really a bum rap, and he wanted to set the record straight. He said they are just as good or better than a generation ago, and that this mythology about the public school system has done nothing except demoralize it. This is why I brought out this book of Obi-Wan Kenobi. He talks about the self-fulfilling prophecy: by prophesying something, you make it come true. You've heard that before. This is what's happened.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who was the first Minister of Education under this administration, went around the province saying: "The public education system is rotten. Send your kids to private schools." We know that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is the classic elitist. His idea of a great society goes back to Henry of Navarre. His idea is a feudal structure. Henry had a good time but nobody else did. You remember Henry, Mr. Speaker? Henry of Navarre was the first politician to promise the peasants a chicken in every pot. That's true. He became King of France — not by the ballot box, mind you; he had to convince a few peasants. So he said: "I promise you a chicken in every pot." And Trudeau came along and promised a little pot in every chicken.

Mr. Speaker, the structure which that first Minister of Education would like to see in our society and in the education system is an elitist one. He started attacking the public education system to the extent that the prophecy is fulfilling itself; and the system is becoming demoralized. In fact, you can see some cracks in the system and some deterioration.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The attack on the public education system by this government has been relentless. Minister after minister after minister has attacked the local autonomy and the integrity of the education system. While there are lineups and waiting lists for kids to get into the private schools, the public schools are suffering from lack of funding, from undermining by the very government and ministers that should be supporting it. Indeed, we are witnessing the death of public education in British Columbia, and it's very sad indeed.

I know that this has been referred to before, but a gentleman by the name of Crawford Kilian.... I think I recognize that as the name of a trustee on the North Shore. Well, we'll read a paragraph or two.

"First, a whole level of government has been gutted. School trustees now have no serious powers. Their function for the next three years will be to preside over the dismantling of the system they have spent decades building."

[ Page 1574 ]

I think that's very eloquent, don't you? I don't think it can be said often enough.

[3:30]

"School boards are now so degraded that they have no real reason to exist except to draw fire away from the ministry and the cabinet."

This new budget, says Kilian, creates a group of satraps. Do you know what satraps are? They are the sort of vice-regal representatives of the tyrant. That's traditionally what they are. They are higher than the highest general in the army. They're the personal, designated envoys and governors of the tyrant. I would say that Mr. Kilian chose a very appropriate choice of word.

"Those satraps will answer to Deputy Education Minister James Carter" — that's not the former president — "whose power is now virtually total.... Carter, as deputy minister, may exercise all of the powers of the government under this act."

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to help the member. I understand he was asking about Crawford Kilian. Crawford Kilian was a school board member in North Vancouver who was defeated in the last election. I understand he is now teaching, or will be going to teach, in Communist China.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, while interesting and informative, and with all deference, that statement can hardly be considered a point of order. To interrupt another member's speech for something that is clearly not a point of order is not in keeping with the rules of this august chamber.

MR. LAUK: Thank you for your very agile and eloquent defence, Mr. Speaker.

He says Crawford Kilian is going to teach in Communist China. It's a devastating attack. I heard that he was a bagman for the Social Credit Party on the North Shore.

What are some of the programs that are going to be eliminated by Bill 6, and the reason we want it delayed? Elementary counselling. Anybody who has a cursory knowledge of education knows that the kind of counselling techniques they're developing today are not sinister. They're unique and highly skilled. The argument is that counselling is at its most effective at the elementary school level, so the ministry of Education has tried to encourage local school districts to increase their skills in that area for our elementary children.

Again, let's discuss the goals of the education system. The goals must be to provide a variety of educational experiences for our young people. Wherever you look in the western world, the more highly educated that a population is, then the more sophisticated its culture, the more prosperous its economy, and the greater the variety of cultural and social activities within that community. This is as a result of the enhancement of the educational system. The more variety that you create, the more direct benefit, even economically, there is to the society that takes that point of view.

Social Credit is anti-intellectual. Most feudal right-wing parties are. Do you remember Henry II? Some people say Major Douglas founded the Social Credit Party. That's an absolute falsehood. It was Henry II of England. He had only one intellectual friend, and 500 barons who were about as intellectual as a salt shaker. He called them his trusty hounds. Do you remember that? That was Henry II. Well, the same theory prevails in the Social Credit Party. They have an anti-intellectual attitude, really. They also have an elitist attitude towards education: only the very top people in society should receive an education. Counselling at the elementary schools is disposable. It falls under the axe of restraint. That's okay. We don't need that. They're just little kids.

How about the locally developed education programs? Now there's another area that's going to suffer under Bill 6. You didn't consider this, did you? Your grandchildren could benefit from these locally developed programs because....

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll have a better education than you ever had.

MR. LAUK: Hah! You know, that might not be the measure of what your grandchildren should have. I may concede that. So bear with me for the moment, with your rapier-thrust wit. Be patient.

Mr. Speaker, locally developed programs, particularly for the elementary school level, have been underway for some time in the school districts, and encouraged, supported and, to some creative extent, contributed to by the ministry. It seems to me that this is going to fall under the axe of restraint.

Again, what are the goals of education — the three Rs? Well, we had that. Is it some sort of prison-like setting, some sort of black-and-white discipline? I mean, is there no creativity? Is there no civilization in the philosophy of the Social Credit Party? Don't they see the opportunity we can give to a whole generation of young people? But we're so cheap we can't do it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: our parents who came out of the 1930s — your parents and mine — made a solemn promise that their kids would get an education. They made a solemn promise that that generation of Canadians would get an education, and they kept their promise come hell or high water. At the first sign of economic adversity, rather soft compared to the Great Depression, this government runs for cover. Penny-pinching, niggardly, cheap, parsimonious. I can't believe the kind of mentality this government has. I might add that they're cheap with the taxpayer's dollar, except when it comes to furniture for their offices, ministerial travel or government advertising — peddling Social Credit propaganda. In those areas they love to spend the taxpayers' money, but when it comes to locally developed elementary programs, no, that comes under Bill 6.

Elementary summer school — there's another example. They're eliminating not only summer school for elementary but also for secondary. They’re going to be cutting back on those in the district levels. The minister knows this. Look at what they're doing to these young people. It's no great crime if a kid doesn't do well in the last term or in the middle term or something, and he has to take a couple of courses at summer school. Why make him take the whole year over? That's what you're doing. That's economy, isn't it? Keep the student in school for an extra year, at whatever tremendous cost. But don't let him take the three-week summer school course to pass the course.

MR. BARRETT: Look what you're doing to the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell).

MR. LAUK: There's what lack of elementary summer school has done to the hon. member for Okanagan North.

[ Page 1575 ]

There is the result of the core curriculum. Now you can see why, in desperation, we're asking hon. members to support this hoist motion.

MR. REE: Mr. Member, that member can buy and sell you in hard work.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, would you protect me from Benjamin Disraeli over there?

Locally developed programs for secondary school levels are going to fall under the axe as well. What kind of a bill is Bill 6? Locally developed programs for both elementary and secondary school levels.... If you have two or three children, and you have invested your hopes and dreams in those children, don't you want the very best for them? What right do you, as a Social Credit Party in this generation, have to say to a generation of kids: "You have got to go second-rate"? What right have you got to say that? To your own grandchildren you are saying that; it's a scandal. Why should we take second best? Why have we got the worst-funded education system in the country? Why do we undermine the education system time after time? Why are they pinching pennies without even looking at or understanding what is happening to ordinary kids who want a future in this country? Shouldn't they take that one step beyond and have a prosperity mentality for themselves and for their kids that will say: "There has got to be something better than this. Sure, British Columbia has done well by us. There has got to be something even better"? It doesn't have to be richer. I think most of us believe that we have reached the end of the golden age of materialism. We know that, but there has to be something more in a civilized way....

MR. REE: Do you do that with more money?

MR. LAUK: No, but you don't do it by cutting out a summer school program and forcing the kid to take the year over again at three times the cost. It's dumb; it is really dumb. It is the stupidest thing I could possibly think of: the kid in high school can't take his math course again, so he has to repeat a year for two courses. What absolute dumbness! That is the epitome, the acme, the zenith, the height, the pinnacle of dumbness.

Correspondence school has been cut back. Now I recognize that there is the Open Learning Institute that is in some way duplicating, but at the same time there are remote areas of British Columbia. Correspondence schools and the great continuing education movement, which Mr. Speaker supported in Prince George and which people supported everywhere, came out of the Depression, where adults got together in groups and decided that they would educate themselves. Even in the depths of the Depression, people like — and I don't often tout Gerry McGeer.... Continuing education has been supplanted and undercut. Even in the thirties they found the money to support the continuing education program, but in the 1980s this cheap, miserly government is pinching pennies.

[3:45]

Community use of facilities is a whole speech I gave three years ago. People don't remember my speeches: I found that, you know. I go up to people on the street and I say, "Do you remember my education speech of 1973?" and you know, they don't. They don't remember; it shocked me that people don't remember those things. I made a speech about the community use of facilities — the education plant. We underutilize them. Instead of seed money in funding to make sure that plant is used, like the Britannia complex.... Have you ever been out there, Mr. Minister? It has improved since the Leader of the Opposition left.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time under standing orders has expired, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I want to speak at great length about the community use of facilities. I will ask leave. Could I have leave to continue on community facilities?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is asking leave to proceed past the allotted time limit on the amendment. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, that being an intervening item of business, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 27

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the motion in front of us is to have this bill, Bill 6, set aside for six months to allow the community of British Columbia to discuss its contents and their impact before it is rushed through this Legislature.

It is a reasonable request, and any government that trusts the people would take such legislation as this back to the people through, perhaps, a legislative committee or through public hearings, to permit the citizens of the province of British Columbia, who were not told in the recent election campaign that there was going to be any such effort as that manifested in this bill to centralize power in the provincial

[ Page 1576 ]

government's hands and away from the democratically elected boards of school trustees.... In British Columbia we have always trusted in democracy.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We have always trusted that people had the right, through the principle of subsidiarity, to elect local governments to determine, as close to the local level as possible, what the needs of the citizens they represent are.

This bill is affected by another bill presently under debate which would put under direct control duly elected citizens representing school boards and municipalities subject even, in an unprecedented fashion, to this: unless the elected officials follow the dictates of the provincial government, they can actually be taken to court and fined for not obeying orders from the provincial government. There is no other such legislation anywhere else in the free world; there is certainly no such legislation in any Commonwealth country. This legislation is part of a package that is seeking to place unprecedented power in the hands of a few cabinet ministers. Not many citizens in this province may be aware of the fundamental change in the relationship between school boards and the provincial government, the taxpayers and parents that is proposed in this bill. If this bill passes, no longer will citizens at the local level have any direct impact on the nature and quality of the education their children are to receive.

The government has forgotten that they do not spend any money of their own; that the very basic principle of parliamentary democracy as we know it in the British Commonwealth is the delegation of authority to elected representatives to spend the people's money. This government has been operating on the arrogant assumption that the money collected by taxes somehow comes from them personally and is to be handled by them personally. They have escaped the time-honoured responsibility of recognizing that it is a sacred trust of the citizens in a free society to delegate to elected officials the right to spend money for a limited period of time.

What this minister is now asking for is the authority, beyond that already delegated by the citizens to a government, to order elected officials to follow his dictates or else to be subject to a fine. What is the point of electing municipal or school boards? If all authority has been taken from them, if their decisions are subject to the whims of that minister, who may or may not be in a good mood, depending on what banquet he has attended and who he has spoken to.... I see a flicker of a smile on the minister's face. It's safe to smile; the Premier's not here.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's always safe to smile anytime, anywhere.

MR. BARRETT: Not in this chamber. You get thrown out if you do that, Mr. Member.

[4:00]

I'm glad I've got the Minister of Education's attention. It's safe to smile, Mr. Minister, because the Premier isn't here, but would you care to repeat those remarks about your cabinet colleagues, and about the government that you sit in, that you made, sometimes in jest, at a banquet, at the UBCM? I expect to hear you stand up and repeat those remarks about how you view your colleagues and the legislation that you're forced to deal with, and what you say privately and what you say publicly, Mr. Minister. You're not kidding anybody in terms of trying to protect your own image in the face of what this government's doing and the bills you have to bring in.

Mr. Speaker, there isn't one other cabinet minister, not one, that privately goes out and endorses this grab for power, but they're too frightened to stand up in cabinet and speak against it. We know what's going on. We know the little asides and the innuendoes that are going on throughout this province. When cabinet ministers are approached they say: "Oh, it's not really my idea. I'm really more of a Liberal." I'm really more of a Liberal! Some of them were Liberals. Some of them have been so beaten up by the association they've come to in joining Social Credit that they no longer recognize their own dignity. Some of them, who shall go unnamed, joined this coalition purely to seek power, and in seeking power they abandoned any of the principles, philosophies and policies that they espoused before they got elected.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: When? When once, during the recent election campaign or during any public speech, did any one of those who stood for office for Social Credit say they would stand on the basis of stripping power away from the school boards? When once, during a debate in the recent election campaign or in a publication of the Social Credit Party, which they espouse as being their political faith, did they publicly state that they would be bringing in legislation like this? When once, in speaking to school trustees, parents or civic groups, did they ever state clearly that they intended to subject other lesser elected officials to charges and fines if they didn't take orders directly from cabinet ministers? Where else in the British Commonwealth, if this package of legislation passes, will cabinet ministers be allowed to call up files of police officials on their desks, along with school trustees' files, and scrutinize those personnel files?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are now straying and anticipating another bill. We're still on Bill 6, which is the school board financing.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the motion to hoist is inextricably bound to the package of legislation. What I allude to as the consequences of this legislation is also part of that package. If this specific legislation, this specific amendment, is allowed to pass, it means that cabinet ministers can directly interfere with the personnel files of employees of school boards — subject to the passage of the package. That same package also means that in an unprecedented manner, they can call up on their desks the files of school principals, chiefs of police, ordinary policemen or teachers, and scrutinize those personnel files.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I will advise the hon. member speaking that he is anticipating other legislation. Bill 6 clearly supervises budgets and expenditures of school boards.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your admonition, but is this not a bill to give authority, by the cabinet minister concerned, over the budgets? Under those school

[ Page 1577 ]

budgets, who shall pay the fines that may be levied on school trustees if they disobey the government? It must come from those budgets. Surely the government is not anticipating, in this legislation, that duly elected citizens in a free society are personally liable for the whims of fines from cabinet ministers? Where will those funds come from? It surely must be dealt with in this small, seemingly innocuous bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not contained in the principle, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: It is, Mr. Speaker. To be in order, Mr. Speaker, because I have precious limited time, for your edification, and to clear up the confusion of some perhaps novice members who have no understanding of how we must treasure the rights of members in this chamber. "Section 12 (l) of the Education (Interim) Finance Act, 1982, is repealed and the following substituted: The minister may issue directives 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...."

That, sir, includes fines that may be imposed at the whim of cabinet against school trustees. Yes, indeed. And by definition it means that those fines may be imposed by a cabinet minister on a principal or a school teacher who may have spoken out against Social Credit, or had the temerity to suggest the curriculum was not sufficient to meet the needs of a child, or some school board that shows a revolutionary attitude by suggesting they want to initiate programs of their own because they have special needs in special districts for special children. Subject to fines at the whim of the cabinet; subject to scrutiny of their personnel files. The year 1984 is only four months away. Perhaps the legislation will be passed in time so that this Orwellian nightmare can be implemented in this province. It is nothing more than doublespeak and doublethink by a government that is obsessed with fear of its own power and its own sense of how the parliamentary system works.

Suppose that Ottawa brought in this kind of legislation and said it wished to call up the files of deputy minister or any one of the ministers of the Crown. Would the government be upset? Can't you see the screaming headlines now? "Trudeau or Mulroney Interferes With the Rights of the Province." If the municipalities and the school boards are the children of the parent, this Legislature, then this Legislature is indeed subject to the same federal legislation. That's why it's precedent-setting. Can you see a federal government receiving the endorsation, the hugs, the yeas of support from a provincial government willing to give up its duly elected responsibility and accountability to this Legislature? Can you see the yells of pain and anguish, the eloquent emotionalism from the cabinet benches against the Prime Minister and his cabinet should they dare bring in such legislation against the provinces? But they are doing it to the school boards. They're doing it to the municipalities, What they would not dare allow to happen to this jurisdiction in our confederation they are doing with malice to the school boards and municipalities in this province.

Mr. Speaker, my chagrin could be muted if this were purely an administrative mode. My concern could be dismissed as one interpretation of challenging powers. But as my colleague from Vancouver Centre and other members on this side have said, there is another matter involved in this: that is, the rights of children to expect the best possible education interpreted for them at the local level by elected officials representing the parents of each community in this province.

Tell me, Mr. Speaker, what the matador from Kelowna knows of the needs of the children of the city of Vancouver. Tell me what right a lawyer from Prince George has to dictate what the children of Kootenay should learn. Tell me what the highly principled, serene member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), who has a deep-rooted history of support for right-wing governments, knows about the needs of children on Vancouver Island in terms of dictating through this Legislature what a child should have. Tell me what special knowledge this cabinet presumes to have to order school boards around — just dismiss them, put in computers, press buttons. Then if the computer doesn't behave, sell it off to private enterprise.

There is no overriding philosophy around this kind of legislation. There is no obedience to some clearly articulated, long-sighted goal about a restructuring of society. There are no right-wing, laid out, Friedmanesque economics dictating this legislation. It is simply the extension of a frightened government seeking power for political purposes, to justify its own continuation in office. Scared of your own shadow, frightened of democracy, unwilling to allow citizens to govern the expenditure of their own money, you bring in this kind of legislation telling school boards that you know best. Individually, as citizens, some of you do know best. Some of you, however, know better, and that's the shocking thing. Some of you know better than to support this kind of legislation, but you won't do it. You have succumbed to the blandishments and the appeals of the Lorelei of power. Like drifting ships in a fog, you look for the Lorelei to maintain power.

The minister has run off out of the House because he can't take a little bit of heat at the windup of this debate.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Madam Member, whether he believes it or not, he has a different story to tell in private than what he says publicly. That's why he ran out of the chamber, and that's why, as the last speaker on this bill, the minister has decided that discretion is the better part of valour and has headed for the corridor.

A sleepy afternoon in sleepy British Columbia. In this province that some of us have come to believe has been in the forefront of trusting people, a vibrant, exciting and alive community that is essentially the cutting edge of all new ideas and thoughts, which leads Canada in understanding and openness, particularly in health care and education, all that history is now being shut down and wiped out. What do you have against democracy? What do you have against the ordinary toiling citizens of this province, who may be parents or grandparents, who have as the object of the sacrifice, hard work and dedication that they have put into building this pioneering province the desire to provide their children with the best possible opportunities and options in education they can participate in?

Universities are now turning away students. Classrooms are packed. More than ever before, public money is being squandered on northeast coal to subsidize energy products for a foreign nation. Money is being squandered on questionable borrowings that no longer have any accountability

[ Page 1578 ]

through the Crown Corporations Committee. Public Accounts is being stymied by a government that is frightened of its own shadow. And now they bring in legislation which says to the ordinary citizens of British Columbia: "Yes, you can vote for a school board, but once elected they can't do anything." Why?

[4:15]

There has not been a single, reasonable explanation given by any cabinet member as to why they want this power. I notice the complete and rapt attention that I am receiving from the government benches. It is the most civilized reception I've had in years for a speech I've given. Not a comment from the benches. Look at them, sitting there displaying their total collective talents and abilities. Not one of them is present! There are just a handful of clacking backbenchers who can't quite make it to the door, and one cabinet minister who wishes he had made it to the door.

Not one rational defence from the so articulate, semi-Rhodes scholar in the back, standing up saying why he thinks school boards should be allowed — to only be elected and never have a word. That member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who yesterday eloquently protested that he wanted to speak.... Let us hear him speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and tell us in his cute phrases, with his tortured political past, why he's come to the depth of supporting this kind of legislation — through you, Mr. Speaker, in all humbleness. Will that member now demand to take his place in this debate and tell us with his great Liberal past why he, too, has come to see the necessity for this kind of centralized power? I was impressed yesterday by his eloquence in demanding his time to speak. Oh, Mr. Speaker, do you think we shall see that member rush to his feet and give us an articulate examination of why dictatorship should prevail over the risks of democracy?

Kicked around and fearful so much, driven by a psychological group need of power, they have brought into reality the warning of Lord Acton. What did Lord Acton say about governments that operate this way? What did that eminent peer have to pass on to future generations in terms of warning us who serve in the legislatures of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Speaker, do you recall — I'm sure it is part of your bedside reading, along with those other great adherents of right-wing philosophy — Lord Acton, who was a right-winger, saying: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? That is what we are witnessing. This government received a 3 or 4 percent increase in vote, which it interprets as an absolute power. It has abandoned any of the time-honoured traditions of the principles of subsidiarity that we have enjoyed in British Commonwealth parliaments regardless of being socialists, capitalists, liberals or whatever. Indeed, there are traditions in these chambers going back some 350 to 400 years. That is why we are never called by our name in this chamber or in any other chamber in the Commonwealth. That is why the practice came up over the years of only recognizing the seats, not the human beings, because human beings pass but the seats are permanent. It is a demonstration of a faith, a belief that people have the right in a free society to speak for themselves — even if they're not consistent in their philosophy. But at least there should be reason to the speech: at least there should be logic to the legislation.

As a government you have not yet said why you want to tell school boards what they should or shouldn't do. You have not yet said to the people of British Columbia: "What's the point of having school board elections if they're not free to think and act for themselves as delegated by the taxpayers?" In our society we built up a parliamentary system based on delegating authority to people who spend taxpayers' dollars. Whether you are a millionaire or a pauper, it is one vote for one person. That delegated authority in a democratic society was tested in two world wars. This is not the stuff of great beer-parlour-nuance debate. This is not the stuff that will rend husband and wife in intense discussion tonight. This is not the stuff that will fill newspapers with rational examination. This is just a mild one-page bill that strikes at the very heart of what parliament, democracy and representative government is all about. You don't believe in people; you don't trust people. Any government that would bring in this kind of legislation and then actually fine people for not taking their orders is Orwellian. Perhaps George Orwell was indeed the intellectual grandchild of Lord Acton.

In this rapidly changing society, that even politicians have difficulty in dealing with because of the complexity of communication, social structure change and intertwining legislation, perhaps it is only on the basis of fear and lack of trust that you've brought this in. I'd like to believe that, but I think it's more. I think you don't know where you want to go as a government. The fact that you never said anything about this kind of legislation in the election campaign reveals that you have not thought out what the future holds and what the challenges are. I don't think the government has fully grasped that without an educated population, without a flexible, small-"l" liberal philosophy in providing the widest number of choices at the local level for every child to reach his or her maximum potential, you are denying the very future the pioneers of this country hoped for and invested in a public education system.

Public education should be just that — an education of the public, by the public, for the public. You're destroying a 100-year-old tradition in this chamber that has unified debate in this House between Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists and Social Crediters in the past. When it has come to education debates in this province, we have never before disagreed on the philosophy in terms of administration. We have had debates over nuance and approach, but we have never once assaulted the fundamental commitment given in this chamber for over 100 years that parents had the right to say, at the local level, what kind of education their children should receive through their school trustees. Why that change now? Why that change now? Why should the children of the taxpayers of this province be subject to that change now? I repeat that I think it is a basic and fundamental psychological weakness in a political group that governs without philosophy. It is a fundamental weakness of a group that has come together purely for power. It is a fundamental weakness in that there is no strength of the individual to stand up in cabinet and defend the rights of the ordinary taxpayers and parents of this province to have their say.

That member who spoke so eloquently yesterday about having his right to speak is now leaving the chamber without having spoken on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I find it necessary to see on record in Hansard that he quietly slipped out the door while this debate was coming to a conclusion. The minister of the Crown who is responsible for this bill did not sit through the windup, and only one minister has been present throughout it all, and that minister has been harmlessly affected because logic has never permeated his presence before. So be it.

[ Page 1579 ]

So we witness on this sleepy September afternoon the termination of a debate on the hoist of a bill that will fundamentally alter the structure of providing education for the children of this province. This bill has been lost sight of, because it's part of a package. Because of the overwhelming number of changes presented in that package, this little bill has been set aside as almost meaningless. We can all have agreements or disagreements as to which legislation the government is proposing is most dangerous, but in my opinion this ranks as the most dangerous. It's just a page, just a simple change, but what it means is the ending of democracy and the end of the role of parents having a direct say in the education of their children.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Minister, I'm an ex-leader. I'm through after 23 years in this chamber, oh yes. Anything else you want to say, go ahead and say it. The fact is that while I'm here and on my feet and after spending 23 years in this chamber, I have never seen such disgusting legislation with an attempt by a government to ram it through the House. This is mistreatment of the people. The people have a right to vote for who they wish, and they have a right to be wrong, but you're even taking away that right from the people when it comes to electing school boards. You don't believe in democracy.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is to speak, he must return to his chair. There are some rules left in this chamber.

You don't believe that the people should have the right in a democracy to be wrong, according to the way you view the world.

I want to thank the minister for coming back to listen to the last few minutes.

MR. MICHAEL: You didn't miss much.

MR. BARRETT: No, you didn't miss much either in your climb to success. You abandoned your principles a long time ago, Mr. Member. You're well at home in that group. Every one of them has jumped on some other political party. But let the voters of your area discover that. Ambition should never be the cloud of responsibility.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: If you don't like it, stand up and say so in the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House will come to order, please. To the hoist.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I love to hear those catcalls from those so-called freedom lovers. When they have the chance to stand up in the House and defend this kind of legislation, there's not a peep, not a murmur and not a twit. I'm not describing them, Mr. Speaker, I'm describing sounds, because "twit" cannot be applied to members, only to sounds. But they'll support this kind of legislation. What is it that drives them? It is simply the desire to be called "the honourable minister." Some of us become recipients of the definition of "honourable" by service in this chamber. That tradition is carried throughout life.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That poor, misguided new member has received my undivided charitable attention, because anything under 75 on a hot day on the IQ test deserves fond attention. He too will be subject, if he's forced to go back to school and take an exam on becoming an MLA, to this kind of legislation.

MR. REID: I'll be here long after you're gone.

[4:30]

MR. BARRETT: Should I dare insult that member? It is not possible even if I did dare. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if we stop the heckling then we can avoid personal references and return to the principle of the hoist.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no ill-will about the heckling; I just look at the source.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: "Lots of practice," he throws across. Tell us about your political history, Mr. Member. You live with your conscience and you live with your vote, but there is a condition in North America that threatens our survival as a democracy, and it is based on a philosophy that is essentially amoral. It's amoral in terms of a commitment to an understanding that even with the delegation of power there is a responsibility in the use of that authority, and no government has the right to abuse the principle of subsidiarity and allowing people in a free society to make their own decisions, right or wrong, through the electoral process as school boards or municipal officials.

This bill will pass. This bill will come into legislation. This bill will be a signal to every good mother and every good father and every good grandmother and every good grandfather in this province that if they are willing to serve as school trustees with the commitment and emphasis on the word "trustee," there will not be trust in them by this government. What they want for their children and their grandchildren will not be subject to their accumulated wisdom as parents, or their accumulated experience, either by education or by toil, but will be told by a dictatorial government. They must do as they are told from Victoria. I repeat, how would they feel if Mr. Trudeau in Ottawa brought in similar legislation? The first group to be out there crying paeans of alligator tears would be none other than the Social Credit group over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Three minutes, Mr. Speaker? I thought I had a longer career than that. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that I have been allowed to speak today.

It is another sick day in British Columbia where we begin to see the deliberate erosion of delegated, democratic responsibilities. We can't stop this bill. We can expect explanations.

[ Page 1580 ]

But who will correct the damage that it does? Who will tell, in this chamber, in the debates 50 years from now, God willing, about education passed in this province? Who will those legislators blame then? I give you the answer now. The blame will rest squarely on a government that is frightened of itself, frightened of the people and afraid to allow people to believe in themselves. That's exactly what this bill is all about.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 24

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

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll just wait till the rush dies down a bit from both sides of the House.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister just made the observation that I was pretty good at 4 o'clock in the morning. Actually it was 5:05 in the morning when I started — almost 12 hours ago. In another 25 minutes it will be 12 hours between speeches on the same bill, and he's wondering whether I have more to say. If I thought for one moment that the minister could be influenced by any arguments that I would make, then I would be quite happy to be the designated speaker on this subject and go on indefinitely. However, I fear that the minister is not in a position to be influenced by any arguments that I might make or that anyone else in the House might make, because the person who would tell him what to do has left the chamber. He is leaderless; he can't go his own direction.

I rather think that this minister would like to accommodate the B.C. School Trustees' Association — would like to move some, at least, to accommodate some of their concerns about the effect of the legislation we are now dealing with, the effect this legislation will have on the future of education in the province of British Columbia. I really believe he would like to. I have met with that minister on occasions when he was the minister of a different ministry, and have found him very good to deal with — prepared to try to accommodate the needs of the people. I have been saying over and over in this session that the Lieutenant-Governor, when we were called together, urged us to consider the needs of the people of the province. I really would like to think that that minister would want to do that if he were given the authority by the Premier to do so.

However, we are dealing with Bill 6, which is before us. To recapitulate just a little, I dealt with the sections of it, but not in detail, since this is second reading rather than committee stage, and expressed my concern about the changes in the Education (Interim) Finance Act. The legislation that was approved in the House over a year ago, in 1982, gave the authority to set the limit for a school board budget, gave the minister the authority to set the amount of that budget that might be spent on special education, and also included a cutoff date. It assured the school districts that while the government felt that there was an emergency financial situation in 1982 — and there still is.... But because of the emergency that existed in the spring of 1982, the government felt that it needed this authority to deal with the school boards. It assured the school boards that if they were prepared to cooperate, the authority would not be exercised. It changed the ground rules several times for the school boards. This is all recalling the summary of what I said yesterday evening.

[4:45]

There were those assurances given, and in spite of those assurances, not this minister but the then Minister of Education proceeded to ignore his own agreements, his own assurances given to school boards, and to pull the ground out from under the school boards on three different occasions. That same minister had perhaps gone about things in a way that we can respect and in a way that we can support. Perhaps not in the details of his examination, but he travelled around the province, ostensibly with a view to hearing from people all over B.C. as to what they thought of the education system, how it was working, what changes might be made and what improvements might be made. Precious little of what he heard was included in the legislation that was introduced in the spring of 1982, if we can gauge by the reaction from the school boards, because certainly there was no support that I am aware of from any school board for the Education (Interim) Finance Act, which was introduced to the House early in 1982 and passed by the House.

The idea that the minister could set the total budget was abhorrent to the school boards. They thought they should have the right to go to their own ratepayers, and if those ratepayers could be persuaded that a particular program was worthy of support and were prepared to finance it, then they should indeed have the right to do so. They did not like the idea that the minister was going to set a limit on the amount that was going to be spent on special-education courses. They felt that if they wanted to go a little further, if there were special needs that they identified and that they were prepared to finance locally, then they should have that authority.

Of course they didn't like, on top of everything else, the fact that this restraint program being imposed upon them, this centralist approach on the part of the government, was going to be in effect whether it was needed or not. Quite apart from whether there was any economic recovery, whether there was any need for the program, it was going to stay in effect until December 31, 1984. They felt that was far too long to be tied to something they didn't like, in the absence of any evidence that it would be necessary in anyone's mind to impose such limitations on them for that long a period.

[ Page 1581 ]

Now we have Bill 6. The legislation that we are dealing with today makes the legislation introduced in 1982 look like something that everyone wanted. It is so bad by comparison with the bad legislation that was introduced in 1982. The legislation we are dealing with now not only gives the minister the right to set the upper limit on the school board budget, but it gives the minister the power to set the limits in detail for the various items included in the school board budget. He may set the figure for every one of those votes. We call them votes here in the Legislature; there are other descriptions for them in the school boards. It gives the minister the right to say how much will be spent for the various kinds of special-education courses and special-needs courses that a school board might be authorized to provide; not the courses they want to provide; not all of them, some of them — only those which the minister in his wisdom feels should be provided in that particular school district.

Worse than everything else, it takes out the reference to December 31, 1984. There's no cutoff date at all. The minister, for all time — at least until such time as this administration is turned out of office and replaced by one that does not believe in centralizing all power with respect to education in the hands of the Minister of Education.... Unless an administration is elected that has a different approach and believes in democracy, and in restoring some authority and responsibility to locally elected governments such as the school boards, then for all time the Minister of Education, under the kind of administration that we have today, will be the only real power and authority when it comes to preparing and finalizing school board budgets.

[Mr. Pelton on the chair.]

This legislation has not gone unnoticed. It has been said that it is one of a package of 26 bills introduced on July 7, budget day, most of which follow the same pattern. They are designed to centralize authority and power in the hands of cabinet ministers and to take it away from locally elected regional districts, municipal governments, school boards and hospital districts, leaving them as mere vassals of the provincial government, to do whatever the appropriate minister considers they should be doing. He in his wisdom — or she in her wisdom, as the case may be — are going to make all of the decisions that mean anything.

The locally elected school board representatives will be the ones who will have to face the questions, the concerns and in some instances the wrath of the local people who are face to face with the kind of education system that is being delivered locally, the local people whose children are going to those schools and are being denied the educational service the parents feel should be provided them. Perhaps they are being crowded. Perhaps classes are too large, and in some instances handicapped children are not getting the kind of attention they need to progress in that kind of environment. Perhaps gifted children are not being given the opportunity they should have in order to develop to their fullest. Parents will discuss all these problems and bring them to the local school board office, to school board members and to school board meetings. At those school board meetings the only defence those people can have is just to say: "It's out of our hands. The provincial government, in its wisdom, has centralized all real power in the hands of the Minister of Education. The only thing we can do is write a letter to the minister on your behalf and hope that he will hear your case, listen to your argument and maybe come part way to meet it." It's not a very satisfactory position for local school board representatives to be in.

One would wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it will be possible, once Bill 6 is passed, for people with any real appreciation of what we should be doing in education to run for school board. Why should they run, take all the flak, and have no real authority and responsibility? What is there in it for them? They will be able to do nothing to improve the delivery of educational services within their community unless they are able to persuade the minister or the Premier, or unless they can persuade whoever is going to have the authority, to allow them to move ahead whether or not it costs money, whether or not it means that there could be some shifting of finances between various services that are being offered.

That's one answer. It's quite possible that a school board might want to spend more money on one program and less on another because of the particular needs of the children in that particular community. They will not be able to do that without getting the authority of the Minister of Education, who in turn will probably have to go to the Premier. Under the legislation that we didn't like over a year ago, at least the school board could manoeuvre within the limits of a total budget. With the legislation being changed as it is by the bill before us now, there is no manoeuvrability left at all.

Yesterday evening I was going through a number of clippings and documents of one kind or another which I had been quoting from. Unfortunately at 5:45 I ran out of time before I ran out of references. I would like to refer to a few more of these between now and 5:20 this afternoon. I did refer to a photocopy of a report from the Globe and Mail, dated July 20, 1983. I read the headline to the House this morning at about 5:30: "Socreds Catch B.C. Offguard. No Hint of Plans During Election."

On those rare occasions when the Premier graces this chamber with his presence he boasts about the fact that he won the election. He says he has a mandate to do everything he wants to do, and he may well feel that way. He may well feel that he was under no obligation at all to tell the voters what he really intended to do to them. He may feel that he led his party to victory and can do whatever he wants from here on in; so long as he can maintain the support of the other 34 members of his caucus he need worry about nothing. He need not worry about the electorate, at least not for another four or five years — quite some time down the road. And he may feel that by that time there will perhaps be another weather man available who will be able, with his help, to persuade the people of the province that once again they should re-elect that government, in spite of the fact that that government acted quite contrary to the promises it made during the election campaign, and in many instances did not give any warning at all what it was going to do if it were successful in the election campaign. That's why the headline is so appropriate: "Socreds Catch B.C. Offguard. No Hint of Plans During Election."

"On election night Mr. Bennett had stood in his cramped, steaming campaign headquarters and said: 'For our teachers, for our public servants and for all those who are British Columbians...ours will be a government for the many. Ours will be a government...that will recognize the specific concerns and the concerns of every group in society.'" Perhaps the Premier even believes that this is what he is doing in this instance. Perhaps he believes that he is the only one with the wisdom to make the decisions as to whether or not

[ Page 1582 ]

what he wants to do in education is the best thing for everyone who is involved in the delivery of the education services, and best for the people who are going through school, colleges or whatever. Perhaps he feels he's the only one who should make the decisions as to what service should be delivered, how it should be delivered, how much it should cost, what the emphasis should be on each part of the program. So it may be that in his mind he is doing exactly what he said here: recognizing the specific concerns and the concerns of every group in society.

There have been times in the past when people have said that the best and most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. But that's not the kind of government we're supposed to have here in British Columbia. We're a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We're supposed to have a democratic form of government. The people are supposed to have the opportunity to make mistakes if they want, but at least the opportunity to elect their own representatives, who will make decisions at the local level when it's matters that affect people at that level, at the provincial level when it's matters that are assigned to the jurisdiction of the province, and federally when it's matters that are assigned to the jurisdiction of the federal government.

There are many different forms of government available in this country, all of them elected. In some instances people are appointed to various boards and councils of one kind or another, but in every instance they're appointed by people who have been elected and who have the authority to appoint them. The basis of the entire system is the democratic form of government. So while the Premier may feel that the benevolent dictatorship he is now running in the province is the most efficient form of government, it is not the kind of democratic system of government that you and 1, Mr. Speaker, were elected to serve under.

To continue quoting from this story: "Throughout the campaign, party advertisements touted the 18-month-old restraint program that 'is protecting jobs now....'" I wonder what some 3,000 teachers in the province who have been or are right now facing layoff notices would have to say about the Premier going around the province throughout the campaign, and the party advertisements touting the 18 month-old restraint program that "is protecting jobs now."

Mr. Speaker, do you recall in the fall of last year, when the government first started tampering with the school board budgets — sending them back for the first, second and third times, telling them to revise them — the emphasis that the government placed on maintaining employment in the delivery of education services? They did not want the school boards to lay off teachers. They interfered in the rights of the school boards to handle their own funds, and told them they were going to be limited in funds. There were limits to what they could and couldn't do, but one thing they couldn't do was to actually lay off staff. You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, that since the election some 3,000 teachers have lost their jobs, or are in the process of losing them. And that process hasn't finished yet. There are still schools that really don't know what they're going to do with the budgets that they have, and how they're going to sort out their pupil-teacher ratios.

[5:00]

So the assurance given by the Premier prior to the election in no way measures up to what the Premier, through the Minister of Education, has done following the election. Under the new legislation, school trustees can be fined up to $2,000 for disobeying a cabinet directive. That doesn't tie directly into Bill 6, it ties into Bill 3, but it's part of the package. I won't refer to that any more now because in all likelihood we'll get an opportunity to discuss that bill further at another time.

"Port Coquitlam mayor Len Traboulay said it reminded him of Poland and martial law." Those are not my words; they're the words of a mayor who is reacting to the legislative program that was included in the package. "'My first reaction was that Lech Walesa was a lucky man not to be in B.C.' Even Gary Begin, former British Columbia School Trustees' Association president and Burnaby School Board chairman, who was a Socred candidate during the election, said he wouldn't have run for the party had he known what was planned." I wonder how many of the 35 members who were elected as Social Credit standard-bearers in the election on May 5 would feel the same way today, if they dared to stand up and say it. I wonder if any of those members who are in this Legislature now would say, as Gary Begin has said, that if they had known what the government they were pledged to support really planned to do, not for but to the people of British Columbia, they would not have run as Social Credit candidates.

I would like to think that there are a few among them who are embarrassed about what their administration is doing, who are uncomfortable about it, who may even be trying to change some of the legislation in caucus meetings. I hope there are some; if there are, I wish them every success, because this package of 26 bills, including the budget, is, in the main, bad for the people of British Columbia. It is a bad package; it will work harm on our economy for many years to come. It will hurt the delivery of education, and we will suffer for that for many years. If there are people who did get elected and who feel like Gary Begin, who didn't get elected — that is, that they wouldn't have supported the Social Credit Party if they had known what the Premier had in mind — then I wish them success in their deliberations within caucus.

It is not just the package that angers people, but the method by which the government chose to introduce it — the fact that it was sprung on people, that it was not talked about during the election campaign. Restraint was talked about in very general terms, but along with that restraint was the promise that there would be no layoffs. There would be some reduction in staff, but this is something that would happen by attrition, not by layoff. As reporters and everyone else in the province were trying to digest the contents of the budget late in the afternoon of July 7, bill upon bill was carted into the press gallery, and minister after minister rose in the House to announce them. Nothing had been said beforehand to prepare people for the avalanche, and nothing in the province's history indicated that a government — any government would proceed in such a manner.

There are some on that side of the House who are fond of criticizing the NDP administration that served the people of this province for over three years, but nothing done by that administration would compare in any way with the 26-bill package that was tabled on July 7 along with that budget. There were day and night sittings under the New Democratic Party government between January 25 and April 18, 1973, and 98 bills were passed. Day and night sittings — there are different ways of looking at that too. I sat in this House for evening sittings. When I was first elected it was the pattern to

[ Page 1583 ]

have evening sittings twice a week. At times those sittings would run for quite some time. The normal procedure was to adjourn the evening sitting at 11 p.m., but towards the end of the session, when the Premier of the day thought it was time for the Legislature to adjourn, the sittings became longer; we'd find ourselves sitting until midnight, infrequently until one or two. But this was late in the session. This was when we were in a hurry to wrap up the business of the session, wind it up and adjourn it until the next session was called.

I can recall that between 1963 and 1969 the latest session we ever had went until five in the morning. I can recall that year starting a discussion of the estimates for the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation at 4 a.m., and thinking how bad it was that at 4 a.m. we started talking about the estimates of one of the smallest ministries. But even then we wound it up by 5 a.m. The sitting that started yesterday at 2 p.m. continued until 9:10 a.m. today — 19 hours in one sitting. It's been termed "legislation by exhaustion." We're warned that the government intends to proceed with this legislation by exhaustion until it gets its legislative program through. The Premier certainly didn't tell us anything about that during the election campaign. He didn't tell us that he was going to bring in a package of legislation, of which Bill 6 is one small part, that would be so bad for the people of the province that the opposition would feel that it had to do everything it could to delay passage, so that there would be widespread knowledge of the effect of this bill and so that the people affected would be able to have every opportunity to approach the minister and members on that side of the House and try to persuade them to make some changes. There was no warning of that at all. So we sat until 9:10 a.m., and then we resumed our sitting at 10 a.m. Goodness only knows how long it will last today.

Mr. Speaker, there is a way. It can happen. The government will get its legislative program through if it continues to sit round the clock. But, really, is that the way we should be doing it?

To continue to quote: "B.C. had seen legislation by exhaustion; now it was legislation by inundation. Moreover, the legislation came within weeks of Mr. Bennett giving two close aides increases well above the restraint guidelines." Restraint, as such, is not directly a part of Bill 6, except that the minister has the authority to say how much shall be spent on each item in the school board budget, including the cost of administration, which certainly does tie in with restraint. While the Minister of Education will have the authority to say how much the Nanaimo School Board shall pay out in administrative costs — perhaps even by individuals; there's nothing in the bill to indicate otherwise....

At the same time as the minister was going through that exercise, the Premier gave two close aides increases well above the restraint guidelines. "Douglas Heal, the Premier's communications czar, was given a pay and benefits raise to boost his compensation package to $72,000 from $65,000." Will the Minister of Education have the same authority? If he thinks it is warranted, will he be able to approve the request from a school board that an individual's salary be increased by that amount, whether or not the figures are the same, or by that percentage even? "Michael Bailey, whose title was changed from executive assistant to executive director for the Premier, received a 50 percent increase, to boost his annual salary to $45,000 from $30,000." It was rolled back nominally by Mr. Peck. Will the Minister of Education have the Premier's authority to grant an increase of 50 percent, in the event that a school board puts forth a case that, in their mind, justifies that kind of increase? I doubt it very much. If that were the case, why are we going through this whole exercise? "Exacerbating public feeling is the fact that there appears little reason to cut some of the services." This is talking about other programs. With that, I'll leave that particular clipping. Everyone is in receipt of material from the BCSTA, who are very concerned about the legislative package insofar as it affects their ability to deliver what they consider to be a reasonable level of educational services in the province. With respect to Bill 6, they say:

"The BCSTA appreciates the government's concern about increasing provincial budget deficits and accepts the need for ceilings on total school board revenues from provincial funds."

They accept that there must be a ceiling on the funds being provided by the province.

"However, the association believes that the provincial government's objectives of economic restraint can best be achieved by amending Bill 6 to delete the words, 'or a portion of,' from sections 1(a) and (b).

"This amendment will better achieve the government's objectives by avoiding the problems and wastes that will result from:

"1. deficiencies in the application of the funding formula proposed by the Ministry of Education;

"2. creation of a management unit too large to be economic."

Has the minister responded to that particular request from the BCSTA that that amendment be included?

"In support of this position, we note that the proposed funding formula will produce:

"1. increased costs of administration resulting from: (a) increased legal costs" — surely that should not be an additional burden on the educational system — "(b) increased costs resulting from court decisions" — once again, Mr. Speaker, of all the things to be foisting upon the public at a time of restraint — "(c) increases in the number of administrators in some school districts" — at the same time losing teachers — "(d) diseconomies of scale from a system too large for effective administration."

"2. increased costs of teachers' salaries resulting from (a) incentives to keep average teachers' salaries high" — that's the way the formula seems to work — "(b) a disincentive to reduce average teachers' salaries by early retirement of the most expensive teachers...."

School boards have been trying to get the most expensive teachers to retire early so as to relieve them of that burden of paying the higher salaries. But in this formula, it would appear, as the BCSTA read it, that there will be a disincentive to follow that program.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

"(c) a disincentive for teachers to use the collective bargaining process to preserve jobs by reducing salaries...." The teachers in many instances did indicate that they were prepared to have no increase, and in some cases to have decreases, if they could be guaranteed that this would maintain employment of fellow teachers. But they

[ Page 1584 ]

don't have that manoeuvrability in the legislation now before us.

"...3. Increased costs of plant operation resulting from: (a) disincentives to reduce fixed costs (b) disincentives to use plants as sources of revenue (c) a lack of incentives for energy-efficient investments...." Mr. Speaker, whether they all make sense I am not in a position to say, but on the face of it they seem like quite reasonable proposals to put to the Minister of Education. They are proposals that I would hope that he would respond to when he closes second reading debate on Bill 6.

The Province, dated Sunday, July 24, said: "Education Interim Finance Amendment Act...a major centralizing move by Socreds stripping school boards of effective budgetary control." There was no need to put the word "effective" in, Mr. Speaker. It is in this, as I read it. But it really strips school boards of budgetary control.

"School trustees are distraught over the loss of a last vestige of autonomy. They now feel superfluous and compare themselves to servants." Servants doing their masters' bidding — that's not in the article. That last bit was mine, Mr. Speaker. I'm just trying to help Hansard out. They're going to have difficulty following all this.

"Education Minister Jack Heinrich assumes power to 'issue directives' at any time before May I each year, telling school districts how much or how little they can spend. School districts forced to cut costs also risk ministerial intervention if they slash special education programs." Whether or not there is reason for doing that, though, I find it hard to imagine that there would be a reason for slashing special-education programs. But needs change, personnel changes and the children needing these programs change from time to time.

[5:15]

I'm afraid this may be my last opportunity to discuss this in second reading. I do have a lot of things to which I would like to refer, but I'm going to skip forward a bit and refer to an article from my own community — the Nanaimo Daily Free Press, dated Wednesday, August 24. The heading in this story is "School Boards at End." There is a picture of the current president of the BCSTA from Nanaimo, Joy Leach.

"If the provincial government passes Bill 6, the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, it will mark the end of local control of education, according to Nanaimo School Board chairman Joy Leach.

"Leach, who is also president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, commented Tuesday on the proposed new financial management system for school districts.

"Tuesday was also the day the grim news on the 1984 budget for School District 68 was released. Next year will see Nanaimo with an effective shortfall, relative to 1983, of close to $2 million."

Mr. Speaker, where is the extra money going? There is more money provided in the budget, and yet school district after school district report that it is getting less money. Is there any wonder that when I commented on the budget at some length on July 8, I said that I just didn't believe the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) when he said that there was going to be a deficit of $1.6 billion? One of the areas that I believe is going to be underspent.... I've got nothing to go on other than things like this: in example after example we find that the government is cutting back on spending money on services. The Nanaimo School District experienced a cut of $2 million. I haven't heard of a single school district getting more. I'm sure that the minister will be able to produce some figures to show that some are. I'd be interested in knowing where they are.

"Leach says local school boards would no longer be able to respond to local needs." That's the worst part of this. It takes away from local school boards the authority to measure local needs, to discuss local needs with the people in their own community, to listen to the parents, to listen to the employers in that district, to listen to the business people in that district and to listen to the children. The school boards no longer have any point in listening to anybody locally as to what should be done by way of delivering the educational service in those communities, because they no longer have the authority to respond to the needs of those school districts. That authority is vested solely, completely and absolutely in the hands of the Minister of Education. The ministry could assume control of all school district decision-making, and the minister would have power to interfere. "Leach said the new legislation package, if passed into law, would gradually reshape the structure of education in every detail."

My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that that reshaping is not something that is evolving with local input, discussion and the kind of meetings this minister's predecessor had all around the province. We saw precious little coming from those meetings, but there were nevertheless meetings. There were opportunities for people to talk. If there have to be changes in the delivery of educational services, they should arise from those kinds of discussions and not simply from the minister sitting here in his office in Victoria listening to a few of his advisers, listening to the Premier and, above all, determining that the cost of education must be reduced regardless of the quality of the product. Regardless of the effect on the people who are going through the system, the cost must be reduced. Evolution, yes. Change, yes. But not the kind of change that is brought about solely with a view to reducing the cost in terms of dollars, because in the long run — and I believe I said this almost 12 hours ago — if we try to save money by cutting back on the quality of the education service we deliver, we are going to find that it's going to be a very costly saving of money. It may well be penny wise, but in the long run it will be pound foolish.

In the long run we will not get people interested in serving at the local level if they have no opportunity to listen to people at the local level, no opportunity to respond to the needs as they see them and no opportunity to measure in any way the needs of the people of their own district, but an opportunity only to pass items on to the Minister of Education in the hope that that minister will not cut back so much that the delivery of this service is interfered with so that it becomes impossible for them to hold their heads up in the community and say they are members of the local school board.

There are many on that side of the House who, if they saw any administration centralizing power the way this one is, would rise up, speak and vote. They'd speak longer than us and louder than us. All we can do is hope that they are speaking within the confines of their own meetings, and we hope that they will be successful in trying to get changes, as the Lieutenant-Governor said, so that we can better serve the needs of the people of our province.

MR. BLENCOE: It's now close to 12 hours since I first spoke to this bill in the wee hours of this morning, when I tried diligently to convince the Minister of Education that

[ Page 1585 ]

there was some deep concern in many sectors of this province for this particular bill and that perhaps the minister, along with his cabinet colleagues, should take a second look at it. Unfortunately, this government, as with everything else they have brought into this House since the opening of this session, is not prepared to listen or take a second look.

It was a hallmark of the Social Credit Party, under W.A.C. Bennett, up to the election of the current Premier, that a government was measured by its ability to take a second look. Never in the history of this province — and historians are already writing that — has there been so much expression of disgust, dismay, disillusionment and cynicism about the current direction of this government. If there was ever a time that this government should indeed have taken another look at this particular bill and at the other bills we believe are contrary to Canadian society, it is these bills and Bill 6 that should have warranted a review by this government.

It is unfortunate that this current Socred government is not only bent on destroying the social fabric of this province but it is also determined to violate one of the basic principles of its founder, W.A.C. Bennett: a second look. W.A.C. Bennett always had the ability to do that. But his son is bent and determined to run roughshod over the people of this province. It's too bad that the Premier couldn't look back at some of his father's speeches and words of wisdom when the people of this province spoke out against regressive legislation. There's no question, no matter what your political stripes are, that there is deep concern in all sectors of this province about what's happening here.

A second look would have been the honourable and correct thing to do, and it would have been the right thing to do for British Columbians in these difficult times. There's nothing wrong with a second look. Unfortunately now that opportunity is lost. I hope perhaps they will take that opportunity with other pieces of legislation. Now we're back on the main motion debating Bill 6, having lost the opportunity for the government to review its course of action.

I said earlier this morning between about 6 and 7 o'clock that having been involved with local government for a number of years, one of the basic premises and traditions of local government was their autonomy and the relationship between the provincial government, municipalities and locally elected school boards, There's always been a basis of trust and respect between provincial government — no matter what political party was in power — and democratically elected mayors, aldermen, school board trustees and regional district directors. Bill 6 is just part of this government's intention to dismantle those traditions which have been established between provincial and local government.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It's not garbage at all, Mr. Member. I would suggest that you may want to talk to some of your Socred supporters who represent your party at the local level. They are deeply concerned. You heard the various mayors of this province speak out about what you're doing to local government. Resolution after resolution went through about local government at the UBCM, asking this government to reconsider their actions, the autonomy of local government and its importance in the very social fabric of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is an education bill.

MR. BLENCOE: It is an education bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is part of this government's attack on the tradition of autonomy at the local level.

It's true. That's what you're doing. You are centralizing decisions that have been made at the local level for decades and decades, not only in British Columbia but in this country. You are now deciding as a government that you are going to take over many of the traditional operations and decision-making that local governments have held for many years.

[5:30]

In the New Democratic Party it is our belief that if the federal government considered what you are doing to local government and local school boards, we would have a crisis in federal-provincial relations. This government has created a crisis in provincial-municipal-local government relations, and on that I urge them to think seriously about. What they're saying is that those hundreds and hundreds of democratically elected people at the local level aren't doing a proper job. They're not running their jurisdictions properly. They're violating the mandate they were elected upon to run their various jurisdictions in a financially responsible manner. This government is really saying that all those hundreds and hundreds of democratically elected officers at the municipal, local and school board levels — that's what Bill 6 is all about — aren't doing the job. They are not capable of running their own operations. You're saying you have lost respect for those levels of government. We as a party have high regard for those hundreds and hundreds of people who give their time, their efforts, their wisdom and their knowledge on behalf of their electorate. Now we have a provincial government that is saying: "You haven't done a very good job."

MR. R. FRASER: That's not right.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, that's what you're saying: "You haven't done a very good job. You can't run your own financial arrangements so we have to have certain clauses, certain pieces of legislation." At the whim of cabinet they can walk right in and do what they want with their financial operations. If the federal government considered actions upon the provincial government comparable to what you are doing to the local governments and local school boards, we would hear the cries across the Rockies such as you've never heard before. We've heard them. I'm waiting for them to start doing it, because when this government is in trouble it starts attacking Ottawa. It's the most famous trick in British Columbia. We would hear the cries: "You can't do that. That's our traditional right. It's our constitutional, democratic right to run certain things. How dare you Liberals and you Ottawa people come into British Columbia and take over our operations! " You'd say that.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: And we would support you. Yes, indeed. But it's a different situation when you want to tamper with and eradicate some of the basic traditions that have been accepted for literally hundreds of years in western society, in terms of how local and civic government works. I feel most strongly about this; our party feels most strongly about this. Those people were elected to do a job and, as many of them

[ Page 1586 ]

said at the UBCM.... Mayor Thom is not a supporter of our party, but he clearly said: "Get off our backs. Let us do our job. We're capable." That's what he said. "We've got the knowledge. We can do it." He clearly said: "Let us do our job. Restraint, but not restraints on local government. Let us be autonomous. Let us do our jobs." That's what he was saying. And there were others, Mr. Speaker. The mayor of Surrey: not exactly a New Democrat, but I can tell you, he's deeply concerned about what you're doing to local government, and has said so.

MR. REID: That's not what he tells me, and he's my mayor.

MR. BLENCOE: He said he was deeply concerned about what you are doing. These are old-line, old-school, fly-the-flag Socreds, and they're worried. They don't like what you're doing. Do you know why they don't like what you're doing, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Address the Chair, you twit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Withdraw, please. Stand up and withdraw.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we can avoid the interjections if the hon. member will address the Chair. And also address the bill, which is an education bill.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I was about to tell, through you, Mr. Speaker, that offensive minister over there....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will have to be withdrawn.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, but if he continues to.... Well, I'll leave it at that.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the minister why local government has had enough of this government. Now that minister will leave, of course.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, you're going to stay. Good stuff.

I'll tell you why they don't want you on their backs. First, it's because they don't trust you. The other thing, Mr. Minister, is that you couldn't run school boards, because any semblance of financial or fiscal responsibility....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the phrase "you couldn't run a school board" be a reflection on the member's ability to serve this chamber?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not necessarily. I don't find that unparliamentary.

MR. BLENCOE: The point I am trying to make....

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 36, which very succinctly states: "Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncovered" — and this is the relevant part for the hon. member — "and address himself to Mr. Speaker." Mr. Speaker, you have admonished the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) for taking part in interjections. You directed the hon. member to be relevant but you have not prohibited him from continuing to carry on a conversation with the hon. minister. May I ask the Chair to admonish the hon. second member for Victoria and ask him to direct his remarks to the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that was said, but I thank you for that observation.

MR. BLENCOE: They can't handle this stuff, Mr. Speaker. They just don't want to hear why the local Socreds who were elected across this province don't like what they are doing to school boards through Bill 6 and other pieces of legislation. Do you know why? It's because this government has got the worst financial record of any government in the history of this province. They have tripled the debts of this province in seven short years. The minister now, of course, doesn't want to hear that stuff. But they know that they don't want this government involved in their financial affairs. They don't want them to be taking care of their back yard because they have tripled the financial debt of this province to over $12 billion. You have loaded over $12 billion onto the people of this province, and what have you got for it? The highest unemployment rate, the highest welfare rates.

MR. PARKS: The highest wages, the highest social service payments — tell us more.

MR. BLENCOE: Now you intend to make families and children and schools pay for your incompetence and your deficits. You're going to make the children pay for your mistakes.

MR. REID: Oh, garbage.

MR. BLENCOE: You're going to cut the budgets. They've already cut the child-abuse teams and the family support workers. Now they're going to attack the teachers, attack the children in our school system, who are the future of this province.

Local government is sending this government a message: get off our backs and run your own affairs first. They've already lost their credit rating, which will cost the people of this province $10 million this year alone. They're saying: "You've got no reputation at all in fiscal matters to come and take over, by centralization, the financial operations of local school boards. You have nothing to recommend you. You couldn't get a reference." Certainly the Finance minister couldn't get a reference, because that's the man, together with the Premier of this province, who built the debt of this province to the highest level we've ever seen it in our history. And what have they done for that? They're going to have to sell Bill 6 by advertising, by spending a few million dollars to convince the people of British Columbia that their programs are right and correct. They'll be selling those programs costing millions of dollars at the expense of children. The money should have gone into educational programs.

Earlier I tried to convince this government — we all have tried — to reconsider Bill 6. There is some heavy centralization by cabinet of roles that are traditionally played by locally elected officials. You have shown by your legislation, which

[ Page 1587 ]

includes Bill 6 and other local government legislation, that you have no respect for those hundreds and hundreds of democratically elected people at the local level.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. BLENCOE: I wish many of you could have been at the UBCM and got the message. That Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) got the message. They want him out; they want him gone.

MR. LEA: Bill, don't believe them. You've never been more popular.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again I would remind the member that we are on an education bill. If we're going to make references, at least make them relevant to the Ministry of Education.

MR. BLENCOE: The various pieces of legislation, of which Bill 6 is one of the major ones, is a major reversal in the long-standing tradition of provincial, municipal and local school board relations. All they're asking.... We asked it in the hoist and are now going to ask it again. That's why we feel it's important that we try to convince this government — and the people are expressing their views — that many pieces of legislation, including Bill 6, are not worthy of British Columbians. Your legislation should be removed from this chamber.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, an accusation is being made over here. I'd like know.... Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm getting an accusation over here. Perhaps he could repeat it.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Obviously not, Mr. Speaker. He's making an accusation — something about property, but he can't say it again.

  Many are asking — and the government is certainly trying to plant the seed — why the New Democratic Party is still in this House. I would also say that it's the second-shortest session in the last ten years, by the way. Why is the New Democratic Party still in this House? Why are we still debating some of these pieces of legislation? It would be extremely easy to give in and roll over. I know where I would prefer to be: with my family, like we all would on this side. I have a new child I haven't seen much lately. That's where I would prefer to be.

[5:45]

This kind of legislation and the undemocratic course of action that you've decided to take is a fundamental challenge to the principles, ideals and components of democracy that we've all accepted as the norm and that cannot be tampered with. We're still here because we feel strongly that what you're doing will radically alter this province. It's not what British Columbians really want.

Bill 6 is a major challenge to the educational system. It's a major challenge to children. It's a major challenge for democratically elected people to make the decisions for those children and their parents.

We feel very strongly that this government is undemocratic. We witnessed the course of action yesterday before we got onto Bill 6. We saw the actions of a government bent on pursuing pieces of legislation like Bill 6. They were actions of desperation to ensure that British Columbians don't know the exact intent, purpose and mission of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I made the point this morning that it's a great shame that this government is determined to make the teachers of our children part of their political game. They are prepared to make political Brownie points at the expense of those people who are responsible for educating our children, not only in academic studies but also about civics, their responsibilities in their community as Canadian citizens, and their rights and privileges as a Canadian citizen.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

I don't think there is anything more destructive or anything more worth taking on than when a government purposely turns one segment of the community against another, for various political reasons. They live off fear and hatred for each other and turn on each other. This government has done that with teachers. Sure there are problems in the educational system, sure there are things that need working on, sure there are improvements that can be made, and sure the school board trustees are prepared to work with this government to improve the educational system in this province. The bottom line is the children of this province. That's what you are forgetting in your political attacks upon educators in this province.

MR. REID: That's garbage, and you know it,

MR. BLENCOE: That is not garbage; that is fact. You are using teachers for political reasons — the short-term political gain to be achieved from that. I urge you to consider the long-term damage you will create for the educational system in this province. This government has decided to make some major attacks on our families and our children in this province. You have removed some basic programs. The one thing that may to some degree balance out what you are doing to child support workers and child abuse teams, to Planned Parenthood support programs and family support workers for families in crisis, is the teacher in the school who will have to take up some of that slack. But this government is attacking those people as well. They're abusing them, saying that they are overpaid and that they don't do a job.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I heard it over here. I have heard it many times. I heard it from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), that all they are interested in is their paycheque. We heard it this morning.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: They don't like to hear some things, but that's what you are doing to the educational system, and the long-term damage is going to take years and years to repair. The morale in the educational system because of the Social Credit government is virtually nil, not only with the children and the teachers but also with the school trustees. You have decided you can do a better job than the trustees,

[ Page 1588 ]

and even the school trustees' association. It's not only the teachers' and the children's futures that are doubtful under this current administration. The teachers themselves put a very strong press release out asking the people of B.C. to judge the wisdom of education centralization.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no, it is not Larry Kuehn. School trustees had:

"...fully expected the government to continue its commitment to financial restraint, but we are stunned by the scope of power Victoria has take unto itself. We have a new minister and thought we were developing a rapport based on mutual respect and understanding."

Those are important words, I would think, in relationships between local and senior government, but this government has thrown those out the window. Joy Leach says:

"We still hope to achieve a goal of cooperation, but I must admit it is difficult to remain optimistic when the government appears so intent on rigidly controlling everything from budgets to classroom size, perhaps even forcing the amalgamation of school districts."

"We feel government is seeking extremely simplistic methods to balance the provincial budget on the backs of the children of this province and the families of this province and the poor and the handicapped.

"Certainly there is a need for continued financial restraint, and the school boards are completely aware of their accountability to the electorate in this area, but the same objective could have been achieved through restraining grants to school districts without total incursion into budget accounts at the district level. School boards have not been asleep for the past year, and trustees were tackling restraint with minimal harm for the system. Now education has another hammer dropped on it when it really appears totally unnecessary."

Mr. Speaker, this government, whatever it touches in such a short period, leaves havoc in its wake. Local government and local school board trustees have been doing an important job for a long time. They are quite capable of continuing their work, and I would urge the government to seek some measure of conciliation or compromise with the school districts, the school trustees, the teachers and the children of this province — on behalf of the children of this province.

I again go back to the facts. W.A. C. Bennett, father of the current Premier, always had the ability to take a second look. I know that if he had seen the measure of distress, concern and appeal to this government from all sectors, all parts of this province, all political stripes, he would, unlike his son, be taking a second look. He would recess this House and say: "Okay, fellow members of the cabinet, we've got a few problems. Maybe we've overstepped the mark. Maybe we didn't have a mandate for things like Bill 6. Maybe the people didn't understand us correctly. Maybe we should rethink a little bit." That's what democracy is all about. That is certainly how it works at the local level.

If W.A. C. Bennett were here today he would be counselling his son, saying: "Hold it; step back a little bit. Let's take a look at our actions." Thousands and thousands of British Columbians have sent a message to this government that they don't support your actions. You didn't tell the people that you were going to bring in Bill 6. We in this party ask you to consider a compromise — part of the democratic system. Is it so bad? Will you lose so much face if you have to admit to the people of British Columbia that perhaps you've overstepped the mark a little, that perhaps you misread British Columbians and their pride and support for democratic principles and local government? Maybe you didn't know how important local government and school boards were to the people of this province. W.A.C. Bennett knew that. He respected them. He had discussions with them before taking major action. That's all we're asking you to do, and that's why we're still here today. We feel that the legislation before us won't change things just a little but will make major inroads into the social fabric and democratic principles of this province. It's fundamental to us as a party, and I believe it is fundamental to the majority of British Columbians.

I'd like to read what I think is a very good letter, one of many that and I and my colleagues have received. I will read just the last paragraph:

"Misrepresentation occurs in all areas of human endeavour. It is the magnitude of the Social Credit Party's misrepresentation that is reprehensible. By not presenting its platform to the people, it has gained office by trickery. We cannot afford to allow this misrepresentation and loss of our rights. The budget and accompanying legislation should be withdrawn, and a new budget and new legislation should be drafted..."

And I emphasize these last few words, Mr. Speaker.

"...in keeping with the ideals and fairness of democracy that as a civilization we have worked so hard to develop."

Those last few words are very important. They represent just one person in this province but there are many who feel that same way.

I really want to emphasize those last few words: "New legislation should be drafted in keeping with the ideals of fairness and democracy that as a civilization we have worked so hard to develop." That's why we're still here. That's why we don't believe in Bill 6 and other pieces of legislation introduced by this government which take away the powers of local government to make proper decisions.

[6:00]

MR. REID: You don't believe in anything.

MR. BLENCOE: We believe in democracy, Mr. Member.

MR. MICHAEL: You believe in obstruction.

MR. BLENCOE: That's not what you do. You had the Leader of the Opposition forcefully removed from this House because you couldn't handle his attacks.

MR. REID: If you're so sure of democracy, call the vote.

MR. BLENCOE: You call an election.

Mr. Speaker, democracy in this province, and the principles that Canadians and British Columbians support, are at stake. That's why we're here. Many people say, "Why don't

[ Page 1589 ]

you just let them have it?" That would be easy, and there are 22 members on this side who would love to say: "Let's move on." But it's far too important to us as a party and a province to oppose....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Skeena rises.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena draws to the Chair's attention the hour; it's 6 o'clock.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.