[ Page 1439 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 1439

Committee on operations of ICBC. Mr. Macdonald –– 1439

Crofton-Vesuvius ferry. Mrs. Wallace –– 1439

Privatization of Colony Farm. Mr. Rose –– 1439

Ms. Sanford

Independent logging in interior forests. Mr. Skelly –– 1440

Travel expenditures for cabinet ministers. Mr. Hanson –– 1440

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Second reading.

On the amendment

Mr. Campbell –– 1446

Mrs. Wallace –– 1447

Mr. Michael –– 1450

Mr. Barnes –– 1452

Mr. Pelton –– 1457

Mr. Mitchell –– 1458

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

Mr. Hanson –– 1480

On the amendment

Mrs. Dailly –– 1484

Ms. Brown –– 1489

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1494

Mr. Skelly –– 1496

Mr. Lockstead –– 1501

Mr. Howard –– 1506

Mr. Cocke –– 1509

Mr. Passarell –– 1512

Mr. Mitchell –– 1516

Mr. Macdonald –– 1520

Mr. Rose –– 1524

Mr. Stupich –– 1528

Mrs. Wallace –– 1532

Mr. Lea –– 1536

Mr. Blencoe –– 1540

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1543

Ms. Sanford –– 1548

Mr. Kempf –– 1551

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

MR. COCKE: That was quicker than I anticipated, Mr. Speaker.

Because there were no introductions and the ministers aren't here, could we have a short recess until such time as the ministers find their way to the Legislative chamber?

MR. SPEAKER: We are in question period, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: My question is to the Speaker: could we have a short recess until those ministers find their way in? Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I'll direct my question to the first minister.

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: On July 8 the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) set a sale price for Beautiful B.C. magazine — that is, he, in consultation with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — of $2.8 million. In view of the fact that the magazine was sold for a financial consideration totalling some $760,000, will the first minister advise what became of the other $2 million anticipated by his Minister of Tourism?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to take the question on notice for the minister.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when so doing, will the Premier ask the minister to table new spending estimates for the Ministry of Tourism? Because some $2.8 million have been omitted from those estimates. After the fire-sale price to the Jim Pattison group, I think we need that Tourism ministry's estimates retabled.

COMMITTEE ON OPERATIONS OF ICBC

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, having in charge ICBC. The committee headed by your deputy, which you have revealed to the Legislature and elsewhere as studying ICBC, has received an actuarial report on the effects of privatization of ICBC's insurance, general and auto. The report predicts that under privatization rates would be increased by approximately 30 percent. Has the minister seen that report, and can he confirm the figure of 30 percent?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I have not seen that report, Mr. Member. The committee is working to review the activities, policies and the programs of ICBC. As I've mentioned before in this House, when it has completed its work it will be making recommendations to the cabinet. Decisions about any change in the corporation will be made by government.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The minister says that he has not seen the report. I put it to him that he knows about the report of which I have spoken. Is that true or not?

MR. SPEAKER: There is a question there, hon. member.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in regard to "a report, " I'm not sure which report the member refers to. There are many working papers, etc., being completed. The member has asked this question before and I have advised him that I have a committee attempting to do a job and that it will be making recommendations to cabinet after the review. The member tries to inflame the situation, which will cause concern to many. He knows better than that; he shouldn't raise questions in the House which attempt to draw the concern of the people of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I'm not referring to general things that the committee is doing. I'm referring specifically to an actuarial study that was ordered to project the effect of privatization on rates and to the results of that study, which has been received. I ask the minister: is he aware of such a report being received?

He won't answer.

CROFTON-VESUVIUS FERRY

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Has the minister decided yet what he is going to do about the Vesuvius-Crofton ferry terminals? If so, will he share it with the House?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I understand B.C. Ferry Corporation is making an announcement today that they are going to repair the Vesuvius crossing. I don't know how long it will take, but they are announcing that today.

PRIVATIZATION OF COLONY FARM

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and it has to do with Colony Farm in my riding. The government has proposed to privatize Colony Farm. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to assure us that even if and when the farm is privatized it will remain as agricultural land in at least the foreseeable future. He is not even with me, Mr. Speaker. He's away somewhere; he's off....

I wonder if I might rephrase or even repeat my question. We were talking about Colony Farm and the government announcement that it intends to privatize the farm. I understand that proceedings are underway in that direction. Has the minister decided that the farm should remain as a farm, regardless of whether it's in private or public hands?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the details of finalization, regarding the Colony Farm, have not yet been concluded. As a result, I am not prepared at this moment to make the details public to the House. But in answer to the question about whether it is intended that the farm remain a farm, the acreage does belong to the agricultural land reserve. There is no application before anyone to have it removed.

[ Page 1440 ]

MS. SANFORD: A question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker: if the details about the sale of that farm are not yet finalized, I wonder if the minister could advise why the government is breaking up the assets of the farm by disposing of the livestock and the agricultural equipment in a series of sales that are going to be held toward the end of October and in November.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Several proposals are before the ministry with regard to the dispersal of assets. The decisions on those are not yet final either.

MS. SANFORD: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the dates on which this equipment is going to be disposed have already been decided. There seems to be some conflict in what the minister is saying and the information we have about these sales. The dates have been finalized, and I understand there were some announcements made today on the radio concerning them, so we're not getting the full story here, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I have heard several dates suggested, but the dates have not yet been finalized.

MS. SANFORD: Has the decision been made to sell the equipment and livestock separately from the land?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The answer is yes.

MS. SANFORD: Has the minister decided that the land will be retained for agricultural use, as a condition of sale?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Something over 700 acres are in the agricultural land reserve. As far as I know there is no application before anyone to have them removed.

MS. SANFORD: Since the land is now under the jurisdiction of BCBC, I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether or not he's decided that that land would be better transferred to the property management division of the Agricultural Land Commission?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The direct answer is no, that decision has not been made.

INDEPENDENT LOGGING IN INTERIOR FORESTS

MR. SKELLY: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. The B.C. Independent Logging Association has asked for a meeting to discuss the failure of the government to invoke the contractor clause of the Forest Act in the interior of B.C. to provide additional work for independent loggers. Why has the minister refused to invoke the contractor clause of the Forest Act in the interior?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The contractor clause as it refers to tree-farm licences is in effect in the interior of British Columbia. What the member is referring to is the use of that clause within forest licences. The contractor clause provides that up to 80 percent of the wood can be directed to be harvested by contract. As it happens, in the interior in excess of 95 percent of the timber harvest is already harvested by contractors. So it makes no sense to me to invoke a clause which would be meaningless in this application.

MR. SKELLY: The independent loggers in the interior were told that they would get the protection of the contractor clause in forest licences in the interior in 1982 when they were created. Why has the government failed to live up to the commitment if it didn't make any sense at the time the commitment was made? Why did the government make the commitment in the first place?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The commitment was made to the independent loggers that the provision would be included within the forest licence document for the use of the contractor clause. That provision is within the forest licence document, and should it become necessary it will be invoked. That's what independent loggers have been told.

MR. SKELLY: The independent loggers have asked the minister for a meeting. Has the minister agreed to set up a meeting involving himself, the Premier and the Highways minister, as requested by the independent loggers in the interior?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think the member must be working from rather old data. I meet regularly with all sectors of the forest industry, including the Independent Logging Association. I met with them, together with the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) within the last six weeks to two months; I can't be specific as to exactly what the date was. I meet with them on a regular basis, and I believe the Premier has met recently with the Independent Logging Union as well.

MR. SKELLY: When is your next regular meeting?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Whenever there is a need to meet with them, I'm more than willing and able to. I certainly don't need the critic from the opposition to advise me when and if I should meet with what specific groups in British Columbia.

TRAVEL EXPENDITURES FOR CABINET MINISTERS

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Premier with respect to travel expenditures and entertainment for cabinet ministers. The decade-old tradition in this Legislature in the budget estimates is that travel for individual ministers is identified in each ministry estimate by vote. In the new estimate book all travel and entertainment for cabinet ministers is lumped in one vote under the Provincial Secretary, called protocol and services. That budget has been increased by $200,000 for travel within Canada. Can you advise the House why this measure to break with tradition was taken and why that money has been hidden in one vote of the Provincial Secretary?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question would possibly be better considered in another theatre than question period. It may illicit a very lengthy response. Nonetheless....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll take the question on notice for the Minister of Finance.

[ Page 1441 ]

MR. HANSON: I have a new question. The same situation exists with travel outside of Canada, which is now lumped into one vote with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). That vote has been increased by $75,000 for travel and entertainment outside of Canada. Can the first minister indicate to this House why this action was taken and why that additional $75,000 has been added to the vote? What services and employees have been fired to make that expenditure allocation increase?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There are a lot of questions. One of them, the reason for the accounting change, I'll take on notice. I'm surprised, though, that the amount is only increased by $75,000 because over this next fiscal year the ministers of this government will be travelling extensively to market and help sell British Columbia products. We had this debate in the election, and the leader of the opposition, who's now speaking a lot from his seat, said that recovery was based on more government spending. We said that the recovery for British Columbia had to take place in the private sector. We're going to do our darnedest to encourage investment in this province and to develop additional markets.

Because of government action we will have a more predictable climate in which to do business, and we will not have unrestricted spending that would make our tax regime so high in the future that no business could afford to come here, let alone stay here, let alone employ our people in a productive competitive world. I'm pleased that part of the question was asked because the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has already embarked on the first leg of a major initiative of the government, which will be followed up by a number of major marketing trips around the world not only to markets that have traditionally been a part of British Columbia's economic growth, but also to new markets such as the market the minister is travelling to as part of this European trip — for the first time he will be visiting Yugoslavia as well as visiting Great Britain and France.

The member well knows that British Columbia's future prosperity is tied up with export markets. Two-thirds of British Columbia's economic product is gained through exports. Therefore exports are our way to bring about an even stronger recovery than the tentative recovery that is underway at the present time. I know the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) understands full well that we are in a very competitive world, in which the world recession has now made it necessary for every government to do what it can to assist its private sector in obtaining markets and capital investment to create the jobs that our people want. To somehow believe that jobs will be created by the government as an employer of last resort is nonsense and has been rejected by the voters of this province.

If we are going to get productive and competitive jobs in the private sector, then it is not government's role to replace the private sector, but to do everything it can to assist them in finding markets, and above all, to make sure we don't have a runaway cost of government in this province that will impose taxes such as those proposed by the New Democratic Party before the election on May 5, in which they threatened the job of every British Columbian because....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... high government costs would lead to high taxation.

[2:30]

HON. MR. McGEER: I wonder if the House would indulge me while I make a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McGEER: We have a very old friend from the Point Grey constituency in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, and to regain a positive spirit I wonder if all sides of the House would join in wishing Mary Watkins welcome to our Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the same leave to make a late introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like to introduce Shirley Seixes, who used to be Shirley Dowell. She was for many years an alderman in Oak Bay, and a member of the capital regional board. For about 10 or 15 years she was a fierce champion of residential rights in Oak Bay. Now living in Hawaii for part of the year, she is here visiting with her husband. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you please inform us as to how much of his allotted time this member has left?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the time is now at three hours and 26 minutes.

MR. BARRETT: Is that all?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: May I inquire further, Mr. Speaker, if he is the designated speaker, and under what order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I am.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will take his seat.

Hon. members, the Chair has been asked to consider the application of standing order 45A as it relates, obviously, to the amendment before us. I am therefore addressing my attention to the words "all other proceedings, " as they appear in section 45A of our standing orders. In reading the standing

[ Page 1442 ]

order as a whole, it is my opinion that those words contemplate a substantive motion, not an amendment or a subamendment. If we were to take this particular argument further, we could clearly see that on any amendment or subamendment the Chair would then have to recognize a person as a designated speaker. It is my opinion that this is not the intent of the standing orders; that ample opportunity is given under the main motion — for example, for the leader of a political party or for the designated speaker — to address the particular motion without any time constraint whatsoever. To argue, hon. members, that this same right would apply to every amendment or subamendment would be to prevent the orderly business of the House.

Over the past many days the Chair has searched our records, and has been aware of no specific ruling on this case. I would be prepared to listen to any observation or discussion that members might have on this particular subject, but I must conclude that my view and my feeling is that the opportunity for unlimited debate applies only on the main motion. To address the matter as having the opportunity to debate unlimited time on every amendment could conceivably keep the House tied up entirely on one specific avenue. On that particular matter, the Chair will entertain views.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when there is a dramatic change of practice in this House, it is not customary for such a change to be initiated in what is to me an obvious ploy by the government, one which has been well calculated and well thought out to raise this point of procedure after weeks of delay in calling the bill, in which time it could have been debated.

I am not asked to be a commentator now on a new interpretation of rules. There is no previous example of any attempt at closure under this section, as you've said yourself, and there has been no formal complaint to a committee of this House to examine this particular section for a new interpretation.

Mr. Speaker, I say categorically that what is being done here today is politically motivated by a government that wants to invoke closure but doesn't have the courage of its own convictions to do it the normal way.

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

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I will listen to submissions on the point. If the member could address the Chair it would greatly help, rather than making....

MR. BARRETT: If I am to make a submission to the point, am I going to be given assurance that I will continue in my place in the debate until a decision is brought down, or am I going to be faced with a fait accompli decision that is going to be made after I am allowed to say a few words?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is worthy of being addressed by the Chair.

At the outset, hon. members, I stated that it was the opinion of the Chair that the ability of the member to speak past the regular time limit was in serious doubt. That is my opinion. I have at this time asked for submissions from members who feel that there is another avenue or further information that should be considered by the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Before I make a submission, Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether a decision is going to be made immediately or you are going to take it under advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: That will depend on the submissions, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there was no notice or warning to the opposition that such a question was going to be raised. There was no notice to the House Leader or members that a ruling would have to be reviewed. There was no normal procedure of a House committee looking at a rule. We are faced with a fait accompli, and I ask the Chair clearly: is the Chair saying that after a few submissions from me and perhaps my colleagues a decision will be made immediately, or will there be a reserved decision so I can continue my expected place in the debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in the absence of any reason for the Chair to interpret the rules otherwise than as they are clearly spelled out, the member would lose his place and the debate would continue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not take this situation lightly. It is unprecedented, as is stated by your own comments, in terms of no interpretation in this House prior to today under the question of designated speaker on amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to give up my place in this chamber in the face of any manoeuvring by the government.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, the inference — even the vaguest inference — that the Chair in any way is interpreting the rules in anything other than the way they are written and for any other reason is totally unacceptable and out of order. I have given what I believe to be a fair and honest interpretation of the rules as they stand before us. It is not my place, hon. members, to change the rules. That is in the power of the House. It is my duty to interpret the rules when such interpretation is asked or when challenges are made. In this case the Chair has given the opinion that the Leader of the Opposition has extended his speaking time past the allowable time based on the current standing orders. If there is argument or some further submission on that particular point, the Chair is prepared to hear it. But, hon. members, any inference otherwise as to the ruling of the Chair is unacceptable and will not and cannot be tolerated.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are asking me to give an opinion on a new ruling and couching my opinion on the basis that if I don't accept the ruling I am guilty of accusing the Chair of some previous collusion with the government. There has been no reference, Mr. Speaker, in making your ruling, to any previous occasion in this chamber where such a ruling has ever been made before — no traditional example of

[ Page 1443 ]

either a previous ruling or examples from May or Beauchesne. Because of that and because of the urgency and the immediacy, obviously without the Chair's knowledge an attempt was made for an interpretation before any contact with a House committee, any contact with Whips or House Leaders or anything else. It is a politically motivated desire to put the Chair in a position of making an arbitrary ruling very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I have no disrespect for the Chair. But when the Chair is placed in the position of making absolute rulings that are brand new, that have no precedent, and a government insists on that ruling, the only interpretation I can have is closure. I repeat: I do not intend to be subject to closure by any government as long as I have breath in my body.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, possibly at this time it would be appropriate if members would consider page 17 of Standing Orders. If they would take the time to read page 17, in the second paragraph under "Other proceedings, " it says: 'All other proceedings" — all other proceedings, hon. members — "not otherwise specifically provided for." If you would give that your close attention I think you would find that in this particular case there is great merit in the application by the Chair of the standing orders.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if I am not permitted to speak, then you'll have to carry me out of here by force. I demand my right to speak. You're not going to use a cheap trick to get me out of here. Now, Mr. Speaker, you don't want that and I don't want that. None of us want that. But I'll tell you, in a free democratic society, the rules of the House must be consistent, based on decisions over a period of time, not arbitrarily brought in or forced by a government. Mr. Speaker, I know the rules; you know the rules. I tell you clearly, and I tell this chamber, and I tell the people of this province: I do not intend to be stifled by any trick of government to bring in closure in this House, and I intend to take my place in this debate under the rules as they exist.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the House should address itself to the debate that is at hand, because I have important comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. On a point of order, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

[2:45]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your concern in this matter. I had thought that you were asking for input before you considered whether or not to allow the member to carry on, I thought if I could make a comment from a layman's point of view.... You have mentioned that the member opposite has spoken for over three hours and you also mentioned that you had looked for a reference for some interpretation, and found none, which would suggest to me that this matter has not arisen before, where there has been an unlimited amount of time given to a motion to hoist. The principle of the bill, which is debated in second reading, of course, allows the designated speaker or the Leader of the Opposition unlimited time, and I think it's fair to say that dealing with the principle there should be the opportunity for unlimited debate, but in the hoist, certainly the period of time of 40 minutes normally given — but in this case in excess of three hours — should be enough time. Forty minutes should be enough time to allow any member the opportunity to rationalize the reasons they're putting forward for the hoist. If they wish to have unlimited time to express their concern over the principle of the bill, that unlimited time is offered to them in the second reading.

MS. BROWN: Sleazy....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I commend you, Mr. Speaker, for attempting to address the question. I just offer those points of view from where I sit.

MS. BROWN: Sleazy government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. member, I will ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) either to come to order or to leave the chamber. I will not tolerate those remarks while we are discussing an item of vital importance to the business and operations of this chamber.

The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the comments offered by the minister are editorial and have nothing to do with the ruling. Whether a member wishes to or does not wish to participate in the debate under the existing rules is the responsibility of the member — not an opinion of the minister or anyone else as to how much time should or shouldn't be taken, but purely on the basis of this rule book and the practice of this House. The people who determine whether or not members have handled themselves well in this House are the electors. It may not serve the opinion of individual members, but a speech of 40 hours or 40 minutes or 40 seconds serves the purpose.... It is the conscience and the elected responsibility of the individual member to determine how he or she carries out their duty under the rules.

There is absolutely no precedent for limiting a designated speaker on a hoist motion. None whatsoever! The amount of time that a member takes as a designated speaker is on that member's conscience. It is not the opinion of members of this chamber. This chamber will be here long after we're dead, Mr. Speaker, and the only reason it will be here long after we're dead is if we uphold the rules and avoid making decisions on rules based on urgent political expediency that may be determined by members but in the long haul history washes aside. The rules in this chamber are more important than any desire by the government to bring in closure.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to threaten the Chair, but I do want to tell you that in this unprecedented manner of closing debate on a designated speaker, I do not intend to give up my place in this chamber that some people out there told me to do in terms of coming here and serving the citizens of this province. No government has the right to close off opposition debate no matter what trick is being used. I do not intend to give up my place. I have a right to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Not at this time, hon. member. We're addressing....

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1444 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, this is a most important issue that this House has embarked upon at this time. It serves no purpose whatsoever for members to either approach the subject with emotional speeches that are not dealing with a point of order or to throw comments across the floor which serve no meaningful part in helping us to arrive at our decision. I would ask the House to bear with me for one moment.

Hon. members, if there is any more substantive argument the Chair is prepared to hear that at this time; otherwise, the Chair is prepared to render a decision on the matter.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to make one point to Your Honour. You have asked the House to give you opinions about the meaning of some particular words in that standing order. I submit to Your Honour that doing that, you are playing — inadvertently perhaps — handmaiden to the position of the government that wants to invoke closure. The only argument that should be permitted with respect to the opinion expressed by Your Honour about that should have nothing whatever to do with the distorted opinion expressed about that standing order by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) or anybody else on the government side. We are talking about fascism by the back door. We're talking about closure, and they're involving the office of the Speaker in it. That's what we should be debating, Mr. Speaker, and not whether any particular word in there means a particular thing. Clearly, right from the beginning when the former Speaker, who never distinguished himself in that office in any way....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member has been here long enough to know that such a remark is totally out of order. I would ask the member to unequivocally withdraw the remark or to withdraw from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed I will.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask the member to unequivocally withdraw the remark....

MR. HOWARD: I said that I did. You weren't listening.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. HOWARD: The former Speaker stood up in this House on a rehearsed basis and said, indirectly: "We, the fascist government, are going to impose closure." And that, Mr. Speaker, is what you should be debating in this chamber, not some obscure interpretation of some rules.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we are all honourable and equal members in this House. A party, a cabinet or any other device is a fiction when it comes to the right of individual members to speak in this House. I therefore say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the unlimited right of any one member to speak is an offence against the basic concepts of parliamentary democracy. This idea about a designated speaker which has been creeping into our rules offends the basic representative nature of this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read the rules.

MR. DAVIS: The rules are moving away, if in fact that's what they're doing.... If they give one hon. member the right to strangle my right to speak with his vocal chords, that is a degradation of this Legislature and I'm opposed to it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As a relative newcomer to the House I have noted...

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. BRUMMET: ... that many times any ruling by a Speaker has been used as a precedent in this House to allow that same practice to continue in future. What I see happening here, and I think it is a major concern of this House, is that we have a member through a practice and a belligerent attitude trying to establish a precedent which is contrary to what the rules allow. Should you find, Mr. Speaker, that any member, because of being adamant in his position, is allowed to speak at length on amendments or subamendments, that, if I read it right, forms a precedent that in future on any amendment, subamendment or anything at all in this House we can have designated speakers ad infiniturn. I think that is what we have here. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to establish a precedent which the rules do not allow. That is the tragedy here, and the abrogation of democracy.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is fast approaching the opinion that there is little new evidence being brought before it. However, in deference to the Leader of the Opposition I will allow his remarks at this point.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when you ask for new evidence, you're asking us to comment on a brand-new ruling. If the arguments of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) and the minister have any weight, then there is no reason to change the rules which we all function under. Whether they think I'm belligerent or have B.O. or they don't like my politics is absolutely irrelevant. What is important, sir, is that my right to speak not be impaired as it exists under the existing rules. Had there been reason to shut me up before, three hours and 40 minutes would not have gone by. The only reason that I spoke three hours and 40 minutes is that under the rules, I am permitted to be the designated speaker.

There is a history to this section. It was spawned on a debate in this chamber which I participated in in the normal process of changing the rules. This section was specifically added because the Leader of the Opposition of the day and the present Premier, Mr. Bennett, went around this province screaming, yelling and crying: "Not a dime without debate." This section was put in because of that. I said publicly then that this rule would guarantee the right of any member, as a designated speaker, to speak in an unfettered manner, and that if the Social Credit Party was so concerned about "not a dime without debate, " that opening would be enshrined in the standing orders.

[ Page 1445 ]

[3:00]

I find it ironic that as we stand here today and have an interpretation of this ruling, which the government when it was in opposition said did not exist.... It has pulled a complete reversal in using closure on a section on which they said, "Not a dime without debate." Mr. Speaker, there is no precedent; the rules have not been changed; and a ruling of the Chair in an obtuse manner, without any precedent, cannot be accepted by any member who loves this parliament. It just cannot be accepted, and I cannot accept it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

The Chair has heard sufficient at this time, and clearly we are now engaged — I'd ask the Leader of the Opposition to take his place — upon a debate. The Chair stated at the outset that it was of the opinion that the rules clearly do not allow a member unlimited opportunity to speak on amendments and subamendments. Equally, hon. members, that opportunity clearly is at hand in main motions. The rules, if taken.... Hon. members, the rules clearly in this case do not present an opportunity for unlimited debate on either amendments or subamendments, and the Chair so rules.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are rushing to a ruling.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are rushing to a ruling. There was no notice given to the official opposition that this matter was going to be raised.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms, you will remove the Leader of the Opposition from the Chamber forth with. I will ask the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to take his place forthwith.

Sergeant-at-Arms, you have been given an instruction to remove from this chamber the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, so we can understand I what the rules of this chamber are, let us clearly distinguish between a member who is asked to leave for one reason and a member who is asked to leave for another. In this case, members of this chamber are well aware that when the Chair rises, members are immediately to take their place and cease debate. Any violation of that will result in the ejection of the member for the remainder of the sitting day. That was the reason and, hon. members, that concludes that particular matter.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if Rene Beaudoin were here today he'd be damned proud of you.

MS. BROWN: This is the most disgraceful thing this House has ever seen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. For the last time, I'd ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to keep her remarks to herself.

Hon. members, so we may clearly follow the process, the Chair had ruled, on the standing order that the time period clearly was in excess. That is the ruling of the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: It may be anti-climactic, but it's the most challengeable ruling any Speaker has ever made.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 17

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

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if it would be possible to acquire a black flag and drape today's Votes and Proceedings with it.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, after you made your last ruling I clearly heard the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) refer to your ruling in this House with he words "Sieg Heil Nazi tactics." Obviously those most disrespectful words — at least in my opinion disrespectful and unparliamentary — are shared by other members of the opposition. I would ask that you ask the hon. second member for Victoria to withdraw those remarks against this House and your honourable chair.

[3:15]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear the remarks, hon. member. But the claim has been made, and if they were aid I would ask the member to withdraw the remarks.

MR. HOWARD: If the Speaker does not hear what has taken place, then he can't ask somebody to withdraw whatever is alleged to have taken place.

MR. SPEAKER: I stated, hon. member, that the Chair had not heard the remarks but that another member has taken

[ Page 1446 ]

offence and has asked that the offending remarks be withdrawn.

MR. BLENCOE: My remarks were not directed at the Chair; my remarks were directed at the government. I believe them to be appropriate remarks, Mr. Speaker, after what has happened today.

MR. PARKS: On the point of order, the hon. second member for Victoria has seen fit to affirm the fact that he made those remarks. He also affirmed that he made those remarks against the government. Be they made against the Speaker or against the government, they are clearly unparliamentary. I have surely been, along with, I think, all members of this House, affronted, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw them.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the second member for Victoria to withdraw the offending remarks.

MR. BLENCOE: I did not affirm anything. I did not say it to any individual member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. An hon. member of this chamber has asked another hon. member to withdraw a remark which he finds unparliamentary. Traditionally, if the remark has been made and if the member asks for a withdrawal, a withdrawal is forthcoming.

I would ask the second member for Victoria if he would withdraw the remark that was made.

MR. D'ARCY: On the points of order raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) regarding real or imagined remarks by the second member for Victoria, if we are to take your request and ruling literally here, it could be said that after everything said by a government member an opposition member could rise and say: "Mr. Speaker, we find that entire speech unparliamentary." By the same token, a government member could get up after every speech by an opposition member and say: "Mr. Speaker, I find that unparliamentary."

The fact is that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam found something unparliamentary. That's his privilege. The member for Victoria does not feel it was unparliamentary, and that's his privilege. Since the Speaker didn't hear the remark, I fail to see the relevance of the entire thing or why we're taking up the time of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Obviously the member has very little understanding of the parliamentary traditions that face this chamber.

MR. ROSE: As a member who sits here next to the loud and raucous rump, day after day, if I were to get up and object to everything that was said over here, just below your level of hearing but loud enough for the rest of us to hear — most recently, and I'm not sure it wasn't from the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, we were described as gutless hypocrites because we take a strong stand — then I think we'd be jumping up and down on points of order all day. I think the whole thing is nonsense, and you should let it go right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, possibly this is an appropriate time to remind ourselves of why there are rules regarding parliamentary language. If members were to adhere to those rules, we would not find ourselves in this particular position. Nonetheless, the particular phrase referred to by the member to the Chair does require a withdrawal if the remark was made. If the remark was not made, hon. members, the Chair is obviously powerless to do anything about it. Therefore I will ask the second member for Victoria: if the remark was made, would he withdraw the same.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a little while ago a number of members in this chamber accused the government of being fascist. I assume that's parliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Okanagan North on the hoist of Bill 3.

On the amendment.

MR. CAMPBELL: Bill 3 allows the government to downsize part of the public sector. It allows the government to control part of the expenditures in the public sector so that the deficit will not increase beyond $1.6 billion. That is a large deficit.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is hoped that in the next year we would again have a balanced budget, as we should have every year, but because the revenues of the province have dropped — revenue from forestry dropped by 51.2 percent in 1982-83 — the revenues are simply not here. It is essential that Bill 3 be passed, so that the government can control their expenditures. In spite of the controls that will be implemented by Bill 3, the total budget will still increase by 12.3 percent. The Human Resources budget will increase by 13.9 percent, even after the downsizing of some of the Human Resources staff. The Education budget will increase by 7.3 percent in spite of decreased revenue.

You could say: "Well, why doesn't the government balance the budget this year?" It's because the government has compassion for the people. There are people out there who are unemployed, and there are people out there on welfare who have not been able to secure employment, so this government, as a government of compassion, has increased the deficit to cover these types of expenditures.

On health, with a 7.3 percent increase, this government has always placed the number one priority on health, and it is essential that costs within the health system are brought under control. The average daily hospital costs in the ten largest hospitals in the province went from $14.08 a day in 1955 to $328 a day in 1983. That is an increase of nearly 20 times in 18 years. This government has to have legislation in place to control these costs, or before long the total budget will be spent on health, human resources and education. While these are very high priorities, Mr. Speaker, highways must be maintained, other services of government must be maintained, and there must be funds for them.

[ Page 1447 ]

When we look at some of the user fees being charged in the hospitals, they've dropped from 7.1 in 1955 to 2.6 in 1983, and that shows that the government is picking up a greater portion yearly of the cost of these services. We know that in this budget every resident in this province will receive $3,000 in the form of government services in the fiscal year 1983-84; that's $3,000 for every man, woman and child in this province. The health care costs in this province will be $800 for every man, woman and child. As I look at the people in the gallery up there, when they go into the hospital and they're in there for ten days and it costs them $8.50 a day.... If they are in there for ten days, it's $85, and if they're in for five days, it's $42.50. That's for the ones that use it. But it will cost the taxpayers of this province $800 whether you're using it or not. That shows what a great medical plan there is in British Columbia. The Premier of this province has seen fit to make sure that the people of B.C. are covered under one of the greatest medical plans in North America.

Human resources will consume $500 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia. That is a high price to pay for the unemployment we have. When the private sector employs more and more people, we'll be able to take another look at human resources, and hopefully the cost of the human resources budget will decrease. That is the only way that this government can control expenditures: by encouraging more and more investment in the private sector, having more and more people working in the private sector, and downsizing government so that the government expenditures are under control.

The education system in British Columbia today requires a government expenditure of $3,900 for every student. In the budget it has been determined that in the next three years the pupil-student ratio will be decreased by just under two students. The pupil-student ratio will go back to the 1976 level. That appears to be a small price to pay to get our budget in British Columbia under control.

Part of the way that this is going to be brought under control is through Bill 3. There will be downsizing of government. Mainly it will be through attrition, but yes, there will be some people laid off. They will be laid off from the higher echelons, the middle echelons, and there will even be some from the bottom. Mr. Speaker, if the government is going to control expenditures, it is essential that they have the method to lay these people off so that the costs of government can be controlled. In the private sector the cost of production has always been controlled, because the marketplace controlled it. The marketplace controlled it there. In the public sector, as long as we keep on looking for the taxpayers of this province to keep on paying an ever greater portion of taxes, what is going to be left to invest in industry, in plants and in production equipment so that the revenues can be generated in this province to support the social programs that we desire?

[3:30]

Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to pay for these programs. In 1983-84 we will be borrowing $600 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia. We cannot keep on going through the act of borrowing to pay for the services that we are presently consuming. If we do, we'll be on a course like that of the federal government, which keeps on borrowing for the services today that our children and grandchildren will be paying back. I believe the people of this province have pride. They wish to pay their own way. They realize that you cannot borrow this province into prosperity. It's a socialist philosophy to borrow into prosperity. This government realizes that prosperity must come to this province through the private sector, through productivity, production and people working.

It is absolutely essential that we approve and pass Bill 3. People at all levels — the business sector, senior citizens, the employed sector and the union sector — realize that there has to be a downsizing of government, that it has to be affordable by the taxpayers. The hoist of Bill 3 must be defeated. This bill must be passed. We cannot keep going on and on talking about bills. Filibusters by the opposition are costing this province hundreds of thousands of dollars. Certainly they are entitled to their say. That is their democratic right. They are elected to expound their philosophies and their interpretation of the bill to the people. We would not wish to close that off at all. But, Mr. Speaker, after all that has been said and said and said — and the repetition goes on, and the dollars keep being spent needlessly — there comes a time when we must pass these bills.

On May 5 the people said that they wanted to downsize government. The opposition said in the Port Moody by-election that people would not support tough restraint measures. People did support tough restraint measures because they realize there is no alternative. The opposition can filibuster in here, but the people out there cannot be deceived or filibustered. They realize that this is essential, that this government was elected to do a job. The members in this House intend to do a job. These bills will be passed.

I support Bill 3, and I would urge all members on the opposition side to reconsider their position. As I said earlier, they have a duty to perform, to expound their views on this. But there comes a time when the people out there don't buy that anymore. I now ask them to get behind this bill in all parliamentary dignity and say: "We've had our say. The government has had their say. Let's not waste time and taxpayers' dollars at the rate of $100,000 a week." Taxpayers' dollars are being wasted because of this opposition filibustering. It's $80,000 a day to run the House. If the House wasn't running, it would cost $60,000. That extra $20,000 a day is wasted money. I urge the members of the opposition to reconsider their position, to come behind the government and support this good bill. The public out there realizes that this government needs to pass it.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, September 19 will go down in democratic parliamentary history as a dark day, because in our attempt to point out to the people of British Columbia the kind of legislation this government is bringing into being, our right to speak has been disallowed.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it is well and good to ask members to withdraw certain phrases, and the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) withdrew a phrase when he was asked, not long ago. But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that by their deeds shall ye know them. I suggest that this bill is an example — an outstanding example — of their deeds.

The Duncan United Church minister wrote a letter recently, an expression of concern over Bill 3: "I would like to express to you my deep concern over the proposed enactments. The callousness and the injustice are being well spoken to today by various people and groups. It is against the foundations and the building of this province and this nation.

[ Page 1448 ]

Its excess was something against which the people of this nation fought in 1939 to 1945." I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what did we fight against in 1939 to 1945? "We fought for freedom against a fascist and Nazi regime." This is the minister of the United Church using those words to deal with this legislation. So I wonder if my colleague should have been asked to withdraw those words, Mr. Speaker. Certainly what we have seen in this Legislature today leads me to believe that he was perhaps correct.

It is essential that the reading of Bill 3 be delayed. It is essential that this government, which has already indicated that it was wrong in the first instance and has attempted to appease the public outcry by bringing in some cosmetic amendments to the legislation, again review its position and do more than bring in cosmetic amendments. It is vital, if we are to continue as a free people here in British Columbia, that more than cosmetic amendments be placed on the order paper relative to Bill 3.

When you see church leaders around this province — like the minister of the United Church, like the archbishop from the Anglican Church, the Rev. D. W. Hambidge, and the Rev. John W. O'Neill, president of the British Columbia conference of the United Church of Canada — coming out with statements like the one they issued on July 28, surely that government must recognize the error of its ways.

The government talks about employment. We saw the latest labour statistics, Mr. Speaker. What this government is doing, so far illegally and without benefit of legislation, is already turning the economic position of this province downward, while the rest of Canada is going upward. Those statistics spoke amply well and true of the kind of results that occur when we have a short-sighted government, an ingrown government, an inturned government, bringing in legislation that will destroy not only our human rights but also our economic rights. Every step that they are taking is doing nothing to help build up the economy. Instead, it is moving in the other direction. We've seen that with those labour statistics.

And why? I want to quote from the letter from the Anglican provincial synod of British Columbia, signed not only by the Anglicans but by the United Church as well.

"Much of the proposed legislation seems to bear down on the very people most in need of government support and help; those with particular needs, and presently drawing on the specialized skills of agencies within the department of Human Resources to assist them in meeting those needs. The people who are likely to be unable to help themselves are the ones most likely to be affected, not least children with special problems and single parents."

We believe all persons should have access to all levels of service, including medical and paramedical care, without regard to their ability to pay for it. They shouldn't have to call for help from churches or other agencies with which they may have little or no association. Surely they ought to be able to look to their government for help as members of this province. We believe that all persons should have access, and we believe that "all" means all, as much in the case of medical care, education and social services as in the case of parliamentary interpretation. It doesn't mean part or maybe. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the case if this legislation is enacted.

The member who has just spoken has talked about the high cost of medical care and suggested that the taxpayers are paying too much and that more of it has to be borne by the individual. That means that medical care is not available for all people.

He's spoken about the cost of education. If you remove the access to education from those who cannot afford to pay, then all people do not have equal access to education. In the long term, society will pay for that, much more so than they will if they provide the educational facilities. There are people in society who are disadvantaged, who are weaker and who need more assistance. As a humane society, we would ensure that that assistance was there.

Under this bill the word "all" changes its significance. Under this bill there are different classes of people. There are those who can pay and those who cannot afford to pay. Those who cannot afford to pay will be deprived of the right to medical care, to extended education and to the special assistance needed by those disadvantaged people in society. We talk about rights. This bill gives certain people in society the right to die because of lack of medical care, the right to go cold because of lack of ability to pay for shelter and the right to go without proper education, proper knowledge, because they cannot afford to pay. It gives them the right to be discriminated against. That is what this bill is doing, and that is why we are so adamant that it must be delayed so that the government will take not just a second look but a third look.

[3:45]

Why are we changing our human rights legislation? Why are we going out and terminating people, still continuing to pay them, and in the name of restraint refusing to let them work at their job? Is there some fear or concern on the part of some members of government that some of those human rights workers are going to come up with something that's going to be embarrassing to them? Why is the rentalsman's office being closed down? Why are some of those people locked out of their offices? Were they getting too close to something that's going to be embarrassing to the government? What else are we to think? They're still being paid until the end of October. Is it restraint to pay them and not let them work?

The government has to reassess its position. It has to take a third, a fourth or a fifth look — however many looks are necessary — to ensure that this bill does not become enshrined on our statutes. That is not the British Columbia we have all come to believe in, to love and to admire. That is the British Columbia that is drawing remarks right across the country — right around the world, in fact — as to what is happening here, and this bill, as much as or more than any other, is the one that's doing it. It is, you might say, the cornerstone of a package of very regressive legislation. That is why we are adamant that the bill must be delayed.

Certainly I'm not alone. A lot of people who supported the government at the polls on May 5 had no idea that this was the kind of legislation that government had in mind. I have a letter from a constituent of mine who lives at RR 2, Duncan:

"As a proud British Columbian and one of your constituents, I would like to state that I'm appalled by the outrageous measures proposed by the Social Credit government in their recent budget. Not only am I convinced that severe government restraint will only prolong the current worldwide recession, but the proposed undermining of civil liberties in this province is almost too frightening to contemplate.

"Two years ago we were seeing all our troubles blamed on 'welfare burns'; now it is the 'civil servant

[ Page 1449 ]

burns.' Who will be next? Perhaps we will have to get rid of 'old-age pensioner burns' by popping them all into gas ovens.

"Please do everything in your power to stop this government in its destructive course."

And government members complain when our members make remarks about dictatorial or neo-fascist attitudes. Those are the kinds of letters we're getting, Mr. Speaker. Another one, again from Duncan, Old Lake Cowichan Road:

"I wish to express my extreme dismay at the irresponsible actions of the government during the past week. While I understand the need for our government to give the appearance of being responsible fiscal managers, the reason for the election of some of my fellow citizens is, in my view, not to be shrewd manipulators of the citizens in order to maintain an AA credit rating."

And they didn't even achieve that! In their shortsighted economic approach they blew it. They lost their triple-A credit rating.

He goes on:

"While I do not have a strong background in any kind of union movement, I cannot comprehend the stupidity that seems to be inherent in Bill 3. Where common sense dictates that in a period of uncertainty, such as the one we are now in, every effort should be made to ensure that those who are working to provide the essential services related to health, welfare, education, advocacy, protection of the Commonwealth, etc. should be given a reasonable amount of security. Our government appears to have identified a new whipping boy in the public servant, and withdrawn all incentive and replaced it with fear.

"Where locally elected people were carrying out an exceptional job of squeezing education cuts out of every penny, our government places control in the hands of the public servants. It is obvious that my fellow citizens who happened to get the majority of seats in the last election do not have any guiding principles for their policies, but are being jerked about by international forces that I assume they were elected to protect myself and my family from.

"I appeal to you, as my MLA, to express my view that the policies being implemented are not only inconsistent and counterproductive, but also a direct affront to what I consider to be my, my family's and my neighbour's rights to a protection and service by my government; the opportunity to be a productive and producing citizen; and to protection from the manipulation of my life by international forces."

Those are pretty strong words, Mr. Speaker, and the kind of letter that we've been getting over and over again from so many people in all walks of life.

Here's another one:

"The Social Credit Party was elected by the people of British Columbia to restrain government spending. Under the terms of this budget, government spending is increased in spite of the layoffs."

I think that is an important fact. We heard a speech not long ago about how we had to curtail to get ourselves out of debt. This government has continually increased the deficit, has continually increased spending. They are the first government — I was going to say the first in the history of this province, but certainly the first for many years — to have borrowed money for operational costs. This government has been a disaster as far as economic management or financial affairs is concerned, and yet they pretend to be great financial managers. This government is talking about restraint, about a bill that is going to curtail, chop, hack at the public service, chopping out much-needed services, putting more and more people on unemployment. At the same time, it is beefing up its own offices, beefing up its own travelling expenses, increasing its budget by over 12 percent, and doing nothing at the upper levels to make the kind of cuts that would at least give some degree of credibility to what they are talking about.

Another letter:

"I am writing to express to you my strong opposition to the current budget and legislation now before the Legislature. Some fundamental questions are raised by this legislation which need to be addressed by the government and by the the citizens of British Columbia. How do we perceive a democratic society?"

That is the question this person is asking. How should governments of the province be structured? Who is served by the government and its agencies, and to whom is the government answerable?

I think those are questions that have to be faced. The government attempts to hide behind the fact that they were elected on May 5, and makes a pretence of saying this was the program they were elected on. That is not the case. There was no indication that human rights protection was going to be destroyed, wiped out, certainly emasculated, during the election campaign.

I have a lot of East Indian people in my community, and I think one of the most poignant things that has happened to me as a MLA, as a result of this legislation, was when a member of the East Indian community came into my office to see me on an entirely different matter to do with a grant he was trying to get. After we had discussed that and dealt with it, I asked him how his community felt about the current legislation, and do you know what his reply was? He said: "We are scared! We left our native country and came to Canada because we felt we would have freedom here, we would be protected; that there would not be the kind of problems there were in India and Pakistan. We are scared as we see this program coming down, because it is the beginning; and we know what that beginning leads to." And then he said: "You know, in my country if you know the right people you can kill someone and never be punished." That was his assessment, and that is frightening and disturbing.

I believe the government should consider what they are doing, and how it is affecting people out in the community who are faced with these kinds of changes — changes in a democratic system that we have built up over long years of trial and error to come to something of which we can all be very proud here in British Columbia. It's not perfect, but it's a system that relates very well to our mixed community, one that ensures that people with skin of a different color, or eyes of a different slant, do not face discrimination, one that ensures that the disadvantaged who, through accident of birth or accident at a later time, are forced to live in a very restrictive environment.... We have legislation on the books of this province that recognizes their needs and supports their concerns. Now we see that legislation being changed. It won't change all at once. If it did, there were would be such an upheaval in this province that you wouldn't

[ Page 1450 ]

be able to continue to govern. As it is, it's changing so much and so quickly that we have seen some of that upheaval.

[4:00]

The difficulty is that you do it little by little. You slip it in: a little bit here, a little bit here, and before you know it, those hard-won rights are gone. We've seen a lot of specific things change. I've spoken about many of them today: health care, education, human rights, the rentalsman. You take away rent controls with one hand. This morning I heard the minister responsible for housing admitting: "Well, when rent controls are gone, those rents will go up. Some of those people living in those lower-priced places will be forced to pay more. Then they'll move out of there into some better accommodation, and that way there'll be more vacancies in the lower places" — and on and on. Somehow this is going to create more people to build more rental accommodation. There'll be more pressure, so the prices will go down. At the same time he's admitting that people are going to have to pay more. While those people in the low-income brackets are being called upon to pay more for their shelter on the one hand, on the other hand the government is saying: "Well, we're going to take back your CIP, your incentive grant, your extra $50." That's hitting at both ends. That is just one example of the unfairness and the unfeelingness of this legislation and this government.

In its original form, Bill 3 said that workers in this province can be fired without cause. I know there are amendments on the order paper. Those amendments do little or nothing. They set up a lot of words, with no real meat, because they really do not change the original intent. There is no change from the original intent. It will still be strictly at the discretion of the cabinet and Treasury Board. It will still have no regard for agreements signed in good faith. It negates so many of the things that we have worked for for a long time.

People are very concerned. I received a copy of a letter sent to the secretary to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. The writer of this letter was so distressed and disturbed that the government was apparently not listening, not just to the opposition but to what the public was trying to tell them, that he wrote to the Lieutenant-Governor asking him to intercede. The letter is addressed to Mr. J. Michael Roberts, Esq., Secretary to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, and goes like this:

"Thank you for your kindly reply letter of September 1, 1983, to my earlier letter to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor Rogers. I do not propose to enter into disputation or to inconvenience you in any manner of necessity of reply. However, I believe you to be in error. No constitution within the Commonwealth requires the personal representative of the Sovereign to pick up a pen and to put it to paper and to sign his or her name thereto. Choice is involved, and for choice to be authentic it must be dual; that is, it can only be choice if the opposite to doing a thing, namely to not do it.... We believe that in not doing it the Viceroy is interfering. Indeed, the Sovereign's representative must not be interfered with in his or her freedom of action."

I might just say that this letter was in response to a letter that he had sent earlier to the Lieutenant-Governor asking him to take some action. He had a response which indicated that the Lieutenant-Governor could not take action, and he's making the point that perhaps if you decide not to take action that's just as positive as deciding to take it. It's a fine point, but it's certainly worth considering.

I would suggest that there may be more than one individual going to the Lieutenant-Governor to ask this very thing, because there is a lot of concern in the general public about what's happening. That concern is evident to me wherever I go around this province, certainly in my own constituency, but when I travel to other areas the concern is still there. The concern is about the right of a government to move as dramatically as this government is proposing to do to destroy the rights of the citizens of this province.

You see, the one thing that concerns me perhaps more than any other thing — and I think also concerns a great many people around this province — is that in this and every piece of legislation we are considering there is inherent a drawing unto itself the power of decision-making and a taking away of the local control. There is a trend and tendency to make cabinet supreme, to negate the powers of the Legislature, to put less and less in legislation and more and more in regulations and to allow decisions to be made behind the closed doors of cabinet without consultation with the Legislature and without allowing locally, democratically elected people to involve themselves in the decision-making process. That is very dangerous for this government. Who knows what changes there may be in government, and if we have those kinds of power enshrined in legislation in this province, which allow not only elected cabinet members but appointed officials to make decisions that more rightfully belong in the hands of locally elected people, then democracy does die.

I can only go back to the letter I quoted in the beginning of my remarks from the United Church minister in Duncan:

"It is against the foundations and the building of this province and this nation". He's referring to the legislation. "Its excess was something against which the people of this nation fought in 1939 to 1945. I believe to have even the possibility of misuse of government powers incubating within such instruments as Bill 3 is to attempt to lie down with a hungry tiger. I really do think that the issue is the destruction of democracy or not. I find this battle being fought on the eve of 1984 to be most ominous."

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the hoist motion on Bill 3.

I feel that it is incumbent upon all of us to get on with the legislation that this government has in place. The Public Sector Restraint Act is a part of the strategy; it's a part of the package to bring about economic recovery and hold down the cost of government.

I think the opposition should give serious consideration to putting away from their filibuster program, the Art Kube program, and getting on with the job of running the province of British Columbia. We're all aware of the job and responsibilities of the opposition: that is, to oppose the government where they deem necessary, but certainly not to obstruct as we have had the example put before us for this last two and a half months, Mr. Speaker.

[4:15]

In looking at the record of the provincial government and their treatment of employees who have been displaced over past years, it is my feeling that the record is one of which this government and the opposition can be very proud. There is no reason for me to believe that this government will not

[ Page 1451 ]

continue to be more than fair in its treatment of its employees — certainly much more fair than the private sector.

For some time we have had legislation in place — and I'm referring to Treasury Board order no. 57 — which outlines the rules to be followed when reorganizational shuffles have occurred over the years since July 1980. The rules governing displacement of workers are covered very clearly and concisely in Treasury Board order no. 57. It bewilders me why the opposition would choose not to trust this government when looking at our past actions and treatment of government employees.

I will not go through all of the sections in Treasury Board order no. 57, but I think it would be of some interest to this House to cover some of the items and schedules contained in that order. Under this order, if reallocation of workers is not possible, there are certain benefits that the employees are permitted to apply for. Certain rights and privileges are contained in this order. There are provisions here for a joint staffing committee made up of the union, the ministry and the Public Service Commission. I am informed that in cases referred to that committee there has not been one single case that has not been resolved amicably on behalf of all those concerned. The rights and privileges include retraining at full cost to the government. Employees selected for training under this order, Mr. Speaker, have received their full basic pay for the period of training.

I would submit that this government has taken a very fair approach in the past. Indeed there is no doubt in my mind that when all of the air is cleared on the debate on Bill 3, and the regulations are in place, there will be few — and I doubt if there would be any in the private sector — citizens in the province of British Columbia who will not look back in history and look at the performance of this provincial government and say: you have been more than fair; you have been equitable in your treatment of your employees.

One of the provisions that is in this Treasury Board order that has been used by scores and scores and hundreds of employees in the province of British Columbia has to do with early retirement. It's a provision that this government brought in and made law on July 9, 1980. It has a provision under section 16 that employees who are 55 years of age or older and have completed ten years of service are entitled to certain rights and privileges on early retirement. If they choose to take early retirement, being 55 or older, with ten or more years of service, they are entitled to stepped-up pension privileges. As an example, those with ten years of service are entitled to an extra two and a half years' pension. Two and a half years, Mr. Speaker, on the formula in which the government works, is an extra 5 percent of their pay. If they have 25 years of service, they are entitled to an extra five years of pensionable service. Under this section, as I interpret and read it, a person with 25 years of service, 55 years old, would be entitled to retire with 60 percent of their normal earnings. Now if the normal earnings were $30,000 a year, that's a pension of $18,000 a year indexed. I think that's very fair. As I say, looking back at the history of how fair this government has been with its employees, and then listening to the debate of my friends in the opposition, I wonder sometimes what's going on. I don't know if they're being misinformed or getting directions from outside sources to create concern and confusion and frustration among the citizenry of British Columbia, or whether they're getting their orders from those who coughed up considerable sums of money during the election campaign, or just exactly who's running the show in that opposition. Mr. Speaker, I have a very difficult time understanding that.

I should also point out one of the other little plums that the government has thrown in here on this particular Treasury Board order, and that is in regards to the paying out of sick leave. If someone decides to take an early retirement, there is a provision in here that they can receive 50 percent of their accumulated sick leave credits. Now I say to you: is that not fair? I say to the members of the opposition: is that not a fair approach for this government to have taken in the past?

We've got the sick leave payment, we've got the pension payments, and now we get on to the severance pay. Let me read the short provisions as set out in this Treasury Board order regarding severance pay for people who have been caught up in this reorganization of departments or divisions. "For the first year of completed employment, three weeks of the current salary. For the second year of completed employment, an additional three weeks of the current salary, For each completed year thereafter, one-half month of the current salary for each completed year." When an employee has been working we'll say for 12 years, not only do they get the pension entitlements, their sick leave entitlements, they also get one year's pay — one solid year's pay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I'm not hearing correctly, or I'm not receiving the communications correctly — I have a very difficult time finding out, sitting here and listening to delays and procrastinations — but the costs of running this Legislature range anywhere from $70,000 to $90,000 a day. And members of the opposition, speaker after speaker after speaker, take the full allocation of 40 minutes — not 30 minutes, not 32, not 36 minutes, but the entire 40 minutes. Mr. Speaker, if they were putting forward some news or some suggestions or some positive criticism, I could understand it, but I find it nothing other than mischievousness.

I repeat: the job of the opposition is to oppose; what I have seen in my two and a half months in this Legislative Assembly is obstruction, and the taxpayers are tired of it.

I am sure there are a lot of other MLAs like me who are waiting anxiously to get on with the building of the recovery program for the province of British Columbia. They are looking forward to getting back to their constituencies and giving leadership to the private sector, working with the trade unions involved, with the municipalities and the economic development departments, and assisting this great province on its road to economic recovery. We are not going to be able to do that while we are sitting in this Legislative Assembly listening to mischievous obstruction of the legislative process.

If we are to have a successful democracy, there should be proper attention given to the true role of the opposition. I repeat: that true role is to oppose and not to obstruct. I call upon my friends across the chamber to please let us get on with the job of building a greater British Columbia. Let's get on to building a stronger private sector and balancing the budget, so that we can give better goods and services to those people who are underprivileged, to those people who need better education, to those people who require better hospital care and to those people who are unable to find jobs or to carry on with their jobs because they are incapacitated in one way or another. To give these people a better life we need to have better productivity and we have to work toward full employment. We are not going to do it sitting around this Legislative Assembly obstructing every single bill which comes before us.

[ Page 1452 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker is suggesting that the members on this side of the House are obstructing. The member knows quite well that there's no way the opposition can successfully obstruct in the end. They know that standing order 57 gives them the power to call the question at any time during any debate if they so wish. The government has a majority of members on that side of the House, which ensures that it can exercise its authority legally without any reference whatsoever to those of us on this side of the House — a simple procedure. But what we experienced this afternoon was something that quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, horrifies me even more than I thought possible.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Now the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is suggesting that I'm reflecting on the vote. Mr. Speaker, we're speaking on a motion to hoist Bill 3 for six months. We have been speaking on that motion for some time. We had a member, the Leader of the Opposition, speaking for over three hours. Now they suggest that he should sit down because he's been talking too long. If by reflecting on that situation I'm out of order, then perhaps the whole Legislature is out of order, and perhaps we should just abolish the opposition.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I believe you will, Mr. Minister of Forests. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) says he will wipe us off the map and abolish Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I'm quite certain that they will do just that after what we experienced and witnessed this afternoon.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. Let's proceed, speaking to the hoist on Bill 3.

MR. BARNES: This is a sinister and very tragic period in the history of British Columbia. I never thought I would experience a time when the government would go this far — to change standing orders right in the middle of a member's debate. We've accused the government of changing the rules in the past. I recall them thinking it was quite cute when I said that they had constructed, at taxpayers' expense, a great, big, beautiful, gargantuan structure called B.C. Place Stadium and that the field was too small. I asked them what they were going to do about it. They said: "If it's too small we'll change the rules so that it fits." That's the first time I'd ever seen anything like that, and we thought it was funny. Now we find that when they don't like the way the debate is going, they change the rules again — right in the middle of the debate. I'm having great difficulty, Mr. Speaker....

[4:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think I appreciate the way you feel, but we are supposed to be speaking to the hoist of Bill 3. If you wouldn't mind, hon. member, would you please bring your attention to that particular point.

MR. BARNES: I am speaking directly to the hoist, and this is what we were trying to suggest when we were making the point as strongly as we possibly could, under standing orders, with the full right of the opposition to speak as long as we wished under those orders, and being subject only to the government's desire to invoke section 57, which gives it the right to call the previous question. That is their right; you can always call the question. You can always use closure. You don't have to change the rules. The rules are quite adequate as they are. I am offended and I think that British Columbians are offended.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You don't like the rules.

MR. BARNES: I think we should ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to speak in debate when he has an opportunity instead of from his seat.

Mr. Speaker, what are we facing with Bill 3?

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the hoist.

MR. BARNES: No, we are talking about more than a hoist; we are talking about wiping out democracy. I have sat in this House for a number of years, and the more I watch those people over there, the more I wonder where they come from. Who are those people? Who are you, so arrogant that you sit over there and smile and make smart remarks when you are hurting people and crushing people in this province?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I come from British Columbia. Where do you come from?

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you where I come from. I came here of my own free will, from the United States. I took out my citizenship and I committed myself to this province and to this country. I care about it. But I wonder about you, when you stand in this House and throw out the Leader of the Opposition for speaking within the rules. You people invoke your big super-power, a very well-orchestrated attempt to try to stop us from defending the people's rights in this province. I find it reprehensible. It is terribly offensive.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member on his feet has made several references that the rules were changed. I think it was made clear that the rules of this House were applied, not changed, and I think he should get back to the debate rather than keep making inferences at the Speaker of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, on a number of occasions since I took the chair you have in effect been referring to a vote that was previously taken in this House. I believe to do so is incorrect under standing orders, and I would be more than pleased — I appreciate the fact that you feel offended — if you would please just talk to the hoisting of Bill 3, the motion to set the bill aside for six months.

MR. MITCHELL: Further to the point of order of the minister, what we are saying and what he failed to say in this point of order is that the rules have been enforced in a different way than tradition has allowed them to be in the past. I think when you change the way a law is interpreted, you are changing the rules.

[ Page 1453 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We still must bear in mind that we are not debating what transpired earlier this afternoon, nor are we debating the rules. At this point we are debating the hoist of Bill 3, and the Chair would appreciate it if the first member for Vancouver Centre would proceed to debate this hoist.

MR. BARNES: I don't mind confirming the fact that I don't feel good about this. You said you can appreciate my feelings but I must speak to the hoist motion. But I can tell you, it is about time we showed some feelings in this place. It is about time that we began to realize that we are not without feelings. All of us have them; all of the people of this province have them, I think the government believe they should put feelings aside and follow their dictates with no reference to reality.

Bill 3 is a confiscation bill. It takes away people's fundamental rights. It takes away the procedures that have protected them from those who would offend our right to exist and coexist in this society. It is a very frightening thing, People are talking about fascism. I'm not sure the public understands what fascism is, but if you take a little time to research it you'll find it is something that has no place in British Columbia and certainly no place in a free and democratic society. You've taken away everything that really matters to people. You're telling them to have no feelings.

Let's reflect on just one department that you are destroying and telling people that they must accept it under Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act. There is no attempt to restrain on the basis of economic reasons, to try to save dollars. This is why people are saying that it must be fascism; it must be something else; the government has another agenda. It is an agenda that is unfolding little by little. We watch your actions, not just today; we've been watching your actions in every department: the removal of planning opportunities for regional districts; the right of people to self-determination. You've taken away people's right to complain, with respect to being treated equally in a democratic society. You've taken away their human rights legislation. You're making it difficult for people to go to court; they're having to pay to protect themselves from landlords who would abuse their rights as tenants. The education system is being dictated to and being told that it must follow some formula that you've decided on here in cabinet, with no regard whatsoever for the special needs and uniqueness of different regions in this province. You've simply told people: "You don't count. We know best."

I don't know where you got your formula from. I don't know where you got the idea that you have the absolute and final solution to the economic and social problems of this province. How can it be that you're so well endowed? Who did you consult with? Who did you refer to? Give us some names. Tell us some people. Show us how it happened. Who's involved? Why aren't there people out there supporting you and saying: "Yes, we were involved in the planning of the government's new restraint program; we endorse it because we understand it"? I have yet to see anybody come forward and say: "We endorse and support the recommendations of this government, because we were democratically participating in a process." Who? Was it your hired professional people? Your pollsters? People who have their own ideas about how this province should be run, perhaps for personal reasons? It's a very sinister project that you've embarked upon.

I for one am not looking at this from just a political point of view; I'm looking at it from a humanitarian point of view. After all, the government is supposed to be here for the people. It is supposed to care about the people. It is supposed to refer to them and involve them in those decisions that affect their lives. You're not doing that, Mr. Speaker. You seem to relish the idea that you don't have to do it, because you keep referring to May 5. Every time we say something on this side of the House, you say: "May 5! We won the election; you didn't." You want us to get lost. You don't want us to participate. You don't want us to criticize.

It's a big joke when that member tells us that we're supposed to oppose but not to obstruct. Under the parliamentary system, there's no way we can obstruct, because you have the ultimate right of closure — if you had the courage to do it. Instead, you want to play these cheap games and try to offend our right to do our job.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Now the Minister of Agriculture and Food is saying that I am out of order. He doesn't even want me to reflect on any of these things. He just wants us to shut up and sit down and be quiet. They do not care.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Now he's talking about rules. He says we have rules. This is the offending thing, Mr. Speaker. This is what makes it difficult for us to come into this House and be rational and go down the sections of the bill and get involved in all the details. Those are just smokescreens. None of those details really matter. You people will change everything when you get ready. That's what you did with your Regulation Act. You brought in the Regulation Act in the first place so that you could circumvent statutory responsibility, so that you would have the right to designate and change and withhold information at will.

You are taking over this province. You are taking it over and you're going to keep it, and you don't care who you hurt. Because most of the people who lost in the last election were supporting us you're going to crush them by denying them economic opportunity. You're taking away their fundamental rights and making it so difficult that in the next four years they will probably have to leave the province. We know that's going on. It's pretty obvious.

Mr. Speaker, do you think it's an accident that some 50,000 people will come out in front of this Legislature and protest — that it's for no reason? Do you think those people enjoyed coming and standing there, wall-to-wall people? And the Premier had no time even to address them. He's the same Premier who was telling them to trust him and give him their vote before May 5, and suddenly he has no time. Do you think it's an accident that we had an unprecedented situation where people occupied his cabinet offices at the courthouse in Vancouver — peacefully?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you support that?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Member, you just listen to what I'm saying. If you have any understanding whatsoever you won't ask what I support; you will listen to the unfortunate situation that caused those people to behave that way. You have provoked and provoked. You are doing it with confrontation;

[ Page 1454 ]

you are doing it with arrogance. That's why those people are doing it, and when they do it you tell them they're going bonkers. You say they're going bonkers because they can't take it. You drive people up against a wall, Mr. Speaker, and then you are offended because they become emotional and start acting out and becoming upset. You say they have no self-control and that those people should not be behaving in the way they are behaving, and this is what makes us angry on this side of the House.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that we're speaking to an amendment to Bill 3. This member has been speaking for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes now and he has not yet addressed the subject which is under debate. Unless that member is completely intellectually bankrupt, I would suggest he begin to talk to the matter before the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. members, can we have order, please?

Will the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre please proceed and please speak to the hoisting of Bill 3.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, we are speaking because we protest this legislation. We would like to see it withdrawn and we're asking that it be held at least for six months. I am giving you my reasons why we feel this way. We do not trust the tenets within this legislation. We do not trust the theme of it or the motivation behind it. If that member is offended by that and if he considers it to be intellectually bankrupt not to deal with his smokescreen details in this legislation, so be it. I can tell you that I for one know when a game is being played, and this is a sham. This government has a diabolical scheme in all of its legislation. We were talking about the dirty dozen, but I can tell you that even those outside the twelve that we've been concerned about are all sinister. They affect the lives of the people of this province in a very serious and sinister way.

The Ministry of Human Resources is one of the most sensitive and most important ministries. Human beings are equal to the natural resources — the forests, the land and the water. But that ministry is on a plan to demoralize the people of this province by making it very difficult for them to survive in a highly competitive society that has become materialistic and dehumanized. The Ministry of Human Resources of all ministries should try to set an example and try to give people encouragement instead of demoralizing and instead of being offended.

[4:45]

Not only are the clients who are in need of assistance being offended by having their programs cut back, but they are being told to go back to the community and to try to fend for themselves as best they can. They're being told to go back to families that as you know, Mr. Speaker, do not exist in the way they did in olden times. They're telling them to go back to the nuclear family, which, as you know, are breaking up at a rate of something like 500 percent per year compared to what they were doing even five years ago. The homes are breaking up because of the pressure and the economic difficulties. He talks about going back to the extended family and having them pick up the pieces. Where are those families? Mr. Speaker, where are those volunteers and those church organizations and institutions? The ministry is now telling us that this will no longer be covered under the ministry's responsibility but that the public will pick it up because of the good will and desire and good Samaritanism of the public. Those are all noble ideas and they are virtuous, but where do they exist? What is going to happen to the people? What is going to happen to those families?

The one last resource we have in this province, if we were to enjoy the independence of government and to rely on one another and have all of those virtues more than just as a dream but as reality, is the family. But I can tell you that the family is under great pressure and great stress today, in part from circumstances beyond this government's control. Times are tough all over, but let's not be devious and play political games with people's lives. When we talk about the family we are talking about a very delicate institution that was once able to provide services for the individuals in the family. It was able to give them confidence and security. People had a place to go, and the family was respected. It was indeed a main institution in our society, but today that institution is under great stress and it is virtually non-existent. It is now common for people to say "I love you" and get married today and six months or a year later be divorcing, with all of the obligations and responsibilities of having brought new people into the world and not having the cohesion to carry on as a family unit. Those tragedies are common today.

For the Ministry of Human Resources to say we are going to leave those people to their own devices and take away the support programs that we have for them — obligations we have for them through statutes — is a tragic and irresponsible act on the part of the government. I am very dismayed by the direction the government is going. I'm dismayed by the thrust of the legislation and by the insensitivity of Bill 3. Public Service Restraint Act indeed! We're restraining families. Those are not just public servants, not just faceless people, people who are abused and stigmatized generally because they're in a class of people so easy for the politicians to offend as a group. Whatever their history may be throughout the world — as public servants, as a class of people — whatever their shortcomings may be, whether some of them are guilty or not of having goldbricked, so to speak, a few times, or whether there is evidence that some of them are redundant, I can tell you that they are still British Columbians, they are still human beings and you certainly cannot generalize that they're all as useless and irrelevant as this government seems to think they are. I think that is offensive and divisive, and breeds contempt against a class of people that makes a democratic society unsafe. That is the danger of your gross generalizations and of comments like the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) saying those people are going "bonkers" and that they're not capable of taking the stress of the job, and are therefore incompetent and incapable of helping others. When you think about those kinds of remarks, it makes you wonder where we're heading in this province, where we're really going.

A lot could be accomplished. In fact, a tremendous amount could be accomplished through consultation with those very same people you're offending. A tremendous amount could be accomplished if we were to refer it to the tenants we wish to abuse and tell them they have no rights. A tremendous amount could be accomplished with those people who have given up on trying to get into the marketplace and find legitimate jobs and opportunities within our system, who are involved in illicit activities, who have abandoned all hope of ever being able to live legitimate lives and are

[ Page 1455 ]

abusing themselves and society out of desperation — and most of them don't care anymore. I'm thinking particularly of young people who walk the streets in the evening in the West End and in other parts of Vancouver and this province. Those people are discouraged. What is the government doing to assist those people? What kinds of initiatives do we have that involve the young people and give them hope?

This is what bothers me about this bill and about all of the legislation. You want us to come and talk about the detail that you have with respect to how you're going to come up with certain formulae in working with the trade unions on some of these local issues. But there's a fundamental problem that frightens us. People are not opposed to economies within the marketplace and to saving government tax dollars. The public's not opposed to that. But we have not had one shred of evidence that the restraint program has anything to do with the economy.

There is no evidence to support the idea that by removing family support workers, taking away those coordinators who work with volunteers in the Ministry of Human Resources, cutting back on the counselling services for women with post-partum depression problems or on any of those programs for helping with the mentally retarded, for instance, or on the volunteer incentive programs for people who were giving most of their time for a cost of about $1.25 an hour to the provincial government, which was cost-shared federally.... There is no evidence that by wiping out those programs the government is in fact saving money.

That's the problem we're having: we are suspicious, because if the government was saving money it would show us where the money is being saved. We don't see any money being saved. All we see are a lot of people being fired from the public service — cutting back on people in the helping professions — and we had the Minister of Human Resources say that we can no longer hold their hands and that they've got to stand on their own feet. Mr. Speaker, that flies in the face of reality. People have to have their hands held. Even the politicians have to have expense accounts to fly around in those Lear jets; just today in question period the Premier himself made it quite clear that $75,000 was hardly enough for him and his ministers to fly around trying to promote the economy of British Columbia, and that they need a lot more money. All we're saying is that so does everybody else; so do the senior citizens.

When you think about how cynical the government seems to be in just about everything it does, it leaves us too stupefied to find words to describe.... Take the cost of living for senior citizens. What is the government doing to help those people at least maintain their present standard of living? Their costs are going up every day. New formulae are being put out through orders-in-council, through regulations, that make them pay a greater percentage of their incomes toward rent than they were paying last year. There was no reference to the realities of those people being able to survive. The government hasn't cut back its programs for the cabinet, yet it has cut back the programs for the people. But what's the difference between a cabinet minister and a citizen on the street? What's the difference between a minister of the Crown and someone who is on social assistance? The kinds of things that the government is doing just aren't credible; it doesn't seem to be motivated toward trying to encourage people to help us get through these difficult times.

Furthermore, what is the government doing in the way of innovating ideas as far as creating employment for the youth?

What are we doing with our indigenous people? What are we doing to show that we can become self-sufficient by being innovative and using ideas that would allow us to make the best use of our own natural resources?

This bill is totally irrelevant as far as the problems of British Columbia are concerned. It seems to be an attempt by the government to try and turn the direction of this province — the history of this province — around. I suspect we will see the day when you privatize the public schools. That may be a prediction that won't be too far away. You've already set them on a tight budget and you figure in the next four years that they'll be spending exactly what you want, and you'll have control. And then pretty soon you'll eliminate the public schools altogether and say: "Well, if you can afford to get an education, then pay for it; if you can't afford it, that's too bad." You're going to do the same thing with medicare, the same thing with all of the services that people have relied upon traditionally and have worked very hard to have in this province, including human rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go to court.

MR. BARNES: "Go to court, " you say. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, ever since you abolished, without having an act to back you up, the Human Rights Code in this province, you have been having — by the day — a backlog of complaints. What's happening to them? What's happening to those people who are being discriminated against for whatever reasons, the men, women and children, people of different cultures? Where are they? What are they doing? Who's looking after those cases?

You see, we don't feel very good about the way you're doing business. You are a government which believes that you can do things retroactively — just push them through now and pass the laws later. We've been debating bills that you made a fait accompli over a year ago, mainly the personal tax and the renter's tax credits. We've been talking about those, but as you know, they're already law. You are no longer giving people those benefits. And the same thing with all of this. You fired all the people under Bill 3, and now you want us to debate it as sanely as though we're going to have some legitimate role to play in making a decision with this government. It doesn't really matter what we say on this side of the House. It doesn't really matter what we say or how we say it or who we refer to, because you're going to do exactly what you have intended to do since May 5 — which was a secret, by the way. None of us really knew what the government was going to do. I'm sure you would not have been elected had you told the people you really were going to make some ideological changes, some fundamental changes, to the structure of parliament, to the structure of government, to the structure of the value system in this province.

Mr. Speaker, what can you say? What will you listen to? Are you listening to those people who are signing petitions and asking the government to let them participate, let them have some input? Are you listening to the city of Vancouver, the mayor and council, who have asked for permission to sit down and talk with the Minister of Municipal Affairs as well? They have asked to participate with you. Are you cooperating with the members of the regional districts throughout this province, who are saying they want to be involved in the planning of their local communities? Do you really care? I don't think you care.

[ Page 1456 ]

These members — that government on that side of the House — are going through a charade with us. They are playing games with the people of this province. I can tell you that we are indeed watching a revolution of the most sinister kind. As you know, soon after the May 5 election, when you had made a few moves, one of the columnists had a headline in the Vancouver Sun that said Bill Bennett was on his way toward a revolution. People didn't like it. They said: "That's a dirty word. What do you mean, 'revolution'? He wouldn't be in a revolution; he's just going to make a few modifications to the system." No, you're scrapping the system. You're dismantling it. You're changing everything. You're destroying people. You're taking over. You're confiscating this province for your own sinister reasons. God only knows what they are, but I can tell you that the people of this province are seeing a major change in all of the institutions.

I suggest that we are going to have a very serious problem with the public unless you people start to listen. Sure, there are only 22 of us over here and we're suggesting that you hoist Bill 3, but we reflect the views of at least 45 percent of the people of this province. Probably a lot more are concerned now that they've seen the legislation you've introduced. I know you're not listening. You weren't listening to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, and you're not going to listen to anybody. And you want us to be responsible? They want us to stand and talk to them as though we are parties to the decisions they have to make.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing order 43 suggests that the speaker should be relevant. It occurs to me we should be talking about the hoist and I don't get much feeling that we're talking about the hoist. Would you remind the member to speak to the hoist?

[5:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. I'm sure the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre can speak with relevance to the amendment before us.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the government hoist it for more than six months. But I have no choice in the matter. We're just members in the opposition. All that we seem to be able....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're lucky that you're there.

MR. BARNES: I must acknowledge that there is some merit in the suggestion of the Minister of Municipal Affairs that I'm lucky to be here, because in the last campaign we spent less than $50,000. I know that a good quarter of a million was spent to try to remove me. Maybe we were lucky at that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the members on that side of the House to stand and tell us what they are really after. What do they want? What, is so important...?

MR. REID: Democracy.

Interjections

MR. BARNES: They say democracy, cooperation, justice. You know, Mr. Speaker, if we had....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Just a moment, please, hon. member. It's getting loud in here. If we can contain ourselves we can be well served.

MR. BARNES: It would be very enlightening if the public of British Columbia had a chance to hear the remarks being shouted by those members at a time when people's lives are being destroyed. People who have invested a great deal of effort in trying to be good citizens and contributed to the betterment of this province are being fired without due process. They are just cut off and left to survive on their own with no planning, no warning, no opportunity to be part of this great dream of economic recovery. They are simply told that they are the problem. I find that what you people are doing is not yet discovered. I don't think the public fully realizes the nature of these pieces of legislation that you're bringing in.

You're spending $8.4 billion. It's a restraint budget, yet you have a deficit forecast of $1.6 billion. You're firing people working for $1.25 an hour — cost-shared by the federal government — who are only making $50 a month. You're going to fire those people who are helping people, and you say that you are saving money. I don't understand it. Why would you budget for a deficit of $1.6 billion and then fire all those people, saying that you are trying to save money? Where is the rationale behind that? You're not trying to save money. You're spending more money on yourselves, on your travel expenses....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I can tell you one thing: when you hear members protest in this Legislature but the, same members will not go outside and talk to the people who are demanding to have an audience with this government, then you know that they are really not the brave soldiers that they pretend they are. They are hiding behind protocol, trying to change the rules and increase the police force to protect them. You don't go out and talk to the people anymore, as you did before May 5. I haven't heard one of those cabinet ministers go out and address the public, or talk to some of the demonstrators or listen to what they're saying. You call them a bunch of names. You've come to that. You weren't calling anybody any names before May 5, and now you're calling them names. You're calling the opposition names. You're offended by everything that we protest against. You're asking us to be responsible and help debate some of these details in Bill 3 and some of the other pieces of legislation.

Reflecting again on how I felt this afternoon when I watched the actions of the members on the other side of the House when the Leader of the Opposition stood to speak on the hoist, after three hours.... He had been speaking already, and right in the middle of his debate you decided that he should not be able to speak any more. That's what I mean by changing the rules. I think that's the nature of things in this province today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again we are reflecting on a previous vote, which is unparliamentary. Please proceed on the hoist.

MR. BARNES: I'm really impressed to know that the government is able to insist on following the rules when it pleases them, but when it doesn't please them they're not prepared. If you really were concerned about the rules, you

[ Page 1457 ]

would have stopped the Leader of the Opposition after he had spoken for 40 minutes, not after three hours. But you thought: "Hey, we've got to stop this. We'll change the rules."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I must caution you that we are on the amendment to hoist Bill 3.

MR. BARNES: You must admit, however, that what I'm saying is relevant to this motion, because it was around this motion that this issue came up. It's this motion that I'm concerned about, and this is why I say that the bill has to be hoisted even if we only have 40 minutes to talk. Even if we're not allowed unlimited time, I can assure you that we will continue to oppose, although we're just 22. Eventually that government is going to have to go to the people of this province. You're going to have to face them and listen. You're going to have to take some of the responsibility for the wrecks that you've caused in people's lives and in the economy. You know what I'm talking about. You know what you've done, and you know you are not listening.

We have challenged every ministry to show us documented evidence that they have worked out these cost-effective programs and to show us where the cost-savings savings are. They do not have that. All they have are opinion polls about what people think, and their attitudes, and that is what they are basing it on, preying on the insecurities of the people of this province, those who happen to have accumulated wealth. You want to tell them: "If we protect your wealth, will you help us destroy those people who are trying to take it away from you?" This is the kind of politics you are playing. It is divisive; it is divide and conquer. You are not concerned about trying to create a community of cooperation. You are deliberately trying to exploit confrontation. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that with the initiative you are taking you are going to put some delicate people against each other in this province, especially in the field of human rights.

I would like to ask what is happening to those people who have grievances and are trying to get due process, who are trying to have their cases heard? You know what the Minister of Labour is saying: "Well, just wait until we get the legislation passed. When we get Bill 27 passed we will look up your case."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time under standing orders has expired.

MR. BARNES: Well, I am glad to know you are following the rules. It is nice to know. I suppose it is convenient. But I will be opposing this legislation.

MR. PELTON: I don't intend to take up a great deal of the House's time this afternoon. I know you were concerned, Mr. Speaker, but I wasn't really concerned when I saw the red light on for a few minutes, because what I have to say will not take very long. I do rise, though, in opposition to the hoisting of Bill 3.

I think I am a true believer in the democratic system that we all live by. The reason I really oppose this is that I have sat and listened very carefully to, I would say, 90 percent of the debate that has taken place on the bill itself and on the hoist. It seems to me that there were some very good things said, both on this side of the House and across the floor. I don't argue with that for one moment. Some good points have been made. But I would state, Mr. Speaker, that my main reason for standing at this point is that I believe that everything has been said that needs to be said. We are really not accomplishing anything by this hoist motion. But I would like to take one or two minutes, because of the things that have been said about this, and address one or two of them to let those members who are interested have my opinion on where we stand on these various points.

One thing that has been stated a great number of times is that the government is not compassionate. I really can't accept that, because I believe it is an obligation of government not just to be compassionate on any given day but to retain the capacity to be equally compassionate as they move down the road, in a meaningful kind of way. I suggest that this is not an easy thing to do. Everyone in this House is well aware of the great difficulties that our province has experienced and is experiencing on account of the weakness of world markets for forest products and the other resource products that we export. We are all aware of the very high rates of unemployment that have resulted from this and the severe shortfall in government revenues which has made it extremely difficult to maintain the ever-growing level of services which British Columbians have come to expect and which they have a right to expect.

As was mentioned a moment ago by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), the Minister of Finance anticipates an operating deficit of $1.6 billion for this fiscal year. Undoubtedly if we wish to avoid the painful decisions which have been made and which relate to Bill 3, and which are the reasons why the opposition has brought forward the amendment to hoist Bill 3 — these painful decisions which involve program cuts — we could take the easy route and just let the deficit get bigger. But it seems to me that it wouldn't be a conscionable thing for any of us to do, because someone has got to pay the bill down the road.

I must question the extent to which we can morally justify continuing to live beyond our means by charging up our current bills to our children — this was suggested earlier this afternoon — and to future generations who have no voice at all at this point in time in the electoral process, and who, because of that, have nothing to say on how we spend the taxpayers' money. I don't know on what moral basis a government would have a mandate to follow that kind of financial spending in perpetuity.

It's true that many of the most controversial cuts that are talked about are not major expenditure items. In relationship to the total budget they're probably almost miniscule, but they are items which reflect a philosophical belief that the state should not be involved in every aspect of our lives. This has been mentioned many times before. In other words, there's too much government. People don't want the government interfering in their lives; they prefer to be independent. I think British Columbians are a very independent people. They prefer to make their own way, not just young people but all the people. I have many senior citizens in my riding, and they all prefer to make their own way. They're not looking for constant handouts. They don't believe in the theory of the government holding their hand. Yes, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre said, at times it is necessary to hold peoples' hands, and I suppose that applies equally in this House as it does in other areas, but that's not really what the people want.

Even though these controversial cuts don't involve major expenditures, they do reflect a philosophical belief that the

[ Page 1458 ]

state should not be involved in every aspect of our lives. There should be a respect for solutions and institutions, not relying on the coercive power of the state, which, after all, is the principal characteristic defining governmental action as opposed to private action. We talk a lot here about private action through private enterprise, and this is a perspective that I believe is a significant one and one which is very largely overlooked.

[5:15]

I remember very clearly about 10 or 15 years ago — and in those days I wasn't all that interested in politics — when the members opposite, with the particular philosophy which they represent, stated that there was no such thing as free enterprise. I think it was stated that big companies, like the American automobile manufacturers, could never lose money because they controlled their markets and could always brainwash the public into buying their products with television advertising. What a joke that turned out to be, because the employees of those companies and their families have since learned, to their sorrow, that there's no magic money tree and that you cannot distribute wealth if you have not created it in the first place.

I would suggest that government has a moral obligation to ensure our continuing economic health precisely because it is that health which has, in historical perspective, permitted us to establish one of the most generous systems of social benefits anywhere, and which alone can enable us to do so. When we get into this kind of a situation I would suggest that one of the main responsibilities we have is to see that this is distributed equitably. And I would suggest that it is difficult to distribute wealth equitably. It would be easy to equalize the height of the trees in the forest: if you cut them all down they'd all be the same height. But that doesn't seem to be the way to do it to me. To my mind that is not the sort of equity which would benefit the needy. Because of the limitations of human nature, the demand for social services is without any apparent limit. I think we're all well aware of that. But the public's ability to pay — the amount of money you can take away from the taxpayers — certainly has limits. Resources are finite and must be rationed in a way that ensures continuing availability of those resources in the future.

Let's deal with One or two of these particular items, Mr. Speaker. This year our province, even after facing some very hard choices and making some difficult acts, will still be spending record amounts on human resources, on health care and on education, I would suggest to this House that the budgets in these areas continue to rise very significantly indeed. Just two years ago the province spent $912.6 million through the Ministry of Human Resources. This year we are planning to spend $1.3683 billion in the same ministry. That is an increase of 49.93 percent — almost 50 percent in just two years. I would suggest that this reflects the government's commitment, for example, to the escalating need of British Columbians who have exhausted their unemployment insurance or basic income support. Similarly, two years ago Health ministry spendings stood at $2.0639 billion, but this year it is set at $2.45 billion — an increase in this case of 18.71 percent. Two years ago our Ministry of Education spent $1.2029 billion, but this year is slated to spend $1.4067 billion. That's almost a 17 percent increase over the past two years.

Interjection.

MR. PELTON: Yes, we're accused of not being interested in people or in education or you name it.

But we do have a contrast here. I think it is very significant that we can show that restraint is still being practised, even though these increases in these other very particular and special budgetary areas have come about. By way of contrast, I would like to note that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs budget will show a decrease this year of 24.71 percent over a two-year period; and that the Ministry of Tourism's budget shows a 63 percent decline in the past two years; and that the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development budget will be almost 19 percent lower than it was two years ago. We might also recall that each MLA's salary was rolled back by $3, 930 per year in July 1982. It was de-indexed and frozen at the reduced level. And of more than symbolic importance, Mr. Speaker, is the government's ongoing review of provincial activities to determine which might be more appropriately dealt with by the private sector, thus enabling government to focus on areas of higher priority.

I said at the outset that I wasn't going to take a great deal of time. I think I've made the points that I wanted to make. I don't see much point in standing here talking if a person really has nothing to say. But I would like to suggest to those opposite — and I don't say this in a mean way — that I really don't think this is a hoist bill. I think it could more accurately be called a foist bill because I think we are foisting unnecessary verbiage and expense on the public. I've got lots of time. I can spend all my time here. I don't mind that a bit, but it is an expense to the taxpayers.

I would also like to suggest to the opposition that it would be more meaningful.... I don't think we are getting anywhere in the way we're approaching this thing, and I would suggest that there might be more room for meaningful initiatives for change in this bill once we get down to where we're talking about it on a clause-by-clause basis at the committee level. So perhaps, hon. members, it might be reasonable to ask those opposite if we could get on with the job of government for the people of the province of British Columbia and let this bill be processed through second reading to the benefit of everyone.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the philosophical approach that the member ahead of me used in this debate, and I really appreciate it because I know you're going to allow me the same latitude to look at this bill and at why we sincerely feel it should be hoisted for another six months.

To support what the member said, we should look at it in detail. You and I and the majority of people in the House know that we can't refer to sections of the bill at this point. But I think we should look at where we are now in the debate. Some of the members who spoke before me kept going on about the $100,000 a week or the $80,000 a day it's costing us to keep this House in session. We had one speaker who worked out that even if we weren't sitting here it would cost $60,000 a day to keep us in operation, so the cost is really only $20,000. This is something I would like to really establish on this particular day, September 19, 1983; I would like to repeat what I've been saying, each time I stood up to speak, about getting back to some of the real parliamentary traditions this House needs. The reason I want to repeat this again is that when they read the history of September 19, 1983, in Hansard — the changes in the laws that were made in this parliament.... Political historians will be reading of

[ Page 1459 ]

the changes you made in the interpretation of the ruling of the Speaker.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that we only have three NDP members in the House it doesn't, I believe, give the member the freedom to range as he is. He's on the hoist of Bill 3 and I would expect him to stay there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The member was reflecting on a previous vote, it would appear. If the member could speak to the amendment before us the parliament would be well served.

MR. MITCHELL: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, until I was so rudely interrupted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the woodenhead in the corner....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That's a personal reference and must be withdrawn. The member will withdraw.

MR. MITCHELL: I will withdraw that remark made to the Minister of Forests. I really wouldn't say that about Tom.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Point of order. I would ask him to withdraw the statement "rudely interrupted." I interrupted according to the rules of the House with a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If exception was taken, then perhaps the hon. member could withdraw that adjective.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, if I withdrew the word, 'rudely, " could I say that I was unnecessarily interrupted by...?

DEPUTY MINISTER: I think that would be appropriate. Please proceed on the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: What I want to get back to — I think it's important, and I say it to you, Mr. Speaker — is that when political historians read in Hansard of September 19, 1983, the attitudes of this government, which, after a debate has been proceeding under one set of rules and regulations, one precedent that has been set over many, many debates in various Houses in our British parliamentary system, that there is a designated speaker on amendments, that there is a designated speaker on policy....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Omineca on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: I'm standing on standing order 43. I too want the historians to be able to read what is said today as the proper history of British Columbia, In order for them to do that I think it's only right that you ask the member opposite who is in debate on this hoist that he speak to the hoist, in order that what they read is correct, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will continue, in order, on the hoist to Bill 3, Please proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House knows that the last speaker was completely out of order. He was not speaking on the rules of order. How could you sit there in all your solemn position and say that it was relevant? It had nothing to do with being relevant.

[5:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if the speech by the member who spoke previous to you had been out of order, I'm sure other members would have brought it to the Chair's attention.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, you said exactly what I've been trying to get across. You said: "... the speech of the hon. member." The hon. member stood up on a point of order. The point of order that he rambled on about had nothing to do with the debate on the hoist of Bill 3. It had nothing to do with what you were anticipating I was going to say. I hadn't said anything. I never realized that the actual date of September 19, 1983, would get the reaction it's getting from the government, the back-benchers and the ministers in the cabinet. They know that on September 19, 1983, they have changed the precedence of provincial and federal parliaments in all of the British parliamentary system.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing order 43 states that the member speaking in debate must be relevant. I'll be very brief and say that the member over there who is now speaking is not relevant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must observe that the Chair hasn't had the time, in listening to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, to comment on whether or not the speech is relevant, but I do sense some reflection on a vote that was taken earlier today. Perhaps if we could avoid that reflection, then we can proceed within order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's my point of order. I don't like interfering with the member who is speaking. Essentially what he is doing is reflecting on the vote that took place this afternoon. Essentially he's been doing nothing but that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. The Chair has cautioned all members — both the member now speaking and previous members. If we can relate our remarks to the amendment before us, the parliament will be well served. Please proceed,

MR. MITCHELL: I appreciate the opportunity to listen to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and to my good friend from the Omineca riding, as he gets up. He never gets up in debate, but he gets up and interjects and tries to create a smokescreen. This whole debate today is a real smokescreen. This government is afraid to really get down and debate the problems of this province. They are afraid to debate the estimates for a rational, positive, structured program of what we should be doing in this province.

As I have said, and I wish it to be recorded for when political historians read September 19, 1983 — and I have said it before; they can go back to my previous speeches — if we are going to run a parliament in this province, it's going to be run with some order, some dignity, some principle. Today we do not have any policies, we do not have any program. We jump from one bill to another, and we have not yet debated the estimates.

[ Page 1460 ]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in light of what the member has said — and I wish that we would run a principled parliament here — I would ask that you call him to order. We're on the hoist motion to Bill 3.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will continue on the amendment to Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act. I'm sure all members are quite capable of entering into relevant debate on this motion.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Omineca would only listen to what I am saying, it's what we are debating — what you keep repeating time after time after time. We are debating why we should hoist this motion. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Omineca, that we want this motion to be hoisted for at least six months so that we can get on to the parliamentary debates that should be taking place right now. We should be debating the estimates of the Attorney-General, of Agriculture — right through the twenty-odd ministries in this province. We should be debating them in detail to see what type of programs this government has for this province; to find out what type of procedures we will have to adjust out in our constituencies; to have an opportunity to present to the cabinet ministers programs and changes that we know, as a constituency MLA, are needed to keep this province operating and progressing.

But what do we have? Led by that Social Credit cabinet, which is dominated by the blue machine from Ontario, the complete traditions of parliament are thrown out of this House, and then we run around and play our little games. We play our little games between the House Leader and the backbenchers. It really bothered us that they dragged the Speaker's good name into the political manipulations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, any reflection on Mr. Speaker is totally out of order. If the hon. member has reflected at all on Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to withdraw that.

MR. MITCHELL: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not reflect on the Speaker. I am fighting to stand and support his right to be impartial. When the Speaker had set a precedent....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please. The member must come to order and avoid any reflection on or mention of the Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. I'm sure the member is quite aware of why that is so. The Speaker cannot be entered into debate. So please proceed on the hoist motion.

MR. MITCHELL: You're right, Mr. Speaker, and I think it reflects back on us as members of this House — every one of the 56 of us who sat in this House, who were part of a precedent that was set about a speaker who goes over 40 minutes. Every one of us should have stood up if we thought that was wrong, and we should have....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the member to discontinue that line of debate. That is a reflection on a previous vote and cannot be allowed. We are on an amendment to Bill 3; will the member please speak to that amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: I agree. I just wanted to state that my opportunity to get up and debate Bill 3 was restricted in the past because this House denied me that opportunity to get up and speak. They allowed someone else to speak under what they felt were the orders of the day — that he could have the right to debate as a designated speaker. They reflected on my right to get up and debate this bill, and I want to get back to this bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't like interfering again with the member's speech, but clearly, since he stood up to discuss the amendment to which has been put forward by the opposition, he's been treading on attempts to discredit a vote taken in this House. He's reflecting on a vote that's been taken in this House. And for a former law officer.... I really am surprised at his strategy at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On the same point of order.... I don't know quite how to say this, Mr. Speaker, but I know that you have some sense of fairness, and if you listened to the debate put forward by two or three of the members on the government side, particularly from the government back bench.... They were in fact allowed to range all over the ballpark, and half of the debate of one of the hon. members had absolutely nothing to do with the hoist motion. So what I'm suggesting is that our members be allowed the same latitude in debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure that if unparliamentary latitude was allowed other members during previous debate, it would have been brought to the Chair's attention. However, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew clearly now is reflecting on a previous vote, which is unparliamentary. If we can be relevant to the hoist motion before us, then the parliament is well served.

MR. MITCHELL: I realize your position up there, Mr. Speaker, and it's kind of hard for.... And you understand my position. We have all these interjections, and all these ridiculous statements made by people getting up on a point of order, referring to my past police career. The laws of this province were set by precedents. Every day when I went to court and appeared in my position as a police officer, dealing with the laws of the province, the laws of the courts and the laws of Canada, the precedents that were set....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could assist the House by asking the member if he would tell us what he's talking about, because I'm sitting here and I want very desperately to make sure that the member is relevant. But I've listened intently and I can't even tell what he's talking about, so I can't really say whether he's relevant or not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. member will proceed. I'm sure we can make our remarks relevant to the hoist motion to Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, when you meet the member for Omineca out in the hallway I would like you to

[ Page 1461 ]

tell him that Bill 3 deals with public service employees — all 250,000 public service employees. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) talked about precedents, and I'm talking about the precedents of courts, which are facts. I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, very humbly. I now know why the member for Omineca was relieved of his position as a judge. When he doesn't know the precedents that are set....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. member we cannot refer to the judiciary in such a way at all, particularly on....

MR. MITCHELL: You're right, I ....

MR. SPEAKER: We are, as well, hon. member, on the hoist to Bill 3.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, it's nice to see you back. They keep on saying I'm referring to you, and I'm standing here protecting your image and your rights. I'm talking about precedents that have been set in the past. We mentioned policing — precedents that were set in court — and the member for Omineca got up and he said he didn't know what precedents were all about. I now know why he is no longer a judge up in that area.

Getting back to the reason we would like to hoist this....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, now that you're back in the chair I would like you to keep better control over these people who keep getting up and interrupting my four-minute speech to make it into forty minutes.

[5:45]

When we look at this bill we should look at the intent. What is the intent down the line? A bill is brought into the parliament to break a contract that was freely negotiated by the employer. I don't care if that employer was the school board up in Omineca or if it's the school board down in Prince George, or if it's a municipality in the Fraser Valley, or if it's a contract that was negotiated under the auspices of the Provincial Secretary — contracts that were negotiated in the free system that we set up in British Columbia. We have labour laws. We have laws that are there to protect those we hire to do a job for us, those who we have engaged or given contracts to. These are things that were set up and.... I know the member for Omineca wouldn't like me to say that they were set up, that they were a precedent that was set up. But we have brought in labour legislation and allowed certain segments of our public service to get out and negotiate something that they feel they need, either in wages, security or fringe benefits. We have allowed that to take place. Now we come in and change the laws. Negotiations have established a certain method and conditions.

Now we bring in Bill 3, which is going to change those guidelines. We're not going to go out and negotiate in the same manner, The position we have today is establishing that we should have a right to be hired and a right to progress throughout the service; or that the employees that we have hired give a certain service. This service was set up by this government, and the type of promotions within the government service that said if you want to transfer from one department into a new service, your seniority and skills should be maintained.... This is something that didn't happen a few months or years before the election; it's something that has evolved over the years that government has been working with people.

When governments first came in they used to change all the civil servants after each election. If there was a change in government, all the Liberals went out the door and the Conservatives came in, and at the next election, if the government in power got defeated then the new government brought in their particular party hacks. This is what happened. But in the traditions of parliament over the years, when we wanted to hire people to do certain jobs and wanted to pay them lower than standard wages.... We brought in a civil service act that gave those employees a certain type of security.

Mr. Premier, when you campaigned in the last election, you said that there is a different restraint for public service employees, because they have security in their job. This was part of the campaign. Every public service employee, every school teacher and every employee for B.C. Hydro were given an assurance by the Premier of this province, the leader of the Social Credit, that they had security. They all knew that they weren't going to have all the travel expenses that cabinet members have. They knew that they weren't going to have the trips around the world or around the province in jets, because there was restraint. But they didn't know that the laws that they had worked under, the system that they had secured their job with and after five or ten years working for one employer.... They had gone out and made the mistake of saying: "Yes, the Premier has said that I have security. The Public Service Act says I have security, and my union agreement has given me certain security." So they go out into the community and choose to live in a particular area and they purchase a home, because they know that they have a right to believe that they have that security of tenure. They put all their life's savings as a down payment on a home....

MR. R. FRASER: So did a lot of other people.

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, so did a lot of other people who were given security. They went out and they put their money down and they purchased their home. Then all of a sudden, after May 5, they changed the rules of the game. Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver-South (Mr. R. Fraser) keeps on saying that we are going to change the rules of the game and make it more realistic. The laws that we have today and the conditions that have been negotiated have been negotiated over years and years of being very realistic. People were hired into the public service and worked at wages less than the going rate. They were told time after time that because they were getting less money than the outside community....

AN, HON. MEMBER: Less money?

MR. MITCHELL: In many cases they were getting a lot less than the outside community. I was one who worked in construction for many years, and I will defy anybody in this House to compare the wages of those who work in unionized public service with carpenters, electricians, plasterers and those who are working out in the private sector on an hourly basis.

[ Page 1462 ]

These are the traditions and the precedents that were set up. Then all of a sudden after May 5 the government says: "We're going to change the laws." They're laws that have been established. They're laws that we have led people to move from one end of the country to another, to take a new position, and they are no longer going to be left in place. We're not going to guarantee those securities that we had offered on May 4 or in those days before. We offered someone a promotion to come from Kamloops to work in Victoria, or to go from Victoria to a promotion in a job up in Prince George. If they take that promotion, they would have the knowledge that they have some security, some seniority and some sense of pride in their job.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: We have this Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) who gets up and babbles on and on about store clerks and everything else. Every one of those store clerks up there who has an agreement right now should be afraid that that agreement will be destroyed, just like you've destroyed the conditions and the rights of the employees that we have worked with. No one in this province who has any contract, who has any agreement made with anyone.... If this government can get their fingers on it, they will destroy it. They will change the laws and precedents that were set in the past. We'll have no security under this government. This is the danger of Bill 3. Bill 3 is the thin edge of the wedge. It is going to destroy any type of honour within the labour movement, any type of rights in the public service. When you have a section in here.... I've mentioned it, and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) keeps referring to my last occupation, an occupation I was very proud of, and one that is very much needed. The Provincial Secretary likes to say I'm a flatfoot. I know he has a disrespect for laws, for rights. He's the only man in the cabinet who keeps saying he should have a radar squealer in his car. He really doesn't want to go out there and obey the laws, and if he can get away with it he can have a radar squealer and drive along like crazy. He believes he has the right to go out and get around the laws, the right to bend them, but he doesn't have the decency to stand up and say that to the people who have negotiated with him, who had rights and conditions. He says we should wipe them out. I think he's afraid to go back to the bargaining table and say to his employees the things he says to his caucus people. He can say one thing in the caucus, he can blurt out certain things in the House, but when it's face-to-face negotiations he will not say and stand for the same ideas.

I have a lot of notes here and I would like to deal with them in detail, but looking at the clock and at the House Leader, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of this House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until 8:30 this evening.

On the motion.

MR. HOWARD: I rise to speak against the motion. The reason I want to speak contrary to the motion that has been put forward.... As I understand it, it was 8:30. I see the Provincial Secretary waving some piece of paper in his hand, saying "Let's get to work, " or something of that sort.

We went through this debate on a number of occasions a few years ago, when the Premier was having trouble keeping some of his cabinet ministers sober for night sittings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, you will withdraw that remark, or withdraw from the House forthwith.

MR. HOWARD: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

[6:00]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: There they are, clamouring: "Throw him out." Testy, sensitive, uncaring, inconsiderate, brutalizing; determined, by every means at the government's disposal to effect closure. We know the Premier, or others, talk about what a tough guy he is, how determined he is: when he says something he stands by it. But he doesn't have the toughness and the determination to do what he said the other day. Instead of being able to meet things head on, he effects closure by those circuitous, roundabout ways, and is thus still able to smile and smirk, as he's doing now, and say: "Aren't I a nice person?"

The Premier always gets his way. I wish you backbenchers would remember that. That's what we're up to in the House right at the moment.

MR. REID: That's called democracy.

MR. HOWARD: Of course, it's called democracy when the Premier has his way. It's also called dictatorship. You've got the wrong kind of word for it, that's all.

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

MR. HOWARD: It is fundamental that....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to standing order 43, I think the member opposite is supposed to speak to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are currently debating a motion to set the time for the sitting at 8:30. I realize the member is leading up to that point which he will address at this.... The member continues.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, the purpose of the motion, Mr. Speaker, is to effect, in an indirect way, what the government doesn't have the courage to do directly. That's all. That was why the preliminary remarks were in the vein that they were given. We need to see what the government has been up to with this centralizing, authoritarian legislation. Mr. Speaker, this doesn't have anything to do, as hon. members have mentioned at different times, with downsizing — whatever that phrase means — government; this has to do with pushing legislation through this House.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect, this doesn't have anything to do with the motion. I'd ask you to call that member to order.

[ Page 1463 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are currently engaged in setting the time for the sitting to be 8:30. We must relate our remarks to the sitting time. Other events, although they may be brought in indirectly, must not be the centre of debate. The member continues.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, that's precisely what I was doing until we had these rude interruptions from hon. members opposite who don't really have much of a care or concern about the fine points of democracy. They only have care and concern about forcefulness — about forcing things to a conclusion on their side of the case, forcing things to a conclusion in their way and in their manner. That's the reason for the motion that is before us right now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You should try democracy sometime, because it does work.

MR. HOWARD: Well, here we've got the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing interrupting, saying: "Try democracy sometime." I want to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing: I've got a far greater appreciation and concern about democracy than he'll ever have in his whole life. If he lives to be as aged as Methuselah, he still wouldn't have that understanding and respect for democracy that I have.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members........

MR. HOWARD: Can you protect me from these belligerents on the other side, Mr. Speaker, who can think of only one thing: having their own way all the time. They force things through this Legislature any way they see fit: by exhaustion, if necessary; by dictatorship, if necessary, but never directly — always by indirect means and proposals.

We are speaking to a motion of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), who today showed us what he thought about democracy in this place and what he thought about the rules of the House, by a rehearsed statement that he made....

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

MR. HOWARD: And he has now got a motion before the House to come back here at 8:30 this evening. We've no disagreement with sitting extra hours. We've argued about that before. I'll go back to the cornflakes conversation of a few years ago when this subject matter was debated. But let's see whether the government, given the fact that it raised its majority to its feet in a vote earlier today to accomplish a certain thing — and they succeeded, and I cast no reflections upon that vote, just that it's a factual matter — is entitled, after some history of what's been going on here, to proceed in the fashion in which they are seeking to proceed.

The bill about which debate has just been adjourned was brought into the House on July 13. I need to put forward this recitation of events in order to show what I consider to be a complete lack of sincerity on the part of the government and, therefore, put us in a position to question the legitimacy of what it is now seeking to do. The minister, in introducing one of the most far-reaching, devastating and intrusive pieces of legislation that this government has ever....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is trying, in whatever way possible, to relate the member's remarks to the debate currently at hand. I would remind the hon. member that we are currently debating the hour of adjournment, which is 8:30. With the greatest deference, hon. member, it is not in order to fully canvass at this time a rehearsal of debate which has taken place on another matter. While it could be brought in as an adjunct to debate, it must not become the focus of debate. The focus of debate, hon. member, is the adjournment time of 8:30.

MR. HOWARD: With due respect, Your Honour, it was not a "rehearsal" of anything. I know you used that word, but I don't know what you meant by it, I was engaged in no rehearsal. I was simply seeking to point out that one of the bills currently before the House, and one which we may well have an opportunity to examine further, is Bill 3. I don't want to get into the merits of Bill 3, but I want to point out why the government should not legitimately ask to adjourn this House until 8:30 this evening so it can come back to deal with Bill 3 — if that's what it intends to do. I suspect it is. Once having bludgeoned their way through the House earlier today, we can see what their intentions are all the way through. It's legislation by exhaustion, starting at 8:30 this evening — if the government has its way.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The Provincial Secretary and minister against government services is waving some paper around that I hope he will have an opportunity to elaborate on in a little while.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That's right. It's called "Let's Get to Work." Let's get down to business in the Legislature, as we were saying earlier. The government is not interested in getting back to work, The government is simply interested in denying human rights, and they're using the mechanism of trying to meet tonight at 8:30 to get to that event. If Bill 3 is one of those which we are going to be examining....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know I could carry on, but I hesitate to do so in the face of the obstructionist tactics of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet), the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and all the others who chatter away — who, Mr. Speaker, I notice are very seldom called to order because of their interjections. Now I know Your Honour is not remiss in your duties, but it's just a matter that I draw to your attention. If the hon. member opposite — the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — wants to speak, he'll have an opportunity to do so later. His first response to me was "sit down, " indicating he's not interested in listening to discussion and is just once again bulldozing his way through the House any way he can.

When the Provincial Secretary had occasion to bring in the bill which they are now seeking to revive this evening at 8:30, he spent the grand total of 13 minutes trying to explain the most intrusive piece of legislation this House has seen. He glossed over its main points. The debate continued further that day and other members got into the debate, including the

[ Page 1464 ]

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and others as well. What I'm trying to get to was that that was July 13. One would have expected that if the government had a real desire and intention, openly and honourably to proceed with a particular piece of legislation, they would have carried it on instead of misleading the House into believing something was going to happen, when in fact it did not happen.

At one point the Provincial Secretary said that the regulations which would be brought into effect under Bill 3 would be available to us at a certain time. Now I wonder if he could tell us if by 8:30 tonight — if we ever get that far.... He just has to kind of nod across the floor, if he'll do that. I don't mean nod off to sleep, Mr. Provincial Secretary; just give a yes-or-no shake of the head. Are the regulations about Bill 3, which the minister promised would be made public some weeks ago...? Will they be available by...?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the direction of the debate of the member for Skeena is in anticipation of another piece of legislation. The question before us is whether this House should reconvene at 8:30. I would ask that you bring that member to order and have him speak in the debate he's supposed to be in.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when we're debating the time of adjournment, it's traditional that a cross-section of discussion about bills and the order of bills that have been debated for the purpose of the evening session is allowable. It's not a reflection on anything else, nor is it anticipating a debate. Mr. Speaker may note that in Hansard of 1976, when this issue was thoroughly debated, and in other situations in this Legislature, the canvassing of what kind of debate would take place in the evening, as a convenience to the House and its staff, was also debated — and in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the point of order raised by the second member for Vancouver Centre, the Chair finds great difficulty in adhering to that point of order. Insofar as the member for Omineca is concerned, standing order 43 clearly indicates where we must aim our debate. Hon. members, at this time I would ask the member for Skeena to bear in mind standing order 43, regarding relevance, as he concludes his remarks, or at least centres them to the actual intent of the motion before us, which is adjournment until 8:30 this evening. I respectfully submit that it is not an opportunity to canvass legislation, as suggested by the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. HOWARD: Number 43 is a very interesting standing order. So that the member for Omineca will know its fullness....

[6:15]

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Not likely is right. Perhaps I should read it too, and not only Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure where you are headed, Mr. Speaker, or where the member for Omineca is headed when he draws attention to that standing order.

It says: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member, who persists in irrelevance.... That's an argumentative word, as to whether or not something is relevant.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest, hon. member, that it is interpretative rather than argumentative.

MR. HOWARD: I meant argumentative, discussable. It's not a matter of argument between me and you, or anybody else in this chamber in the chair, but a matter to discuss just what that means.

"... or tedious repetition Now tedium may start.... If the member for Omineca was speaking, I would consider his first sentence tedious, but that's a subjective view. The tone of voice may be tedious.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point it is the duty of the Chair to advise the member that the reading of standing order 43, and his commenting on it as we progress, can hardly be considered relevant to the motion before us. I would ask the member to relate his remarks to the motion before us.

MR. HOWARD: I'll gladly stop reading standing order 43, because I was getting to the dangerous part of it. I didn't want to draw the attention of the member for Omineca to that particular part.

One of the reasons why I think we should not, and why the government is not entitled to ask us to debate matters this evening, is partly because it's an unusual venture, and partly because at the very beginning of this session — this relates to the time of adjournment and the time of the House meeting — the House made a specific order setting out that as far as the government was concerned, it wanted to follow a certain timetable and course of action during each day. It wanted to have an organized time structure within which to deal with things. That has been the case for some three or four years now. I forget the exact time when they moved away from night sittings and toward morning sittings, but the motion that we did pass, and under which this House is ordered to function, says: "On each Tuesday and Thursday of this session there shall be two distinct sittings, one from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and one from 2:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.; and on each Monday and Wednesday — today is one of those days, the Monday — one sitting from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and on each Friday there will be one sitting from 10:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise ordered." That "unless otherwise ordered" is the extraordinary set of words in that particular motion which this House passed. The "unless otherwise ordered" was kind of a catch-all that says in extraordinary situations we should have the opportunity to depart from the regular course of business to deal with extraordinary matters. Perhaps this is an extraordinary matter. The extraordinary matter is the desire of this government to control the lives of working people in this province. The extraordinary matter is the desire of this government to take human rights and fundamental freedoms in this province. That's what your desire is because the minute I got onto that "unless otherwise ordered, " all these people....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: You see what happens, Mr. Speaker? The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) persists in heckling and making noise and belching from his seat in words that don't quite reach Your Honour.

What is that extraordinary situation that has arisen that would attract the government to opt for that extraordinary

[ Page 1465 ]

provision and employ that catch-all phrase "unless otherwise ordered"? I submit that if the Minister of Agriculture, in his capacity as acting House Leader for the government, would have stood in his place when he moved the motion before us — namely to adjourn until 8:30 this evening — and taken the opportunity of explaining to the House the extraordinary situation that has arisen which necessitates meeting extraordinary hours this evening, at least the House would have had some information upon which it might be able to make a decision in a rational way. But I submit that in the absence of that, looking back to the motion that was passed on June 23 and which has been precisely followed day after day, except when there have been recesses.... It contemplated something unusual arising or taking place. It's the same as the standing order that says a bill may be read more than twice in the same day in extraordinary circumstances. But whatever those extraordinary circumstances are, they should have been explained. The government House Leader had the obligation, I think, when he moved that....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: It's too late now. He's moved a motion, without explanation, to come back at 8:30, just like your ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill dictator would do, thinking it's the way to go, that nobody's going to question it.

But there was that obligation to say something extraordinary had occurred. What is it? Is it anything that's on the order paper? Is there a particular piece of legislation that is more demanding than another? Is there one that has greater urgency than any other one, to be dealt with in an extraordinary fashion? Certainly not Bill 3. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is quoted as saying he doesn't care if Bill 3 ever gets passed this year, or maybe even next year, because it's retroactive anyway and it doesn't really matter to him. But is Bill 3 the extraordinary piece of legislation that the government wants to deal with tonight at 8:30? I'm inclined to think so because it was today that the government took an extraordinary course of action, specifically with respect to Bill 3 — a course of action that needs no further comment at this time. It may be commented upon later on, but not at this time. I'm inclined to think that that is the extraordinary business that has arisen — the desire to ram Bill 3 through the House by exhaustion if necessary, by 6 o'clock tomorrow morning if necessary, because if the House meets at 8:30 you will notice that the government had no closing time on that. Hearken back to the motion that this House passed on opening day and the motion that this Legislature has passed on preceding sessions going back some little while. There was always a time that the House met and a time when it adjourned. Now we are to meet at 8:30 by notice of the motion....

MR. SPEAKER: If the member is aware of information that I am not, perhaps he might like to share that information with me, but there is no information that I have at this time that would presuppose any discussion that would be taking place at that particular time. In other words, I have no information telling me what is to take place at 8:30 in the way of discussion. Otherwise, hon. member, there is no way that the argument that the member is currently engaged upon can have any validity in dealing with the hour of adjournment — setting the time to 8:30. If the member follows what I am saying, I am simply advising him that I have no information as to what is going to be discussed at 8:30. If the member has, then he could share that with the Chair, and then we could relate that to the discussion at hand. There is no such information at hand that I am aware of, hon. member. Therefore the comments that the member is making regarding Bill 3 cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be in order, or relevant. If the member follows the argument of....

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, what an ordinary situation we are in. You have no information. I don't know if that's ordinary or extraordinary. But you have no information about what may be coming up at 8:30. That's the point I was making. The government has taken a decision to do something out of the ordinary — in other words, to meet at 8:30 this evening. Part of my argument is that something out of the ordinary must have taken place for the government, after three or four years of maintaining a rigidity with respect to the hours of meeting and adjournment of the House, all of which are contained within the motion passed on opening day saying when the House would meet, when it would commence its meetings each day, and when it would adjourn each day, Mondays, Tuesdays.... Each day has different sets of hours and so on. This same government has maintained that time-frame and that time schedule almost religiously. In fact sometimes they're in so much haste to get out of here they adjourn the House at 10 to 6 — maybe they've got to catch a plane to go over to Vancouver for dinner, or whatever reasons. But they do stick to that. Now we find, for the first time in a four-year or thereabouts period, that the government has said: "We want to do something out of the ordinary course of events. We want to do something away from our ordinary schedule. We don't want to" — as the motion ordered the House to do on opening day — "come back tomorrow morning at 10 " — maybe we'll do that in any event — "but we want to come back tonight at 8:30."

Now Mr. Speaker has said he has no information as to what will or will not be dealt with. I don't have any information as to what will or will not be dealt with, but I think we are entitled to speculate on and to examine the possibilities of what may or may not be dealt with if we come back at 8:30 this evening. If the government wants to embark upon — shades of the late W.A.C. Bennett forme to say it — "legislation by exhaustion, " then we are entitled to look at what these possibilities might be, and attempt....

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think the House has listened very patiently to the member for Skeena for some half-hour or more, in which he has not uttered one word which is relevant to the motion. At some stage I think it only appropriate that the House call the member to order. This is not a time to debate what might be the business of the House or what has been the business of the House. There is a very clear-cut motion before the House and, with respect, I think the House must get on with that motion.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, him saying that the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow doesn't make that so. The points being made by the House Leader of the opposition have been relevant to the unusual step of adjourning to an evening sitting, and he's canvassing the possibilities of the government doing so. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this has been done

[ Page 1466 ]

before in order in this House, when debating a time to which we should adjourn the House. Why the government makes such a move and so on is relevant to that debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has ruled, hon. member, that it is not, as the member points out specifically in his point of order.... It is an interpretation. We must maintain a relevance factor. While we can canvass certain areas in our discussions, those areas themselves must not become the centre of the debate. The overriding central theme of the debate must be the adjournment hour, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Contrary to what the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications has said, I have mentioned that consistently throughout the course of my remarks what the motion is and why we shouldn't agree to it.

[6:30]

On an earlier occasion, Mr. Speaker, I was putting forward the idea that some extraordinary thing has happened. Whether it's simply a desire on the part of government to brutalize its way through its legislative program, or whatever it is, something extraordinary has happened. On an earlier occasion, in 1981, there was a motion for the House to adjourn. It was a little bit different. It didn't say adjourn until a specific time, but it was a motion to adjourn to the call of the Chair, if I can put it in those words. Everyone knows what I'm talking about — to adjourn over a lengthy period of time. It was virtually the end of the session at that point. I think it was one of those times when we would meet for five or six days before Christmas to discuss the throne speech, then leave and come back sometime later in the spring.

In any event, a debate was engaged in at that time about certain matters, which I don't need to go into at this time, but one of the arguments put forward was this: there was a finding in a recommendation by Currie, Coopers and Lybrand management about an auditing of some assistance programs, and there was an attempt to indicate what some of those findings were. The Speaker then interrupted and said: "Order, please, hon. members. Standing orders and the precedents of this House, of which you have copies in your hands to assist you, say it is not in order to go into subjects in any detail. They can only be advanced as reasons for not adjourning." I want to follow that along, putting forward reasons why we should not adjourn until 8:30; why that is not the appropriate motion. In order to do that, as Mr. Speaker said in December 1981, subject matters can be advanced as reasons for not adjourning to the call of the Chair. In this case, I want to draw your attention to the fact that we are discussing the same kind of motion, except there is a precise time in it — 8:30 this evening. One of the reasons, I submit, for not acceding to that is a program called Bill 3, especially since that particular bill was held away from the House's attention day after day after day. It did not want to deal with Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. At this time, the Chair must advise the member once again that the discussion of the particular argument that the member is advancing — that matters can be discussed as to why the House should not adjourn — cannot be considered the same as the discussion of the hour for adjournment. There is a distinct difference. I would call that to the member's attention. I would also point out, hon. member, that the warning light is on regarding the period of time.

MR. HOWARD: I beg your pardon? My time is nearing expiration?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I've hardly got into the meat of the subject.

Your Honour having raised a point with me about a difference between a motion to adjourn until 8:30, and a motion to adjourn until the call of the Chair, that there is a distinction — yes, I admit that there is. The words are different. The difference, Mr. Speaker, is that one has a time in it, which is later this evening, and the other didn't have a time in it, That's the only difference. It was a motion to adjourn: one to a specific time — namely 8:30 — the other at the call of the Chair. After Mr. Speaker determined certain things, then he would call the House back into session. That was the sense of it. It's only a slight difference. I think that point might be worth a few moments cogitation, sir, and I would therefore move adjournment of this debate until later.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, standing order 45 (2) states: "All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment." Therefore the question is, as put forward by the member for Skeena: adjournment of this debate until...?

MR. HOWARD: No, the motion is actually adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House. That's the appropriate and proper motion.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 27

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we return now to the main motion, which is adjournment of the House until 8:30 this evening.

MR. LAUK: I hesitated to get up in the debate before a member of the treasury bench could get up, particularly the

[ Page 1467 ]

House Leader or the Premier, to explain why we are adjourning until 8:30 after almost three months in this Legislature of not sitting in the evening. I remember when the government decided to propose to this House another motion with respect to the timing of adjournments of this chamber, when the Premier stood in his place and gave good reasons why we should not be sitting in the evening. I'd like to canvass some of those for the House this evening.

Those reasons were, you may recall, if one could find a subject and predicate within striking distance of one another, that already the members of the Legislature were working very hard in the mornings in committees, and in the afternoons, and that the legislative proposal, as during this session, was a heavy one concerning many weighty matters of state, concerning in turn many interests within the public that needed to be canvassed, and that the import of such legislation should be thoroughly disseminated, if you like, to the people of the province.

In addition, the Premier, who was then and is now the Premier, argued that there was no emergency or necessity to sit in the evenings, and that hon. members, particularly members of the cabinet, would have time to do the needed office and other work quietly in their offices in the evening, while the House was not sitting, and they wouldn't be on call. All of these arguments were considered fair, and although there was some opposition to changing to morning sittings, the House in its majority, and in its wisdom, voted not to sit in the evenings. I think those reasons, together with some I am going to point out now, should be influential on hon. members in opposing this motion on the part of the government, but we have failed to have an explanation on the part of the treasury bench. I can understand, Mr. Speaker, that when the House Leader of the New Democratic opposition rose to speak for some few minutes on this motion, the opportunity for the government to explain its motion was not there, but the interval has taken place. No member of the cabinet, particularly the House Leader, has stood and given an explanation of why....

[6:45]

Mr. Speaker, there is a stranger in the House, and I think he will be well known in the dining-room shortly. Could I have Hansard read back my last...?

I have just been informed that the restaurant is ready for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I should point out to you that that is one of the problems, the staff and so on, and I would like to go into some detail in a moment about the inconvenience for the staff in the buildings when we hold an unexpected session, let alone a night sitting. I will explain to some of the newer members of the House — certainly not to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who as former Speaker was well aware of the inconveniences caused by the whimsical moods of the government of the day: the problems it caused him and his staff, the restaurant, the library, and so on, not to mention the security of the Chamber and the precincts. But I will deal with that and describe in some detail how that affects the judgment that should be made on the part of the government when it moves such a motion to adjourn to a sitting at 8:30 this evening, or any other evening, rather unexpectedly.

The interval has taken place; the opportunity was given to the government to stand and explain why an evening sitting. It seems to me that the reasons given by the Premier, when we went from the normal format of not sitting in mornings and allowing that time space for committee work, were fairly reasonable, and although I opposed them on balance during that discussion, I had hoped in this debate for some similar explanation from the government. I do call upon the government — I am sure they will have an opportunity before this motion is put to a vote — to explain to the House why the opposition should support a motion to adjourn until 8:30 this evening. I could speculate why the government is making such a move, but why should I? They know this is a debatable motion. They know that they are required by the standing orders and indeed the democratic principle to explain why they are calling members of this House to the unusual session at 8:30 this evening.

What reason could there be? Is there an emergency? Is there some grave matter of state that should concern the House in a special and extraordinary sitting this evening? No one has said so. I have not been informed. I have checked with the House Leader of the Opposition, and he has not been informed, I have checked with other officers of our caucus, and they have not been informed. I have not yet had a chance to chat with my good friend the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), who is always so well informed, whether he has been informed, but I understand that no one has been informed about the reason for sitting at 8:30 this evening. Before this matter is be put to a vote the House is entitled to know all of the ramifications and what the government has in its mind for calling an 8:30 sitting tonight.

I think it is a contempt of the House as a whole, Mr. Speaker — all hon. members on either side — not to be informed of the government's motivation in calling an emergency sitting of the Legislature tonight at 8:30. If there is some emergency, surely we should know about it. Surely we should not have to wait until the late evening to hear about such an emergency. What if we did immediately agree to the motion to adjourn to 8:30, and we found at 8:30 that it was just on the whim of the government? I know that if it was just a whim and not for some special reason, not only the members of the opposition would oppose such a motion, but I am sure many of the back-benchers would, and it would be defeated. I know no hon. member would subscribe to a cavalier handling of these important motions to have sittings of the House. They would want to have, and are entitled, out of respect for their position as a member representing a constituency, an explanation about this rather unusual move to 8:30 this evening and having a sitting of the entire Legislature. It seems to me that if there is such an emergency the emergency should have been known to the government well ahead of this time in the evening, and detailed information, or at least the gist of such an emergency, should have been conveyed to the opposition and staff in the precincts and various departments in good time. I think it should be pointed out that without such an explanation the opposition is disposed to oppose the move to sit at 8:30.

We are suspicious, and it's not without cause. I don't think it's unfair to say that the opposition is suspicious of the motivations of the government, and we would like to have an explanation of those motivations. Part of that suspicion lies in the fact that for three months — if there is no emergency for the call this evening — we've been operating along the lines of a pretty cavalier government which has introduced some pretty draconian legislation, and does not seem to have been too alarmed by the fact that that legislation was being steadfastly opposed by the opposition. They did not take any exceptional steps in three months to ameliorate that situation. They did not make any overtures, so far as I'm aware, to obtain better cooperation from all members of the House in

[ Page 1468 ]

seeing the seasonable and timely passage of some of this legislation. No, it was left for the opposition to make a decision to clear the decks of some of the legislation and deal with some of the more objectionable — to the opposition — bills in a reasonable way.

After extending that kind of hand for cooperation, what happens today is this motion to adjourn to the evening sitting — let alone that event this afternoon, which is the subject of another controversy. But 8:30 tonight is the subject now, and that is just, it seems to me, the phased reaction of the government to an opposition willing to cooperate and extending its hand in cooperation. [Laughter.] They can laugh. This is the kind of thing we have to face all the time.

I know that the public isn't hearing about the kind of things this government is doing. Somehow that message is not getting across. We've offered a certain amount of cooperation and it's been rejected. You can't deal with some of these people, Mr. Speaker. You extend the hand of cooperation and they give you the back of their hand. That's what has happened with this government.

Interjection.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: I would ask that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) withdraw that remark. You didn't know my hearing was that good, did you?

It seems to me that a government would be anxious, with its kind of legislative program, to receive whatever cooperation it can from an opposition that must, because of our solemn philosophical commitment, defend the rights of ordinary British Columbians in the face of such legislation. It seems to us that they would be happy to see that we in our political position can only offer a certain amount of cooperation. We can't roll over and give up on behalf of the people out there. We have our obligations, and they are solemn to us. Simply because of philosophical differences it doesn't mean that the government should treat our views with contempt or disrespect. You don't have to like them or agree with them ' We don't like or agree with your policies, but we don't treat them with contempt — often.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I ask the hon. member to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear that. However, if an hon. member has been offended and a withdrawal is appropriate then....

MR. LAUK: I'll explain to you what I said, and maybe you can ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food why he is offended. I said that we don't treat their policies and positions with contempt, and he asked me to withdraw that.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, sometimes in a moment of heat we do, but I would say that by and large there should be an atmosphere of respect and cooperation in this chamber. With some notice and negotiation with our House Leader and the members there, it seems to me that perhaps, if there was some emergency, we could have agreed to an 8:30 sitting. It would certainly have been appropriate. Even though we have appointments to deal in our business — as you do — we would be willing to sacrifice this time in the evening and debate at 8:30 if there is an emergency. But the opportunity, as I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, was given to the treasury benches to stand in their places and to give a thorough explanation of why we have to sit at 8:30.

MR. MICHAEL: Be reasonable, Gary.

MR. LAUK: I'm trying to be reasonable. I think the time has come when the people in this province want people to be reasonable. They don't want extreme actions. I've argued with some of the hawks on our side of the House not to take extreme positions simply because the government takes extreme positions. I've argued that we have an opportunity to demonstrate to the people that at least this party stands for conciliation and moderation. But you extend your hand....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I would ask the hon. Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear that, but if a withdrawal is appropriate the minister will withdraw.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If I have offended the member by calling him a chicken hawk, I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: We have extended our hands in cooperation and for good conciliation. What's happened? The extremist reaction has taken place. We've seen it this afternoon and again tonight. This extremist reaction is to sit without explanation or reason at 8:30 this evening. We gave every opportunity, during the interval between the House Leader's trying to adjourn this debate and calling upon myself, for the treasury bench to give an explanation. None has been forthcoming.

[7:00]

What about the inconvenience to the staff? It has been and will be considerable. There is the legislative dining-room, not only to serve the members who must sit late into the night, but they must also be available for members of the press gallery, members of the staff, the clerks and the Hansard people. What about the tremendous expense of sitting in the evening, without an adequate explanation to the opposition or to anyone else about what the nature of the emergency for a night sitting is? It seems to me that that tremendous cost should be reckoned and brought before this House, even during this debate, so we can determine whether on the whim of the government we have been forced to lay a charge upon the taxpayers of the province once again, without fair and good reason.

In the arguments raised by the Premier when we abandoned night sittings and we took up morning sittings on two days a week, part of the reason was having evenings to consider the next day's debates. Can you consider any more important time in the history of the province when hon. members of the Legislature should be spending some of their evenings at least considering the public's response to the

[ Page 1469 ]

legislative debates and what legislation should or should not be amended?

It seems a long time ago now, almost three months, but remember that on July 7 there were over 26 bills. There are now 31 bills. Some of them are very substantial, affecting the substantive rights of people all over the province, and affecting the rights of individuals in almost every walk of life. Although there have been three months it seems appropriate that that time, from debate to debate, should also be taken into consideration. It seems to me that the evenings should be left clear — barring an emergency — for hon. members to communicate with their home constituencies. There should be time enough for the press to deliver the daily messages out to the public, instead of spending this valuable time in debate in the evenings. A seasonable passage of legislation does not mean legislation by exhaustion.

If you're going to sit in the mornings, afternoons and evenings it seems to us that it will not enhance the quality of debate — and everybody seems to want to improve the quality of debate in the Legislature. It's liable to deteriorate the quality. It's liable to cause people to become overtired, hungry and petulant. People will snap at one another. It seems to me that further delays will take place and animosity and acrimony will only increase in the House.

It also seems to me that efficiency can be achieved if the opposition is made well aware, as well as the staff of the precincts, of such moves by the government in a reasonable time so that preparations — either personal or professional within the precincts — can be made. As I said earlier in my remarks, I'm confident that the various departments in the precincts have not been notified. The library staff, the Hansard staff, the kitchen and Legislative dining-room staff, the attendants and Sergeant-at-Arms' staff have not been informed. All these people should have been notified, at least to the extent of the efficiency of the House, within a reasonable time so that they could make preparations for this evening. Not to mention that we do have a responsibility to the staff to give reasonable notice so that their personal lives can be so ordered that it will not disrupt their family life and other social engagements or other engagements that they may have. It seems, again, an objectionable way to go, to all of a sudden spring a motion for an 8:30 adjournment without having notified the staff in the building.

This point was raised in previous legislatures, and it occurred to me that the custom in the House in the last three months has been one of less cooperation than I have ever seen in the 12 years I have been a member in the Legislature. I am shocked, indeed, that it has deteriorated to such an extent, and I think it culminates in this kind of surprise move by the government of the day. We have a considerable amount of work to perform. We have a number of bills to consider. Also, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you wouldn't consider the tremendous amount of pressure on members of the chamber who are members of active committees in the Legislature. These members need time to consider what business should be conducted at the committees: the Private Bills and the Public Accounts. As you know, the rules of the House order that such committees cannot sit during the time when the House is in session, and I think it is only fair to point out that these committees are now trying to squeeze in meetings before the 10 o'clock sittings in the morning. It was understood that we would put up with that inconvenience so that we could sort out the day's business on the evening before. This opportunity, at least this evening, would be foreclosed if we were to support such a motion.

If this motion is the first of many, then it should be pointed out that it is an undesirable policy for the chamber to be pressured into evening sittings, and also morning sittings to the extent where our committee work will suffer. I know that some of the government members are not altogether keen on the committee work proceeding in an orderly fashion, doing the work of the public, but we are, and we are of the view that if we don't have the evenings free there will be added pressure on that time in the morning when these committees should be doing the public's work. It seems to us an unreasonable pressure on the members of the opposition. I think it can be suggested without any exaggeration that it is a form of punishment: punishment for the opposition members who have deigned or had the temerity to speak out on some of the terrible legislation that is before the House. Because we have deigned to speak out on this legislation, I suggest to you this move, if it is a policy, is a form of punishment of the opposition. It is not a sincere effort to see that the business of the House is conducted.

I challenge that sincerity on the part of the government. I say that it is a form of punishment, and that makes this move for an 8:30 sitting ever more reprehensible. It was tried before and it doesn't work. You can't push hon. members in this House to work those kinds of hours on a general basis and have a spirit of cooperation and good will, despite opposing philosophies, in dealing with the legislation.

When W.A.C. Bennett used to be Premier of this province, as some hon. members may recall — not many of you were here at the time — from time to time there was an attempt to sit all night and to sit well around the clock. The press was here, there were sleeping bags in the corridors, the kitchen was open all night and people were playing cards in the lounge and so on. It became a circus. It became an undesirable thing. We lost stature as a Legislature as a result of that effort. I hope that this motion is not a reflection of continuing government policy or any kind of hint that the government is attempting an all-night sitting, if you like, which will again bring disrespect upon the House. I think the government back-benchers should get up and object to this kind of procedure too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: We came here to work.

MR. LAUK: Well, if the hon. members in the government back bench came here to do the work, then it seems to me they would be keenly interested in some kind of cooperation with the opposition. After all, 22 members have been elected. A substantial number of British Columbians voted for members of the NDP. It seems to me it would be an honest and straightforward reflection of their democratic commitment, if they have one, to recognize that we have a point of view, and that some legislation cannot get through unamended, no matter what happens. I appreciate that the government has made some moves, but they have been minuscule compared to the reaction from the public. It seems to us that we have a responsibility to continue our pressure on the government. That responsibility is within the rules of the House. It has been in keeping with democratic principles. We have fought the battle along the lines of parliamentary procedure and precedent. We have not sought to put undue pressure upon the government.

[ Page 1470 ]

If you look at the record of the government, after each adjournment of debate it has been going from bill to bill without debate, in some juvenile way trying to catch the opposition off guard. Now we have this regression to something tried by W.A. C. Bennett which didn't work. He abandoned it and never tried it again. Shortly after, he was defeated. At that point it was conceded that that was the wrong way to go. I would suggest to the government that they reflect upon their actions and also consider it the wrong way to go in this instance. I repeat that the government back-benchers should be quite keen to make sure that the government doesn't make these mistakes, such as the one they're making now.

In addition, it should be pointed out that the Premier of this day — as he was back in 1976 — made remarks about these kinds of sittings. He argued that this kind of thing wouldn't happen if there were cooperation between the Whips. I know that the House doesn't officially recognize the Whip system. But it was my understanding that the Whip system was working fairly well. There's nothing perfect. A convention of angels is perfect; the Legislature is not. Politicians working together, particularly with two opposing parties, sometimes have their difficulties in coming to a reasonable agreement about the order of business. However, it seemed to me that in the last month or so there was some degree of cooperation between the Whips and that that cooperation could have proceeded further.

Earlier in my remarks I said that it seemed to us that the opposition was extending its hand in cooperation to clear the decks of some of the less controversial legislation in order to focus our attention on the real debate, to assist the government in calling the bills, as they have done, so that that debate can get underway. It was not expected that that demonstration of cooperation would be met with the back-of-the-hand treatment that we've seen today.

This motion is such that if we were to support the motion we would do so, I think, quite wrongly. First, we have not been informed of any emergency. I assume that if there was one, the government in its wisdom would have given us that information. Secondly, even in the face of the restraints of government, of their desire to speed up legislative procedures, it seems to me a mistake to inconvenience the staff in the precincts to the extent that the government has done. Also, it seems to me that if it's a policy of legislation by exhaustion — we haven't yet seen that expressed; they've only moved this one motion — then that is a very serious mistake. Those who observed the House in those days would have been well aware of the kind of sad situation the House was in, when members were becoming very irritable and short-tempered and acrimony seemed to take over the House. When we are debating serious legislation that affects the people of this province, we should not lose the grace and decency that most hon. members should have. There are always one or two members in the chamber who, no matter what time we are sitting, are not going to have that capacity. But generally in this chamber that feeling is there. There is a danger of a lot of members losing that when we sit for long hours, without giving ourselves time either to reflect on legislation or maybe even allowing the opposition time to reflect on its position on some of the legislation; we don't know. But this kind of confrontational atmosphere which this motion represents is a very grave danger to the actual integrity and smooth operation of the Legislature itself.

From time to time we struggle with our image as politicians in the public's mind, and it would be a tremendous opportunity for us to demonstrate that we are convinced that we do our job honourably and well and that the people should know about that. The reaction of the government to our extension of cooperation — and as I say, it's not perfect, it's not giving them everything they want, but they've got to have respect for our position too. I don't think it is demonstrating respect for the opposition's position to spring on us at the last minute an 8:30 adjournment motion for an evening sitting.

[7:15]

When all is said and done I think the government will find that this motion has been a mistake. I think the government should take the position that the opposition is steadfastly opposed to some of its legislative programs and that it's going to be a long haul. They have the majority, but they should not try to cut comers. They should not try and misuse the power of the majority in the House to trample upon the rights of individual opposition members who reserve their rights to debate these bills in a reasonable way — not morning, noon and night to the extent that's being proposed today, and certainly if it's a policy in the future, but in a reasonable way — and live with it. We have to live with May 5. They've called over to our side of the House on several occasions: "You've got to live with May 5. We won the election — what about you recognizing the fact?" That's fair enough, and to some extent it's difficult for people who have strong feelings about politics to accept those events. We accept it, but I think it's incumbent upon the majority in the House, too, to accept the fact that there's an opposition. It's a fairly strong one, with 22 members, and that should be respected and dealt with in a reasonable and democratic way.

In my view the proposal is not reasonable or democratic, for the reasons that I've given. In addition, it's not reasonable or democratic because it imposes an attitude upon us as the opposition that the government is contemptuous of us. They don't have respect for our point of view — even though they may disagree with it — nor do they have respect for the people we represent. It is in that light that the opposition must react, and you can see that my cautions to the House should be well taken. The government should move in a more reasonable manner.

Over the long haul it will be proved that the majority of the people of this province believe in the politics of conciliation and moderation, that they want peace at home as well as peace in the world, and that they want governments which will respect oppositions, just as they want oppositions to recognize that the government of the day and not themselves has been elected. I can appreciate those points of view, but can you, as an example, Mr. Speaker, say that the government's move this afternoon was a demonstration of its respect for opposition rights? I say not. Can you say that it was a demonstration of any kind of respect for the position of the opposition at all? I say not. What does the government expect us to do about it? Do they expect us to just say: "Oh, well, it's okay"? I say not.

To sum up, I would say that on the grounds that there's no emergency stated by the government, that it's an inconvenience to the staff and personnel of the precincts, that it seriously erodes the effectiveness of the MLAs to deal with the daily business and routine and that it's a demonstration of disrespect to the opposition, I oppose this motion to adjourn to 8:30. I would ask that the House now support the motion to adjourn this debate to the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 1471 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 27

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

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, for your guidance, may I draw your attention to standing order 34, which says: 'A motion to adjourn... shall always be in order; but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceedings shall have been had." There have been no intermediate proceedings since the first motion to adjourn by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) ; the second motion to adjourn by the second member for Vancouver Centre was out of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, before responding to the point of order, I will entertain, on the same point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: The order to which the hon. minister refers is about motions to adjourn and not motions to adjourn debate, which are always in order after a speech has been made.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point of order raised by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is a valid one. Nonetheless, it should have been raised at the time, and it is not appropriate at this time to raise it on a point of order, inasmuch as it has already taken place.

MR. LAUK: It is clear that a motion to adjourn debate can be made at any time, and it is not required that any intervening business other than another speech takes place. The speech is intervening business, not an order of the House. What the minister is referring to is a motion to adjourn the House, or that the Speaker or the Chairman do now leave the chair. Those kinds of motions obviously cannot be made and entertained one after the other.

[7:30]

MR. NICOLSON: In support of my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre, I think that one has to look at standing orders in the context in which they are presented. Standing order 34 is preceded by standing order 33 and standing order 32, Mr. Speaker, referring to the time of adjournment of the House: "... a motion on the orders of the day be under consideration, that question shall stand first on orders of the day" — and so on. Mr. Speaker, this is referring to the motion that the House do now adjourn, I would offer with respect.

MR. SPEAKER: Hopefully to conclude the matter, I commend to members for their observation Sir Erskine May's sixteenth edition, page 409. On the motion, hon. members, that the House stand adjourned until 8:30, the next speaker is the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise in this debate on maybe the third or fourth or fifth occasion which I have been involved in a motion to adjourn the House to a very unusual, unexpected time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A prescribed time.

MR. NICOLSON: The Provincial Secretary interjects "a prescribed time, " but the Provincial Secretary should be well aware that the practice of this House is to bring in a sessional order which supersedes the standing orders, Mr. Speaker, so that whereas it might have been normal........ At any rate it would be normal that the House would not sit at 8:30 on a Monday, in any event. Before we had passed this sessional order, we normally would have had two distinct sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but only one sitting on a Monday.

It is important that this course not be embarked upon lightly. Setting an unusual time for the sitting of the House reflects, in fact, the government having taken what they consider bold steps. They have left themselves so far out of step with the people in this province, and with the thinking not just here but in the rest of North America that.... Yes, this Legislature is receiving attention from such journals as the Manchester Guardian, the New York Times, the Financial Post and so on, which it might not otherwise do. This move to bring about extra sittings of the House — over and above those set out by the sessional order — is a symptom of the fact that the government has put itself so far out in right field that it cannot find any face-saving mechanism. Instead, it is embarking upon the most high-handed, arrogant, dictatorial methods to get the mess, which they have created, out of sight and out of mind.

Sessions of this type have long been held to be to the detriment of the Legislature and not of the opposition. I look back at headlines that were generated in the Vancouver Province for Saturday, February 26, 1972, following a move of the government of the day to hold an extra session which ended up in going right through the night and into the forenoon. Do you know who gained as a result of that move? Nobody gained. Headlines in the Province of that day said: "Mad MLAs." I note that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who otherwise is a well-tempered, well-informed member- he sought just now to lecture us on the rules of the House — got up during a procedural argument over a motion put forward by

[ Page 1472 ]

Dr. Scott Wallace, which would have perhaps given that kind of middle ground which I think is the thing the government should be seeking, rather than the big stick of 8:30 adjournments, extra sittings and so on to get their legislative package through.... That evening Dr. Scott Wallace put forward something in the middle of the night which might have solved the impasse. Unfortunately it was turned down. It says here that the move by Dr. Scott Wallace was immediately attacked by various people.

"Pat McGeer charged Wallace with working out a deal with the government. Wallace denied any consultation with the government and offered to withdraw the motion. However, it was ruled out of order. In the procedural argument over Wallace's motion, McGeer accused Bruch of violating the orders of the Legislature. 'They are old and out-of-date but they are all we've got to go by, ' McGeer said. 'You've got to abide by them if you've got the right to sit in that chair. You're an incompetent ass.' "

So much for the respect shown for the Chair that evening by a member who now continues to sit in this House. That was the kind of debate that was sparked by that all-night sitting, which this is the equivalent of. This motion today is the equivalent of a return to the all-night sitting. "Mad MLAs" was the headline. That was one little step backward for the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I point out in the ninth edition of Erskine May, and I think it has been restated many times since, that the law of parliament requires that "mental imbecility is a disqualification, and should a member who was sane at the time of his election afterwards become a lunatic, his seat may be voided, as in the case of Grampound in 1566, but the House will require proof that the malady is incurable." The press of the day called both sides — and there were four parties in the House — "mad MLAs." I suppose that they might have lost the right to hold their seats, except perhaps it was curable.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the cure for this malady is for the government not to resort to that tried-and-true failure method; that is, extra sittings, and then if that fails, all-night sittings, Saturday sittings, threats of Sunday sittings — that type of approach. I would suggest that the government should withdraw this motion, or maybe the House Leader should get up and simply move adjournment of the House. Then we can come back at the time which is set out in our sessional order. That would be a remedy — a first step which is far superior to this move of having an 8:30 sitting this evening. Certainly there has been nothing emergent suggested. When we had the emergency debate when we wiped out an insurance company, members....

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, will you please advise me whether or not there is a quorum in the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are right, hon. member. I will ring the division bells and summon the members to the assembly.

The quorum is satisfied. The hon. member continues.

MR. NICOLSON: As I was saying, rather than take this kind of action of insisting on going ahead with this, there are other remedies. The government should look at some conciliation. The government should listen to some of the people.

I'm impressed by the way in which people have been mobilized. When one is holding meetings and going about a large rural riding, it's often difficult to get good attendance when there is no imminent danger. But when there is an imminent danger it is amazing how attendance at public meetings and such increases. It's not a measure, really, of the attraction of the speaker, but rather of the attraction of the subject.

The government should realize that they can get through this legislative session, without extra sittings, in very short order. The government could have gotten through this session in very short order this time. In fact, to this date this has not been more than one or two days longer than the shortest session held in the past decade. This session is still far, far short of the longest sittings that were ever held in this province in the past couple of decades, and they were held during the time that the NDP was government. So many of the new members feel that it seems to them that they've been here an eternity. I remember the first day I sat in this House, and I dutifully sat through all of the debate the first full sitting day. I sat right from 2 o'clock right through till 6 o'clock, and I recall that it seemed longer than about four days of teaching, because time went very quickly in a classroom and it always seemed that there was never enough time.

[7:45]

But the new members in the House should not be impatient. Democracy is the thing that we are serving. When we serve expediency by going toward extra sittings and all-night sittings, this is the kind of headline that we get — not for the NDP, not for Social Credit; you get this for the whole process. Mr. Speaker, that same night sitting prompted this editorial published in the Province on February 28, 1972, just a couple of days later, on the Monday: "Wanted: School of Oratory." It said: "Pity poor Dr. Scott Wallace, of whom it was said in the Legislature last week: 'He is too gentlemanly. He doesn't understand the crudities of British Columbia politics.' " It went on to quote some of the language in our House. It also quoted some of the language in the House of Parliament in Ottawa, and some of the language in the House of Commons in Ottawa when Sir John A. MacDonald was the Prime Minister. Therefore not only do we demean this House, Mr. Speaker, by exposing ourselves to the kind of debate that can erupt in these tiring all-night sittings — and that's what they're designed to do — but it casts a very negative shadow upon all parliaments. It's not just ourselves who suffer, and it's not just the members of this House who are presently privileged to occupy these seats and these desks who suffer; it will be those who follow us, just as we suffer in this House from something that went on in February 1972, before a good number of us were ever elected here. That will continue to stick. What we might do in this session will continue to stick with members and with this House.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose you have to look to the House in Austin, Texas, to look at a United States legislative assembly that has the reputation that is kind of analogous to this particular one. While it's often the source of some amusement, it certainly is the one place that comes to mind when you look for irrationality and other things which really are not what legislatures are supposed to be all about. It's for that reason that I am objecting to this.

I've heard some interjections: "We're here to work." Well, I was here to work yesterday as well, even though it was Sunday. I worked in my office here in the buildings. I was here this morning very early.

[ Page 1473 ]

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The thing that kept me in the lower mainland this weekend, I must say, was something very personal, and it's something that would be understood by your colleague from Surrey.

The course which government is embarking upon leaves no other response for the opposition but to fight it and to fight it with every resource that is available to us. One would have hoped that government, by this time, would have seen their way clear to seek a movement somewhere toward the middle ground. The New Democratic Party is now the party of the middle. This government is the party of the extreme. We are now the party of the middle, and we must provide a position for all people in this province who want to see reasonable policies of the left, and also the people who want to see the reasonableness that has been provided by the party of the middle ground. We must fill all of that ground now, because we sit in opposition to a government which has moved extremely far to the right. So we must be reasonable, and unless this government realizes that they have vacated any proximity to that middle ground, they will come to regret it.

This move this afternoon is sort of a looking back to some of the good old days. But I'll say that just as surely as we can't return to some of the good old days — the types of employment opportunities and so on that were available at the time that British Columbia came out of the postwar period and the fantastic opportunities, opportunities that were there — we can't look to the past for all our solutions. We can't look to the past for solutions in the Legislative Assembly. The opposition, during that night sitting in 1972, was described quite well by, I think it was, Bob McConnell, who said: "The opposition is tougher...." I'll be completely honest and candid and say that the second part that came after the comma said: "... but not tough enough." He also said in that article: "It proves that the opposition is tougher this year than it has ever been in the past. It also showed that Premier Bennett is still tougher than the opposition. The status is still quo." That was the reading. But it really was a departure. In the final analysis the government did not accomplish what it wanted to. This was the editorial comment of February 26, 1972. In fact, I suppose that the real decision.... One of the real decisions was the outcome of another expression of opinion on August 30, 1972, just a few months later.

They talk about going back to the good old W.A.C. Bennett days, when he would come in.... Of course, they didn't have any morning sittings then, but they would sit in the afternoon and in the evening, We did the same thing: we sat in the evening, usually from 8:30 until 11:00. We tried the extraordinary sittings, but it didn't work. I'll say this too, I think the government showed more control when it was patient and went to these reasonable hours, as set out in our sessional order — having morning sittings on Tuesday and Thursday and regular afternoon sittings, with a morning sitting on Friday. It got away from the evening sittings.

I've heard stories about — I won't name any names what used to go on in those evening sittings. I remember one member, who became a very senior member in this House, telling me how he and three of his cohorts were having a nice dinner and some libations between sittings. They were all more or less newly elected to the House and didn't realize the urgency of getting to the House, so their dinner carried on well past the appointed hour. They came in and the government had almost lost a vote; they won it by only one member, when they should have won it quite handily. It was a very important vote on second reading of a bill. It was explained to them by Premier W.A.C. Bennett that their action could have cost them the government. That is one of the types of things that happened during those evening sittings. Another thing, of course, was a comment made by the Premier when he went to the morning sittings and was asked why he'd made the move. I believe that was what prompted the reply: "I don't know of any members who put Scotch on their cornflakes." I think that's when that came about.

I think the government made a very astute political move — and I have to admire astute political moves when made by the government — when they moved to morning sittings and regular hours. If the government wants to bring a problem on themselves, then they can proceed with this particular hour of sitting. In fact, I suppose that if the government really wants to compound the felony, if they think this is good, then they probably think it much better to sit all night long. If they really think this is the right way to go — to be sitting at 8:30 — the government probably thinks we should sit on Saturdays and Sundays, for that matter.

MRS. JOHNSTON: If that's what it takes.

MR. NICOLSON: If that's what you think is going to serve this House, then you haven't been around here long enough to realize the very folly of your method.

I find myself once again in the ironic situation of giving counsel to the government. I think some members are listening; others are dismissing it; others think that you can run roughshod over the opposition. I'm outlining a government that thought they could do that, and did it to their peril. Perhaps the NDP government of 1972-75 did that a few times — to our peril, maybe. Oh, yes, I too was one of those eager types who would come into caucus and say: "Let's really go." The people who counselled against it were the people who had the experience. People like the late Bob Strachan, I suppose the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and others would be the ones to counsel a bit of caution — in fact, a great deal of caution. In the final analysis, I think it can be said that when we were government we showed more respect for the opposition; that the lesson did get through to some of the then young turks in our group — and I would include myself in that group, Mr. Speaker. The lesson did get through, and there were reforms and concessions.

[8:00]

This particular move this evening is.... I should be telling them that this is the wrong way to go about getting their legislative package through. I would say that the correct way to get the legislative package through is not to call 8:30 sittings, and not to try to push the Legislature all through the night; that these things will not accomplish a great deal. They will focus attention on what's going on, when maybe some people would otherwise have forgotten. This move this afternoon is actually going to recharge the batteries of some people who might otherwise have lost some of their interest.

Interestingly, I note in the galleries here, with this sudden announcement of a session, that I really do feel the Legislature only works by virtue of the fact that some people can be here and see what is said, see the attention and the attendance in the House, look at the nuances of the House. But when regular hours are set for the sitting and then suddenly they are disrupted, how is the public to know we are sitting this

[ Page 1474 ]

evening? That is one of the things that help to make the Legislature work. It's not that when we take our place and speak in the House, everybody listens, although I very much appreciate the attention of the members who are present. Without regular hours of sitting, something that is predictable, the public is left out, the public is cheated, even though perhaps only 20 people might show up this evening. It is amazing, though, how, when there has been a sitting in the evenings.... I've noted that some evenings when this has happened a remarkable number of people somehow found out that the House was in some sort of extraordinary session. But I don't think this is fair to the public, as there are some regular attendees. I note the absence of some of them. There are a couple of young men who have been very attentive to the House this session and I note their absence. So a lot of people are going to be missed by this.

I was going to ask leave to make introductions earlier today but....

It certainly is disruptive. One could speak about oneself, or one could speak about all hon. members or members on both sides of the House. One can speak about the people who do work in the Legislative Assembly, and my colleague from Vancouver Centre touched upon this fairly well. People do have the right to make some plans in this day and age, whether they be members or the people who serve this House. I see people who work very hard for us and who tolerate those of us who sometimes think we're some sort of tin gods and become very demanding because we are shown so much respect.

I had a bit of a come-uppance one day. Around this House we are served so well — and don't miss the point of what I'm saying. Doors are opened for us, people bring things to us, people bring water to us whether we snap our fingers or just make a very polite gesture. Those people look after us so well that when a gentleman opened a door out at the airport, I walked through it as if I was walking through a door that was being held for me here in the Legislature. He said, "Well, you're welcome very much, " and I felt, "What's he saying?" I analyzed what I did, and I thought it must be because when we're in session here we're looked after so doggone well. I think we should think a little bit about all of these people: the attendants in the House, the staff down in the Legislative dining-room, the people in the library, and all the people around here who look after our offices which we're occupying. They have to work around us and various things such as that.

We should also think about this: are we going to get through this any quicker by this kind of an action? Are we really going to get through all of this? How can you predict how much longer this session is going to go on? I don't think that whether you rush your way through the bills — which, after all, Mr. Speaker, shouldn't really be debated in a session until all of the budget matters are dealt with.... It's extraordinary. Yes, sometimes bills are brought forward. But in addition to setting aside this sessional order by this special motion that we sit tonight at 8:30, also we have been setting aside every day.... The opposition has cooperated by granting leave to the government that we proceed to public bills and orders rather than going ahead with the motion which is supposed to take precedence over all other business; that is, the departmental estimates, now that the budget has finally been passed.

So, Mr. Speaker, normally by this time we should be well into the estimates, and those bills could be sitting there. I don't think that by sitting all night, or even by getting through those bills, we're going to hasten the end of this sitting. If the new government members think that the progress has been somewhat deliberate on behalf of the opposition members, they haven't yet read.... I'd refer them to a few other standing orders that they should read, if they're going to read standing orders, but they should read the standing order at the bottom of page 17, the one which was repealed on June 16, 1977, about limits on debate in Committee of Supply. And they should realize that there are no limits there, and that members can get up and speak as often as they wish. If they feel that they don't like the pace of debate here, they should test the waters. Instead of calling the House back at 8:30 this evening — and it shortly will be 8:30, Mr. Speaker — I think that the members opposite should consider that they should maybe move off these contentious bills, deflect attention away from them, and they should really go through with the regular business of the House. That regular business would have been to have been well into the estimates. Then, of course, if there were some bills that had some urgency and had to be passed.... On some days business is set aside to put through one or two bills, bills like interim supply, for instance, which has already been passed — again, through the cooperation of the official opposition.

So, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has been going, I think, to great lengths to accommodate the government. But the official opposition has a responsibility. I'll move along quickly, because I see the green light is on. What is being done now is that the government, by digging itself in deeper, is probably going to dig in the official opposition even a little bit deeper. It's at a time like this that I guess we need a Dr. Scott Wallace or a Gordon Gibson in the Legislature. One would hope that we could do without them. And I don't say that in a derogatory sense toward the great contributions they made in this House, but one would hope that we didn't need someone else to show us some middle ground for compromise. But I think that if the government would merely be patient, if it would recognize that the Legislature and parliament have always been areas of conflict, and if they would realize that we have an obligation not just to ram things through for which there wasn't a mandate.... Otherwise there would have been no need to go out and try to explain the legislation. We have so many of the members saying that people don't understand it. How could there have been a mandate if people don't understand it?

I see that there is one person here in this House with a great deal of experience who could be the government leader. He sat here before I was elected and used to sit in the back here as an executive assistant when the government was in opposition. I see that that person is in the House and could take the action of withdrawing this motion.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Some people look at results and I guess that justifies things.

Now there's another potential House Leader who could step into the breach and resolve this impasse. For that reason I would hope that the government would accept a motion that the House do now adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will advise the hon. member that Sir Erskine May advises that when a motion for adjournment has been negatived it may not be proposed again without

[ Page 1475 ]

some intermediate proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to standing order 44, I refuse to put the question.

MR. NICOLSON: I move that the House do now adjourn — not the adjournment of this debate — until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nevertheless, it is an adjournment on the motion. Under standing order 44, I will not put the question.

MR. NICOLSON: I challenge your ruling.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[8:15]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 12

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

MR. HANSON: As we sit here this evening a slogan of the 1960s comes to mind, which is that the whole world is watching. We sit here thinking that somehow our words are not being extended to the community. But they most certainly are. They're starting to watch the transactions in this Legislature and realizing that there is a force at work which is an alien force, which is not in the traditions of our country and of our province, where conciliation and mediation are going by the way, and brute force is taking over and running British Columbia. We are an international oddity. We are a national oddity. People from all over the western world.... Mr. Speaker, when there are organizations in Japan moving motions of censure against our own provincial government, when there are organizations in Europe pointing out that somehow in our own small corner of the world we've become a modern-day Haiti, a modern-day third-world country where opposition no longer can have its say, where the diverse forces within society cannot conic together for some kind of conciliation within parliament, but whereby brute force of numbers the government of the day crushes opposition.

On a number of occasions we've heard ill-informed Social Credit back-benchers indicate the cost per day of this Legislature. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that if this House was dissolved today this would be the second shortest term of office in the history of British Columbia? We are going to scream that from the rooftops of this province. We are going to tell everyone that this is the second-shortest parliament in history, and that this government was so impatient.... I hope there are people within the sound of my voice who will hear me and will check that this is the second-shortest parliament in history.

What is the rush, Mr. Speaker? The rush is that this government wishes to transform British Columbia into a kind of society that we've never experienced here. I happen to be a native British Columbian, as I know many of you are in this House. Unfortunately, most of my life I've had to live under Social Credit — at least 30 years of it, anyway. It's a government that turns its back on the churches, that turns its back on the trade unions, that turns its back on the human rights organizations, that turns its back on all of the legitimate voices and institutions of our society, and decides to head headlong into some right-wing lurch, likened to an Ayatollah Khomeini in its messianic crusade to transform the society that has taken 104 years of our parliamentary democracy.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: They laugh, Mr. Speaker, but they won't be laughing when their constituents find out what they've done today. In that riding of Omineca there will be many many people offended by that member's actions today in support of the crushing of the Leader of the Opposition's right to speak in this House according to the rules of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that we are an international oddity. Just looking at the newspapers within our own country, let me point out some of the concerns....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this time it is most incumbent upon me to call to the member's attention that it is very difficult for the Chair, in any way whatsoever, to relate the remarks of the member at this particular moment to the motion before us, and I would ask if the member could relate his remarks specifically to the motion, which is adjournment of the House until 8:30.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm about to do that.

The importance, from the government's point of view, of calling the House at 8:30 tonight to push forward a legislative package which does not have the confidence of the electorate.... There are prominent people calling for a sober second look by the Premier at this package, and here we have an extraordinary session called for to convene the Legislature again at 8:30 this evening to embark upon the railroading of Bill 3 through this House. An individual whom I have never met has recently written a brilliant paper. He is at the University of Victoria, in the school of public administration, and his name is Mr. Dobell. As I say, I don't know Mr. Dobell. In fact, I think he's a conservative. I believe he is. He indicates that the kind of action the government is taking this evening, pressing ahead to call a session to deal with Bill 3, that this approach by the government has a number of major structural problems that are going to create havoc in our society. I have talked to the Clerks of the House, or to one particular Clerk, and I'm very appreciative of the model he gave me, as a new member coming into this House, of what this institution is. This institution — and I have mentioned this once before —

[ Page 1476 ]

is like the valve on the top of a pressure cooker in society, and the people who come here to speak reflect the stresses and strains and pressures of a broader society.

[8:30]

What we are expressing tonight is our grave concern about the course of action that the government has embarked upon, pressing ahead on their legislative package, particularly Bill 3, without consultation, without sitting down with equal partners in the community. The churches have called on the government to abandon its course. I would just like to relate to you an article in the Toronto Star of July 26, 1983: "Church leaders attack Bennett's dishonest cuts in B.C. services, " by Tom Harper, Star religion editor. This is the religion editor, Mr. Speaker. This isn't a political reporter or a trade union reporter.

"Leaders of Canada's three largest churches, the Anglican, the United and the Roman Catholic, are sending a letter of censure to British Columbia Premier William Bennett. The letter says it was dishonest for his Social Credit government not to tell voters before election day of its plans to end a variety of social services and other agencies in the province. The letter says the B.C. government's actions are leading many citizens to become cynical, a church spokesman said.

"Signed by Archbishop Ted Scott, Anglican Primate of Canada, Reverend Clark Macdonald, moderator of the United Church and Reverend Henry Legaire, president of the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops, the letter says the authors realize governments have to make tough economic decisions in the current recession, but the situation is not remedied by striking at the powerless and the weak.

"The call to women: Since the Assembly of the World Council of Churches opened Sunday, groups of B.C. social activists have been pressuring for a council reaction to the Bennett cutbacks in social services. In Ottawa Lucy Pepin, president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, said women across the country should protest Bennett's austerity measures, Canadian Press reports. The cuts, including abolishing the provincial Human Rights Commission, rent controls and job security, will seriously harm women, she said. The first could mean the loss of women's hard-won rights, she said. The second will affect women most because they comprise the majority of poor single parents, and.... "

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. member, again I call to the member's attention the standing order that must make us relevant in debate to the motion that is before us. Clearly at this time the remarks of the member are not in accordance with those standing orders.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I am very much on the motion; I'm indicating, clearly, that we should not be sitting and pressing ahead with ramrodding Bill 3 through this House at this time. I'm pointing out to you, Mr. Speaker, that church groups all across the country and other parliaments are concerned. The federal government has indicated its displeasure at the human rights action.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Again I will advise the member that unless he can relate his remarks specifically to the adjournment motion.... I have advised members prior to this that the motion before us does not give us an opportunity to canvass a wide variety of legislation. Hon. member, if that were the case then we wouldn't need to have any rules; we would just speak on any subject at any time. That is not the case. We are currently on the adjournment motion, and the remarks must be relevant thereto. I formally advise the member at this time that his remarks are not.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your guidance. I am attempting to stay on the motion. The motion that I am opposing is to press on this evening with the session. I am buttressing my opposition to that by expressing legitimate concerns in the community about pressing on with this package without an opportunity for a sober second look by the government and for proper conciliation, mediation and dealing with the concerns at hand.

The recommendations from Mr. Dobell at the University of Victoria are pertinent. Earlier today I was thinking of suggesting this as reading to the Premier of the province. I would indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a considerable amount of food for thought in this Dobell paper that could be of benefit to the Premier and cabinet at this time.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I would draw the Speaker's and all hon. members' attention to the time on the clock and point out that the motion before the House is that we adjourn until this time. That motion is still being debated. I question whether the motion is now in order and should not be ruled out of order by the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. That's a reasonable observation to make. The answer is that while we are on the motion to set the time of adjournment the Chair can take no cognizance of the clock. Therefore, hon. members, the debate will continue.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Dobell makes a number of very interesting points. He said that there's a bit of a cognitive problem with the government. They have adopted a very simplistic notion.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, the member opposite has been on his feet in this debate for about 20 minutes now. Clearly he is abusing the rules of this House. His debate is not on the subject before us. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take appropriate action.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has advised the first member for Victoria that he must be relevant to the motion which is before us. I would ask the member to bear the main thrust of the motion in mind when he is debating.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I've indicated in my remarks that this is currently the second-shortest session in British Columbia's history. There is no emergency at hand. I'm not aware.... For your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be the Whip. I was not advised of any emergency. There was no leave asked for by the government to proceed on some kind of emergency measure, some emergency debate. That is what this debate is about, Mr. Speaker. I'm indicating to the House the concerns in the community about

[ Page 1477 ]

rushing hastily with a package that doesn't have the confidence of the public. I'm very much in order. I paid the courtesy of listening to the inane remarks of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), that latter-day convert to Social Credit and the abandonment of all principles.

The only emergency is the stark lack of confidence which exists in the public mind in terms of their response to this government. The only emergency at hand is that we have a government that did not seek in their election a mandate for the steps they are now embarked upon, and this evening they want to rush in with an extraordinary session to press on with their package. There is no emergency. The leadership in the community has indicated they want a go-slow attitude. They want the government to go slow. They want people to sit down in a new sense of cooperation, to set this package aside, to then carry on consultation and discussion....

MR. MICHAEL: You know that's not true.

MR. HANSON: It is absolutely true, Mr. Member.

To illustrate my point on the motion, let me just read you the following:

"The problem is that the private sector-public sector distinction does not rest on the creation or consumption of wealth. The absurdity of the proposition can be seen in considering the bookkeeping switch of court reporters from salary to contract. By 'privatizing' this activity without changing its function, one hardly changes it from a wealth-using to a wealth-creating activity."

I'm indicating to you that there is no need for us to sit this evening, because there are fundamental structural flaws in the thinking of the cabinet and the aides that developed this program. There are structural problems that this individual at the University of Victoria has identified. He has indicated that only through conciliation, cooperation and negotiation with the various diverse groups of our society can we avoid some kind of a head-on collision in the society of which we are all representative members. It is our duty to advise the government that it is not sound political judgment, nor does it serve any citizen of this province, to have us sit this evening and ram this package through.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I am dead on the motion.

"One does, of course, change the incentives, and that does matter. But just as it can be said that the public sector creates no money but only uses our money, so the same can be said about General Motors. The distinction lies in the signals of willingness to pay."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I will now advise you for the final time that quoting from the document you are currently quoting from can in no way be regarded as part of the debate which we are currently engaged upon. Hon. member, I am almost to the stage of instructing you to either be relevant within the section or take your place in debate. I'm only bound by the rules that apply to our debate in this chamber. Clearly, even by stretching the imagination, it is difficult to regard the comments that the member is now referring to as part of this debate.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I've indicated to you that a central issue of my comments is the fact that there is no emergency for us to be sitting this evening.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I am on the motion. I am also indicating to the government that the program we are sitting this evening to facilitate passage of is fundamentally in error and does not have the confidence of the public. There is no emergency. There was no emergency communicated to our side of the House, to indicate what is so pressing that the legislation that is coming before this House in the next order of business, Bill 3 — or any other legislation....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Hon. member, as I reported earlier, unless the member is privy to some knowledge that the Chair is not aware of, we have no way of ascertaining what the next order of business will be. Therefore, to engage upon that would not be a fair assessment of the rules of debate in this case. I would ask the member to carry on again with the principle of the motion before us, which is adjournment of the House until....

MR. HANSON: Until 8:30.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many times I have to state the case, but this would be second shortest legislative session in the history of the province, if this were to end now. I think 51 days was the shortest; today is the fifty-second day.

[8:45]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Probably the one that's accomplished the least too.

MR. HANSON: In response to the new first member for Surrey, who rarely gets on her feet in this House, she must know that this program is impairing the economy of the province. The fact that the government wants to sit this evening is inflaming the forces within our society. At a time when we need to put the various divergent interests together on a common path, the government is taking us as a society on a course which destabilizes our economy and pits one individual against another; it is going to create social havoc. Already we're seeing the tip of the iceberg. If there's any emergency on the horizon, it is something that the government is going to create. It is almost as if it wants to provoke it.

That's why I am counselling the government not to sit this evening, not to press ahead, but to sit back and meet with the various voices. They would think the government had greater stature if it were to withdraw its package and sit back and let some of these horrible anomalies die on the order paper. Conduct some White Papers, green paper, brown paper, blue paper, pink paper, indigo — anything that would stimulate a satisfactory way out of this impasse. The government is taking us on a course that is going to create difficulties.

I'm not going to move off the motion, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going to make a passing reference to Mr. Dobell, who indicated in his very thoughtful report that the government's legislative program may achieve just the opposite of what the government had decided they wanted to achieve in the first instance: that is, a good, sound investment community in which people can confidently invest risk capital in British Columbia, with a happy workforce. If the government pushes headlong on a course to create conflict in our society

[ Page 1478 ]

and pit one individual against another, who will be the losers? We will all be the losers.

There is only one emergency: the government has embarked upon a course, without proper consultation with the community. We as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition want to impress upon the government the error of their ways. In our society people will look up to others as being strong if they have the willingness to admit they've been wrong, that they've had bad advice, that somehow their course was ill-advised, that they didn't have all the facts at hand, that they were somehow misled, that they clearly did not have a full appreciation of all aspects of the problem, but now that all the cards are on the table, it is obvious that the government now wishes to take a second look. We would applaud that, Mr. Speaker. I would estimate that 65 percent of the population of this province would applaud if the government were to withdraw the package and indicate that they now wanted to hold hearings throughout the entire province, in all the villages and communities, in all the cities and towns, to sit down as cabinet in a new structure of reconciliation.

Invite everyone. Invite the churches. The churches have been left out of the decision-making; they have a voice in our society; they have a place in moral leadership; they have concerns about the economy and so on. What about the trade unions? They have been absolutely cut out. Action was directed entirely at them, at a time in other jurisidictions....

For example, in Japan they involve the workers. They sit down in some kind of tripartite arrangement, understanding that all of the various interest groups in the community bear on a common problem. We have a common problem.

We have a problem that the consensus in the community is not being heard. It's not being addressed. I know you're anxious to speak to me....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know full well — and I appreciate — that the member for Victoria wishes to speak to his Solidarity friends in the gallery tonight, but I would suggest that he do that on his own time and not abuse this House in so doing. I would ask that you remind that member of standing order 43.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria has been advised on numerous occasions as to the relevance factor. Hon. member, I would advise you, hopefully for the final time, that we must be strictly relevant to the motion before us without getting into the ancillary aspects of the argument, which in fact become the argument itself. You must return to the main motion, and I would ask the member so to do.

MR. HANSON: The government is asking this House to sit for an emergency sitting. My question to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, is: what is the emergency? The emergency appears to be primarily in their own minds, and, I think, probably in the mind of the first minister. I think he feels that the emergency is that he will lose this battle with his own people if he doesn't push it through now. That is not a way to conduct business in a parliamentary democracy. A parliamentary democracy embraces the various concerns of the society — the various interests. I shouldn't say concerns, I should say interests. The various interest groups in the society have to have an opportunity to express themselves. Not everyone will agree on any particular legislative program.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, just to acquaint you with where we are at the moment, I am asking the government, through you: what is the emergency that requires an emergency sitting? There doesn't appear to be one, other than the fact that the government has developed a program that doesn't have acceptance in the community, that is rejected out of hand by all fair-minded British Columbians. All of a sudden, on this particular evening, we are being asked to sit and debate the package — to ram it through the House, because it's an emergency sitting — and we are saying to the government that this is bad counsel. It is being ill-advised in this strategy, because it is going to destabilize the community. It is going to make people in our own community less confident.

Mr. Speaker, in my own constituency of Victoria, all of the people affected by some of the legislation........ I'm not going to mention which bills, because I know that would be out of order, but the legislative program has created such a lack of confidence in individual situations that they cannot spend any money, they cannot borrow any money, they cannot fix their homes, they cannot buy extra things for their children and they don't know whether they're going to have to absorb offspring who have left home into their basements because those people are going to be losing their jobs.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We are counselling the government to stop and have a second thought, to think about the fact that in an emergency debate.... If it was to pass, it will only inflame the situation; it'll only make the community more uncertain. It'll make for a greater lack of confidence in the business opportunities within our own province.

There are a lot of people in the community who are extremely angry. They are very angry. But they are all law-abiding citizens, and that is what we counsel. We counsel that because we on this side of the House believe in the democratic institutions; we believe in the parliamentary process; we believe in conciliation and compromise to achieve goals. We don't feel that any one person has all the answers or any one party has all the answers, but there must be an openness to listen to others. There must be an openness to deal with those pressures that are out there.

We all know that there is an economic depression, and we know that perhaps in their own misguided way the government has adopted this package because they may feel that it will in some way help. It doesn't. It is totally the wrong way to go. There seems to be a touch of vindictiveness on that side of the House, a feeling that they want to do some Tom Mix imitations. They want to get tough, to show who's boss — the people or the government.

Mr. Speaker, I maintain to you — and you are very aware of this — that the people are really the government. We're just rented suits. We are elected because people have confidence in us and we represent political parties that have a body of programs and ideas and philosophies. People make choices, and choose to come with us or to go to that side. That government did not canvass in the last election the kinds of things they are presenting to us tonight in this motion, which is that there is such a crisis in the community that they must sit at night. We can't accept that.

There are many cabinet ministers on that side of the House who know what I'm talking about. At the UBCM

[ Page 1479 ]

convention, apparently there were many, many members on that side of the House....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've heard you counsel this member on many occasions in the last half hour as to the relevance of his debate. I think the time has passed for further counselling. I think that the member is clearly abusing all other members of this assembly in continuing with the kind of debate that he is on. Mr. Speaker, you must do something about it.

MR. SPEAKER: As the members can see, the indicator light is on. I would ask if the member could conclude his remarks, again bearing in mind the points of order that have been raised and the advice that has been forthcoming from the Chair. The member concludes.

MR. HANSON: In summary, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the government, through you, that there is no emergency. The emergency exists in the mind of the Premier. The emergency exists in the mind of the Premier to the extent that he feels that unless he ramrods his program now, he may not get it. We are saying that that is an ill-founded approach to parliamentary democracy in British Columbia. We believe in the rights of the people of this province to make good, sound judgments; to indicate to their elected representatives in their own ridings, the 57 ridings of this province.... to press members who are not on this side of the House; to press members in Prince George, in Omineca, in Okanagan North, in North Vancouver-Seymour, in Cariboo, in the university district — because in that university district just recently there was an award made by one of the pre-eminent scientific foundations, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, for a member who spoke up in Argentina against the firing of tenured professors, the dismissal of academics without....

I'm indicating to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of this legislative program that do not require sitting tonight or tomorrow night or on the weekend. What they require is a little common sense on behalf of the government, a little faith in the people of this province, a little less of that siege mentality. That's what I maintain to you that we are experiencing in this province — a siege mentality. They feel that everyone is against them. It's a kind of paranoia. So they have to press on no matter what the cost. They back up their rear ends like a bunch of musk oxen and fight everybody off.

We happen to be one big family in this province. We have differences of opinion, but we don't need an emergency debate tonight. We need reconciliation, we need compromise, we need the winds of fresh air, and we've got to stop this kind of behaviour.

[9:00]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, just over three hours ago the proposition was put before the House that at its rising it do stand adjourned until 8:30 p.m. It is now one half hour past 8:30 p.m. I can only remember one other occasion when the House was in such a ridiculous and absurd circumstance, when a motion similar to this was placed some years ago. My former colleague and friend, Mr. Gordon Gibson, got up at about 11:30 — the motion being to adjourn till 11: 05 p.m. — and said: "Mr. Speaker, are we debating whether to adjourn to 11:05 p.m. past or 11:05 p.m. next?" To save the House any further embarrassment, debating anything as preposterous as to whether to adjourn until 8:30 p.m., when it is 9:00 p.m., I move that the question now be put.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question having been called, may I, prior to recognizing the member for Skeena, refer members to standing order 46, page 18: "After a question has been proposed, a member rising in his place may claim to move 'That the question be now put, ' and, unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, 'That the question be now put, ' shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate, " The question is that the question be now put.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is specifically 46. I declined rising earlier because you said you wanted to deal with it, and you did. Are you now saying that you are putting the question, that you yourself are participating in closure?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The question put by the member for Skeena is a valid one, and the answer to the question is that unless the Chair feels that such a motion is an abuse of the rules of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question shall not be put. In answer to that question I will repeat that the Chair has called the question. The answer therefore speaks for itself, I respectfully submit, hon. members.

MR. HOWARD: I'm glad you put it on the record that you are participating in closure so that I can challenge your ruling.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order........

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member. The question, which shall be put forthwith and decided, I repeat, without amendment or debate, is that the question be now put.

MS. BROWN: What about a point of information?

MR. SPEAKER: At the conclusion, hon. members.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 1480 ]

NAYS — 15

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

[9:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question is that this House do stand adjourned until 8:30 this evening.

Motion approved.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that it's beyond 8:30, so what evening?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COCKE: Fascists abound!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members, on the point of order raised by the member for New Westminster, if we check the Journals of March 30, 1976, we will see that in a similar situation the ruling was that basically it will be as if it were 11:05 this evening, or five minutes after the regular hour of adjournment this evening. Therefore, hon. members, the fact is that although it may be past the hour, it is considered to be as if it were that hour.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6.

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

MR. HANSON: Bill 6 is in the same kind of vein as Bill 3, Bill 2, Bill 27, Bill 5 and others, where they strip rights away from people. They don't have confidence in the local level, they don't believe people in the local communities know anything. This government thinks people who run for city council or school board are too stupid to run affairs in their own area, so they want to run it all out of their bottom drawer. They want to have the authority to determine what children learn, how much money is spent. They want to override locally elected people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill. We've been opposing it now for some period of time. From the government's point of view, they've presented it as part of a package, and it clearly is. There were even people who ran for Social Credit in the last provincial election who, when they saw Bill 6, said: "I never would have run for Social Credit." I'm not too sure, though, because those folks, if they'd been elected, might have been sitting down in that back bench, banging their Desks just as hard in support of Bill 6 or Bill 27 or Bill 3 as that member down there is doing.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 6 expands the power of the Minister of Education to issue directives to school boards establishing the amount they may spend on any section of their budget. Until now, the minister has only been able to issue directives relating to the special education portion of the budget. The idea of locally elected school boards is that because we are a diverse province, there are different ethnic communities, different economic regions. There are people in the farming area, people pursuing all different kinds of economic, social and cultural activities; and the notion that one individual, the Minister of Education, knows all the answers, controls all the money, controls all the authority and power over the school boards.... I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill also has a provision that if a local trustee does the wrong thing or votes the wrong way he can be fined $2,000. So not only do they get peanuts for taking on that role.... I've never met a trustee yet who wasn't dedicated to kids and education no matter what his politics were. They all believe in looking after children's education. They all recognize that at the local, decentralized level of a school board function they can participate in children's education. But this government says: "No, we know best."

The interesting thing about this particular bill — coming at this particular time when the whole world is watching — is that not only do they want to crush public sector workers and take away rights in other areas, but they want to take away authority from local government to have any say in the administration of their own children's education. Can you imagine having a fine? "Run for school board and it may cost you $10,000 in fines if you vote the wrong way." It's in the bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hon. member is anticipating a provision of another bill.

MR. HANSON: The B.C. school trustees are in opposition to this bill. They feel it could actually cost more money because of the formulas developed. It could inhibit change and make it more difficult to accommodate change in a particular constituency. If there's any area of our lives today that should have flexibility and sensitivity toward local response, it's got to be education. Things are moving so quickly in the world of information and knowledge that to approach the notion of education as an education czar based in Victoria.... He has a big desk and bottom drawers with files on School Districts 61, 64, 65. He goes through them: "Oh, so and so didn't vote right on that particular issue. He didn't do what I told him to do. Phone the deputy. Fire that man. Garnishee his wages by $2,000. Take it right off his cheque."

Here's an interesting article by Crawford Kilian that was in the Province on August 2. The headline is: "Wrong Public Servants Being Fired." I want to read this into the record because it's a very interesting and poignant assessment of the government's direction in education.

"Since July 7 I've been trying to figure out just why B.C. has become The Land That Time Forgot. The ostensible reasons — restraint, recovery, etc. — don't stand up for a second. The more likely reasons are deeper and more disturbing.

"The Socreds' theory seems to be that if we cut back public programs and public servants, we won't have to tax and borrow so much. People will have

[ Page 1481 ]

more money to spend and will rush out to POP-start the economy with a shopping orgy. But the Socreds are coy about just how much money will pour into our pockets from the current firings. And will taxpayers actually benefit the B.C. economy when they spend their supposedly increased disposable income? It won't do us much good if the average taxpayer blows his extra money on a German tape deck for his Japanese car. Meanwhile what is his unemployed publicservant neighbour supposed to do to help recovery? Steal tape decks?

"The restraint program is based on an utterly false analogy with private industry."

Here is the key part, Mr. Speaker.

"Education Minister Jack Heinrich said the other day that he now understands how the head of the sawmill or the head of a plant feels when he's got to go and say to people: 'I don't have any money. I got no market for my product and I'm afraid your employment is at an end.'

"But a school is not a sawmill. The purpose of a sawmill is to make a profit. The purpose of a school is to produce educated and responsible citizens. If we won't pay the price for good schools, we'll pay the cost of bad ones."

It's been raised many, many times in this Legislature that if you don't adequately fund education, if you don't have schools where children feel comfortable and feel a sense of self-esteem and self-respect, then what happens is on the negative side: the costs to society are far greater than any cost in education.

We've heard a thousand times in this House how much it costs to keep a person in jail. As you know, this government seems to be approaching a situation where there's not going to be much middle ground between the courts and some difficulty. Legal aid is cut, tenants and consumers will have to go to court, children who are not going to get a proper education might end up in court. What I'm saying is echoing the concern in this editorial that schools are not sawmills.

"If we won't pay the price for good schools, we'll pay the cost of bad ones. What's more, the overall demand for education hasn't slackened. Declines in enrolment in elementary and secondary schools are increasingly balanced by swelling enrolments in our colleges and universities. What has declined is the political power of people who consider education important."

That's very important, because in that little paragraph he's really summarizing this bill. What has declined is the political power of people who consider education important. People who run for school board office, as I've mentioned, care about kids; they want to have a say in the direction of education, shaping it in their own community to meet their needs. Victoria is different than Castlegar. It's different than Houston or Surrey or.... The composition's different. The kinds of needs within the area are different. The idea of decentralizing education is to allow that local input in response.

"School-age children and their parents are a dwindling part of the population, and post-secondary students are notorious for their political apathy. So the Socreds have passed along the costs of the recession to them, as well as to the poor, the disabled, the minorities and other weaklings. The people who have dedicated their lives to serving these weaklings aren't so strong themselves, so they make great scapegoats. We never notice the thousands of trained, hard-working professionals who design and build our highways or look after the handicapped. We just see the kid leaning on his shovel or the gum-chewing clerk who makes us wait in some dreary government office. Who cares what happens to those parasites?"

He's saying rhetorically what is probably in the Minister of Education's mind. He's pointing out that Socred rhetoric alone couldn't make scapegoats out of teachers, trustees, firefighters, social workers and ditchdiggers.

"The July 7 programs had to be designed, evaluated and implemented by some of those same public servants. The education finance formula, for example, deprives school boards and local voters of all meaningful powers and must have been at least a couple of years in the making. It shows that during that time the ministry was deaf to all outside suggestions for improving school financing and mute about what it really intended. The bureaucrats who devised it must have realized what a brutal, futile measure they were planning against teachers, administrators and trustees. Yet they broke bread with us; they held meetings with us on countless subjects; they commiserated with us during the Vander Zalm months. And all the while they were planning changes worse than Vander Zalm ever imagined. Surely they must have known the changes can't work if they destroy the cooperation and trust of the educators who must carry them out.

"The mandarins are also our neighbours and colleagues. They have worked alongside us for years and will continue to do so, but they can no longer be trusted or even respected as fellow believers in democracy. Out of conviction or opportunism they have pandered to a large minority of British Columbians who really don't like the rest of us very much. That minority doesn't give a damn about financial restraint. It's just a code phrase for hurting people they don't like. When the minority suffers too, as it inevitably will, it'll find another scapegoat to blame: intellectuals or drunken Indians or the Yellow Peril or Jews — anybody but itself and its own selfish, stupid policies. A few morally catatonic bureaucrats, the ones who should've been fired, will be there to help." He has indicated, right on the front page, the Minister of Education in a photograph: "Jack Heinrich on schools and sawmills."

In this article, Mr. Speaker, I think he indicates very clearly — and you are very familiar with this particular subject — that what we have is a situation where the government did not have a mandate. They did not go to the people on May 5 and ask them if they wanted school boards to be stripped of their power, if government employees could be fired without cause or just with some kind of a reorganizational diagram in a cabinet minister's office: "Cut this branch, this department, this program; I don't want social studies taught in the schools any more; I don't want history; I don't want the pollution control branch; I think we have too many police, too many firefighters." That is what this package is all about. This is just one part of the puzzle.

On July 7 the government walked into this Legislature and introduced, first of all, a budget. Then they introduced a package of 26 bills. That day I felt like I was at some kind of Expo. When you go into an exposition, they have one of those

[ Page 1482 ]

360-degree projectors that shows you a 360-degree perspective of the Grand Canyon or the Rockies or some other geographical point. What they did with those 26 bills was shine onto the wall a totally new British Columbia, where there was an attack on people, and confrontation; where all of the advocacy roles in society were abandoned or destroyed; where the government didn't want any opposition at all. When you have a government that is intolerant of opposition, you get a government that wants to sit all night to pass bills. They want legislation by exhaustion. They want people in this province to have this medicine whether or not they want it. In this sitting tonight, they are holding the nose of the people of the province and pouring that vile, horrible, alien tonic into this society. It's poison; you're poisoning the province.

[9:30]

Groups such as the Employers' Council don't vote NDP, but they can see the writing on the wall. The Employers' Council wants good, sound industrial relations. They want a society in which they can have predictability and carry out expansion and investment. These people sitting over here are their political allies, but they're running amok within our society. Running "amok" is an anthropological word, which means people going berserk. It comes from the South Pacific. It refers to people going crazy, getting so upset that they lose control. This government is running amok in this bill before us. It's running amok in the school system.

Let's see what the B.C. Teachers' Federation says.

"A non-political departmental examination. The following statements about B.C.'s system of public education were made by a prominent political figure. Read the quotes and match them with one of the names below:

" (1) The Minister of Education seems determined to gain control of all educational facilities within our province at the expense of local school boards."

Mr. Speaker, do you know who said that?

" (2) We would also work to return dignity and responsibility to individual classroom teachers and trained professionals, who deserve more authority in setting educational objectives for their pupils."

"Bill 6, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983, (BCTF). First of all, the act continues indefinitely; second, the ministry now has the power to establish 'portions of the budget' in a school district. For example, the amount which will be spent on administration will be established by 1986 as a fixed amount not to be exceeded. Special education budgets are now set out as fixed amounts not to be reduced.

"The major effects of the new budget system. The financial management system: stated objectives of the system... to increase the provincial PTR by two, from 17:1 to 19:1, over a three-year period."

Anybody who knows anything about pupil-teacher ratios knows that that doesn't mean that classes will be 19:1; it means that the special-needs area will not be met. It means that people with learning difficulties will not be diagnosed early. It means that children who don't understand a problem and who need more assistance won't get it, because teachers will often have to deal with classes of over 35 pupils, and even more. Over the last few years we've seen cuts in special diagnostic services for children with dyslexic problems — people who, if early diagnosis is made, could get remedial help very early on. The change from 17:1 to 19:1 is a misleading figure because it is an average of all types of classroom situations and doesn't address itself to the broader picture of children trying to learn English as a second language, for example, in a class with a large number. That person needs special assistance and is not going to get it.

"To distribute limited funds in a fair and equitable manner. To establish provincial standards and better methods of collecting district comparative data." There are a number of stated objectives of the bill that really are not met when you look at the entire record of the government and the objectives of the government in general.

British Columbia Social Credit said a lot of things during the last campaign with respect to education. They said a British Columbia Social Credit government would give B.C.'s young people a better-quality education by changing the way our educational system is administered and paid for. They said that they would return authority to local school boards, Mr. Speaker. That would constitute a lie, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it constitute a lie if a campaigning political party were to say that they would return authority to local school boards?

This one was a claim made by Social Credit in 1975. It carries the signature of Bill Bennett. This is what Bill Bennett said to the people of the province....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, just one more time, perhaps when referring to another hon. member of the House we can refer to his riding or his position within the executive council. I know the member is quoting from some other material, but we still must remain parliamentary while in the House.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this relates directly to the bill currently before us because somehow someone in legislative counsel must have draughted a bill that did not reflect Bill Bennett's philosophy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is, hon. member, that it is unparliamentary to mention another member's name. When in the House mention the riding or the portfolio in the executive council. The rest of the debate is quite relevant. It's just the mentioning of the member's name.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to read into the record what Bill Bennett said — I'm sorry, the Premier — and allow the Hansard readers who will be reading this in a month's time to compare his statement dated 1975 for the election in that year with the action of the government with respect to education now before us:

"Return authority to local school boards. In the past two years this province has seen a massive buildup of the educational bureaucracy in Victoria. The Minister of Education seems determined to gain control of all educational facilities within our province..."

You know, Mr. Speaker, that was not the case. We had more decentralization during that period of government than we've ever experienced since.

"...at the expense of local school boards. This move to centralize control means confusion and frustration for local board members. More important, it means that educational policies are being developed with no real consideration for the needs and — wishes of local areas."

Isn't that funny, Mr. Speaker? If it wasn't sad, tragic and poisonous it would be hilarious.

[ Page 1483 ]

"We in the British Columbia Social Credit Party believe that meaningful educational policies can only be developed in cooperation with local school boards."

If I were a hyena I would just go berserk.

"After all, the local school trustees have been elected by the people of their own area. They know the area and are responsive to the needs of their community. We would therefore return authority to local school boards while at the same time eliminating the bureaucracy in the Department of Education. We would also work to return dignity and responsibility to individual classroom teachers, trained professionals who deserve more authority in setting educational objectives for their pupils.

"In line with making education more responsive to local needs, the British Columbia Social Credit Party would expand vocational and technical training facilities on a regional basis throughout B.C.... Boy, oh boy, that's really hilarious.

"... and would make a continuing commitment to improve the quality of education in all post-secondary institutions. As a related specific commitment we would preserve the University Endowment Lands for public..."

Blah, blah, blah.

"...paying for education out of the growth revenues. The current system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded and places an unfair burden on the property owner."

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we've seen the Social Credit government, over the last few years, shift the costs for education more and more to the property owner, to the point where the provincial government is paying a very small share of the education costs in this province. A lot of people don't realize that it is cost-shared with the federal government; the provincial government is paying a very small amount, and they keep pushing more and more of those costs on to the property owner.

Reading this, which is now eight years old, gives you an indication of how devious that party was, attempting to gain power in the December 11, 1975 election by stating to the people of the province.... I guess what I am saying is that the Social Credit Party, the government, has a history of lying to the people of the province.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the term is quite unparliamentary. I am sure the hon. member can avoid that kind of terminology in parliamentary debate.

[9:45]

MR. HANSON: Another way of saying it would be that the Social Credit Party has a history of going to the people with one set of statements and, after the election, doing totally the opposite. I think it is that approach to public policy, that lack of confidence in their own ideas, that has set many politicians in a discredited light with the public. That is really a tragedy, because unless we have a parliamentary democracy, we might just have a Social Credit autocracy in this province. We might just have a unitary party state, which is the kind of thing we see being set up here.

Let me continue, because I'm moving into other parts of my material. I want to continue with the way the Leader of the Opposition of the day, the current Premier of this province, misled the people of the province in that campaign with respect to his policies and approach to the financing of education. He stated:

"As government, the British Columbia Social Credit Party would change this system and provide revenues for ever-improved educational facilities from real growth sources. We would look to tax revenues from resource-based industries, industries which would enjoy steady growth under a new administration. We would also look to the provincial sales tax and to other revenue sources which increase naturally with our provincial development.

"This new approach would help to hold the line on property taxes while meeting the increasing costs of education resulting from inflation. Just as important as the source of educational revenue is the manner in which it is distributed. As government, the British Columbia Social Credit Party would increase direct payments to local school boards while decreasing the cost importance of central bureaucracy."

That, Mr. Speaker. Is exactly the opposite of what they are doing in this bill. They are taking all the power and authority to their own breast, to their own desk, to the cabinet room. They strip local boards of any authority to make decisions; to negotiate with their employees; to determine their own educational priorities; to play a meaningful role in curricula and so on. They have shifted the costs to the local taxpayer to absorb the burden, so that education in British Columbia is inextricably tied to the cost of real estate. In areas with high assessed values, high real estate market values, etc. on real property, you would have a funding for education that wouldn't be shared by an area with a less highly valued assessed property. Rather than British Columbians being able to understand that no matter where they were in British Columbia, they were entitled to certain basic standards of education in terms of the entitlement provided by the province of British Columbia, what we get instead is a process that favours the rich. They can get it either through their own high real estate values, or by buying into a private system. None of these bills really hurt the rich anyway. They then can determine the kinds of curriculum and so on that is going to be delivered.

We know right now that the candle-power of that cabinet is not particularly high. We don't have a lot of real intellectuals, as you might call them. There's a lot of meanness; a lot of the siege mentality that I was talking about earlier; a lot of paranoia; a lot of reliance on far-right-wing advisers that want to transform British Columbia into a totally different kind of society than the people want. When I read the statements that the Premier of the day made when he was the Leader of the Opposition, no wonder we're seeing these kinds of bills today. It was a ruse; he was trying to fool people, to assume power.

I think it would be noteworthy to go through a series of the things that have happened in 1982 related to education and the role of this government, particularly under the leadership of the Premier of this province, who seems to want to wage an attack on public education, singling out children and denying them, through their educational opportunities, the opportunity to be productive, creative, open-minded and energetic citizens for the future. Let me just tell you a few things. In October 1981, B.C. school trustees announced that teachers now rank third on the list of most stressful occupations,

[ Page 1484 ]

preceded only by air traffic controllers and surgeons. Teachers have a very stressful job, because they're trying to respond to a gradient of needs.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: The minister says he knows that, and at the same time introduces a bill to give him so much power, and to centralize education in a way that it has never been centralized before in this province.

MR. KEMPF: What about opposition members?

MR. HANSON: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I have to submit to that minister that he certainly does not know. He certainly does not understand at all.

Let's move ahead a little to February 18, 1982, and I'm reading here, Mr. Speaker: "Bill Bennett, the Premier, announces public sector wage controls and 12 percent school board spending limits, effective September 30." Then a day later we get the first major cut in education. "Education minister Brian Smith...." Do you remember him, Mr. Speaker? He was the one who travelled mainly to have lunches in different parts of the province. He seemed to be mainly concerned about his own gastro-intestinal tract and not education. He was always complaining that he wasn't getting fed suitably in different parts of the province. Do you remember that?

MS. SANFORD: There were articles on that.

MR. HANSON: Yes, there were articles. He missed lunch.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have three minutes left, hon. member, and we are on Bill 6.

MR. HANSON: "Education minister Brian Smith expands on the 12 percent school spending limit, and pledges that special education programs for the learning disabled, the gifted and English as a second language students, for example, will be fully protected." On March 3, the Education ministry circulated a technical paper to all school districts on "a 12 percent growth in school district budgets in 1983."

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

On March 10, Gary Lauk, who was our Education critic at the time, disclosed the new Socred school finance formula. Boy, were they angry about that! They were really angry that we scooped them on their new school finance formula. They ran around and tried to find out who had leaked it, and everything else.

"Socreds claim to pay 75 percent of school costs, but the homeowners' school taxes go up 32 percent as a result." They don't pay 75 percent of school costs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must advise you, hon. member, that the warning light is on.

MR. HANSON: "On March 11, Education minister Brian Smith announced a new school finance formula. He pledged an additional $75 million to public education from general revenue in 1982, and a further $175 million in 1983."

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in four months he broke that promise? That particular funding pledge lasted only four months. The principle of this bill is the same as the principles in many of the other bills in this legislative package. They centralize authority. They take away from locally elected officials the opportunity to respond to the needs within their own communities.

Mr. Speaker, because of this bill, I want to move a motion that the motion be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the motion is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the point of order I want to raise is a very delicate one. I don't want the Chair to be offended in any way, because that is not the purpose, but I do want to raise with Your Honour the very serious question as to whether or not the chief government Whip should be in the chair. I'm not talking about the individual person who holds that office as chief government Whip, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, I'm talking about the office of the chief government Whip, which is a political office engaged in discussions of a political nature, and involved in political decisions; as to whether that office should be represented in the chair in the House. I realize it's permissible. I realize there's no rule against it. I'm raising the propriety of the whole question, especially given the circumstances that have taken place today. I hope Your Honour will examine that question and make some determination about it in a very quiet way, because I don't want to raise it unnecessarily and elevate the dangers that are involved if we proceed in this direction more than we have at the moment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of course, hon. member. Really, and in great sincerity, I appreciate what you're saying. The hon. member has a good point. But what we're doing is actually debating an amendment, or looking to the relevance of an amendment, and the hon. member who is occupying the chair would be very happy not to do that, and to deal with the amendment. The amendment is in order, and if we could deal with it, then perhaps the orderly debate of the House could continue.

MR. HOWARD: Just one other point, Mr. Speaker, if I might, with deference to my colleague. I notice that the Deputy Speaker is in the chamber, and that transition might be easily made.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, it could be easily made. But on the amendment, which is in order, I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm rising to support the motion of my colleague, who has just taken his seat, which is a motion for a hoist of Bill 6, the education finance act. In the moments allotted to me, I wish to keep as carefully as I can to the reasons why the NDP believe very strongly that this Bill 6 should not be rushed through this House at this time. I shall be cognizant of the fact that it is to this that I should reserve my remarks.

[ Page 1485 ]

[10:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, in asking for a hoist, one of the basic reasons, as far as I personally can see, is that I have in front of me a copy of the new formula to be presented to the school boards, which I know they have already received, and under which they are to operate their budgets. If anyone took the time, particularly some of the back-benchers — and even the cabinet ministers — to actually study this convoluted formula, I think they would have some sympathy with our motion that it should be hoisted until.... Even we in this House could perhaps have some lessons from the finance department of the Ministry of Education. To make the point here on how convoluted this formula is, I think even most of the Social Credit members would be unable to stand up in this Legislature now and explain this formula in any great detail. As a matter of fact, I think we would all be rather irresponsible if we sat here and passed a bill which we would have great difficulty explaining to our constituents. That's why I think it would really be most helpful if the minister would perhaps delay this bill so that we can even have some classes on this convoluted finance formula. Even though we're not all school trustees now, I think we have a responsibility to understand what we're being asked to pass.

I want to give you an example, to make my point here, of some of the convoluted areas in this formula, which I have had considerable difficulty trying to understand. Just to give you an example of how convoluted this is, if you would bear with me I just want to read a couple of sections here. The heading is:

"This is The New Method of Calculating School District Budgets.

"A new budget system has been developed ..."

I am only reading this to say that I think this is a most difficult thing for most of us to understand, and yet we're being asked to pass it.

"... based on programs and functions. The old AEF school board budget system will not be used after December 31, 1983. Attached on appendix B is an outline of the new reporting structure for school board budgets. Budgets now contain nine functions and 78 programs. The amount of money allowed in the districts' budget to run each of the 78 programs is determined by a specific formula."

And underneath that it says:

"Service level x cost factor = budget amount or fiscal framework."

I think most of us, whether you've had experience in budgets or not, or have even been on a school board, would need a little bit of explanation here:

"The service level for each of the 78 programs has been established based on the numbers of students, the average teachers' salaries, and in some cases the Vancouver CPL or square metres, of all schools and the average costs of busing transportation."

Mr. Speaker, we need a number of classes, given by someone in the ministry, who hopefully can explain to all of us in this House what we're being asked to pass. It then goes on to say:

"The cost factor is determined by local enrolment data and other local data such as the number of approved school bus miles driven or the number of trustees elected."

That is actually in a statement to do with the school formula.

I frankly don't know why we need that because the trustees are being given so little to do now that I can't see the point of even entering that in here. I know that all education formulas are somewhat complicated, and you probably know that yourself from your past experience as a mayor in dealing with school boards, but this one is one of the most complicated, unless it is just myself who is finding it somewhat difficult to understand tonight. But in all sincerity I do think we need some explanation.

"When a budget amount has been calculated for each of the 78 programs, the total of all equals the school district allowable budget."

I don't know who is with me up to now.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: "Some of the 78 programs have no provincial service level." That is, money to fund any of these programs will have to be found in the local programs budget, which is a very limited one, or they may have to be cancelled. I hope that the minister in closing can either break this down for us, or, what we would much prefer, hoist this bill, so that we can have an opportunity to understand it. I'm not being facetious. I don't know how we can say that a new interim finance bill is good for the students of this province if it's put in such convoluted terms that we can't understand it.

I know that the minister, when he introduced the bill, did not go into any details to enable us to understand it. I don't think that we were elected in this Legislature — on either side of the House, whether government or opposition members — to be little ciphers and stand up and okay anything which is presented to us, particularly when we're dealing with something as important as the school board budget. The school board budget is the motor which we hope will keep the school boards and the schools functioning so that our students can continue the learning process.

Maybe it's a marvellous budget, but I wonder if one of the back-benchers there or another cabinet minister could get up, because I know the minister has to wait until he closes debate. Maybe one of you could explain it to us in detail so that we know what we're voting for.

There's an area here that really concerns me — another reason why I think that great consideration should be given to a hoist. It refers to the fact that there will be a very limited budget — and this is conceded by most people who have read it — for certain programs. They point out that some of the 78 programs have no provincial service level. These are some of the smallest budgets in a district and are these very small budgets, which we are being asked to support. Only 2 percent of the total cost of functions 1 and 2, if we can all remember what they were, have been allocated for these programs. Now what are some of these programs? Some of these little programs which we are only to be allowed 2 percent of for the budgeting are: elementary counselling, elementary locally developed programs, elementary summer school, secondary locally developed programs, secondary summer school, special education locally developed programs, district resource centres, correspondence school, continuing education, supplies for resale, community use of facilities, extracurricular transportation, housing — the operating cost of teacherages. These are the very, very limited areas which could be open for cancellation also.

I know that some of the government back-benchers may say: "Well, they were a waste. Do we really need them?" Well, I've talked to parents who have said to me that the one

[ Page 1486 ]

thing that gave them some hope for their children who've been having difficulty in school is of course the ability to go to summer school — because, let's face it, some children do need summer school. Others have said that they're very concerned that no longer will there be an opportunity for locally developed programs.

You see, if we pass this budget without a serious look at a hoist it means that we are accepting the fact that many, many vital areas of our educational system are going to be lost. I know that money is limited and that in education we want to be sure that what we have spent is spent wisely. But the big problem we have — on this side of the House in the NDP opposition — with the Social Credit government is our whole difference in priorities. Somehow, Mr. Speaker, if anything shows it up the education budget does. The NDP have believed always in local control. If we pass this budget without a serious look at what it is really doing, and without getting a real feedback from across the province — from school trustees, teachers, hopefully, and parents — we are accepting the fact that the minister has the right to set most of the budget priorities. We are accepting the fact that as far as class sizes go it really doesn't matter how large the classroom gets, it doesn't affect the child.

How can you possibly expect the NDP opposition to support, without a serious opportunity to have the public examine it, a new finance formula which has as its basic philosophy, in my opinion, a complete regression in all the progress made in education programming in the last 20 years? I'm not referring just to the time the NDP was in; I'm talking about further back when the Social Credit was government before. There were some good things done in education. What concerns me is that under the guise of this business of "restraint" the government is producing educational formulas that are going to put education back further than 20 years. There may have been things that were in the educational system that some people have quarrelled with, but I want to assure you that we did produce, despite everything, a more highly educated group of students than we've ever had before. They are articulate and they are bright. The majority of parents across Canada in recent polls have been satisfied with the public school system.

But this government — and I accuse them of this — cater to a vocal minority. It's not the voice of the majority of the people. It's very easy to fall victim to the voices of loud vocal minorities who keep criticizing the public school system with no basis whatsoever for the criticism except an opportunity to knock from a basically ignorant point of view, based on some of their own prejudices. I say that if we don't get a hoist to this bill — I want to repeat — we are sacrificing the students of this province to an antiquated turn-of-the-century system. We are really going to move back seriously because no matter how good the new minister may be, no matter how good his staff is, we cannot accept a budget that is going to centralize all education with the assumption that he alone and a few of his bureaucrats know what's best for the students and school boards across the province.

Another area that concerns me if this bill passes — and this is why I must point these areas out, in support of my argument for a hoist.... I heard one of our speakers say something today, and I believe it was the member who sits behind me, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). He said something that I hadn't heard before, and it certainly made me think. It was when he was speaking on this bill. He talked about the privatization of the educational system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MRS. DAILLY: I hear a few "Hear, hears" across the floor — one from my dear trend the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). I just cannot believe that that minister, who has his hands full right now in his own ministry, wants to enter into this debate on privatization of the school system. In all seriousness, I think that the member for Vancouver Centre really put in a capsule the fears that a lot of people have in this province, that if you follow the philosophy enunciated in this bill you are going to find that our public school system could be broken up. When you start starving the public school system, when you make it very difficult for good functioning of the public school system, when you are going to create an area in the school system where special services are not going to be given to children who need them, when you find that the cutbacks in Human Resources are going to force more and more children back from special classes into the public school system, you are going to find many parents saying: "I'm not pleased with the public school system. The classes are too big. My child isn't getting individual attention." Do you know what they want to do? They say: "I'm going to move my child out and put him in a private school." That's exactly what the member for Vancouver Centre put his finger on.

[10:15]

It means that this government really believes in the privatization of the public school system, and I say shame on you. There is no way that a government with that philosophy should be given the right to put through a bill in the Legislature during this session of parliament which has that underlying philosophy. A bill as serious and with the import that this bill has underlying it.... We hear it backed up by cabinet ministers on the other side who say "Hear, hear" to privatization. There is no way that people of British Columbia gave the Social Credit government a mandate to privatize our school system. That is why we on this side of the House are asking the government — through you, Mr. Speaker — to hoist this bill. Let's take it out to the public and see if they want to go back to the days before we had a public school system. Let's see if they want to go back to the days of elitist education.

Why do you think we had a public school system created in the first place? In those days only those who could afford it could send their children to good schools. Can you tell me the irony of a situation today, in a period of so-called restraint when there isn't enough money...? The Minister of Education keeps telling everyone, when he speaks to educational groups: "We just don't have enough money and that's why these things have to be done."

Let me talk about a cutback that perhaps that minister could consider. I want to be positive; I want to assist him. I hope he'll consider this so that if a hoist is given maybe he'll give consideration to trying this out before he passes the bill. I want to talk about private schools. You want to privatize. I'm going to leave aside the religious schools; people who send their children to religious schools have a very sincere commitment to that philosophy. I want to deal with the fact that in a time of restraint we are actually asking the taxpayers of British Columbia to subsidize elitist schools in this province. We are using the taxpayers' money for schools such as St. George's and Crofton House School for Girls. Can the

[ Page 1487 ]

average person in British Columbia send their child to those schools? They cannot afford to. So in a time of restraint when this government is telling us all to pull in our belts, expect bigger classes in public schools and expect less services, they are asking us to pass a vote which will be coming up in the estimates. If the bill is passed it means that we are actually committing taxpayers' dollars to schools that, unless you are in a certain income bracket, to even get your child in, with the exception of the few that on a patronizing basis are allowed in because they put up a few scholarships for them.... Mr. Speaker, I think it's a travesty: cutbacks in public school education but increased moneys given to private schools in British Columbia that don't even have open admission unless you are in a certain income bracket. Some of them even employ sex discrimination — schools for boys, schools for girls. Why should your tax dollar and mine, in a time of restraint, go to support people who are so well off today that they can afford to send their children to these schools? I resent my dollars having to go there. I want to see my tax dollar go to those who need it today and not to those other people.

We hear that old thing about "saving you money." I would like to know how my tax dollar subsidizing St. George's School.... I think the annual cost of going there is well over $5,000 or $6,000, probably.

MS. BROWN: Fifteen hundred a month.

MRS. DAILLY: And I'm told from someone across the floor that I'm saving the taxpayer money by giving money to St. George's School, which charges $1,500 a month. I find that a very interesting argument from across the floor of the House. Whose money are we saving? We are saving money for those people who can afford $1,500 a month. The arguments over there won't wash anymore when we are told over and over again: "We don't have the money. We are in a time of restraint." If you are in a time of restraint, you are absolutely irresponsible to be taking the opportunity of your office — and I'm speaking to the Minister of Education, through you, Mr. Speaker — to give money to schools that charge $1,500 a month. It's a travesty, and it's hypocritical. As long as this government maintains that kind of educational policy, you deserve no sympathy or cooperation on the matter of restraint until you explain to the public your rationale for that nonsense.

The hoist is necessary, because if we continue to support the Social Credit philosophy of education, which, as I have said, is underlying this bill, it is going to do a disservice to our students. The hoist is necessary because this government does not have a mandate to start eliminating essential programs in our schools today.

Almost every time I'm in my constituency office I have people coming to me with children with special problems, and those children have as much right to be educated as anyone else. I have heard many great speeches from across the floor from many Social Credit members throughout the years saying: "We believe in special education." But if they believe in it they cannot expect us to pass this bill, which is going to strap the school boards into financial positions — most of them — where they're not going to be able to provide the necessary programs. These are not frills. If we do not take full responsibility for educating children with special needs, those, by and large, unfortunately become the children who can end up to be real social accidents. If you examine many of the inmates of prisons today, you will find out that many of those inmates had difficulties in school. You'll find out that many of those inmates either had dyslexia problems or emotional problems which prevented them from learning.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that if you can't get through school and if you feel inferior to your classmates and if it's a struggle, you gradually lose your self-esteem. Once you've lost your self-esteem, that's when the problems come in. You become a failure in society — in your mind, anyway.

Our jails are full of failures. Many of them are educational accidents. This government doesn't seem to realize that when they start this cutback in education they are going to reap the harvest of the mistake that they are forcing on us, right now. It won't show up today or tomorrow, but it will show up in the future. I always hear yawns when we get talking in this vein, but this is really important. I thought that by now the Social Credit government had developed some social conscience about these needs.

MS. BROWN: Fascists have no social conscience.

MRS. DAILLY: I always try to hope, but when I see the kind of cutbacks which could be inflicted by the passage of this bill, I realize that they really do not have the same concern.

It is interesting when you study the United States. What happens in education in the United States seems to arrive in British Columbia five to ten years after. It's almost inevitable. About ten years ago — I forget how many years ago — we had Proposition 13 in California, and that was whipped up with education being a lot of its basis. It's so easy to knock teachers and education and waste. It's done on the basis of ignorance. The problem is that the children suffer.

I think I mentioned in an earlier speech that I really deplore the fact that President Reagan has decided to make education an issue in his campaign. Again, he's using it. When you start using education, it's the children who suffer. I'm afraid that the Social Credit government is also catering, as I said earlier, to a very small, vocal minority who do not represent the mass of the people.

The parents in British Columbia want to know that their children are well taken care of and properly serviced in their schools. They're not asking for frills, they're asking for the right to have their children educated. Most of them are not too pleased that they see the vote for independent schools going up and they see the opposite happening in the public school system. I think that bill before us is asking us to support a new formula, which the school boards.... I know that some of them have been quiet on it. Others are just beginning to realize the implications of it. My own district is not happy with it. They want a hoist. They want an opportunity to study this bill. At least give them that.

I can't remember when the Social Credit government ever set up a travelling education committee. For 18 years now I've been in this Legislature — don't tell me I'm showing it — and never once, except for the three years that the NDP was government, did a committee on education ever meet. Only once did it ever meet, and that was during the tenure of the NDP. All I'm asking for is a hoist. What a marvellous opportunity for the Social Credit government to realize that the setting up of a special legislative committee on education would be one of the most vital things they could do today. So why not put this bill into that? Put this bill into it.

[ Page 1488 ]

Let's see if the Social Credit government really does have a mandate for everything that is behind this bill.

I read with great care the very articulate reply to this bill made by my good friend and colleague from the opposite side of the House, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). I give him credit: he made a good speech on Bill 6. He is a former principal. I don't happen to agree with what he said, but he expressed it well. Why doesn't he come before the public, with members of the NDP, and get both sides across to the public? One of the best ways we can do that is in a committee, where we can call people in from around the province and we can get our reaction across as well as the government's. Let's do it together. Let's find out if they have a mandate.

I wonder why the government is afraid to expose their legislation to a committee. In most jurisdictions, legislation is not done like this. It is not done by plunking down a bill, hoping that you can extend it into a long night sitting so that you exhaust the opposition. Hopefully nobody is here in the evening, and the whole thing will go through. Nobody will care.

I experienced this many times under the former Premier Bennett, when we sat until 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning. We're well prepared to do that. I think the older members here are better than some of the newer ones, from our experience of staying up night after night.

[10:30]

Seriously, it's a ridiculous situation to be debating an important bill that can change — very dangerously, in our opinion — what is happening in our school system today. To debate it through the middle of the night is highly irresponsible. It's not that we can't stand up here and do it. Why are we denying the rights of other people, who are heading for their beds or their homes or something...? They're not going to be sitting here tonight. What are we afraid of? What is the government afraid of, that they have to ram this bill right through a long night sitting?

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I consider it to be. It should go to a committee.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this is not the best forum for dealing with a complicated educational bill. We're sitting here, government members are sitting there, and what time of night is it — 10:30? We'll probably be debating it until 4 or 5 this morning, or maybe longer. I'm saying to the government that it's really not fair to deal with education in this manner. What I'm saying is hoist the bill and give us an opportunity to sit in a committee — to sit more like human beings in a committee where we can cooperate, perhaps in a much better way than in this confrontational system right here. I don't see what's wrong with that. I think we'd all benefit.

It's not for our benefit, Mr. Speaker. I think you would agree with me. I'm sure you would agree that it's for the benefit of the students of the province. We're not debating some bill that has nothing to do with children. The whole underlying theme of this bill is going to affect children. We're going to have larger classes. The whole philosophy of the Social Credit government may not completely be in this bill, Mr. Speaker, but you know, when I mention privatization and somebody over there says, "Hear, hear, " and "Cheer, cheer!" then we begin to realize that underlying everything brought to us is a very dogmatic, radical-right philosophy. It's pervading everything. It's a radical-right philosophy.

Nobody in this province gave the Social Credit government the right to move in on a radical-right, dogmatic approach to politics. Nobody gave that mandate. I think the mandate that the people of B.C. want is one of moderation. They want a moderate type of government. They are not asking for a radical government. If anything has shown that the people of B.C. have unwittingly elected — not all of them, of course — a radical-right government, it's this kind of legislation. Because, you see, the radical right always generalize in trying to put out their points. They generalize about how much better the good old days were. You know, we hear that about education so often. We hear people say: "Oh, in the good old days when we went to school, things were so much better." We have to remember that in 1983 far more children will be graduating from grade 12 than ever achieved or even got near grade 12 when you and I went to school, Mr. Speaker. In fact, even to get through grade 8 thirty years ago was an accomplishment.

It's these generalized statements that seem to pervade in the Social Credit government that are rather frightening, because what they're doing is going to create a very regressive, reactionary climate in our public school system. This kind of rigid domination of the public school system which we are being asked to pass here is creating an aura of very poor morale throughout the school system. At this time, forgetting all about salaries — we're not dealing with that — I'm dealing with the kind of teaching climate that should exist in a classroom to provide a good teaching environment. When you've got teachers who don't know what's going to happen to them next, who are being treated with a heavyhanded approach, who do not feel that it will matter any longer what kind of input they have, who are going to be overburdened with large classes and poor equipment....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to discuss the poor equipment, because I heard the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) interject: "Poor equipment?" If the Minister of Health has the time — and I know his ministry is a large and busy one — sometime, I'd suggest that he read some of the reports that came into the Minister of Education after some assessments were done on the level of science education in our schools. An interesting thing came out. It was found that science teaching was not really up to scratch in some areas. One of the reasons is outmoded equipment, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker. You see, it's so easy to knock the teacher, yet you've got to give them the proper tools. That does not mean a lot of extra frills. We're talking about some basic lab equipment, which is sorely lacking in many schools, to keep them up to date with teaching techniques.

I really get very concerned at generalized statements about the state of education, because when you actually start analyzing them, you find, like so many things in politics, they are not based on fact. Primarily, they're based on a person's own basic prejudice. As we've often said, everyone, I'm sure, has some bias, but I don't think there's any area other than education where you see so much of a person's personal bias coming forward.

[ Page 1489 ]

I'm trying to make some points on the reason for a hoist. There are so many areas in education which bring to our attention in this bill the fact that underlying it there is a radical change in philosophy. I say to the Social Credit government: you have not been given a mandate to do this. The public of B.C. Is not endorsing a radical right turn in politics. The last thing they want is a radical right turn in education. Yet this government seems to think that's the mandate they have. If they think that turning back the clock is going to meet with the approval of the people of B.C., if they think that limiting funds for education is going to be acceptable, I want to assure them that it's a very dangerous thing when you start tinkering politically with the lives of students in our school system. Ultimately that will be happening.

I'm sorry — I know that everyone else in this room is most sorry too — that I have had to come to an end. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you again for your great interest as I was speaking; it was not prevailing throughout the rest of the room, but I appreciate your interest. I just want to end by saying that we really want the government to give serious consideration to this motion to hoist.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that you had to experience this day, along with the rest of us. I don't think this is a day that the people of British Columbia are ever going to forget.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

We have rules in this House which are printed in a little book, the title of which is Standing Orders. Standing orders say that the leader of a recognized party, or a designated member, has no time limits in speaking on public bills, private bills or all other proceedings in the House. Today a decision was brought down which went absolutely counter to that fact. We found that the leader of the official opposition was.... Closure....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. I understand that we are attempting to debate the hoist motion. From what I've heard in the last few moments, you certainly do not appear to be relevant. I wonder if you would be prepared to restrict your remarks to the hoist amendment.

MS. BROWN: There's absolutely nothing that I can do about your inability to recognize relevance when it exists. All I can ask is that you listen. If you listen well enough, sooner or later — who knows? — you might be able to see the link.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that you are well aware of the tradition of showing some respect for the Chair. I would hope, hon. member, that you would be able to address the amendment before the House. I don't think that is a difficult request, and I would ask you to restrain your remarks to the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I am supporting the amendment. I am in favour of the hoist. One of the reasons that I'm in favour of the hoist is because of a decision brought down in this House earlier today — a disgraceful and reprehensible decision, which visited closure on the Leader of the Opposition and refused to allow him to speak on the most important piece of legislation in front of the House today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you seem to be insisting on challenging your right to speak on something that is clearly out of order. I'm sure the hon. member is well aware of the rule of the House that one does not reflect on a previous vote in this House. It obviously is a rule that should be honoured. I am surprised that you don't wish to maintain that decorum. Please restrain your remarks and speak to the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I am speaking to the amendment. I've said I support the amendment. One of the reasons that I support the amendment is based on a ruling brought down earlier today. I am supporting the amendment. I've made that absolutely clear, and I will continue to support the amendment for as long as I am permitted to speak in this House and until such time as another reprehensible ruling is brought down which removes from me my right to speak on the floor of this House.

MR. MOWAT: Shame!

MS. BROWN: What do you know about shame? If ever there was any shame, it's today that we've had shame.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. members on both sides of the House.... Hon. member, I would hope that you would be able to listen to the recommendation of the Chair. I hear you tempting me into a ruling that your remarks are totally out of order. I don't wish to do that at this moment. Please do not reflect upon a prior vote of this House. Restrict your comments to the hoist amendment, and I'm sure the rest of the House will give you the honour of listening quite attentively to your remarks.

MS. BROWN: Well, first of all, I would like the record to show that I would never like to be accused of tempting you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make that point absolutely clear right now. The second point I want to make clear is that I am speaking in support of this hoist motion, and I am speaking in support of this hoist motion because everything that has happened in this House today makes a couple of things absolutely clear. One thing is that there is absolutely no way that anyone could ever imagine or dream that this government cares one hoot for education in this province or for what the impact of their actions, either through legislation or otherwise, does to the children of this community. One of the reasons I am saying this is based on the kinds of decisions and experiences which we've had in this House today.

I'm not talking about reflecting on votes. I'm not discussing legislation which we dealt with earlier today. I'm talking about today in its total context. Everything that has happened today, including the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, who sits and yells: "Order, order, order...." I'm talking about the fact that the motto of this government is that ignorance is strength. That is what they believe in. We are discussing education. The Minister of Education is not even here.

[10:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Who wants to listen?

MS. BROWN: He doesn't want to listen. It makes sense. If anyone ever wondered what a jackboot fascist government was like, they certainly discovered what it was like today. Here we are discussing education, talking about the impact

[ Page 1490 ]

on the children of the province of a piece of legislation introduced by this government, and the Minister of Education is not even here.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's heard it 26 times.

MS. BROWN: Of course he's heard it before, and he has a responsibility to the children of this province to sit here and listen to it as often as that issue is raised. That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of fascist jackboot legislation that we've had to deal with in this House today — the kind of arrogance, the kind of immorality that we've had to deal with in this House today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member, you are being called to order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, hon. member, I find the words "jackboot" and "fascist" reprehensible. I find that they are not appropriate for this Legislature or for anyplace within a democratic system, and I would ask that that member withdraw them forthwith.

MR. COCKE: Since when was this democratic?

MR. VEITCH: If this is not democratic, Mr. Speaker, then the hon. members ought not to be here. They were elected in a democratic fashion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have heard another hon. member of this House advise that he has taken your comments personally to be offensive and contrary to the decorum that this House is accustomed to. Based upon that, I would ask that you withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with due respect, references made by my colleague from Burnaby....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will recognize the member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Very generous.

The references of my colleague from Burnaby with respect to fascist and jackboot related to the legislation and not to an individual or to any individual member in the House. If you're insisting upon a withdrawal of that, we're embarked upon, as we said earlier, a situation where a complaint by any member that he finds any word or even a speech objectionable, and asks for the whole thing to be withdrawn.... What if one were to say that they found the remarks of Mr. Speaker personally offensive, whatever they might be, and to ask that they be withdrawn? Is that what we're leading toward?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In that case, of course, those remarks would have been out of order.

MR. VEITCH: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I personally find them reprehensible, and I ask they be withdrawn forthwith.

MR. HOWARD: The only person reprehensible in here is the member himself

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. As I earlier said, it was the individual member referring to the fact that he personally took your comments to be offensive....

MR. HOWARD: Oh, too bad!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it is too bad, hon. member, and, very clearly, if everyone in this House saw fit to respect the decorum that we all....

MR. COCKE: Point of order — when you're through.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we all respect the decorum that this House is deserving of, we would not have many of the petty remarks that we are far too frequently hearing. Based upon that, hon. member, I am asking that you withdraw your remarks.

MR. COCKE: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, in 14 years I have never suffered the lack of freedom that I have suffered today in this House. To listen to that member stand up on that kind of a point of order is fallacious — absolutely fallacious.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, I don't consider that to be a valid comment on a point of order.

Going back to the point of order originally raised, I once again would ask you to withdraw the remarks which the other hon. member found personally offensive.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my surprise. I would have anticipated that that member would have considered the term fascist a compliment, that he would have accepted it as a badge of honour based on his behaviour and the behaviour of his government today. I thought I was congratulating the member when I called him a fascist....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. I would appreciate....

MS. BROWN: and his government's action fascism.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're not too bright.

MS. BROWN: But I'm honest and I have decency and I have integrity, and that's more than can be said about you and your government. I may not be bright, but I'm honest and decent, and that's more than can be said about you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask for order once more.

MS. BROWN: And I never beat my wife either.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're not too bright.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. minister!

Hon. member, I would ask for an unequivocal withdrawal of the remarks that a fellow hon. member of this House found offensive.

[ Page 1491 ]

MS. BROWN: Well, of course I'm going to withdraw it; I'm just expressing surprise. I'm very surprised.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. member, now that you have withdrawn the remarks, there is no need to carry on that point any further. I would ask you to continue with your debate on the motion.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I personally find the remarks across the floor of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) which were, "You are not too bright" — and I quote him directly — to be personally offensive. I would ask the minister to withdraw them and particularly ask him to apologize for not having the decency to stand up and say them, but for speaking from his seat and interjecting and interrupting Mr. Speaker when Mr. Speaker was trying to make a point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate the point of order.

MR. VEITCH: On the same point of order, I honestly find anyone who would call anyone in this chamber a fascist or a jackboot not too bright.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't believe that was in order either. In light of the comments of the hon. member for Skeena, I'd ask the hon. minister to withdraw his remarks.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I didn't suggest the member for Skeena was not too bright.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that, hon. minister, but I think your remarks were directed to another hon. member of this House and were out of order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, well, if the member found it offensive, I will withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: Similarly, I rise on a point of order with respect to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon and ask him to withdraw, because he stood up and said the same thing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, hon. member, I understood that hon. member to suggest that he felt one who said something was not too bright.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I find that offensive and reprehensible, and ask the member for Burnaby-Willingdon to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would hope, hon. members....

MR. VEITCH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. VEITCH: I find that anyone, in this parliamentary system in British Columbia and Canada at this point in time who uses the words "jackboot" or "fascist" is not very bright. If it's required, I will withdraw it, but I still stand by that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for withdrawing.

Hon. members, perhaps we could return to the debate. I think the point has been well made by both sides of the House. I think the hour is still relatively early and would hope that we wouldn't digress from the debate too far. Perhaps now the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds can continue with her debate.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that you're doing your best to keep in order a rather fractious House, but with all respect to the Chair, the debate here is sort of breaking down on the very point that I raised this afternoon as a point of order, where I said that if the Speaker, without any discretion, is to accept anybody's complaint, without any backing up, that a statement by another member of the House is offensive, virtually every member of this House could get to their feet on every point that's made by somebody on the other side of the House. Quite frankly, I found the Premier's remarks, to paraphrase the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), offensive and reprehensible. But in recognition of the Premier's right to freedom of speech, we allow him to speak.

What is simply going to happen here is that whenever any member makes a speech, people are going to get up and ask that some reference be withdrawn. Now clearly there occasionally are disgusting epithets thrown across the floor. We all recognize that, and the Speaker quite rightly asks that those be withdrawn. But I would like to point out that jackboots are not illegal in this country. Fascism is not illegal; in fact Nazism is not illegal. A person may consider those philosophies immoral or unethical, but there is no reason to withdraw those words other than the fact that one individual finds them reprehensible. I have known my colleagues on this side of the House to be called communists. They find that reprehensible too, but they recognize that it's freedom of speech for people to use words that accuse somebody of being something which is not illegal in Canada.

I would ask the Chair — I realize you are doing your best — to use some discretion in accepting the word of me or of anyone else who rises to say: "I find some other member's remarks reprehensible."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think your comments contain a tremendous amount of merit, and if my observations over the past few weeks have been accurate, I think the Chair in fact does exercise some discretion. As I said earlier, I think the point has been proven by comments from both sides of the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order raised by the member for Rossland-Trail, I think that if the remarks are not considered to be unparliamentary, then we must accept them as expressions of an individual member of the House — if they are not found to be unparliamentary. I would concur with the member for Rossland-Trail that there is certain language which may be used which may be offensive to an individual member, but which is not, nonetheless, unparliamentary. I think, in the interest of freedom of speech, a certain amount of latitude must be permitted by the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. I appreciate the remarks from both sides of the House. I appreciate the assistance and the tenor with which they were given, and

[ Page 1492 ]

now I would invite the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.... We have another point of order.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the member for Rossland-Trail, I consider the terms jackboot and fascist to be both immoral and unethical in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if I may, I would suggest that we have heard that point, and I think we have heard enough comments on this point. I would now ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds to continue with her speech.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I distinctly heard the member for Burnaby-Willingdon object to the term fascist because this government was elected under a democratic system. But I would also remind the House and remind you, Mr. Speaker, in asking that the word be withdrawn, that Hitler was also elected in a democratic election.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I really. think, hon. members....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are trying, I would hope, to show some restraint. We may find this to be an extremely long sitting of this august House, and I would hope, hon. members, that we all will maintain some degree of decorum and cooperation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be some possibility that we could get back to debate on the bill, because I think it has now been fairly firmly established in the name of democracy that slanderous terms are the order of the day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the member and would implore her to continue on the hoist motion.

[11:00]

MS. BROWN: The first thing I would like to do is to thank my colleague the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for rising to demand that the Minister of Health and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon withdraw their comments in terms of their assessment of my level of intelligence; and I would add that one of the criteria of ignorance is an inability to recognize superior intelligence when it has to deal with it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand your belief, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: So I'm willing to accept that the Minister of Health and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon may fail to recognize that when they refer to me as not being too bright, in fact they are displaying their own ignorance and stupidity rather than anything else.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would hope that that would conclude the remarks on this issue. Now that you have got that off your chest, so to speak, we may return to the motion before this House.

MS. BROWN: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, and I wish in fact that that were the conclusion. However, what we find in front of us is a piece of legislation which.... If one is not permitted, based on the comments of my colleague from Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and supported by the Minister of Health, to refer to the government in unparliamentary terms, I would like to use parliamentary terms to refer to Bill 6 as fascist, jackboot legislation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You wouldn't feel right if you didn't say something nasty.

MS. BROWN: No, I wouldn't feel right about it because I wouldn't be telling the truth. It's because I want to tell the truth that I am referring to this legislation exactly in the way in which I see it. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon, who stands up on the floor of this House and explains that he is personally offended by my comments about this legislation.... I wish that the only thing that Bill 6 did was to offend the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, because if the only thing that Bill 6 did was to offend the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, I wouldn't care. I couldn't care less; neither would my colleagues on this side of the House.

The reality of the situation is that Bill 6 goes further than that. What Bill 6 does is to usurp and to take away from democratically elected local school board members their rights and their prerogatives, and in that regard it is fascist legislation. That is the reason why I support the hoist and why I am opposed to it, because what the government does with this piece of legislation is to take unto itself....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: The first member for Surrey says "hear, hear, " and taps her desk when I say that the bill is fascist and deprives democratically elected members of their rights, because the bill takes unto itself responsibilities which the people in the local communities, when they are voting for their local school boards, believe that they are giving to them. When the people, including the people of Burnaby-Willingdon, vote for their local school board, they believe that they are vesting in those school boards certain responsibilities, powers, rights and prerogatives. What this bill does is to deprive, take away, erode and infringe on those powers, rights and prerogatives which the community thinks that in fact they are voting for and investing in their local school boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: You win.

MS. BROWN: Of course I win. The people always win. Decency always wins, integrity always wins, honesty always wins, principle always wins, but sometimes it takes time. You don't always win in the beginning. Sometimes you have to fight a little bit harder and a little bit longer, but the only reason that we continue to fight is because we believe that in the final analysis decency will win. Integrity, honesty, morality and all those kinds of things which we see being trampled under foot by this government will win in the final analysis. Of Course we are in a minority, of course we are in opposition, and of course we need the protection of the Chair and its rulings and its decisions. But we continue to fight because we

[ Page 1493 ]

know that in the final analysis the real power in any democracy lies with the people. What we are fighting to ensure is that this remains a democracy.

We know that democracies are always under attack. They are never safe; they are never secure. No one can ever relax in a democracy and take it for granted, because we know that the foes of democracy are ever vigilant. They don't rest, they don't relax, they don't take anything for granted, because they hate the democratic process, they hate democracies, and they are continually trying to overthrow them. The battle goes on. If it has to go on on the floor of this House until five minutes after 11 or until ten minutes after 11, or until tomorrow morning or the day after or the day after or the day after that, those of us who believe in democracy will have to stay here as long as it is necessary, as long as it is humanly possible, and carry on this battle.

Asking for a hoist of six months is really asking for a stay of execution. That is really all that is. We know that the government is not going to change its position. We know that its determination to ride roughshod over the rights of people of this province is not something that they are ever going to give up. We know that — that they are hell-bent and determined to enslave every member of this community. We know that the best way to enslave a group is to deprive them of an education, because what an education does, Mr. Speaker, is to arm you with tools so that you can question and make choices and fight back. It is not possible for fascism to succeed where people are educated.

The first thing that any fascist government, totally committed to its principles, has to do is to destroy the education system. We know that. We know that if all of us speak on the hoist, and if all of us vote against it, we're going to lose, because it is not possible for this government to realize its goals, to carry out its determination or to enslave the people of this province without first destroying the education system. We know that. But despite that knowledge, realization and recognition, we also know that we have to live with ourselves and with our own children.

We know that there is absolutely no way that we can face ourselves if we refuse to fight as long as we can, with the limited tools and weapons permitted to us under this oppressive government, against this onslaught of fascism which we recognize is moving onto this province today. We stand here, at any hour of the night or day, and speak in support of this hoist.

When we go back to the main motion, we will fight that too because we recognize that the motto of this government, the motto of 1984, is that "ignorance is strength." We know and recognize that. Bill 6, Bill 20, Bill 7, Bill 3, Bill 22 and Bill 17 — you name them, it doesn't matter what you say — all have one thing in common, and that is the destruction of the democratic process, the erosion of the rights and freedoms of people, and the onslaught of slavery, oppression and fascism in this province today.

I can draw on 300 years of experience; I can do that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I didn't think you were that old, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: That's how old I am. I may be older than that, I don't know. Certainly my racial memory goes back 300 years. Maybe if my grandmother or my great-grandmother were standing here, their racial memory would go back further than that. I know that there is absolutely no difference between what this government is doing here today and what the government of South Africa is doing today, or what previous governments in the United States and other parts of the world did when they introduced slavery as part of their heritage and way of life.

You have to keep people ignorant, uneducated and in a situation where they do not have the ability to question or make rational and reasonable choices. You have to keep them in a state where they believe anything that you tell them, and you cannot do that with a civilization and a society as advanced and sophisticated as ours without first undermining and then destroying the education process. That's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about a simple little piece of legislation that affects school board 41 in Burnaby, or a school board in Omineca, Prince George or wherever.

What we are talking about is a package, a dream and a goal which this government has: to erode the rights and freedoms of every British Columbian. You don't wipe out the Human Rights Commission or the human rights branch and expect to get away with that when you have a highly educated community to deal with. You don't expect that the children who will grow up to be adults and inherit that are going to accept it, unless they're ignorant, uneducated and stupid. If that kind of conservative, right-wing fascism is supposed to succeed, you cannot have an education system that enhances and enriches the children of this province. The onslaught of education is the erosion of our whole way of life. The government members laugh. They think this is hilarious. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is convulsed with laughter; the member from Cranbrook thinks it's hilarious.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, he thinks it humorous. He thinks that to erode education is a funny thing. He doesn't know what you would do if you had an education. We are discussing Bill 6....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: ... which is a bill having to do with education.

[11:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nonetheless, hon. member, reference to other members of this chamber is not in order under this particular bill. I'm sure the member is well aware of that.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'll just take those remarks from whence they came.

MS. BROWN: That's not even good grammar, for god's sake. If you're going to rise on a point of order, get your participles, gerunds, infinitives and things in order. This is ridiculous — "from whence they came."

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what we're speaking to at this time is Bill 6 and the reasons why that particular piece of legislation should be hoisted for six months. As I said before when speaking to this bill, I go through the motions. I'm speaking in support of the hoist. I do this knowing that even if the government members vote in support of it, it's a stay of execution. That's all it is. It's not a victory. It's nothing we have won. It doesn't mean that there is any recognition of the importance of education and what it means to the children of

[ Page 1494 ]

this province. But I have to go through it; I have no choice. I have to live with myself, as do my colleagues. I have to face my own children, who are going to be victimized by this piece of legislation.

Today I had a visit from a person who is the ombudsman for the island of Jamaica. There was a meeting in this city recently of ombudsmen from all over the world. He was sitting in the galleries today when the Leader of the Opposition was thrown out of the House. He met with me afterwards and said: "I need a detailed explanation of what I just saw taking place on the floor of the House today." I explained to him. I said: "You are from a Third World country." Jamaica is no big deal; it's a poor country. It has a conservative government. "What we have here in British Columbia is a tradition of democracy that goes back to the beginning of our parliament in 1867 or whatever, but what you saw today is something that we have not witnessed in this Legislature since that time." We saw the destruction of the democratic process. We saw the erosion of rights and justice. We saw absolute arrogance and a cavalier treatment of decency, integrity and morality as we've never experienced it in this province before.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Most British Columbians weren't here and didn't see that. Most British Columbians may not even know or hear today or tomorrow about what that means. In time the precedent established here today is going to impact on all of us, on our children and on their children too. Something very ugly, destructive and sad happened on the floor of this Legislature today. It would not and could not have happened — and will not rest — if we have an education system in this province that equips and arms our people with the knowledge to question and challenge the threats to the democratic process which this government visits upon them from day to day through its legislation and rulings.

It makes sense. You don't start off by ruining the health care system. People can be sick and still be intelligent, informed, educated and knowledgeable, and question and challenge. People can be homeless and still be intelligent, educated and knowledgeable, and challenge. People can be poor....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time is up, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: ... and still be intelligent and knowledgeable, and challenge. But without an education, and under a system in which there is no hope of education, people cease to challenge and cease to question and cease to fight against the erosion of their rights. That's the tragedy embodied in this piece of legislation and the reason why I support the hoist.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to take up the time of the House for any great length at this particular hour. But I think it rather a shame that all the public of British Columbia could not have had an opportunity to hear the member who just concluded with the accelerated rhetoric which was shared by only four of her colleagues who were able to attend the House at this particular hour. We've had the difficulty in British Columbia....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to correct the member for Vancouver-Point Grey....

MS. BROWN: ... who is deliberately misleading the House.

MR. MITCHELL: "Deliberately misleading the House" is absolutely correct. There are only four Social Credit members sitting on that side of the House. If he's going to make those kinds of statements, I insist that he be fair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take off my shoes and socks to get into a counting contest with the member for Mackenzie, but I think the point is well illustrated that in British Columbia we're having a rather sorry reflection on the concepts of the Legislature and democracy.

My good friends opposite fail to recollect the lessons and the clear mandate which were part of the election campaign only last May. The leader of their party campaigned — the ex-leader now — then on abandoning restraint in British Columbia. That was the burden of the NDP campaign. The Premier of British Columbia, probably alone among leaders in North America — certainly in Canada — campaigned not on promises but on restraint. Election after election, government after government, we were going before the public....

MR. COCKE: I was telling you about health care.

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure. Of course. The member for New Westminster established records, when he was a minister, in giving away public funds. There's little doubt about that.

MR. COCKE: Did I build the university hospital, Pat? You were the one who did that.

HON. MR. McGEER: My friends opposite are agitated, and I can understand their agitation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The minister will please speak to the hoist.

HON. MR. McGEER: I am speaking to the hoist precisely that. The burden of the debate, whether it's a three and a half hour debate on whether we should have a sitting of this House two hours later or whether it's a hoist on this particular bill, really comes back to the fundamental question which was decided on May 6: namely, that the province of British Columbia could not afford to continue its profligate spending ways. That party opposite, now the opposition — to continue as opposition in future elections — campaigned on the premise that restraint was bad for British Columbia and they would spend their way into prosperity. The public rejected that notion, yet the rhetoric lingers on.

It's not just the rhetoric; it's the refusal of the New Democratic Party and their supporters in Solidarity, many of whom we have had in the galleries this evening.... They have stayed with us on the premise that the minority should govern British Columbia, that people should occupy the

[ Page 1495 ]

offices of the cabinet because they couldn't get their way, that the opposition should not assume the traditional role of opposition, namely to present their arguments and have their say. No, Mr. Speaker, the insistence that they have their way too, that the majority in British Columbia should not rule, that restraint should not prevail because the minority does not wish restraint: that's the proposition being put forward by Solidarity and their friends in the NDP The minority should govern British Columbia and restraint should be abandoned, not because the electorate didn't support it but because it didn't satisfy the minority in British Columbia. Somehow the government should fail and abandon the plans to govern in the long-term interest of the majority of British Columbians and instead should govern in the short-term interest of the few who are supported by the NDP. That's not a proposition that any government can accept.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought we were debating Bill 6. I do not believe that the point on Solidarity or anything else is involved in the hoisting of Bill 6. I think he's way out of order and I believe you have an obligation to bring him to order and to get back to debating the reason why the hoist motion should pass.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are debating the hoisting of Bill 6, but the Chair has allowed a great deal of latitude up to this time. I would ask the minister to make his remarks more pertinent to the hoisting of Bill 6, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, help me out. Is Solidarity not in favour of hoisting Bill 6? Is Solidarity not in the galleries this evening to support the NDP? Am I wrong in that presumption? Why did the galleries suddenly fill up at 6 o'clock this evening with Solidarity people? Were they not here, Mr. Speaker, to give their orders to the NDP? Wasn't that why they arrived? I think that was the reason, Mr. Speaker. I don't think the opposition is in control of their own destiny. I think they're under orders — that's what I think. Perhaps that's wrong. I suppose the NDP could get up this evening and disavow any association with Solidarity; they could claim their independence from Solidarity; they could say that Solidarity is not in favour of hoisting Bill 6; they could say that Solidarity is not in favour of the restraint program in British Columbia. They could say all of these things but I don't think they will. Do you know why I don't think they will? Because it isn't so.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: You're in the pocket of Solidarity — that's the fact. You're in their pockets. Stand up and be an independent opposition. Stand up and play your role, as you should, but don't join with those who favour anarchy in British Columbia. Don't join with those who would try to govern British Columbia as a rabble who would occupy offices. That's not the Canadian way. We're a tolerant people, Mr. Speaker, but we can't have government by a minority. We can't have a jackboot opposition or a jackboot Solidarity, because the stakes are too high for the public of British Columbia.

[11:30]

The members opposite mistake the majority mandate for tyranny of the minority, which is what they want to practise. After all, that was what fascism was about: the tyranny of the minority, not the rule of the majority. What is being practised in this Legislature and what was made very clear during the last election campaign was the direction British Columbians wanted their government to take. That's what it's all about. That's what restraint is about and that's what this bill is about. That's why the motion of the NDP to hoist that bill has got to be rejected. That motion is not the will of the majority; it is inspired by the tyranny of the minority. To hear the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), as we just did, stand up and talk about fascism when we have people in British Columbia walking in and occupying offices, trying to push the majority of British Columbia around to suit their special interest — that's when democracy is threatened. The place for the opposition to have its say is right in this legislative chamber. That's where you present your view. But the way the opposition gets its way in British Columbia is not by attempting to tyrannize the government and, through them, the majority of British Columbians. It's to go out and win your mandate honestly and fairly, to go out to the electorate of British Columbia and get support for profligate spending, if that's your policy, get support for favouring the labour unions or for Solidarity, if that's your policy. If the policy of the New Democratic Party is to appeal to the mainstream of British Columbians, to support the long-term good of the majority of British Columbians, forget for once that you're there to favour special interests but instead say: "We in the New Democratic Party want to govern for all British Columbians, not just the few. We want to support the future of British Columbia, the best economic future in the long run, and not our special friends." When the New Democratic Party begins to say those things, stands up in this Legislature and begins to act responsibly in opposition, when it begins to support legislation that will produce a good result for all British Columbians and not their special friends, that's the time you'll be able to go to the electorate of this province and win a majority. But all that we're seeing from the opposition here tonight, as we've seen during this whole legislative sitting, is not for the good of all British Columbians or of the long-term interests of our province but is instead continuing to support the special interests of the few, the ones that you're linked to, the labour movement, part of the New Democratic Party, the special interests in British Columbia, the labour leaders....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, all of those people, but not the average British Columbian.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: They want to hear about all these people. They don't want to hear very much about their friends, about the vested interests they support. No, they're not here to support all of British Columbians.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've been doing my best to listen to the remarks being given by the minister now speaking, but I hear nothing but jabbering from across the floor. It seems that the members opposite, especially the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), have never forgiven the people of British Columbia for turfing them out of office in 1975, and refuse to accept the results of democratic elections in this province....

[ Page 1496 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, what's your point of order, please?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I cannot hear the member speaking for the jabbering from the members opposite.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. minister would please continue, it's getting quite difficult to appreciate the relevancy to the hoisting of Bill 6.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, if it's the pleasure of the House, I can continue explaining it, Mr. Speaker. I'm doing my best.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As long as it's hoisting Bill 6, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: You can understand the difficulty, with so much agitation over there. I want to tell you the reason for that agitation, because it's often not totally apparent to the Chair. They don't like to hear the truth over there. That's the problem. We're debating the hoisting of Bill 6, and as you know I'm not in favour of that hoist. I believe in Bill 6; I believe in the restraint program; I believe that the majority of British Columbians have been waiting a long time — too long — for government to come up and say: "No more legislation for the special interests. No more catering to the few." What we've got to begin to look at is what's going to be good for all British Columbians in the future: equal treatment for all, special privileges for none. Can the New Democratic Party understand the meaning of that phrase? Those are tough words for our friends opposite, because the basis of the New Democratic Party is special privileges for some. That's been the whole basis of the New Democratic Party's existence, and when the New Democratic Party goes to the general public and says, "This is our program, " they can see through the fact that it is special privileges for some. That's the problem with their party. It shows up again and again. When they can't get those special privileges they try and filibuster the House. They try and prevent legislation which gives equal treatment for all. That's the purpose of Bill 6. That's the purpose of the whole restraint program. That's what the Social Credit election platform was all about. That's what the people supported. But no, the New Democratic Party couldn't accept that decision, any more than they can accept the proper role of the opposition in the House, which is to have its say but not to try and govern British Columbia. I would submit that the best course of action for the New Democratic Party is to be a responsible opposition. Make your arguments, make them eloquently, but don't try and push around the people of British Columbia. If they want to govern, then what they must do is to develop a program that broadly appeals to British Columbia, that isn't a program designed for the few special interests that their party represents. That's the challenge to the party. Broaden your platform. Develop a better outlook, Don't keep coming back trying to run the House and trying to run British Columbia for the benefit of the few people who are your supporters.

This catering to the minority is why they didn't win in 1933. That's why they didn't win in 1937. That's why they didn't win in 1941. That's why they didn't win in 1945. That's why they didn't win in 1949, or in 1952, or in '53, or in '56, or in '60, or in '63, or in '66, or in '69. Do you know why they won in 1972?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not because a majority of the people supported them, but because the free enterprise vote was all over the place. But we believe in unity now, and that's why the NDP were defeated in 1975, and in 1979, and in 1983. And that's why, until the New Democratic Party changes its ways here in the House, they're going to continue to be defeated again and again and again. So once more, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the New Democratic Party: abandon your attempts to govern British Columbia from a minority position. Abandon those attempts. We cannot have government by the minority. No democracy can. Change your policy. Begin to appeal to the broad stream of British Columbians. Tell those people in Solidarity that they're just a minority. Begin to act responsibly here in this House, and maybe at some time in the future — God forbid it should happen — if the New Democratic Party entirely changes their ways, they'll be government in British Columbia. In the meantime, the best thing the New Democratic Party could do is learn to be a responsible opposition, which they've been unable to do in this session of the Legislature.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to follow the former leader of the Liberal Party: a man who failed as leader of the Liberal Party when he was the leader of that party, in opposition for several years; a man who failed as an author when he wrote Politics in Paradise; a man who failed even at sexing whales — he couldn't tell the boys from the girls; a man who failed even to develop new speech notes for his speeches in the Legislature; a man who has failed in everything he's done. Finally, at the end of his political career, he was forced to submit, over the objections of the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), to join the Social Credit Party. He's failed at everything he's ever done, except possibly to buy himself tenure at the University of British Columbia by building a huge white elephant of a hospital.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke talked about the tyranny of the minority. He demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of one of the principles of democracy, That is that the majority has a right to govern, but always with respect for the rights of the minority. In a democracy that is the key element, not the fact that the majority has a right to rule and to do whatever they please, but that the majority must rule with respect for the wishes of the minority. And this, Mr. Speaker, is what we're dealing with in debate on this amendment. This government has totally ignored the rights of minorities in this province, has totally ignored the rights of students in this province, has totally ignored the rights of public sector employees in this province, has totally ignored the rights of the aged and the handicapped in this province, has totally ignored the rights of every minority in this province. That is the problem we're concerned about here. The minister who was born at the public trough, who has lived all his life in the public trough, who has never worked a day in his life — never had to work a day in his life, was born to this status in life....

[ Page 1497 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are quite a few personal reflections, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Probably not enough, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: They still are out of order, and I will ask the hon. member to avoid making personal references to another hon. member.

On the point of order, the hon. member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has been far more relevant to the hoist motion than the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was at any time in his speech. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications said absolutely nothing about the hoist. He spent his entire speech upbraiding the opposition and asking us to do something he would like us to do, which had nothing to do with the speech. If his relevancy was to be tested it should have been tested. My colleague's relevancy is far more relevant than his.

[11:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order raised just recently by your Speaker was not one of relevancy, hon. member. I believe the member is being quite relevant. It's the personal reflections about another hon. member. I am sure the member for Alberni is quite aware of that.

MR. SKELLY: I thank you for the suggestion that I was relevant. Was I relevant, Mr. Speaker, when I said he had failed as leader of the Liberals? Was I relevant when I said he failed as an author? Was I relevant when I said he failed even in sexing whales? Was I relevant when I said he failed even to develop new speech notes? Every one of his speeches in this Legislature, for all of the 11 years that I have been a member of this Legislature, have been exactly the same. He has never demonstrated an ounce of originality in all of the time he has been in this Legislature. I wonder how the people in Point Grey can continue to elect that person — except that they like to have him out of town for the best part of the week.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure we can be relevant to the hoist motion, hon. member, and not cast personal reflections.

The hon. minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: I was only attempting to help the member out, because they are slow learners over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Alberni continues speaking to the hoist motion to Bill 6, the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act.

MR. SKELLY: We were certainly quick to pick up that member's number, Mr. Speaker.

The member did talk about the tyranny of the minority. As I said before, it displays a fundamental ignorance of democratic principles on the part of that particular minister and of the party that talks about receiving a mandate in the May 5 general election. We respect the fact that that election on May 5 gave this party, through their majority of members, the right to govern in the province of British Columbia, but no action taken by this government that we perceive to be immoral, undemocratic or an attack on the rights of the minorities, as I mentioned before, can be accepted by this opposition simply by some statements of platitudes, then sit down and allow the government to work its will against the people. That is not the role of the opposition; the opposition's role is to defend the rights of minorities and to defend the rights of people in this province. That election was like a photograph that froze in time the wishes and the political beliefs of the people on May 5, 1983 — months before they were aware of what the Social Credit legislative program would be and months before they knew this government was going to make an all-out frontal attack on the rights of human beings in this province. That election on May 5 did give Social Credit a majority, but that was a majority frozen in time. Majorities form up again around new issues. You lied to the people of this province about what you planned to do after May 5, 1983. You kept secret the financial position of this province, and only released that after May 5, 1983.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver South rises on a point of order.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard the member opposite who is speaking say: "You lied." Is that not a personal reference that is unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. If the member has found offence, perhaps we could ask the hon. member to withdraw the unparliamentary terminology.

MR. SKELLY: Of course.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The debate continues.

MR. SKELLY: As I was saying, that majority was frozen in time on May 5. A government in a democracy cannot always hark back to May 5 and say that they have a right to destroy democracy because of this vote they received several months ago or several years ago as the government progresses through its term. The government has an obligation in a democracy to respect the rights of minorities. As I was saying, it is those rights that you have attacked since you've come to government that call that mandate that you received on May 5 into question. As I was saying, these people who call the Solidarity movement a minority may not be aware of the numbers involved in the Solidarity coalition. We don't know what those numbers are because we haven't had a vote again. We haven't had a vote of confidence in the programs and policies brought down by the current government.

There's no way that these people can say that they have public support for the things that they've done in attacking human rights and the public education system; in undermining the system of colleges, universities and institutes of higher education in this province. There's no way they can say that they have a mandate unless they submit it to the test of an election again, and they're certainly unwilling to do that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Moody Mission.

MR. SKELLY: The Provincial Secretary, in his mechanical way, is calling "Moody Mission, Moody Mission"

[ Page 1498 ]

across the floor. The Socreds never participated in that election, unless they were undercover again, unless they were a fifth column again. The minister left the room, and considering his contribution to public education, he's probably best outside in the hall having a smoke.

MS. BROWN: That's right — bugger off.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the hoist please, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to talk about Bill 6 and about the education system in this province, about the advisability of hoisting this bill to give this government some time to do what we and the people out there say the government should be doing — not simply the people in the Solidarity coalition, not simply teachers, but all of the people out there who are connected with the education system. You and 1, Mr. Speaker, are aware of one of the groups that are involved. I used to be a school trustee myself in Qualicum, as I understand you were a trustee in Prince George. So we are aware of some of the problems of public education from that point of view, Mr. Speaker.

This government has made a direct attack on people who also have a mandate: a mandate to serve their local citizens on school boards; a mandate to manage the public education system, from the local point of view; a mandate to manage school properties, to transport children to and from school, to manage the day-to-day operations of schools, to hire teachers and that type of thing. You know the obligations which are placed on school boards in this province. School trustees have been demanding for years from the provincial government the right to some autonomy in their own affairs. Those are the people, as you and I know, Mr. Speaker, and as people in this room know, who have been elected as school trustees. It is important for those trustees to have some autonomy in dealing with educational affairs in those communities.

What this minister and this government are doing in this bill is centralizing the authority of government and removing power from the local school boards, making those school boards nothing more than a rubber stamp, even though they were elected by a democratic electoral process in those local areas. Not only has this government misinterpreted its mandate by misleading the people of this province, but it has also attacked the mandate of others who were democratically elected to local levels of government such as the school board, and they have no right to do that.

As I explained before, when you spread the power and the authority to deal with education around, you come up with a number of alternative approaches to the same problem. You come up with a lot more originality, because many minds deal with the problems and come up with different solutions and alternatives, and some may be better than others. The better solutions become instructive to other school boards and school trustees, and as a result of the application of many minds to the solution of problems at the local level, we have a constantly improving system of education. When you eliminate the power and authority of school trustees and apply only one mind to solving problems, then you are more vulnerable to making mistakes. We all know that. It's fundamental that when you apply the mind of one person to solving problems, that person is more vulnerable to making mistakes.

Let's look at some of the examples from the past, Mr. Speaker — some of the Social Credit examples between 1976 and 1983.

AN HON. MEMBER: Atlin's number one; you're four!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. members not to interject.

MR. SKELLY: It's always good to be number four with Social Credit, Mr. Speaker. It improves my position.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have some order. The member for Alberni will continue.

MR. SKELLY: I think the Socreds feel that they even have a mandate to select the NDP leader in this province, Mr. Speaker. They've already shown that many minds can produce a mistake.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We've had quite enough, hon. members. The member for Alberni will continue on the hoist motion uninterrupted.

MR. SKELLY: I'm struggling to continue, Mr. Speaker.

I pointed out that when you only apply one mind to the solution of a problem, you tend to be vulnerable to making mistakes. You can look at some recent examples in the Social Credit government. I recall when the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) set up his heroin treatment program. That was just an example of how one mind applied to a complex problem can result in a tremendous mistake. At one time we asked him in the House why he was going on with a heroin treatment system that had been shown to be a failure everywhere else in the world. He said: "Because it hasn't been tried by Social Credit before." It was an even bigger failure under Social Credit. It cost the taxpayers at least $14 million, and probably more when the full impact of the error is uncovered. What would the government do if it had that $14 million today to spend on the education system in this province? Instead it was blown on a useless heroin treatment program that has never worked anywhere in the world. That's what happens when you apply the mind of one minister to the solution of a complex problem.

Here's another example: a former member of this Legislature and a former minister from Victoria, the Hon. Sam Bawlf. Do you remember Sam Bawlf? He was responsible for various recreation programs in the ministry, and I think they demoted him to deregulation. This was the minister who took some lottery funds and bought a schooner on the west coast of the United States, and sailed that schooner around and ran it on the rocks in the Panama Canal. He wasted hundreds of thousands of B.C. tax dollars running that schooner on the rocks in the Panama Canal. That's what happens when you apply one Social Credit mind to the solution of a complex problem.

Interjections.

[ Page 1499 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister will come to order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I was explaining that when you apply one Social Credit mind to a complex problem, you end up being vulnerable to mistakes. What you should be doing is distributing that power so that more people have the authority to analyze those problems and come up with much better solutions. But this government has declared a vote of non-confidence, even in the people who elected it.

[12:00]

I don't know if you were a school trustee at the time, Mr. Speaker, when they did what they called the "organization and priorities report." It examined school trustees around the province to find out how representative they were of the province as a whole. Do you recall the organization and priorities report of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, Mr. Speaker? Nod your head. You really do remember, don't you? In any case, they did this report, and it showed that school trustees were more likely to be Social Crediters than they were to be NDP members. They were more likely to come from a higher socio-economic stratum in the community than a lower one, which is the stratum that most of their students came from. They were also more likely to be Social Credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did they get there? Were they voted in?

MR. SKELLY: That's right, and that's what I'm saying. Here we have a Social Credit government which has declared a vote of non-confidence in their own members at the local level — not simply in local governments that are dominated by NDPers but in their own membership at the local level. That tells you something, I suppose, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I thought it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs who was fired on television. The Premier told him to keep his mouth shut because he was embarrassing the government. Was it Bill Ritchie?

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I'm saying that a distribution of the power and a distribution of educational authority throughout the province to the local levels of government provides a better system of education for the people in this province. It provides new approaches to problems that face educators around the province. It also results in a saving of money for the provincial government, because when you put many minds to one task, people generally come up with better ideas to reduce school costs. But this government has some kind of difficulty in dealing with the process of consultation. They don't like to go out and talk to people. They don't like to involve themselves in that absolutely necessary day-to-day followup to an election, which is the day-to-day consultation with the people affected by government and especially with local governments who are affected. That's one of the problems with Social Credit. They believe that being elected on one day out of five years gives them an absolute right to rule without consultation for the rest of the term. That's a gross misunderstanding of what democracy is all about.

Another reason that I'm supporting this hoist is the fact that the Socreds have consistently attacked public education.

This is part and parcel of their attack on public education. They never really liked public education. Many of them were never really very successful at it in any case, but they've always had some kind of....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You can't be serious.

MR. SKELLY: We got a response there. Many of them have not been that successful at it, but they always have the same kind of response to educated people and to education. They always have the same kind of response to everything a kind of mechanical response.

When they first came into office, we had a problem of inflation. What was their answer to inflation? Restraint. Then we went into a recession as a result of the application of restraint. What was their response to recession? More restraint.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Then why did the rest of the country follow?

MR. SKELLY: The rest of the country hasn't followed. Saying that the rest of the country has followed the restraint program has been a bit of propaganda that has been developed by the Social Credit government.

First of all, your program is not necessarily a restraint program. How many provincial governments across Canada have increased their spending to the extent that this government has increased spending this year — at twice the rate of inflation? How many people have taken a direct attack on the paid employees, as this government has? Remember that government salaries represent only 12.7 percent of the total expenditures of this government according to the Ministry of Finance. Even if you cut them in half....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I would suggest that the Minister of Highways either read the report of the Ministry of Finance or get somebody to read it to him. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, they have a graph in there so you can tell just by looking at the graph that we're dealing with a very small percentage of total government expenditures when we're talking about the salaries of government employees. Even if you cut....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I'm having trouble with the disorder in the House, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken, hon. member. Will the House please come to order.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, even if you cut the salaries of government employees in half, the budget would still increase at about 6.15 percent this year, which is about equal to the rate of inflation. So you wouldn't be solving the problem that the Socreds are attempting to address. You would be creating some serious problems, but you wouldn't be solving the problem that the Socreds claim to be addressing.

The Socreds talk about the restraint program as a justification for crushing the protection of human rights in this province. That's not restraint at all.

[ Page 1500 ]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Especially that minister who has so much to say from his seat. I suppose we all heard him on the CBC radio show yesterday morning talking about rent controls. He was blubbering and floundering around that issue. He didn't even know what he was talking about. This is the minister who doesn't even know what's happening in his own ministry.

MS. BROWN: Lack of education, is it?

MR. SKELLY: No, it can't be a lack of education. I think he's just so ideologically hidebound that he's used to dealing in slogans instead of the reality.

First of all, he didn't know that most of the residential tenancies in this province are decontrolled in any case.

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I stand to be corrected, but I believe we're on Bill 6 and not the residential tenancy at this point. Possibly the gentleman who has the floor could be advised as to which bill we're speaking on and be relevant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Could the member confine his remarks to the hoist amendment to Bill 6.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about restraint and how the Socreds have applied restraint to education. They've always attacked education. It's always been a problem with Social Credit. I can remember when Dan Campbell was in this House. I think he was even a Minister of Education at one time, and he was even a teacher at one time. He was attacking those airy-fairy programs in the Ministry of Education. It's been a traditional Social Credit attack. In fact, it's been a traditional right-wing attack. The right wing has always attacked education. They've always had a fear of people who are educated. They have always been so concerned that they are free thinkers. They don't think in a rigid, straight-ahead type of direction. They don't have a consistent, predictable and mechanical response to apply to every set of problems that presents itself in the world, like this Social Credit government does. When you're presented with inflation, the answer is restraint. When you're presented with recession, the answer is restraint. No matter what problem presents itself to this government, they have a mechanical response to it — restraint.

They even try to squeeze the problems of human rights and the problems of security of tenure for tenants into this issue of restraint. That's what I was trying to get at. We've known for decades that they've been opposed to the public education system. This is the political philosophy that has always attacked the public education system. This is the political philosophy and party that has burned the books and always had this fear of education.

We know that in these days of economic recession and these days of changes in the economic structure of our country, education is the last thing you should be cutting back. What we should be doing....

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: It is well known that in the countries around the world, where dictatorships prevail and where the kind of attitude that this government holds prevails, one of the areas of public policy that suffers most is the system of education. We look at the countries in Central America where literacy rates are abysmally low. Look at countries around the world where literacy rates are declining and where the incidence of dictatorial governments is increasing. This province is probably no exception.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, these are the last times that we should be cutting down on education. These are the worst times to be cutting down on education. A 12.3 percent increase in the budget — and most of that going to welfare — and only a 7 percent increase to education doesn't even keep up with the cost of education.

As I was saying, this is the worst of times to be cutting back on education. They're cutting back on education in a number of ways, not simply cutting back on the budget for school boards, colleges and universities but also cutting back in the access for students to go to seek career changes through education or to go to high schools and universities. The expenses that they're forced to bear under this government have increased, but the support paid by this government to students is declining.

[12:15]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, for example, during the last depression Franklin D. Roosevelt said that the last thing you should cut back on is education. If we. hope to recover from the current economic crisis, and if we hope to appropriately deal with the economic crisis that is going to come as a result in the change of the economic structure in this country, we are going to have to have young people who are capable of changing careers rapidly and capable of adapting to new changes in the economy. One of the problems we're facing in British Columbia now is a result of the inadequate education system we have. It's a system that's starved for funds. Students are starved for funds and proper support. As a result of that we are not going to have young people who are capable of dealing with or adapting quickly to those changes in the future.

Alvin Toffler in his book The Third Wave said that 99 percent of the scientists who ever lived are alive today. When some of the people on the other side of this House were first elected to this House, there were no computers in this country — or there was one computer that filled two rooms. When some of the people on the other side of the House were first elected, the first commercial jetliner had only been successfully operating for a year — 1959 and 1960. We are involved in a whole new era, and changes are taking place much quicker that at any time in the past.

This government is trying to take us back to an old era of education. They call it back to the basics — back to the old times when the teacher was the ruthless authoritarian and had control of the class. Everybody learned the same thing — the three Rs. They even brought back standardized tests, and standardized tests have been examined around the developed world and found to be an indicator of nothing of value. For one thing, they take up a tremendous amount of time of teachers and students during the end of school terms. For another thing, they cost a tremendous amount. They are an extra cost burden on schools, and they take away from the educational process. It's very difficult to standardize a school

[ Page 1501 ]

system that stretches from the 49th parallel to the Yukon border. It's simply impossible. To try to standardize all of those students within the requirements of standardized examinations is expensive and doesn't make any sense at all — not to mention the stress that it puts on students. In some cases that stress has led to suicide, dropouts and other problems.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: If the minister denies that, then I challenge him. I'll produce the figures and the results for him. Standardized tests have never been proven to accomplish anything worthwhile in terms of education or improvements in education.

This right-wing political philosophy has always attacked basic public education. This right-wing political philosophy of the Social Credit Party has always attacked consultation with the public and has always ignored the right of students, teachers and parents to be consulted on what's happening in the educational system. This party is anti-democratic and anti-education, and for that reason the government should hoist this bill and give themselves an opportunity to rethink their position on education. They should travel around the province through a mechanism such as a select standing committee of this Legislature to consult with teachers, students, university and college and institute personnel, parents and communities to find out what the goals and aspirations are of the people in those communities with respect to education.

It's not enough to say that you were given a mandate on May 5, because all that does is freeze public opinion in time — the public opinion that was held by people on one single day. This is a government that believes in polling. It's of no more value than last month's polls as a guide for government action. This government should be consulting on a daily basis out in the community. That's why we feel that this bill should be hoisted.

Thank you very much for your attention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought that with all the chatter from across the floor perhaps a government member would get up and say something useful, something positive, something negative or something about the hoist on this bill.

Social Credit won the last election. Well, holy smoke! Wasn't that novel! They said that just because they won the last election they have a right to do anything they wish to do in this House and in this province. That is not so. They lied to us, Mr. Speaker. The government lied to us in the last election. I'm not saying that anyone lied; I'm telling you that the government....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, please. During this debate to date, hon. members have been kind enough to avoid using that particular term. I'm sure that the member could convey his message without using that particular term. That's just a comment to the hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Members who are now sitting on the government benches did not tell us and the people of this province the truth during the last election. Nowhere during the course of that election campaign — and I'm now referring back to the speech made by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — and he dealt with this topic at some length — did they tell us that they were going to bring in a bill that would take the autonomy away from local school boards. Nowhere in that last election campaign did they tell us that they were going to increase user fees or that they were going to bring in legislation to do away with human rights. Nowhere in that election campaign did they say those kinds of things.

Worse than that, earlier this evening and for the first time, to my knowledge, in the history of this province, that same minister brought in a motion invoking closure in this Legislature. That minister who spoke earlier this evening was a Liberal, then a Conservative and then a Social Credit Party member, and is now a complete fascist, in my view.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'll ask the hon. member to please withdraw that remark in terms of good parliamentary decorum and behaviour. It is a personal reflection which another member may find offensive, and the Chair does not appreciate that type of language. Will the member please withdraw.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll withdraw the reference to that member being a fascist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. A simple withdrawal.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I withdraw it. Mr. Speaker, is it permissible to say that the government has fascist tendencies?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay, I'll withdraw that.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The members will come to order. I think the hon. member for Mackenzie is aware of the need for temperance and moderation in language.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm usually temperate and moderate, Mr. Speaker, but I'm mad today. I'm very angry and upset, because today the parliamentary system in this province has been set back a great deal, in my view. It has lost a lot. I think democracy in this province — and I mean this when I say it — is slowly being eroded. What really worries me, Mr. Speaker....

HON. A. FRASER: Aren't you running for the leadership, too?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm going for the federal leadership. I'm just responding to a bit of an interjection there, Mr. Speaker.

Democracy in this province has suffered, particularly today in this House, Mr. Speaker. What really worries me a bit about this, aside from the philosophy of the whole operation that we witnessed here this afternoon and this evening, is that the people of this province probably won't feel the effects of what happened here today for some time. Those who are astute and directly involved, like school teachers and school boards, will know what happened here this afternoon. People whose human rights are in jeopardy, people whose rents will increase and people who will be evicted because of the

[ Page 1502 ]

abandonment of the rentalsman's office will probably feel the effects of what happened here this afternoon.

You know, I have material here like you would not believe dealing with and relating to this bill. It's difficult to know where to start. I want to give some reasons why I think this bill should be hoisted. I could read letters I've received from constituents into the record. I have releases put out by the B.C. Teachers' Federation, letters I've received from parents and those kinds of things.

Before I do that — and I'm going to do some of that — I would just like to say generally that this type of legislation that takes away autonomy from local school boards and parents is wrong. It's bad legislation and it was badly conceived. It is supported by the members sitting over there without thought. I don't believe that most of them even saw the bill before it was brought into this House. I'm sure they didn't, or they wouldn't be sitting there smugly voting for this legislation here this evening.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I really believe that. I don't think they understand what they're doing. They're following orders issued by people out of the Premier's office — the Blue Machine from Ontario. The Premier just does as he's told ' These people want to stay in cabinet. The others on the back bench there aren't even part of the discussion, but those people on the treasury benches should know what they're doing. They don't appear to, in my view.

HON. A. FRASER: Who you are supporting for leader? Or are you running?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I haven't made up my mind yet, Mr. Minister. I'll tell you that if I were ready for the leadership, I'd be a darned good one.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll nominate you, Don.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, you won't. You better not come to our convention.

I want to get back to the hoist, if I may. The leadership of this great party, which I am a member of, the party that will be the government of this province again....

MR. REID: Don't hold your breath.

[12:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, not too long; I smoke a lot. I thought what I would do is get into a bit of the history....

MR. REID: I think you're smoking something new.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Have you got some?

I have some remarks that the Premier made with regard to education in 1975. I am quoting from the BCSTA newsletter.

HON. A. FRASER: You can't quote from copious notes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I can. If I can read them.

I'm quoting the Premier, and he said during the 1975 election campaign:

"The current system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded and places an unfair burden on the property owner. As government, the British Columbia Social Credit Party would change this system and provide revenues for ever-improved educational facilities from real growth sources. We would look to tax revenues from our resource-based industries..."

This is the Premier talking. This is what he said he would do. This is what we're talking about under this bill, and it's exactly what he's not doing. Here's what he said, and this shows you how far we can trust him.

"... which would enjoy steady growth under a new administration. We would also look to the provincial sales tax" — he says sale stax is going to go for education purposes — "and to other revenue sources which increase naturally with our provincial development. This new approach would help to hold the line on property taxes..."

I'll talk about that in a moment, because that relates directly to this bill. That's what we're talking about, and I'm glad you're not arguing with me.

"... while meeting the increasing costs of education resulting from inflation. Just as important as the source of education revenue is the manner in which it is distributed. As government, the British Columbia Social Credit Party would increase direct payments to local school boards" — that's a laugh, and we'll get into that in a second, too — "while decreasing the cost and importance of the central bureaucracy. The end result of such policies would be a better quality of education for our young people and a more meaningful education based on policies developed at the local level."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

My God! Here we are debating a bill that is taking away autonomy from local school boards, parents, teachers and, worst of all, the students. I'm sure that some of the new members on the back bench have never heard this before. It's available. It's public knowledge. This is what the Social Credit Party and the Premier personally said on education in 1975. And where are we today?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's before May 5.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well before. He concludes this particular article by saying: "... and an educational system which can grow and develop without burden to the local taxpayers."

As they do frequently, the B.C. School Trustees' Association.... The BCTF do this too, but the report I happen to have in front of me is a report that was completed by the School Trustees' Association in March 1983. The report is entitled 'A Taxation Report to Business." It's quite lengthy, and I don't want to go into all these figures. There are a few highlights in the report. First of all, I'd like to just read this graph and then read some of the highlights. These figures are well known to the Social Credit Party members and the people on the government benches. This information was distributed to everybody in the Legislature. In fact, anyone at all connected with the education system received a copy of this brochure. So I'm sure that the Social Credit people are very much aware that property taxes were significantly reduced by the New Democratic Party government between

[ Page 1503 ]

1972 and 1975 and that an increased portion of school funding was in fact picked up through general revenues, I believe it was 1975 when school financing was funded to the tune of about 46 percent by the province out of general revenues. That has declined to about 32 percent. Is that not correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Repeat those figures.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The figure I have here is that by 1975 general revenues accounted for 46 percent of school financing, and currently that is down to 32.4 percent.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know how you get that. My figures are 51.51 percent.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are you telling me that the School Trustees' Association don't know what they're talking about, Mr. Minister? I think they do.

We are discussing a hoist to a bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'm attempting to give the minister reasons why he should reconsider debating the bill in this House. It should be withdrawn until the minister has had the opportunity to meet with school trustees, teachers, parents and people in the community. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to quote a bit from this document. It's subtitled 'An Urgent Need to Cooperate." It says:

"Business property owners, school boards and municipal councils have a common interest in working to remove the new provincial property tax on business. This cooperative effort must be undertaken for the following reasons...."

I'll just interrupt myself for a minute. You must remember that although it was under a different Minister of Education, the Social Credit government seized property taxes on businesses approximately two years ago. That money is going into general revenues. Am I not correct? That money is no longer distributed throughout a local school district. In other words, you're starving some local school districts by having seized those revenues. I'll read this to you, and you'll understand here in a minute — or maybe you won't; I don't know. Anyway, the first point they make in their brief:

" 1. Seizure of business property tax enables the provincial government to compensate for reductions in corporate income tax by increasing non-residential property tax. This will drive companies out of business and business out of British Columbia.

"2. Stores, factories, trees and mines do not vote, and it is safer politically to apply onerous taxes to business properties than residences."

That's true, but I believe that property taxes on residences will be increasing anyway under this government. There's no doubt about that.

"If there is to be any measure of political accountability, property tax on business must be levied by local government, and at the same rates as residential taxes."

That seems to make pretty good sense to me, Mr. Speaker. At least it's a recommendation that should be considered.

I wonder if the minister has seen this. Have you seen this? You must have. It's a very recent publication, dated March 1983. It's published by the B.C. School Trustees' Association, so I'm sure you've seen this.

" 3. Provincial government collection of property tax leads to centralized control of education."

That's exactly what we're talking about here this afternoon — or this morning. I guess it's early morning now, isn't it? Centralized control of education is exactly what we're talking about here and exactly what this government is doing under this bill. That's why, in my view, this bill should be hoisted for six months. I'll continue with the publication: "Centralized control produces higher costs and threatens parental and lay control." Well, of course, this is exactly what we've been talking about in speech after speech on this particular piece of legislation.

The document goes into a bit of history on this whole thing. What I'm going to do — and I'd like this copy back, because it's the only one I happen to have — is send this over to the minister, because he seems to be quite interested in this document. I'm sure you've received a copy, but I know that you get so darned much material.

During that part of my presentation. I was trying to indicate that we have support for the kind of argument we're trying to put before the government this evening. However, I don't think I've convinced them, so I'll keep going.

I have here no end of newspaper articles dealing with this very bill, articles telling us how people in the field of education feel about this bill and why it should be hoisted. This editorial is rather interesting. I think I'll readjust a part of it. It's a very recent editorial from the Times-Colonist, September 1, and deals with school trustees. It's entitled "School trustees: just for show." I won't read all of it, because it's quite lengthy. It says: "School trustees have a lot to be angry about these days. The provincial government keeps them around — but has left them virtually nothing to do except talk." That's right.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's like the NDP in this House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are you suggesting that elected members in this House should be denied the right to speak, as they were earlier today on two separate occasions? That's what you want, isn't it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Talk on for hours. Forty times to say the same thing — go ahead and talk.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Listen, we might convince you. Stranger things have happened. Well, maybe you can't convince fascists.

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue reading this editorial. In fact, I'm going to start from the top.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It fills time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I've got enough stuff here that I could go for the rest of the evening. In fact, I might. No, I can't; you'll bring in closure.

Okay, Mr. Speaker, I won't start from the top; I'll start where I left off. I'm quoting from the Times-Colonist editorial:

"Saanich school board chairman John Betts touched on just one sore point this week when he noted that after $1 million had been spent on compulsory arbitration of teachers' salaries in the past year, compensation stabilization commissioner Ed Peck would not accept the awards. Doubtless Peck

[ Page 1504 ]

would argue 'could not, ' given the government-imposed guidelines. In any event, arbitration is a waste of money, Betts said, noting that the government seems hell bent on repeating the exercise this year."

And that was only one paragraph.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, I have a supporter over there. Just because I said I may run for the leadership, you cross the floor. Keep that up and I may do it myself.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We won't interrupt you anymore.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, no. Please do. I enjoy it tremendously.

I want to read a bit more of this editorial from the Times-Colonist, which goes on to say: "Last week Education minister Jack Heinrich" — oh, that's you, Mr. Minister. You're reading those notes I sent you.

Anyway, we do have a little bit of fun in here from time to time, Mr. Speaker. Believe me, I don't know how this is going to come out in Hansard. It's just incredible.

"The minister also said on that occasion that his ministry didn't yet know what it will do if higher teachers' salaries are negotiated or if Peck allows them to increase. Monday Heinrich was much more specific — and revealed in the process that, in addition to the compulsory arbitration process, school board bargaining with teachers is just a sham."

Mr. Minister, did you really say that? I'm shocked. Why were you going through that charade, and what are the school board trustees doing? Well, we know they earn a bit of money — not much. In fact, when you consider the gas they have to pay, it's probably not nearly enough. Most of these people on school boards are working people and have jobs of one form or another, and most of them are very dedicated people.

[12:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I happen to have three whole school districts in my riding and parts of two others. I find that people run for office. Some win and some lose, but once they are on the board — usually after a year or two — they become knowledgeable and dedicated. They are generally concerned about the best interests of education for the young people of their community. I mean that in all sincerity. I want to tell you that one of the things you're doing with the legislation before this House is bringing in a section that will penalize school board members if they don't follow the dictates of the minister or the Ministry of Education. In one bill you've given the deputy minister all the powers of the government, believe it or not. I wonder how many people out there know that that's part of one of your pieces of legislation.

Mr. Minister, you're shaking your head.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's not true.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've read the bill. I've got it right here. I've got three different copies of the same bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You don't understand it, with respect to that act.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't know, Mr. Minister, why we should take your word for it. Are the BCSTA people taking your word for it? They're asking a lot of questions, and they're not getting many answers. You're perfectly entitled to take your shots across the House, and you're going to have your opportunity to speak during the course of this debate. Your members over there are certainly not taking the opportunity at their disposal to speak in this debate.

I want to read this one telegram into the record. It was sent to the Premier, with a copy to the minister and one to myself. It's from School District 47 and was sent to W.R. Bennett on August 9, 1983:

THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES, DISTRICT 47, POWELL RIVER, URGES YOU TO TABLE BILL 6, EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983, UNTIL FURTHER STUDY CAN DETERMINE ITS EFFECT ON LOCAL AUTONOMY. SEE LETTER OF AUGUST 2, 1983, TO MINISTER OF EDUCATION FROM THIS BOARD REGARDING BILL 6.

I have a copy of that as well. I think I forwarded a copy of this to the minister — in fact, it's addressed to the minister, so I'm sure he's seen it. I remember asking the minister previously in this House if he had responded to this correspondence. If he has, I haven't received a copy, even though my name is on the letter, as well as the Premier's. I do have a spare copy of this letter from School District 47, which I'll send to the minister.

Back to reality. I think I should read a part of this letter into the record, Mr. Speaker.

It's awfully quiet in here. What happened? I haven't used any strong language for about five minutes. That's why it's so quiet in here.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ten minutes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, fine. I've got one special letter I want to get in here for sure.

This letter is once again from School District 47. I've sent a copy to the minister, and he can keep that copy. I have the original here. Perhaps you can tell me if you responded to it or not.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I did.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, why didn't I get a copy?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I told you I responded to it some time ago — weeks ago.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You told me two weeks ago that you were going to respond to it and I didn't receive a copy. I wonder if the Premier received his copy. Pretty sloppy work there, Mr. Minister.

It starts out:

"Dear Mr. Heinrich:

"My prime objective and duty as a school trustee is to provide, within our means, the best possible education for all young people in our community. I must respond to local people's expressed opinions of what kind of schooling they want and of how much they are willing or able to pay for that schooling. In ten years as a trustee, I think I have maintained this fine balance to the satisfaction of this community.

[ Page 1505 ]

"At the onset, let me assure you that I understand the downturn in the economy and other priorities make it difficult for the provincial government to provide its proper share of revenue to education. I agree that the present funding formula and method of assessing property taxes need revamping. I know many of the provisions of the School Act are outdated. Trustees, individually and through their association, have long requested changes in legislation that will enable boards to finance and govern the public school system more efficiently.

"Changes are needed, but I would be remiss in my duty to local electors if I did not express my grave concern that the new funding system (the financial management systems) and Bill 6 are going to bring undesirable changes to... our public school system... to who controls every aspect of the system...." — and who will operate that system.

"I see no thought given to improving the quality of education, no mention of meeting the challenge of the rapid changes occurring in our society. I do see a danger of disfranchising local electors, an end to local decision making. It is a puzzling course of action for an elected official at the provincial level to belittle the same voter's judgment at the local level."

What the trustee is saying here, Mr. Speaker, is that on one hand the government, particularly over the last several weeks, has been telling us, on every piece of legislation, that they have a mandate to do this, that and the other thing. In fact, it brought in closure in this House today. It will heed no words from any organization in British Columbia. But here at the locally elected level, they are disfranchising the voter and taking away the limited powers of local school boards, municipalities, regional districts.... The list goes on and on and on. And then the member has the gall to ask why we're using up the time of this House to express our dissatisfaction with these measures.

The trustee goes on to say:

"I think the restraint you desire can be managed in the short run with no lasting detrimental effect, but only by giving local boards greater, not less, flexibility to manage. In the long run, adequate funding at the provincial level for public schools, colleges and universities must be forthcoming or the young people of B.C. will become educationally disadvantaged second-class citizens in their own country."

And that's going to be the end result of this type of legislation

"Ministry officials have assured us that some of the glaring deficiencies of the funding formula will be adjusted and that there is no intention of restricting spending to functions within the formula, except function 4. If that is your intention, it is indeed welcome news and I'm sure that boards would appreciate confirmation of that.",

But the minister hasn't confirmed that, Mr. Speaker, not at all.

"However, if Bill 6 becomes law, the threat that some future minister or government will use the powers therein to emasculate local control is ever present."

That is absolutely true. Even if what the minister said was correct, and he lives up to his announced intentions.... I hope he does; I don't know if he will or not. But the fact that this bill is still before us and we're debating a hoist would indicate to me that the minister has no intention of living up to his word.

"Traditionally in North America, control of the education of children has rested ultimately with parents through elected trustees. Your government seems to be willing to run the risk of handing over real control of our public school system to the professional educators in the ministry — surely not your intention, "

Well, Mrs. School Board Member, I can tell you, I think you're a bit optimistic in that particular paragraph.

"Contrary to opinion, I know it is much more difficult to reconsider or withdraw an edict than it is to bull ahead, to not bow to pressure.

"Most trustees, district superintendents, secretary-treasurers and teachers, of all political stripes, are knowledgeable about the school system, and are dedicated to quality education."

That's been my experience, Mr. Speaker: that most of these people are dedicated to quality education.

"I implore you to put this legislation on hold until you consult more fully with all of these groups." Mr. Speaker, that is signed by a local school trustee. There was one letter from a teacher, and I don't think I'm going to have time to get it all in, but I think the first part of the letter pretty well says it all. It's...

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm not sure. Well, I don't think she'd mind. It's from someone I happen to know. The letter is from Murrie Redman, at Sechelt, British Columbia, School District 46. She says:

"Dear Mr. Lockstead:

"I am a teacher, taxpayer and a parent of a student at a post-secondary institution. I am horrified at the recently proposed legislation which takes away human rights, employee rights, tenant rights and certainly teachers' rights. I feel as though I am in South America where governments have a history of passing dictatorial policies which are not serving the interests of the average person.

"I can add no more than others have about the Social Credit proposals — rather dictums — because they are so unreasonable as to inflame even those who voted for the Social Credit Party."

How do you like that? Your own voters are turning on you, and I don't blame them. I keep hearing throughout my riding, wherever I go.... In small communities people have a pretty good knowledge of who does what, where people are and who goes where. People have come up to me, friends of mine, but they voted Social Credit, and they're kicking themselves around the block for having done so after this package of bills that you've brought in here, bills you didn't talk about on the hustings.

[1:00]

I see the green light is on, Mr. Speaker. I'm not half-way through my presentation, but presumably at some point I'll have the opportunity of debating this bill, perhaps on another hoist or something later during this session, and I can get the rest of this....

Interjection.

[ Page 1506 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've got all these letters here from constituents, and I haven't had the opportunity to read them into the record. I think you should know what my constituents are saying about this bill and about the education system, and about your government.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I waited a moment or two there, anticipating that somebody on the other side would rise, maybe the minister, to close the debate off or do something, but he didn't stand up.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can't close it off.

MR. HOWARD: Well, at least he could have said something.

I waited for the minister to stand up and close the debate, or say something, and he sat in his seat, silent and uncaring.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I intend to close the debate.

MR. HOWARD: I know you do.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, what's your problem, then?

MR. HOWARD: That's your way of dealing with things. You're only interested in shutting off debate by closure or any other way. Where do you think you are? In Penticton?

I was going to embark upon a reasonable discussion of this bill and the motion to hoist it until the hon. member opposite started clamouring and talking.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Speaker, the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell), I believe it was, made a rather impassioned speech to the House, and talked about the necessity of having items come to a vote — I believe that was on Bill 3. He used the argument that we've had enough debate and discussion, let's get on with it and bring this particular bill to a vote, whatever that one was.

That kind of commentary or suggestion would have merit if we were debating subject matters in a forum where the opinions of any one of the speakers might potentially have influence upon any other person in the assembly, as to how they might or might not vote — if there was the opportunity for a debate in the sense of putting forward countering opinions, views and arguments as to why a certain course of action should be followed rather than a certain other course of action. But that does not prevail here — regretfully. I suppose theoretically one could say that it does, but in actual fact it doesn't. There would appear not to be any possibility whatever, regardless of what points one may make in a debate. They may be valid or acceptable points in a hypothetical or theoretical sense — "Ah, that's a good point, " or something of that sort — but when it comes to the vote it's a foregone conclusion that on this particular bill, and the bill which the member for Okanagan North was speaking about earlier, the government members are solidly, absolutely, 100 percent committed to vote in favour of the bill. With that kind of predetermination about the outcome of a piece of legislation, regardless of the arguments pro and con about it, then it's a fallacy to think that democracy is served by simply saying: "Look, we've had enough debate. Let's have a vote."

I, like probably most if not all members in the chamber, have belonged to organizations where the free flow of debate does have influence, where opinions can change a person's mind and arguments of a substantive nature can sway one's opinion. In those assemblies, forums and meetings a point is reached, after a period of debate, when there is a general feeling and consensus that what needs to have been said has been said. The arguments pro and con have been weighed and the matter can now come to a vote, which it usually does easily and readily. It does this because of the consensus of opinion in those organized groups meeting outside this chamber, and because there are individuals in those groups who are prepared to listen to and weigh the opinions of others and be influenced by them. But that is not so here.

For all of the argument and contention, whether from the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell) or anybody else who says: "I" — be it the member for Okanagan North, any other member or the government — "have had enough of this. There has been enough debate and conversation. We've spent X number of hours debating this. Let's get on with it and have a vote.... What they are really saying to other members in the chamber is: "You have no further right to examine this question or to take part in this discussion." So if we hear those contentions, as we probably will, I think we should disregard them, because that isn't a rational approach. This is not a rational place. This is a place where decisions are made beforehand, in the cabinet room and in caucus, which say absolutely: "This is the way it goes. When we vote in the House it's going to be a 100 percent vote yes or no." The party lines are drawn tight and have been so for quite a few years. Therefore we are not in a debating society in that kind of situation.

The only defence available — not for but to the opposition — in pursuing what members of the opposition perceive to be the necessary protection for society at large, who may be disadvantaged by a particular bill, is a debating stance in the hopes of convincing the government to back off from a particular bill or introduce amendments to it. The only defence is what, I suppose, we loosely call a filibuster. It's offensive to some people, but, regretfully, it's the only mechanism available in this chamber to deal with legislative matters which are considered to be offensive to society. This bill is one of them. This is why we have presented the motion to hoist Bill 6 for six months.

This bill, in its essence, says two separate things. One is propaganda and the other is actual and legislative. The propaganda one says that the bill seeks to give the minister powers to supervise budgets and expenditures of school districts. But it doesn't give the minister power to do that at all; it gives him the absolute, untrammelled power to issue directives and order school boards to do certain things insofar as their budgets are concerned, or insofar as portions of their school budgets are concerned. That's not supervision or attempting to assist. A supervisor attempts to help. This is authoritarian. As my colleague, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), so beautifully pointed out, we run into difficulties in our society when we tend to deposit in the hands or the mind of one person that superpower to make all the decisions. That approach denies consultation, if one wants to use it that way. It has the potential for denying consultation. It has the potential for denying the expression of opinion. It has the potential for denying dialogue. It has the potential for a tyrannical approach by whoever the minister might be.

[ Page 1507 ]

The bill contains no qualifications of the powers sought by the minister to issue directives, no dilution of that power. It's absolute. There's no appeal mechanism, no going to some higher body to say: "We want to contend against this particular directive. We think it's unfair. We think it doesn't take account of the disparate situations that exist in a school board, say, operating in an area I represent and a school board operating in an urban area." It doesn't take account of the fact that during the wintertime the nights come more quickly in the northern than in the southern part of the province, that in the schools you need to turn the lights on earlier in the afternoon than you do down here. You need to have the heat on for longer periods of time, and more intensely than is the case in the southern part. This takes no account of that. So it's not, contrary to what the propaganda explanatory note says, a power to supervise; it's a power to direct, a power to control, a power to dominate — a power absolute. There's a cliché about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely. I think that is potentially available in this particular piece of legislation. And that's why it's offensive. That's one of the reasons.

And that's why, Mr. Speaker and hon. members opposite as well, we feel it necessary to engage in a lengthy — as lengthy as possible — debate upon this particular bill. There is no other procedure available to bring common sense to prevail. If we had some opportunity in the chamber, or outside of the chamber through a committee system in which a committee of the House could meet and go over proposed legislation — or could meet with school boards or the BCSTA, or anybody else who wanted to appear before the committee and express their views about it — we might be able to come to a meeting of minds where there is a strong difference of opinion. But that's not possible when the government is intent on brutalizing its way through the legislative process. It's not possible to have that dialogue.

I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the title of the bill is misleading. I won't go further into that at this time, except to say that it is.

[1:15]

Another explanatory note in the bill says that it repeals the sunset provision. That's the explanatory note on section 2: "Repeals the sunset provision." Isn't that a beautiful euphemism? There's a nice declaration. You know, sunsets have something glorious about them, something attractive, something appealing and aesthetic. Sunset is a beautiful time of day. So imparting that this bill repeals the sunset provision sounds attractive. But it isn't, when you look further into the bill, because what is repealed is the provision of the Education (Interim) Finance Act itself — which was passed in 1980, I believe it was — which says that the provisions that are now sought to be repealed would expire on December 31, 1984, I believe it was. It was a short interim period of time, and now that's to be repealed. We find this to be a misuse of the word "sunset" for political reasons. While it may repeal the sunset provision, it will, thinking in climatic conditions, bring on the cloud, storms, hail and misery to school boards by virtue of what's going on over here.

The minister said earlier, as I recall in noting some of his remarks, that the province pays some 50 percent, or a little bit more than that, out of the provincial treasury for school board operations. Property taxes provide about 45 percent or something of that nature — the difference is by way of grants and so on. If the minister and the government felt that, yes, it was necessary to put some kind of compression upon the upward movement of education costs, then I submit they could have done it in a rather simple way, without going through the process of seeking to have authority to interfere in the operations of school boards, to emasculate school boards, to deny them their proper place in the sun in providing an educational system. They could have done it simply by the process of estimates and by the process of limiting the amount that may be raised by property taxes. That way requires school boards to live within their means and requires school boards to meet the responsibility placed upon them by that approach. But this bill doesn't do that. It takes away responsibility. It denies the very essence of what the government says is a responsible stance in society — namely, for people, groups or organizations to be responsible for their own actions. I support that provision. We need to be individually responsible for ourselves and our own activities and not slough them off onto somebody else. School boards are no different. They are composed of individuals meeting in a group sense, and they should have that responsibility to meet. This bill takes it away from them. It denies a very fundamental part of the operation of our educational system — namely, that of responsibility — and it places the power in the hands of the minister. It takes it away from school boards and thus denies responsibility. It's wrong in principle, wrong in its fundamentals, as wrong as could possibly be wrong in our way of doing things.

In his earlier remarks in the House the minister also quoted some figures to substantiate his demand upon this Legislature to give him that super- authoritarian power. I want to quote his words back to him, as I did on another occasion. On August 4 the minister said: "In 1976 the total bill — that is the cost of education he is talking about — was in the order of about $910 million. In 1983 the total budget is approximately $1.9 billion. That's a staggering increase over a period of seven fiscal years." Well, it is a 108 percent increase over that period of time. The minister may well say, yes, that is staggering — a doubling of costs in a seven-year period. Incidentally, I wouldn't mind having the minister, when he gets around to it, tell us how he arrived at the $9 10 million figure or how he arrived at the $1.9 billion figure, because that $1.9 billion figure doesn't coincide with what's in the estimates. There may be other factors in there that need to be explained, but I am just taking the figures the minister used and not trying to twist them in any way. Let's compare those figures that the minister used to substantiate his insistence that he have this super-authoritarian power's over school boards.

I am not exactly sure what he meant by 1976 in terms of the fiscal year, but taking the 1976-77 fiscal year — that was the first budget of Evan Wolfe, when he was the Minister of Finance — the 1976-77 budget showed a total provincial government expenditure of $3.615 billion. There are some extra dollars on there, but let's round them off for illustrative purposes. In 1983-84 — this fiscal year — it's $8.445 billion. Over that period of time, the same time for which the minister talked about the staggering increase in the education budget — which was a 108 percent increase over the period used by the minister — the total provincial budget expenditure increased by 133 percent. That, by the minister's own declaration, is also staggering. It is almost a third more, certainly a quarter more — to be on the conservative side. That would indicate to me that the money allocated to education over the past seven years by the Social Credit government has been on a declining basis, relatively speaking, compared to the increase in the provincial budget itself. Education has been

[ Page 1508 ]

shortchanged over that period of time. If that's the case, it does not speak very highly of previous Ministers of Education. It means they did not struggle and fight in cabinet as hard as they should have about the educational needs of future generations. It means they were lax in their responsibilities, and that this minister too is lax in his responsibilities toward education.

These figures wouldn't come to mind if the minister himself had not used them. He used the figures that I quoted earlier to substantiate his position in demanding this extraordinary, super tyrannical power over school boards. And all I'm pointing out to him is that education has suffered under this government, and appears to be headed towards even further suffering.

I need to go over some other figures which the minister used. Again on August 4, he said: "It seems to me, with a budget in the area of a 7 percent increase in what we have introduced, to have worked reasonably well." We went over this before and I understood the minister to say that yes, he was talking about education, and that it was a 7 percent increase. When we look at this year's education estimates, we find that the minister, by using that 7 percent figure, is trying to mix apples and oranges, trying to lead us to believe something which is not in fact the case. In last year's estimates the budget of the Ministry of Education, compared with this year's estimates, showed a 10 percent increase, not a 7 percent increase.

Was the minister ignorant of those figures, or did he have cognizance of them and tried to lead the House to believe something which was not factually correct? I don't know. I only know that the percentage figure put out by the minister in his substantiating opening remarks is wrong. It's an inaccurate and erroneous figure and not in accordance with the facts of the situation. Even if it were, when we take the real increase in the budget for education as being 10 percent this year, and compare it with a total budget increase of 16.7 percent — not 12.3 percent, as the gentlemen opposite are wont to argue — even if we give the minister the benefit of the doubt and say that he did better in education than he claims to have done and it comes out as a 10 percent increase, he's still shortchanging education. He is still not a fighter in cabinet for the things that matter for our educational system.

[1:30]

One of the items brought to our attention — I am sure it was brought to the attention of the minister as well — was the reference in the bill to his desire to have control over a portion of its budget. In fact, he mentioned that in his opening remarks. That was one of the things which was of great concern to the BCSTA and to members of school boards in my own riding who looked at it. They felt it was most inappropriate and would not give — because they've run into this problem before in the north — due consideration to the extraordinary costs faced by school districts in the more remote or rural areas of this province. It's not only that in the north you have to use more fuel to heat the school than you do in the south; it isn't only that darkness comes earlier. It isn't only those factors. It's that in some instances kids have to travel 50 or 60 miles to get to the school. It's a transportation cost that may not be faced by school districts in the lower mainland or other areas. Simple, uncomplicated things like meetings of the school board require trustees to come from long distances to some central place. That's an extraordinary and different kind of cost. School boards maintain, and I think properly so, that they should be able to have the authority to deal with those questions of a budgetary nature themselves — within some guidelines, if they want them to be established — and be able to take the responsibility for doing it, the responsibility being to the electorate, to the people who elect them. That's another reason why that should not be contained within a piece of legislation of this nature.

The B.C. School Trustees' Association is concerned about centralized authority. They are concerned about the competing interests of school districts, one with the other, insofar as their relationship with the provincial government is concerned. School districts are concerned that the super, extraordinary authoritarian power demanded by this minister will not result in the delivery, in a fair and equitable way, of the finances to support education. And they're not looking at this minister when they talk about that. This minister is an insignificant pawn in the whole game; he's of minor consequence in it all. He may be, as I said earlier, a decent sort of chap: nice to speak with, good sense of humour, pleasant personality; but he ain't going to be there forever. Who knows? His colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs might become the Minister of Education someday, and we are in for trouble if that ever happens. Or any of that other crowd or group of people on the other side who have this tendency to support the general concepts of fascism. They think there are some good features about it. Some of them may become a Minister of Education at some time or another. We cannot, and should not, enact in this chamber legislation that has within it that inherent difficulty.

Getting back to that "sunset" clause, the bill is very, very revealing. If I can just put my hands on it I'll make a brief reference to it again, as I did once before. When we're talking about what occurred, and we're seeking to amend the....

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

I see we have a new person in the chair, Mr. Speaker. We welcome you there. I see you're on time as well. As I understand, the orders from Mr. Speaker were that you were to be in the chair at 1:30, and you're fairly well on time. You're only two or three minutes late, given the instructions delivered to various members in the House a while ago about the Speakers — as to when they were supposed to be in the chair, and when someone was to relieve them of that onerous duty. I wondered what Mr. Speaker was doing, running around the chamber delivering messages to people. I didn't think that was his function, but he did so, in any event.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: It's just that Mr. Speaker has an undue relationship with some of the members on the government side, Mr. Speaker.

Let's see what this bill does when you read beyond it and see what temporary provisions have now been made permanent. What authorities of the school districts have been removed forever, forever, forever? The section of the act that deals with basic grants to education is gone. Finished. You don't find that in the bill before us. It doesn't say that in so many words, but it's a fact that the result of repealing section 61 in this bill is to say that now, forever and a day, the provision of the School Act relating to basic grants to school districts is gone. No more.

[ Page 1509 ]

It's a long and complex section that deals with that, It says the provision of the School Act setting out the amount to be paid for each instructional unit and the expenses of auxiliary services in school boards is gone forever and ever and ever. It says that the process of determining the number of instructional units to be used for calculating the cost of the basic education program is gone forever and a day. It says that the apportionment of the budget between the various parts of a school district and how it shall be determined.... Originally that involved the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. At least that was done by way of a legal process; it was administrative law that would have done in it in order-in-council. That is gone forever and a day under this particular bill. The simple provision of the act that says when grants will be made — for instance, basic and capital grants shall be paid to the board in monthly instalments commencing on or about January 15 in that year — is gone forever and a day. The power to grant special aid whenever the cabinet says so — where the minister reports to the Lieutenant-Governor that the granting of special aid to a school district is necessary, taking into account the position and circumstances of the district, an additional grant can be made — is gone, wiped out forever and ever.

The cost of maintaining vocational classes is gone. Night school references are gone forever. A rather long, complex section of the act relating to the composition and layout of the annual budget of the school board and how it should be formed, set out and so on is gone forever and a day. From now on it will be done by ministerial directive and not by any provision in law, so that as the minister changes his mind, or ministers change, it will be at the whim of one individual to make or break school districts. That's gone forever and a day. It was a protective provision that was in there.

Notices and statements about taxes are gone forever and a day. Appeal procedures, school property taxation, exemption from taxation are all gone. The way assessments are made, taxed and so on are all gone, Mr. Speaker, forever and a day.

There is one provision in here that has a connection with what I was saying earlier; namely, that this is super-authoritarian power of the minister, without any provision for anybody to appeal any decisions to anybody except back to the minister, the guy who made the decision in the first place. Under the School Act — there was a provision — which has now been wiped out forever — whereby every person who was assessed in a rural area of a school district had the same rights of appeal on his real property as provided for in the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Assessment Act. That inherited right of appeal of decisions by government bodies, which used to exist, is now gone forever and ever and ever.

None of that is contained within the bill. It's hidden. The general public and this House has been — unless it wanted to look beyond the bill to the act — deceived by what it had presented to it, a half-page bill. The authorities required and demanded by the minister are too much to ask. If the minister had had — as his legal training should have told him he should have had — provision in here to respect the rights of school boards to appeal a decision that may come from the minister, it might have been more palatable. But as it stands, it isn't.

I see that I must waive my right at the moment, so that some other person may take part in the debate. Thank you very much for your attention.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, here we are at 20 minutes to 2:00 debating Bill 6 — the government's dark hour. The bill is a bill that at the moment has an attendant hoist motion, and that attendant hoist motion is there for a specific purpose, That purpose is to advise the government that we're not satisfied with the thought that went into the original bringing forward of this bill. It was brought forward in direct contradiction to the promise of the government when they first brought in the interim finance act. They claimed at that time that that act would be repealed, that it would go out of force on January 1, 1984. Beyond the repealing of the sunset clause, as it's called, it goes on in its dictatorial way to give, in just a few sentences, the minister increased power.

A while ago we heard from that learned gentleman, the member for Point Grey, the Minister of Science (Hon. Mr. McGeer). We heard an awful lot of fanfare and talk about what we're doing, and how we're relating to groups in our community such as Solidarity. Mr. Speaker, I would far rather relate to Solidarity and groups which are interested in basic freedoms, basic rights and, beyond that, the rights of those around them less fortunate than themselves, such as children.... That's what we're debating tonight. I, for an example, would hardly want to be in a position where....

The mining people of this province boast about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they spent electing that group over there for their own selfish interests. I haven't seen any of those significant entrepreneurial groups boasting about assisting the NDP.

[1:45]

It's a situation that we should look at from a number of perspectives. The first perspective I'd want to look at is the whole question of centralization. Let me go back to the time that we first watched the advent of this new group across the floor. That was in 1974, 1975 and ultimately the end of '75, when they prevailed in the election, forming a government immediately thereafter at the beginning of '76. At that time they talked in terms of decentralization. They threw all the barbs they could find at the then NDP government, talking as though we were centralists — we who had set up the resource boards, we who had decentralized as much as we possibly could, not only education but also other areas such as health care and human resources. But they created this myth that somehow or other we were centralist-oriented. They became government, and then made a lie of everything they stood for in that election. They have been doing it consistently ever since. Not one minister representing that government has tried, on behalf of his or her government, to do anything but wrest more power from people at the grass roots.

Here, Mr. Speaker, is another such bill doing exactly that, dictating on behalf of the government how everyone should be educated and how the minister holds all the purse-strings. I think one of the things we have found is that a centralized education system where the local people haven't got the input, where parents haven't got access, is a system that fails. It fails not only here but everywhere in the western world. If you want a good example, go to the United States, where they are trying every alternative under the sun. The alternative that they find works is the alternative where you take the decisionmaking back home. It is not the case in B.C. We are always millennia behind, except in making fools of ourselves; that's where we are always way out in the forefront.

It would be different, in my opinion, if the public school education system was funded primarily by the provincial government. But it isn't — controlled, yes, but not financed.

[ Page 1510 ]

It's financed on the backs of the property owners in British Columbia. I don't know how many times one must use this example, but in my own constituency of New Westminster it is 100 percent financed by the local taxpayers. There are areas in the province where the province contributes, but it is not as significant as it should be and it is decreasing. It has been reduced significantly since 1975. To give you an idea, in 1968 B.C. was 12 percent above the Canadian average in terms of its per capita property tax for education. In 1980 it was 40 percent above the Canadian average — per capita property tax. In 1983 we don't have figures, but I will guarantee it is 45 percent. That's the way we have been going. Yet with all of that, with the input in terms of financing coming from the local taxpayer, less and less of the decision making is left with the local taxpayer.

The great freedom fighters are talking about the local school boards and their inactivity, and the fact that it is impossible for them to cope with local needs. I guarantee it is, and let me tell you some of the reasons for that.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Look, get your hearing-aid fixed or read Hansard tomorrow.

The reason for that is that the Ministry of Education and this government have dumped a number of other programs on local school boards, such as mainstreaming the disabled, and programs that were outside the school system per se, creating a tremendous cost for the school system. Having done that, they didn't increase their share of the funding one iota. Instead, they reduced their share of the funding.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: There is the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) making funny noises. We hear that you made such a damn fool of yourself in Penticton that you will never get back there again. They have called for your resignation, saying that you don't understand a thing about the responsibilities you are charged with. Tut, tut. They would prefer to have Kempf as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and that's really moving down the stream. But, in any event, that minister who is all full of smiles tonight wasn't quite so full of smiles when he left Penticton.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Come on, we've heard all about it, from every person who was up there.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You did. Take your dictatorial attitudes out in the hall.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Do you want to go out there?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I'd love to.

The education system is suffering and will continue to suffer at the hands of an irresponsible government who have no designs on the system other than to take full control of it, possibly not realizing that in so doing they are going to carry it further down the tube than it already is.

There have been criticisms of the way our education system works. Is it any wonder that a system that has been so completely turned upside-down by a government would be anything but ineffective? Of course it has to be, to some extent, ineffective. In the first place, the system has no idea whether they're going to survive financially and also look after their responsibilities. The system has absolutely no idea whether they can retain teachers doing their work properly in the face of a government that has absolutely no idea where it's going. We've seen that in the education system, particularly in view of the fact that there's been change after change in the Ministry of Education, as we've seen in other areas.

The now Minister of Education came in following a predecessor who upset things rather badly. Everybody out there breathed a bit of a sigh of relief. Then, for crying out loud, he brings in a bill like Bill 6, which has made a lie of everything that the government said they were going to do about financing. What did the government say when they introduced the original interim? Don't forget that's what it was called at the time — Education (Interim) Finance Act. They said that there would be a White Paper circulated, that it would be studied, — that people would have their input, an opportunity for all to share in the responsibility of developing a new finance program. Well, we waited and we went on waiting. We waited until after the May 5 election, and then sometime around July 7, among another group of unacceptable pieces of legislation, came this bill, which put a lie to everything they said. They haven't got up during this session of the Legislature and said what they're going to do about financing other than what they've said in this legislation that undoes all their promises and provides the minister with all of the power to make all of the decisions and denies access to the education system to those who rightfully should be running it.

It may be acceptable to some. It may even be acceptable to that loser, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. But it's not acceptable to anybody on this side of the House, nor is it acceptable to those people out there who are taking the responsibility for the education of our children. No more so than is the Minister of Municipal Affairs acceptable to those people out there governing the cities, towns, villages and municipalities in our province.

[2:00]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I guess I stopped your walk toward the door, didn't I? Go back to your seat if you're going to throw comments across the floor.

In any event, let me give you an idea of what this government talks about when they are seeking election. This is a little comment made by a well-known B.C. person: Pay for education out of growth revenue. The current system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded, says this well-known person. We shouldn't be paying for education out of property taxes. That's what he says. Yet we see it expanding, expanding, expanding over the last number of years, from 12 percent above the Canadian average to 40 percent above the Canadian average.

Let's go on to find out what else he says: and places an unfair burden on the property owner. As government of British Columbia, the Social Credit Party would change the system and provide revenues for ever-improved education facilities from real growth sources." Real growth sources apparently is property taxes. But that's not what he

[ Page 1511 ]

says in the first paragraph. "We would look to tax revenues from our resource-based industries, industries which would enjoy steady growth under a new administration, such as mining...."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

They boast about how they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defeating the NDP, just to give you an idea how this resource-based industry put some of their money to work. "We developed a love affair, " they say, " with Barry Butler, who was running against big odds in New Westminster and who had as his campaign manager the famous George Kerster, Barrett-killer from Coquitlam." Boasting about it in a mining magazine, for crying out loud — calling him Barrettkiller. They didn't manage to kill me off, but let's go on with what they say in terms of this resource-based industry: "We got an Apple computer for him, printout machines and operators within two minutes of my asking the MEG. We obtained two more computers that afternoon which were passed on. We got George Kerster a five-ton flat-deck truck for his signs, paid an $1, 860 ad for the New Westminster newspaper and got him men, put a photocopy machine in his headquarters and paid for the copies, " This is that resource-based industry that we're going to be taxing, for crying out loud. They talk about us being friends of Solidarity — I'll take Solidarity any day against this bunch of bandits.

Let's go on with what this B.C. person says about how they're going to be raising their taxes, paying for our education system. Remember, this person says: "The current system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded." So they are going to tax resource-based industries, until of course they find that if they do that they are going to be angering their friends who won't put up 14 more Apple computers next time in my campaign and all over the province.

"We would also look into the provincial sales tax and to other revenue sources which increase naturally with our provincial development. This new approach would help to hold the line on property taxes while meeting the increasing costs of education resulting from inflation. Just as important as the source of education revenue is the manner in which it is distributed. As the government, the British Columbia Social Credit Party would increase direct payments to local school boards while decreasing the cost and importance of the central bureaucracy."

Holy Hannah! The central bureaucracy has grown and grown to a point that we are all groaning. It has grown significantly since this piece of paper hit the deck.

"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, and an education system which can grow and develop without burden to local taxpayers."

Who said that? Premier Bill Bennett, when he was Leader of the Opposition and running to be Premier of British Columbia. Every word in that document, in that ad, runs absolutely counter to what has been — and is — going on at the present time in this province. There is no familiarity between that document and what is actually happening. We don't have decentralization; we have centralization, We don't have a reduction of financing from the property owner; we have a vast increase, to the extent that we're the laughing-stock — if you prefer to call it laughing-stock — of most of the country.

Let me give you the percentage averages across Canada in 1980 — at least, the average in dollars of property tax as it applies to the education situation. Let's compare the provinces: Newfoundland was $70.52 per capita; PEI, $148; Nova Scotia, $202; New Brunswick, $199; Quebec, $282; Ontario, $404; Manitoba. $419; Saskatchewan, $342; Alberta, $352; and B.C., $492.79 per capita — the highest in the whole country. Yet our education, per capita input in total, is I believe eighth in the country. So we're looking very bad from the standpoint of per capita on property taxes, and looking awful in terms of our contribution to the education system.

Overall, the then Leader of the Opposition said in that election campaign that they were going to reduce property taxes and find alternate ways of raising education. He said they were going to decentralize and give the local people an opportunity to run their own education system with the assistance of the government. Instead, they've gone exactly counter to what they promised. So is it any wonder that as we move around the province we find trustee after trustee, teacher after teacher, parent after parent, saying: "It's not at all good enough." They have no way of dealing with a government that promises one thing and does another.

The most recent broken promise was when they brought in the original Education (interim) Finance Act, which was to be out of force but followed by a White Paper that would give everybody an opportunity to criticize, or at least put in their input. It's got to a point where education critics, the people critical of the minister.... The last time somebody mentioned Crawford Kilian, the minister sort of slapped himself on the head and said: "Oh, that person." He says: "The fact is, is it worth running for the job of school trustee?" I have talked to people who are school trustees and who are considering not running again because of this dictatorial, centralist government. They say: "What's the point? What's the use? On the one hand if we do something that outrages the government in terms of my employment responsibilities, we can be fined a couple of thousand bucks. On the other hand, if we do something that offends the government in terms of financing, hiring and education, it can be overridden by the minister. So what's the point?" I'm arguing with them, and will continue to argue, that you never give up, no matter how brutal the government. And these people are brutal. They're known to be brutal, and they are certainly seen to be brutal tonight. Not that it's any great thing. We're not suffering, debating through the night, and we'll continue to debate through the night as long as they want to. But the people in our province are suffering as a result of this.

No amount of discussion can convince me that debate at this hour, debate on bills that are not announced beforehand, debate opportunities which are afforded as the government sees fit, following two examples of closure in this House tonight, the first time since it was inadvertently done way back in the fifties.... It was during the Attorney-General's estimates, and, would you wonder, it was good old Bob Bonner, now chairman of Hydro, the then Attorney-General of our province, who inadvertently, I understand, invoked closure. But there was no inadvertence about that tonight. No inadvertence about booting the Leader of the Opposition out, when he should have been afforded his right to debate in this House. No inadvertence by the Minister of Universities,

[ Page 1512 ]

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the former Liberal leader, who got up and moved closure, to his shame and discredit as long as he lives in our free and democratic society. The shame that he brought on this House tonight when he moved closure is something that will not be forgotten quickly.

How does that apply here? It applies here because this is one of the pieces of legislation that they want to push through. Push it through, keep it going! I can remember that W.A. C. Bennett used to use those tactics. Hour after hour. Legislation by exhaustion. Everybody would laugh about it. But no province is healthy when a dictatorial government forces its will on either the opposition or the people out there — the school trustees, the public servants or whoever. It is not a healthy society when that occurs.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That member says it's okay for us but not for them. Who is trying to push our will? That is not a luxury that the opposition has ever had. I saw a government backbencher's private member's bill accepted. I haven't seen even a motion accepted from this side of the House, let alone a bill. Maybe that member can do a little research and come in here and say something definitive about that. But his call from his chair doesn't impress me a particle. It certainly doesn't impress me when we're faced with bills such as this.

It's interesting that not one of those government supporters or one of those cabinet ministers is here now supporting their colleague. They're all down there asleep in their offices, having a merry old time. Not one of them is in here supporting that poor, lacklustre minister. I would therefore like to see one of his colleagues on the back bench get up and give some sort of excuse for why this sunset clause was repealed, and why the White Paper has never come forward. Were they too busy — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) — to do what they had promised?

MR. REID: No, never too busy.

MR. COCKE: They weren't too busy? Were they lying?

[2:15]

MR. REID: No way.

MR. COCKE: They weren't lying and they weren't too busy. Well, that leaves us very few alternatives.

MR. REID: Aren't we on the hoist?

MR. COCKE: Why do you think we want to hoist it, Mr. Member? We want to hoist it because it's dead wrong. Not only is it dead wrong in our eyes, it's dead wrong in the eyes of government, in the eyes of those people who put this forward, the people who promised that the Education (Interim) Finance Act would be repealed, finished. As a matter of fact it had its own self-destruction built into it. The last clause stated that it would go out of force. If you cared to read it, it might be good homework for you; it might touch your conscience a bit. After you get through listening I would ask you to take a look at the original bill, which, incidentally, is a statute in B.C. that has as one of its clauses a self-destruct clause, which states that it would go out of force January 1, 1984.

I am told by a back-bencher it wasn't because they were too busy, and it wasn't because they were kidding us. I ask the reason the White Paper wasn't put forward, why the people were not consulted, why it didn't go to committee. They will take things to committee like getting rid of our safety testing for automobiles and putting it into private hands where it is going to cost us $60 a throw or thereabouts, but no, they wouldn't put this kind of thing in committee. They wouldn't travel around the province asking people how they want education financed.

AN HON. MEMBER: We already know.

MR. COCKE: I hope that member is going to get up in his place tonight and give us a few examples of what you already know, because if you do know something you haven't shared it with the populace, with the trustees or with the parents. They haven't shared it at all.

This bill should be hoisted, and if for no other reason it should be hoisted until such time as the government keep the promise they made in the first place; and that promise was to bring in a White Paper which is amendable. That is the beauty of a White Paper: it is a discussion paper. When you take it to a committee, people can come forward, make representation suggesting this is good, that is bad, etc., and feel that they have some input, and beyond that input will then begin to gain some confidence in our system. Why are people so dissatisfied with our education system? Because they feel they have no input. Neither teachers, parents, and now, for crying out loud, nor trustees — the people who are elected. Neither I nor my colleagues support what the minister is doing, but we certainly support this amendment to hoist for six months to bring some sanity to this government.

MR. PASSARELL: Good morning to you, Mr. Speaker. It is twenty minutes after 2 o'clock a.m., 5:20 in the east. This has to be the only place in the province where....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Now, Mr. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), you know how the old saying goes: a man never knows another man until he gets in his moccasins and follows him around for a while. I think the problem is that you need a haircut. You are letting that hair grow down over your forehead so much that you don't know how much I travel in this province.

Back to the hoist. This has to be the only place in the province of British Columbia tonight where we have a lawyer working at 2:20 in the morning, our hon. friend, sitting in the debate on a hoist motion of Bill 6, the education bill.

What I would like to do this morning for the next 39 minutes and 34 seconds is to give some introductory remarks concerning the hoist and the bill itself and then discuss something that probably many members of this House have never really had an opportunity to took at; that is, some of the specific problems in the schools in the area where I come from in the far north.

At the outset I would like to discuss what the bill says in the explanatory notes, in relation to the hoist motion. Section I states that it gives the minister powers to supervise budgets and expenditures by school districts. The bill itself is called the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983. I'd

[ Page 1513 ]

like to refer, in using the explanatory notes to give a basis to what I'm saying....

An editorial in the Times-Colonist for September 1, 1983, a Thursday, says: "School Trustees: Just For Show." Going through a few sections of this editorial.... The beginning says: "School trustees have a lot to be angry about these days. The provincial government keeps them around — but has left them virtually nothing to do except talk." It goes on to the CSP commissioner, Ed Peck, who "would not accept the awards. Doubtless Peck would argue 'could not, ' given the government-imposed guidelines." It goes further. A Saanich school board chairman, a Mr. John Betts, is referred to in this editorial as saying that "the government seems hell-bent on repeating the exercise this year. Indeed it does. Last week Education Minister Jack Heinrich exhorted the trustees to 'bargain hard, but be fair.' " That's a fair statement: "Bargain hard, but be fair." "The minister also said on that occasion that his ministry didn't yet know what it will do if higher teachers' salaries are negotiated or if Peck allows them to increase." Further on it says: "What's to bargain? Under provincial law the teachers aren't allowed to negotiate on working conditions. Any salary increases will inevitably involve teacher layoffs or program cuts. That's the bottom line for trustees and teachers." In conclusion it says: "Meanwhile Heinrich has no business implying wage increases in the education sector are out of question for the next three years. That decision should depend on what revenues are generated for government by the economy. The government doesn't know what will happen next year, much less in 1987."

But in relation to this hoist motion and Bill 6, I'd like to discuss the Atlin constituency and the three school districts involved. The first school district I'd like to discuss is District 88. That's a sub-local in the community of Stewart from the Terrace School District. District 88 is basically in the area around the Terrace region. Stewart itself lies approximately 250 kilometres northwest of Terrace by road. The Stewart area has two schools, one elementary and one junior secondary. Stewart has one school trustee on the board, who finds himself in a minority position on the board because there is only one school in the majority of the Terrace area. They have interesting situations and problems in the Stewart area because of its isolation, and I'll refer back to District 88.

One area I'd like to cover right now is District 92, the Nishga School District, which is the only native-controlled school district in this province and, indeed, in the country. This district was set up in the early 1970s, when the NDP was government, under the able leadership of the Minister of Education at that time, Eileen Dailly. Just for your information, Mr. Speaker, there is an elementary and a junior secondary school in New Aiyansh, which is the largest community of the Nishga on the Nass River. There is another elementary school in Greenville, which lies approximately 30 kilometres west of New Aiyansh down a gravel road and across the Nass River. Children go to junior and secondary schools in Aiyansh, where the high school is, by crossing the ice in wintertime. They have to go across the ice of the Nass River, and by boat in spring and fall when the ice has moved out, to attend school in New Aiyansh. Further down the river, which has no access by road — the only access is by a ferry route, a boat route — coming up north from Prince Rupert is the community of Kincolith, where there is an elementary school. The only access is by boat, either going back up the Nass River to Greenville or south down to Prince Rupert.

Maintenance for those schools is carried out basically from New Aiyansh, many miles away to the cast, or on special occasions, when a problem arises, by trained specialists being flown or boated into the area from Prince Rupert or Terrace. The district is operated by the Nishga people themselves, and they have been very successful in what they've done. It started as a project, but it has grown into much more than that.

[2:30]

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Glad to see you in the chair. I think that's the first time I've seen you in the chair, and I hope things go well for the next 30 minutes.

The trustees are elected from the local communities on the Nass, as I mentioned above — from the schools. But there are two other communities where there are school trustees for School District 92: the B.C. Timber camp of Nass Camp and Canyon City, which is between Greenville and New Aiyansh. The only access to Canyon City is a swinging bridge across the Nass River.

If this bill is passed, the minister will be able to supervise budgets and expenditures for the entire area of District 92, an area that I have discussed with the minister before, an area that to this date he hasn't had the opportunity to visit. I know that the invitation has been given to the minister, and I hope that one day he will be able to come up and see this fine and progressive school district. When one visits School District 92, there is an interesting curriculum presented by the Nishga people and the able staff, the teachers and the parents who are involved in the education of their own children. One of the specialized programs is the Nishga language, which is taught to the Nishga children as well as to the white children who attend the school. It's a very successful program that has been endorsed by the communities in the area. But for the minister who hasn't had the opportunity to visit this region, I'm giving a bit of a breakdown because I wonder if he really understands the implications of this bill and why we're hoisting it. This minister has to travel to the community which this bill will be involved with to see and understand how the people live, how the education process is being performed excellently in these areas.

Prior to being elected in 1979, I was a school teacher and an administrator. I know the value of having community involvement in public education. But if we see this bill passed in its present form, how can the minister, who has never visited this region and this specific school district, understand the progress and the gains and the strengths that the Nishga people have accomplished in such a