1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2575 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Section 1 –– 2575

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lea

Mr. Rose

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

Division

section 2 –– 2580

Mr. Lea

section 8 –– 2582

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

section 9 –– 2582

Mr. Cocke

Division

Third reading –– 2583

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Committee stage. (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich)

On the amendments to

Section 1 –– 2584

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to

section 2 –– 2590

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Mitchell

On the amendment –– 2591

Mr. Rose

Provincial Treasury Financing Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon.

Mr. Curtis)

Report –– 2592

Appendix –– 2592

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: I would hate to see any more precedent set

around here. Would it not be with leave, Mr. Speaker, that we proceed

to public bills and orders? I believe that estimates have precedent

over all other business.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point, I was viewing tonight's session as an extension of this aftenoon's, but I would ask leave.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the fact that leave has been

granted, hon. members, it is a fact that we are in an extended sitting

from this afternoon, just so we can clarify the matter.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister one

or two questions. The first question I have for the minister is: why

did the government decide to pick on elderly and low-income people to

repeal what the government had brought in only two years previously in

1981 as a real assist to those two groups, the renter's tax grant and

the income tax credit? I wonder why it was that they decided to move in

that direction to get that kind of income from the more unfortunate in

our society.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, within the limits of debate on

the section, because the matter was quite thoroughly canvassed in

second reading, at the start of an evening sitting I don't wish to

quibble over semantics. The member for New Westminster asked why we

decided to "pick on" particular groups in the province. The

section

limits the response. This is certainly not the only measure taken with

respect to curtailing expenditures in a period of dramatically

declining revenues.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what a marvellous answer. I presume that the

minister is not keen on my phraseology, vernacular or whatever. That's neither

here nor there. Within the scope of committee, he could answer the question

that I asked. It was a very simple question, one that can't be canvassed

in second reading because of the generalization. I said that there were a group

of people — I will put it in a different way — singled out; a group of people

who in my opinion are the least able to fight back and yet are the people most

affected by this amendment and probably almost any amendment that is before

the Legislature at the moment, with the exception of one or two. Mr. Chairman,

I don't think it was a wise decision. The minister can say something certainly

more expansive than what he did to answer my question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I have indicated on many occasions since

we convened this parliament, we were making every effort through much

of last year, speaking in terms of the calendar year, and then as we

moved later in 1983 to consideration of a budget for 1983-84 fiscal, to

maintain essential programs for the very groups about which the member

for New Westminster has spoken. That was quite fundamental to the

considerations undertaken in the Ministry of Finance and also in the

government, identifying these two programs which are dealt with in this

section, personal income tax credit and renter tax credit, as a very

desirable program for a province in better times. When I introduced the

personal income tax credit not that long ago in this chamber I had

hoped it would be in place for a good number of years, but I refer

again to the very dramatic decline in revenues and the expenditure

problems which we were facing while attempting to maintain health

programs, human resources programs and other essential services in the

province of British Columbia through the course of this fiscal year and

for the immediate foreseeable future.

MR. COCKE: Thank you to the minister, because that was far

more expansive an answer. I would like to go on now and say that I was

amazed, when the original program was introduced, that it was not more

widely proclaimed. I believe that a lot of people that were eligible

did not take advantage of this program because of the fact that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're getting a bit beyond the scope of committee work.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you're getting excited and probably a little impatient; it's early in the evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not impatient at all. But I must remind the

member that we are in committee stage and we must be strictly relevant;

observations on the principle are better dealt with in second reading.

MR. COCKE: Who's talking about the principle? I'm talking

about the advent of this particular section. My constituency office

almost had to go around informing people that they were eligible for

either the renter's tax credit or the personal income tax credit. The

government saw fit to repeal it because of the fact that it wasn't all

that widely used and all that widely understood. I make that as a

statement; I'm not going to ask the minister to answer it, because I

don't know how he could. It's just an observation that I have with

respect to this whole question.

Having said that, I thank the minister for his answer to the

question, I must say that we cannot support this section. I think we

indicated that very clearly in past sittings of this House. That's my

contribution with respect to this particular area.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister how much money

Section 1 will save.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the combined saving is estimated — and I have to stress the word "estimated"

[ Page 2576 ]

because in terms of those who took up the low

income tax credit as tax filers those numbers are not yet complete;

that compilation takes a number of months, as the members would

know.... A reasonable estimate is something in the vicinity, under

both, of $72 million to $77 million. I stress that that is an estimated

number only, and if it proves in the course of a year from now to be

low, then I serve notice on the committee that I was giving the best

available information as of tonight.

[8:15]

MR. LEA: It's my information, and the minister can correct me

if I'm wrong, that one point of income tax brings in approximately $35

million to $40 million. Looking at future revenues in the province,

we'd have to be on an estimate basis there also. But I'd like to ask

the minister why he would not put two points of income tax on, raising

between $70 million and $80 million, as opposed to taking this income

tax break away from the working poor, people who are poor, and the

elderly. Does the minister have some indication, either from polling or

from some other device in the department, that the people who are

working in this province would have preferred not to pay this extra,

say, two points, which would be about $80 million, which would have

made it possible for the renter's grant and the personal income tax

credit to still be going out to people who really do need the money? I

believe, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this province are responsible

enough and have a good enough feeling about their neighbours that they

wouldn't mind. I think most people would rather pay a little bit more

income tax — those of us who are working — than take it away from

people who can't. I just wonder whether the minister can give me any

information that would lead the government to take the route that

they've taken as opposed to asking those of us who are working maybe to

pay a little more.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It was canvassed earlier this evening with

the hon. member for New Westminster that these decisions were taken at

a time when we were faced with very major and unpleasant decisions. I

don't know how far I can go on this

section with respect to other

taxes. Rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman — perhaps it's better dealt

with in my estimates — but the surcharge on the higher income tax

payers was examined by me and left in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we're getting into material that might

be better dealt with in the minister's estimates, and I think all

members of the committee can appreciate that. We're also entering into

philosophical arguments that could have been dealt with in second

reading.

The member for Prince Rupert on

section 1; remain strictly relevant, please.

MR. LEA: I'm not asking for a philosophical answer; I'm

asking what information the government had that would indicate that

this is the right way to go. Surely the minister doesn't pull these

things out of a hat. He must sit down and sweat over it. I wonder just

where he's going to get the revenue, Mr. Chairman. It's not an easy

task to be the Minister of Finance and to raise revenue. Nobody likes

to pay taxes; that's the nature of the beast. But there must have been

some indication for the minister to feel that what he's doing in

section 1 would be better for the economy than going some other way.

What I'm asking for, Mr. Chairman, is factual information. This is

not a matter of principle, this is a matter of looking for facts. What

does the minister have in terms of cold, hard facts that would indicate

that

Section 1 is the way to go as opposed to some other way? He must

have had some facts at his fingertips: economic facts, projections,

that sort of thing. I'm asking the minister what information led him to

believe that this was the best way to deal with revenue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Inasmuch as

Section 1 is a repeal section, I

will allow that type of answer to be given by the minister, but I think

the basis of repeal is as far as we can go. That's what

Section 1 deals

with.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I understand, Mr. Chairman. If this

were the only revenue measure or saving measure taken, then perhaps I

could answer more fully. But the member must know that this particular

action was taken in a review of all government expenditures and

revenues as we saw them in the fall of 1982.

MR. ROSE: I'm interested in why the minister chose this

particular method, why he has repealed

section 1. In his speech of

August 15 he said:

"As the budget indicated and as the Premier and other

ministers have indicated, and as many people in British Columbia know,

there has been little significant improvement in the fortunes of the

province in the interval. So we are confirming the decision to repeal

both credits, certainly for this year and possibly for some little

while to come. In taking this measure, Mr. Speaker — and I appreciate

that there are other elements — it is important to point out that

through these measures the government will save approximately $82

million of taxpayers' money annually."

I've heard up to $92 million, but the minister claimed $82 million in his speech.

Since the minister has chosen this route of taking a credit off

those people who have the poorest income — renters, the elderly — could

the minister explain to the House his reason for opting for repeal of

this particular tax credit as opposed to some other kind of measure,

such as the repeal of the homeowner's grant or the diminution thereof?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that truly is second reading

debate. It's also repetitive of other questions that have been asked.

The minister may answer, but....

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, except to confirm. I don't

know if the hon. member who has just taken his seat was in the House;

that was asked in the first two or three questions of debate on this

section. This was not a decision taken in isolation.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to ask the minister in which light he

sees the renter's tax credit, which is also being repealed in this

section. Does he acknowledge a sort of historical relationship between

this and the homeowner's grant?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think I would have difficulty answering that question, inasmuch as it attempts to

[ Page 2577 ]

compare one particular program which is not in this bill with one which is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. We must be

specifically relevant. The minister has advised the committee that in

fact the member asked a question which is not included in the section.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do I understand

you correctly, that when we get to the minister's estimates we can ask

about legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, in the minister's estimates, I think

MR. LEA: So we'll never have another opportunity. Is that right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second reading is the opportunity to ask about

the principle of a bill. Ministers' estimates are the opportunity to

ask about the administrative actions of the minister. I think we can

sort out the differences between the two.

MR. LEA: You've answered my question very nicely, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In committee on a bill, we must be specifically relevant to the clause.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, in

second reading we all give our opinions. We don't particularly ask

questions. We debate the principle, and in this House there is very

little debate other than directly with the minister, unfortunately.

In any event, it strikes me that questions, providing the questions

are relevant to the section.... As all-encompassing and wide as they

may be in the opinion of the Chairman, it strikes me that if this is

the only opportunity to ask these questions — particularly in view of

your judgment with respect to estimates — maybe we'd better be given

the latitude to ask whatever questions are necessary with respect to

this particular bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, as long as they are specifically

relevant. I will remind members of the committee that

Section 1 deals

with provisions for personal income tax credits and renter's tax

credits, and that's all. And we're repealing them. That's about as far

as we can go.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's quite correct.

Section 4 of the

Income Tax Act, which is being repealed, does cover renter's tax

credits. I ask the minister if he acknowledges that there is an

historical relationship between this and....

Was this not introduced originally to create some sort of equality between classes of citizens; that is, renters and homeowners?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it would be up to others who

were involved at that particular time to answer on any attempt at a

relationship between this and some other form of direct assistance to

certain individuals in the province of British Columbia. I note that

the personal income tax credit is correctly in the Income Tax Act, and

the member has mentioned that. The homeowner grant is not in the Income

Tax Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The specific function of this

section is repeal, not comparison.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this thing evolved. It was really introduced by W.A.C. Bennett. The speech...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's clearly the principle of the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: ...is clearly in Hansard . At the time they didn't have a full Hansard but they did have a Hansard of second reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not material either. Hansard has no relation to

section 1 of this bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Hansard has no relation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's not mentioned.

MR. NICOLSON: Then we can't quote Hansard any more in this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see why you can't if it talks about repeal of a

section of the Income Tax Act.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I used to think I knew something

about the rules of this House, but after last night.... Certainly the

rules are changing so quickly that I can't keep up with those rule

changes. So if I appear to be somewhat ignorant after 11 years in this

House, I think it's perhaps understandable, since new rules are popping

up more rapidly than crocuses pop up in the lawns of this Legislature

in the month of February.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Possibly there's

a little misunderstanding, and before the member runs off any hotter at

the collar than he is, the question he did ask you was: can we quote Hansard in the House? I'm sure you would assure him that Hansard can still be quoted in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It certainly can. But to bring it into the argument is not relevant to this

section we're discussing.

With respect, I don't want to be difficult but in committee we have to be specifically relevant.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, if I start talking about the Crow

rate, by all means bring me to order. But I'm talking about renter's

tax credits. I would hope that this whole thing is not a fait accompli,

that these sections are amendable and a minister of the Crown could

bring in amendments. Perhaps this could be amended to repeal

section

3.2, and not

section 4, but certainly not in the hands of a member such

as myself. It would have to be the minister or vice versa.

I would like to point out to the minister, if he's not aware of it,

that the renter's credit got into the Income Tax Act as an evolutionary

process. It used to be a regular cash grant sent out from the Ministry

of Finance. Arrangements were made with the federal government to have

this done on the income tax and the government of the day then brought

section 3.2

[ Page 2578 ]

as well. Renter's tax credits were brought in to

redress an inequality whereby there was some form of tax relief for

property owners but not for tenants. I would ask the minister if he has

given some.... I know the question has been asked about how much money

is involved. I listened to the Hansard and heard him say

that it could be $75 million, $77 million, $78 million; he didn't want

to be pinned down on it. What would be the breakdown of this? How much

money is being saved on the renter's tax credit, and what would be

saved if the renter's tax credit is limited to senior citizens?

[8:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I gave the best available

figures that I could in terms of dollars to be saved as a result of the

repeal of these two credits. I know that the numbers have varied and

will continue to vary until we have a full report on the 1982 taxation

year. The breakout is approximately the same: roughly 50 percent

attributable to renter's tax credit and 50 percent attributable to

personal income tax credit.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, at the time when the Minister of

Finance introduced this piece of legislation he gave us some basic

information and some figures. First of all, he said that the tax.... We

have to remember that we are discussing two separate taxes here: the

personal tax credit and the renter's tax credit. He said they would

benefit most those people such as students and senior citizens who

normally did not pay income tax.

First of all, can the minister tell me how many students were in

receipt of the personal tax credit last year and approximately how many

senior citizens were in receipt of the personal tax credit last year?

Secondly, how many students were eligible for, and received, the

renter's tax credit last year, and how many senior citizens were

eligible? The third question would be those same two figures for

low-income families.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have that

information available tonight. I would undertake to answer the member,

to the best of my ability, at some other time when I can access

ministry files. But we have been dealing with these two credits with

the approximate number of British Columbians and the approximate number

of dollars.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I need that information because this

section is going to repeal those two tax credits: the income tax credit

and the renter's tax credit. In 1981, when both of those credits were

introduced, the minister told us that approximately 40 percent of all

British Columbia's families and 70 percent of the elderly would benefit

from these credits. I think the minister will agree that our economic

situation has worsened since that time, and I need that information in

order to know whether the percentage of B.C. families and elderly

citizens depending on that credit has increased since 1981 when it was

first introduced. That is the only way we will be able to measure the

full impact of this

section which is repealing these two tax credits.

We have to know the number of people who are going to be losing that

income.

You have to remember, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister

introduced these two credits he said very specifically: "This

represents the most generous tax credit in Canada today. It is tax

relief which will be provided to low- and moderate-income individuals

and families to help them offset increases in other areas, increases in

other costs which they are facing." If times are tougher in 1982-83

than they were in 1981-82 when this tax credit was introduced, it means

the individuals who were receiving these credits need them more than

ever. It also could mean that more individuals are receiving them than

in 1981-82. I think it's important to have that information. I don't

know whether the minister can send a note out to his deputy or someone,

but I think we really need to know.

I cannot believe that a decision would have been made to wipe out

these two credits without doing some kind of an analysis to find out

what impact it would have on that segment of society most in need. The

minister must have that information, Mr. Chairman. If he is willing to

send a note out to his deputy, I am prepared to give him a few minutes

to do so.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it's not a question of sending

a note out to an official in the Ministry of Finance. As I indicated

earlier in the debate on this

section in committee, we do not yet have

the detailed information which the member has asked for. We estimate

that there was approximately a 70 percent take-up rate among those

estimated to be eligible. We don't have a breakout yet, nor do we have

any information as to those comprising the 70 percent, by category or

by circumstances, other than that they were eligible. To the best of my

knowledge that information will not be available to anyone for some

considerable time: not until the 1982 tax statistics for this province

are finally compiled. We could stay here tonight, tomorrow and the next

day, but that information simply is not yet available.

The member has asked with respect to the decision. The decision was

taken with respect to ways in which the gap between revenue and

expenditure could be narrowed. Although it must be viewed in isolation

in terms of the debate, the decision was not taken in isolation, Mr.

Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister, when he was

making a decision based on attempting to narrow the gap between revenue

and expenditure, was looking at redistribution of income at the same

time. Surely the minister was also looking at trying to narrow the gap

between the haves and the have-nots. There must have been some

indication to convince the minister that this gap would continue to

narrow despite the repeal of this particular section. I would be

interested in having him share that information with the House. When he

introduced the credits he told us, for example, that one of the reasons

it was indexed under the Income Tax Act was because the level of

benefits was supposed to rise as inflation continued to increase in

future years. At the time the tax was introduced the minister didn't

speak about expenditure and income, but about redistribution of income;

that was the whole gist of his introduction.

So in terms of repealing that section, the minister must have looked

at what would happen to his goal of the redistribution of income. I

wonder if he would share his findings with the House as to whether

repealing

section 1 — which is the income tax credit and the renter's

tax credit — would not in any way impair his goal of redistributing

income to the most vulnerable or lowest-income group in our society,

which was the goal he laid out in 1981 when he introduced this credit.

[ Page 2579 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rules in

committee, the latitude which was available to me in announcing the

credit — in this case the low-income tax credit — is unfortunately not

available to me with respect to

section 1 in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think this has been well canvassed, hon. members. Are there more comments?

MS. BROWN: I regret that the minister doesn't have the

latitude to give us the information. But I'm a little concerned that

maybe he didn't take the time to do an impact analysis of what it would

do to an old-age pension couple to take the $266.70 and the $150 away

from them, or what it would do to a single mother with two children to

take away the $147 in tax credit and the $150 in renter's credit. If

the minister could tell me, Mr. Chairman, that he has done that

analysis and does have the information but is unfortunately unable to

share it with us at this time, I'm willing to accept the rules of the

House. I just need to be reassured that the minister really did took at

what withdrawing those sums of money from people on very low incomes

would do to them in terms of their living, the rent they can afford to

pay, the food and other expenses that they have. I'm willing to accept

that he can't tell me; I just need to know that he's done that analysis.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member that

with respect to the decisions taken in late 1982 to repeal those

credits which are before us in

section 1, I examined and inquired at

great length, and discussed them repeatedly with officials in the

Ministry of Finance, along with other measures which were then taken or

which would be taken at some point in the immediate future, in view of

our extremely serious financial circumstances. That is the most

straightforward statement I can make in this Legislature to that member

with respect to this repeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point must be taken.... To the hon. member, and I appreciate your concern that those answers....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know, but the answers as given by the

minister could be more fully developed in the minister's estimates,

which deal with administrative actions.

[8:45]

MR. MITCHELL: Along the same lines, why I am opposed to this repeal.... I'd like to quote from Hansard , when this particular act was brought

in; this is something I mentioned to the minister in second reading. The figures

he gave at that time, I thought, were a lot higher than the typical welfare

income or senior citizen pension. They were closer to what is classed as the

poverty level. The figures are, I believe, $10,000 for a single pensioner,

$18,000 for a married pensioner, and for a married tax filer with two children

under 18, approximately $22,000. When these figures were set, obviously there

was some computer printout that said that this would encompass a certain percentage

of the population who would then get approximately $70 million. Was there any

consideration given to this bill, before it was completely wiped out, of maybe

dropping the levels of $10,000 for a single pensioner, $18,000 for a married

pensioner...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're getting into second reading debate now.

MR. MITCHELL: I am opposed to a means test, but if those maximum levels were dropped....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is outside of the section. We're on a repeal act.

MR. MITCHELL: No, it is part of the act that we brought in, and it is part of the statements....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on a repeal act in committee. Do you have a specifically relevant question?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, the question I am asking is: was there any

consideration given to lowering the levels that were put into the

original act so the 40 percent of the low-income people would benefit?

I know there is a grey area, but 40 percent of 70,000 would be a saving

to the province but would still help the lower income.... This is why

I'm opposed to the complete abolition of this particular act, unless I

can get a reasonable answer from the minister as to why that

consideration was not given rather than the complete abolition of the

act — the levels where they would not be paid would be lower and would

still benefit those who are most in need, instead of those who might

not be as much in need.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to the previous

speaker in committee, this matter was examined from every possible

angle within the Ministry of Finance, with my officials, prior to the

decision being taken as to whether it was to be lowered or what could

be done. Again, I feel constrained by this repeal section, and I'm sure

the opportunity will arrive for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) and me to comment in greater detail in terms of the

execution of our portfolios.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

Section 1 pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was there a division called?

MS. BROWN: No, I'm on my feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me I heard a division called....

MS. BROWN: No, I'm on my feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I heard a division called. Okay, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: In the spirit of cooperation and harmony....

[ Page 2580 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and relevance.

MS. BROWN: ...I am going to be very brief so the minister can

have his division as quickly as possible. I just want to say finally

that I am very opposed to this repeal section, very disappointed and

very sad that the government has seen fit to repeal

section 1 of this

act, which denies — as the minister himself said, in introducing the

act — a tax credit and tax relief to those who need it most. I will

just end by quoting a statement by the United Church of Canada, which

said: "The poor are poor, with scant exception, not because they choose

to be but because they have no other choice. They are casualties of the

way in which we have chosen to manage our economy."

I think that this decision on the part of the government to balance

its books by taking from the poor and the elderly is a clear and ample

example of this statement. I am very much opposed, as my colleagues

are, to this

section repealing those two tax credits.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 7

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 2.

MR. LEA: I'd like to check out a number of administrative procedures under

section 2.

Mr. Chairman, our research department contacted the Ministry of

Finance to find out about some of the administrative procedures he has

to go through to take advantage of

section 2. I'd like to just check

these with the minister to see whether they are in accord with what we

have been told.

There are six points of administrative procedure that were checked

into to see whether you can take advantage of it, and I'd like to go

through them. One is that in order to be eligible you have to have a

constitution. I imagine that is correct.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. LEA: "Does it have a designated treasurer?" That makes sense. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. LEA: "Has it developed a form of receipt which is in

accord with the Income Tax Act?" That makes sense; yes, I would think.

The minister nods yes.

"Does it have a bank account?" That makes sense. Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: If it's got money.

MR. LEA: A little money in it, too, I suppose.

"Does it contain two or more registered voters?" I guess that is to

make sure there are no triflers, and that seems to make sense too.

But the final one is to me an administrative procedure that I think

may be somewhat frightening when dealing with this. We were given this

information by the ministry. In order to be eligible it has to be

ascertained what their political message is. I would particularly like

to ask the minister about that one — whether that is an administrative

requirement of taking advantage of this Income Tax Act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, nothing that I have seen

refers to a political message. I may be able to help the member. There

are several requirements. The member has dealt with some of them: at

least two or more eligible voters seeking to form a political party;

the party must have a constitution; it must have a bank account in its

own name; it must submit the name, the civic address and a specimen

signature of a person nominated to sign the tax credit receipts that

are dealt with under this section; the party has to develop an official

receipt which meets the requirement of the Income Tax Act, and the

party must indicate an intention to field candidates in the next

provincial election. The last one — the one about which the member

asked — is that the political party must have a political statement

that it wants to express. That, I think, is the point to which the

member was alluding.

MR. LEA: Any statement at all?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will not personally review the statements,

but if the administrative officers in Revenue Canada and provincially

are examining this, they will determine that there is a form of

political statement.

MR. LEA: I think maybe so we are all refreshed and know

exactly what we are dealing with here....

Section 2 says: "

Section 8.1

is amended by adding the following:

(3.1) A recognized political party

shall, before October 31 in each year, apply to the commissioner of

income tax for authority to issue signed receipts for amounts

contributed to it in the following calendar year" — that is, to the

political party. What this is is a

section of the act that allows, when

people are making a contribution to a political party, that some of

that money would come back to them at the end of the year — in other

words, as a tax break for the contributor. The minister's answer on

that one is still a bit nebulous to me — these bureaucrats, whoever

they are in the administration, are going to decide whether or not you

are eligible, depending on whether a political party has a statement to

make.

[9:00]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I don't know, it could be the Social Credit Party.

It pertains to all political parties, whether Social Credit, Liberal,

Conservative or NDP It seems to me that's a pretty dangerous thing to

leave in the hands of bureaucrats, if

[ Page 2581 ]

they're going to decide — I suppose subjectively,

because there are no regulations pertaining to this act, and if there

are no regulations then it is a subjective judgment — as to what this

statement is, and whether it is one that will allow you to be eligible

for this tax refund or not. I wonder whether the minister could

elaborate a little bit more on what "statement" means.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We seem to have a little problem here, because

the

section states that an application shall be made on a date to allow

for receipts. I don't believe I see anything about political

statements, and if the minister has already indicated that it might be

done by a bureaucrat, then in fact it would be best discussed during

his ministerial estimates, where the administrative actions of the

ministry are discussed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to

argue with the Chair, but in order to get the receipts certain criteria

are going to be reviewed, and that is perhaps how the member for Prince

Rupert reached this particular point. The criteria are those which I

identified just a few moments ago. I would be quite satisfied, because

a variety of matters, when they become a question of dispute between

the taxpayer and a public official, go by two or three routes. They may

go a formal route of appeal, or they may be dealt with by the minister

responsible at that particular moment. I would think that the matter of

a political party being rejected because its political statement did

not satisfy the reviewing official in the department of the

commissioner of income tax would very quickly be elevated to the

representative of the party and the representative of the government

party of the day.

MR. LEA: I don't see any problems for main political parties

like ours or the Social Credit. What I am thinking of more is a

political party that has a statement to make which neither one of us

may agree with.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The Rhinoceros Party.

In matters such as this I do trust the minister to make a decision

affecting minority parties, but I still think it leaves the door open

for suspicion, and I don't think that is desirable.

One more question to the minister.

Section 2 allows for people who

make contributions to political parties to have a tax refund, which

means that moneys that would have been directed into the treasury no

longer are, and if this amendment wasn't here it would mean a loss of

revenue to the treasury, because it is here. I wonder why the minister

would take away the personal income tax credit and the renter's tax

credit, and yet leave that in for those of us who make contributions to

a political party? It seems to me that we're getting our priorities a

little mixed up.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the forgone revenue

through this

section is relatively small, even when compared with what

was dealt with in the previous section.

MR. LEA: It's true, I am talking about a matter of principle, and I shouldn't be, but it seems to me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Also a previous section.

MR. LEA: And a previous section, so I'm out on all counts.

But whether I'm out technically on all counts or not, I don't like the

fact that you have to have somebody check the political party's

statement to see whether it's acceptable. It leaves something to be

desired. I would like to go on record that our party feels that we

don't want to get refunds at the expense of the poor and the elderly.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I

believe I know the rule which is being interpreted somewhat this

evening. I would just like to draw Mr. Chairman's attention to

practice. We've often had a practice, for instance, with miscellaneous

statute bills, that when such a bill is brought in we say it would be

better discussed in committee. The practice of the House is that there

is some fairly wide-ranging discussion that goes on in committee, not

just looking at whether there should be a comma, a quote, or a

parenthesis. We have also often been told in second reading that we

should not be discussing specific sections of the bill that would be

better canvassed in committee. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that

the kind of exchange that has been going on is the right kind of

exchange. It's the only opportunity where a minister and a member can

have some give and take and hear various things. It might get heated,

or it might be very calm, as it has been just now. That is the point of

order that I would raise, based on practice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point of order is well taken. As a

matter of fact, the record will show without reflection that there has

been second reading debate agreed to, and it has been agreed to by

certain members of this House who have certain positions that in fact

great discussion would go on in committee stage as opposed to second

reading. This bill, though, has had extensive debate in second reading.

I don't want to appear to be difficult; the only concern that I have

is, particularly with this type of legislation dealing with the

Minister of Finance, about developing arguments that might be better

discussed in the minister's estimates, because we deal with

administrative functions and actions. That was my only caution. It was

not a ruling; it was just a caution. I don't think I've stopped any

members from debating. But I do accept the opinion from the member for

Nelson-Creston.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand

the argument put forward by the member for Nelson-Creston, but when he

refers to various Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Acts he's referring

to bills that do not have any overriding principle. Of course in a bill

like that the only way you can discuss it is by individual clauses. But

even at that, I think in the past — it has been my experience in the

House, at least — in clause-by-clause debate in Committee of the Whole

House we have still been restricted to the individual clauses, in a

fairly narrow restriction as well. The only reason that we don't have a

general discussion in second reading is that there is no overriding

principle on that type of bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Chair has discussed that.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suppose

that we're all a product of our own backgrounds, but it seems to me

that in some legislatures.... It's difficult to

[ Page 2582 ]

get used to new practices. I'm not saying one is

better than the other; I'm not making a comparison. I'm just saying

that it is difficult sometimes to adjust oneself This Committee of the

Whole stage is dealt with in other legislatures out of the House; on

finance bills, frequently, it's dealt with inside the House. But a

committee on a bill — such as the Crow rate, for instance — sometimes

can travel and sometimes can last for weeks; witnesses are called

before it and there is extensive discussion.

It's difficult for someone who is accustomed to a wideranging

discussion in committee stage to get used to the rather restrictive

rules which the Chair has taken in this instance. For instance, what

can one say about clause I of this bill — I suppose you might say

"nothing," because we've already passed it — unless one inquires into

the reason for its repeal? It's extremely difficult.

We have spent one hour on a committee stage, and I don't think that

that necessarily tends to be excessive for clause-by-clause of a bill.

I would like to be enlightened on why it seems to be necessary to so

restrict discussion on a bill, because you can make it so restrictive

that there really is no range for discussion. There are times when you

have to discipline the members and the House; I don't think that we've

reached that point on this bill, Mr. Chairman. I don't wish to speak on

it any further, but I do know that when we get into some other clauses

and onto some other issues such restriction makes it very difficult for

opposition or government members to do their jobs and to ask the proper

questions and to flesh out the kind of discussion that's not available

during other stages.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Our standing orders

are rather straightforward, really. They simply say that when

discussing a bill in Committee of the Whole House in the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia you must be strictly relevant to the

clause before you. Some of the debate this evening has been strictly

relevant and extremely good; some has been just a bit wide-ranging.

It's that simple.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, not so much on this bill.

What bothered me was your ruling that that should come up in estimates.

Normally we deal with estimates first. If under estimates we try to

bring up something that's in a bill.... I have been ruled out of order

and told not to discuss that because that will be in further

legislation. I'd hate to see throwing it back to estimates when we're

dealing with it. I would like a little bit of leeway, though with this

bill I think we managed to get through it with the minister without

being bothered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On committee on a bill we have no choice of what's going to come.

Sections 2 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MS. BROWN: I just really need from the minister some

clarification of this section. What it says is that notwithstanding the

fact that the renter's tax credit and the provincial income tax credit

were repealed, any deductions, reductions or grants credited and paid

prior to November 1982 shall be deemed to have been validly credited or

paid. Does that mean that a senior, for example, filing an income tax

return in the spring of 1983 could claim either or both of the tax

credits up to November 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MS. BROWN: What does it mean?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was with the member until she said November 1983. Did I misunderstand you? I thought you said 1982.

MS. BROWN: You file your income tax in the spring of one year

to cover the past year, so they would be filing their income tax in

January, February or March to cover the year 1982. Would they receive a

credit to cover them up to November 1982? Would they get a part of

their credit?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to the question is quite

distinctly no. The credit was suspended as of the date of announcement,

November 10, and if one had not filed the tax return by that point in

time, then the matter was closed.

MS. BROWN: Would the minister give me an example? I have a

lot of seniors in my riding, Mr. Chairman, and that's the reason I need

to know. If there is any benefit at all that accrues to them, I'd like

to be able to share that with them. Give an example of when this

section would be applicable.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There are two examples.

Section 8 provides

two things, really. First of all, the two credits which had been

administratively processed by Revenue Canada before the announcement of

the suspension are not to be recovered. In other words, there is no

reaching back to those who for the previous year or for whatever reason

had already...

MS. BROWN: Received it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ...sent their return, not received it — sent

it off and it was in process by Revenue Canada. I might point out, and

I think I'm within the restrictions of

section 8, that Revenue Canada

estimates that about $180,000 — this is the second point — had been

paid to deceased taxpayers or taxpayers who had left the country and

filed a final tax return. That also is not recoverable, but that was as

of November 10, 1982.

[9:15]

MR. MITCHELL: Maybe the minister half-assed —

half-answered.... [Laughter.] I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw

how these other people interpreted what I said. What I meant was that I

understand it to where you said validly paid — where it's credited,

where they have a valid credit. If you don't have a credit up until

November 10.... I can understand that if the money has been paid out

the credit doesn't go with it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. I tried to make myself as clear as possible: where a return had been sent in and where it was in process. That's it.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

[ Page 2583 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we are totally opposed to

retroactivity. We feel that this government has become lazy and

irresponsible. There is so much retroactive legislation coming before

this House that we have no alternative but to say that we vote against

this most vociferously.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 7

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 6

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Nicolson

Mitchell

Rose

MR. SPEAKER: It came to the Chair's attention that during the last

division two members left the House to pick up notes for a bill, and while the

time elapsed was slightly over two and a half minutes, it was considerably less

than five. In fairness to those members who left, would it be agreed that those

names be added to the division list?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The two names....

Interjections,

AN HON. MEMBER: Rose isn't here yet.

MR. SPEAKER: He must at least enter the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, we agree with the

procedure that is suggested, but each of the members should identify

themselves and the way they voted for the record.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds votes....

MS. BROWN: In opposition to the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The member for Coquitlam-Moody's vote will be recorded...

MR. ROSE: I'm voting in opposition to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: ...in the negative. Thank you, hon. members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That was a great surprise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, may I have leave, please, to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[9:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a great pleasure for us to have in the

galleries tonight a number of members of the Senate and House of

Commons Joint Committee on Senate Reform. I'd like to introduce to the

assembly first of all the two cochairmen, Senator Gildas Molgat and the

Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove. We have with them Senator Martha Bielish,

Senator William Doody, Senator Jean Le Moyne, Senator Norbert Theriault

and committee staff Mr. John Hayes. A great welcome to British Columbia

to all of them.

MR. LEA: We're against the Senate. How did they get in?

HON. MR. GARDOM: British Columbia's answer to Stanley Knowles.

[ Page 2584 ]

Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 6, if I may.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I

would like to file and move. I have delivered copies of this amendment

to members of the opposition.

MR. NICOLSON: I had to go get my own.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I brought ten copies. I knew there wouldn't be any more than seven....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's relevant to the debate. Please move the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment. I would like to make a few comments on it.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The amendment is to delete four words: "or

a portion of" in

section 12(l)(a). It also adds the word "establishing"

after the word "including."

In subsection (1)(

b) there are two expressions. First, "the board of

school trustees of" is added after "direct," and again the expression

"or a portion of" is deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would accept points of order from the House

on this, but it might be better if we could deal with the first

amendment to subsection (1) in two parts. Would the committee be

agreeable to that? So we'll begin with subsection (1)(a).

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Over the last two and a half months, since

the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, Bill 6, was introduced,

there have been extensive discussions with a number of the people

involved in education, primarily with school boards throughout the

province and, of course, their representative association, the B.C.

School Trustees' Association. We have been in consultation, quite

heavily as a matter of fact, over the past three to four weeks, and

with some degree of intensity over the last two weeks. There has been a

fair amount of discussion.

What I would really like to say to the school trustees is this: they

always knew that my door was open; that it would revolve. Many times I

could not agree, but I have to mention that as a result of a fair

amount of consultation we conceded to one request that they had made. I

think the members opposite will recall the brief that was submitted,

which requested the deletion of the four words "or a portion of" in

subsection (1)(

a) and, of course, in the next one, subsection (1)(b).

The major reason for that is probably this. The school trustees

stated that they had no objection to the provincial government

establishing the budget and the spending levels, particularly under

times of restraint. I think that's a fair

interpretation of their

comments today. They wish, when those funds are allocated to school

boards, to be able to have the flexibility to allocate those funds in

the way they as a local autonomous body know best. I think they made a

very sound argument. For some time, as a matter of fact, I've been

persuaded by the validity of their position. What it really

demonstrated was that by talking with people.... They had taken the

high road all the way through this. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman,

their position was very firm. They very much wanted this particular

amendment to susection (1)(a).

Also, you will note another comment in here: we've added the word

"establishing" after the word "including," so that the amendment reads:

"including establishing the portion for special education programs...."

That was also something which the advisory committee and the president

of the B.C. School Trustees' Association had agreed to today.

MR. ROSE: Well, you cut it before. You're putting it back now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, that's not true. I am not quite

sure.... Mr. Chairman, can I have your indulgence in some assistance?

Mr. Chairman, are you with us today?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't want to get into subsection (1)(

b) right now. I would leave that and have the opportunity in a moment or two after....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are going to treat them as two separate amendments.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, we welcome the amendment. It is the

first sign we have seen that the government is willing to move on

anything. We thought that their legislation was chiselled in stone up

to now, and the very fact that the minister has been reachable on this

particular clause is an important symbol, because the school trustees

were very concerned about what their role was to be in future if the

minister could run everything from his office in Victoria. He still

can, and there isn't a great deal that has been changed. However, there

are certain important things that have been changed. It allows the

school boards, as I see it, to move various amounts around to meet the

local needs, within the total capped budget. For instance, if a school

board in a place like Prince Rupert wanted to spend more money for

busing it could do that, provided it was willing to stay within the cap

prescribed by the minister.

As a matter of fact, on that very point, today I received a copy of

a letter, and it mentions a speech by Your Honour on this very topic of

busing. They quote various parts of your speech, on page 640 in Hansard ,

where you criticize your own district of Prince George, for which you

are a member in the House, for its elimination of winter busing and

suggest imprudent behaviour by the board. They go on to say that they

felt that the budget discussions were severely limited by the new or

proposed Bill 6. However, this amendment might well save some of that

difficulty because of the increased flexibility now available by the

minister's amendments which was not available before. It says:

"The trustees made several difficult decisions to save

local programs which had high educational value and community support.

Among these decisions was

[ Page 2585 ]

the reduction of 19 district office

administrative positions. The decision to cut winter busing was not

taken lightly, and it was a board decision, not an administrative

decision as you indicate in Hansard . All along we

expected approval for extra funding for winter busing but have not yet

received this response from the ministry. You are encouraged to remedy

the errors in the statements made in the House on August 4."

Be that as it may, when you apply a particular formula to a

particular school district and do not allow the flexibility of moving

the various funds allotted to the district within the cap, it makes it

very difficult for any district to operate. The needs such as busing in

Prince George during the winter, as the minister would know, are quite

different from those faced by a district such as Delta, unless there is

a particularly harsh winter. In any event, what we find difficult here

is the fact that the boards are still under obligation to operate

within certain kinds of directives which emanate from a central power,

which gives the minister all the power, and they are forced to operate

within a cap no matter how much that district may wish to operate

locally.

The argument has been made many times, and I don't intend to repeat

it tediously — to quote standing order 43 — but I think it is worth

mentioning. The budgets are really being set by the central office

rather than by the school. That's number one in terms of

centralization. Further, the minister can issue directives as he sees

fit. We would prefer some kind of recommendations rather than that,

because we would like to preserve more autonomy for the school

district. Mr. Chairman, I need your direction on this because of my

lack of knowledge of procedures here. Are you getting ready to give me

some advice on the subject? Some of my colleagues want to speak on this

particular bill, but I also want to move certain kinds of amendments

and additions which are amendments to

section 1. I don't want to sit

down and not have that opportunity to move these clauses. I understand

that I have a half-hour on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. ROSE: But if I sit down my half-hour is up — is that the case?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, no. You can speak again, hon. member; you

can speak as many times as you wish. The half-hour is really just an

outside limit.

MR. ROSE: I just wanted to make certain of that.

I think the minister was right when he said the boards of school

trustees and their association were very concerned about the original

clause, which prohibits them from taking portions of their budget and

moving them around into areas of greater local need. But they also, I

think, have a large concern about the whole formula itself. I hope the

minister has not closed his mind to altering certain aspects of the

formula, because it was pointed out in the same brief in which minister

received the advice on the business of the "portion thereof" that the

formula was going to add immense costs to some districts. They cite

increased legal costs, court decisions, the number of administrators,

systems that are too large, salaries of teachers — keeping teachers on

at high salaries instead of encouraging them to take early retirement

leaves — and disincentives for collective bargaining to preserve jobs

by lowering salaries — or at least letting them make that decision....

A very excellent paper by Dr. Armstrong points out the very same

thing, that the new formula is based on the average teacher's salary in

the district and that therefore it pays the board to keep teachers on

at the higher salary — even those who wish to retire — it prevents

opportunities for younger teachers to acquire positions; it is all so

based on the number of square metres of floor space in the district.

Dr. Taylor, as the minister knows, goes into great detail supporting

these arguments, and I don't intend to repeat that. I notice the

Chairman is relieved when I say that.

[9:45]

I will say this: the minister has moved on a very important aspect in line

with the trustees' recommendation, and for that we are pleased. There are

other problems with the formula that work to the disadvantage of some districts

and also go about accomplishing the very opposite, in terms of restraint, of

the direction in which the minister wishes to move. In line with the idea of

giving the boards more autonomy, to make certain that any directive is explicit,

I have some amendments to move to

section 1, but I will reserve that right until

after some of my colleagues have had a chance to make some remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't anticipate the amendment, not having

seen it, but we are, as we have established now, on the amendments to

subsection (1)(

a) as distributed by the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If I could take just a moment or two to

make some comments with respect to the last member's question.... First

of all, to the member, when we introduced the fiscal framework

approximately two and one half months ago, it was well understood that

it was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it was the

first time anything like this had ever been done, and it has been done

for an excellent reason. I can assure the member that we have received

a number of briefs. I don't know how many meetings we have had with

districts — all 75 throughout the province, some not directly. We have

had teams moving out. We have had central locations where they have

come in to meet. As a matter of fact, the last group made a number of

suggestions which were distilled down to 18, and I hope they will be

available for distribution either tomorrow, Friday, in the afternoon or

in the early part of the week. Each one of those is in response to some

of the concerns raised by the fiscal framework, because there is no

conceivable way one can have a formula which will be applied

universally in an area as large as British Columbia. That was

recognized at the beginning because of the dispersion and remoteness

indexes. There is still some concern in here, but we have come a long

way.

I would just make reference here to the first brief submitted to all

members of the Legislative Assembly by the BCSTA. If you will look in

that brief, there was only one specific request: deletion of those four

words, "or a portion of." In support of deletion of those four words

they listed three sections of items, and said that deletion of those

words would solve these problems. Well, the truth of the matter is that

deletion of those words will not solve all of those problems at all,

although their statement in here says that it will. That was the first

crack at it, and I accept that. We've had a lot of meetings since that

time and have come a long way.

[ Page 2586 ]

Just remember one interesting thing with respect to early

retirement: the system which we had in place is one in which we would

authorize a deficit to be incurred. I believe the cost to the

provincial government for each 30 teachers was something in the order

of $1 million. That is why we had to have a close look at this thing in

these difficult times of restraint.

I could get into a number of items, Mr. Chairman, and I really don't

know if this is the ideal place to do that. But there is another

amendment to this bill which we went the extra mile to accommodate.

They had some concern, and it is one of the items which I'm pleased

about. There are a number of other items that we're working on right

now with respect to surplus non-shareable capital, shareable capital

and the interest on those accounts, and how we can use those. My

objective is to see if I can get more control at the school board level

for the utilization of funds. I have some statutory roadblocks with

them at this time, and they have to be reviewed. I think that's all for

now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I did want to comment

briefly, because, in my opinion, so much has been said that has been

interpretation rather than fact. A great deal has been made about the

fact that the minister would control everything from Victoria — every

portion, every budget every position in the district, and so on. I

noted in the original

section of the legislation, and they're still

there, the words "the minister may" — not "shall" but "may." I guess

some people saw that as allowing the minister to call all the shots in

every section.

I would like to commend the minister for removing those four words,

"or a portion of," because, again, they were interpreted differently

than was ever the intent. I know that in discussions some of my school

boards, directly and through me, had approached the minister and said:

"Are we going to be able to bury funds?" The impression I had all

along, and what seemed in fact to be operating, was that the formula

was used to add up a number of parts to form a total; within that,

variance would be allowed. There was concern that special education

shouldn't be wiped out. In other words, if any board chose to it could

be retained. It was sort of possible to use that in case of possible

abuses. Certainly the intent and the practice of the minister and the

ministry has so far been to recognize those concerns.

Similarly, without expanding on it in any great detail, the formula

was also open for negotiation. The minister has stated this and has

shown that in fact, where it was worked out from a provincial average

to try to determine some basis on which to allot money to districts to

provide equal opportunity of education for all children throughout this

province, a modification — if you like — on the formula of sharing, of

equalization, in the province was actually being done. The minister —

if you will recall, and I certainly do — said: "We've provided a

formula on which to base funding for a basic, sound educational

program. It may not make sense in some areas, and we're open to

discussion." I'd certainly like to commend the minister for this

change, which removes that unnecessary fear that I felt was established

by the hysterical criticisms that were applied, and apparently still

are. I'd like to commend the minister and say how pleased I am that

board members in my area who had concerns now feel that, with a

rational, sensible and logical approach to the ministry and this

government, results can be attained.

MR. MITCHELL: I kind of resent the implication of the last

speaker when he says that any of our debate was hysterical. We entered

this debate on the amendment as it was. I support my colleague, who

says that taking out those four words, "or a portion of" — the

budget.... If you go through my particular speech in the Blues, you

will see that this was one of the items that we zeroed in on. The

government would like to call it hysterical, but we felt it was wrong

and we held it up. I believe it was for a good cause. I think this is

the heart of our parliament: to hold it up so the school boards could

get to the minister with reasons. He is not going to listen to us. All

we are is a holding action. I think we did a job, and I think that's

what we're here for: to identify the problem. I'm not going to say that

the principle of this particular bill is changed so that we're back

into second reading.

I would like to say one thing, and I know it is a little out of

order. Some of the confrontation that may have developed over this

particular bill in my own riding.... I know the chairman of the Sooke

School Board, Mr. Ken Pearse, an excellent person, has fought it for

two years and is giving up. He must get some satisfaction that the

pressure did come and the minister did move, though he has stepped down

because of that confrontation. I think I would like to put on record

that the minister did move, and we appreciate it.

There is one other thing I would like to talk about, but I can't

talk on the amendment. He hasn't moved it yet, so I'll get back to you

later,

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on the amendment now.

MR. MITCHELL: The second amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I see.

MRS. DAILLY: Just one quick question to the minister

regarding special education and the directive that the ministry will

establish special-education programs, or a portion thereof. Could you

tell us what criteria your ministry will use for telling each district

how much must be put aside for special-education funding?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will confess now that I am not able to

give the hon. member a detailed answer to her question. I haven't been

here long enough. But this I do know: all special-education programs

are handled by a gentleman by the name of Wayne Desharnais in the

ministry, who is....

Well, I can tell you that it doesn't matter where I go, the

reputation of this gentleman in the area of special education is very

high. I understand that every program and the cost of the program is

determined in the ministry, and that is how the funding is established.

There is a special situation...although in the fiscal framework and

service levels, you will find there is a great deal of money. I must

tell you that in all the concerns that have been expressed, nothing, as

a matter of fact, has come to me representing any major concern with

respect to special education.

As I recall, the member for Burnaby North asked me a question at

some time during those three days and two nights of consecutive debate

— during which I listened to 44 speeches plus two hours of reasoned

amendment, I think.... You had a question about that, and it seems to

me I got a response. I believe that the concern the member had was that

there was a reduction in Burnaby. The fact is I

[ Page 2587 ]

went back to get full particulars on this, and I

found out that there wasn't a reduction. I'm a little hazy on this, but

the number of children involved was reduced somewhat; in effect, there

was a net increase of funding. I'm not sure if it was 2, 3 or 4 percent

— somewhere in there. I'll see if I can dig that letter out. Am I

correct, Madam Member, that it was you who asked?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll make a note of that and get back to you. I believe that this is looked after.

[10:00]

MR. ROSE: On that point, it might have been during my speech

in which I mentioned that they closed down one of the schools in Port

Coquitlam, a special-education school — Sunny Park, I believe — and

were suggesting that it was over the objections of the people who had

spent a lot of money equipping that school. They were intending,

instead, to bus the pupils up to the top of the hill in Coquitlam to

another school which was devoted to the same purpose. But the point is

that school boards have faced extra costs because of mainstreaming in

education. I think the first school was Sunny Park School.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I checked into that and got a response from that.

MR. ROSE: I can't hear the minister, Mr. Chairman, but I

think he said he checked into it. I don't know the answer. I didn't

receive any information about that. I would be pleased to do that. The

board, because of budget restraints, was considering closing that

school, and that was of great concern to the people involved because

they felt that their kids would be disoriented; they had put a lot of

money into the school for its equipment and they didn't want to lose it.

On the other point, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

made the point of "may" rather than "shall" in the legislation. That is

a very common kind of legislate-ese which will allow the minister to do

what he wishes. It doesn't direct the minister to do anything, but it

certainly allows the minister to take that power. It is that kind of

power that we are concerned about.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He "may" do it, yes. We are afraid he will On the

other point that the Minister of Environment made having to do with the

budgeting and equality of education, we know that we don't have that in

terms of money spent per pupil. It varies widely throughout the

districts, and even from a top of $6,000 per student to a low of

$3,800....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I didn't say equal amounts spent.

MR. ROSE: No, no, you're talking about equality of education....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the minister wishes to enter debate, he can.

MR. ROSE: The minister was talking about equality of

opportunity and basic education for the pupils of British Columbia. I

am saying that there is a vast difference in the amount spent, and

frequently that relates to quality of education. I don't think the

minister can deny that. It may lead to inequality in certain offerings

of education. That is all I intend to say on that matter.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister — second amendment, please.

MR. ROSE: I have some amendments to

section 1, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is customary to accept the ministerial amendments, but we will accept the amendment from the hon. member. We've passed one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just

want to know.... I'm not finished with

section 1 yet. That was

subsection (1)(

a) and the other was subsection (1)(b). What I know

about procedure, you can put....

MR. ROSE: All right, forget it. Let's go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister on amendment (1)(a).

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You will note that where it says "a school

district" it should in fact read "the board of school trustees." My

explanation is that this is what I was advised by legislative counsel.

I hope that will be adequate. It should have been that from the

beginning.

The second thing is again the deletion of the expression "or a portion of." I think that is it.

With respect to those particular items, that was the request made by

the BCSTA. I don't need to go into all of that other than to advise

you, Mr. Chairman, that there was lots of head-banging and we were

able, I am proud to say, to find some common ground. As I recall, there

was a fair amount of discussion in the House for those three days and

two nights, with respect to that expression.

I might also make reference again, on this — and this will be last

point on this item.... When you go into the Education (Interim) Finance

Act, being the item which we are amending, I would like to refer the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) to the existing

section 12, where

the same expression is used: "The minister may, at any time before May

1 in any year, issue directives...." That's already in place. So what

we see in the amendment is not really an addition; it is nothing more

than a carry-over....

MR. ROSE: I was not concerned about that. I didn't raise it first; the minister did.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All right. Do I have to move that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is considered moved by being on the order paper.

[ Page 2588 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have some further amendments to

section 1.

MR. ROSE: I have so many here I don't know what to do with them all.

We are not all that happy about "directives." We would prefer to see

it be "recommendations." However, "directives" are what is used in the

act, and so we have a couple of amendments dealing with that.

We would like to add clause (

c) under subsection (1). We have dealt with (b), haven't we?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, subsections (1)(

a) and (

b) are passed.

MR. ROSE: This simply calls for the directives that are

issued under clause (

a) to be published in the annual report of the

minister. The reason for that is the same with the colleges in Bill 19

the other night, the idea being that you don't know.... The minister

"may" do these things, but we don't know what he is doing, and so there

is no way of knowing just how a minister can or will use these powers.

I think the best way to ensure that he doesn't overuse his powers, his

clout, is to have these directives published. It is a freedom of

information thrust that we are trying to accomplish. The minister has

the power to use them, at the moment, in secret. They may be perfectly

good and yet they may be perfectly arbitrary, and they may not treat

all districts the same way. This ensures fairness and openness and

freedom. Under the School Act the Minister of Education is accountable

to the Legislature for the operation of the public school system. I

think this amendment allows the minister to make his directives,

although we don't agree with them. It allows him to do that, but it

makes certain that the public is protected from a minister or a deputy

minister who is overbearing or overpowering by making certain that

these things are made public after the fact. The minister will be

accountable, as the School Act envisions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will make a couple of comments on it. Is

it permissible for me to make a comment before the Chair has ruled

whether or not...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, I accept the sincerity with

which the amendment is put forth by the member. The same concerns I

have were expressed when that amendment was put forth on Bill 20. I

would have to advise the Chair first that although it appears

reasonable, it is going to put a significant impost upon the Crown,

because if you consider the directives that would go to 75 school

districts, we would end up having an annual report that would be rather

a significant size. One of the things we are trying to do is reduce the

cost of publishing annual reports, to be very candid. But as a safety

measure, Mr. Chairman, as a check on those directives.... Those

directives go to school boards. It is going from one public body —

being the provincial government, and I must answer in my estimates — to

another public body with elected representatives. It seems to me there

is adequate protection for the public coming both in this chamber and

in the school board meetings. In any event, I suspect it would be

disallowed because of the cost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As a matter of fact, the Chair will rule that the amendment is in order. But the minister may speak against it and reject it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I certainly will speak against it, because

I don't see what we are going to accomplish with it. We are going from

one public body to another public body. Each school district, as a

matter of fact, meeting weekly, will be discussing any such directives

like this at their board meetings. They are public, and there isn't

anything to hide. I don't know what the particular advantage would be

to publish it in the Ministry of Education annual report. That

particular document, probably like most ministerial reports, I don't

think is tops on the best-seller list.

MR. ROSE: What I tried to outline is the fact that certainly

boards should be treated the same and that there is no real way for

boards — unless they take it through their trustees' association — to

compare the directives that they have been issued with those of other

boards. I think it is important that they be treated fairly and

equitably. I think that the more public we can make these directives of

various kinds the better. I realize that not many of us are going to

use these for bedtime reading. Many of them would put us to sleep

rather rapidly. Maybe we should recommend that. Nevertheless, the idea

is to have these directives on file or at least made public in such a

way that people can see them. The public has a right to see them not

just in the individual districts but also across the spectrum in all

districts.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the roles of

the B.C. School Trustees' Association.... As a matter of fact, anything

that comes from the Ministry of Education seems to find itself in that

particular office. They probably know more than we do. So comparisons

between districts are going to be done. You can rest assured that if

one particular district receives a directive about which they not very

pleased, they refer it to their association and seek counsel. Then that

association deals with the ministry, if it's a policy matter or of

concern to an individual board.

Amendment negatived.

Section 1 as amended.

[10:15]

MR. ROSE: I have another amendment, but if we couldn't even

get that one passed, I'm reasonably certain that this one is not going

to be embraced with tremendous affection. I'm not going to try and

knock my own amendment. Nevertheless, the big concern is local

autonomy. The minister has taken it upon himself to cap the budget, to

take over local taxation — that was a year or two ago, on various other

things — and now he's going to determine the funding formula.

Potentially, if not actually, there is going to be a dictation on the

part of the minister to the board. He can limit the budget; he can

determine the budget for local school boards. In spite of the amendment

that we've already passed

[ Page 2589 ]

this evening — and I congratulate the minister on

his amendment — the boards clearly don't have the autonomy that they

once had. I don't think anybody can argue with that.

I understand an amendment is coming up to give a sunset clause to

this thing. It's only going to be for two years; apparently it's going

to end in '86, at the same time as his reduction formula is supposed to

conclude. Of course, we have had "interim” before. As a matter of fact,

one of the amendments that I considered tonight was to change "interim”

in the title of this bill. This is what's happening. I don't know that

I want to get into a great rage tonight. As other people have pointed

out, we have had a considerable debate on this topic. The issue

remains: the boards do not have the authority and power they once had.

I think they have displayed a great deal of responsibility in dealing

with it.

We want to give the board some additional power. That may not go

down very well with the minister. But the minister can cap a budget

based on a formula. Why can't a board, it it wished to, provided it was

unanimous...? We want them to be able to ignore the minister's

directive by a unanimous vote of the board. Bill 6 gives the minister

overriding powers on every local school board in the province. What is

the point of being a board member if you don't have any power to

determine your own budget? You were elected by the local taxpayers. I

wonder how the municipal councils would go for that, or even this

similar override on this.

I think the minister realizes that school boards have to have some

function other than being merely advisory. If a directive runs contrary

to the wishes of the board — and they were duly elected by the citizens

of a particular municipality or group of municipalities — and if by

unanimous vote they do decide to override the minister's directive on

this budgetary matter and other matters — I think they should have that

right — and to take their chances at the polls the same way the

minister will; take their chances at the next election in the same way

that the minister or ny other member is prepared to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I must find that the

amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody goes well

beyond the scope of the section. There is an impost on the Crown as

well. So the amendment fails.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I didn't have a

chance even to read my amendment, I'll not make that mistake again. I

think I'll hand in my amendment after I've read it. So I've learned

something this evening. To be ruled out of order before I even got to

the point is a little bit, I feel, premature. The next time I'll do

what the minister did: I'll march in with my amendments in my hot

little hands. When I'm finished reading my amendments, I will make

certain that other people get copies thereof.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Oh, excuse me just a minute. I passed....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's amendments were distributed before we went into committee.

MR. ROSE: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we need, frequently, in terms

of complicated.... The minister's amendments, I must admit, were quite

simple. Even I was able to grasp their significant import. But in the

main it would be, I think, only a courtesy to the House to have a

little bit more warning on a series of complex amendments than we got

here tonight. Perhaps putting them on the order paper, or something

like that, would be helpful.

Well, Mr. Chairman, if my amendment is out of order, at least the

intent was to give the school boards overriding power by unanimous vote

over a directive. We don't like directives in the first place. But if

it's out of order, and you declare it out of order, then I am in your

hands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the

section as amended pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MR. ROSE: Wait a minute. Not so fast.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 2....

MR. ROSE: Wait a minute! I'm not finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the member must rise to his feet.

We have passed

Section 1 as amended. We passed the two amendments; we

passed the

section as amended. I now suggest that we are on

section 2.

section 2.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment....

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing in your name on the order paper.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, you see, it's not on the order paper; that's why I can't say that.

I move the amendment that

section 61 be amended by striking out

section 61 in the existing Education (Interim) Finance Act and

substituting "December 31, 1986" in place of "December 31, 1984." The

reason for that is.... This was not in the brief of the school

trustees, but I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, and members the House that

during our period of consultation over the last several weeks, and

particularly the last two weeks, the issue with respect to the sunset

clause under the present Education (Interim) Finance Act was raised. As

a result — and we concluded this today with the trustees and their

president — we have in "December 31, 1986" instead of repealing

section

61 in its entirety. When the member made reference earlier under a

previous section, the member anticipated that this coincides with our

three-year restraint program. This is supported by the B.C. School

Trustees' advisory committee, their table officers and the president. I

can assure you that this would not have been in here today unless there

had been full discussion with them and a recognition of their concern.

The real reason for the amendment is this. The member is right when

he mentioned that the autonomy of school boards has been eroded. I

concede that, because we've seen what's happened with respect to the

taxation base. Also, under the present bill, to issue directives....

Now it's not the issuing of directives but the capping of the budget.

[ Page

2590 ]

I was pleased to report to you, Mr. Chairman, about the recognition, publicly,

by the B.C. School Trustees' Association that restraint is absolutely necessary.

That is why we have agreed to the three years. The present bill would go through

fiscal 1984, as school boards operate on calendar years. It has bought two more

years. School boards can see at the end of that tunnel the opportunity to exercise

some of the autonomy which in fact they have lost through this most difficult

period. That's basically what it is. We can go on forever, but I would just

as soon leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: The minister said the school board agrees that

these restrictions should terminate at the same time his 2

percent-per-year restraint program concludes. Sure they will agree to

that. Of course. They would agree to anything. It's like saying: "Why

do you keep beating yourself on the head?" "Because it feels so good

when I quit." Naturally people are going to agree to some measure of,

as the minister said, light at the end of tunnel down the road on this

— if I haven't mixed too many metaphors on that one. They're going to

be happy to see the thing come to an end so they can have their

autonomy back.

As I told the minister when I was, in his words, accurately

anticipating this sunset provision, we would of course have to change

the name of the bill otherwise. I was prepared to move a motion

deleting from the title the word "interim" which was smuggled in here

last year and became permanent this year. However, I guess it doesn't

really matter what you call it. If conditions three years down the road

require — or the minister feels they require — the continuance of this

kind of funding arrangement or this kind of power, or if he gets to

like it, then he or a future minister could quite possibly renew this.

But the very fact that we have a sunset clause written into it is, I

think, some reassurance. So there's certainly not going to be any

opposition to that move from this quarter, regardless of any

communications we may or may not have had from the school trustees, and

on this subject we haven't had any.

MR. COCKE: My colleague wasn't here the last time we had a

bill of this nature: that is, the interim education finance bill of

1982. In that bill was a sunset clause, and that sunset clause said it

would be null and void in 1984. We now have a new sunset clause, which

can just as easily be eliminated in 1986. The promises made by the then

Minister of Education were that there would be a White Paper, that that

White Paper would be widely distributed, and that there would be an

opportunity for people out there to participate in the development of

an entirely new education finance formula. That's what I'd like to hear

the minister say again tonight. We heard it before. We believed it

then. It didn't happen, but I'd like to hear a reiteration at least of

that promise, along with this amendment. I agree with the amendment. I

would like to see the whole thing negatized right now — or negatived.

AN HON. MEMBER: Negatized?

MR. COCKE: Negatized, according to one of our old Chairmen.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Negated too. And rescinded as well. And all the

other terms that one can use in this House so greatly notorious for its

decorum.

I would very much like to hear the minister say something with

respect to not an interim measure but an education finance formula that

is going to be developed over that period of two years.

[10:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member is quite correct

in what he says. One of the reasons the sunset clause was put in as of

December 31, 1984, was to buy sufficient time for a proposed revision

to the School Act to be circulated in the form of a White Paper. Since

that time we have obviously had some intervening circumstances, one of

which — and the major one, as a matter of fact, as far as I can see —

has been the pretty difficult restraint program which has been

required, and which has in fact been endorsed by the trustees. I wish

to assure the member that in the short time I've been here — roughly

four months — that is one of the matters now on my

schedule to attend

to, and some things have been done in a preliminary way already. There

are a number of things I'm working on with respect to what I think are

the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education when it comes to

finance, facilities, testing curriculum and certification. Matters

involving deregulation are something I'm attending to. There is a host

of items that I'm looking at. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I'm

very much interested in seeing what I can do about getting a school act

out — at least the White Paper which has been promised. That's

something I'm looking forward to doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There has been lots of debate. Shall the amendment pass? Oh, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, what do you mean with this "oh?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't see you until you stood up.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm awfully sorry that I'm not quite tall enough to come into view.

One of the things I think the minister mentioned as short term in

that particular office is.... This bothers me. I'm happy to see some

kind of a sunset clause put back in; I'm only hoping the minister can

give us some assurance that it's not put in there now just to have a

relief valve for anything that boils up out in the school community.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: This is the problem. I don't want it kind of shuffled back in because....

We've had three ministers. The promise of the White Paper came from

the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). The first sunset clause

came from Mr. Vander Zalm. Now you have brought in another sunset

clause. So we've gone through three ministers in three years with three

different promises. All we want is to have it on the record — we'll

read it back to you if there are any changes — that you did give us an

assurance that it would remain. I remember that two ministers back I

was given an assurance of $1.8 million for Esquimalt high school. It

was confirmed by a

[ Page 2591 ]

minister in between, and now you've taken it away

from us. I would like some assurance that when we get a statement from

a Minister of Education we can rest assured that that assurance is

going to remain and not keep changing.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I give you assurance that using that

particular date is not a ruse, as far as I'm concerned. It's there for

a reason. I gave the commitment with respect to bringing in a White

Paper, something you want to do. I can't answer the matter on

Esquimalt, but there is a lot more to that than just what has been

raised. I'm very much aware of some of the problems.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 3 approved.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I want to move an amendment, which is to add a definition

section for "directive."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely. Speak to it briefly and submit your amendment.

MR. ROSE: I think I'll debate it first, if you don't mind. I got burnt on the last one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to find out if it's in order, hon. member. Please proceed.

MR. ROSE: Central to this whole act is the minister's power

to issue directives. These directives cap budgets. But there is no

definition in here of what a directive means. This amendment proposes

to give a definition of directive, because we don't want the directive

to go beyond.... We don't even like it in budgets, but we certainly

don't want the minister meddling in all kinds of things other than

budgets. It seems to imply in

section 12(l)(

a) that the directive is

limited to its use in determining and capping budgets, and as

unacceptable as that is to us, it has been passed, so we can't do

anything about it.

The word "directive" or "direction" appears in a number of other

bills in this package of 28 or 30, or whatever number we have

currently, so I want to make certain that we don't sometimes define

this at the minister's or somebody else's pleasure along the lines of

the Oxford Dictionary , 1982

edition, which says "a general instruction for procedure or action." I

want to make sure it's limited to budgetary matters and doesn't allow

the minister to issue directives, or allow the Ministry of Education to

meddle in other things which are more properly under the aegis of the

bpard or the administration of the school district. That's why I

propose the following amendment.

I move that the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983, be

amended by adding a new subsection 1(2): "directive" means a written

instruction from the minister identifying the amount of a school board

budget and/or the portion of the budget for special-education programs.

"A portion thereof" was part of the minister's amendment earlier, so I

can delete that from my own as well to make it consistent. It's just to

give a definition of what a directive is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that you are going to leave out of your proposed amendment "or the portion."

MR. ROSE: Merely to make it consistent with the minister's amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand. It does make it consistent with the minister's amendments.

The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the

directives which go out are now written, in any event. As a matter of

fact, the budgets that are going out, which are prepared.... You say a

written instruction from the minister. Much of this has been delegated,

and the calculations of budgets which go out, plus the give and take

which occurs between ministry people and the budgets.... All the

evidence that I've seen is that it's already out. Why would I need it?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me observe that, again, the amendment

is in order. It is redundant, but that doesn't mean.... That means it

can be rejected, but it does make it in order.

MR. ROSE: The minister asks a question, and since he didn't

have the amendment before him maybe I can elaborate. We don't want any

directive to go beyond the scope of budgetary matters. We want the

definition of "directive" as it applies in this act to be as has been

stated. It limits itself to budgetary matters. It is implicit in

section 12(l)(

a) because it deals with budgetary matters, and solely

with budgetary matters. But we don't want the minister to have the

power to issue directives to school boards beyond budgetary matters. We

don't even want him to have it for budgetary matters, but he's got it.

So we want it limited to that scope entirely.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, really, the member has

answered the question already, because the

section reads "issues

directives...establishing the amount" of the budget. The amendment is

redundant. I don't like to be difficult, but I don't see any particular

reason to accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2592 ]

PROVINCIAL TREASURY FINANCING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [see appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Provincial Treasury Financing Amendment Act, 1983, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled Provincial Treasury Financing Amendment Act, 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTION 6 , by renumbering paragraphs (

a) and (

b) as paragraphs (

b) and (

c) and by adding the following paragraph:

"(

a) in subsection (1) (

a) by striking out 'in lawful money of Canada',".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada