1985 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5041 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 5041

Oral Questions

U.S. restrictions on import of Canadian lumber. Mr. Howard ––

Westar Timber Ltd. timber rights. Mr. Williams 5042

Transfer of timber allocation. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5042

Free trade. Mrs. Wallace –– 5043

B.C. Rail debt repayment. Mr. Stupich –– 5043

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Second reading

On the amendment.

Mr. Williams –– 5043

Ms. Brown –– 5044

Division –– 5045

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5045

Constitution Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 47) — Committee stage.

section 2 –– 5047

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Williams

Third reading –– 5054

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Committee stage

On

section I –– 5054

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Michael

Mr. Gabelmann

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Would the House please join me in welcoming two

executives from that struggling young forestry company, BC Timber: Sandy Fulton

and David Mitchell,

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to welcome two executive members from

that struggling company Westar Timber Ltd. I hope the minister gets the

name correct.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd like to use the opportunity of

introductions to bring recognition to a British Columbian who has made

quite a name for himself. Eddie Streeper, a local dog-sled racer who

makes his home in Fort Nelson, won the Canadian Open Sled Dog

Championship. That got him an invitation to Anchorage, Alaska, and this

past weekend he won the World Open Sled-Dog Championship, taking 14

minutes off the world record. I think that deserves recognition.

MRS. WALLACE: We have some very critical observers in the

gallery today, and I hope we will all govern ourselves accordingly.

They are members of the Quamichan Junior High School parliamentary

debating club. They are grade 7 to grade 9 students, and they are

accompanied by their teachers, Mr. King and Mr Heyd. I hope you will

join me in welcoming them.

MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I would like to we]come back the second

member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers). Also, in the galleries today,

from Prince George South, my constituency president and his wife. Would you

please welcome Don and Ruth Flynn.

MR. PASSARELL: Visiting the capital today is an old fishing

friend of mine from the great city of Vanderhoof, Frank Georgeson. I

hope the House makes him welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to join with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)...

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Maybe I won't join with the Minister of Forests.

...In welcoming Mr. David Mitchell to the House today. I would also

like to recognize Mr. Mitchell's recently published — and what I

consider to be a definitive — contemporary political history of our

province over several decades, a book called W.A.C. Bennett and the Rise of British Columbia .

MR. LEA: What about paradise, Pat?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, not those introductions, though I was waiting for the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) to introduce the grizzly bears here.

Something much gentler, Mr. Speaker, from the constituency of Point Grey, and

Id like the members to bid Mr. Forget welcome.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the annual reports of the Utilities Commission, the

Petroleum Corporation, BC Hydro and BC Place.

Oral Questions

US RESTRICTIONS ON

IMPORT OF CANADIAN LUMBER

MR. HOWARD: I would like to direct a question to the Minister

of Forests. Has he had any discussions — and if so, are those

discussions ongoing — with the federal government regarding the bill

recently introduced into the United States Congress which seeks to

impose import restrictions on lumber produced in Canada, and have those

discussions entailed the development of a coordinated strategy with

respect to that bill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Last week members of my ministry met with federal

government staff. A position is being created and data accumulated so as to

respond, when the time is correct, to these moves being made in the United States.

I would advise the member that there is a well-coordinated effort, which is

in part the residue of the team that was in place during the countervailing

duties struggles a couple of years ago.

The Canadian Forest Industries Council, the federal government and various

provincial governments are working very closely together to make sure that we

do have a coordinated effort in doing whatever is possible to see that such

trade barriers don't become a fact. As the member is probably fully aware,

Rep. Weaver introduced a bill about ten days ago. Other actions have been taken

since then, including a petition to the President under the Countervailing Duty

Act claiming damage to the shake and shingle business.

So there is lots of activity taking place at a political level at

this time in the United States, and a coordinated group in Canada has

counsel in the United States, has advice in Washington, and is doing

what we think is necessary at this time to make sure that when actions

are taken they are well coordinated and that we don't have different

people rushing off in different directions, in effect creating problems

for each other. Every possible effort is being made to make sure that

we do not ultimately wind up with barriers in forest products between

our two countries.

MR. HOWARD: Has the minister made a firm declaration of policy, from

the provincial government to the federal government, that there isn't any

way that we in British Columbia will accept the proposition advanced by Congressman

Weaver and others in the United States that the major purpose of the legislation

is to put pressure on the Reagan administration to begin negotiations with Canada

to achieve voluntary restrictions on exports of our lumber to the United States?

Has the minister advised the House that we will not participate in that sort

of discussion?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The federal government is fully aware of

the position of British Columbia. I don't think it would be appropriate

for me to be announcing publicly, in light of those things that may or

may not happen down the road, the details of our position on any

possible eventuality. As I have said, we have to have a closely

coordinated approach to this whole problem. I am keeping in very close

[ Page 5042 ]

touch with the federal government, and we have a

federal government which is very aware of the problems that could be

created by any such barriers. However, I don't think it is appropriate

for us — at this point in time, at least — to be making definitive

statements as to what we would do in the event that various things

should happen. We don't want to expose our hand until it's time to play

that hand.

MR. HOWARD: That's not the question I asked the minister; however, he seeks to duck it.

I wonder if the minister would advise the federal government — if he

hasn't done so already — that lumber produced in British Columbia and

exported to the United States market since 1976 has comprised a

percentage of United States consumption of lumber that has been

relatively constant over those years, and that basically, in terms of

production of lumber in Canada and exported to the United States, the

problem isn't in British Columbia, if there is a problem. Has the

minister advised the feds of that position?

[2:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the statistics as to the

volume and percentage of lumber going to the United States are

available. The federal government is quite capable of working out the

percentages. British Columbia's level of production has been relatively

constant, but that is not what the Americans are concerned about. They

are concerned about the total Canadian production of lumber and how it

is affecting their market. The statistics are there; I don't have to

interpret those figures for the federal government.

MR. HOWARD: I have one further supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. Would the minister take to heart and do something concrete

about the suggestion that I put to him by telegram some weeks ago:

namely, use the authority and the presence of his office to try to

establish within British Columbia a high-level meeting with the

elements and groups interested in this subject matter so that we can

all be involved in the strategy being developed?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, all those who are in a

position to have an effect and do something about the problem are

already coordinated into a very effective team.

WESTAR TIMBER LTD. TIMBER RIGHTS

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests with respect to

Westar Timber Ltd. and the timber rights they've held in the Kootenay

basin and the Arrow Lakes basin, much of which they don't use — none at

all anymore in the Kootenay Lake basin, and only 50 percent in the last

year in the Arrow Lakes basin stretching from Castlegar to the big bend

of the Columbia River. Firstly, will the minister accept the surrender

of the timber right that Westar Timber Ltd. is prepared to surrender

forthwith — and has been willing to do since last October — and get on

with the job of reallocation and new employment in the region?

Secondly, in view of the fact that they only cut 50 percent of the

timber available to them in the Columbia River and Arrow Lakes basin,

will he again step in and make that timber available to the many small

operators and people who are seeking employment in that region now?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we are going over ground that was covered

in question period in this House last week. My position then and now is that

whenever cut-control requirements under a forest licence are not adhered to,

the wood will return to the provincial government, providing there are no circumstances

during the cut-control period that were beyond the control of the company.

In this case, yes, substantial volumes of wood will be returned to the provincial

government, and this will be expedited in every possible way and will be made

available — and is being made available to small operators on an accumulated

undercut basis. We will be making opportunities available to someone in the

industry who may wish to establish a manufacturing plant in the Nelson area

relative to the wood that used to be used in the Westar mill in that community.

We went over this ground last week. The member seems to wish to repeat it again

and again and again.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed I do, Mr. Speaker, in view of the

unemployment in that region and elsewhere when timber is not being

used. With respect to the Columbia River and TFL 23, we're talking

about an area as large as one and one half times Prince Edward Island.

Is the minister then saying that that 30 percent undercut, which has

been consistent for five years –– 50 percent last year — will now in

fact be reallocated?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that area, which is probably

ten times the size of Texada Island, is within TFL 23 –– I told the

member last week that the cut control period has just been completed on

that licence and we are in discussions right now with the company; cut

relative to that licence will be returned to the government and the

size of the TFL reduced accordingly.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's good news, Mr. Speaker — and overdue.

TRANSFER OF TIMBER ALLOCATION

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Forests. With reference to the receivership of Drew Sawmills and Tappen

Valley Timber Ltd. in Salmon Arm, your ministry is considering a

proposal of the transfer of licence and assets of these companies to

Beaumont Timber, a company already with substantial timber reserves.

Such a transfer would allocate to the company timber supplies that are

estimated to be far in excess of the present plant capacity. With a

view to encouraging a more competitive position for small local

operators, would the minister consider the offering of a portion of

Drew Sawmills timber allocation to several of the local operating

plants?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on the Drew Sawmills situation, the

member is quite right; the company is in receivership. Normally, when a forest

company in British Columbia does its financing, the creditors, bankers and financiers

consider the value of their timber allocation as a part of the security of that

company. I think I have a responsibility, until such time as the receivership

question is resolved one way or another, to keep that as a whole entity. If

I were to say that as soon as a company has financial trouble and in fact goes

into receivership, either voluntary or otherwise, I would begin to dismantle

the assets which they have, I think we would have a very unsettling situation

for forestry companies and the banking institutions in B.C.

[ Page

5043 ]

I will consider any proposal brought forward by the receivers of

that company in terms of a possible sale of the assets so that we can

ensure an ongoing operation, whether it comes from Beaumont or others.

No decision will be made until we've fully assessed the implications

for the communities, the corporation and the financiers involved.

FREE TRADE

MRS. WALLACE: During his attendance at the first ministers' conference,

the Premier endorsed the concept of free trade. My question is to the Premier.

Firstly, what studies has the government undertaken on the effect of free

trade on the agricultural industry? Secondly, what consideration did the

Premier give to the preferential treatment presently given to B.C. wineries before

endorsing free trade at the conference in Regina?

HON. MR. BENNETT . Obviously the member didn't get an opportunity,

being in the House, to watch the conference or take note of my remarks. I committed

to the provinces and the federal government being involved in discussions leading

up to Canada's position in the GATT negotiations — seeing areas in which

we could provide greater access for Canadian products, and remove barriers to

products or prevent the type of thing that's taking place now in the United

States, where industry by industry they may put up barriers to our forest products.

I believe you can only do that with that type of study, and I'm glad that,

implied in the member's question, is support for that type of look.

Up until now, Mr. Speaker, in debates in this House, the New

Democratic Party has supported trade barriers for automobiles

manufactured in central Canada, therefore putting up prices in British

Columbia and making it hard for us to market our products. I'm glad for

a full review.

BC RAIL DEBT RETIREMENT

MR. STUPICH: To the Minister of Finance. According to the third quarterly

report, the provincial government borrowed $803 million in the first nine months

of the current fiscal period. In view of the fact that it was necessary to borrow

such huge sums, did the Minister of Finance give any consideration at all to

postponing the $430 million grant to BC Rail, especially since some of that

money was not needed to meet debt obligations until the year 2025?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to the question is no. In planning the 1984-85

fiscal year budget, it was seen, for reasons which I dealt with when this House

was sitting in 1984, as a very appropriate measure to take, Mr. Member, in order

that the interest payments which would otherwise accrue to that outstanding

debt in the name of B.C. Rail would be retired at an early time — at once, therefore

removing a significant burden from the railway and, more importantly, a very

significant burden from the people of British Columbia. I take the question

to mean: did I, through the course of the year, decide to change that which

was decided upon by this House in a vote taken with respect to the budget? The

answer is no.

MR. STUPICH: To the Minister of Finance again, Mr. Speaker: the House

decided to give $470 million to B.C. Rail, and the minister gave it only $430

million. However, after granting $430 million to BCR, the government then borrowed

$542 million from BCR. Would the minister explain how this pea under the shell

game compares with the $181 million grant to ICBC, followed by an immediate

borrowing of some $400 million from ICBC in 1976?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was not the Minister of

Finance in 1976. I cannot assist the member on a matter which was dealt

with at that time.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 35.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a

proposal to hold this legislation for six months. I think most of my

colleagues have made it clear that they have real concern in terms of

the changes represented here. The minister clearly has greater powers

under this legislation in terms of recruitment. selection and

appointment within the public service. It's disturbing, in view of the

other actions that minister has taken in the past and the legislation

he has before him. The difference is between an independent commission

and a clearly political minister.

Looking at the kind of ideas that are moving through the public service in

terms of policy and so on, the quality of advice has probably deteriorated with

this administration. I think we're all the losers for that. I think it's

because there's been more political input all the time on the part of this administration,

and the public service is more and more inclined, with the signals they are

getting, to give the advice they think the ministers want to hear. This legislation

is going to move us more and more in that direction.

On the question of deputy ministers, Mr. Speaker, we have accepted, of course,

that these are Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointments, and to a degree

they are political. But if we look at the history of deputy ministerial appointments

in recent decades, I think we will find that a significant number of them are

still public service career people. So it's interesting to reflect on the

fact that in this past year we've probably lost half of our deputy ministers

in this administration, many of them with significant, solid backgrounds. That's

a loss to the government, and it's a loss to the people of British Columbia

as well.

One of the deputies we lost was the Deputy Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing,

and in that particular case an excellent civil servant with excellent qualifications

was simply dismissed. He was dismissed by the Premier, not the minister, not

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, although that was subsequent. Waiting in

the wings, very readily, was a new deputy minister, one who carried the right

political baggage, one who had worked for the Socred machine for a couple of

elections. It seems to me that that sends signals through the entire public

service, and they're the wrong kind of signals, That, I think, was an embarrassment

to the minister. He sat on the sidelines and took orders.

It is unfortunate. It's unfortunate because it has opened up the whole

system. The problem that exists now is that future

[ Page 5044 ]

civil servants are going to look at that decision

and similar decisions, and they're going to think twice about the kind

of advice they put down in writing, the advice they'll send through to

the ministerial and senior levels. I think we're seeing evidence of

that right now, in the form of a government that's not ready to meet

with the Legislature, a government that will have to take a recess to

pull its act together, a government that hasn't been getting sound,

solid advice from the public service, because the signals are there. If

you question the ideology that's being laid down at the top, regardless

of how solid your advice is and how solid your facts are, you're going

to be in trouble.

What's happening is that we've got an administration that is getting

slower, winding down, grinding down, and an able public service is not

delivering the goods it could deliver, simply because the wrong signals

are there at the top. It's a loss for British Columbia.

[2:30]

There are some arguments about the changes suggested with respect to this legislation,

and I think we understand those in terms of some of the complications of the

present legislation. But it's abundantly clear that what's happening

now is that we have a weakened public service, afraid for its jobs, not giving

the kind of advice you people desperately need to rebuild this provincial economy.

Not only you and the public service are the losers, but all the people of British

Columbia.

MS. BROWN: In supporting the hoist I want to follow up on an issue I

raised with the ministry yesterday, having to do with the status of women in

the public service: the continued concentration of women in the lower-paying

jobs, and the fact that any attempt at putting into place an affirmative action

plan is going to be jeopardized if this piece of legislation goes through.

I thought what we could do today is look at the minister's own

department, and maybe he could bring us up to date on what's happening

to women in his department. Again, as far as the printout is concerned,

I'm going to have to rely pretty heavily on the 1981 printout. Maybe he

can tell me whether he has done any better since then.

We find that in the administrative services, a euphemism for the clerical branch,

75.1 percent of the people employed are female. That means that

less than 25 percent are male — something like 24.9 percent. Clearly the minister

would agree that some kind of affirmative action on the part of the males, anyway,

seems to be needed at that level. But what is really interesting is what happens

when you get to the top echelon of that ministry and start looking at the wage

scales. We found that in 1981, 39 percent of the people earning $21,000 a year

were female as opposed to 60 percent male. But when you drop to $13,000 to

$15,000 a year, we found that 89.3 percent of the persons earning less than

$15,000 were female and only 10.6 percent of them were male.

When you get to the assistant deputy level — I know the salary has increased

since then — there is not one single female listed on that minister's staff

of assistant deputy minister, two assistant deputy ministers and three assistant

deputy ministers. Of course, the clerical staff are all female. All of them

have female secretaries. As in 1981, we discovered that if you looked at the

salary scale for anyone making over $35,000 a year, there were ten males and

no females; $38,000 a year, eight males and no females; $41,000 a year, eleven

males and no females.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday

the member made a 40-minute speech on the issue of affirmative action,

and I haven't had a chance to respond because of what has transpired in

the House. Maybe she would like me to respond now. I think it's wrong

that she would repeat essentially the same speech in an amendment

that's been put before this House. I don't think we should have to

suffer through that one more time.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the minister has some merit, hon. members.

I would remind the member currently addressing the House that we are on a hoist

motion, and the reasons for the hoist are what should be discussed at this time.

The member must not recanvass a speech that was given primarily in second reading,

as that, hon. member, is clearly an abuse of the rules of the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in support of the

hoist. I am not repeating myself, because I did not zero in on the

minister's department yesterday. I did not mention it by name, I am

doing that in detail now because I'm assuming that the minister has

some responsibility for the hiring practices of his ministry. Although

he has not had an opportunity to respond to the statements made

yesterday, he did shout across the floor that he would issue a

directive in terms of support for affirmative action. I'm raising this

now, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Speak for yourself

MS. BROWN: He said: "I will issue a directive." The reason

I'm supporting the hoist is because when one takes a detailed look at

the minister's department, one begins to question what kind of

directive the minister would be issuing. I think this bill has to be

pulled, and the minister has to take a second look at it. In doing so,

he has to take a second look at his own ministry, one that is woeful in

terms of its employment practices as far as the women in it are

concerned. That is why I am giving him these statistics. I am hoping

that his statistics arc more up to date than the ones I am using, but I

did not give him these statistics yesterday. I certainly did not zero

in on his ministry and call to it any special attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the points that the hon. member

wishes to make, the member is nonetheless bound by the rules of debate

that govern our activities in this chamber. On a hoist those subjects

which may be covered are somewhat more limited than the overall scope

in second reading. I must ask the hon. member to more specifically

relate her remarks to the hoist.

MS. BROWN: I am supporting the hoist because I think it is very important

that the minister take this bill off the floor of this House and take a second

look at it. When the minister takes a second look, I hope he will get some input

from the women in his ministry, if from nowhere else. A serious look shows that

the hiring practices in his own ministry are discriminatory; that in fact there

is a need for some kind of plan to ensure that when he brings this bill back

to the floor of the House, it has statutory protections or a statutory plan

for affirming incorporated in it, giving an extra step or an extra boost so

that we can have the statistics changed and we won't

[ Page

5045 ]

find, as we now do, that 75 percent of the people employed in the lowest paying

jobs in his ministry are women and none — zero percent — of the people employed

in the top paying jobs in his ministry are women.

For that reason, if for no other, Mr. Speaker, I have to support

this hoist and ask the minister himself to support the hoist. Charity

begins at home. If he thinks that there is nothing wrong with the

Public Service Commission losing its right to make some kind of overall

supervision of such a plan, all he has to do is start looking in his

own ministry — in his own backyard. The facts are right there, clear as

day.

I'm hoping that when the minister supports the hoist he will be

governed by his own sense of fairness and will recognize that there has

to be an imbalance in any kind of system where absolutely no women are

present in one area. When one takes into account that we make up

something like 50 percent of the population and something in excess of

40 percent of the workforce in the public sector, something is wrong.

When you go over an income of $35,000 a year and there are no women

present, that says either that there has not been an effort to give

women the opportunity to go into those jobs or that there has been

deliberate discrimination, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...merit.

MS. BROWN: Merit.

... or that there are no women with merit. You heard the minister shout the

word "merit" across the floor. What he is saying is that there is

not one single woman in the Public Service Commission with the merit to hold

one of the top jobs in his department. I think there is something wrong with

that statement.

When the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) was on his

feet this morning he said that affirmative action was an insult to

women. I think the comment that the minister just made, which indicated

that there were no woman with merit, is an insult to women. That's

where the insult is, not with affirmative action.

Just in passing, the nerve of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour to be

telling women that they don't know what they're fighting for, Mr. Speaker,

is out of order, I'm not going to pursue that any further. but that's

the kind of nerve that ends in this kind of situation where we find most of

the women in the minister's own department concentrated in the low paying

jobs and none of them showing up in the jobs that make decent wages. For that

reason, if for no other, I support the hoist.

[2:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Macdonald

Skelly

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lauk

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam.

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

NAYS — 32

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Parks

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Witch

Segarty

Reid

Reynolds

Lea

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: You know, Mr, Speaker, I've never witnessed

so much indulging in cheap politics as I've heard across the floor in

the five hours we've been debating this bill. It's been utterly

ridiculous rubbish from the members opposite. It's been all rhetoric

and no substance. You know what they've essentially been doing, Mr.

Speaker? They've been attacking the line managers of government,

because they have been primarily responsible for the hiring of staff in

government. Lands, Parks and Housing, Transportation and Highways and

the A-G's ministry have been responsible for all hiring of staff in

their ministries since 1965. There is a procedure whereby that

particular hiring episode has to be rubber-stamped by the Public

Service Commission, because of the antiquated Public Service Act we've

had in the past, but 80 percent of all public service hiring in British

Columbia is done by line managers in government ministries. That's

essentially — not knowingly, I'm sure — what the NDP has been attacking

here in the last five hours. I think it's just sheer cheap politics.

I listened to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) deliver his

speech. He followed me as the designated speaker and he rambled on for

an hour and ten minutes. He didn't listen to one word that I uttered in

my speech. because I answered most of the questions which he raised. He

had a set speech, a set approach, and he didn't pay any attention

whatsoever. He went on to ask a series of questions that bad been

responded to in my opening remarks. It's very strange when you hear

that. I've never witnessed that in this House before, Mr. Speaker: a

member asking questions for which the answers had already been given.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Maybe I should have kept those answers, just got up

and said, "I move second reading," and given him the answers afterward,

so that there would have been a little bit more to his speech than posing a

series of questions for which the answers had already been given.

Members raised the issue of seniority. I indicated in my opening

remarks that seniority is again identified in the legislation, and that

the Public Service Commission will continue to give the same kind of

weighting to seniority that has always been given in the past. It'll be

given 10 percent weighting. I know that there are groups in our society

that would like to see seniority given more recognition than the 10

percent which has been the case under the Public Service Act and the

policies of the Public Service Commission, which

[ Page 5046 ]

will continue. In fact, I know the BC Government Employees' Union would

like to give more consideration to that.

But you know, when you argue against this legislation you're essentially

arguing against an independent tribunal, an independent appeal system, for which

the BC Government Employees' Union has been asking for some considerable

time. This recognizes what they've asked for for some considerable time.

MR. HANSON: They didn't ask you to take over hiring.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you phone them?

In April 1983, at their thirty-sixth annual convention in Victoria they wanted

a fair, just and impartial appointment appeal procedure. Essentially that is

what this act does.

That's what the BCGEU has been asking for for some considerable time

— an independent, impartial appeal mechanism and it's in place with

this legislation.

Merit is defined in the act as it has been in the past. I know there are some

members across the way who would like merit to be a bargainable issue, but I

think it should be clearly spelled out. It shouldn't be at the whim of

the union to determine what merit will be. I think merit is as it's defined,

and it's responsible as well in its definition. It takes into consideration

past work performance, a new recognition in the act.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) mentions an independent appeal mechanism.

That's essentially what this is. The appeal system, if there's a panel

appointed.... It can be reviewed by the commission, and there can be a new hearing

on the situation. This appeal mechanism is no different than in the Labour Relations

Board. It's working there.

There's an appeal beyond the realm of the appeal board as well,

similar to the Labour Relations Board. The mechanism in place will meet

the needs.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said that there have been massive

changes with this new Public Service Act. While he might not have used those

precise words, they were words to that effect; he might have said there have

been some dramatic changes. Anyway, there have been no dramatic changes in the

act. There has been some streamlining, certainly.

What brought about the streamlining, the updating of the act, is the

amalgamation of GERB, the Government Employee Relations Bureau, and the

Public Service Commission. The government, or my ministry, came to the

conclusion that these two particular government bodies were performing

similar functions and duplicating many of those functions as well. We

thought that it was in the interests of good government to amalgamate

the two bodies, and that is essentially what brought on this amended

Public Service Act.

The commission today is as independent as it always has been. The

commissioners are appointed in the same manner that they've been

appointed heretofore. There has been no dramatic change in the

appointments.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I listened for five hours to a lot of of rubbish. I

think I have to answer a few of those questions — which could probably best

be answered in committee stage.

But I want you to know that those questions were put in second reading, Mr.

Speaker. I watched those members go through the bill

section by section. Those

about which they had some little concern or some perceived concern, or they

saw some politics in the section.... They thought it was appropriate to

raise the issues

section by section.

[3:00]

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) essentially argued in favour of

section 6 but suggested there was something wrong with

section 6: that is, the

probationary period. The probationary period can be waived today. The old act

gave the flexibility of extending the probationary period. That flexibility

is not present in this particular amended bill.

I want to say that the Public Service Commission is so independent that I

have never even met them. It goes to show you how independently they operate.

They've never contacted me and I've never contacted them, and I hope

that that's the way it will continue. I'm sure it will.

The members raised the issue of retirement benefits and death benefits. I think

they fail to take into consideration that when the first collective agreement

was signed between BCGEU and the provincial government back in the early seventies,

the retirement benefits and death benefits were included, Those that were spelled

out in the former Public Service Act were included in the collective agreement.

But of course that does not apply to the excluded employees of the provincial

government. Retirement benefits and death benefits were in the old act; they're

not in this act. But they will be provided for by a directive by the Provincial

Secretary and the Minister of Government Services. I sometimes wonder whether

the death benefits should be available or not. Nevertheless, in view of the

fact that some of the employees of the provincial government do have death benefits

in the collective agreement, I think that that same privilege should be available

to excluded staff of government. At the moment, and why I question the inclusion

of death benefits for excluded staff is.... Of course the members of the

BCGEU also have group life insurance, which makes available to them twice their

annual income as a group life policy, with a minimum of $40,000 dollars. In

the year ending March 31, 1984, there were death benefits paid to 87 employees

at a cost of $914,236.

On the issue of retirement benefits, Mr. Speaker, there were 390 public servants

who received retirement benefits in the amount of $2,387,899, and along with

that, of course, is their pension. In other words, there is built in to this

retirement option what is essentially a severance package so that public servants

leaving the public service not only leave with their pension but they leave with

a chunk of money anywhere from $8,000 to $15,000 or $16,000 in their back

pocket as well.

MR. LAUK: What about patronage?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Patronage? I'll respond to that in just a moment.

But we will, by directive, make sure that the retirement benefit package is

put in place. We've had consultation with he affected parties.

The member talks about patronage. As I said in my opening remarks, there has

been a lot of garbage, a lot of rubbish and lots of false statements and political

rhetoric and substance. The only thing I can say about patronage, Mr. Member,

is that you remind me of Pauline Weinstein from Vancouver. If you tell a lie

frequently enough, people will begin to believe it. That's what I say to

you about your

[ Page

5047 ]

statement about patronage: you remind me of Pauline Weinstein.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved,

Bill 35, Public Service Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 47; Mr Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. D'ARCY: By passing

section 1, this House has decided that there

shall be 12 new members added to the Legislature.

Section 2 defines the boundaries

and which members there shall be. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding from

the intent of the bill — both this bill and the one setting up the commission

that was passed last year — that the rationale for adding new members to the

Legislature would be based on those constituencies that had the largest number

of people per elected member. Whether the House decided there should be no extra

member or one extra member or 15, there would be a rationale based on population

figures.

Mr. Chairman, the last census that was done was in 1981. There has

not been another one and, indeed, the federal government has since

decreed there will not be an interim census done in 1986.

Those census figures — republished, I would point out, by the provincial government

in the 1983 statement of votes, and reissued as part of the explanatory notes

attached to the bill that was passed last year setting up this electoral distribution

commission — would indicate that while the first eleven members to be added

would be as indicated in

section 2, which is the

section we are dealing with,

the twelfth constituency deserving of another member should be Coquitlam-Moody.

But according to this

section of this bill, the twelfth constituency is not

Coquitlam-Moody but Central Fraser Valley. I feel that the government made an

error here.

Mr. Chairman, this is a Constitution Act amendment act, and it's a

bill brought in by the government — indeed, by the Provincial

Secretary. So in view of this, I am proposing an amendment to this bill

in which

section 2(

b) be amended by deleting the words "Central Fraser

Valley" and substituting the words "Coquitlam-Moody."

In support of this amendment, I would quote the specific population figures

from the 1981 census — republished at least twice by the provincial government

— that Coquitlam-Moody constituency has a population of 58,219. Central Fraser

Valley has a population of 56,917; that's a difference in favour of Coquitlam-Moody

of an amount of 1,302 human souls.

I would also like to point out, Mr Speaker, that Coquitlam-Moody is more than

double the size geographically of Central Fraser Valley, 432 square miles as

opposed to 160 square miles. That is not of significance to me personally, but

in the past the government has seemed to indicate that the number of square

miles or the area of a constituency is important in terms of representation.

So on either count, the geographic size or the population size, Coquitlam-Moody

is more deserving of an extra member than Central Fraser Valley. I want to point

out that I have nothing against Central Fraser Valley being properly represented

in this Legislature. I am merely proposing this amendment in keeping with the

consistency that we hope would exist in the government's own rules, which

they laid down for purposes of adding extra members to the Legislature. I want

to reiterate that the House has already decided to add 12 new members. Therefore,

if we use the government's own rules as to how to define which constituencies

those new members would represent, we have to accept an amendment and have an

extra member from Coquitlam-Moody, rather than Central Fraser Valley, at this

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister or the next member, I

will advise the committee that the amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I never thought I'd see the NDP want

to do gerrymandering right here on the floor of the House. That's essentially

what they're attempting to do.

They love to say that they're against gerrymandering, and now we see

the member for Rossland-Trail stand up and advocate it in this

legislation.

First of all, I am surprised, shocked and dismayed at the attack that member

has rendered against the three-man commission who submitted its report. I'm

sure they weighed very carefully the population base of the various constituencies

across the province. I think if you will read the report, you'll see that

Central Fraser Valley is an urban rural riding and has 67.68 percent above its

base — and the base changes once it's 60 percent above. I don't see

that identified for Coquitlam-Moody in this legislation.

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that that was not examined by the

members of the three-man commission. I'm sure they examined very carefully

the population for each and every constituency, even those that might not have

been subject to change. They've come to the conclusion that Coquitlam-Moody

does not have the population base to justify an additional seat.

I respect the report submitted by this three-man commission headed up by Judge

McAdam a lot more than I respect the figures that have just been provided to

me by the member for Rossland-Trail. That member has never raised the issue

with me that he has some different figures from what was available, and I'm

sure he's never gone to the three-man commission to identify his concerns.

Yet he wants to come on the floor of the House and attempt to gerrymander some

ridings here in British Columbia, and deny to a riding the proper representation

that has been identified by the three-member commission. You're attempting

to play cheap politics, You have no respect for the three-man commission that

sat and made these examinations,

[ Page 5048 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, to the minister. First of all, we

should be temperate in language in committee and in the House. And please direct

your remarks to the Chair.

[3:15]

HON, MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think it's absolutely disgraceful

that somebody from that party, which always talks about gerrymandering being

so terrible.... For them to stand on the floor of the House and suggest that

a particular riding be denied its fair representation as identified by the three-man

commission, and that another constituency that wasn't identified as having

the population for an additional seat should be given an additional seat, is

something I cannot accept. We will not accept this amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the minister is totally incorrect

when he suggests that I am asking for an additional seat by this amendment.

I'm not. I accept the fact that there are 12 members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Gerrymandering. That's all you want.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister is very free and loose with his

accusation of gerrymandering. I am not aware of any census having been

done by the provincial government, the federal government or any agency

in this province since the 1981 census. The minister talks as though

I've pulled these population figures out of the air. I haven't, Mr.

Chairman. They're directly from the 1981 census. I know of no other

census since that time. The minister is attempting to cover up his

justification and lack of factual information with a lot of bombast.

If the minister has later, credible census figures done by the

federal government or any other agency of government, let him produce

them now and table them in the House. I'm using the government's own

census figures reproduced by themselves in the 1983 statement of votes,

as well as reproduced by themselves in support of the legislation that

set up the commission which the minister so fondly refers to. If the

minister has another set of defensible numbers, let him produce them.

The fact is, the 1981 census is the last definitive statement of

population produced in British Columbia or anywhere in Canada.

According to that statement, as I have graphically laid out, the

twelfth constituency worthy of having another member is

Coquitlam-Moody, not Central Fraser Valley. I ask that this committee

seriously look at this total inconsistency in the government's actions,

and accept the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, it's not my

figures that I'm producing. He's producing his figures. I'm saying that

the three-man commission examined the populations of the various

constituencies in British Columbia and made a recommendation that

certain constituencies in British Columbia, which they have identified,

merit additional representation. The legislation we're debating at this

time clearly reflects the recommendations of the commission.

I have faith in the commission. I wonder whether the member for Rossland-Trail

has or not.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, since it's my riding that's under discussion,

I thought it might be advisable to say a few words on the subject. First, I'd

like to advise the minister that the figures quoted by my colleague from Rossland-Trail

came out of the report of the commission, so I don't think he's quarrelling

with or questioning the report of the commission.

It seems to me there are two or three things here that determine whether Central

Fraser Valley or Coquitlam-Moody or some other riding is decided upon as the

extra seat, and it depends on how you judge these things. So it turns out to

be a value judgement or a decision by somebody on the basis of certain

definitions;

whether you're urban or rural, or what your geographic area is, is really

open to question. I'm not questioning the motives of the commission, but

if we're going to debate matters such as this in the House — and if we are

not, then why bring it to the House? — then I think we ought to be able to say

a few words without being accused of lacking confidence in the commission or

of suggesting that they're crooks or anything else.

Similarly, I don't think epithets such as "gerrymander" should be

hurled over here, or whatever other unparliamentary expletives are used

by the Provincial Secretary to describe the noble efforts of my

colleague from Rossland-Trail, who merely wants to get at the truth . I

would think it isn't a bit unusual to wonder why of the 12 ridings that

are up for increases — we don't support the increases anyway, but

they're probably going to come — 11 happen to be in Social Credit

territory, or what is at the moment Social Credit territory.

Let's deal with the figures. According to the 1981 StatsCan census —

that's the last one we've had — Central Fraser Valley had 56,917

people; Coquitlam-Moody had 58,219. I refer to table A in the report of

the electoral commission. What we have and on what we base the future

numbers of representatives within a riding, whether it's a one- or

two-member riding, is based entirely on two things: one, whether the

riding is described as urban, rural — or one other, I've forgotten. In

this case, all we're really talking about is urban or rural; that's the

first thing we're talking about. The second thing is the estimated

district population increase. We started out in 1981 with some 57,000

people in Central Fraser Valley and over 58,000 in Coquitlam-Moody. The

question is: which area has grown more? Who did the estimate? And based

on what figures? That's really the nub of the argument.

I happen to know, from being the representative and canvassing and

wearing out my knuckles knocking on doors during elections, both

federal and provincial, that there has been substantial growth in the

riding of Coquitlam-Moody since the last census. I can take him to area

after area, Eagle Ridge and.... There are lots of single-family

dwellings going right up that mountain almost as far as the Westwood

race-track. In addition to that, there have been all kinds of other

multiple dwellings — condos, co-ops and rental apartments — down at the

base of that hill. My guess is that thousands of people have moved in.

Now in something as serious as deciding which riding is to get a

change, it might be an idea for the electoral commission not to base

their projections on some hunch, regardless of where they got their

stats, but to look at the stats for 1981, based on a census. It's not a

guesstimate; it's not a hunch; it's a fact: those people were counted.

To go into those questionable ridings, if you don't want to be accused

of favouring one over the other, and

[ Page

5049 ]

do a count.... I suggest you do that kind of thing immediately before you have an election, too.

The second thing is, how do you decide whether a riding is urban or rural?

We just heard my hon. colleague say that the geographical area of Coquitlam-Moody

was larger than Central Fraser Valley. It would be very difficult for me to

justify that there's lots of farming there. I'm sure the minister would

agree. He comes from an area that's sure rural, if not remote, but there

isn't much farming there — rocks and Christmas trees, mainly. If you want

to come out to Coquitlam-Moody, go right up Indian Arm, up the Pitt River to

the top, we've got lots of Christmas trees too. But we're not counting

Christmas trees or rocks; we're talking people. Really, it's pretty

arbitrary whether you call a riding urban or rural, especially when the one

you call rural is smaller than the one you call urban. You know, that's

kind of interesting. I don't think anyone should be put into the position

of being accused of being a poor loser merely because he happens to question

the report of a commission, in terms not of its motives but of its conclusions.

I don't think that's proper.

Let me end up by reminding the hon. Provincial Secretary, who is

very good at hurling unfounded, pejorative charges at us poor innocents

over here, that there was no intention to deny the people of Central

Fraser Valley good representation in this House. We would urge that

they get better representation in this House — maybe not more, but at

least better. We think our philosophy might be.... There's no effort to

deny them that. We want to make certain that this is based on the

facts. We don't want to deny anyone anything. But remember this: when

we go to vote on this piece of legislation, which the minister

described as gerrymandering, a riding that is actually bigger and more

populous will have one member.... I admit he is a very powerful,

convincing spokesperson. But a riding that is smaller geographically

and has fewer people will have two members.

Amendment negatived.

section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we've just had an interesting debate. We've

heard the Provincial Secretary get up and indicate that a colleague of mine

was interested in gerrymandering. I gather that, because he's given us

that lead, talking about a considered opinion of a member in the context of

this terribly unacceptable

section of the bill, in any event.... What the

member was trying to point out was that there was value judgement after value

judgement. I charge — directly charge, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Provincial

Secretary — that he is party to a gerrymander, not because of what that committee

did but because of the guidelines that they had to establish this piece of work.

In the first place, what reasonable person would call for double-member ridings

when given an opportunity to break the province up properly into electoral districts

with single representation? Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what this

section

doesn't do. This

section does take the province's inequitable boundaries

and, within those inequitable boundaries created by the Eckardt commission,

makes this kind of illogical outcome possible. That's really what we're

talking about here when we're talking about this section. We're talking

about a

section that is totally and completely unacceptable.

The Surrey riding is the only one in here that shows us three members, each

representing a separate electoral district but all within those boundaries.

If it's right for there, then why isn't it right for the entire province?

What an opportunity this Provincial Secretary had when he laid down the guidelines

for the commission which would eventually produce the report that would be the

essence of

section 2. What an opportunity he had to divide the province up properly.

He wouldn't have even had to come up with members, who are going to be overflowing

all over this chamber. He wouldn't necessarily have had to add 12; as a

matter of fact, he wouldn't need to add any. He might even have seen that

a commission would have suggested a small reduction.

[3:30]

But that notwithstanding.... And I'm not arguing the numbers at this

point; I am arguing that this

section should be dealing with single electoral

districts, each with one representative. That is not what has been the outcome

of the report, because of the strict guidelines, and that is what has created

this. We saw an argument just before the committee. That argument was around

who knows whether or not a riding is rural, urban, suburban or whatever. There

shouldn't be these kinds of arguments if, in fact, we were to go to the

basics. What an opportunity it would have been. We could have even got rid of

that Gracie's Finger aberration. We could have got rid of the gerrymandering

that went on on this Island.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You know all about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, at this point I must express the opinion

that we have allowed some latitude on

section 2. I have cautioned the Provincial

Secretary about intemperate language, and I will caution all members of the

committee now. Perhaps we could relate our remarks specifically to

section 2,

try to maintain some parliamentary decorum, and avoid unparliamentary language.

MR. COCKE: I'm not quite sure where I produced the

unparliamentary language, Mr. Chairman, but in any event I do have

grave concerns that anything that we do that produces a

section like

this will be repeated and repeated, as long as we don't go back to

basics. The second

section of this bill should contain a total

redistribution of the province. Instead of that, what does the second

section contain? It contains.... Fair enough, some of those ridings are

too big; I'm not going to argue. Some of them are Social Credit, and so

on and so forth. Who cares? That's not the point. The point is that

those ridings shouldn't even be looked upon in that way. The whole

province should have been redistributed. It wasn't done properly before

and could have been done now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Single members?

MR. COCKE: Absolutely right. The member down in the corner there said

something about NDP ridings too. Well, you know, if we want to get into that

argument....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: How many?

Anyway, the principle is that it's the wrong principle; that's what

I'm talking about. We'll win those regardless of who holds them now.

One of the reasons we'll win them is

[ Page 5050 ]

this kind of silly attitude towards redistribution in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I could not vote for this

section because it's clearly utterly

wrong. It's a

section that produces an entirely wrong approach to the electoral

process. If there's need for redistribution, why don't we look at the way

the Americans do it? Why don't we look at the way the federal government

does it? You don't take one

section and divide it up; you take the whole

country and divide it within whatever context you decide is fair. I'm not

one to suggest that some of those great northern ridings should have as many

voters as my riding in New Westminster. It takes a tremendous amount of moving

around to represent people when they are in ridings like that. Mind you, I think

there should be some reasonableness in the whole formula. But the formula that

produced this isn't a formula at all; it's the Provincial Secretary

taking an adhesive plaster to a bad wound. That wound will never be cured until

such time as we have a proper redistribution and get away from those awful boundaries

that we saw produced in 1978, as I recall.

I think the minister is getting edgy and would like to say a few words. Help yourself, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister or any other member, I

will remind the committee that we are essentially discussing what we discussed

before in second reading. Quite a bit of this debate was canvassed during second

reading of the bill. Some latitude has been allowed. If we could be relevant

to the

section before us now, the committee would be well served.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Speaking of boundaries, the member for New Westminster

— and I've heard it on numerous occasions from across the way.... They're

very supportive of single-member ridings. Well, that member for New Westminster

was part of a government that on July 21, 1975, passed an order-in-council which

set up the Norris commission to investigate constituencies in the province under

the Constitution Act. This is what was contained in the regulations to the commission:

"...that in formulating the recommendations to be contained in their

report the commissioners take into account, where feasible and necessary, historical

and regional claims for representation...." That's one thing that

that particular report, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers'

money.... It was never implemented by that government; it was just shelved.

Another thing: "...make their recommendations on the basis that the

Legislative Assembly comprise not fewer than 55 nor more than 62 members; and

(3) give consideration to the provision of multiple-member ridings of two members

each in areas of dense population...." It was signed by E. Hall and

E. Dailly, two ministers of the day, and Dailly was the presiding member of

the executive council. Now they're talking single-member ridings. Not too

long ago they were talking dual ridings. The Norris report suggested there should

be dual ridings because the government of the day in 1975 directed the Norris

commission to make multiple tidings in British Columbia. Those were the instructions

you gave the Norris commission in 1975. You can't talk out of both sides

of your mouth; you can't have it both ways.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that that report has

seen the light of day. The minister brings it into the House. He said that that

report was never implemented.

I'm glad it wasn't implemented, because of the fact that it had double-member

ridings. I'm not going to reflect on what happened in those days.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You were part of that cabinet.

MR. COCKE: Of course I was. That's right. I abhorred double-member

ridings then, do now and will in the future. If I made mistakes then, certainly

I wasn't going to go out in the street and holler around about those mistakes.

The fact of the matter is that they're dead wrong. They always were wrong.

The only other province in Canada where they have double-member ridings is Prince

Edward Island, that poor little province that has 125,000 people, and they

have all double-member ridings. Frankly, I think even there it's crazy.

But in any event, here we should not have double-member ridings now, then....

At least that report was never implemented, never put into action, never put

into force. So there you have it.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, you were showing a great deal of tolerance

here, in that you allowed the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to discuss a matter which was never

even tabled in the House, let alone appearing as legislation, let alone being

part of

section 2 of Bill 47.

I am going to address

section 2(b), and after a short

preamble I want to ask

the minister, for the third time, a question regarding

section 2.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, it's not for us to debate the principle of this bill

at this time. That's already been decided. I disagreed with that

principle then, and I disagree with it now. It is not for us to debate

section 1 of this bill, even though I disagree with increasing the size

of government or, as the Premier suggested last night, increasing the

number of cabinet ministers with the expensive baggage that goes along

with a new ministry. All we are debating here is the question of how we

designate the locales of 12 additional members of the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, the government produced census statistics, census material reprinted

from the work done by the federal government. It's part of their own electoral

commission report. It's part of their own electoral legislation. Now the

Provincial Secretary, with a great deal of bombast, has suggested that he has

some new and different and substantial and valid material to prove to this committee

that Central Fraser Valley indeed has more people than Coquitlam-Moody. I have

asked twice already, and I ask a third time: where is this census information

that says that the 1981 federal census regarding these two constituencies is

wrong? Where does he have this information that says that the material used

by his own electoral commission is wrong'? Because if you follow that census

information, then the twelfth constituency to be added will not be Central Fraser

Valley but Coquitlam-Moody.

Will the minister please table in this chamber his defensible

statistical information showing that what he says is so and that the

1981 census and the electoral commission was wrong?

[ Page

5051 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, that material that he wants me to table in the

House was tabled a week ago Monday, and all the information is contained in

that report. I wish he would look at it.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister tell the House what agency of government did this census?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've tabled the report, the first report of the

British Columbia Electoral Commission, headed by His Honour Judge D. Kennedy

McAdam, with I.M. Horne, Q.C., and Harry M. Goldberg as commissioners. The legislation

we're debating at this time doesn't deviate from the recommendations

that have been put in this House by this three-man commission — the report that

I tabled in this House. There have been no changes in it. The legislation reflects

the kind of figures of population that they have determined to be appropriate.

I am not challenging the commission. If you wish to do so, go ahead, but I'm

not. This legislation introduced here reflects the report.

MR. D'ARCY: The government brought in legislation setting up

the commission. The government activated the commission. The government

is responsible for what the commission had to say. There must be some

census of population, some factual validation for the specific

designation of certain ridings to be twinned. That is not to say, Mr.

Chairman, that I agree with the twinning of ridings or having

double-member seats or quadruple-member seats or whatever number, nor

that I agree with there being 69 members of the House. This committee

has already decided that. It doesn't matter what I think about that.

All we're discussing now is what 12 seats will have extra members. Mr.

Chairman, since the minister has been unable or is steadfastly refusing

to produce census information which will negate the 1981 Canada census

figures, I can only assume that the minister does not have that

information, and that the government simply decided arbitrarily that

the twelfth riding that was going to have an extra member would be

Central Fraser Valley and not Coquitlam-Moody or some other seat, and

is trying to hide behind the commission to cover up the fact that they

simply made an arbitrary political decision that has no verification

whatsoever in fact.

[3:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the member

keeps accusing the government of doing this and doing that. The

government has nothing to do with this report. This is a three-man

commission. Certainly we appointed the individuals to the commission,

absolutely. Yes we did. But we didn't produce the figures. They

determined the population base in each and every constituency. It

wasn't the government that determined that; it was a three-man

commission.

The report of the commission was tabled in the House a week ago Monday. I want

to say that the legislation we're debating now — I'll repeat it — clearly

reflects what the three-man commission feels is appropriate. They've examined

the populations and have concluded where the seats should be. We're not

tampering with the report; we're just implementing the legislation that

reflects the information provided to us by the three-man commission.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, did the commission do a census?

HON. MR. CHABOT . Ask them.

MR. ROSE . The bill is standing in the Provincial Secretary's name.

Therefore I assume he's prepared to comment on it, justify it and justify

the work of the commission. After all, he is the debate leader for the government

side.

I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary if he knows upon what basis a

riding of 432 square miles is called suburban. when a riding of 160 square miles

is called rural. A riding which is three times as large is called suburban not

because it has lots of people in it. The people may be scattered unevenly over

it, and there are places where it looks densely urban, but I can take you to

places in Central Fraser Valley that look densely urban too, like Abbotsford

and Clearbrook, and places like that. It's very difficult to argue that

way. I'm reiterating this. and I make no apologies for it, that there are

areas in that riding of Coquitlam-Moody that go right up Indian Arm, right

up north to the boonies where there's nobody up there but grizzly bears,

and they don't vote. They don't vote for me, anyway.

Then if you go across that whole ridge of Burke Mountain, and down

to the Pitt River right up to the head of Pitt Lake, that's in the

riding too. I can't see what would be more rural than that. Anyway, the

designation is suburban; the size is 432 square miles; the population

figures were larger in 1981 than they were in 1982. I don't know how

you could possibly explain that unless it's based on the estimates or

an arbitrary definition of a riding that may go back historically. I

don't know what the reasons are.

I'd like the minister to tell me, at least, how it could happen that

a riding of 432 square miles could be suburban with a population of

58,000, where a riding of 160 square miles with a population of 56,000

could be urban-rural. I don't understand it. It changes the whole face

of everything for decisions to be made on the basis of whether we get

one member or two members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member's been asleep, I guess, for the last year.

MR. COCKE: We know Bill 16, and we were set up.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member has been asleep for the last

year, because the debate he's putting forward today is a debate that

should have been put forward probably on the amendments to the

Constitution Act in 1984, not under this bill. That was the time in

which the determination was made as to what was suburban, what was

urban-rural, et cetera. You're a little late.

MR. ROSE: I've been told before that I'm a little late.

That's nothing new to me at all. But I'm quite sure we didn't know the

recommendations of the boundaries commission when the debate took place

on setting up the electoral redistribution commission. What we knew

only was that there were certain kinds of guidelines within its

mandate. It wasn't free to redraw any boundaries. It was told and given

by the government, in that particular piece of legislation, certain

guidelines.

The numbers and the estimates of projections of growth were absolutely unknown to us at that time. As a matter of

[ Page 5052 ]

fact, I disagree with them. But we certainly know it now. The people of Coquitlam-Moody

are not going to have two members, even though they are more numerous than the

population across the river in Central Fraser Valley.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must remind all hon. members that we really should not

be discussing Bill 16 at this time. It was a bill that was brought forward in

this session and was thoroughly debated, and we all realize that under standing

orders we should not go back to debating that bill again. There is some relevance

to it, and the Chair allowed it to be discussed, but I think we should try to

restrain ourselves and speak to Bill 47.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In responding to the member, I'll get off Bill

16 of 1984. It was clearly set out which ridings were suburban: Surrey, Burnaby-Edmonds,

Burnaby North, Burnaby-Willingdon, Coquitlam-Moody, Delta, Maillardville-Coquitlam,

New Westminster, North Vancouver–Capilano, North Vancouver–Seymour and Richmond.

The arguments you're putting up today would have been more effective had

you put them up a year ago.

MR. WILLIAMS: What we're dealing with here, Mr. Chairman, is

a sleazy, rigged game on the part of this administration. There's no

question about it. We haven't had the backup; we haven't had the census

data that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has asked for.

It's the most reasonable thing in the world to ask for the data. Did it

come from the federal government? Did it come from Census Canada? The

answer is: go ask the commission. That's not good enough, We should

have firm data.

What we're dealing with is what's most precious in a democracy — an

individual's right to vote, and the whole business of watering down

that vote. What we're dealing with here is deluding democracy. That's

what the minister's responsible for. It's little more than theft of the

ballot box that's being dealt with in this legislation right here and

now. It's theft in the ballot box — the worst kind of grand theft one

could entertain in a democracy.

Even if we look at the estimates, even if we assume the census was

solid — and we haven't been given that background — what are we talking

about in terms of difference? We're talking about 1,846 people in terms

of the population difference estimate between Coquitlam-Moody and

Central Fraser Valley, and this administration has the nerve to say

that 1,800 souls in Central Fraser Valley should get one more member in

the Legislature. It's classic sleazy gerrymandering. There's no

question about that whatsoever. All of the talk about suburban and

rural and previous legislation won't hide that fact. It's classic

vote-stealing — that's what's going on here.

The minister represents a riding of 23,000 people, and we now have

in Coquitlam-Moody some 60,000 people who will have only one member in

the Legislature if this legislation goes through, versus this man

representing one-third of that. That's stealing two out of three

ballots in Coquitlam-Moody; that's stealing ballots in Coquitlam-Moody

in order to rig this administration.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I don't mind listening to

the guy making all these sleazy statements. But does he want to start opening

up the debate we just closed in second reading of this bill? He's attempting

to talk about rep by pop right now, and I don't want to have to start repeating

what I had to tell him during second reading, Mr. Chairman. I think the

section

is more confined than that and does not allow him to wander all over the ballpark

with his wild irrational statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN . I would suggest, hon. member, that the minister does have

a point. I don't know all the words we have recorded as objectionable, but

it would seem to me that perhaps "sleazy" is one, and I would ask

that you avoid using it from here on in.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question of what is appropriate is not the

issue, I guess, Mr. Chairman. If you're asking.... I don't know what

the request is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not asking for a withdrawal; I'm just suggesting that the word not be used.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, but at the same time, Mr. Chairman,

we have Esquimalt and Saanich with similar situations — not quite so

extreme. So long as you entertain the idea that one person in one area

should have different voting rights than one in another, then we get

into this terrible problem. I quoted in the previous debate in second

reading, Mr. Chairman, the American supreme court in the early sixties.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Alabama.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. This is Alabama north, right here

in British Columbia. The problem is, they dealt with it two decades or

more ago. They turned it into an honest process. Still, a generation

later, in this part of Canada, we are making the same errors and doing

the same things. We're going to have to rely in the end on our courts,

as they relied on their courts, to get honesty into this process.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, some time ago, in specifically discussing

section 2 and subsection 2(

b) of this bill, the minister told me, in an answer

to my request that he produce up-to-date census figures — preferably from Statistics

Canada, but any up-to-date census figures — to ask the commission. I want to

quote, specifically, a very brief

section — not argumentatively — of Bill 16,

passed by this House last year, because it relates to the use of census figures

by the commission. On page two it says: "For the purposes of the review"

— this is a population review — "the commission shall study the most recent

population figures published by Statistics Canada, pursuant to the Statistics

Act (Canada), and shall, on the basis of those statistics, determine (

a) the

mainland electoral base, (

b) the Island electoral base, and (

c) the number of

persons resident in each electoral district of the province." That's

what it says in Bill 16.

Does the minister have more recent Statistics Canada information, as

defined by this bill? I'm not picking this out of the air, Mr.

Chairman; I'm reading the act — Bill 16, passed in this session of this

Legislature. It says that the commission shall use Statistics Canada

figures — not anybody else's figures, only Statistics Canada's, and the

most recent published statement by Statistics Canada. To my knowledge,

the 1981 census is the most recent material.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

[ Page

5053 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Has Statistics Canada produced a subsequent statement? If

they have, will the minister table it in this House? I know of no more up-to-date

information than the '81 census, and the minister and the commission are

directed by a bill brought in by himself in this session of the Legislature

to deal with Statistics Canada's most up-to-date figures and nothing else.

[4:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I should read to him the explanatory

note on Bill 47. It says: "This bill implements recommendations of the

British Columbia electoral commission."

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I missed the minister's reply. I don't know whether I missed anything or not, but I missed the minister's reply.

In reading the citation which was pointed out by my colleague — I think it's

section 2 of Bill 16 — I can't find any reference to any estimates here,

but if you look at the report, it is a projection from the 1981 StatsCan thing,

It says Statistics Canada only — "on the basis of those statistics, determine"

— and it goes on to talk about electoral bases. So there might have been some

misunderstanding on the part of the commission that they could make certain

kinds of estimates based upon StatsCan figures. But the act is certainly silent

on that, and where they received their instructions from to make certain kinds

of estimates or projections is unknown to me or to anyone else, except perhaps

a member of the commission.

It's interesting to note that of all those areas that get two

members, the figures and the numbers are largely based on estimates

from the StatsCan figures, though not entirely: Boundary-Similkameen,

up 3,500; Cariboo, up 4,500; Central Fraser Valley, up 7,500. Those are

estimates, right? Richmond is up 4,000; Okanagan South is up 3,000;

Nanaimo is up 3,500; Langley is up 5,000; Kamloops is up 1,000, right?

But when you get to Saanich and the Island — up 5,000. Those are the

discrepancies in the figures. So I would like the minister to address

himself to my precise question, and the question is: in his view, did

the electoral boundaries commission or whatever it was called, chaired

by Chief Justice Kennedy McAdam, have the freedom to depart from the

act to the extent they did and include guesstimates, which very

obviously favoured certain ridings over others?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't know why I continue to repeat this,

Mr. Chairman, but on page 2 of Bill 16, the Constitution Amendment Act,

1984, it says: "For the purposes of the review, the commission shall

study the most recent population figures published by Statistics

Canada, pursuant to the Statistics Act (Canada), and shall, on the

basis of those statistics determine...." In their Table A that they've

produced with their report they go on to say that population estimates

are prepared by Central Statistics Bureau from information supplied by

Statistics Canada, and that all figures are as of June 1. So that

information was provided to them by Statistics Canada; I'm sure they

have that material. I'm just submitting legislation that is

essentially..... The Constitution Amendment Act, 1985 — Bill 47 —

really reflects the report. They have carried out their mandate,

whether you like it or not. They've fulfilled their mandate by

providing this information.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister is incorrect in

one very important word in his reading of the

section from Bill 16. He talks

about information "provided," according to him, by Statistics Canada.

Mr. Chairman, that's not what Bill 16 says. It talks about information published

— published, Mr. Chairman — by Statistics Canada. I ask again, for the umpteenth

time: will the minister table that published information? Because the most recent

information anybody has from Stats Canada is the 1981 census. He says that there

is other material published. Let's see it, Mr. Chairman, because I find

nothing in Bill 16 that is permissive, that allows the commission to use other

information. It says, specifically: "....using population figures published

by Statistics Canada ... [to] determine ... the number of persons resident

in each electoral district of the province." There's nothing permissive

in the section, and it does not talk about information that may have been vaguely

provided by somebody somewhere to some other soarce. It says specifically: "published

by Statistics Canada."

MR. ROSE: The minister made a great thing about the Central Stats Bureau

— I think he called it that. I wonder if the minister could reveal the location

of that estimable group, and whether or not they are a government department

or a private agency. Are they Stats Canada? If they are a government agency,

under whose ministry do they come?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think you should direct your questions to the commission.

MR. ROSE: Well, would the minister then confirm the fact that the Central

Statistics Bureau of which be spoke is in fact a provincial government agency,

and is not Stats Canada?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think, really, you're questioning the

figures and the sources of the commission. I think you should direct

your questions to the commission. It's an ongoing commission.

MR. ROSE: I wonder, since there's a good deal of concern about this,

Mr. Chairman, if the minister has ever considered bringing the commission to

the appropriate committee so that we can ask some of these questions. Obviously

the minister is not very well briefed on some of these answers, and he cannot

give me or the House the kind of information I think is vital to a reasonably

intelligent discussion. He's scorned some of our attempts to bring forward

some serious questions we have about it. He doesn't have the answers; he

doesn't know where the stats bureau is; he doesn't know why one place

is rural and one place is urban, even though one is twice as big and has three

times more land than the other. I wonder if the minister would consider referring

the contents of this report to the appropriate standing committee so we can

have a chance to examine witnesses in this very important area.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that

since the

section that we are debating here,

section 2(

b) of Bill 47,

contradicts and goes completely beyond the scope and the letter of Bill

16, do you not think, Mr, Chairman, that you should ask that the

minister, to avoid possible court challenges later on to this

particular section, consider bringing in amendments to Bill 16 to cover

the use of estimates not provided by Statistics Canada in determining

the population

[ Page 5054 ]

of provincial constituencies? There is nothing in Bill 16 that

allows the use of estimates; certainly nothing that allows the use of

material other than that published by Stats Canada for purposes of

establishing these bases.

I really think that the minister, in one session of the Legislature,

has brought in bills relating to amendments to the Constitution Act

that contradict each other and could result in some problems down the

road.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Fraser

Parks

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lank

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

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

[4:15]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 47, Constitution Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 48.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MRS. DAILLY: I believe I can speak generally on the whole

area of the referendum principle, Mr. Chairman, according to the way

the clause reads.

One of the first moves of the NDP government over 12 years ago, when the minister

was still just a little boy in grade 1 at school, was to remove an infamous

policy that had been brought in by the former Social Credit government: that

is, the policy of operating referenda. Now, if we approve this

section of the

clause, we are being asked to reinstate what I consider an even more infamous

referendum. For one thing, the referendum is not based on industrial and commercial

taxation; it's based entirely on residential, as so stated. The NDP removed

this operating referendum — and later, of course, the capital referenda, which

I know you well remember, Mr. Chairman, because you were a school board member.

The school trustees — many of them, I could say — and a number of school boards

were very anxious to have the operating referenda removed. I think it would

be advisable for the committee to be reminded once again of why the NDP removed

the referenda. Because times have not become better — they have worsened, which

makes this even a more difficult time to have such a referendum — we are unalterably

opposed to the return of the operating referendum.

First of all, the minister has announced.... I saw some headlines: "Restoration

of Local Autonomy — The Return to the People." It says that by by bringing

in this operating referendum, autonomy is returned to school boards, which now

allows the public to vote. Well, let's examine that one. The return of local

autonomy. It's actually the opposite, because the school trustees are elected,

I think most of us know, on a platform. Most of them run on some sort of platform

which primarily does deal with their attitude not only to their philosophy of

education but also to the financing of education.

When a school board sits down and prepares their budget, as the

school boards in British Columbia have done, they do so very

responsibly considering the times we live in. They spend literally

hundreds of hours — and I know the minister in his visits around the

province would back me up — in budget discussions. I know myself from

my own experience not only as a school trustee but as a former Minister

of Education that that budget is not sent in without any consideration.

Hours and hours of hard work have gone into it by the officials of the

board and the trustees.

Firstly, I consider it an absolute insult to the duly elected

trustees of this province, who have spent hours preparing their budget,

to now be told by this minister, in essence, that they really didn't

know what they were doing, so let it go out to the people. The

interesting thing about it now is that not only is it going to the

people who might have children in school.... We say everyone who pays

their taxes has a right to vote, but let us be realistic in a time of

recession. People are being asked to vote to increase their taxes.

In Burnaby over 60 percent of the people do not have children in school, and

they feel, quite rightly, that they've already paid their share of local

taxation. Yet we have this minister coming along, taking us back 12 years to

the infamous operating referenda, which, by the way, has been rejected, I believe,

by almost every other province of Canada. Maybe this was discussed earlier.

I recall, certainly at the time we removed it, that there were no other places

in Canada that had operating referenda. As a matter of fact, where they had

been used primarily, and still are to some degree, is the United States. I think

the interesting thing to

[ Page

5055 ]

note is that everywhere where there were operating referenda, you will find that there is increased inequity in education.

That brings me to the next reason that the NDP government removed

the operating referenda. We believe in equity in education. To allow

one district to end up providing a different, richer kind of education

is not the way that education should be funded, and particularly in

those years. Compared to now, I believe the basic education provided

was adequate. It certainly always needed improvement.

Now we find that we have a government that has purposely sucked moneys out

of the local tax base and put it into general revenue, has consistently squeezed

the school boards, brought in financial formulas which now limit the budget

expenditures of those boards, and at the same time is now giving them another

slap and saying: "All right, we may not have provided you with the money"

— which, of course, they won't concede, but most people know there is simply

not enough money being funnelled through to education in this province — "but

we abrogate that responsibility. We're going to turn it back to the local

school boards so they can take the flak." We do not consider that equitable.

What good is it really doing for the children of this province?

That's what is really important. This is the question we must always

ask. What good will this referendum do to help the student in the

classroom? Unfortunately, I think it's going to create a lot more

confrontation. There could be divisions in municipalities over the pros

and cons of operating referenda. Let us remember.... People — and you

cannot particularly blame them today — when they are asked, "Will you

go out an vote for an increase in your taxes," will say, "What for?"

They're told it's for increased educational expenditures. Many of those

people who go out to vote will unfortunately not have taken the time,

perhaps for legitimate reasons, to really analyze the importance of the

educational quality in their district. They may not be as well prepared

to make the judgement.

Now you may say: "Ah, but it's up to the boards to go out there and

spend hours and hours to educate the public as to the reasons why they should

vote for it." Let me tell you, Mr Chairman, I recall those thousands of

hours spent by boards desperately having to go out and go all over again, hundreds

of times, their reasons why they felt a budget increase was needed. The point

is, the school boards of this province — as I repeat and will repeat again —

have worked hours on their budgets. May I also say that they have done this

mostly in situations which make their deliberations open to the public.

Therefore the public has really had a good opportunity, if they wished, to

attend school board meetings to find out what the situation is. I know that

since the minister brought in his very controversial cutbacks in education there

have been, in certain areas, great meetings. When I say great I'm talking

about even in size. The minister may not think they're great, but as far

as the number of people who attended, there's been quite a bit of interest.

But remember that when this referendum goes out there to the public, 60 percent

of those people will not have children in school, and many of them have probably

never taken the opportunity to attend a school board meeting or at any time

to find out just what the situation is.

[4:30]

What I'm trying to say primarily is that it is an insult to locally elected

trustees that they have to repeat these steps all over again just to take the

minister and his government off the hook. Your financing of education is completely

inadequate, and in this way you think you can turn the heat back onto the local

schools boards. But the local school boards have rejected this. I find it most

interesting that even this morning, or today sometime, or perhaps their meeting

was last night, the Vancouver School Board — not made up just of the COPE members

but of the NPA members also — stood up and said: "We reject this going

back. We reject the operating referendum being brought in."

Surely the minister will reconsider such a referendum when he finds

that people who normally support his government and his policies in

education are ultimately and finally rejecting the idea of the

restoration of an operating referendum.

It would do the minister good, perhaps, to listen to these people. In case

his mind may be somewhat closed by listening to the opposition, because he may

think that we have our one-tunnel vision on this. I want to assure the minister

that we're speaking for many people of different political stripes when

we say that the operating referendum will be a disaster. It will be a waste

of time and energy — and those trustees are exhausted now from all the meetings

they've had to attend.

Mr. Chairman, there's a lack of fairness in this whole principle of the

operating referenda. I mentioned earlier that this government has seen fit to

take away the industrial and commercial base. So now that referendum is going

to be based entirely on the residential taxation. In Burnaby alone, 58 percent

of our taxation was industrial and commercial. That is no longer there as a base

for this referendum or for taxation. Forty-two percent only is the residential

base.

Do you really think, in your right mind, Mr. Chairman, that people are going

to go out — that 42 percent who are already squeezed with unemployment and with

so many other problems today — and actually commit themselves to more money

for education, particularly, as I pointed out earlier, where, through no fault

of their own, many of them may not have the serious facts in front of them?

I admit it's the responsibility of the voter to get that, but I think we

have to be realistic, The history of operating referenda in this province, and

wherever else they've been held in the United States, show that by and large

they go down to defeat.

The government has absolutely no right to select education, distinct

from other services — health, for example, or highways or Expo — and

single it out for a referendum, Why? I think the minister has to

explain why education alone has been singled out once again by his

government, for what I consider are very punitive measures, and

measures which will not help the situation we're in today in this

province.

The only thing that will help restore the quality of education in

this province, and eliminate the confrontation we face, is for this

government to realign their priorities and realize the time has come to

ensure that all children in British Columbia will be provided with good

basic education. Their present handling of education is not allowing

that. Even further, we are finding that this referendum will bring

about all the opposite effects, which, I'll try to say in all fairness

to the minister, he may misguidedly think this is going to help. But I

hope the minister will understand that whoever has been instructing you

or perhaps giving you advice.... Surely you can see that it is

wrong advice. This referendum principle will not help education in

British Columbia. It will not help you out of your present

difficulties, and it will not help the students of British Columbia.

[ Page 5056 ]

We ask the minister to reconsider and withdraw from going back to

over 12 years ago to a situation which was injurious, not helpful, to

education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, before recognizing the next speaker, I will

remind the committee that some latitude and, I would submit, courtesy has been

allowed the official critic in terms of discussion in committee on this bill.

But really, we have extensively canvassed debate that should have been, and

I am sure was, canvassed during second reading. If we could remind ourselves

that we are in committee and debate under a

section must be specific to the

clause before us, the Chair will be well served.

MR. COCKE: I will read the

section so that we have it very clear whether

or not I'm speaking on the section. Mr. Chairman, it is amending

section

(f): "where the board has passed a resolution under

section 13.2 (1), the

supplementary amount that it proposes to include in its annual budget and to

raise by residential taxation."

Let's deal first with residential taxation. The minister and the government

chose some time ago to thieve, to take away from each district, the commercial

and the industrial tax base. Then he has the audacity to walk in here with the

worst kind of referendum bill that W.A.C. Bennett would have ever thought of,

because in those days, Mr. Chairman, the whole taxation base was part of that

referendum.

Now let me tell you how this works in New Westminster. In New Westminster,

we're 60-40: 60 percent of our tax base is commercial-industrial and 40

percent is residential. So the residents have to come forward and, in our case,

cough up $1 million just to meet their needs budget — an absolute bare bones,

skeleton, basic budget. I can go over some of the details later,

In order to do that, what do they have to do? The conniving of this government

is beyond words. They then have to go — that is, the school board of New Westminster

— to the taxpayers, and they have to say: "We need $100 on every house

in New Westminster in order to raise the difference." That, Mr. Chairman,

is the absolutely unmitigated gall of this government, irresponsible beyond

words.

I will read some of the lines for the minister because he's looking for

our school district. Fiscal framework: the 12 month fiscal framework — that's

from July '85 to '86 — according to his figures is $11,707,828. Maintenance

budget: a maintenance budget in our situation is absolutely bare bones, and that

comes to $12,505,320, a shortfall of $797,000. But that maintenance budget

doesn't even take into account an arbitrated settlement. You take into account

an arbitrated settlement, and you're over $1,027, 492. You know what the

arbitrated settlement was? It was 2.3 percent.

Even with the lowest guidelines we could find, at 1.7 we come up

with a $967,000 shortfall. Now, Mr. Chairman, who is kidding whom? The

minister brings in this bill. He brings in a

section that states that

if we need a supplementary amount, don't argue with him. Go argue with

the taxpayers, and he gets off the book, and his government gets off

the hook. Who carries the can? The Chairman knows better than anyone,

because he's been involved in this particular area in the past. It

would then be the school board that was kicked around by people who

say, "Not on your life, " or who say yes, but are very angry. And who

wouldn't be angry! Who wouldn't be angry with the prospect of going

back to the Dark Ages!

The minister should have carried the can all the way, every inch of

the way. If he's going to set impossible budgets, then he should not

bring into this House a

section of a bill that states that the only way

they can provide for the additional money that they need is to go back

to the people who have already been twice cursed. They're paying the

whole shot anyway. The minister looked out there a few months ago and

said: "Oh, my goodness, it's too good for a local school district to

have a commercial and industrial tax base." Even W.A.C. Bennett never

came to that conclusion. His logical conclusion was that if you believe

in referenda, which I don't, but if you believe in referenda, then you

have the entire tax base as party to them. You take out the richest

part in our area, and the richest

part in many areas........ I'm just

thinking, in my mind's eye, about others. I'm sure that my colleague

behind me will come up with some conclusions when he gets to his feet,

and that's the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). I'll bet you that

minister knows only too well that that member's going to get to his

feet, because it's absolutely without any kind of precedent that we

would come up with this kind of weighted referendum.

Mr. Chairman, I go through the report of our school district, and I look at

each and every school. For the last two years each of them has been cutting

comers, reducing staff, praying for some attrition. Even with that, they get

to a point where it is so bare bones that you, as a former school trustee, would

grow white-haired just looking at it. Then the minister comes along. I don't

know who provided the strategy, but I know that that strategy is the most Machiavellian

strategy I've seen for a long time, and I've seen plenty. It's a

strategy that says: "Okay, we can't agree, so we'll disagree, and

now, having taken away your richest base, we're going to make you totally

responsible for going to the taxpayers and asking for your maintenance budget."

The minister came up with a budget.... You know, Mr. Chairman, this is

not something peculiar to my riding. I haven't heard one single school district

in this province stand up in jubilation over (1) the original budgets and

(2) this whole idea of having to go back to the taxpayers for the additional. I

would recommend to every school district in this province that has a Social

Credit member that it make that Social Credit member responsible in the eyes

of the public — every one of those taxpayers who are going to be done — if in

fact it goes to a referendum.

MR. KEMPF: We'll do that.

MR. COCKE: Two-story Jack is at it again: one story for down here and another for Omineca. I'd just love to see you do that, Jack.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The members will come to order. No personal references.

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I shouldn't let that member

excite me, but from time to time he does. It's only because of the fact

that I was born with a short fuse when it comes to members from the north, because

I was also born up there. I've seen the northern lights myself many times,

and I realize what that does to one's mind.

[4:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page

5057 ]

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding what that member says about

his ability to go to his constituency and defend these impositions on

the local taxpayers, I don't think there will be very many people on

that side of the House who savour that job — what they're turning over

to their school boards. They are saying to the school boards: "It's up

to you. Go out there and gather the bucks."

MR. REID: That's what they're elected for.

MR. COCKE: Isn't that interesting? That member from Surrey

says: "That's what they're elected for." If they're elected for that,

then they are elected to take responsibility and come up with a proper

budget under our present circumstances, which is what they have done.

And now they are being deked.

MR. REID: They haven't done that.

MR. COCKE: Let the record show that the second member for

Surrey says that his school board has not done a proper job and that

therefore his constituency should be made to come up with the extra

dollars with a referendum just on the residential tax base.

Interjections.

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

MR. COCKE: That member who makes his remarks from his chair is very

interesting. Sometimes in the middle of the afternoon he provides that kind

of comic relief that we all need from time to time. But we're actually dealing

with a serious matter, Mr. Member. It's a matter that that member is not

taking seriously. It would be a shame if he wouldn't at least try sometime

to take matters seriously. I recommend for his bedtime reading tonight this

amendment, particularly sections I and 2.

It's dead wrong. I'm speaking not only for our constituency, but for

most constituencies in the province. As a matter of fact, I don't know

any that are coming out unscathed. Even that former, vicious, savage

Minister of Education — who had something in his ear at one time — I

don't think would have brought in such a treacherous piece of

legislation as we see before us. Something that we would all like to

see at this moment is the minister stand up and withdraw not only

section 1 but also the following sections. Should he not do that, then

he is responsible for creating a greater upheaval in the school

districts and in the school programs in this province than I can

imagine anybody else doing in our period in history.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 1, the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Reference was made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, your colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

made reference to Mackenzie and the school district at Powell River.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, maybe I can help you out a bit here.

In 1981 the per-student cost in Powell River was $2,847; in 1985

it's S3,627, an increase of 27.4 percent. The enrolment during that

time has declined by 17 percent. What has happened throughout most of

the school districts in British Columbia is that we have found a

significant decline. The opening comments continue to be made about

under-funding education.

If we could only have this photocopied, I'd be quite prepared to give copies to the members opposite.

The actual amount of money which has gone into education.... Let's look

at from 1981 on. The total amount of money that went in was $1.597 billion;

in 1982, $1.867 billion; in 1983, $1.898 billion; in 1984, $1.904 billion. The

allegations that have been constantly made that there are fewer dollars going

in are just not true. Here is the total amount. Where do I get these figures

from? The allocation, as between the contributions made by four major categories:

consolidated revenue of the provincial government, excluding industrial and

commercial taxation.... How was that moved along from 1981 to 1984? In 1981

it was 50.75 percent;in 1984 it was 51-72 percent. So that's gone up. Non-residential,

commercial and industrial taxation: in 1981, 33.2 percent; in 1984, 34.80 percent.

In residential taxation, comparing 1981 to 1984: in 1981 it was 11.66 percent

net of homeowner grant; in 1984 it was $157 million, or 8.27 percent net of

homeowner grant.

I think it would be only fair if you would point out — and we did this, I think,

when the bill was up for second reading; I'll refresh the members' memory

with the facts.... If you take the midpoint average of all homes in the

province, by school district, you will find that after deduction of the homeowner

grant there are a handful.... I would suggest there are maybe 15 to 18 school

districts where the people living within those school districts, on the midpoint

average, actually pay education tax. I thought I would do a simulation and a

run to find out what would happen if the budgets were to be increased by 2 percent.

All those people would still end up paying no education tax as a result of the

homeowner grant.

It is the belief of government, and I am firmly committed to this, that the

amount of money taken out with respect to operating grants is not taken out;

it is just being compressed, it's been squeezed. I don't deny it; it

has been. But enough money is being provided for public education. If you wish

to go to the service levels — I don't know how many times I have to repeat

it — those service levels, which were non-existent in British Columbia prior

to introduction of this entire framework and the service levels and the budget

system and the information system, were all done with one purpose in mind. The

discrepancies between school districts on the per-student cost were getting

farther and farther apart.

I'll tell you what was really happening. Those districts that had

the precipitate drops in enrolment weren't really experiencing any

hardship whatsoever, and yet the same number of dollars were coming out

through the provincial government and through the industrial and

commercial taxpayers. We just had to develop some form of system to

bring equity provincewide.

I refer you again to what happened in 1982. The clarion call by politicians,

school board trustees, school officials such as secretary-treasurers and superintendents,

was: "Something's got to be done with the system." So we did just

that: we made a change to the system. I'm not questioning for

[ Page 5058 ]

one moment that it was infallible. Yes, there have been errors as

we've gone through, but I'll tell you, when you want to make any

changes to anything when you're involved in handling the administration

of $1.9 billion, some of these problems are going to be uncovered.

I might say that almost without exception I found support for the

system among all school districts, The only problem I found is this:

yes, it would be very easy if there were a little bit more money.

There seems to be a considerable concern with respect to the

referendum. If we believe as a government that adequate funding is

being injected into the system, and people within the communities say,

"We would like a bit more, " and on the basis that everybody is being

treated equally, if they wish to pay more then they have that

opportunity, who am I to prevent them from having that right? They have

that opportunity.

You know, I could not have ever wished for two school board chairmen

to make the following comments — the Vancouver School Board chairman,

Mrs. Weinstein, and the Victoria Board chairman, Mrs. Pickup. In the

former they said, "Just a minute, the taxpayers can't afford this,"

and in the latter, in Victoria: "What do you mean? If we do this we're

going to get flak from the taxpayers." Well, when you stand for elected

office, sometimes it goes with the territory. You get flak.

AN HON. MEMBER: You ought to know.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I ought to know. But I tell you, I believe that

what I'm doing is right, and I've brought some equity between districts

and controlled public expenditures — not saved money but controlled them and

responded to the demands by the public.... My correspondents will tell you

that, in droves, and no doubt there is correspondence that will tell you the

other as well; lot's be fair. But to control public expenditure is something

we had to do.

Now if people want the opportunity to express their views during a

referendum, if a school board elects to hold one, fine. I see in the

newspaper today that they are going to proceed in Delta. Everybody

opposite is of the view that there are going to be massive turnouts to

referendums. Do you know what the average turnout is for the election

of school trustees in British Columbia?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, interestingly enough, I listened to

the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), and I don't recall throwing a number of their

comments, which I didn't find particularly kind. I stood there and just

took that punishment. Unfortunately, it seems to bother you when some

of it is dished back.

In my view, if people wish to have an opportunity to express their views at

the polls or on a ballot, then they'll turn out. I see nothing wrong with

giving that opportunity to people. What everyone alleges is that the poor districts

will not get the response and the rich districts will. Indications are that

those districts, if I'm to look at the tax rolls, and if they are to be

the poorer districts — that's the interior and the northern part of British

Columbia.... When you look at the rolls you find higher property taxes, more

valuable properties down on the lower mainland. That would indicate to me that

those in the poorer districts, if they wish to proceed, in any event, still

get the benefit of the homeowner grant. How is that discrimination? I don't

think so.

[5:00]

Earlier, some comment was made about the arbitrated awards. We both know that

the arbitrated awards are now before the compensation stabilization office,

No decision has been made. The last two awards were turned back — one to Howe

Sound and the other, as I recall, to Surrey. One of the most interesting comments

was found in one of the awards when it went back to the parties: "Under

the new system, the timing of budgeting and bargaining schedules is synchronized

in a common-sense fashion so that teachers' salaries and bonus settlements

will be influenced by budget realities." It seems to me that makes a great

deal of sense.

Our view is that adequate funding is found within each of those

budgets. It is found in the service levels which are prescribed. If

school districts wish to pay out more for education, they should be

given that opportunity, and that's exactly what this bill does; in

fact, it is what

section 1 makes reference to. Pass the resolution,

incorporate the resolution within their budget for 1995-86, and let's

see what the outcome is.

MR. COCKE: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman — I'll talk a bit later

— the minister comes up with absolute nonsense . If he's going to take

us back to the Dark Ages, why doesn't he give us the entire tax base?

The minister and that government stole the industrial and commercial

tax base, and then they come to us and say: "Do your job, homeowners."

That's sheer nonsense! I noted that he talked about Powell River but

not about New Westminster, because he knows perfectly well that the

facts and figures I gave him were true. The fact of the matter is, he's

not doing his job properly. He's doing his job at the behest of someone

who's giving him a scenario that in my opinion is just a scheme to

defraud the public.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The reason I have recommended that

government not touch the industrial and commercial tax base is because

in British Columbia they pay an extraordinarily higher proportion in

real property taxation and machinery and equipment tax than they do in

other parts of the country. That's a fact. All we're doing is saying:

'All right, you as residential property taxpayers are paying the

smallest portion, 8.25 percent, and you have full advantage of the

homeowner grant." You cannot turn around and take advantage of the

commercial and industrial tax base and continue to tax those people.

They have paid a significant sum toward the cost of education in

British Columbia.

Frankly, I think it's far more advantageous to us in the province to ensure

that we've got a viable, strong economic base so that we don't get stories

like this being told, and letters like this being circulated. "It's

not advisable to do business in British Columbia. This is what it costs us,

per unit, when it comes to property tax. Our mill for machinery and equipment

and the basic property tax is so many dollars." The cost, Mr. Chairman,

is just too high, and these people are the very people who have been clamouring:

"Keep our taxes down; otherwise, you are going to drive us out of the province."

It's not an unreasonable request when you listen to the mining industry,

the forest industry or the manufacturing industry. They're already paying

34.5 percent.

MR. ROSE: I wish that our Finance critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich), were here to do with the tax base

[ Page

5059 ]

and the industrial and commercial that's so onerous. The last I

heard — and it seems to me it occurred within the last two years, if

not the last budget — was that the exemption for those taxpayers was

doubled from, I think, $30,000 to $60,000. But he will elaborate on

that.

What I want to do is get at the minister's figures having to do with the

idea of the money we're spending on education. He seemed to indicate that

somehow he really wasn't cutting back at all. I mean, his scenario for the

last two years, anyway, has been to cut back an average of 2 percent per year

because we couldn't afford it. Then he comes out and indicates today, before

I had to run out and find my own figures, that somehow the cutbacks were not

severe, and, as a matter of fact, they didn't exist at all. They were increasing

money.

The information that I have is that the average school district operating budget

in 1982 was $21,254,000; the average school district operating budget in 1983

was $20,981,000; and the average school district operating budget in 1985-86

is projected to be $20 million and a bit. So the cut has been 4 percent over

1983, or 5.25 percent over 1982. The interesting thing is that no allowances

whatsoever have been made for inflation in these figures. The old story here

is that liars can figure. That's a cliche. It's been said many times.

But when you look at the average operating budget, which has dropped approximately

$1 million a year per district over three years, then there have been substantial

cuts in the budgets. When you add compounded inflation on top of that, how again...?

We were told here earlier this afternoon by that diplomatic and

eloquent Provincial Secretary that we couldn't have it both ways and

couldn't talk out of both sides of our mouths. It seems to me that on

the one hand you can't be lowering education budgets and on the other

hand raising them at the same time. If the minister is interested in

the raw data and the source of this, it came from the Ministry of

Education.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to support the Minister of Education

and to support this

section of the bill. I'd like to explain why I am supporting

this bill. There was a time, many years ago, when the proposal for a referendum

was rejected by the public and when I opposed the idea of a referendum for school

expenditures. The member for North Burnaby remembers that, but I want to explain

what has happened in the interim. What has happened is that school boards have

had access to the taxation base and have been in this province on a spree of

drunken spending of taxpayers' money. The result is there for everyone to

see. I think that the members of the opposition should look rather carefully

at the results.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I note, for example, in this interval, some of the most highly paid

public servants in British Columbia are school superintendents. It is

these very school districts that are objecting to the minister's budget

allocations under

section 1. We have several superintendents in British

Columbia that are paid higher salaries than the Premier of British

Columbia.

MR. ROSE: So what? Hockey players get more than the Prime Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: So what? We have one assistant superintendent of the

Burnaby school district who is paid more than the Premier of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: Wayne Gretzky is too.

HON. MR. McGEER: The difference is that the Vancouver Canucks are not

paid from property taxes