1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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, MAY 19, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5645 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Failure of Vancouver travel agencies. Mr. Barber –– 5645

Admission of boy to Riverview. Mr. Levi –– 5646

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 56: public schools education –– 5647

Mr. King

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Cocke

Division on an amendment

On vote 57: post-secondary education-colleges and provincial institutes –– 5651

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Hanson

Division on an amendment

On vote 58: post-secondary student aid programs –– 5656

Mr. Lauk

Division on an amendment

On vote 59: Teachers' Pension Fund –– 5657

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Macdonald

On vote 61: independent schools –– 5658

Mrs. Dailly

On vote 62: International Year of Disabled Persons –– 5659

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Brown

On vote 63: building occupancy charges –– 5660

Mr. Lauk

Division on an amendment

On vote 64: computer and Consulting charges –– 5660

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 64 –– 5661

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Lauk

Division on the amendment

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 13). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5661

Mr. Stupich –– 5661

Mr. Cocke –– 5662

Mr. Nicolson –– 5662

Mr. Hanson –– 5662

Ms. Brown –– 5662

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5662

Division on second reading –– 5663

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 10). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5663

Mr. Stupich –– 5664

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5665

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 12). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5665

Mr. Stupich –– 5666

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands, on Cordova

Bay ridge in the Saanich portion of the constituency, there is a school

by the name of Claremont Senior Secondary. There are approximately 25

students of that school in a group visiting the legislative buildings

and our assembly. They are accompanied by Mr. Ruffles. I wonder if the

House would make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today visitors from Silver Spring,

Maryland, near Washington, D.C. I would like to ask the House to

welcome Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Cotts.

Oral Questions

FAILURE OF VANCOUVER TRAVEL AGENCIES

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs concerning the collapse of three travel agencies in

Vancouver over the weekend. I heard the minister on the radio this

morning busy denying that his department knew anything whatever about

the impending collapse, and denying specifically that he had any kind

of forewarning. I wonder, first of all, if the minister could advise

whether or not he is aware that the principal behind the three

companies which have now collapsed is one Stephen Milne, formerly the

owner and operator of Redwing Travel which was itself the subject of

much controversy some years ago, and which collapsed under surprisingly

similar circumstances. Is the minister aware of that?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I'd make two observations to the member. Firstly, I'm somewhat limited

in my comments, because at this moment argument is still continuing in

B.C. supreme court on an application to place a receiver in charge of

one of the companies in question. Secondly, based on the preliminary

verbal advice I have, may I say to the member that the facts are quite

complicated and may not be as the member infers. I shall most certainly

table with you, sir, and with the assembly, a full statement on the

factual background to the weekend events as soon as I have them.

MR. BARBER:

This morning I spoke with Mr. James Bower of Red Velvet Tours in

Vancouver, who advises me that in March and April of 1980 he advised

the registrar of travel agents of the problems with these companies and

this particular individual. He told me that he specifically advised

that the trust obligations under the act for the disposition of trust

moneys were not being met by this particular individual and these

companies. He was told to mind his own business by the gentleman who

replied to his call at the office of the registrar of travel agents.

Has the minister any knowledge about this attempt made in March and

again in April — more than a year ago — to advise his department that

something was going wrong here?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: With respect to that part of the member's question alleging certain questions and answers, I'll

happily take those as notice and bring back particular replies.

However, based on the preliminary information which I have received

verbally, the member refers to episodes of 1980. May I caution the

member that the facts as I understand them may be considerably more

complicated than suggested. I'm suggesting that the issue to which the

member has referred is apparently not the same as the issue which arose

last week.

MR. BARBER: I'm well aware that it's a very complicated issue and there's more than simply the disposition of trust moneys at stake.

This

morning I spoke with Mr. Edward Tiller of Frontier Holidays, who

advises that in March and April 1980 he too phoned the office of the

registrar of travel agents — this was more than a year ago — and

advised them on more than one occasion that there were problems with

the operation of this company — more than just the disposition of trust

moneys. There were other problems as well, He was told that his

attitude was "sour grapes," and he should stop bothering the office

with his information. Is the minister aware that these phone calls were

made and the information about these impending problems was provided to

his department in March and April 1980?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Once again, with respect to allegations of particular conversations, I

will happily take those portions of the question as notice and report

back. Again may I say, with respect to the matters of March and April

1980 to which the member has just referred, that it is my preliminary

understanding, based on verbal advice, that those concerns have been

well addressed, well monitored and settled and were not in any way a

source of the recent problems of seven days ago. This is why I say to

the member that it would appear that here are two separate categories

of issue, possibly but not necessarily involving the same company and

the same people. I will most certainly table the complete and factual

report with the assembly as soon as we have it. But it appears that

there are two separate issues involved.

MR. BARBER:

This is not the subject of a telephone conversation. On April 25, 1980,

Mr. Douglas E. Cummings, then general manager of Horizon Coaches — a

division of Horizon Coach Lines Ltd. — wrote to, the registrar of

travel agents outlining the problems and additionally observed and

alleged that an investigation under sections 5 and 7 of the act was

required because cheques have been issued without sufficient funds

because trust moneys were used for the purpose of buying out other

travel agencies. He went on in that letter to ask for a competent and

urgent reply. Again I repeat, Mr. Speaker: I'm well aware that there's

more than one issue — that of the trust companies. Is the minister

aware that Mr. Cummings' letter of April 25, 1980, drawing these

several matters to the attention of his department. was not even

acknowledged, much less replied to? I have that by telephone this

morning from Mr. Cummings, who I phoned at his home. He tells me that

he did not even receive an acknowledgement, much less a satisfactory

reply to these several questions raised. Is the minister aware of this

correspondence directed by Mr. Cummings to the registrar of travel

agents a year ago April 25?

[ Page 5646 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

I would remind members again that the purpose of question period is not

to bring information to the House but rather to ask a question in as

brief a form as possible.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Again,

with respect to the portions of the member's question dealing with

allegations of a year ago or today as to whether or not replies were

made to correspondence a year ago, I will happily take those as notice

and reply as to whether those allegations are correct. With respect to

the problems of a year ago to which the member refers, we don't know

yet whether or not those problems in any way were related to the

difficulties that arose a week ago. My preliminary information is that

the answer is no, but I will share that information with the House, Mr.

Speaker, as soon as we have it.

MR. BARBER: On May

28, 1980, and again on July 24, 1980, I raised these precise questions

in this House with the then minister, the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen). Is the minister aware, and was he advised when he took over

from his predecessor, the member for Richmond, why the minister

declined on both occasions to answer my questions and has to this date

failed to answer questions on this precise topic that we raised not

just in several phone calls or in a letter, but also on the floor of

this House almost a year ago? Was the minister advised, when he took

office, why nothing was done? I have yet to receive from that member a

reply to these questions.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, again it goes to the suggestion as to why the member is

perhaps being a shade hasty in his suggestions with respect to the

concerns of about a year ago to which he refers. It is my

understanding, based on preliminary verbal information, that those

general concerns were very competently addressed by my predecessor and

were in fact dealt with, and were not a source of any problem or

concern at the time I assumed this portfolio.

MR. BARBER: It's no great excuse for failing to reply when one promises to reply to a question on notice in this House.

Can

the minister confirm that this company, along with others run by Mr.

Milne, was in default in the amount of approximately $170,000 under its

trust fund obligations as of roughly March and April of last year?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER:

I wonder if the minister could advise how, now that this has happened,

the roughly $300,000 anticipated to be claimed from the fund — that's

roughly half of the current moneys deposited in the fund — shall

eventually be repaid? Can the minister advise whether or not it is the

policy that the travel agents, who are innocent and honourable, will

have to make up out of their own pockets, as Mr. Milne apparently will

not have to make up out of his, for this particular default and this

apparent claim of roughly $300,000 from the fund?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, until we're satisfied as to what happened and why it

happened, we are not in a position to make those statements. That is

why I repeat that as soon as we have the precise facts and reasons,

we'll be sharing the information with members and will be prepared to

make statements, But again, I caution the member; he is making certain

assumptions, inferences or suggestions which may or may not be true,

and I simply say, based on the preliminary verbal information I have, a

number — if not all — of the member's suggestions may not be correct.

Until the government is aware of the uncontested facts as to what

happened and why, we're not in a position to be able to answer,

MR. BARBER:

I wonder if the minister could advise whether or not as of this date,

apart from the several companies owned or operated by Stephen Milne —

including Boyarski, Windmill Holidays and the rest of it — there are

any other travel agents or agencies in default of their obligations

under the Travel Agents Act and, in particular, under the trust fund

obligations referred to in sections 5 and 7 of that act.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: To the best of our knowledge, as of this morning, the answer is no.

ADMISSION OF BOY TO RIVERVIEW

MR. LEVI:

I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Can the minister

inform the House why a 14 year-old boy — he was 14 this past March —

was admitted to the provincial mental hospital 11 days ago and is on

the East Lawn Unit with adult mental patients?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In response to the member's question, I did not have knowledge of the

young person until the publicity this morning. The young person

mentioned was not a ward of the Ministry of Human Resources until after

he was placed in the hospital by the family physician, a psychiatrist

and the family.

MR. LEVI: He was a ward of the

ministry when he was admitted. That's what I am concerned about — what

the role of.... The minister shakes her head, but I'm telling you that

he was. I spoke to him. The point is, how was this admission of a

14-year-old boy to Riverview accomplished?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Our ministry was not responsible for placing the child in Riverview. I

am having the whole case investigated. I have been assured that the

teenager was made a ward of the superintendent of child welfare after

the admission, which was arranged by the physician, the psychiatrist

and the family. I will bring a further report back to the House. As I

say, I'm having it investigated, but our ministry was not involved in

placing the child.

MR. LEVI: That's quite remarkable. There were some social workers involved from your ministry.

have a new question to the Minister of Health. Can the minister tell

the House whether it is the practice of the minister to admit

14-year-old children to the provincial mental hospital and place them

with adult mental patients? Is that the practice within the ministry?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I would have to take the question as notice to determine

whether it is either a practice or a policy, but I would be pleased to

respond directly to that.

[ Page 5647 ]

MR. LEVI:

I was hoping that we could get some sense of feeling from the ministers

about placing 14-year-old children in adult mental hospitals. One

minister says it's not her responsibility and the other one says he

doesn't know.

To the Minister of Human Resources: last year

your ministry underspent its family and children's service budget by $8

million. You failed to provide facilities for children like this little

boy. The question is: what plans do you have in mind to get children

like this little boy out of the mental hospital where yesterday he

could have been killed?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam would like to make a case that the

Ministry of Human Resources is placing children in places which are

inappropriate for the children. I would like to just say right here and

now that that is not our ministry's policy, and any inference that it

is, I think, is unbecoming of a former Minister of Human Resources in

this province.

First of all, that member, more than any

other member, knows full well that a difficult case, such as the one we

are speaking of today.... I want to tell you that there is very much

behind this case that I am not free, either in this assembly or outside

this assembly, at the present time to relate, because it is a very

complicated and very difficult case. I am assured by my ministry today,

however, that the youngster who was placed in Riverview was placed

there for his own protection and for the protection of the place from

which he came, that the youngster was in the very best place for his

psychotic condition, and that he was in the very best care.

MR. LEVI: That's why he was attacked yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The members opposite do not wish to accept that from me at the present

time. As I say, that is the inference which the opposite side wants to

leave with the House in question period, perhaps for its own purposes.

What we are interested in on this side of the House — and, I would

hope, on both sides of the House — is for the very best treatment for

the children concerned. The child's case that I have taken as notice to

bring back a report to the House will be brought to the House, but I

want to assure the House that I have had a report from my ministry that

assures me that the best efforts have been made to make sure that the

protection of that child is well taken care of, including the area from

which that child has come.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members. as an observation, the series of questions with which we have

just dealt is perhaps what those who structured the guidelines for

questions had in mind when they said questions of an argumentative

nature should not be permitted.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 56: public schools education, $772,622,740.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the minister. As he is

undoubtedly aware, a number of investigations have been conducted with

respect to the organization of the Shuswap school district at Salmon

Arm. I think the B.C. Teachers Federation commissioned an investigation

last year. I don't think that report was made public. There was some

threatened litigation, should that report be made public. Subsequent to

that, however, a report was commissioned by the board itself. That

report, which I believe made some nine recommendations for a

reorganization of the administrative structure within the school system

in that district, has resulted in some fairly spectacular changes being

made. I believe there were one dismissal, two resignations and

certainly a shake-up with respect to the major senior staff — the

superintendents and the other senior offices within the board.

The

teachers from the area, who have been expressing a concern for over a

year and requesting that the ministry become involved, are expressing

further concern, in light of the proposed new reorganization, that the

local teachers are in fact being shut out of any role, input or

discussion with respect to the reorganization of that school district.

While I'm not privy to all of the problems that precipitated the

investigations and the recommendations that flowed from those

investigations, it would certainly appear on the face of it that partly

at the heart of this problem was a lack of a spirit of cooperation and

communication between that senior organizational staff and the local

school teachers. Certainly. as a representative for the area. I am

vitally interested in trying to ensure that there be a cooperative and

harmonious relationship for the benefit of education in that area.

wonder what the minister knows about it. I wonder if he is prepared to

use his influence to ensure that there is the broadest possible

participation in discussing the mechanics of a new organization and

perhaps in ensuring that all local elements of the education spectrum

be involved so that in the future we can be sure we're going to have a

cooperative vehicle which has a mutual sensitivity and respect for the

roles of all the elements of the education system.

It is my

understanding that in the final analysis the minister must approve

whatever structure the local board adopts, and I would strongly urge

upon him that he satisfy himself that there is a better spirit of

communication and cooperation than apparently exists now. I offer to

the minister my own cooperation in any way. I can perhaps provide a

vehicle for convening meetings or bringing together elements of that

community to try to provide a cooperative apparatus for the future. I

would very much appreciate hearing the minister's views.

HON. MR. SMITH:

This member and I did cooperate on a previous occasion to bring about a

resolution of a difficult school question in his constituency, and I

must say that for some time I've been concerned with what's been going

on in this particular area. As he knows, two supervisors' jobs were

declared vacant, there were the resignations of the director of

instruction and the superintendent, and the position of

secretary-treasurer was also terminated. I'm aware of that, and also

aware that if new organizational positions are to be created they will

require my approval. I will not give that approval until such time as I

have monitored exactly what is going on in that district. As I am sure

you realize, hon. member, the people whose positions were terminated

may wish to request a transfer appeal, which I shall consider. But I

think the main thrust of your submission is that there should

[ Page 5648 ]

be discussion and cooperation between the board and the teachers concerned. I will endeavour to ensure that it takes place.

MR. KING:

I thank the minister for his response. I would appreciate it if the

minister would undertake to keep me advised regarding the status of the

reorganization so that I might be a party to the kind of development

and agreement coming together, before the fact rather than after the

fact. I would appreciate that cooperation very much.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would be delighted to do so. I value the member's assistance in these matters.

MRS. DAILLY:

I want to express my concern on behalf of the people of Burnaby North,

whom I represent, over the increase in the burden on the taxpayers of

Burnaby North ever since the Social Credit government came to power,

and the continuing increase in the basic mill rate. I don't intend to

go into any details on it, because our education critic from Vancouver

Centre has already expressed the concern of all NDP members. But I want

to go on record as saying that this government has a lot of explaining

to do to the people of Burnaby North, and I would hope that the

Minister for Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) doesn't once

again attempt to order the councils to say what great people the

government are in the handling of their grants.

The other

quick point and question I want to bring to the attention of the

minister is: I wonder if you could tell me what guidelines now exist

for the committees which you have set up, and which we have had for a

number of years, I know, to review textbooks that are presented by

different publishers around the province. What guidelines do these

committees use to decide which textbooks will be approved?

MS. BROWN:

I'm not quite sure whether this is the correct vote under which to

raise this, so I'm going to seek the guidance of the minister. It has

to do with a request from the greater Vancouver area for funding for

correct vote under which to raise that issue? Fine.

The

statistics that I get from greater Vancouver, which takes in all of

Burnaby, New Westminster and surrounding areas, is that the pre-school

population is fast approaching 50 percent of the school population, and

it really cuts down in terms of the hardship or disability which it is

to these children once they get into elementary school and high school.

elementary school, they're suggesting we should start funding from

pre-school and kindergarten and then through the elementary school

system. In fact, by the time some of these students reach elementary

a second language.

Has the minister looked at this request? Is the ministry considering preschoolers in a favourable light?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm going to respond to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) in a moment. I'm not ignoring her question.

The

member raises the question of funding pre-school. I think this has

probably been a desire and request from many educational elements for

some years, probably from before the time of the member for Burnaby

North. The implications of it are somewhat horrendous financially.

own preference would really be, in some pre-school areas where a good

case can be made, that we should be moving in with some kind of program

first language. The other is in some of the other special education

fields, where a dollar and some time and care invested at this stage

would reap some important results. It would allow these children to

reach a good level early instead of putting them in the position where

they always have to catch up.

So I can tell you that I am

looking at limited program assistance areas where I can help

preschoolers. One of those is ESL, and the other is certain areas of

the disabled. I think we should move there; it's a question of dollars

and when. I think the member is on a sound track. I have not yet seen

the particular request from the group mentioned in the Vancouver area.

It hasn't come onto my desk. I have no policy at present that would

allow me to fund it. I only know about it through an

article I read in

the press recently, and you've mentioned it now.

I think

this merits moving into a limited program area for preschoolers, and I

think it would be an important move to do that in the field of special

education — and I include this in the field of special education,

because it legitimately belongs there.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Chairman, I just have some questions given to me to ask the minister

during estimates. They came in late, but they're properly under votes

56 and 57. This question is from the B.C. Association for the Mentally

Retarded. They called me this morning and asked if I would raise the

concerns relating to special education. They want to know if the

funding for new programs being obtained is at the expense of existing

ones or whether it is new money. Examples given are renovations to the

Jericho Hill School and so on. A coordinator for the gifted appointment

is planned for this September, I'm told. The question really is: is

funding for new programs being obtained at the expense of existing ones

or is it new money?

The second question is: how has the

minister decided to approach the pre-school needs of disabled children?

He alluded to this in the previous answer. At present the ministry has

no specific mandate under the School Act, but planning is essential for

successful mainstreaming. We would like to support any move the

ministry makes to having the School Act set out clearly its

responsibilities and the responsibilities of the school districts with

respect to pre-school needs of disabled children.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, in response to the concern of the B.C.

Association for the Mentally Retarded, it's definitely new money for Jericho

and for the gifted. It's not money we're taking out of another pot.

In response to the second point on the pre-school, the only funds at present

earmarked for this are a pilot project in which we'll be giving grants

for existing programs for pre-school deaf children. There are some funds budgeted

for that. We will have to develop funds for the next year if we're going

to take any further program initiatives for pre-school children. It's my

intention to take moves in that direction, as I indicated to the previous member

as well.

MR. LAUK: I take it you'll be answering the queries of the member for Burnaby North.

[ Page 5649 ]

The

point that I wanted to make was essentially the second part of the

question: to me it seems a revision of the School Act has to be done,

setting out the responsibilities of the ministry and the school

districts with respect to pre-school responsibilities for disabled

children. Has the minister decided to do that?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Has he decided to do it? I've tried to indicate that my own thrust

would be to move in that direction for programs in these categories. I

think that should ultimately be reflected in changes in the act. I

don't think that I'm precluded from doing that at all in an

administrative or funding way, and I wouldn't feel that I was. I

certainly agree with the member that there should be a revision in the

act which more clearly sets out the responsibilities of the various

levels that are involved in education and their duties. I've indicated

that that will be in the revision of the School Act. The changes don't

have to await the revision. hon. member.

Perhaps I could

respond at the same time to the member for Burnaby North. There are

textbook guidelines; a process known as EPIE — don't ask me what it

means — is a systematic evaluation against the objective of courses.

It's done by a professional body consisting of teachers. It's used in

this province, in Alberta and in Manitoba. Information is shared among

the various provinces. What it does is evaluate the reading level and

the suitability of the textbook as it relates to the courses; it also

evaluates the materials from a standpoint of racism and sexism. The

evaluation is done largely and dominantly by professional teachers,

hon. member.

MRS. DAILLY: Part of the reason for

asking the question is that I've had some concern expressed by some of

the B.C. book publishers — I presume the minister is aware of this —

who agree that there should be such a committee but question what the

guidelines are. I know that you have a special grant for books

published in B.C. to be used for school textbooks. Frankly, the concern

is that not enough books published in B.C. are being used in our public

schools. I want to ask the minister if he could explain the guidelines

a little more clearly so we know if it is anything to do with the

guidelines, or lack of money.... What is it?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I will endeavour a little later to be more detailed with you about the

guidelines. I endorse your sentiments about B.C. book publishers. When

the social studies revision is completed, the materials that will be

used for the new social studies courses are going to be generated to a

large degree — I hope — within this province and will have a western

and British Columbia flavour to them, which we have not had often in

the past. That is greatly overdue. There is a grant that goes to

publishers for books used in the libraries, but it doesn't go beyond

that. Just a little later in my estimates, if you'll bear with me, I

will try to give you more details of those guidelines.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I've been interested particularly in what's been

happening at Jericho Hill School. The previous minister got things in

such a state of confusion and chaos....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you sure you did your research?

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and urban transit could do well to go out and buy a streetcar named Desire.

would commend the minister for at least providing that Jericho is a

very important entity. At the same time I'm wondering how the minister

is dealing with the fact that the school now has adjacent to it a

training program for police. The whole environment there seems to be

lacking in support for the need of those people who are in it.

I'd

like to bring to the minister a classic case of frustration in the

province. There is a woman by the name of Ann Fair in Coquitlam. She

has a deaf child who is four and a half years old. As a result of the

fact that our society seems to give very little priority to people's

needs, what's really happened is that she's had to give up her career,

go on social assistance and somehow or other ferry her child around

from place to place trying to get help. You can't blame or dump this on

any particular minister, and particularly on one who is relatively new.

I believe the government's priority has to be one that more closely

reflects the needs of people. I think the minister should go over the

Ann Fair case, thinking in terms of the kind of support service — if

nothing more than transportation — that could be provided. For example,

to get her child to a Vancouver centre she gets a one-way trip on a

bunny bus. The woman can't afford a car. naturally, and would have to

borrow one to go and retrieve her child because the bunny bus doesn't

come back until the older kids come back late in the afternoon, but her

program ends at noon. This is the kind of unfortunate situation that we

have when we are not really looking at the basic needs of people.

would like the minister to have a word with us about his direction for

Jericho Hill School which, incidentally, is a school that I

wholeheartedly support in terms of the work that it's done over the

year. It's a school that should not have been neglected and thrown into

turmoil by the previous minister. It would appear that things are

turning, and I would hope that this minister continues his present

direction, or at least what I interpret as his present direction.

I'd

also like the minister to say a word or two about his ministry or his

committee with respect to the International Year of the Disabled.

specifically concerning how people such as Mrs. Fair can be fairly

dealt with. I don't know whether the minister knows about this specific

case. I know of it through a federal colleague of mine, Pauline Hewett,

who sent me the information. I received it today. I'd be glad to send

the minister a copy of the correspondence and the newspaper

article

from the Coquitlam area so that he might have someone look into it. I

think it's most important that this case and like cases are seen as

priorities, particularly this year.

The other day the

minister said something in terms of the finance formula being

relatively fair and that the ministerial decision around the increases

in mill rates had not adversely affected some of the districts. This

had to do specifically with the public schools. The Chairman is quite

concerned. Does that come under this vote, Mr. Chairman? I think you'll

find it does. He indicated that what has happened has been just natural

inflation, but that everything was fair and copacetic. I'm interested

to see one or two of my colleagues from Vancouver, etc., who are

saying: "We're now paying the whole shot." Well, in New Westminster

we've been doing that for a couple of years. Other areas with a heavier

tax base have been doing it much longer.

[ Page 5650 ]

strikes me that the problem is that the Ministry of Education have

bailed themselves out of a responsibility that was once theirs. Under a

former administration the percentage of total education costs for

public school education was much higher. The proportion accepted by the

provincial government was much higher than it is now. It's pure and

simple. There has been a tremendous attrition of governmental support

for the public school system in this province. I can't understand how

the minister can get up and try to defend their policy. He can defend

it if he likes, but it's indefensible. The facts are there before us.

What the B.C. School Trustees Association is saying is quite right. The

districts are being unfairly dealt with with the policy of this

government, and that policy has been continual right from the day this

new government took over in 1976.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In 1975.

MR. COCKE: It took over in 1975, the minister says. What did you do in 1975 beyond going around and blowing your horn for two weeks?

Anyway,

Mr. Chairman, that having been said, I would be delighted to hear what

the minister has to say with respect to ( 1) the question of what

exactly his committee is going to do about people who are handicapped;

(2) what he, as the minister responsible, proposes for Jericho, and

(3)....

Oh, well, he can't answer my third question with

respect to their policy on taxation, but he could answer this on

sharing: is it his decision now that he's going to come around with a

fair proportion and begin in his next fiscal year, or is he going to

carry on with the present government policy?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Chairman, I'm not personally acquainted, hon. member, with the Ann

Fair case, but I'll be pleased to look into that and specifically what

could be done for her under the international year program. She could,

of course, apply for a grant. Grants are not limited to organizations;

individuals can apply. The proposition of providing transportation

services to deaf pre-school children who are attending Jericho would

seem to me to be something that would come within the ambit of the

guidelines of the international year committee. She should pursue that,

and I will pursue her case, if you'll let me have the letters.

What

we're doing at Jericho, very briefly — and the member seems very well

informed about Jericho — is that we decided that we would have the

decision as to the future of Jericho made by a committee consisting of

parents, teachers and representatives of the deaf community, as the

member knows. A very distinguished committee met and consulted with and

had a lot of correspondence with the deaf community around this

province. The result was that they recommended — and I accepted the

recommendation — that Jericho should remain as the central resource

centre of the province for the hearing-impaired. It will be the centre

from which all services to hearing-impaired students and local

districts will emanate.

That means, of course, that the facilities at Jericho will have to be improved

and that a better separation from the Justice Institute will have to be effected.

There is a commitment to do that. Three hundred thousand dollars are committed

now for immediate renovations — that will include ramps and elevators — and

the residences will be made more home-like. We will have to do more than that.

of course; we will have to ensure that there is a separate cafeteria and that

there is a complete workable separation from that facility and the Justice Institute.

One of the features of that, hon. member, is that the activities of the Justice

Institute will have to take into account their neighbours. I feel very strongly

about that, and I think the member knows what I'm alluding to. So that commitment

has been made.

part of our policy we will be appointing a provincial director of

programs for hearing- and speech-impaired students, and that individual

will operate out of Jericho. Although Jericho will remain as the

resource centre for the province, I still believe that decentralization

for these students in other places also makes sense, and that every

student cannot end up at Jericho.

On the finance formula,

Mr. Chairman, I think that what has to be borne in mind on these

percentages that are being tossed around is that really the basic

program is what members and the B.C. school trustees are talking about.

I have acknowledged publicly to the trustees that the provincial share

in percentage terms of the basic program was reduced this year from

39.7 to 37.5. That is a lesser percentage than was in force in this

province some five or six years ago as well, and that percentage

reduction certainly does concern school boards.

But I think,

hon. member, that what has to be fairly borne in mind is that the

percentage the province pays for education as a whole has not declined

but has remained largely constant since 1975, and the government has

undertaken a number of additional cost responsibilities — 100 percent

of the cost of community colleges; the amount of money that is rebated

to homeowners under homeowner's grants has risen considerably during

those years as well; the amount that the government allots for

teachers' pensions, which are paid for provincially, dramatically

doubled this year; the amounts of money made available to school

districts for capital increased. So you have a pattern of the financing

of education as a whole in this province over the period from 1975 to

the present remaining roughly at the 65 or 63 percent level, exclusive

of universities. If you add on universities, it's roughly the same

picture; that is, it's at the 70 or 68 percent level. One year it may

be down a percentage or two, another year up a percentage or two, but

it's been a relatively constant performance, a very good performance

and one to be proud of, because the overall cost of education in this

province has doubled in real dollars from the time that the gentlemen

and ladies opposite sat on this side. To keep pace with the overall

percentage, I think, is a very commendable result.

The

result of assessments this year and the result that they've had on the

sharing, under the formula for certain districts that have a high

assessment base, has been quite sharp and dramatic. I've said it once

and I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face: the reduction of the

percentage of taxable value on homeowners had a very important

cushioning effect on that, but it did not have a sufficiently sharp

cushioning effect where you have a sudden dramatic swing in

assessments. The school taxation committee, which is now meeting and

has been consulting with a number of groups, is going to recommend to

me ways to ensure in the future that rapid swings of assessment will

not impact in that way.

I assure the hon. member that I do

not remain complacent about the method of financing education in this

province or about the formula; but the formula, as he knows, operates

basically on the principle that school districts that do not have a

high assessment base receive the bulk of the provincial grant moneys.

and it school district that can raise the amount

[ Page 5651 ]

its basic program entirely or nearly entirely from its own assessment

base receives little or none of the grants for school districts that

are given. They may receive special grants but they don't receive the

general grants in the basic program. That is based on the principle of

equalization. It may be said that, while the principle of equalization

is a good one, it has resulted in some burdens failing on certain

districts with high assessment rates, particularly in times of

inflation of assessments. That's the very issue that this committee is

addressing and that has to be addressed.

I take it from your

remarks and the remarks of the first member that you are not

challenging equalization, that you believe in the principle of

equalization — at least I hope you do; if you don't believe in the

principle of equalization, I'm sure you'll correct me — but you feel

that there are inequities in the system. That is precisely what this

committee is addressing and what it will make recommendations about to

us.

MR. LAUK: We had this debate last week, but the

minister continually falls down two flights of stairs every time he

gets into the defence of the financing formula. First of all, the

appointment of the committee is totally rejected by the opposition

party as a smokescreen. The minister knows full well what the

inequities of the financial formula are, and so does his deputy

minister of education finance. Why should we appoint Mr. Fleming to a

committee? That's his job. This smokescreen committee isn't going to do

a darn thing to help taxpayers this year. They are getting their

notices this year, by the way, for tremendous increases based on

assessments on their homes, which is no test of their ability to pay

these taxes. That's the inequity.

We ask the minister to

fulfil the solemn promise he made when he was a candidate for the

Social Credit Party in the riding of Oak Bay. That promise was that he

would espouse the recommendations of the McMath report and rectify this

terribly unjust taxation system. Because of the political footballing

with this financial formula, education in some areas goes begging. When

he talks about equalization, that's just playing with words. There's no

such thing as equalization. Certainly we'd be in favour of equalization

if it existed, but it doesn't. The money paid as an overage on taxation

in school districts is paid into consolidated revenue. We're dealing

once again with the treasury as a whole. It's nonsense to argue about

equalization.

Under vote 56 I have noticed some very serious

increases in the budget. For example, under travel expense there is an

extra $22,232 over last year; office expense, an extra $138,000 — a 69

percent increase; office furniture and equipment, a 47 percent

increase; advertising and publications, another $103,000 added onto the

budget under this vote. You know what this money is being spent for.

The minister defends himself by saying that the province is paying more

and more of the share of education costs. Whose share of education

costs? Not the school districts'. Look at the advertising, office

expenditures and travel expenditures. Under these votes this government

is free-wheeling with the taxpayers' money.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says I don't

know what I'm talking about. I know he's embarrassed to hear about

this. I know he's embarrassed to hear that his colleagues are just

shovelling money out of the back of a truck. A few years ago the

Minister of Municipal Affairs said: "Go and get a shovel." The trouble

is that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith) thought he

was talking to him. He's got his shovel and he's shovelling money out

of the back of a truck — and it's the taxpayers' money. He's spending

money like an inebriated sailor.

Look at these increases. So

far we've moved $160,000 in cuts, which that side of the House has

rejected. It's not money that will go to pay for scholarships,

teachers' salaries and schools — the new gymnasium in Fort St. James or

the new school that's needed in Fort St. James. Not one penny of what

we're asking to be cut from these votes will go for the benefit of

public education in this province. We want to cut back money from

travel; we want to cut back money for these expensive stuffed-leather

office chairs that everybody's buying, and for advertising. Who needs

advertising like that picture of the minister in the Snoopy pre-World

War II aviator's cap and white scarf getting in the Harvard? Who needs

these pictures at taxpayers' expense? He looked like Benny Hill in that

photograph, anyway. If I were him I'd ask for my money back — I mean,

the taxpayers' money.

Therefore I move that vote 56 be

reduced by an amount of $300,336. I ask all hon. members of this

committee for once to get on the side of the taxpayer. Give them a

break and cut back this vote for these needless expenditures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

Mussallem

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

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

Journals of the House.

Vote 56 approved.

On vote 57: post-secondary education — colleges and provincial institutes, $283,171,542.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, again I just want to belabour the point which I made about the women's access

[ Page 5652 ]

program.

The three-year diminishing formula is just not good enough to protect

this program which is of such vital importance to mature women who are

trying to re-enter the work force and labour market. Also I want to

bring specifically to the minister's attention a request from theSun

shine Coast women's program. Their letter originally went to Mr. R.J.

Carter, the Deputy Minister of Education. They were requesting funding

for a women's access program of their own. Normally they would have

been covered by Cap College, but as we all know, Cap College is being

starved to death. It just does not have the funding to cover an

additional program. So they decided to apply directly to the ministry

and to bring to the minister's attention the fact that they have tried

to put such a program in place. They have been giving re-entry courses,

counselling courses and that sort of thing over the last fall semester.

They've had 356 participants in the fall program, and 318 to date in

the winter and spring program.

This is an isolated

community, and the women in this particular area really need the kind

of service which is given to them by the women's access program. So

they have appealed to the minister directly for $60,000 — not a lot of

money, Mr. Chairman — to cover the cost of renting the office they're

using and the space they're using for these programs, and to have one

co-ordinator and some part-time teachers.

They have received

a response saying that there was not sufficient money to cover this, so

I'm bringing to the minister himself the appeal from these particular

women. If he needs more information on it, I would be very happy to

give him my copy of the brief which they submitted to Mr. Carter, as

well as the letter they sent to him, to fill him in. The Sunshine Coast

women really need this program. That's all I'm trying to say. All

they're asking for is $60,000.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is correct that this is a good program they are planning on the Sunshine

Coast, They have been in correspondence with my deputy, and he has

advised them to apply through Capilano College because the funding is

through the college. There is no direct or separate funding, and that

is the route they should take. I should point out that quite apart from

being starved, that college's budget allocations are up this year 18.5

percent, or virtually $2 million. I don't accept that argument, but I

will certainly look at the three-year plan on the women's access

program, and if it is not an adequate period of time to get these

programs on a lasting basis where there is a real demand for them, I

certainly will review that. As I told her the other day, I want to see

these programs built into the budget, and not as titillating,

experimental come-and-go programs, but as ones which actually get built

into the budget and are lasting, where they are good and there is a

demand for them.

MS. BROWN: Just very briefly I want

to say I certainly support the minister's desire to have the programs

built into the budget, but they're suggesting it's going to take at

least five years before that can happen. It won't happen in three

years. The Sunshine Coast women have been in touch with Capilano

College, and they received a letter from Dean Jardine that stated:

"Although the college has a commitment to women's centres it is not

financially possible for them to open a new one at this time." They

talked about being $100,000 in debt, or something to that effect. This

particular program cannot wait. They know the proper channels to go

through. They've been through the proper channels, and they've been

told there is no funding for it. Now they're using improper channels.

They've asked me to raise this with the minister during the

consideration of his estimates. Is there a grant or something that can

be given to this program? I see the deputy shaking his head. Well, I'm

trying.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think the channels are improper at all. We will go back and have a look at that, and also discuss it with Capilano.

MR. LAUK:

I would like to join with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on this

important aspect of community college education, and argue the overall

philosophy which seems to be missing from the ministry and the

minister's resolve. The literature and a lot of the material and

knowledge we now have are telling us something that I think we should

have known, through common sense, for generations that somehow we have

to achieve, in one of the greatest governmental structures to achieve

the goal, equality of the sexes. Somehow we have to establish values

within our society where in reality men and women are equal and are

treated equally. It would resolve a great deal of the difficulty we

presently experience in the social fabric of North American society.

I've made this statement before, and I want to make it again. It can't

be emphasized too much. It cuts through, is part of and should

influence almost every aspect of the Ministry of Education — textbooks,

public education, colleges.... Wherever possible, the minister should

even go through red lights — as an emergency vehicle, if you like — and

bring about access programs, deal with curriculum, parent schools

within the school establishment, and with all those things that will

help bring about knowledgeable parents and knowledgeable men and women

within families, using as a base equal respect between the sexes in our

society.

In answering us when we attack the high level of

property taxation, the minister has said — and certainly the Premier

has said — that the Social Credit government took over the funding of

community colleges from the local taxpayer. One of the problems with

taking away that burden is that nobody ever really asked for it.

Neither the trustees, the local taxpayers or the NDP opposition wanted

to be relieved of that burden, but the minister unilaterally relieves

the local taxpayer of that burden. Instead of a revenue-sharing formula

where colleges could be jointly funded from property taxpayers and the

provincial government, enabling local school districts to have some

input into community colleges, vis-à-vis the McMath report, the

minister has moved against public policy. He's moved against the

general will of the public and taken the responsibility for financing

colleges away from the local regions, when in fact what he should do is

take more of the provincial responsibility for the basic education

program and leave a portion of the local taxpayer's contribution

towards colleges so that there is some justification for input on the

part of school boards.

What happened when they moved the

local taxpayer's responsibility? The minister moves in a very

centralist way and takes control. Look at the minister's policy

directive dated March 25, 1981. It's extraordinary. What ever happened

to local autonomy, I ask? Priorities for expenditure of funds are, says

the minister, employment-oriented programs, adult basic education and

academic and general education support services. He uses academic and

general education as priority number three. Did he have the input of

the school

[ Page 5653 ]

boards?

Not according to my mail. It's only had a month to get in. I suppose

that in two months the file I have will be three times the size it is

today. School boards were not consulted. Local groups and school

faculties have not been consulted; at least they don't believe they

have, and that's the important perception. The minister is again using

this financial weapon to control colleges, not to have community active

colleges but centralized control for education. It's a censorship, if

you like, of the kinds of things that will be taught and how they are

to be prioritized at the community college level.

We said

that that would happen when they brought in the bill doing away with

local taxation for community schools. We said it would happen, and the

minister said that it wouldn't. A month or two later he said: "Well,

we're calling the shots. We're amending the act to put a different

number of people on the board. We want government control on the board

because we're paying the bill." He said that. It's just a difference in

philosophy. From time to time it's helpful to put it on the record in

this chamber. The government of the day has a philosophy of central

control because they very much fear education at the local level. They

very much fear a greater number of people within this province having a

good and wide education. They very much fear having the control over

that education go to the local level. That fear is expressed because of

their futile, conservative attitude towards people. They think that

people act in a negative way. They don't trust local government. They

don't trust local school boards. They don't trust college boards. They

don't trust the local taxpayer. They only trust themselves. They say:

"We've got the power. You've got to trust us. We are now the Crown and

you must give obeisance to the Crown."

We on this side of

the House do not have that philosophy. We believe in decentralization

of power. We believe in individuals expressing power. We don't go

around the country and say, "Oh, big government control under NDP," as

argues the Social Credit Party when they're campaigning in various

elections. You'll notice that the only time they argue for individual

freedom is when they're arguing for land rights under the Land

Commission. That's the only time they say: "Individual freedom against

big government control." But every other aspect of life is centralized

in one power under this conservative, right-wing Social Credit

government.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No,

fascist is modern. This is a feudal government. Everything they do is

feudal. You can tell by the minister, who on his royal tour was more

concerned with his girth than with his public duty. He's done very well

since. I think that the

article in the Kelowna Capital News

frightened him into Weight Watchers because he realized that somewhere

along the line — noblesse oblige — he has to give his due to the

democratic system. That philosophy pervades everything that this

government does, and it certainly is expressed under this vote.

The minister answered my friend from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)

briefly about the college budgets. I think that if one looks at the

letter dated April 30 sent to the deputy minister from Paul Gallagher

of Capilano College, one can see that the new allocation to Capilano

College is insufficient to maintain existing services. There's an

estimate there of a total shortfall of about $290,000, but there's some

speculation that it could reach as high as $506,000. Is this gentleman,

Paul Gallagher, the principal of Capilano College, one of the radicals

out there? Is he a communist? Is he a terrorist?

HON. MR. SMITH: Are you making that charge?

MR. LAUK:

Well, what is he? The minister says that there's no problem and that

there's enough money in the budget, yet the principal of a college says

that it's $290,000 short. Who are we to believe? Both are honourable

gentlemen. Is the minister suggesting indirectly that Paul Gallagher is

totally irresponsible in writing a letter to the deputy minister

outlining this shortfall? Is he saying that Mr. Gallagher shouldn't be

the principal of the school, that he doesn't know figures, or what?

They both can't be right. I'm suggesting to you that if you look at the

background of the principal of Capilano College, you'll see that he's

not a hysteric or a radical. All he wants to do is run a good college,

but he wants to maintain at least, in this booming economy that we here

about from the Socreds all the time.... "It's never been better.

There's lots of money and everybody has got jobs. There's milk and

honey in the streets. The streets are paved with gold." All the

principal of Capilano College wants to do is maintain existing

services. He says there's a $290,000 shortfall. The minister says that

this guy is all wet; he doesn't know what he's talking about,

obviously. Or maybe Paul Gallagher is a spy. Is he a CCF spy? Is he a

cloth-capped socialist in disguise? Perhaps the minister could edify us.

The

other point I want to make is the disastrous effect of the so-called

student-contact- hour formula for calculating college budget

allocations. The problems with the student-contact-hour approach are as

follows. I count three of them. Maybe the minister can clear this up in

my mind.

Firstly, it seems to encourage larger classes of

popular studies, rather than some of the more specialized lower

enrolment offerings. I think the minister will know full well, being a

college lecturer himself, how important it is to have the more

specialized lower enrolment offerings. Course decisions should be made

by the college on the basis of demand and availability elsewhere. Only

then should budget be a factor. Under the student-contact-hour formula

the budget becomes the number one consideration, rather than the more

rational academic approach.

Secondly. It assumes that all

colleges have the same potential for attracting students. That's not

what the community college was designed for. It wasn't supply and

demand. As I understand it. that's clear in all the reports. It had to

meet demographic needs, clearly, but that's not the primary purpose of

community colleges. The formula favours colleges in urban areas around

the lower mainland at the expense of those in the north. as most of the

population is in the lower mainland. When this NDP administration

brought in community colleges. the purpose was to bring post-secondary

education to outlying districts and not institute a financial formula

that would discourage that process.

Thirdly, how did the

ministry derive 54 cents per contact hour? Why not 44 cents or $1.49?

Under the guise of equity of contribution for all colleges, I suggest

the government has chosen an arbitrary figure and essentially

instructed the colleges to either hike their tuition fees, cut back on

services or face a shortfall in government funding, or all three in

some cases.

Mr. Chairman, I have those criticisms to make

about the school formula. I think the minister should carefully

consider his philosophical position. He is a liberal democrat, not a

[ Page 5654 ]

feudal

Tory, in the classical historical and political significance of those

terms. Being a liberal democrat full of all of those clichés the

liberal democrats have, he should at least pay lip-service to the idea

of local autonomy over community colleges. His Edmund Burke.... Well, I

won't get into that. I can't help it if the minister is schizophrenic.

I think, though, that he should seriously reconsider the direction of

control over community colleges. Some local autonomy should be given

back to either the school boards or some other form of regional

representation other than political hackery.

That leads me

to my final point. I'm getting a little bit fed up with the idea of

appointing Socred hacks to college boards. I think that they have to be

representative. Membership in the Social Credit Party should not be the

criterion for going on a community college board. Once you look at some

of the appointments made.... By the way, they're couched. They appoint

three or four people to a board; two or three of them will be hacks;

one or two will be good appointments — in other words, people who have

been clearly interested in education and who represent the general will

in the community and who will be good at financial control and so on.

I'll

run through just a few of them, Mr. Chairman, from the recent

announcements going back to February, March and April. There's a

Charles Lasser; he's the current president of the Chetwynd Socred

association, ex-mayor of Chetwynd and ex-member of the Maple Ridge

village council. He's got other credentials. He was recently appointed

to the Northern Lights College board. You know him; he's a good friend

of yours. He's your campaign manager or something.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

I know. I don't think membership in a political party should preclude

you from going on a college board, but something that obvious....

MR. BRUMMET: Well, that's what you're saying.

MR. LAUK:

No. I'm saying when it's something that obvious, why don't you just

avoid that kind of thing? He's got enough to do; you know he's going to

toe the party line.

MR. BRUMMET: It doesn't make them bad people because they're Socreds.

MR. LAUK: Not necessarily, but prima facie it does. I'm going to have that member thumb his Black's Law Dictionary as I press on.

Here's

another one: Janet Edwards. Mrs. Edwards and her husband are in

Northland Agency in Fort Nelson. Is that in your riding too? They are

listed on the back of Tony Brummet's campaign flyer, it says here, as

his constituency contacts in Fort Nelson.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

If I'm going to call up a college board person up there and ask for a

confidential inquiry — which, as a member of this Legislature, I have

the right to do — am I going to call Mrs. Edwards?

MR. BRUMMET: Why not? She's well-known and respected in the community.

MR. LAUK:

But she's your community rep; she's a partisan politician; she's your

ward-heeler in the constituency, and she sits on a community college

board. Am I going to call her up on a sensitive issue involving a

student? She's going to phone you up right away.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I ask members not to interrupt the member now speaking. If the member

who has taken his place in debate would address his comments to the

Chair, then we could continue with orderly debate.

MR. LAUK:

You're quite right. Well, I'll stop there if it's going to disturb

these people. The college boards are being peppered by political hacks,

political appointments. I think that's unfortunate. I think the

minister should resist the influence of his caucus in the appointment

of members to these boards.

I didn't mean to upset the

member that badly. He's left; he's very upset. I know he's a frail

member. We don't want to upset him.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Bully.

MR. LAUK: Benjamin Bunny's back.

The

point I'm trying to make is that if you want the public to feel that

the board has integrity and that there is a real interest on the part

of the Ministry of Education in seeing that the community colleges are

properly run by people who have an interest in education in the area

not by those whose primary interest is the political success of their

local MLA or candidate, then the minister will take a more realistic

view of appointments to these boards. I have a whole list of who they

are and how they got on. I think it's really unfortunate. I think it's

more widespread under this minister than it has been in the past. I

think that he should look carefully at his reputation, because a

Minister of Education, insofar as appointments to boards are concerned,

is much like the Attorney-General with judicial appointments, although

there is perhaps a higher responsibility with the Attorney-General. It

seems to me that the people who are the custodians of our

post-secondary education in outlying areas have just as much of a

responsible judicial function as a judge, that those appointments

should be considered with great care, and that they should not be open

to any public criticism because of partisan politics in the appointment

of these individuals.

Those are the broad, general points and some specific points that I have to make under this vote.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'm quite interested to hear that member's remarks about the

advisability of having these community colleges not funded provincially

but by going back to some form of local taxation or local support for

them.

MR. LAUK: That's not what I said.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, you did.

MR. LAUK: You're twisting it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Hon. member, you cannot interrupt the minister that way.

[ Page 5655 ]

HON. MR. SMITH:

You and I, Mr. Chairman, sat in local government at the time the

community college system came into being, when the levy of 2 mills was

placed on local property taxes in most communities. I certainly can

remember that at that time everyone in local government was virtually

unanimous, whether they were school boards or municipalities, that they

wanted that 2 mill levy removed. In fact, I also recall that the B.C.

School Trustees Association — which the member always quotes in this

House when it's to his advantage — urged very strongly that this be

done. And it was done. To suggest that we now go back to a form of

local funding would not, I think, have a great deal of local support;

but it's an idea.

MR. LAUK: Local autonomy.

HON. MR. SMITH:

There has to be provincial, public and community responsibility as

well, hon. member. One of the problems with your speech and your

remarks about the control of post-secondary education is this: the

system of funding colleges and institutes in this province is not a

highly centralized system out of Victoria; it's a very decentralized

system through three councils which essentially make the allocations

that end up being the budgets of the colleges. Many recommendations

were made to me during the past year that I should abolish the three

councils and create one council. Those recommendations, interestingly

enough, were made to me by colleges — the boards, administrations and

principals of colleges.

MR. LAUK: What difference does it make?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it would be a move in the direction of centralization.

MR. LAUK: Not really. You appoint all of the councils anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has taken his place and is speaking.

HON. MR. SMITH:

In any event. there is a balance in the post-secondary system between

the powers of the ministry, the very, very strong allocation powers of

the three councils and the decision-making of the local board. The

local board still consists of a number of school trustees, and close to

half of these boards are made up of elected school trustees — in some

cases it's even more than half, because ministerial appointments are

not always filled.

Hon. member, you talked about

appointments to college boards, and one of the problems, quite frankly.

Is trying to find people to serve on college boards. and to serve in a

representative way geographically throughout a college region. It is

not an easy task to find....

MR. LAUK: We'll find you names.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I can't remember ever having a list from you.

MR. LAUK: Well, would you like some?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, are you offering?

MR. LAUK: Surely.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I may have had some names from that member, and I think I've also had

some assistance in that regard from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King). But it is difficult to find people to serve who are

representative geographically of a region as well. and appointments to

those boards take a great deal of time. I know that appointments to

Camosun College were certainly made on the basis of community service

and a diversity of background and interests, and they were not made on

the basis of membership in a particular party.

MR. LAUK: That was just coincidental.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Oh, that happens to be an area that I'm familiar with. but it's

difficult to become that familiar with the people available in every

region of this province. I have found from my experience that, by and

large, the people who are appointed to these boards — either by their

school boards or by the ministry — serve in a community sense and in a

responsible sense, and they do that almost without question.

The

member raised the question of the budget for Capilano and invited me to

get into a debate with the principal of that college, who isn't here.

It is certainly true that a number of community colleges. when they

speak of shortfalls and cutbacks, feel that the budget allocations that

came to them through the council system were not high enough. But when

I give you those figures of the Capilano budget rising from $10.1

million to $12 million — a rise of 18.5 percent — that can hardly be

considered a cutback. It is true that the administration believes they

will be about $290,000 short on the operating side. But it is going to

be the case with colleges that priorities of programs have to be

adjusted, that programs are not there forever and that in order to meet

new community or vocational needs, some existing programs may have to

be modified. We are reviewing the Capilano budget and some other

budgets where there are difficulties. In Capilano there was a very high

inflation rate of some 16.3 percent on salary, which had to be taken

into account.

Hon. member, you also mentioned to me the

basis of the student-contact-hour formula — how we had arrived at the

54 cents per student-contact-hour as the basis of a policy, which was

to cover in guidelines non-governmental revenues that went to colleges.

Well. that 54 cent figure was based on an average throughout the

system, and it was assumed that that would be phased in over a period

of years — that there would be a one-year period of discussion and

implementation. It by no means follows from that policy either that

tuition fees are the sole way in which a college can find that amount

of non-governmental money; there are other avenues open to colleges and

institutes to find revenue, and some of them are exploring these. It is

also true that the percentage of the cost of the operation of colleges

and institutes in this province that is paid for by student fees is

very low indeed. I believe that overall it's approximately 7 percent,

and that sits very well in comparison with other jurisdictions in other

public institutions.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have

a couple of specific questions to the Minister of Education regarding

asbestos. At Pacific Vocational Institute, could you advise us what

steps you've taken to...? I understand you may be moving out of that

building. Would the minister respond?

[ Page 5656 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I will in a moment, so that I'll be up to date.

MR. HANSON:

While the minister is getting the response on Pacific Vocational

Institute, would he also advise the House if there are any other

colleges in the province where the WCB has undertaken testing of the

airborne asbestos fibres? The contention on this side of the House is

that we play the numbers game with particle size and the number of

fibres, and although we realize it's a long-standing problem, there

really shouldn't be exposure for students or staff to any airborne

fibres.

HON. MR. SMITH: Very briefly at this time,

the welding building you're speaking of at PVI is going to be vacated.

At the present we are not aware of other buildings where the WCB has

indicated a similar asbestos danger.

MR. HANSON: If

the Ministry of Education is to vacate that building and it is to be

demolished, the contractors who are going to demolish it should be

advised to take precautions for the adjacent community. In other words,

I think oftentimes these buildings are knocked down, freeing all that

asbestos insulation into the ambient air in the neighbourhood. I think

if you would make a note now that in the event that your officials

decide to vacate the premises and to have it destroyed, that aspect

should be done in conjunction with the WCB.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, we will do that, and do so with some warning and in conjunction with the WCB.

MR. LAUK:

The question which arose this morning as a result of my conversation

with the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded with respect to

post-secondary education was the status of funding of disabled young

adults in community colleges. I am advised that the funding has been

set aside, which I understand to mean that it may show up in the

budget. But I don't know where to find it here, and perhaps the

minister can point it out in the budget. If it's been set aside and not

yet allocated, I'm concerned it will eventually be siphoned off into

something else. On the record, I wonder if the minister can indicate

the sum, which vote it's in, and how we know it's going to be used.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I think that's a timely question. There is $800,000 in the budget which

is unallocated for that purpose, and we will be allocating it for adult

disabled programs. I hope to be able to advise the Legislature of the

nature of those programs very shortly. We're working on the development

of them. There is money in the budget, and it will be allocated, and I

know that organization is interested.

MR. LAUK: Where is it?

HON. MR. SMITH:

It's under our ministry's standing committee (ABE and continuing

education). In the $18 million-plus, there's an amount in there of

$800,000 which is for initiatives in the the area in which that

organization is particularly interested.

MR. LAUK: I thank the hon. minister. But even going through post-secondary

education, I find that the minister's unreasonable, profligate directions

are taking their expression. He is using the taxpayers' money again in

areas not required through demands on the public education system in the post-secondary

education system. I will point out to the minister that under vote 57 there's

a 21 percent increase in travel expense, a 66 percent increase in office expense

and a 95 percent increase in office furniture expense. Now what are these people

doing? Are they getting sunken bathtubs, or what's happening? Why is this

money being spent in this profligate and wasteful manner? These are hard-earned

taxpayers' dollars. I promise to keep it within these four walls; I won't

tell a soul outside of this room how much money this minister is just throwing

against the wall.

I therefore move that vote 57 be reduced by an amount of $82,709.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 57 approved.

On vote 58: post-secondary student aid programs, $6,285,218.

MR. LAUK:

You'd think that under vote 57, the opposition would have no cause to

find fault with the government and that whatever money is voted for

students the opposition would support.

Under this vote, it's

true that predominantly the money goes for grants, contributions and

subsidies to students. That's something like $15 million. We're happy

that the ministry has made innovations and changes that will better aid

students. They're not all that we asked for, but the ministry has gone

a long way. But why does it increase its travel, office and furniture

expenses again under the same vote?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair]

[ Page 5657 ]

Here

is a worthwhile vote, and yet there is a 20 percent increase in travel,

a 46 percent increase in office expense and, once again, a 60 percent

increase in office furniture. The man who makes genuine leather stuffed

chairs in this province must be making a fortune; or they're imported.

Are they Venetian? There's an increase of $19,075 over last year on

those items.

I therefore move that vote 58 be reduced by an amount of $19,075. I urge all hon. members to support that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 58 approved.

On vote 59: Teachers' Pension Fund. $83,700,000.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman. I think these votes should not go by without some comment

on the government's rather arbitrary action and the distaste that it

stills leaves in the mouths of teachers across this province, I don't

normally attend functions such as the B.C. teachers' annual general

meeting or the B.C. school trustees' annual meeting. but I did have

occasion to attend a professional development symposium in Vancouver

about two and a half weeks ago. In the conversation afterwards it was

very obvious that last year's unilateral action by the government with

respect to teachers' pensions and pensions in general was certainly....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, could you

advise me if since we're discussing the vote on teachers' pensions

there may not be a conflict of interest with respect to the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

member for Nelson-Creston has the floor on vote 59. and I'm sure he's

aware that under these particular votes we do not discuss legislation.

the need for it or otherwise.

MR. NICOLSON: No. We don't talk about legislation passed in this session either. Mr. Chairman.

I'd

like to say that this has had, and is having, a lasting deleterious

effect upon the educational climate in this province. I must say that I

and, I'm sure, almost every member of this House has had communication

by way of letter or petition from probably every teacher in his riding.

It isn't just the notion of capped COLA. but the whole way in which

these funds are invested.

This year I note the amount is up.

It appears to be nearly double what it was last year. But of course if

one looks at the interim expenditures one sees that last year the

government exceeded estimates by some considerable amount. so a great

deal of what we see in the estimates this year is just a reflection of

bringing things into line with reality. Indeed, this amount we see

before us may or may not get spent. It may be put into Teachers'

Pension Fund, and it may partially find its way into surplus.

One

of the things I'd like to talk about in terms of this fund is the

manner in which these moneys and this money wc're voting here today is

invested. For instance, I note that the recent prospectus of the

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.... Those funds were

invested nominally at 4.5 percent and 5 percent in bonds. But when one

looks at the proceeds and realizes that the proceeds were not 100

percent — that in one case the proceeds were only 98.8 percent. and in

another 98.5 percent — we see that the rate of return to the foreign

bond holders is really 15.7 percent. In other words. the government is

willing to pay 15.7 percent and 16.5 percent to get bonds from a

foreign source which are subject to fluctuation in dollar amounts in

terms of the way in which we repay them.

How is the

government actually going about investment? Its record over the past

several years has not been good, and I would submit that the

government, rather than go to foreign bond markets. should utilize

these funds and go to the foreign bond markets to set a market rate.

What

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has really ended up paying is

15.7 percent and 16.5 percent for two bond issues.

whereas they were

passed off on the public as being 14.5 percent and 15 percent. When

these funds are invested — I see the minister is getting advice from

the Minister of Finance — should they not be invested at the going

rates? Maybe they should have gone to B.C. Hydro as these funds have

done in the past. They should not go at some nominal rate, should they

not realize what the government is willing to pay in terms of going to

a bond market.... I can remember the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), along with Mr. Brousson years ago talking

about Mike Popell and the business of discounting. Here the government

is going and getting discounted mortgages. It's advertising that it's

getting 14.5 percent and 15 percent bonds when in fact it's getting

15.7 percent and 16.5 percent.

Does the minister not feel

that it would be a fair policy for investment to test the New York

market for part of the requirements, but then to raise other types of

capital and to put pension funds into outfits like B.C. Hydro at the

market rates that are established on the international market. rather

than by something that's a little bit local and doggone dirt cheap

toward government?

[ Page 5658 ]

The

other thing I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, is that the principle of

capped COLA is simply an admission of failure by government to deal

with inflation. There would be no need for a government to be concerned

about cost of living if governments were coping with inflation. All

that any organized group is asking for if they want a cost-of-living

adjustment to pensions — whether it be senior citizens on Canada

Pension, the straight guaranteed income supplement, teachers' pensions,

civic workers' pensions, government employees or people in the private

sector — is simply that something be done about inflation. If you want

to solve the problem by bringing inflation to a grinding halt and a

zero inflation rate so that their pension will put the same amount of

groceries on the table this year as it will next year and in successive

years, that's all they're asking for. They want a truly fixed income so

that you can buy the same amount of goods once you've retired in your

sixty-fifth year as you will then be able to buy in your seventy-fifth

year. They're not even asking to take a proportion of the increase in

the gross provincial and gross national products.

The

minister has had a great deal of time to reflect upon this. He's had

meetings. I would ask the minister if he does not consider the action

taken to date with pensions to have been a very unfair target area in

which to try to cut expenditures. What you're really going to do is

reduce income year by year. When a person is 65 and retired, he's going

to be okay. When he's 70, he's going to be considerably worse off. You

can solve any concerns that you have about the rate at which pensions

might grow by coping with inflation. You are government, and you have

the ability to do that if anyone does, federally and provincially.

The

two questions are: does the minister not consider that they have chosen

an unfair target group when they picked not on teachers but on

pensioners in order to cut costs? You don't get a pension when you're

still teaching. You get a pension after you've retired. Also, would it

not be fairer to look at the kind of return that we are willing to pay

to foreign bond holders? What we're really paying — I'm not saying

they're necessarily receiving it — is 15.7 percent and 16.5 percent on

those bonds that only yielded proceeds of 98.5 cents and 98.8 cents on

the dollar. That's the rate of return we're willing to pay to somebody

else. We wouldn't have to pay fees to Salomon Bros., First Boston Inc.

and others who place the bond offering in the United States if we were

to do a very closed sort of things in terms of meeting the needs of

B.C. Hydro out of these pensions and then fixing these rates. We would

also not have to worry about what's going to happen to the Canadian

dollar vis-à-vis the American dollar. Does the minister not think that

it would be a fairer policy to set the market by subscribing some of

our bond needs for Crown corporations in that free competitive market

in the United States, and also to take up that same rate of return by

investing the Teachers' Pension Fund in that manner?

HON. MR. SMITH:

As the member knows, I am not in charge of investment policies or the

administration of the Teachers' Pension Fund. However, I'll do my best

with those questions '

No, I do not feel that the pensioners

were singled out as a group. In fact, the provisions that were made —

the new money that was voted for teachers' pensions this last year —

was a very major improvement, as you know, in the basic funding of the

Teachers' Pension Fund. Indeed. the government did meet all the

requests originally made at the time by the B.C. Teachers Federation

and the superannuation commissioner. The subsequent history of that is

well known. A change in view on indexing occurred. The changes in

legislation took place after that time. I went around on my tour this

fall, and I heard a great deal of concern about the subject of indexing.

Fortunately,

as you mentioned, the investment yield of that fund this year is much

more promising. I'm also pleased that the teachers are going to

participate on the investment advisory committee, as they have been

invited to do for the past year. Presently a joint study has been

undertaken on behalf of the federation and the government to try to

discover ways of improving the investment yield of the fund. I hope

that will produce some fruitful results. Hon. member, I'm also advised

by the minister that the new funds invested under this plan are at

market value.

MR. MACDONALD: There are a lot of

teachers who have had bad luck in terms of the pension system. They

taught in earlier years and are now retired; they might have been in an

elementary school and not have had the various academic qualifications

that give a higher salary bracket in the modern system, whether or not

you are a better teacher. A lot of teachers are on a pension that is

very penurious at the present time. Yet the indexing of pensions is not

in a dollar amount, as everybody knows; it's in a percentage amount.

The percentage applied to a low pension, on which somebody is

struggling to survive, is the same applied to somebody who gets a

bigger return from the same percentage. So the gap between those who

are reasonably well off under a pension and those who are very badly

off increases. Both of them, say in 1981, need another $500 to look

after the rises in the cost of living.

I wish the minister

would look at that. I know it prevails throughout all sections of

society. This percentage thing is very invidious in terms of not

helping those who may be equally deserving, because they've been

earning at a lower base. Perhaps the minister would look at that. I

think he understands the problem.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Some favourable changes for retired teachers were made in the

alterations that took place this past year, but I will take into

account what you have said, hon. member.

Vote 59 approved.

Vote 60: advances re rural school taxes, net, $10 — approved.

On vote 61: independent schools, $12,664,657.

MRS. DAILLY:

During past debates on independent schools, I recall that some very

interesting debate took place. There was one point made by some members

on this side of the House to the former Minister of Education, who

brought in this bill on independent schools. It was the concern felt

not only by some members of the opposition — most of them, I believe —

but also by some members in the independent schools who were concerned

that once they received grants perhaps they could lose some of their

independence. As a matter of fact, some schools have refused to accept

grants because of this fear. Now, the thing I find rather interesting

is that when the present Minister of Education has been asked

[ Page 5659 ]

about

increases in grants to independent schools from the present grant, his

answer to the independent school people has been: "What about your

independence?" I'm just asking the government if there has been some

change here, because the former minister who brought in the bill did

not seem to be concerned. He just sort of dismissed some concerns

expressed here about the correlation between public funding and

independence. I wonder if the present Minister of Education in charge

of this matter now could tell the House at what level of financing he

feels that independence would be lost.

HON. MR. SMITH:

That's really argumentative and problematic because you can lose

independence, I suppose, at 30 percent or you can lose more

independence at 50 percent. The question to be addressed is: at what

stage does your dependence become such on operating grants that the

vitality of raising money that your school may have from other sources

is simply not there? You become a kind of duplicate of the public

school system. I don't think that the independent schools of this

province wish to do that. I think they wish to retain vitality, energy

and independence of their own. They see the School Support

(Independent) Act as providing them with support but not dependence.

Striking that balance is not easy, but that is the balance that we have

at present. Apart from the fact that they are under an inspector of

independent schools and that they conform to the administrative

handbook, guidelines and curriculum of this province, the independent

schools do enjoy a high degree of independence. I would perceive that

continuing.

MRS. DAILLY: I have just one follow-up

question. Do I understand the minister correctly, then, that there will

be no basic change in the formula to give more aid to independent

schools in this province because of his fear of erosion of independence?

HON. MR. SMITH:

There will be no change this year, hon. member, in that percentage. As

you realize, it yields more dollars; as the cost of educating a child

in the public school system increases then the grant increases on that

formula basis. There are no plans this year to increase the maximum of

30 percent.

Vote 61 approved.

On vote 62: International Year of Disabled Persons, $2,839,750.

MR. HANSON:

I have just a few specific remarks about my own constituency under this

vote. If we were trying to outline in general terms what the needs

would be for access for disabled people — particularly in this year —

to the educational institutions under this minister's responsibility,

one would say that we need access in terms of ramps and elevators. We

need adequate wash-room facilities and ways in which people can get

from one level in a building to another. I have looked at the Camosun

College situation and I've also looked at some of the schools in

Victoria. This $2.8 million, spread over the various responsibilities

of the minister, isn't going to buy very many ramps or elevators or

renovate very many wash-room facilities for handicapped people. I was

wondering if the minister could advise me and the other members on this

side of the House how that $2.8 million is apportioned and what

significant quantum and qualitative change it is making in giving

access to handicapped people in British Columbia.

HON. MR. SMITH:

The granting of that money does not envisage that it is going to be

used to make classrooms accessible in schools and colleges. That is

really not within the criteria, because that is provided for now in

educational policy. In any new construction, it's required that they

are accessible and that there are provisions made for the disabled.

There is also capital funding encouragement to upgrade them. So I don't

think you can look to that $2.8 million being used where there is

already public policy and money available for this; I think you have to

look to the committee to allocate that money to do something that isn't

being met by some public program or a program of a ministry. The

guidelines are very general, but one of the guidelines certainly is

I could see, for instance, the

committee recommending grants for transportation to bring disabled

people into an educational post-secondary institution, which was an

example that was raised earlier. I could see a number of programs and

projects being funded. One of the criteria that the committee is going

to use in the funding, as I understand it, is that they are going to be

looking for programs that can be ongoing and not be one shot. I don’t

think. though. that the problems of physically restructuring the old

Camosun building — the old Young building — and some of the schools are

going to come out of this money. They're going to have to come out of

ministry moneys as part of ministry initiatives. There are going to be

a number of ministry initiatives to provide access for the disabled

during this year. but it won't come out of that special fund.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, I understand that at Camosun many of the plans for

renovation hinge on the acquisition of the Paul building. Could you

advise me on what the current state of that acquisition is? Is it

possible for it to be speeded up? Are there contractual obligations

that are slowing it down?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, quite

honestly, that matter has concerned me for some time. I have had

correspondence with the school board on the matter, and I understand

that concrete steps are finally underway to vacate it. It is expected

that within six months that will be complete. I can't give you hard and

definite dates; those dates seem to change. There is no doubt

whatsoever that it's going to put some strain on the space requirements

of Camosun come September — it was always planned earlier that that

vacation would take place in time for September. But I think now the

school board has finally recognized that they are going to move and

relocate and that that building will be available at Camosun, and it's

now negotiating the actual timing and phasing of that. But I have

exactly the same concern that you do, and I really didn't sit by and

just not deal with it; I made constant inquiries and I have written to

the board about this. I will continue to be interested in it, and I

will be glad to communicate directly with you on it at any time.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman. I just want to say a few words about this minister's role

as the chairperson for the International Year of the Disabled, and to

remind him and everyone else that we went through an International Year

of the Child in this province, and at the end of it the children

[ Page 5660 ]

were

worse off than they were before. I want to say that I really hope that

we're not going to have a repeat of that situation now. I was very glad

when he was chosen to head up this committee, because one of the things

that disabled people have always told us is that they don't want to be

covered by the Ministry of Human Resources, because they are not

interested in charity. What they want is skill training, job training

kinds of things, as my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson) just said.

I'm hoping that at the end of this year,

in fact, the life of disabled people in this province will have been

enriched as a result of this minister being chairperson of this

particular committee; that, in fact, the integration of disabled

children into the schools will be accompanied by the services which

will make that integration run smoothly and make it a happy experience

for those children rather than a traumatic one, and not make them a

burden on the school system and on the teachers. Also, I'm hoping he

will address himself to the kinds of skill training and job training

that disabled people need and that can be financed through his

speaking to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) about the

request that the disabled community are making to be covered by the

Human Rights Code. Those are the kinds of issues that they're asking

for, as I mentioned earlier — the kind of consciousness-raising which

has to take place in the curriculum used in the schools as well as in

teacher training and with the teachers themselves. It's a very big task

this minister has taken on, and I certainly hope that he'll be able to

rise to the occasion, because we're really looking forward to your

doing a good job this year.

Vote 62 approved.

On vote 63: building occupancy charges, $2,581,000.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, really, an increase of $201,000 for building occupancy

charges! What are these people doing over there? I ask you in all

seriousness. Here we are, overtaxing local taxpayers out of their homes

— you're destroying home ownership in the province. Local taxpayers are

supporting the basic education program in most school districts,

without a penny coming from the provincial government.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

Well, that's true in a lot of school districts. With an increase of

over S201,000 in one year, I therefore move that vote 63 be reduced by

an amount of $201,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Vote 63 approved.

On vote 64: computer and consulting charges, $1, 576, 854.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, looking at this vote has caused me a great deal of....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

Could I have the committee's undivided attention? Before the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) goes, I wonder if he would just bear with

me for a moment. I want to show him something. It's a book that I have

available in my office. In this book is catalogued,

chapter and verse,

the overspending of the government under the tutelage of that Minister

of Finance. There is a graph on one page of this book indicating the

tremendous amount of money that we've asked for in spending cuts. Look

at that. I'm willing to table this book with the House. Do you want

copies? Have you got copies? Copies will be available to every member

of the House. It catalogues the overspending of this government:

Forests, $12 million; Universities, Science and Communications,

$458,000...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We're on vote 64, computer and consulting charges.

MR. LAUK: I'm just getting to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're not even on the ministry, hon. member.

MR. LAUK:

...Municipal Affairs, $368,000; Tourism, $2 million; Agriculture and

Food, $1.7 million; and on it goes. So far, after I move this

amendment, in Education.....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Send it to Kamloops.

MR. LAUK:

Isn't that arrogance, Mr. Chairman? Notice the arrogance of that hon.

member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I'll tell you where we're

going to send this, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister: to

Columbia River. And they'll want to know the millions and millions of

dollars that you and your profligate government have been shovelling

out the back of a truck. I'll tell you that the hundreds of thousands

of dollars that are being spent in that member's riding to shore him up

won't work.

Interjection.

[ Page 5661 ]

MR. LAUK: What did you say? The minister is chewing gum and I didn't quite hear what he was saying.

Under

this vote, Mr. Chairman, for computer and consulting charges, we have

an increase of $116,804. I move that vote 64 be reduced by that amount.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, I thought that it would be only fair to inform

particularly government members that on the face of things this might

look like a reduction but, in fact, this allows for a very generous

increase. We know that the government is making an unnecessary change

from a Honeywell to an IBM computer; they're going to have to rewrite

their software and they'll be nine months behind in certain departments

in even getting this thing. So we might as well save money and not even

vote anything for computer and consulting charges because they won't be

getting any information back for most of this year. In spite of that,

we are allowing for a very generous increase, because last year in this

House we voted $1,460,050, and yet in the first ten months of that

fiscal year, we had spent only $812,839. In other words, if we were to

continue spending at that rate, we could spend maybe another $80,000 to

bring us up to about $900,000, and then we could allow another $100,000

just to cover contingencies that might come in at the end of the year.

That would allow for $1 million. We still would have an overestimate of

$460,000 — in other words, almost half a million dollars. Last year's

estimate was probably out something in the order of 50 percent,

depending where you take the base — 331/3 percent taken the other way.

Here

is an area where we probably will see half a million dollars going into

general revenue, being squirrelled away.... Indeed if it were in order

I would move that the amendment be amended by adding an asterisk after

this figure saying that it is expected this expenditure will squirrel

away half a million dollars, and that it will go to build Gracie's Pier

B-C, whether it's on Burrard Inlet or in False Creek — wherever or if

ever it may happen to be built. That's what this is really about. So

we're allowing for a lot of things in this vote. We're allowing for the

really legitimate computer needs of this ministry to go ahead. We got

an extra amount in there by voting only to reduce it to last year's

figure. There's room for growth, and even room for us to squirrel away

a little bit of money to build Pier B-C. A wink is as good as a nod,

and I'll say no more about that, Mr. Chairman. You know what I'm

referring to.

So the opposition has an ironclad case. Yes,

you can participate with us on this vote. You can support us in this

reduction and we can at least show an example of some fiscal

responsibility by reducing one of these votes, because this vote as it

is presently constituted allows for almost everything that is needed.

It also allows for things not needed. If the backbench members of the

government don't show some concern over this, then it shows that they

haven't really examined the interim accounts of the ministry, or that

they haven't really asked any questions. It shows they aren't

interested in fiscal responsibility but only in buying their way back

into government with big-ticket projects, and they believe this is the

way that it's done.

So, for all of the people of British

Columbia, we can stand and be counted on this amendment. I certainly

support this very responsible and very timely amendment.

MR. LAUK:

Due to the many, many requests from members on the opposite side, I

wish to say that so far the NDP has proposed over $24 million in

spending cuts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is a reduction in vote 64 by an amount of $116,804.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 64 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Second reading of Bill 13.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT. 1981

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 13, which is one of

several bills introduced on budget day in March, I would make the

observation that members of the House might more appropriately discuss

those sections or points contained in the bill in the committee stage,

inasmuch as — I will say it before members opposite do — this is not an

unprincipled bill, but it is a bill with no main theme running through

it. Therefore I would suggest, sir, that under the rules of the House

second reading would be somewhat difficult. If that is acceptable I

would, therefore, move second reading of Bill 13.

MR. STUPICH:

Certainly. as far as the minister went, I can accept what he said, but

I don't agree that it has no main theme running through it. Certainly

the main theme of this

[ Page 5662 ]

legislation

is to increase government revenue — in almost every

section of the bill

it does increase government revenue. We can speculate as to what the

government is going to do with that money. We'll do that at another

time. Eventually we may even get to the minister's estimates. At that

time we'll perhaps hear more about that.

The main theme is

not only to increase government revenue in every

section of the bill

before us, but in many of the sections it heaps gasoline upon the fire

of inflation by indexing most of these revenue increases. So to the

extent that it is designed solely to get more money out of individual

taxpayers — not only to get more money out of them, but to index the

rate at which that money is being taken from taxpayers' pockets and

thereby to feed the fires of inflation — the opposition will vote

against this legislation.

MR. COCKE: I would just

like to make one comment on the whole question of indexing. The

government is very slowly, but surely, taking away from the Legislature

the responsibility of responsible legislators in the future. When a

revenue source is indexed the governments of the future don't have to

make any kind of hard decisions. What they do is just refer us back.

For example, it was last year that we indexed medicare premiums. So

from now on, forever and a day, as the costs increase the government

can stand back and sort of be regarded as watching it at arm's length.

They're making a decision now that carries into the future until heaven

only knows when.

It strikes me that a responsible kind of

government is a government that comes back with a new determination

each session. If they feel in the next session that, because of

inflation and other reasons, an increase is in the cards, fine, let

them debate it at that time. But this is a grave concern, and it has

permeated the kind of legislative process that we've seen. For example,

we see so little legislation coming in here, by virtue of the fact that

so many of the decisions have either been made and are ones that we

will carry on with or are decisions that have been taken right away

from the Legislature and moved into the cabinet chambers. I don't think

it's healthy for our province to be placed in the position it is in. I

go right along with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who suggests

that there's no possible way we can support this kind of legislation.

MR. NICOLSON:

I too rise to oppose this. While it's a very lengthy bill and does have

many housekeeping aspects to it, the general tone of this bill and some

of the provisions are going to have counter-productive effects in terms

of the area I represent in the Kootenays, which is part of the area

that aims toward an Alberta market, and the whole attitude toward

taxation which prevails in the province of Alberta. Those are the

people we have to deal with and attract into our area. We have to

jingle some change out of their pockets if they're going to do more

than just come driving through looking at the fine scenery. The

minister certainly hasn't even begun to address himself to that kind of

problem. So when we get to the appropriate sections I'll certainly have

more to say on this bill, but I think what this bill is saying is that

after several years of Social Credit government they have failed. They

have only one solution for the fiscal management of this province, and

that is to increase taxes. Increase, increase, increase. I'm very

pleased to say that I will be voting against this bill.

MR. HANSON:

Along with the member for Nanaimo and other members on this side of the

House, I would also like the record to note that when a bill is

introduced with so many different sections, it really does inhibit a

proper debate in this House on the entire bill. I draw your attention

section

Section 33 in this bill increases the borrowing power of

B.C. Hydro by $800 million, by deleting three words. Given B.C. Hydro's

policies, the importance of a proper, well planned energy program for

the province and the fact that the borrowing of Hydro is with us for

many ensuing generations....

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please, hon. member. The debate upon which the member is now embarking

is the kind of debate which would be in order in committee.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A passing comment as an example would be all right, but to enter into debate on a

section would not be in order.

MR. HANSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm attempting to highlight that when a bill

like this comes before us, as the minister pointed out, following that

thread through the bill we find small items like this that really merit

a full debate. An increase of $800 million on Hydro's borrowing power

certainly warrants a separate debate.

MS. BROWN: I

just wanted to speak very briefly on this bill. I notice that in the

budget speech the government promised that the homeowner grant of $630,

which is presently open only to handicapped people in receipt of GAIN,

was going to be extended to cover all handicapped people in the

province. I just want to say that I'm hoping that, when the regulations

for the bill come down, we don't find the regulations are so restricted

that the intent of the promise made in the budget speech is not carried

out by the bill. When we get into debating it

section by section, I

will certainly speak in more detail on this — when we come to sections

23 to 25, dealing specifically with it.

In an overall kind

of statement about the bill, I'm just saying to the minister that the

intent of the bill, which was to extend the $630 to all disabled people

in the province, is, I think, a very good one. It had the support of

members of the opposition. I certainly hope that having sections

dealing with that in the bill does not mean that the intent is somehow

going to disappear when we see the regulations dealing with this

particular act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, two or

three specifics have been referred to which I earnestly believe are

better dealt with in the committee stage, where members opposite,

including the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), know that

there can be full debate on a particular

section which is of interest

to hon. members of this House.

I suppose that it's a little

difficult for the official opposition.... I'm surprised to hear that

they are voting against this bill in second reading, particularly when

one looks at some of the benefits flowing out of this bill. Again, I

will save my remarks for committee debate. But in voting against second

reading. the official opposition is also indicating that it does not

approve of the expansion of the eligibility for handicapped or disabled

persons. That is one of the sections.

[ Page 5663 ]

An omnibus bill is not unknown in this chamber ,

Mr. Speaker. Indeed, omnibus bills have been a fact of life in this

chamber for a good number of years. I think there can be extensive

debate at the committee stage, as I indicated in my opening remarks. I

move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Bill

13, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981, 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. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, in the March budget speech for the 1981-82 fiscal year, I

announced several major changes that will affect British Columbia

personal and corporation income taxes in the 1981 tax year. These

changes are contained in the bill before us, Income Tax Amendment Act,

1981. Perhaps I could touch on a few of the main points which are

contained in the bill. One provision is for the new provincial personal

income tax credit for the full year of 1981 and subsequent tax years.

The credit will be equal to 3 percent of the tax-filer's personal

exemptions less 1.5 percent of the tax-filer's personal income.

Mr.

Speaker, you will note that I've used the term tax-filer, and not

taxpayer. This is a very important distinction and one that has been

generally overlooked in the commentary immediately following the budget

this year. The word tax-filer is used because the tax credit is fully

refundable. Therefore many British Columbians who do not pay income

tax, such as students and senior citizens with low incomes, will still

be eligible to receive the full amount of the credit in the form of a

cash refund from the government. To claim the credit, all they shall

have to do is file a 1981 tax return.

I'd like to point out

that the basic amount of the credit will be 3 percent of the

tax-filer's personal exemptions. This formula has been used, instead of

a fixed-dollar amount, for two reasons. First, the formula will target

more benefits to those tax-filers claiming more dependents, as well as

to the elderly, so those most in need will receive more under this

formula. For example: the maximum credit for a single tax-filer will be

$95; for a single pensioner it will be $155; for a married tax-filer it

will be $178; for a married tax-filer with two children under 18 years

of age it will be $214; for a married tax-filer with four children

under 18 it will be $246; and for married pensioners it will be $235.

The

second reason we've chosen this formula is that personal exemptions

are, as hon. members know, indexed under the Income Tax Act. Therefore,

if inflation continues to increase in future years, the level of

benefits under the tax credit will also increase proportionately

without any further legislative action being required. The basic credit

will, of course, be reduced by 1.5 percent of the tax-filer's personal

income, so that if the tax-filer has no taxable income, he or she will

receive the full basic credit; however, as income rises, the tax credit

is designed to phase out. To illustrate the importance of this new tax

credit, I would like to point out that the credit will not be reduced

to zero until certain income levels are reached: for a single tax-filer

approximately $10,500, for a single pensioner approximately $16,500,

for a married tax-filer about $18,500, for a married pensioner

approximately $24,000 and for a married tax-filer with two children

under 18 approximately $22,500.

Mr. Speaker, it's estimated

that at least 40 percent of all British Columbia families and 75

percent of the elderly will benefit from this credit. In this tax year

— and again I should like to stress that the credit is fully refundable

— those paying no income tax may claim the full amount of the credit by

simply filing their own income tax return. If the credit is gr