1986 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8103 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 8103

Fair Election Practices Act (M206). Mr.

Hanson

Introduction and first reading. 8103

Oral Questions

Federated cooperatives forestry road. Mr.

Howard –– 8103

Louisiana-Pacific. Hon. Mr. McClelland

replies –– 8104

Mr. Williams

Westar Timber. Mr. Lea –– 8107

Mr. Howard

Nuclear accidents. Mr. Rose –– 8107

Preparedness for demonstrations. Mr.

Michael –– 8107

Mining stock transactions. Hon. Mr. Smith

replies –– 8108

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act,

1986 (Bill 12). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 8108

Mr. Rose –– 8109

Mr. Parks –– 8112

Mr. Cocke –– 8113

Mrs. Wallace –– 8114

Mr. Barnes –– 8115

Mr. MacWilliam –– 8119

Hon. Mr. Hewitt 8121

International Commercial Arbitration Act

(Bill 20). Committee stage –– 8123

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 20: minister's office –– 8123

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Lockstead

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, last week

Burnaby had two great

events: one was the visit of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and

Princess of Wales; also, Burnaby experienced a twinning agreement with

her sister city in Leicestershire, a city called Loughborough, in

Britain. It becomes a sister city. In your gallery today is His Worship

Mayor Albert Dodd, the mayor of Loughborough, and the mayoress, Doreen

Dodd. I would ask the House to kindly bid them welcome.

Further, Mr. Speaker, here to attend the International Options

Clearing Corp. meeting, which is held in Vancouver this year, is a

group of options people from all over the world. Representing Midland

Doherty Ltd. Is the director and vice president of Midland Doherty and

his wife, both former British Columbians, Mr. John and Barbara Vivash.

I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: In the unavoidable absence of

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I would like to make an

introduction on his behalf. Visiting in the gallery today are a group

of students from the Campbell River Christian School. They include

Jason and Jamie Arbour, Nicole Baechler, Lorri Dyck, Howard Munro,

Jennifer Tanguay, Dan Mills, Reg Purdy, and Adelle and Louise Heal.

They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Trevor McMonagle. I would ask

the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would

like the House to welcome a visitor from Britain today. He is the

father of Roger Keene of our government information services. He is Mr.

Paul Gomes of England. He's very involved with various transportation

groups, having been a member of the World Ship Society and the

Institute of Transportation; he's a founding member of the Omnibus

Society. He is visiting Expo 86, to see Expo and to ride on our new

light rapid transit SkyTrain, and, of course, to visit Roger. Will the

House please welcome Mr. Gomes.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like the House to

welcome a group

of grade 11 social studies students from Fort Nelson. They have made

their way down here to visit the Legislature today. As part of their

trip, they were also able to attend the Expo opening on Friday. They

are supervised by their teacher, Miss Pingle. This is part of the

annual sojourn of the social studies class from Fort Nelson Secondary

School. Because they have come probably the furthest possible distance

in the province to visit this Legislature, I would like the House to

give them a very special welcome.

Hon. Mr. Segarty tabled the sixty-ninth annual report of the

Workers' Compensation Board for the year ending December 31, 1985.

Introduction of Bills

FAIR ELECTION PRACTICES ACT

Mr. Hanson presented a bill intituled Fair Election Practices

Act.

MR. HANSON: In commenting on the bill, Mr.

Speaker, I believe

that the provisions included in this document are long overdue in this

province, and that they would protect the people of the province from

abuses of power by the government in power. The main purpose is to free

the Electoral Commission to operate independently of the party in

power. This bill would provide the commission with a mandate to

establish fair electoral boundaries, set election spending limits and

oversee all aspects of provincial elections, to ensure fairness and the

greatest possible access to voting rights.

Mr. Speaker, the main provision of the bill frees the

Electoral

Commission to recommend a formula to ensure fair representation with

minimal political distortions. It provides for the appointment of a

chief electoral officer to be recommended by an all-party committee of

the House, in the same manner as the auditor-general and the ombudsman

are appointed in this province. It eliminates political appointments by

ensuring that the Public Service Act is adhered to when hiring staff

for the chief electoral officer and all the apparatus of the election

machinery. It provides for a non-partisan distribution of seats, to

eliminate decisions based on biased formulas for representation being

made by politicians.

It ensures increased efficiency in voter registration by using

the

data banks of government that deal with the public. It ensures

disclosure of election contributions. It ends the discrimination

against 18-year-olds in British Columbia, bringing their voting rights

into line with those in federal legislation. It ensures that all

eligible citizens have the right to vote in the area in which they

reside. And it provides the right to vote by mail ballot to eligible

citizens who are physically disabled and unable to get to the polls.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the opening, this bill and the

provisions

of this bill are long overdue in this province. We've had gross

distortions and gerrymandering which are an abuse of power, and this

would certainly go a long way to bringing British Columbia into

progressive voter rights.

Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES FORESTRY ROAD

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I'd like to direct a

question to his parliamentary secretary and ask if Federated

cooperatives entered a claim of some $184,000, under

section 88 of the

Forest Act, for building a road to an area of Anstey Arm on Shuswap

Lake in 1982 and '83?

[2:15]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I will take the

question as notice, and bring back a response as soon as possible, and

advise it to the minister.

[ Page 8104 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

parliamentary

secretary if he could also inquire and determine if that particular

road provided access to lakefront property owned by a company called

Queest Beach Holdings?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, l will take that

question as notice, refer it to the minister and bring back a response

as soon as possible.

MR. HOWARD: May I pose another question

then, Mr. Speaker,

and ask whether the minister would inquire and determine if' one Herb

Treat, who is woods manager of Federated Co-op and in charge of road

building for that company, is a director of Queest Beach Holdings?

MR. MICHAEL: I will take it as notice.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask the parliamentary

secretary whether

timber on the property held by Queest Beach Holdings was logged and

taken out via that

section 88 road, to the benefit of Queest Beach

Holdings. I wonder if it could be determined whether one Clifford

Michael, who is the president and a director of Queest Beach Holdings,

is the same Clifford Michael who is the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. MICHAEL: l can answer that one, Mr.

Speaker. The answer is yes.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, during

the past few days

several questions have been asked of me and other members by the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) concerning the $40 million

waferboard plant being constructed by Louisiana-Pacific Corp. In the

Dawson Creek area. I am pleased to be able to answer those questions

and to inform all members of the details of the construction and

financing of this successful economic development project, undertaken

by Louisiana-Pacific with the cooperation and support of the provincial

government.

We have, to the end of creating economic renewal programs,

embarked

on a series of innovative and positive measures to assist business in

investing in British Columbia through the Ministry of Industry, the

Ministry of Trade and the Municipal Affairs ministry. It's unfortunate

that that member for Vancouver East didn't check his facts before

attempting to create an environment of mistrust and innuendo aimed at

the government and the companies involved in this plant.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The questions were

asked in question period, Mr. Member.

The member seems unaware that this $40 million investment by

Louisiana-Pacific and the government will result in nearly 400 new jobs

for the Dawson Creek area. He seems uninterested that an estimated 250

million square feet of waferboard will be sold to the U.S. market when

the plant is at full production. He seems unaware or uninterested that

this new plant is the first in B.C. to make commercial use of aspen.

The member neglected to mention during his questions that

Louisiana-Pacific's arrival in our province will have a major long-term

impact on the economy of the Dawson Creek area. that the construction

of the plant brings significant new freight business to B.C. Rail, and

that the construction creates immediate jobs for construction workers.

Moreover, it will provide the impetus to establish a system of log

harvesting for aspen which will facilitate further development.

Other specific questions were raised by the member for

Vancouver

East. He asked whether I had investigated the question of machinery for

this operation. He was quick to point out that CAE Machinery of

Vancouver produces equipment that can be used for this type of plant. l

am very pleased to answer that specific question for the member, and

say that CAE received a contract for three waferizers and some blenders

worth more than $1.5 million from Louisiana-Pacific for the Dawson

Creek plant.

I am, in fact, as a result of my investigations following that

member's questions, which I am sure he researched from the Marjoie

Nichols column in the Sun ,

informed by officials of CAE Machinery that

their waferizers are used in all Louisiana-Pacific Corp.'s waferboard

mills, that they consider Louisiana-Pacific an old and valued customer,

that they are distressed that the member would infer that they are in

any way unhappy with Louisiana-Pacific's purchasing actions, as

Louisiana-Pacific is in the process of upgrading its U.S. equipment

inventory, and that they look forward to a substantial and ongoing

relationship with that firm for their United States plants as well.

The company is currently awaiting another $700,000 order from

one of

their U.S. plants, Mr. Speaker. We have also, as a result of the

member's questions, discussed with Louisiana-Pacific officials their

further purchasing practices, and we find that they have been very open

and are informed that they will be announcing many more contracts for

Canadian firms, most of them in British Columbia. I have a list which I

will be able to table at some other time of some of the B.C. and

Canadian companies with whom they will be doing business, as soon as

those are finalized and formalized.

Mr. Speaker, that member wanted to know why the loan didn't

come

from the ERDA industrial development subagreement. The answer is very

simple. The loan was too large to fall under the terms of that

agreement when compared with the funds available over five years under

the industrial development agreement.

The member asked me why the Ministry of International Trade,

Science

and Investment was involved. Well, maybe a small lesson in economics is

in order at this time. The investment is coming from the United States,

the project's primary market is the United States, and that sort of

makes it international trade and investment.

He asked me when I first was involved in this. The Minister of

International Trade, Science and Investment brought the

Louisiana-Pacific project and other similar proposals before the

Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, which I chair, in late 1985.

Questions that he asked about the impact on the plywood

industry

have been thoroughly addressed. It became obvious that in the face of

changing market conditions and competition from oriented strandboard

and waferboard, the establishment of new waferboard mills in B.C., with

private sector initiatives, should be part of the industrial adjustment

process.

[ Page 8105 ]

To summarize the questions, Mr. Speaker, the government

provided an

interest-free loan to a corporation from the United States to create

400 new permanent jobs in this province, to maintain existing jobs at

CAE in Vancouver, in the member's own riding, through the resulting

purchase of equipment from that firm to make B.C. a leader in the

introduction of new waferboard plant technology; to create a use for

the previously underutilized wood-product resource of aspen; to create

additional foreign markets for our own wood products, to broaden and

enhance the economic infrastructure of the Dawson Creek area, to bring

new freight business to B.C. Rail; and to demonstrate to British

Columbia what business and government can accomplish by being in

partnership.

The 125 people who have permanent jobs at the waferboard plant

aren't complaining. The 275 people who'll be working in the woods

aren't complaining. The workers and management at CAE aren't

complaining. In fact, the president of CAE has sent a letter to that

member's chief researcher, Marjorie Nichols. complaining very bitterly

about the misuse of what were not facts in this whole case. Nobody's

complaining except the member for Vancouver East, and for both those

members, jobs are being created in their constituency. It's the first

waferboard mill in the province.

It's interesting, just as an aside, Mr. Speaker, that the

papers

today are talking about this place being kind of dull these days, and I

can see why now. With the kind of research that the members on the

opposite side do, it makes it pretty hard to find anything dramatic to

raise in the House.

There's one other question that a member asked me, and I'm

sure he

would wish that he hadn't asked it. He asked me how many interest-free

loans have been provided in B.C. I'd like him to check his mail, Mr.

Speaker, because last week I provided to each member of this

Legislature information on low-interest loans and grants provided by my

ministry to each of their constituents. The total number of such

contributions was about 3,245.

Perhaps if the member has any more questions on this matter,

Mr.

Speaker, he would raise them with me privately and avoid any further

embarrassment.

MR. WILLIAMS: I hope the Chair will be as

generous with the

opposition as the Chair has been with the government this afternoon in

the handling of question period.

There is no administration in North America that would make

the

kinds of grants that were made by this administration — $25 million.

The

maximum in all of the United States is $10 million, under their

legislation. You check those jurisdictions; they will tell you in

Oregon, in Minnesota. Nobody will be suckered the way this

administration....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Is there a

question?

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

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

first, I would remind the second member for Vancouver East that when

the Chair stands, it is incumbent upon all members to take their

places. The penalty is well known, and at this time I will ask the

second member for Vancouver East to leave the chamber for the remainder

of the day.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you throw us all

out?

MR. SPEAKER: Give me the opportunity, hon.

member, and I'd be quite happy to oblige.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order, I think that

in keeping order in the House it is very important that we watch

carefully when any member is canvassing the conduct of other members in

this House. I would submit that a careful review of the comments of the

minister will show that he not only provided information to the House

but also cast aspersions on and denigrated the conduct of members of

the opposition as a whole, and made a personal attack interspersed with

that speech. I would recommend Mr. Speaker review the comments.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

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

during the course

of question period, from time to time members ask questions that are

not replied to in question period, but are taken as notice. When a

series of questions are asked, some of them lengthy, some of them

numerous, it is the option of the minister either to respond to those

questions during question period or to table or to make a statement at

the conclusion of question period. That is not for the Chair to

determine; it is the determination of the member involved. Hon.

members, if during that same course of reflection the member wishes to

check and see how many questions on that subject were asked by the hon.

second member for Vancouver East, he will find that there were numerous

questions asked, taken as notice and responded to.

It if is the wish of members not to have questions responded

to in

question period, then those questions should be placed on the order

paper. If not, hon. members, the Chair is bound to listen to the

answer, particularly when several of those questions are asked.

[2:30]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I accept most

of what you've said, but with respect, I think you have missed some of

the points that I've made. I've sat here and had my conduct canvassed

by the minister in a speech in which he is supposedly responding to

questions asked — open-ended or closed, narrowly confined or wide-open;

that may or may not be the case. But the minister has canvassed the

conduct of me and every other member in the opposition benches,

probably including the Conservative member here as well, because I

don't think he restricted himself to the official opposition in his

comment.

That is the point that I'm trying to bring up here: that

members should be very careful when they are canvassing the

[ Page 8106 ]

conduct of others. If he had

restrained his enthusiasm to the

information rather than personal attack, then I think we could have

avoided this incident.

MR. SPEAKER: The points by the member are

well taken,

particularly as they relate to the conduct of other members of the

House. On a similar point of order, I have three people standing, hon.

member; I will recognize first the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen

anything quite like

this in my experience. I find it very sad, because we worked

together — two parties — on a rules reform committee. We worked very

well

together. One of the purposes was to try to get some kind of order and

civilization into this chamber, as difficult as it is.

One of the things we worked on was the oral question period.

The

minister does have two options. There are certain ministers we don't

even ask questions of, because they're constant clock-eaters; you know

that whatever you ask them you might as well forget the question

period. This is a perfect example. The minister had a perfect right to

get up and respond to questions briefly and precisely: or he could have

done it after, where he didn't eat up the whole question period. He had

it all written out. He had what amounts to a statement on motions,

where somebody else could have got up and replied at equal length. He

chose not to do that, because he hid behind the rules; that's what he

did.

I draw the House's attention to 47A. I feel very badly about

this,

because there are a number of people in this House that try to act

fairly and don't think it's funny to bend the rules or hide behind

them. Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude by saying this. I'm terribly angry,

and I'm terribly disappointed with the whole demeanour of this

particular question period. Rule 47A(b): "Questions and answers shall

be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." The

member for Vancouver East was thrown out of the House because he tried

to respond in a way that he considered appropriate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order, with respect....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

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

If we are

discussing points of order, and we are trying to convey some sort of

information, may we at least have the courtesy of hearing those who are

putting forth the arguments.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) nearly always explodes when I stand to speak.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the rules

regarding oral

question period, I think the root of the problem may be found in

something to which the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose)

inadvertently alluded: that is, that we have found over recent months

that questions are carrying far more

preambles and statements, in some

instances, than was the case some time ago. Mr. Speaker, if a series of

questions arc posed to members of the government benches containing

statements and, at times, inferring other aspects of action, then I

think we're going to have the kind of response which my colleague the

minister gave a few minutes ago. It's unavoidable, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the

last question that was asked of me....

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, right now I'm

in the middle of some points of order. I will allow you that

opportunity at the conclusion.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke seeks the floor, for the

purpose of...?

MR. MICHAEL: A question.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, not at this

time.

Interjection.

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

we still have a

short time left in question period, but I must not let the remarks of

the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), in referring to the reason

for the expulsion of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams), go without comment. Clearly, hon. member, the reason for the

expulsion of the member was not because of the statement he was making,

nor because of any other purpose other than the fact that he remained

standing while the Chair was standing in its place, and that is an

automatic expulsion in this chamber. It applies, as all members know,

equally. That was the reason for the expulsion, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena will

withdraw that remark at this time — categorically.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: I have to stand in order to get

your attention, Mr. Speaker. Which remark did you want me to withdraw?

MR. SPEAKER: The member will withdraw the

remark that the

Chair knows very well that that is not the case. The member will

withdraw that remark.

MR. HOWARD: Well, if the Chair says he

does not know very well that that is the case, I withdraw it.

Interjections.

[ Page 8107 ]

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

for the second time I'll ask the member to withdraw the remark.

MR. HOWARD: I thought I did, and if

there's doubt in your mind. I do.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. members, the Chair will at this time comment once more

about

question period. It is totally unacceptable to the Chair to hear

arguments from members that the Chair is anything but impartial in

question period. For any member of this House to state that

preambles

have been limited in questions by the opposition is totally without

foundation, and a careful check of the records will bear that out. The

same applies to those who would comment on responses to questions.

It is my firm belief that members of this House are allowed

every

possible latitude in this most important period of time in the

parliamentary day, and that is question period. This is an opportunity

where members of the opposition have every right to question members of

the government. That right will be upheld by the Chair.

The rules which guide us in question period are firm, and I

have

stated on many occasions that if the Chair were to firmly force

adherence to the rules of question period, there would be very few

questions acceptable. I urge members to consider that before they would

make such comments as to their availability to question in this House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We're back in

question period, Mr.

Speaker? I just answered the last response by the member for Vancouver

East before he left, and he had in it, I believe, two questions. One

was questioning the size of what he termed as a grant to

Louisiana-Pacific in the Dawson Creek area. Just to set the record

straight, Mr. Speaker, there has been no grant given to

Louisiana-Pacific. There was a $25 million repayable loan made to that

company, not a grant. The second implied question had to do with some

information about what the United States might do in similar terms. I

promise to bring a full answer to that question to question period on

Monday.

WESTAR TIMBER

MR. LEA: A question to the Premier. Is the

Premier aware of

or does he have any knowledge of negotiations going on between Westar

Timber and any company for the sale of the Prince Rupert pulp mill?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take

the question as notice.

MR. LEA: A question to the Minister of

Finance. Arc there any

applications for help or advice in front of the Treasury Board in

regard to a possible negotiated sale of the Prince Rupert pulp mill by

Westar to another company?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the

member, I would have to

take the question as notice, because the member would appreciate,

having been a minister, that the number of Treasury Board applications

before the board at any given time are quite numerous, and I would not

want to give a spur-of-the-moment answer which might be incorrect. I'll

take it as notice.

MR. LEA: Is the Minister of Finance aware

of any negotiations

between a company called Tembec for the purchase of the Prince Rupert

pulp mill from Westar"

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not even familiar with

the name the member has mentioned. Could he even spell it for me? I

don't know the name.

MR. LEA: It's T-e-m-b-e-c.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, as my

previous answer indicated, obviously I'll have to take that question as

notice.

MR. HOWARD: A supplementary question to the

Minister of

Finance and to the Premier as well. Because Westar owns and operates

more than a pulp mill in the northwest — they have three sawmills

operating in the area — I'd like to ask whether the questions asked by

the member for Prince Rupert could be applicable there as well. In his

inquiry, would he look to see whether any of those sawmills arc

involved in any negotiations about sale?

HON. MR. CURTIS: If there appears to be any

context and if it

falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance, then I would

be happy to answer the questions.

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS

MR. ROSE: I have probably what somebody

could refer to

frivolously as a world-shaking question. The whole world is concerned

about the irresponsibility of the Soviet government in not advising

their neighbours about the recent tragedy at Chernobyl in the nuclear

plant. I'd like to ask the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs what

action he has taken to protect British Columbians against a possible

accident at the plant at Hanford, Washington, which is about 500 miles

from the Canadian border.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I will take the question

as notice.

MR. ROSE: I have a second question, Mr.

Speaker. Sister

Rosalie Bertell, who is a renowned expert on nuclear science, says that

Hanford is an accident waiting to happen. I wonder if the minister has

decided to raise this issue in every available forum, including the

federal government, because at the moment the federal government's

long-term policy is not to oppose nuclear plants that are near our

borders. Now this is especially pertinent, since our nuclear moratorium

in B.C. Is due to expire in February.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken on

notice.

[2:45]

PREPAREDNESS FOR DEMONSTRATIONS

MR. MICHAEL: We live in a province

possessed of a great

number of politically aware and environmentally conscious groups and

individuals quick to bear witness to their convictions in street

rallies, demonstrations, marches and all manner of peaceful protest.

Can the Attorney-General assure this House that the police and civic

authorities are prepared to handle the inevitable large demonstrations

sure to follow during the weekend in the wake of the terrible incident

and

[ Page 8108 ]

subsequent spread of radioactive dust

throughout many parts of the world?

We have in the past witnessed such activities in response to

events

connected to the nuclear policies and performance of the other

superpower, the United States, and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that on the

weekend we will see massive demonstrations. I wonder if the

Attorney-General has prepared the police and civic authorities for

these demonstrations.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point

of order under

standing order 48, I believe it is, about two days' notice being

required for a motion, and to give verbal notice, very regrettably,

that we saw during question period an opportunity for the alligators in

the House to have their way and for decent, respectable people not to

be able to respond. I need, therefore, to give notice of a motion with

respect to the conduct of the Chair in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: What a surprise.

MINING STOCK TRANSACTIONS

HON. MR. SMITH: May I answer a question put

to me in question

period, and taken on notice. On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Speaker, the

first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) asked me why I had not

responded to a question which he asked me during question period on

June 25, 1985. That was a question about a company called New Cinch

Mines and their problems with the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I've had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to review Hansard for that

day, and I did indicate in the answer I gave on that day that if there

was any basis for charges to be laid after viewing the evidence, those

matters would be dealt with. The matter was being fully investigated,

and if charges were laid people would be dealt with in public. I

received no further made, and no evidence was uncovered, Mr. Speaker,

which would support the laying of a criminal charge. It is not normal

to report back to the Legislature that a criminal charge is not being

laid. But since a question was revived, with renewed interest, ten and

a half months later, I know the member would want to know that. No

charges arc being laid.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 12,

Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION (INTERIM)

FINANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm pleased to stand and

move second reading of Bill 12, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment

Act, 1986.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before you provides a legislative

backing for

the return of local spending autonomy to school boards in the province.

The Education (Interim) Finance Act, which this bill amends, was first

introduced in this House in 1982, as part of a series of

government-wide measures to gain control over the ever-increasing

spending in the public sector. It gave the Minister of Education power

to establish budget limits for each school district. Mr. Speaker, the

reason for that, of course, as we all know, was the economic downturn

in the province and this government's responsibility to attempt to

provide services within the taxpayers' ability to pay.

Over the past few years, Mr. Speaker, we have, I believe, put

our

financial affairs in order. It is now possible to remove those

budgetary restrictions placed on school boards. The bill before you

will do just that. School boards will now have the ability to set their

own school board budget level. Each year the government will set a

shareable operating amount for each district and will provide grants to

ensure that each district is capable of financing this level of

spending without resorting to unacceptable levels of local taxation.

Sharable operating amounts will continue to reflect differences in

local conditions. For example, the fiscal framework that we use will

continue to take into consideration the high cost of running small

schools in dispersed school districts, as well as supporting special

needs students. Also, the province will continue to provide greater

support to districts with a weaker tax base.

If a school board wishes to spend more than the shareable

operating

amount, it will be able to do so, provided it is willing to levy local

taxes to support the supplementary amount it wishes to spend over and

above the amount provided under the fiscal framework. The government

will no longer have the power to directly control school board budgets.

The shareable operating amounts will provide an appropriate level of

spending to support a quality education, and therefore the provincial

government will not share in the cost of expenditures beyond that

shareable amount. However, as I said, school boards will be able to

finance supplementary spending through residential property taxation.

They will not be required to seek prior approval of their taxpayers

through a referendum, but they must, of course, be sensitive, and

certainly accountable, to the local opinion of their electorate. Along

with the ability to tax comes accountability and responsibility at the

local level.

The amendments proposed in this bill also meet some of the

concerns

expressed through the "Let's Talk About Schools" project that was

carried out by my predecessor last year. Some of the results of that

project indicated that over 80 percent of the public felt that the

province should set a basic level of service in education. Mr. Speaker,

through the shareable operating budget, the province will provide

sufficient funds to support such a level of service by the fiscal

framework formula that we have in the Ministry of Education.

Secondly, the "Let's Talk About Schools" project indicated

that 75

percent of the respondents said school boards should have more autonomy

than they had at that time. This bill will allow them to set spending

limits and will re-establish clear local control over budgetary

divisions.

Under this legislation, the school boards have the discretion

exceed shareable operating amounts, but, as I said before, they are

fully accountable to their taxpayers for the action they take. I think

this new approach greatly clarifies responsibility for budgetary and

financing decisions. Mr. Speaker, some of the results of setting

budgets in the last week indicate that a number of school districts

have been very responsible; some have increased taxes on local

residential property owners by a very small amount; and some, I must

admit, have exceeded what I think are realistic amounts. Of course,

their electorate will have to judge the management ability of those

school boards.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page 8109 ]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the School Act review committee which I

am in

the process of appointing will also have an opportunity to propose

further modifications should they be required with regard to the

funding of schools. The proposed financing system that this bill

provides will stay in place until the work of the School Act review

committee is finalized and its recommendations debated and incorporated

into a new School Act.

With those remarks, I am quite pleased to answer any questions

that the members may have on the principle of the bill. I move second

reading.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I ask leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf

of yourself, the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano, I take

pleasure in introducing to the House some students from Handsworth

Secondary School in North Vancouver and their teacher, Jim Adams. Would

the House please give them a very nice welcome. Thank you for being

here.

MR. BARNES: I would like leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I would like the House to join

me in welcoming

the executive director of the Vancouver Food Bank, along with one of

the board members: Sylvia Russell and Mr. Arne Olsen.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I think that my

attitude towards this

bill is well known and echoes the feelings about it throughout the

province. To me it is a bill designed to restore a modicum of local

autonomy, to add confusion into the tax picture and to get the

government off the hook for the fact that they are directly to blame

for the tax hikes that are going on in about 60 out of 75 school

districts.

While the minister has talked about his view about this bill

and

also the fact that he thinks that some of the tax hikes have been

excessive, he can't have it both ways. Either he is going to give the

school districts some power and the means to raise their taxes locally

and take full responsibility at the next election for their actions, or

he isn't. You can't be half-pregnant about this. This thing is cleverly

designed as a political document to let the school boards finance

residences only; not the 100 percent of the tax base available to them

through the machinery, commercial, industrial, but only percent, which

amounts to 12 percent if you limit the tax base.

So under the guise of giving the school boards more power, he

has

set up a perfect situation. Incidentally, it applies in my riding as

well as that of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks),

where the school board agonized the other night whether or not to add

$21 or $25 to each residence and finally, through the aid of a lobby,

aided and abetted I think by a prominent MLA in that area — but I can't

prove it — decided to go for $21 on each residence. I assume that

budget has been submitted to the ministry.

Who is responsible for that tax raise? Is it that

irresponsible

school board, one out of 60 who said that they didn't have enough money

because the framework screwed them out of it, even to maintain a status

quo budget? So when those tax notices go out from the municipality,

who are they going to get mad at? The minister is going to scapegoat

and talk about greedy schoolteachers. They had nothing to do with it.

There's no raise in there. There is hardly even any money available for

increments.

What is the result of this besides a blatant attempt to have

the

residential property-owner get mad at the school board, and by

extension schoolteachers, and by extension all kinds of education? The

result in my riding is the nine junior-high cafeterias to be closed

down next September, for a saving of $236,000 or roughly $50 per

student; that's the subsidy. Had they added a $25 increase instead of a

$21 increase…. They are frightened. They want to keep it to a minimum

because they don't feel that they should be raising it locally anyway.

Their means of raising that money was confiscated from them. It was

taken away from them. They didn't have the opportunity to spend them. I

know, for instance, if Vancouver had that tax base back, they would

have had a reduced school tax by 60 percent. Instead of that, they are

forced to load an increase on the local taxpayer. They don't want to do

that. Nine cafeterias are being closed in my riding. It would have

meant $4 a residential property. And the school board is struggling.

They have a Hobson's choice, because they know they're going to be

blamed whatever they do.

This is going on all over the province. It's another example

of the

confrontation tactics that this government has been involved in as far

as education goes for four years, if not five — going back to Vander

Zalm — and it's just unacceptable. It is just absolute nonsense. And

they

say: "Well, we've got extra money. We're giving you $110 million from

the excellence fund." Where did they get the $110 million from in the

excellence fund? I don't need to say it again. It's in the record

fifteen times that it was a shell game stolen, confiscated, from the

base budget.

[3:00]

So on the one hand they starve education, and then they blame

the

schoolteachers and the school boards for a drop in quality. They say:

"We're not mad at the schoolteachers at all." They knew last fall in a

document which was.... It was a leaked one, but not by me this

time, Mr. Minister, by Eric Buckley. The minister's own document said

you're going to be something like $150 million short, because you've

changed the framework, or the framework doesn't take account of a

number of things including inflation and increments and a number of

other things.

So it isn't just a case of school funding. It's the

manipulation of

school funding for an advantage, for a political advantage, to cause

confrontation, to cause fights, to cause controversy, to cause anything

but calm and stability in our education system. Everybody knows that.

You take that well-known Social Credit card-carrying chairman of' the

B.C. School Trustees' Association, Mr. Eric Buckley. What did he say

yesterday? He says: "Trustees blame cabinet for school tax confusion."

The minister promised clarity a few minutes ago. Clarity. It's

confusion.

So for $4 a residence, nine cafeterias are going to be closed

in my

and my neighbour's riding. What's that going to mean? That's going to

mean that those kids who go there — many from single parent families,

many from families in which both parents are working — for nutritious

breakfasts and lunches are going to be forced into the fast food

outlets. They'll become fast-food junkies.

[ Page 8110 ]

We talk about concern for education. There's no concern for

education or for children. The whole purpose of the thing is to hammer

trustees and hammer teachers and create a problem so that there is a

diversion. Let everybody know: the problem in education is this

government. It's not the boards or the teachers. This government has

pushed hundreds of teachers right out of this jurisdiction down to

California.

What has Buckley got to say? It says in yesterday's Sun : "B.C.

School Trustees' Association president Eric Buckley charges that the

cabinet has deliberately made a maze of school taxes." A maze of school

taxes. A three-tiered tax system he calls it, right? There's one from

the government – always too little, right? There's another one from the

local residences – a tax base of a pinhead, 8 percent, while the

government takes 92 percent of the funds and then shortchanges each of

the districts. Then the final one will be from the excellence fund.

We'll be debating that later, but that's a slush fund. That's all that

is. All that is is money confiscated from the school budgets to put in

an excellence fund. If you want to know how to deal with an excellence

fund, I can give you some good models, and they're not like yours at

all. They're not political models. They're models of social service and

responsibility. They operate in North York, they operate in Toronto,

they've operated in New York. There are all kinds of models if you're

looking for models. But I'll talk about that in the next debate.

"In total, B.C. boards have told Victoria they need $130

million just to maintain last year's level of service. That has

resulted in tax increases in 60 districts." I don't know, Mr. Speaker;

that doesn't seems to me to he heading toward increasing stability in

school funding or education. It's the continuation of the whole process

that has gone on for four years.

Here's another one, on page A3 of the Vancouver Sun ,

April 22:

"Average School Tax Increase Put at $30 by Board Official." Here's

another one from the Vancouver

Sun on May 5. The Vancouver Sun

hardly a radical leftist document, you know. It's hardly a rag of the

far left. Certainly its editorial opinion is.... Some of its columnists

maybe tend to be a little bit pink, but not very many of

them. Some of them. I think it's a reasonably balanced newspaper. What

have they got to say about this? "Last year the policy was to fire

school trustees who refused to follow the ministry's budgetary

guidelines. This year the policy is to grab money from urban

homeowners. What will it be next year?" We've had policy changes,

directives, changes in autonomy.

One of the worst things that l can see in this whole thing is

the

business of the break in trust as far as the sunset clause is

concerned. Trustees were promised in 1983 that if they stayed quiet and

permitted their total global budgets to be taken over by the Minister

of Education, they would get some relief in three years.

I can give you another quote, if I can find it here, from the

same Mr. Buckley who was quoted as saying they had been betrayed. They

were promised they could have their autonomous right to teacher

bargaining, setting their own budgets, raising their own taxes – to a

number of things – and they were betrayed in Bill 12. The sunset

clause, which abolishes the minister's right to control the global

budget of the school, is still there. The sunset right has been

removed, which means we're going to have a total centralization of the

powers, as we've had for the last four years. The minister will get up

and say: "Well, we gave you back those rights. You can now tax 8

percent.... You have to live with it, though. If the people, the

ratepayers, become irate payers and get mad at you, then you're going

to have to take the consequences."

Mr. Minister, your party is going to have to take the

consequences.

All the polls indicate that you're a flop. Your educational policies

have flopped. You may think that you're going to bash teachers because

of some kind of resentment about teachers, that the teaching profession

is greedy, lazy and incompetent, as you term them, but you're not going

to get away with it. They know your excellence fund is a sham, and they

also know that Bill 12 is a sham, because all that does is give them

and local boards enough right to hang themselves. People may say:

"Well, I don't know about that, you guys in the NDP. I think I'm a

little worried about that. If I were the Socreds, I would go out and

say: 'The NDP voted against giving local autonomy back to the boards.

The NDP is against excellence.'" l know all those things: I know all

the propaganda and half-truths; I know what you're going to do. But

after all, I think there should be some kind of integrity. I think the

people have a right to know the truth about this.

What are they being given? They're being given a modicum of

autonomy so that they can become inviting targets – just sitting ducks

is what they are. They were fooled once; they believed you once. They

won't trust you again. Even your friend and card-carrying member, the

chairman of the BCSTA, says he has been betrayed. Your own

card-carrying chairman says the school trustees have been betrayed.

I don't think you should be applauded for giving the boards

the

right to load the homeowners, while you maintain the lucrative 92

percent, the taxes on machinery, equipment and commercial, on the

grounds that somehow that's equitable because that's going to be shared

throughout the province. We had a system before in which if you didn't

have the right kind or enough machinery or equipment in your particular

municipality, then you got a grant to make up for it. If you had too

much to pay your school budget, it went to the Crown. That's fair.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

But that's not what you're doing now. And who is it going to

hurt?

It's going to hurt the urban boards because you took away their tax

base: and, by and large, their assessments are large enough that they

don't profit entirely from the homeowner grant. It's a clever little

manoeuvre. I think it's absolutely clear, and it's absolutely shameful.

I don't know whether we can win in the battle for the minds and hearts

of the electorate.

Anyway, what have we got here in Bill 12? The bill gives the

school

districts authority to set their own budgets and levy residential

property taxes to cover the difference between the boards' budgets and

the fiscal frameworks. Well, I percent in the inflation rate will be a

12.5 percent increase in the property taxes. Our survey of school

districts a little while ago showed that at least $45 million will be

needed in all the school districts just to maintain last year's level.

What have you really given them? You've given them the power to get in

trouble, that's all. You're dumping more and more of the costs of

schools onto the homeowner. Instead of adding more government

responsibility, you're dumping it on the schools. What have you done?

Since 1982-83 you've cut $75 million from provincial support to

schools. That's not even counting inflation. It forces residential

property taxes to increase $13

[ Page 8111 ]

million. You've dumped $13 million

more on local residences.

Of course, they're not going to blame you. That's what you

think —

that they're going to blame the schoolteachers and those spendthrift

school boards, on which there might be, I think, 20 schoolteachers out

of some 300 or 400 school trustees. You've cut services, and the worst

part of it is that whether you're talking about learning assistance,

cafeterias, busing, safety, cleanliness or whatever, you're hurting the

kids. I know you'd like to make it this way, but this argument isn't

about schoolteachers. This argument is about young British Columbians,

and you're cutting their throats. You're ruining their opportunities,

on the grounds that somehow, if we only got back to the little red

schoolhouse, everything would come up roses. Well, it's not going to.

The damage that you're doing right now we won't see for perhaps almost

a generation. You've got a situation where you've narrowed the

curriculum to the point where it is meaningless for up to 60 percent of

the kids. So they quit. Not because they can find work; they just quit.

What's bill 12 all about? It's a sham. The B.C. school

trustees and

your member, Mr. Eric Buckley, say it's a sham, and for once I agree

with a Socred. Your policies are shameful and your fund is a sham.

The minister still maintains the right to alter how much is

shareable. The minister can say: "You can do that if you like, folks.

Here's your local autonomy. We'll give you some local autonomy. You can

do what you like. If you want to add a drama class, or spend extra

money on busing or field trips, you can do that; we'll let you do

that." On the surface. But the minister, in this bill, has the power to

alter that and decide how much the government will share. That's not a

fair policy, that's not an equitable policy, and it's certainly a timid

step toward any kind of autonomy that I know about.

If you're going to sit back like an armchair quarterback and

second-guess every trustee.... What do you want to do? Do you want

to take over the whole thing? Why don't you? You got rid of the

resource boards, you got rid of the hospital boards; you appointed them

all, any kind of opposition. When the college boards were partially

elected and caused you a little bit of static, you got rid of them,

appointed them all, nice, malleable Socreds, so they don't make any

racket.

Maybe if you got rid of school boards you'd get rid of some

more

opposition. You could have a one-party state here, which reminds me a

little bit of Yugoslavia or Zambia or even Alberta. That's what you've

got. That's what you want. You don't want any voices. You've

systematically cut the budget as you've raised it everywhere else.

I've been over these figures with you — 11 percent, 1983-84.

Am I

getting to you? Under restraint, 1983-84, you increased government

spending 11 percent; 1984-85: 5.3 percent; 1985-86: 3.9 percent. All

the time you're cutting school budgets. You're adding $13 million over

that same period on to the local taxpayer. I think it's absolutely

shameful; you should be ashamed of yourselves. You've got a situation

now where once upon a time, in 1979, when we started out with Vander

Zalm, we had 2,000 teachers under 26 years of age — young, vibrant,

energetic teachers. Do you know how many we have now? We have 377 in

the whole province. They've gone down to California.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's happened to

enrolment?

MR. ROSE: Don't talk to me about that.

Don't talk to me about

enrolment. You have cut school budgets 25 percent and over the same

period enrolments have dropped 10 per cent. You're savaging schools

while you're pumping up everything else in government spending. You're

deliberately downsizing schools. You're the people who cause these

dropouts. There's the guy that's responsible. Same old policies,

brand-new minister. I know how the people in Agriculture liked him.

What have we got now? Teachers under 31: in 1979 we had 8,000;

today

we have only 3,000 under 31. I think it's dreadful, shameful,

inequitable, and I'm not the only person who thinks that. Even the

school superintendents have opposed you publicly. What are you going to

make them, civil servants? When you get rid of all the school boards

and you go into regional boards, which is probably your long-term plan,

will you then reappoint inspectors so that the local boards, locally

elected, when they're sick of your policies, will have to take

direction through the government superintendent like we had in the old

days, and they will report directly to the minister? I wouldn't be at

all surprised. You think that those administrators hired by the school

board get too much money anyway.

You'll go back to a system where the Deputy Minister of

Education

got less money than some school principals and superintendents in

Vancouver. That was bad news. No wonder we had bad policies in schools.

We couldn't attract the proper kind of people. Are you going to do the

same thing all over again? Downsize everything everywhere you look?

[3:15]

If you hadn't taken $24 million for non-salary inflation out

of the

excellence fund and spent it there, and $5.6 million out of the

university operating budgets and spent it on excellence, and $75

million on the universities, and 4.4 percent on college budgets and

$6.2 million on student aid, and $6.6 on textbooks and $3.3 on BCIT and

$19.0 for salary increments, you would have money in the school budgets

which would not require those increases in taxes. But you know that!

I'm saying that you took that money out of the school budgets

and

gave it back in the form of capital and salary grants, not excellence

grants. That's where you spent it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: If they had a decent tax base and

these funds

hadn't been removed.... Do you want to know where they come from?

I'll tell you where they come from.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we

could remind

ourselves that we're not in committee; we're in a bill. The member was

doing a good job of staying to the principle of the bill, but he keeps

being interrupted. So perhaps the member would stick to the bill.

MR. ROSE: Well, if I was sticking to the

principle, then that

makes me principal. If the minister wasn't sticking to the principle, I

ask you, what does that make him?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will endeavour

to maintain order and not give guidance to the member.

MR. ROSE: The public school system was

underfunded last year

by $65 million. That's where you got part of your education fund. If

you had put that back.... He admitted

[ Page 8112 ]

here in his speech, twice during the

education estimates, that if

he'd known then what he knows now.... You're a relatively new

minister, a tyro — not a tyrant but a tyro — as a school inspector.

What

are you? Oh yes, you're the Minister of Education. I keep forgetting.

They wouldn't have had to raise those taxes to the point they did in 60

districts out of 75.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the other people are going

vote on this. I just can't stomach this somehow. I don't think this

twinkle, this window of autonomy, is really going to wash very well. If

they're desperate for money, I think they're certainly going to raise

taxes, the same as they're certainly going to go after the excellence

bait. I don't blame them for that. But I think the principle is wrong.

Restore complete autonomy to the districts. You've taken it away — 92

percent of it,100 percent for four years — and you think you should be

congratulated for giving them back 8 percent in order to create more

controversy and struggle and fights in every locality, including mine.

MR. PARKS: I rise to support the bill, and

rather than deal

with some of the overall comments that the colleague from

Coquitlam-Moody has just concluded with, I think it's important to note

that although he rambled for most of his allotted time, he commenced

his remarks by at best alluding to, at the worst specifically accusing

me of getting involved with the deliberations of our school board a

week ago this past Tuesday evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's new about that?

MR. PARKS: The member chirping from the

background asks

what's new about that. Quite frankly, I have no hesitation in conceding

to him and everyone else in this chamber – for that matter, everyone

else in the province – that I take pride in participating in a very

important facet of my community, of our community. In fact, I found it

quite amazing that the most important school board meeting in

Coquitlam, which took place within this past two-week period...that

the other representative from that school district, the member for

Coquitlam-Moody, who just happens to be the education critic, did not

see fit to make the arrangements to be in attendance and give his

participation with respect to specifics. Again in the House this

afternoon we have him referring in grand generalities about the school

system being gutted and the minister not providing sufficient funds.

I should take this opportunity, because I'm sure that hon.

member

did not mean to mislead the House when he referred to the fact that the

Coquitlam school district submitted a budget with a zero increase for

wages. In fact, if that member had been at the school board meeting,

I'm sure he would be aware that their budget incorporates a 2 percent

wage increase. If he had been at that school board meeting, Mr.

Speaker, he would have noted that the overage, if you will, that the

Coquitlam School Board has now decided to take to the residential

taxpayers in Coquitlam represents some $2 million plus, comprised of

approximately $800,000 for maintenance and just in excess of $ 1

million for the salaries and increments.

What is so interesting is that if you analyze the past two or

three

years' performance in the Coquitlam School District, you will see that

until this past fiscal period just ended, the school district had

surpluses. They have taken all of those surpluses and decided to spend

that money to maintain the number of teachers as well as to provide for

increments, while at the same time the number of pupils – the enrolment

in our school district – has steadily decreased. It has decreased to

the point that in School District 43, the Coquitlam School District, we

presently have 13 schools with less than 50 percent capacity

utilization.

AN HON. MEMBER: Close them down!

MR. PARKS: I'm not here to advocate school

closures; that's

not my role. That's the role of the school board. But I will tell that

hon. member as well as the House that I did make that point at that

school meeting. The motion to put forth a surplus budget, as I refer to

it, was on the floor when I arrived at that meeting – having to come

from Victoria, I couldn't get there until well into the meeting – but I

did note to them that I thought it was somewhat curious that a school

district with declining enrolment, with more than a dozen schools with

less than 50 percent capacity, using in excess of a million dollars

this past year out of their surplus fund, still saw fit to specifically

provide for further teachers and for further teacher increments and

salary increments.

MR. ROSE: It's a contract.

MR. PARKS: Loudly and clearly in this

House, as well as in

various press releases, the Minister of Education has very clearly –

I'm sure, even to that member – made it known that the fiscal framework

was not going to allow for any increases, be it negotiated salary or

increments. The school boards were told that in very plain terms. In

very plain terms they were told that if the school boards wanted to

provide increases for salary or increments, they would have to pass

that on to the residential taxpayer.

Our school board, specifically, has elected to do that,

obviously.

It's unfortunate that they have taken that route, to cast more burden

onto the residential taxpayers, while at the same time they have looked

at the situation where we have in one school – obviously well under

capacity – an operating cost per student of well in excess of $4,000

per student, hundreds upon hundreds of dollars in excess of the

provincial average. Yet with these facts, that particular school board

saw fit to say: "No, we will use this rhetoric about the system being

gutted and our duty to preserve the system. Don't worry about the

declining enrolment; that's a fact we don't want to address. Don't

worry about the increased number of teachers; that fact we don't want

to address. We have a political agenda." That's what those school

trustees are suggesting.

That is the issue that I addressed at that school board

meeting. I

wonder if that's not the issue that the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Rose) has been addressing: a political agenda – not dealing with

the realities of school board management, not talking about responsible

fiscal management. He uses the phrase: "We have the trust of the

taxpayer. We must deal with the taxpayer fairly." Of course we must. I

would expect everyone in this House to take that position. But I don't

think it's fair or reasonable or properly fulfilling our role and our

responsibilities to the taxpayers to merely say: "Well, no, we won't

put the school boards into that decision-making process. We won't say

that the reason they were elected to be school trustees was to

responsibly manage the affairs of that school district."

[ Page 8113 ]

Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there were in excess of 100

taxpayers

and parents at that meeting that the member for Coquitlam-Moody saw fit

not to attend.

MR. ROSE: Where was that meeting?

MR. PARKS: That meeting was in the school

board offices, and because there were so many parents and taxpayers....

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: I didn't interrupt you, hon.

member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It's been a

while since we've taken a bill through the House. I think some members

have forgotten that we're not in committee. We're in second reading of

the bill. Perhaps we could proceed without interruptions.

MR. PARKS: The meeting was taking place in

the school board

offices, where they usually do, but because there were so many parents

and taxpayers — so many concerned parents and taxpayers — the meeting

was

adjourned to an elementary school across the street. That overflow

crowd of concerned parents and taxpayers vociferously and vehemently

made their intentions known to the school board. They did not

appreciate the so-called management talents of the school board, and

they did not appreciate having the school board decide to pass on tax

increases to them. That obviously fell on some deaf ears, since the

majority of that school board saw fit to increase the budget over the

fiscal framework guidelines. They don't mind passing on another $21 for

the four-month period, perhaps some $56 for the next calendar period,

to a school district where, I believe, the net school taxes this year

are something like $18. Obviously that means it's going to balloon to

something in the vicinity of $75 next year. That represents about a

fourfold to fivefold increase. We're not talking about pre-tax dollars,

Mr. Speaker. We are talking about post-tax dollars for the taxpayer;

that's an extremely significant increase to the residential taxpayers

of my school district.

I went to that meeting, saying: "I don't think our taxpayers

deserve, and I don't think that the school board needs, those funds."

Obviously the member for Coquitlam-Moody thinks the taxpayers of

Coquitlam want an increase in their taxes and are prepared for an

increase in taxes. Well, I happen to think – in fact, I know, Mr.

Speaker – they are not prepared to accept this frivolous increase that

is going to be brought about as a result of the school board not

dealing with the issues in a responsible fashion. The school board's

election will be coming up this fall, and I would expect that those

taxpayers and concerned parents will show their concern at that time.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody suggested there wasn't enough

flexibility in the school boards to levy the budget that they would

like to levy, to find the sources of funds they would like to have. He

indicated he was critical of the government taking away the ability of

school boards to increase taxes for the non-residential taxpayer. Well,

this government is clearly on record as seeing the need to encourage

the business sector, the non-residential sector, and to minimize to a

reasonable extent their taxation level. I take it that the member for

Coquitlam-Moody – and, for that matter, as the education critic, he is

undoubtedly speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition –

wants more taxes thrust onto the backs of the already significantly

burdened business community. Well, I'm not prepared to endorse that

position, and I compliment the minister for bringing in a bill that

recognizes that those who are most directly affected – and that would

be the residential families – are those who will have to deal with the

school boards, should the school boards elect to increase taxes.

The alternative that could well have been followed, rather

than the

procedure set out in Bill 12, would perhaps have been a referendum

system. I wonder if the opposition really wishes to see that system

brought back. I happen to think it's a bit onerous. If we are in fact

prepared to give school boards the autonomy which this government is

clearly prepared to give, and they elect, as they have in Coquitlam, to

pass on additional tax burdens to the taxpayers, that should be their

prerogative.

That's what this bill puts forth, that's the principle I can

support, and I'm sure that the majority of my colleagues in this House

will see that also.

[3:30]

MR. COCKE: I'm amazed at what we see before

us in the House

today. In the first place, we're discussing a bil.... And what an

interesting title: Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986.

What this actually does is put an end to interim educational finance.

There was a sunset clause in each of the last two bills they've brought

forward in this assembly, and now the government has suddenly decided:

"Let's not play cat and mouse anymore. Let's be honest for a change."

You see, either they were not honest to begin with or they are honest

now — one or the other. There were promises from that side of the

House that the sunset clause would actually take effect, that there

would be an end to this question of interim educational financing. But

no, they come out with a hammer like this and, as I say, place

themselves in a very unenviable position with respect to integrity.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) made a

statement

along these lines — I'll just paraphrase: that those hundreds of people

who came out and took the meeting across the street from the school

board office so that they could have their day in court, so to speak,

were almost unanimous in their condemnation of the school board for

insisting that taxes must be raised in order that the school board

might maintain its integrity with respect to the contractual

arrangements they had with their staff.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes. Don't say no.

The government has absolutely forced – this is what the

government

tries to do, and what a bunch of political animals they are in this

respect – the school boards to go to the public for an increase in

local taxation on two bases. The first is that they stole their

commercial and industrial tax base; that now accrues to the provincial

government. The second is that they have placed such rigid restrictions

on the budgets that the school boards cannot achieve those budgets

without raising this money in order to honour their contracts. If a

teacher, for example, comes up for an increment – and those increments

are contractual from day one – and if that person is fortunate enough

to be teaching here as opposed to California, then that

[ Page 8114 ]

person is entitled under contractual

arrangements to expect to get

that in the pay packet. That's just the way it works.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister, interestingly

enough, said that teachers here get paid more.

MR. PARKS: They sure do.

MR. COCKE: All right. Take an American

dollar and see how many Canadian dollars that buys. Come off it!

MR. PARKS: Twenty thousand dollars – U.S.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and you compare that with

a like person in

exactly the same situation – and remember that you're talking about

$1.40....

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In any event, Mr. Speaker, we have had a good school system

here,

and it is being run down as quickly as possible. I want the members of

this government to understand that they're not winning any popularity

contest by this merciless savaging that's going on within our school

system. The school boards don't trust this government. The parents

don't trust this government. Moreover, the opposition understands why

they don't trust this government, and yet the backbenchers – the

government supporters – don't seem to understand what's happening. It's

not only happening under this minister; it's been happening since the

beginning of this "restraint period." It's happened to the extent that

school boards are in an impossible position.

Now let me read you a couple of quotes, and I wonder if

anybody will recognize them:

"…in cooperation with local school

boards. After

all, the local school trustees have been elected by the people of their

own area…they know the area and are responsive to the needs of

their community. We would therefore return authority to local school

boards, while at the same time eliminating the bureaucracy in the

Department of Education. We would also work to return dignity and

responsibility to individual classroom teachers — trained professionals

who deserve more authority in setting educational objectives for their

pupils."

Who made that statement? The author was Bill Bennett. Every

word in

this

article that was distributed in 1975 has given the lie to

everything that's happened since. The Premier, when he was Leader of

the Opposition, issued this type of statement, and then we look at

what's happening now to our education process in the province of

British Columbia. It's in chaos. It's in chaos not because of the fact

that there's a reducing student number. It's in chaos because we have a

government that has used that as an excuse for placing education at the

bottom of their priority list. If it's not at the bottom, I ask you,

Mr. Speaker: why is it that there is so much intense animosity toward

this government's policy with respect to education? Here we're only

dealing with K to 12, but at all levels people are beginning to

understand that they did not keep this promise.

Imagine! "In cooperation with local school boards," then

gratuitously he says: "After all, the local school trustees have been

elected by the people in their own area." I wonder why the Premier

doesn't have a talk with some of those Education ministers that he's

had over the last year or two or three. "We would therefore return

authority," as if authority wasn't in the hands of the school districts

at that time.

One of the things that you can depend on the Socreds to do….

You can depend on it absolutely. If you see them come out with a

promise during a campaign, then you take that promise, turn it

absolutely around 180 degrees, and that's the direction they're going.

Freedom-fighters. Dictators: dictators not only in education but

dictators in health care, dictators in human resources, dictators in

every human service that this government has responsibility for.

School boards. Who are they anymore? The local populace – can

they

elect a school board? They turn around and find them fired right under

their noses. We saw that occur in Vancouver. We saw that occur in

Cowichan-Malahat, and it could have occurred in many other school

districts if, in fact, they hadn't knuckled under to this dictatorial

group called the Socred government of British Columbia. Shame! Shame on

this group of people who have so run this province into disrepute that

it is going to take the NDP years to bring this province back to where

it will receive the respect of the rest of this country and, for that

matter, the rest of the Commonwealth.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You don't mean that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't mean

anything more, and I

can tell you right now that what occurred in this House earlier today

was not any more of an indication than what we are seeing right here. I

just wish that they would do what they originally said they were going

to do, and that would be to be cooperative and helpful, creating a

better school system for the children of the province of British

Columbia.

They don't seem to recognize that our most important resource

is our

human resource. They don't seem to care about the most important

resource in this province. It is not timber, it's not coal. It's

people, and young people are not getting the care and concern from this

government that they deserve.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it seems that we have a

continuing debate

on education going on in this Legislature and around the province, and

this is just one of the many ways in which we are indulging in this

debate.

This government has really put school boards between a rock

and a

hard place. They have put them in an untenable position as far as how

they handle their finances. They have lost their autonomy, and I say

that advisedly, because they have lost their autonomy. If this bill

passes, they will have restored to them the right to level taxes at the

local level, but only if the minister approves of what that tax is for,

because if in fact the minister decides that whatever it is they are

going to do with that money is something that he doesn't think they

should do, he can simply reduce their budget by that amount.

[3:45]

He is absolutely the overseer. He is the total authority, and

school

boards are subject to his whim. They can only act if he thinks that is

what should happen. He is making the decisions, and what we are seeing

is of course a reduction in the tax base. The government confiscated

the industrial and commercial tax base some years back and took that

into their

[ Page 8115 ]

pockets for the funding of education.

and has simply left school

boards with only the residential tax base available, which puts them in

a position…. Certainly in both the Cowichan and Lake Cowichan

School Districts, which I know about, they are in an untenable

position, because they are forced, if they are going to be able to

provide even a barebones education base, into increasing the tax load

on those residential people, those who are responsible for their

election and re-election, people who have been facing some severe

economic times, a high percentage of them unemployed, living out of UIC

now in most instances, living on social assistance and facing a tax

increase.

Now in both instances this is going to have to happen. Our

current

school board chairman at one point indicated that that would not be the

case, that if there was no more money forthcoming from the government

they would manage. But even he has found now that that is not possible,

and they have voted in favour of a budget that is going to cause a tax

increase not as large as the chairman of the board would have had it,

but there is a group, a majority on that board obviously, who believe

that rather than increase the taxes by any appreciable amount — I think

the amount they voted on will be something like $5 per average

household in Cowichan — they are prepared to cut. Every one of those

people who voted against the larger increase and in favour of the

smaller increase has been unable to come up with any ideas as to how

those cuts can be made.

So the board is really in an untenable position. Lake Cowichan

striving to persuade their electorate that it is of sufficient

importance to maintain even the level they have if they are going to

maintain even their accreditation, that they must have that extra

dollar. I think they are talking about something like $13 per

household. Now that doesn't sound very much, but I tell you it is

important to the family that is trying to get by on a welfare cheque or

a UIC cheque or is living on a very reduced income because of one or

more members of the family being unemployed.

So it is a serious situation, and this bill is…. While we

agree with the idea of the school board having that ability to tax, it

should be on a much fairer basis. You should be starting on an entirely

different level. You shouldn't be having to tax the local resident just

to cover the bare essentials of an education system, any more than the

minister responsible for this bill should be forced to take money out

of his so-called Excellence in Education fund to come up with

obligatory increments in teachers' salary that they are law-bound to

pay or for textbooks or for any other of those kinds of things that are

part of the basic system.

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents to me just one of the many

things

wrong with this government's attitude towards education. Somehow they

think — and I don't know if it is deliberate, but I kind of wonder if

it is — that if somehow they can discourage young people from getting a

good education, they will have a larger number of untrained people in

the low priced job market, which will drive down the labour costs and

drive down the whole social strata of British Columbia.

We've worked very hard to get a society established that is

proud of

the kind of standards that we have. It seems that what this government

is doing is trying to destroy those standards, trying to destroy the

opportunity for every young person to go on to further education or

even to complete a grade 12 education. Certainly the figures that were

tossed around here some time ago about the number of dropouts in the

high school system indicate to me that the minister is achieving just

that through economic pressure on families who are forced to move, to

leave the district, and as a result the children leave school at grade

10 or 11 level and don't enrol wherever they go. It's a whole new ball

game, new friends, a new area, and they just don't carry on. If they do

carry on, the interest is gone.

That's certainly something that has happened in the Lake

Cowichan

area, and it was reflected in that report about the 40 percent dropout.

Lake Cowichan was named as one of the areas with a high dropout

percentage. That was based on the fact that 40 of those students who

left that school in that particular year — and that's a large number in

a school with an area the size of the Lake Cowichan district — left

because the families moved away. If they didn't enrol somewhere else,

they would show up in the total 40 percent. If they did enrol somewhere

else, it would give some other school a better level.

That's just one example of the kind of thing that's been

happening

with education in Lake Cowichan, and it's one example of why we're into

a situation where school boards and residential owners are being asked

to do the impossible. They're being asked to pick up a much greater

portion of the tax load than they should be asked to pick up.

That last dollar concept was there for the localized thing,

for the

thing above the standards. Those standards used to be set at a

reasonable level, but now we're looking at that as being spent for

basic needs, things like paper in the classroom, or for just anything

you would consider as a basic need of the curriculum. For that reason,

Mr. Speaker, it's just out of the question for me to see my way to

support this move.

The minister is saying that this is a great democratic move,

but as

I indicated before, it's not that. He still indicates what that basic

budget will be, and as long as he sets it at the level he's setting it

at, school districts are in a most unfortunate position in trying to

deal with their problems, in trying to deal with residents who say:

"Look, we simply cannot afford any more school tax," and with the

school itself which is saying: "We cannot operate on the level of

funding that we have."

It's an impossible situation. It's been deliberately promoted

this government, and the people who are paying the price are the young

people of British Columbia. They're being denied a very basic human

right – the right to a good level of education.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a

few remarks along

the lines of the debate leader on this bill to amend the Education

(Interim) Finance Act.

The thing that I find most disturbing is the creation of

another

piece of legislation, the excellence fund, of some $110 million, when

in fact the government is not meeting the basic requirements of school

districts. I know that that is another piece of legislation and that

there will be ample opportunity to debate it at the appropriate time,

but it seems that the government is fragmenting the system of education

funds that should be made available, first in terms of the diverse

needs in the province throughout the different school districts. In any

event, it should be involved in consultation to ensure that school

districts are not having to apply through this new fund under a new set

of criteria — and we're not even sure what those are — dealing with

excellence.

I had a recent appeal from the Vancouver School Board

requesting

that I, along with other members of the opposition, appeal to the

government to assist them with their

[ Page 8116 ]

application for funds to deal with

shortfalls in terms of basic

needs in city of Vancouver schools. For instance, over a three-year

period the Vancouver School Board anticipates needing $1,494,000 to

They need $321,000 immediately, next year they'll need nearly half a

million, and in the third year $675,000. It just goes on. They're

wondering if they will be able to get sufficient funds through this

program. They're expecting something over $14 million in three years in

order to deal with shortfalls that really, I think, the minister should

be addressing in terms of guaranteeing that these funds are available.

1 find it something less than encouraging when you consider the kinds

of things they are asking for. Just look at some of the categories:

integration services for a number of programs, native Indian education

services, computers and special education, a comprehensive approach to

child sexual abuse….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

We are on Bill

12, and, as you yourself indicated, there will be ample time to debate

the Excellence in Education fund legislation when it comes before this

House. If the hon. member would confine his remarks to Bill 12 and not

other proposed or presently filed legislation….

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will

accept your

clarification. I really just wanted to indicate to the House that we

have two separate approaches to providing educational funds, and there

really should be one. That's the point I want to make. People in the

school districts are having to apply indirectly for something that they

should be receiving directly, and they have no guarantees that they're

going to get this.

[4:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is adequate for

debate, but the

substance of the Excellence in Education legislation should not be

discussed. The point of there being two separate bills could be.

MR. BARNES: Well then, that leaves us with

the bill itself.

You know, the bill has become more political than it should

be,

because we're trying to deal with real educational needs while the

government is clearly exercising every technique at its disposal to

create the illusion that it is trying to make the system more efficient

through a model approach to providing educational funds, while at the

same time it is obviously placing a great burden on school districts,

who have to try to extract the additional funds they need from a

limited tax base. It's really an approach that is neither tenable nor

credible, to say the least. It's irresponsible on the part of the

government, and we've already begun to feel the consequences. I think

that in light of some of the evidence we've had recently about students

dropping out of the system because of its lack of relevance to their

real needs, this should be cause for concern. It's not a case of the

opposition trying to make political points. Where there is no valid

argument…. I question the government's sincerity, when it has

removed the basic opportunities for school districts to fairly tax

locally for the extra funds they need and when the only option they

have is to tax the residences. Those are certainly not the only segment

of the population or community that benefits from a well-educated

community. Everyone benefits, Mr. Speaker – every sector, every walk of

life, from the cradle to the grave. But the government's approach to

funding education gives the impression that by providing the grants for

education that it is, it's making a gratuitous effort, and anything

beyond what it deems to be adequate is the responsibility of the local

taxpayers, who do not have the sole responsibility for educating the

population.

We're still a democratic society. We're still a mobile people.

We're

not bound to live in any one community or any one district. Even though

we may be born and raised in a community, we are still mobile; we can

move from different parts of the province — different parts of the

country, for that matter. But the clear indication here is that people

who own residential property have the sole responsibility for picking

up the shortfall in education. That may be the impression that has been

left over the years, because we perhaps have not spoken up enough about

what education really should mean in contemporary society. It certainly

means a lot more than it has in the past. It certainly means a lot more

than reading, writing and arithmetic. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a really

sensitive and caring Minister of Education would be reaching out into

the community, trying to find out just what direction education should

take in the future, instead of digging up old arguments, hanging on to

traditional patterns and making such diversionary comments as: "School

teachers shouldn't sit on should boards" — this kind of irrelevant

statement, totally inappropriate for a sensitive, caring minister.

We have a serious problem in this province. With this

legislation we

could be looking forward. It could be thinking in terms of where do we

go. We're at a time in our history when we're talking about free trade.

We're realizing that our traditional sources of revenue are being

transformed as a result of new world demands. All kinds of very real

changes are taking place in things as they have been in the past and

the way they will be in the future. But the minister is sticking to

something that is irrelevant and doesn't address those issues. It

doesn't seem to me that the government is in tune with what should be

happening. We're talking about the lives not just of future

generations, but people who are in fact here today.

Just last week the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose)

described a condition involving the dropout of students that was

appalling and should have shocked this government.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And inaccurate.

MR. BARNES: Not inaccurate. Mr. Speaker,

I'm not suggesting

that every single number was accurate, but I'm sure the minister does

not deny that young people are dropping out of the system. Intelligent

people are dropping out of the system.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Fewer than in 1973, '74

and '75.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon.

minister will have his opportunity to reply in the close of debate. In

the meantime, the first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't bother

me that the

minister interjects. It shows he has feelings. It shows he has some

emotion that he can't control himself when he hears these disturbing

comments. I don't mind at all to have him

[ Page 8117 ]

interject. I hope he will stand up. I

hope the minister, when he gets an opportunity to respond, will stand….

He has just suggested that the number of dropouts is far less

now

than it was between 1972 and 1975. Those years, by the way, were when

the New Democratic Party was the government. He's trying to make a

point that things arc better now than they were then. I think the facts

speak for themselves.

The trouble with this government, and especially this

minister, is

that he's looking back instead of forward. He reminds me of a former

President of the United States, Mr. Harry S. Truman, who compared

himself to a floojee bird. He said the reason he flies backwards is he

doesn't care where he's going, he wants to see where he has been. That

seems to be the way this minister is assessing the education system in

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to begin to look

forward. I

can assure you that that is not an easy task for any of us, because

none of us have crystal balls; not the opposition or the government

side have crystal balls. We do not know for certain what tomorrow will

bring, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker…. This government has

been talking about partnership. It has been talking about partners in

enterprise: we are going to move forward together. Where's the evidence

of this partnership? Where's the evidence of this government sitting

down with the school districts and talking to them honestly and fairly,

being willing to recognize the diverse differences from one school

district to the other. This is what we need. We don't need dictatorial

policies. The situation is different from one district to the next; it

is not a simplistic situation where you could come up with a core

program with a model of what the situation should be and say: "This is

it. This is a centrally controlled program, and if it doesn't fit, then

you can go and make it on your own." That's not fair or responsible, it

does not work, and it certainly does very little to encourage

cooperation or stimulate any sense of enthusiasm or optimism on the

part of people who are dedicated to trying to provide an important

educational program for our youth which will benefit the whole of

society.

I know that these words are platitudinous and that we've heard

them

before and they sound somewhat rhetorical. But it is time for us to

recognize that there is some substance to this idea of cooperation.

It's not just a catch-term that you use for political reasons,

political expediency. Cooperation can have meaning if you demonstrate

to people that you mean it. Justice can have meaning if you ensure that

it happens, that people can see an example of it every now and then.

Don't just use it as a means of appearing to be a nice guy. Action is

what we need.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Not at the moment, Mr. Member.

Perhaps in a moment I'll sit down and you can do that.

Mr. Speaker, I was ruled out of order, I know, for reflecting

some applications to the excellence fund that will be debated in this

House very soon, but I think the more you think about it and the more

you really look at where the government is going…. The Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — is he now an expert in excellence? Is

the Minister of Education saying that he is an expert in knowing what

dollars should be available for education?

It reminds me of the time that I asked the Ministry of Human

Resources how they determined how much money should be available for

people on social assistance. I'm not going to get into that debate, but

the point is, what criteria does the government use that the public can

be satisfied relates to the needs of the community? Isn't it time that

we began to entrust some confidence and some authority to those people

who arc committed to trying to help our youth?

I'm very disturbed by what the government appears to be doing.

know that we're not going to change the government's mind. This is not

a new initiative. It's quite consistent with the government's policies

with respect to human services. The government has arbitrarily done

other things that are just as profound in other fields as those it is

now doing with this Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act. We all

know what they are, and we are just beginning to see the consequences

of some of those initiatives that took place beginning in July, 1983.

This is still the remnants of those restraint measures, still

part

of that idea that the government claims it cannot spend money it

doesn't have, that it has no money of its own and that tax dollars have

to be protected. These are not really policies that the government

adheres to. It is selective policy making. It applies only in certain

situations, particularly when it comes to human services, those things

that the government has successfully told us are not things that we can

afford. They only come from the surpluses. Only when you have surplus

dollars can you afford to do those things.

[4:15]

This is the government that said, "Not a dime without debate,"

government that was going to husband every dollar. We all know those

debates that were led by the Premier of this province when he was in

the opposition: "Not a dime without debate. We must balance the budget.

We must look after people's money." Yet, Mr. Speaker, in just 11 short

years this government has managed to husband the public's dollars with

great compassion and great concern to the extent that we have gone from

a $4 billion debt to nearly $19 billion. This is the government that

really cares. Not since Confederation has there been anything like

this. In 11 years, $15 billion. It's really enough to just make you

shake your head. You don't know when the public is going to realize

that this is a shell game. This is not an honest government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARNES: This is not an honest

government. This is a government of deception — of deceit and tricks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

The member is well aware of rules and decorum in the House, and the

hon. member will withdraw the comments.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to

make my last stand

on those comments, and if they are offending a member of this House, I

withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will continue.

MR. BARNES: But those certainly express my

feelings. Mr.

Speaker, I don't take lightly what the government is attempting to do,

although I realize the ability of the members of the opposition to

alter their course is limited. I can appreciate the constant

interjections from the….

HON. MR. GARDOM: Point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 8118 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House Leader rises on a

point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm not interjecting. I'm

just trying to

follow the usual practice in the House and ask the hon. member if he

would mind giving leave for me to make a short introduction — which he

doesn't have to do.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I had already

indicated to the

member that I didn't feel prepared to give him leave, or to sit down at

the time, but now that he has succeeded through his point of order —

and

I'm still wondering what that was — I think that he should be allowed

to make his introduction, and I'll proceed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the point of order

made by the member for Vancouver Centre is quite correct.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just trying to recognize

reciprocity, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House Leader wishes to….

HON. MR. GARDOM: As I do many, many times

for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, as he's well aware.

Mr. Speaker, I do know that every member in the House would

like to

bid a most cordial welcome to Mr. Peter W. Hamilton, who is a Kiwi and

the first secretary to the New Zealand High Commission. He is in our

gallery.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to make

one point only.

It's simply this: the time has come for us to make education in this

province relevant to the needs of the times. This cannot be done by a

government that is bent on centralizing power for motives that boggle

the mind, because we don't know what those motives are. One could

suggest that they're political. I fail to see any political advantage

in strangling the educational community the way the government is

doing. Perhaps it's just blindness. But where there is blindness

perhaps there is hope. Perhaps we can work together. Perhaps the

government can be enlightened. I certainly hope so.

You know, the problem with the government and its approach to

education funding is that it has not realized that things have changed

so much in society that people are laughing at the process. Young

people are shaking their heads and shrugging. I saw a

person-on-the-street series of interviews by one of the television

crews recently, just talking to young people and asking them what they

think about the education system and where it would take them — where

it would lead them.

There is a problem in our community, and the problem is that

there

is no rational planning. There are perhaps desperate attempts on the

part of the government to get hold of the situation. The government may

feel that by strangling the educational system, by putting pressure on

school boards, it will make them toe the line, will make them tighten

up their belts and be more cautious in their expenditures. And you

know, no one can take exception to that. I think there has to be a

certain amount of tension in any real progress. There has to be

alertness. There has to be accountability and responsibility. I think

the government should be willing to involve more people in this forum,

in this atmosphere of give and take. It should be prepared to recognize

that circumstances vary from one district to the next.

This is where this approach to funding fails. It is a

catchall. It

is too simplistic. It doesn't allow flexibility. You have $110 million

that will come in another separate category, we call it the excellence

fund. That in itself, again, leaves you shaking your head. We've been

criticizing the government for slush funds, for all kinds of

pork-barrelling funds that it has set aside, so that it can use

discretionary powers in making allocations. We've criticized the

government for the more than S20 million that it uses for government

information services. We believe that the government has successfully

found a way to manage the news.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: It no longer has to concern

itself with the

so-called free press. With $20 million you can buy just about

everything; certainly all the prime time on television that you need.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member would

concur that he's a

fair distance off the principle of Bill 12. If one could get back onto

Bill 12 and the principle of the bill.

MR. BARNES: I realize that I am not

speaking strictly to the

bill. But I can assure you that this bill inflames this kind of

response from the opposition. It is obvious that the government has not

taken seriously the need for proper educational funding in this

province, or it would not expect school districts to be able to get the

amounts of money they need from residents in this province.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: It's not humbug, Mr. Second

Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom). It's a serious problem. It's

one that I hope we will be able to clarify as time goes by, for the

benefit of the voters, who will have to make some decisions about

whether this government really puts first things first. The first

thing, it seems to me, would be to ensure that young people have

confidence in the education system: realize that it will prepare them

to face the days ahead, and give them an opportunity to participate

constructively in society, instead of dropping out and wandering off

and who knows what's happening to them.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that this again is

example of the fallout that is happening as a result of what the

government's policies are all about, with respect to young people.

As you may or may not be aware, there's a serious issue of

prostitution: that is, people of all ages are walking the streets,

mainly in the city of Vancouver, in the Mount Pleasant area and in

other parts of the city, selling their bodies in order to support

themselves. Among them are many young people. This is a thing that we

sometimes forget in this place. Can you imagine your own son or

daughter being so disillusioned, so discouraged, that you leave your

home, you quit school, you drop out, because the system is not

relevant; it doesn't seem to address your needs; and out of

frustration, you are down on the streets selling your body. Those are

students that should be in school, Mr. Speaker, but they're not in

school. I think the minister should be concerned about that.

[ Page 8119 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm going to stand to

oppose this piece of

legislation. The bill, as it reads, gives school districts authority to

set their own budgets and to levy residential property taxes in order

to cover the difference between money allocated through the fiscal

framework and the money that is required through their budgetary

necessities. I think we should just look at the position that that

piece of legislation will force upon the boards, the position it will

force them to take.

First of all, the districts only have access to the

residential

property tax base. It has been estimated that every I percent of

inflationary increase that will not be covered through government

funding will cause an approximate 12 1/2 percent increase in

residential property taxes. Secondly, after the minister's grant of $19

million from the excellence fund, boards will still need to raise an

extra $45 million from homeowners in British Columbia just to maintain

the service levels of last year – not for any increase in funding or

programs, or any expansion, but just to hold their heads above water.

When you break it down, $45 million represents a 24½ percent

property tax hike over the 1985-86 level.

That's the reality of this piece of legislation. That is the

position that this minister and this government is placing school

boards throughout this province — putting them between a rock and a

hard place in trying to deal with the economic realities they must

face. Earlier, during previous debates, I mentioned to the minister

that schools and departments within schools have to purchase from

companies throughout British Columbia and in other parts of the world

whose costs are also rising. I mentioned increases in science budgets,

for example — some years it's 15 percent, some years up to 20 or 25

percent, depending on the articles they're buying. They have to face

that reality. They also have to face the reality that when you consider

inflation, the government has effectively cut back funding for

education approximately 25 percent since the restraint program was

introduced. So they've got a two-headed monster. They've got a

government that keeps cutting back and cutting back, and saying there's

no more money in the pot, and they've got an economy that continues to

place the burden of inflated costs on their budgets.

[4:30]

What can they do about it? Well, the minister has come up with

cute little tool to place the onus directly upon those elected boards.

If you need the extra money, you can have the extra money. All you have

to do is go to the homeowners and say: "We're going to increase your

taxes." That's a nice, simple way for the government to absolve itself

of the real responsibility to put the funding into education that

should be in there in the first place, instead of reducing education

funds: to put the necessary amount — we're talking about $45 million

this year just to maintain it — into the fiscal framework where it

should be, instead of forcing the boards to be the whipping-boys of

this government and this minister, in order to squeeze the money out of

a taxpayer who is already overburdened.

I realize the minister will say that the money has to come

from

somewhere. He'll also say: "We can't afford to put any more money into

it." But as my colleague from Vancouver Centre indicated earlier, this

government has continued to spend more and more money elsewhere. As a

matter of fact, from 1975 to 1985-86 — ten or eleven years, a decade —

this government has increased its spending and increased the deficit

from an accumulated debt load of $4.2 billion to one of over $18

billion. So the government is spending more money elsewhere, there is

more money in the pot elsewhere, and I'm saying that this government

has got its priorities all screwed up. It has not been placing the

funds where it should, and that's in providing a first-class education

for our young people throughout British Columbia. When the minister

makes the argument that if there needs to be extra funding, then it's

the responsibility of the boards to find that money, I say to the

minister that that is incorrect, that the government is neglecting its

real responsibility to the taxpayers of this province.

There have been millions and millions of dollars wasted

elsewhere in

government propaganda. We have a government information machine that

chews up $20 million to $25 million annually, pumping out the good-news

advertising that we have seen going on and on ad nauseam on the radio.

If you can take that money and put it into real programming in

education and into other fields where it will do some good…. I

say that this government has its priorities all backwards.

The Education (Interim) Finance Act was due to expire in

December of

this year. When the government first introduced the Education (Interim)

Finance Act, it had a sunset clause in it. It said: "This is only a

temporary measure." Mr. Speaker, income taxes brought in just after the

Second World War were brought in as only a temporary measure. It shows

that you just can't trust this government again when it says it's only

a temporary measure. It's only a temporary measure, and now they've

taken that sunset clause and removed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister wanders in

here and makes blithe

comments and doesn't even know what he is talking about, as usual. Mr.

Speaker, between 1982 and 1985 this government has cut almost $76

million from provincial support to schools. It has forced residential

property taxes to increase by almost $14 million, while at the same

time it has cut services to children in schools by 23 percent in real

terms. Those aren't figures that I throw around easily. They are

figures that have been researched by Statistics Canada and also by this

very Ministry of Education.

Mr. Speaker, there was a brief submitted to the Premier by Dr.

Eric

Buckley of the B.C. School Trustees' Association early this year. I

want to read into the record some of the comments he made with respect

to local autonomy and taxation, which this bill is directly applicable

to — the taxation portion at least. Dr. Buckley says:

"The public has a high expectation of

renewed local autonomy, reduced property taxes and improved Excellence

in Education programs. If boards are faced with the choice between

cutting services even further or doubling and sometimes tripling

residential taxes just to keep pace with inflation, consider that

boards' legal obligations to pay increments will result in an increase

of 15.75 percent in local residential property taxes. Each additional I

percent of inflation not covered by the government will result in

another 12.5 percent increase in residential property taxes."

That's the burden that this piece of legislation is placing

upon those school boards. You are putting them in an extremely

difficult position. You are neglecting your own financial

responsibility of supplying them the necessary funds.

Mr. Speaker, to compare what has happened in British Columbia,

in terms of the money spent by this government,

[ Page 8120 ]

with other areas of Canada, so we have

an idea of how we stack up

with other governments, in 1985 and 1986 the average cost per student

was $3,946; in Alberta, $4,805; in Saskatchewan, $4,475; in Manitoba,

$4,477…

HON. R. FRASER: How much went into the

classroom? That's the question.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That's a very good

question. I don't argue with that point at all.

…in Ontario, $4,259; in Quebec, $5,349. The only area of

Canada

that has a lower per-student allocation by the government is in the

Maritimes: to $3,900 put in by British Columbia, they put in $3,848. We

are the second-lowest province in Canada in terms of the money

allocated by this government and this minister on a per-pupil basis.

Yet through this piece of legislation he is saying that more and more

the burden of the cost of education now has to be placed upon the

individual taxpayer, the individual homeowner and the individual boards

out there that have been elected in the various areas of the province.

HON. R. FRASER: The whole thing; it all

comes from the taxpayer.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, isn't it interesting

that the Minister

of Post-Secondary Education makes that comment, because I want to read

some comments from an earlier letter that was written and distributed

in — it was a while back — 1975. It's a letter under the signature of

the Premier of this province, and it says:

"We in the British Columbia Social Credit

Party

believe that meaningful education policies can only be developed in

cooperation with local school boards. After all, the local school

trustees have been elected by the people of their own area…they

know the area and are responsive to the needs of their community. We

would therefore return autonomy to local school boards…."

Return autonomy to the local school boards? This government

has

taken an opposite direction ever since it has gotten into power, while

at the same time eliminating bureaucracy in the department of education.

It is interesting that he says further: "The current system of

financing education out of property taxes is outmoded…." And now

the Minister of Post-Secondary Education is telling me that that's

exactly where we should be going. Those are the statements you just

made, Mr. Minister, and here is your Premier saying: "The current

system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded." Those

are the words of the Premier of British Columbia.

He goes on further to say that these taxes place "an unfair

burden

on the property owner. As government, the British Columbia Social

Credit Party would change this system…and provide revenues for

ever-improved educational facilities from real growth sources. We would

look to tax revenues from our resource-based industries — industries

which would enjoy steady growth…." The Premier is saying we

should not be placing more burden upon the property owners and

taxpayers of British Columbia and that the real source of revenue to

finance education is in the industrial sector and in the growth

industries.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I submit that this bill is exactly the opposite to the

philosophy

that was written under the Premier's signature in 1975, and it shows

very plainly that this government and this Premier don't know what the

devil they're doing. They say one thing, and they do a 180 in the

opposite direction. That's why education is in such chaos in this

province; that's why it has become such a critical issue in terms of

the lost potential, both in terms of jobs and in terms of the future of

our young people. Here we have the Premier saying one thing, and we

have his government doing exactly the opposite. It just shows that this

government has no credibility. It shows that the Premier of this

province has no credibility when he says one thing and his Minister of

Education does exactly the opposite. "The current system of financing

education out of property taxes is outmoded," and there is his own

Minister of Post-Secondary Education saying exactly the opposite. I

wish you guys would make up your minds. Why don't you make up your

minds?

I want to add into the record another statement that the

Premier

makes in this little handout. It says: "We would also look to the

provincial sales tax and to other revenue sources which increase

naturally with our provincial development. This new approach would help

to hold the line on property taxes." Now isn't that interesting? "This

new approach would help to hold the line on property taxes." This bill

before us today puts the lie to the Premier's statement of 1975. There

is no way on God's green earth that you can hold the line on property

taxes when you're asking the individual school boards throughout

British Columbia to directly raise the revenue needed above and beyond

the fiscal formula by going to the taxpayer in this province and

saying: "Hey, buddy, we need another buck." You're not going to be

able to do that. Again it puts the lie to the Premier's credibility.

The statement that he made in 1975 and the action of this government

today are exactly opposite.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Ten years ago.

HON. R. FRASER: Eleven.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Eleven years ago. Very

good, I'm glad you can

count. The statement still stands, and it just shows that you guys

can't follow your own policy.

[4:45]

Another interesting point: the Premier says — and for the

Minister of Post-Secondary Education's benefit — "Just as important as

the source of educational revenue is the manner in which it's

distributed." Well, well, well. "As government, the British Columbia

Social Credit Party would increase direct payments to local school

boards, while decreasing the cost and importance of the central

bureaucracy." Mr. Speaker, every statement that I have read has been an

outright lie as to the direction that this government has taken since

that time in 1975 when they came to power — an outright lie. There is

no question about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point

of order?

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I believe I

heard that member say that the Premier lied.

[ Page 8121 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I'm afraid you're

incorrect, Mr.

Minister. The Chair is listening very diligently, and the member has

crafted his words in such a way that he is in order. So will the member

please continue.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate

the evenhanded attitude that you have demonstrated.

Mr. Speaker, the points I have made are points that stand

because

they stand under the signature of the Premier of this province, who

made those statements and distributed those statements to the public in

British Columbia in 1975. I want to say to this House and to that

Minister of Education that Bill 12, the Education (Interim) Finance

Amendment Act, 1986, flies directly in the face of those statements. It

is a poor piece of legislation. It's placing the burden of taxation for

school purposes directly upon the shoulders of the residential property

owners. It's placing the boards in an almost intolerable situation. You

are asking them to be your bludgeon boys for you, to go out and do your

dirty work for you.

It's on the basis of those arguments, Mr. Speaker, that I

stand in opposition to Bill 12. At that I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm prompted

to say "aye," and

sit down and end the debate and call the vote, because some of the

debate I think has been absolutely atrocious.

MR. ROSE: You wouldn't….

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm the only one who's

been up other than

the opposition, so I guess when I'm making the comment it has to

reflect on some of the people across the floor.

Mr. Speaker, let me first deal with the member for Okanagan

North.

He is somebody who is supposed to have gone through the process of

becoming an educator, yet I'm often amazed at some of his comments in

this House. Some of the comments that he makes I'm not sure I'd be too

excited about hearing in a classroom — or the intent of his comments.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to address the question of the

Premier's

statement in 1975, because I think if the member for Okanagan North

took it upon himself to spend the time to look at the Education

(Interim) Finance Act that was passed a few years ago, to look at the

amendments and to look at the fiscal framework, he would find that the

intent of the legislation passed a few years ago — the removal of taxes

on nonresidential property; in other words, the industrial and

commercial tax base — carried out to a great extent the Premier's

statements of 1975. Prior to the Education (Interim) Finance Act, which

was interim in the sense that the School Act was going to be revised —

or not revised but a new School Act was coming in — we wanted to have a

separate act dealing with the i