1985 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4967 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Education funding cuts. Mr. Nicolson –– 4967

Princess Marguerite sailings. Mr. Williams –– 4968

Ganges sewer subsidy. Mr. Blencoe –– 4968

Sewerage assistant. Mr. MacWilliam –– 4968

Tabling Documents –– 4969

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Second reading.

Mr. Rose –– 4969

Mr Lea –– 4971

Mr. MacWilliam –– 4974

Mrs. Wallace –– 4975

Mr. Mitchell –– 4977

Ms. Sanford –– 4980

Mr. Davis –– 4981

Mr. Passarell –– 4981

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 4982

Mr. Barnes –– 4983

Mr. Stupich –– 4985

Mr. Hanson –– 4986

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4987

Division –– 4989

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985 (Bill 37). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4989

Mr. Cocke –– 4989

Tabling Documents –– 4989

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4989

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce

a guest seated on the floor of the House today from a province representing

one of the two bookends of our nation, the former Speaker of the Legislature

of Newfoundland and currently the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. Would

the House please welcome the Hon. Len Simms.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is the

chairperson of the Greater Victoria School Board, Mrs. Carol Pickup. I

wish the House would welcome her today.

MR. PARKS: In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, we have six visitors

from Winnipeg — not quite Winnipeg, but a little spot 65 miles

northwest of Winnipeg. I don't think any of us heard about it until a

certain Air Canada plane found out what metric was all about. We have

six visitors from Gimli: Phyllis and Harry Boelig, Gwen and Ed Wilcock,

and Win and Jim Henderson. For the benefit of the House, I would like

to note that Mrs. Boelig is the sister of one of this party's former

presidents, Leg Keen. I ask all of us to make them welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Today being Valentine's Day, Mr. Speaker,

it's the kickoff day for the B.C. Heart Foundation annual canvassing

door to door. This year the heart fund will be seeking $3.6 million as

the 1985 campaign total. This afternoon it's my pleasure, on behalf of

the government, to meet with and speak with the honorary chairman of

the BC Heart Foundation for 1985, broadcaster Joe Easingwood, and also

my pleasure, on behalf of the government, to present the BC Heart

Foundation with a kickoff to their campaign, a cheque for $75,000. I'd

simply like to recognize the efforts of the BC Heart Foundation,

particularly today, the beginning of their drive.

Oral Questions

EDUCATION FUNDING CUTS

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications. According to information from the Universities Council

of British Columbia, the minister's own institution, the provincial

government has been diverting substantial amounts of federal

post-secondary education funds to other non-educational purposes.

Indeed, based on the funding formula that was in place, and very

constant back in 1977, provincial government contributions now are only

3.2 percent of those post-secondary education programs. Will the

minister advise what steps he has taken to reverse this trend, because

if it continues.... There's only 3.5 percent left.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one impression the member

may have left: that the Universities Council is our organization. The Universities

Council is a very fine body that was introduced by the NDP. They sponsored the

legislation when they were government, and I give the NDP every credit for having

put this intermediary body into place. They're doing a fine job.

Interjection.

HON. MR . McGEER: I won't evaluate junior counsel's performance

here in the Legislature, but he's pretty close. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the members of the House and the

public of British Columbia that every cent provided by the federal

government in established programs financing for health and

post-secondary education is spent on those activities — and a great

deal more, which is provided by provincial taxation alone. We all wish

there was more money for education, health and many other essential

activities in the province. The tragedy we face today in British

Columbia is that the taxpayers simply do not have the money to send to

governments to satisfy all the ambitions of those who wish to spend

that tax money.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister says that they spend all of the moneys that

come through the tax point transfer program — and a great deal more. Yes, you

spend the $286 million that they contribute, and add $11.5 million more. Is

that a great deal more, in the minister's estimate? Is that enough to do

the job?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the money which has come on behalf of

post-secondary education includes all universities, all colleges, all institutes

and half of grade 12. The first thing that I did as the Minister of Education

in British Columbia was to negotiate up British Columbia's base by $100

million. Quite frankly, in those days in the field of education, as in many

other fields, the game was rigged against British Columbia and we weren't

getting our share. We still pay more than our share in taxes. British Columbia's

taxpayers' money is still funnelled through many federal programs into other

parts of Canada. But we're doing the best we can to pull our own weight

and do more than our own share in the Canadian nation as a whole.

All of those transfer funds that the minister of industrial development says

we climbed 3,000 miles over broken glass to get back are being used in the

activities for which the transfers were intended, including much more than universities.

I'm proud of what we've been able to do in negotiating some of our money

back. I just wish we could get more of it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that you're trying

to pull your weight. The students are contributing $60 million in fees when

the provincial government revenues directly are only $11.5 million — one-quarter.

When are you going to start pulling your weight? When will you at least match

those student fees in the upcoming year?

[2:15]

HON . MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, again I think there's a misstatement

here. We don't pull our weight; it's the taxpayers who have to pull

the weight in this province. The government is trying to lessen that burden

which is on the back of the taxpayers so that the economy can be stimulated

and people put back to work.

The best deal that students ever had is right today. They pay a far

lower cost of their education than they did in former times. Looking

across the way at passing grades, I'm not sure about the quality of

education in those days. Certainly I can say that it's excellent today,

and those students are getting a wonderful bargain for the part they

have to pay toward their

[ Page 4968 ]

own costs. In the case of universities it's about 15 percent; in the case

of colleges, less than 10 or 12 percent. It's a pretty good deal for the

students and a generous contribution from the taxpayers.

PRINCESS MARGUERITE SAILINGS

MR. WILLIAMS : My question is to the Minister of Highways with respect

to the BC Steamship Company. The government has made a decision to delay the

sailing of the Marguerite , as I understand it, from May 3 to May 16 this year.

This is despite a staff study that recommended the earlier sailing and the benefits

that would flow from that. It'll cut into the Victoria tourist season and

probably cut 10 percent of the wages for the crew, despite the fact that many

thousands of leaflets have already gone out. In view of the importance of this

service, which was established several years ago by very thoughtful people,

can the minister explain this decision that will impinge on employment, in terms

of the tourist season for the city of Victoria?

HON. A. FRASER: All I can say is that the board of directors

made that decision some time ago. I'm sorry to hear that it doesn't

agree with some people, but you're right. I believe the date it starts

is May 16 this year.

MR. WILLIAMS: Despite that, some 80,000 pamphlets are out and tourism

people would expect service on May 3. Maybe the minister can give us further

explanations for the resignations that have since occurred, and the staff departures

that have occurred as well.

HON. A. FRASER: I'll certainly look into the pamphlets you

say are around. Regarding resignations, we've only had one that I'm

aware of from the board of directors. I'm not aware of any staff

resignations.

GANGES SEWER SUBSIDY

MR. BLENCOE: I have just a few questions for the Minister of Municipal

Affairs about the Ganges sewer. Will the minister confirm this afternoon that

the additional $794,000 grant that he recently announced will bring the level

of public subsidy for the Ganges sewer to 100 percent, and completely eliminate

the statutory responsibility of property owners in the service area to contribute

to construction costs?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Would the member please repeat the question? There was one portion of it that I didn't quite grasp.

MR. BLENCOE: I certainly will repeat the question for the minister, and I'm sure he will listen this time.

My question, Mr. Minister, in a simple form so you can understand:

you have just announced $794,000 for the Ganges sewer. I want to know

whether this will indeed bring the level of public subsidy to 100

percent, and eliminate the responsibility — which is a statutory

responsibility — of the property owners in that area to contribute to

construction costs.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, we haven't got the final costs on

that project as yet, so I am unable to advise the member as to how far that

will go, but as soon as we get those figures in we will know exactly. The

announcement was made just recently, after over 20 years of debate on that particular

project. We felt that since the school and the hospital required those facilities,

now was the time to go ahead with it. Therefore the grant was announced to do

just exactly that,

MR. BLENCOE: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: you

have announced $794,000 — close to a million dollars — and you are

saying today that you don't know the total project costs of all

involved. Is that good business for the Minister of Municipal Affairs?

Is that fiscal responsibility?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, $2 million dollars is already

invested in an outfall pipe there. There is considerable money invested

in other equipment for the facility, and I would assume that the

additional funding now will cover the total cost. However, we cannot be

assured until the total figures come in as to what the final cost will

be. I don't expect that that will be available for another two or three

months.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister knows that the minimum cost to the

public is $4.5 million for this project — total public subsidy. It's

amazing that the minister doesn't even know that. Can the minister tell

us where the money is coming from during these difficult days,

particularly when he can't even tell us why he is giving this money or

the costs? Where is the money coming from?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: There was a portion from the federal government, a portion from revenue-sharing and a portion from consolidated revenue.

MR. BLENCOE: Here is the critical issue in this matter. The chairman

of the CRD stated today that if they hold a referendum in Ganges on this particular

issue, the minister will remove this $800,000 dollars. Why does he not want

a democratic vote on this particular issue in Ganges? Is he scared that the

people of that area might actually tell him what they want?

SEWERAGE ASSISTANCE

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a question to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. In 1974 the New Democrats passed the Sewerage

Assistance Act assuring city councils that 75 percent of the sewerage

funding would be borne by the province. On July 8th, 1983, the Socred

government reduced the province's share of sewerage funding from 75

percent to 25 percent. In light of the evidence of the Ganges Island

sewerage assistance, will the hon. minister assure the citizens of the

North Okanagan that additional funds, above and beyond that levied

through the present Sewerage Assistance Act, will be made available for

assistance in resolving the sewage problems currently experienced by

the city of Vernon?

HON, MR, RITCHIE: The revenue sharing program as it applies

to sewer and water was changed about a year ago simply because there

weren't sufficient funds in the program to continue with that major

sharing portion.

The program as it was, demand-driven, was eating up a very large percentage of the total revenue-sharing at the

[ Page

4969 ]

expense of all municipalities throughout this province, because it was taking

away from the unconditional portion, which they all benefit from.

As far as the Ganges program is concerned, we have a situation there

where both the school and the hospital require upgrading of their

facilities for health reasons, and the funds hadn't been made

available. It was decided that since that amount of money together with

what was already in place for the total system would indeed serve that

entire designated area, those tax dollars would be much better spent by

providing both for the institutions and for the private users of the

system.

That, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is the best use of tax dollars. It's

giving us the most value for the dollars to be invested. Those dollars that

have been assigned from consolidated revenue would be spent anyway in providing

for those two facilities. So it seems to me that whenever we have an opportunity

now to combine that with funds that are already in place and with facilities

that are already installed, and we could facilitate and assist the business

community and those other private users, that's indeed what we should be

doing. That is responsible use of taxpayers' dollars.

So we have a different situation. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like the member

to know that I am most interested in what is happening in the whole Okanagan

basin, and certainly I've been in communication with the council there — not

for some time — and indications have been made that when funds are available

through the revenue-sharing source, indeed some action will take place. But

at this time we are not interested in changing the formula back to what it

was — 75-25 percent.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the forty-ninth annual report of the business done in

pursuance of the Pension (Public Service) Act, for the year ending March 31,

1984; the forty-third annual report of the business done in pursuance of the

Pension (Teachers) Act, for the year ending December 31, 1983; the forty-fifth

annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Municipal) Act,

for the year ending December 31, 1993; the twenty-ninth annual report of the

business done in pursuance of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension

Act,

part 2, for the year ending March 31, 1984, and the eighth annual report

of the business done in pursuance of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, for

the year ending March 31, 1984.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 48.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, as some might recall, before the noon

adjournment I was attempting to outline, on behalf of my party, the

objections we have to this latest wrinkle from the flimflam man in

terms of educational finance. I think it's only fair that we outline

why we oppose this new method of raising funds for education,

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I've already said — but I don't think it hurts to repeat it — that the

minister is in charge of the total budget to be applied to education in each

district. As a response to a lot of pressure from boards, when he went around

the province, for more money for the return of the funds to something that was

adequate — not lavish, particularly, but merely adequate — the minister, instead

of recanting and admitting that his cutbacks had been most severe, when you

add inflation up to 25 percent over three years, has chosen this alternative

route. He has gone back, the same way he has gone back in his curriculum outlines,

into the dim, distant past, to resurrect a system of raising funds that probably

won't work and was found wanting in about 1972 or '73. As a matter of

fact, I don't know of another jurisdiction in Canada — correct me if I'm

wrong — that depends on referenda for the raising of funds beyond a basic level

of education. It may exist, but if that's the case I don't know it.

But that's not the main reason that we oppose it.

Let me just outline for you our objections to the proposal, in a very quiet

way. Sotto voce — as a musician you might appreciate that phrase — not loud

or wild or anything like that but just in a very reasoned way, I hope. The fact

that it's reactionary is only a general criticism of it.

[2:30]

The first one I'd have to say is that because of the timing, because

of the dates within the bill — a decision having to be reached by March

15 so the minister can approve it and the referendum to be placed

before April 14.... It's just not enough time to do it. So it won't

work for this year. Only in rare cases would a board be in a position

right now to put together that kind of referendum and set up all the

machinery necessary, get ministerial approval for the wording and all

that technical stuff that you have to go through in time. If it's not

available for this year. then perhaps it could be available for next

year. But if it's available for next year, why should we need it?

There's a sunset clause that comes in on Bill 6 next year, and

according to the minister's promise and pledge, the boards will be free

to set their own budgets at that time anyway. So we begin to question

either the sunset provision or the need and the viability or the

efficacy of the referendum proposal in its entirety, That's just one of

the objections.

The second objection has to do with this: as was pointed out this

morning, certain districts have a far different balance between

residential and non-residential tax bases. Some districts are highly

residential; they have a large tax base, such as West Van. There are

other districts, such as South Cariboo, that do not have a large

residential tax base. But remember that the tax for school purposes is

to be placed only on the residential portion of the tax. You will

recall, as a former board member, Mr. Speaker, that the non-residential

— industrial and commercial — was confiscated about two years ago, so

that doesn't exist any more. However, owners of non-residential

property will still be able to vote in and on any referenda. because it

says so right in the bill: "All persons who, at the time the referendum

is held, are entitled to vote at an election of a school trustee are

entitled to vote at the referendum." So if you are able to vote for a

school trustee you can vote in the referendum.

So here we have a lot of people who are not going to be taxed, or

bear the increased tax or the burden of what the referendum will

collect, who will be voting to impose a tax on people and their

residences. That, to me, is blatantly unfair. I think it's unparalleled

that those people who are not

[ Page 4970 ]

going to be accepting any burden of the tax are going to be voting in the referendum.

We think this is dead wrong. We think this should be changed.

Corporations and non-residents owning property within a school district

are also eligible for inclusion on the voters' list, although no person

may cast more than one vote within the school district. So you have a

corporation that owns a lot of property in various school districts....

That same person, not one man, one vote — that's what we heard about

this morning — can run around to all these districts and vote for an

increase, or against it. So it can be weighted. It can be what we used

to call in statistics "negatively skewed." That's what's going to

happen to most of the people who own residences as well. This, we

think, is unfair.

I'd like to quote the Minister of Highways, the member for Cariboo

(Hon. A. Fraser). In 1973 he complained about this, because at that

time he was in favour of getting rid of referenda. He said: "In my

district, rural areas are most inadequate as far as the elementary

schools are concerned. Those elementary schools in my riding...."

[Interruption.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question has been posed: do we have a quorum? We

do have a quorum. Debate continues on Bill 48 with the member for Coquitlam-Moody,

who is the designated speaker.

MR. ROSE: In point form, to recap why we oppose it. First of all, it's

the timing. It's catch-22. The boards don't have time to do it this

year.

The next one is that we think it favours rich districts with a high residential

tax base. It discriminates against poor districts such as South Cariboo. I quoted

the Minister of Highways about how it was so difficult in the early days. He

spoke in the House, and it's reported in Hansard in 1973. When districts

were dependent for capital expenditures on referenda, they found they were chopping

out libraries, gyms and that sort of thing. Once that was removed, districts

such as South Cariboo and others with a low residential tax base began to find

that their school system, their buildings, and the very quality.... The materials

they needed improved vastly. I quoted the minister, and I enshrined his name

in the record once again. So that's another reason.

[2:45]

The other reason that we oppose it is that we think it's a wasteful expenditure

of money. We know that the civic by-election in Vancouver cost approximately

$250,000 of taxpayers' money. We would rather have that money spent on education

than on setting up all the machinery we need for referenda. We think it's

a useless expenditure. Furthermore, it's downright dangerous. Supposing

a board decides to go ahead on that, makes the expenditure — they all won't

equal the expenditures of Vancouver; no one's pretending that — and loses.

Then the board, according to this bill, has to pick up the cost. Again, we'd

rather have that spent on textbooks or heat and light or cleaning or maintenance

or ESL or any number of other things, rather than on that kind of an expenditure.

It's as foolish as expenditures on arbitration, when you cap the budgets

and then, if anything gets away on you, you send it to Ed Peck and he puts the

hammer on it. So I think it's kind of a dance of the dialectic. It's

a gesture that reaches, perhaps, a certain level of consciousness that something's

happening, but is really quite meaningless. So we say that this is a useless

and costly expenditure.

Furthermore, I don't think that the school boards will be able to plan.

How can they plan their programs two and three years in advance — and they have

to, to make sensible decisions about planning — if they don't even know

from one year's end to the next whether or not a referendum is going to

pass? And these referenda are not going to pass in the rural areas. In

areas which have low residential tax bases, they are not going to pass. Over

75 percent here were non-residential in districts such as Lillooet, Prince Rupert,

Kitimat, Fort Nelson, Vancouver Island West and Cowichan — and we'll hear

more about this later. I learned yesterday that during the bad old days Cowichan

district — Duncan, Malahat — never succeeded in having one referendum passed

for school purposes in that whole area.

So we think that they'll fail, and this will enable the minister to first

of all be very grudging with the funds, and then to turn around and say: "Well,

the people don't want it. That's what the referendum proves, that they

don't want to spend that extra money." So it becomes a self-fulfilling

prophecy and so, politically, it's extremely cunning. But I don't think

that it gets 95 percent or a straight A for integrity. I think it's a bit

of — as I said, Mr. Speaker, not naming anybody —

an act of flim-flam.

So the rich districts with high residential tax bases — the West

Vans, the Coquitlams and places like that — I think will pass

referenda. But I think other areas will not. So what we will have will

be a two-tiered educational, system, Or is it three-tiered'? We have

the rich districts with the high residential bases passing referenda;

we have the poorer rural districts with small residential tax bases not

passing them; and then we have one child in 20 going to a private

school.

More and more kids will be going to independent schools. That has certain attractions

for the minister and the department, because it's only 30-cent dollars there,

you know. That's education on the cheap, as far as the province is concerned.

So those are our main concerns. I mentioned them a number of times.

We don't think it's fair for industrial and commercial voters to be

able to impose taxes on residential areas. It might be okay if the

school boards had the industrial and commercial again, but they don't

have control of that. So it will be only that small portion of

residential users that will bear the extra brunt of education. I don't

think it will pass, because only about a third of the people in any

area have children in school anyway, and are unlikely.... If you have

60 percent of people indifferent or negative to it, then I don't think

that there's a good chance for these things.

One of the questions in the minister's travelling road show called

"Let's Talk About Schools" is: should we have referenda? The minister

has obviously answered that question all by himself without the benefit

of hearing about that. He must have somehow anticipated the answer.

What about the other parts of the School Act? Have you already made up

your mind about that? Is this a little cosmetic run around the province

on the rest of the questions that are in that? I think we should delay

this whole thing, and delay also your "Let's Talk About Schools" and

try not to hot-house that through while nobody's looking.

If referenda were so good, I would suggest that the minister have a

look at

an act passed in 1919 but never proclaimed. This calls for

referenda and an initiative of the

[ Page 4971 ]

province of British Columbia. Then perhaps when we finish passing this we could

send the whole thing out for a referendum, and see whether or not the province

would agree that we should have referenda for school purposes or not, or whether

we should spend certain kinds of money on Expo or northeast coal. Why should

the school boards have to submit an autonomous legally elected body to this

kind of interference and these kinds of barriers and impediments and all the

hobbling morass, when the Legislature and municipalities are autonomous and

can do what they like in terms of expenditure?

Sure, there should be guidelines. Sure, there should be some sort of a reasoned

approach. Sure, the province has an interest. Nobody denies that. But I would

recommend the minister have a look at this, because I think this would give

him a chance to settle lots of things. Maybe the province of British Columbia

general public would have liked to know and have a voice in whether or not we

should have paid off that $450 million debt of the BC Rail last year, or whether

or not we should be prepared to lose $350 million to the northeast coal. It

has a lot of possibilities, this idea of referenda. But for the school purposes

I think it's nonsense. I think it's worse than nonsense. I think....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look in Beauchesne. I think it's a bit deceptive. I

didn't say the minister was deceitful; I said that the action tended to

be somewhat deceptive.

There are two kinds of attitudes towards education. There is the conservative

approach, which says that what we need is good old-fashioned basic education:

the five holy roads to knowledge. Back to basics: math, science and a foreign

with a piece of chalk. I can recall that's what we had when I went to school.

That's all we had. We didn't have any shops or anything like that; it

was very cheap too — a piece of chalk and a map, and everybody got the McGuffey's

reader, or something like that. That's the approach: longer day, more homework

and hard discipline. Fifty percent of the kids of my day never even got out

of elementary school.

If you have a school set up for the academic elite.... You mentioned earlier

the numbers dropping out of the school system — I hope I can find it. Here we

have the drop in attendance from 525,000 to 472,000, down 53,000. You are going

to have more dropouts, because under your approach you will not be able to offer

the options and services and assistance in language and other learning difficulties

that were once offered, and they are needed now when everybody's child goes

through school. The democratic approach to education is to offer as many options

as you can within the limit of what you can expend so that every child, regardless

of talent, had something useful for him or her at that school.

Talent is not synonymous with worth. A school system that attempts to cater

to everyman's child has to be more than simply some sort of academic factory

or industrial plant. We want a decentralized system where decisions are made

closer to the people who are affected by them, and we want a responsiveness

to the needs of everyone. We don't need a retreat to the educational system

of 25 or 50 years ago. I mentioned earlier that down in Washington the new governor

feels that we're reaching an age where we should be spending more money,

not chiseling our kids out of their money.

The BC School Trustees' Association, an estimable body — sometimes I agree

with them and sometimes I don't; this time I do — want to meet with the

minister. They're concerned about this. This hasn't gone over. This

idea is no great hit, you know. This referenda thing is no real winner. It's

not going to be at the top of the hit parade. They think that maybe the government

is making a mistake. They'd like to speak to you. They'd like to have

a meeting before this goes through, before it's too late to retrieve it, too

late to recover. My suggestion is that there should be a reconsideration. The

minister says that he consults, that he's flexible and reasonable. He's

certainly affable. So why don't we just hoist the thing for a little while,

until you've had a chance to meet with the various officers of the BC School

Trustees' Association.

In the meantime, I want the minister to consider — and I know he has — what we're

talking about to restore a reasonable kind of funding level to education for

next year. Never mind all this nonsense about the squandering of public money

on referenda; we're talking about something approaching $60 million, about

6 percent of the current budget for elementary and secondary education. I hope

he does that. I hope he considers this. As I say, I don't consider the minister

to be either lazy or without intelligence. I think he has a job to do. I don't

like the job in some ways. I think some of the things he's done have been

quite acceptable. I think the idea of developing guidelines for various areas

is not a bad one, but don't hammer it and make it so inflexible and bureaucratic

that nobody can operate within those guidelines without considerable disadvantage

to one another. We don't like the concept of the referenda, for all the

reasons I mentioned. I'll leave my remarks at that. I hope that some of

my colleagues might be able to add something on the local level to what I've

said in very general terms.

MR. LEA: This is one of those pieces of legislation that you know if

you vote for it you're wrong, and if you vote against it you're wrong. It

causes a dilemma, I believe, in the mind of every individual in this chamber.

The member who just finished speaking has laid out a great many of the problems

it's going to create between the rich school districts and the poor school

districts. If we vote for the referendum, for the legislation, we're

at least saying that those children in rich districts are going to continue

getting some of the education that they should be getting. The ones in the poor

districts won't. If we vote against the legislation, it means that neither

will get it, either in the rich district or the poor district. That puts us

in a bit of a dilemma. Do we say, as a matter of principle, that we're not

even going to allow the students in the rich districts to have their parents

opt to pay some more money so that their children can get a better education,

and cut out the ones in the poor districts? This is a very unfair bill to put

before this legislature. That's really the dilemma we're facing.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But, Mr. Speaker, the real problem comes down to the whole concept of the funding

of education in this province. The Minister of Universities from Point Grey

stood and said: "Don't you understand that it's not government

money, that it's taxpayers' money?" I think we all understand that.

I think what people are questioning in this province is the priority by which

this government is spending the general revenue coming into the province. The

Premier's been very fond, in the

[ Page 4972 ]

past, of trying to break down the general economy

of the province to the household situation. He likes to simplify to

sell his message. I'd like to use the Premier's method to try to deal

with this bill and the funding of education. I'm glad the Minister of

Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is here.

[3:00]

Basically, if we take a look at our own homes and say, "Okay, we have

less revenue coming in; we're going to have to make some changes in our

spending priority," that's the same as the province. Everybody knows

there's less revenue coming in, so there has to be a change in priority

of spending. The province has decided that they're going to spend money

on certain items and not on others, or in a new ratio, Let's go to the home:

less revenue coming in. As parents we know that we still want to educate our

children; we still want our children to have a nutritious diets we want our

children to be covered by medicare. So if we were looking at our priorities

in the home, probably we'd say: "Well, let's set our priorities."

One thing's for sure, we're going to set enough money aside to make

sure that there's a nutritious diet for our children. We're going to

set enough money aside to make sure we pay for our children's education,

because that's their future. We're going to set enough money aside out

of our budget to pay our premiums for medicare so that our children are going

to be looked after in a proper way if they get sick.

Now there are other things that we would probably want as a family; maybe not

need as much, but want. We probably would say: "Wouldn't it be nice

if we had a swimming pool in the back yard. Should we build a swimming pool

now and cut down on a nutritious diet, cut down on paying our premiums for health

care, cut down on our payments to education, or should we put the swimming pool

aside until times get better?" I think any sensible family would say: "We'd

all enjoy the swimming pool, and there'd be benefits. It would probably

be healthy to swim. It would probably be enjoyable to swim in a pool in our

back yard. We could invite the neighbours over. It would be a social event.

It would be nice." But if we had any common sense, we'd put the swimming

pool off because revenue is down in our home, and we'd make sure we had

enough money to pay for our children's education. It's a matter of priorities.

We might also say: "Wouldn't it be nice if we could put a new driveway

alongside the house. Let's widen the driveway. Maybe we could put a driveway

right around the house instead of just up one side. But should we do it now

when the family's revenue is down, or should we wait until the revenue is

up?"

In other words, Mr. Speaker, do we build the Coquihalla now, at the expense

of education, at the expense of the health care system? Do we build the Coquihalla

Highway now, at the expense of a nutritious diet for many of our citizens in

this province who could use a little bit more help — single mothers, for one

— to feed their children a proper diet? You know what the answer would be, Mr.

Speaker. There isn't one member of this House, when making up a household

budget, who would put a new driveway and a new swimming pool, no matter how

desirable, ahead of a nutritious diet, ahead of making your medicare premium

payments, ahead of paying for your children's education. Not one. And yet

this government has taken the other option. They said: "Let's put in

the driveway. We'll call it the Coquihalla. Let's put in the swimming

pool. We'll call it BC Place. We'll call it the domed stadium. Let's

spend money on these things that are nice." I've been into the stadium;

it's a wonderful place. I'm sure it's going to be a wonderful drive

across the Coquihalla. But do you do it now? Or do you priorize the spending

of your money to make sure there is going to be a future for the citizens of

this province? Are you going to deprive children of the kind of education they're

going to need to go into the future, for a highway? For a domed stadium? To

pay off debt to BC Railway that didn't have to be paid off at this time?

No sensible family would do that. So why does the family of British Columbia

make a decision otherwise, when it doesn't make any sense? The government

could come back and say that it creates jobs to build the swimming pool, the

domed stadium. It creates jobs to put the driveway around your house, the Coquihalla

Highway. They'll say: "Are you talking against those jobs, Mr. Member?"

Mr. Speaker, in an economy, unless the pie is growing you have only one option.

You can only transfer the resources around within that economy. This government

has decided to transfer resources around. They have transferred resources from

education to highways, from health services to a domed stadium. And when you

transfer resources you transfer jobs. They've traded teachers' jobs

for construction jobs because they wanted the votes from the construction workers.

They've transferred jobs from health care, education, social services; they've

transferred the money, and therefore the jobs, to what they consider high-profile

political issues — building a highway. But all they did was to put some citizens

to work at the expense of others.

When we take a look at our future, surely down the road there are

savings to be made in health care, especially in preventive health

care, by spending money on it instead of on a highway. By putting money

into a good preventive health care system to make sure it works, down

the road the taxpayers are going to reap the benefits, not only in

dollars but in better health.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, what we're talking about are priorities of

spending, not whether revenues are down in the province. We all admit

that. I don't think there's anybody in this Legislature who wouldn't

say that there has to be restraint in certain areas. There is no

system, no bureaucracy that doesn't get fat; that you can't lean it

down a bit, make it more efficient. I've yet to see the bureaucracy in

the private or the public system that couldn't stand a little of that

every once in a while. But that is a red herring, Mr. Speaker.

Education means not only our social well-being in the future; it means our

economic well-being in the future. What we have with this government and their

priorities is that they're taking education and doing it year by year in

a knee-jerk manner, and therefore not planning for the future. We shouldn't

even be looking at the needs of education this year. We should be looking at

the needs of education for next year, and five years and ten years and twenty

years down the road. Anybody who's taken a look at our society today knows

that we're going through profound change. We know that if we have an economic

future, it's going to depend more and more and more on skills, on knowledge.

When we cut back on education today, we are saying to our daughters and our

sons and our grandchildren: "We're going to rob you of your economic

future." How can any of us stand in this House with any pride and go along

with policies and priorities that are going to rob the future citizens of their

proper share of the resources and the economy of this province? We can't.

The priority of this government is neanderthal. It's not forward

thinking; it's getting by. It's putting out one brush fire after

another, instead of saying to the school boards and the teachers:

"Can't we sit down and discuss with some sense of

[ Page

4973 ]

realism what the problems are?" And you can't do that without sitting

down with the industrial sector of this society and saying: "What do you

project for the future?" If ever there was a need to spend money and apply

our brains and our thinking to education, it's now, because without that

we have no economic future.

That's the dilemma we're facing. Not to do it is to shirk our responsibility

as legislators. It's to shirk the responsibility that's been given to

us by the electors of this province. That's what it's doing: for short-term

political gain, long-term social and economic pain. That's what we're

dealing with in this bill, Mr. Speaker.

What are we going to do with the school district that says: "Okay,

we're going to have a referendum." We all know there's not enough room

to put a referendum in place in time for the upcoming year. It's just

impossible. We're saying to the school districts that we are going to

put in planned failure for them. We're not giving them enough time to

put all the facts in front of the voters before there's a referendum.

If a referendum is going to be used at any time, it should be done when

the other elections are going on in November so there is no added cost.

All it means is another line on the ballot. But to have another

referendum is going to cost a lot of money.

What if that referendum fails? You have a school district with a

failed referendum and the cost of running the election or the

referendum will come out of the budget, which will mean that there will

be less money in the school district in the coming year,

This bill is ridiculous. It does cause the dilemma: do we say to the children

in the richer school districts: "We're not going to allow your parents,

because they are a little better off, to supply you with education they can

afford, because it would mean that the school children in the poorer districts

cannot." I see the dilemma. I see in front of me a bill that is unworkable

in the first place, so in a great many ways that ends my dilemma. I think I would

be irresponsible to vote for this bill knowing full well that it cannot work,

that it's impossible to implement. It's asking the impossible of school

districts.

What this bill says in another way is that we have no faith in the school trustees

who have been elected at the local level. The minister has said: "Toe the

line or we'll take you over. We the centralized government know best."

Mr. Speaker, where's the democracy if you don't allow locally elected

bodies to set their budgets and then at election time have the electors come

up and say: "We agree with you; we think you've done a good job; we're

going to elect you again," or "we think you've done a lousy job,

and we're going to throw you out and replace you." That's the kind

of tests we go through in this House to arrive in this parliament. That's

the parliamentary test.

Why are we so afraid to let school trustees practise the responsible practice

of making their own decisions and then going to the electors and saying: "Do

you agree or disagree?" What's wrong with that. I don't think there's

anything wrong with that. But we're taking away that option for school districts

and school trustees, because we're saying to them: "We don't have

any trust in you as trustees. And we're saying to the people who elect them:

"We don't trust your judgement." They're the same people who

elected us.

Is there anyone here who doesn't trust the judgement of those electors

in their own district? Oh, no. Then we say: "My, my, aren't they smart?

They elected me." But, boy, when they elect someone else we say: "Aren't

they stupid?"

I think we have to re-examine a number of things in the school financial formula.

I think we have to examine whether the property tax is the correct tax to pay

for education. We may have to look at income tax, corporate tax; there are all

sorts of things we have to examine. We shouldn't be afraid to speak about

it; we shouldn't be afraid to take a look at it. We shouldn't be afraid

to sit down with our neighbours and our fellow citizens and discuss anything

in the world. We should not be afraid to say: "Well, we can't discuss

it. Because even to discuss it might set a precedent." We have to be adventuresome.

I believe it was Nietzsche who said: "You're not living unless you're

living dangerously." We have to live dangerously: we have to take risks

or we're not fulfilling our duties as citizens in a democratic system.

[3:15]

I don't believe there is a member in this House who believes this is

a good piece of legislation. I would like to remind this Legislature —

although it might be assumed to be presumptuous, but I would like to do

it anyway — that there's only one cheek in the British parliamentary

system against the tyranny of the majority, and that's the integrity of

the private member. The government represents the majority in the

British parliamentary system. Private members, regardless of party,

represent the minority. It's only us as private members in the British

Parliamentary system that can say to the majority: "We represent the

minority, and the integrity of the individual within the British

parliamentary system is that that's our job, and we'll carry it out."

There's only one cheek. In the American system it's a built-in check

within their system, but in our system there is only one check and that

is the honour of the private member, regardless of whether that member

is elected in the same party as the government or not.

We know this bill is a sham. Every private member here knows it, and every

private member who votes for it is shirking their responsibility as a member

of this Legislature. If we do that, how can we respect ourselves, and if we

don't respect ourselves, how can we expect the people of this province to

respect body politics or to respect this parliament? We can't. We have no

option as private members but to defeat this piece of legislation, because we

know it's not workable. To vote for it would be to vote against our own

consciences as individuals.

We have a duty, as private members, to say to this government: "We will

not vote for an unworkable bill. We will not vote for a government piece of

legislation that is not futuristic, that doesn't take into account that

our future depends on education socially and economically. We, as private members,

regardless of party, have had enough, and we refuse, on political grounds, to

support it. Instead we demand in integrity and honour that the minority be protected

against the majority, as it is laid out in the roots of the British parliamentary

system." It's our duty. If there's any private member in this House

who agrees that this bill is unworkable, that it is not a bill that will solve

problems in the education system but will add to them, then we all know what

our duty is. But that is something for each and every member's conscience

in this Legislature.

1 conclude by saying that we can't look at each other and know

whether we're lying when we stand to vote, but each and every member in

this House knows within himself or herself whether they're standing in

shame or in honour. If we're going to turn respect for this House back

into a reality — if we're going to say to the people of this province:

[ Page 4974 ]

"Respect us as politicians" — then now is the time. Not only on this

piece of legislation, but from now on, we have to say that we are going to vote

our consciences as individuals. We're not going to pay so much attention

to the mass party complex that we're all part of. We are going to do our

duty as individuals. We're going to be able to say to ourselves: "My

conscience is satisfied; therefore I've done my part to bring respect for

parliament and respect for politics back into being."

If we do that — if we, as individual members, private members —

defeat this piece of legislation, we can all walk out of here with

heads high. Even government members, because they surely believe in the

British parliamentary system and the individual conscience of each

member as much as anybody else. It would be no shame. It wouldn't mean

the government would have to resign. It would just mean that a piece of

government legislation was defeated in the House because the private

members of this House said: "We are the protection of the minority

against the tyranny of the majority."

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my compliments to the former

speaker for his eloquent analysis of the issue. Although I may not be

quite as skilled or as eloquent, I felt it was my responsibility also

to get up and speak strongly against this bill. As a former

professional educator before I entered this assembly, I have many grave

concerns about the direction that this bill demonstrates the government

is taking.

I come from an area that is not particularly rich. The eastern part

of my constituency goes into the Kootenay area — the

Burton-Edgewood-Fauquier forestry district — and with upwards of 50

percent unemployment in that particular area, it would be next to

impossible for those communities to raise in a referendum the funds

necessary to carry forward a first-rate educational program in the

event of government underfunding.

The argument that this bill creates a three-tiered system, I think,

is justifiable. The richer districts with large tax bases certainly

could afford to pump the extra money in through referenda,

whereas

districts such as mine and others would not be able to afford this.

This in effect is creating large-scale inequalities in the delivery of

sound education throughout the province of British Columbia.

I'd also like to comment on an earlier statement that was made by

the member for Prince Rupert in his justifiable analysis of the

expenditures that have taken place in the last little while with regard

to other ministries. Where did the money come from for the $375 million

expenditure on the Coquihalla Highway? If that money is available for

highway construction, is it not available, through general revenue, to

replace some of the funding shortages that we see throughout British

Columbia's education system?

There was a by-election a little while ago in Okanagan North; and

somewhere, somehow, in the midst of that election, one week before the

day of the election, this government found over $11 million to improve

Highway 97 north of Vernon. I welcomed that decision. It was long

overdue. But it makes me ask: where did the money come from? If it's

available for those projects, then surely it's also available to build

highways to higher education in this province.

With all due respect, and in the spirit of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to suggest to the minister that the principle behind this bill in fact

belies the hidden agenda. I believe that hidden agenda involves the abrogation

of responsibility for adequate funding of education in this province. It amounts

to an unfair levy of financial responsibility on school districts and local

taxpayers.

What really concerns me is that it's just a foot in the door. It's

just the opening to a process of eventual privatization of the education system

in this province. That's what truly worries me. The government is side-stepping

its responsibility to supply first-class education in the province of British

Columbia.

Another question that this bill raises is that it does not confer more financial

autonomy on the local districts. It simply makes public whipping boys of local

school boards throughout British Columbia and deflects the present attack from

the true culprit here, which is fiscal mismanagement of the education process

in British Columbia. Much like the paper that has just come out, "Let's

Talk About Schools, " it's changing the agenda and deflecting the public

outrage that is now prevalent throughout the province.

This bill does not resolve the key issue, which is the funding

shortage. The question is: whose responsibility is it to pay for and

supply education in the province of British Columbia? I firmly believe

that that is a primary responsibility of any democratically elected

government.

In 1983, throughout Canada, provincial governments spent about 5 percent of

their gross provincial product on education. The government of British Columbia

spent only 3.4 percent. That's significantly below the average for other

provinces throughout Canada. As a result, school board services have been cut

up to 26 percent in the 1985-86 year, compared to 1982, when you take into consideration

the inflation factor. College services, which are also under the direction of

this ministry, will have effectively been cut 43 percent by 1988 compared to

the 1982-83 level, considering inflation. These are significant, draconian reductions

in the level of educational funding. This bill does not resolve that conflict.

Relative to personal income, British Columbia spends less on education than

any other province. This bill does not resolve those concerns. In fact, it intensifies

them. Forcing local school boards to generate sufficient funds, when they do

not have the capacity to do so with the tax base available, will only throttle

further attempts at maintaining adequate funding levels.

Responsibility for financing public education is a priority concern of me and

my colleagues, and should be a priority concern for this government. British

Columbia can well afford to deliver a first-class education, if we consider

restructuring some of the priorities that have been set in the past few years.

Much has been said about the beloved megaprojects: northeast coal, rapid transit,

Expo 86 — all good and worthwhile projects. We do not argue that. What we do

argue is that in a time of financial crisis in the province of British Columbia

the money that has gone into these projects has not generated the economic activity

needed, and could have better been spent delivering the quality of education

that has been requested by our citizens. As a result, our children are being

punished by this government. Funding shortfalls of up to 25 percent are denying

our children the right to a first-class education. This minister's bill

is an absolute abrogation of responsibility in this respect, and I cannot support

it on that basis.

I want to mention that the people in the province of British Columbia have clearly had enough in terms of the direction

[ Page

4975 ]

that this minister and this government have taken. They are opposed to any

further cuts in education programming. They are concerned that the chronic underfunding

of education will eventually be its ruination. It will in turn ruin our ability

to train young people to compete in an increasingly tough job market during

tough economic times. If we do not reassess our directions and our priorities,

we will ruin the ability of our young people to meet the challenge of the future

in a society of rapid technological change.

I mentioned that the people in the province of British Columbia have demonstrated

their concern. We can see that the traditionally conservative boards have said

to the minister: "Enough is enough. We have to stand up and be counted.

We can no longer take it on the chin for the present mismanagement of the

system." We see it in the personal letters that I have received from constituents

throughout Okanagan North, particularly in the Kootenays, in the Arrow Lakes

School District, which Tuns into Okanagan North. People are genuinely concerned

that students in that area will not receive the educational quality they deserve.

What has been the response? It was stated at a meeting up there not long ago:

"Well, that's what you get for living in this area." Shameful!

[3:30]

Demonstrations of students right out here on the steps of the Legislature

show the response to what is happening in the education system at this time

— hundreds of students were out on the steps today; I counted about 400. They

were calling for an end to the strangulation of the education system.

Any government that is listening to the people of this province and has the

political smarts.... I know that any good politician can hear a vote drop

in a ballot box from over a mile off. If they're listening to the people

of this province, they'll take heed. It's my concern that they are not being

listened to. The people are sending this government a clear message. They did

it in the by-election in Okanagan North, and they will do it again if this government

does not change its direction. We cannot afford to compromise our future by

compromising the educational future of our young people in this province. You

must stop denying the right of young people to pursue a first-class education

in the province. This bill does nothing to address those concerns.

The passage of this bill by the members of this House will

demonstrate that this government continues to ignore the people of the

province of British Columbia and continues to carry on in its narrow,

short-sighted approach to solving the problems facing us today.

I'd like to summarize with a statement that I saw on one of the signs out

on the steps of the Legislature, which simply said — and I want you to listen

carefully: "If you think education is expensive, then you should try ignorance."

I cannot support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: When we talk about the cost of education, it has to include

the quality of education. Any discussion on the cost or financing of education

has to also consider what we're trying to achieve. What is education all

about? What are the objectives? Is education a right of every person, no matter

where they live in British Columbia? Do we believe in equal opportunity in education?

We have to ask ourselves those questions when we consider how we are going to

pay for it. We have to come up with some answers.

We have to decide what education should achieve. Should it be simply the basics

— the three Rs — today in the twentieth century with the technological society

that we live in? A society that is, because of its very technological advancement,

requiring less and less person-hours from the labour force; a society where

we are having more and more leisure time to use. If society is going to survive

in that situation, we must ensure that that time is used selectively.

I seem to have a bad effect on ministers. Whenever I get up to

speak. they leave. This is the second time this session already. You're

excused, Mr. Minister.

As I was saying, with the developments in the technological arena and the greater

amount of leisure time that people are facing, we must be sure that in our educational

system we include lifestyle programs, so that people facing shorter work weeks

and shorter work years have the broadened sphere of interest to enable them

to fully participate and to utilize that spare time, not just in their own best

interests, but in the best interests of society generally.

So, Mr. Speaker. I submit to you that we have to look at the quality

of education. Back in 1982, I think it was, when this whole business of

curtailment of educational funding was getting underway, I had occasion

to meet with the minister in his office with some of my constituents

concerned about busing — buses that had been taken off or were going to

be charged for, because there just wasn't enough money. At that time,

he had been doing a review of the school boards and their

administrative costs, and so on, and evaluating them as to which ones

had too much fat. He pointed out that Cowichan was an extremely

efficient school district. I think it ranked about fourth out of the 75

in its degree of efficiency and lack of top-heavy administration. So

I'm not talking about a district.... I think it's first now, as a

matter of fact. By the minister's own words, he admitted that this was

a well-run district.

I want to just go through with you, Mr. Speaker, what has happened in that

district over the last two or three years. In February, 1982, the school board

had completed and submitted its budget. A lot of work went into preparing that

budget. It was prepared on the same basis as previous years. It was based on

the kinds of programs they had had, with a very low amount of the funding going

for administration. It was a well-rounded program that was providing equality

of access to all the children in the Cowichan school district in a very broad

range of classes.

That was in February. In March, the school board was told to cut

$413,500 from their budget. In April, we had the royal assent to the

Interim Finance Act, which we're now attempting to amend and in which

the provincial government got the power to set the district budget

limits.

At the same time, or just thereabouts, there was a move by the government which

confiscated 37 percent of the tax base around the province — confiscated it

from the access of the local school boards, directly into the provincial coffers.

That was when they took the industrial and commercial tax base unto themselves.

It was 37 percent province-wide; in my own constituency, it was over 41 percent

in Cowichan and much closer to 42 percent of the tax base that simply disappeared

in the Lake Cowichan School District. So here was a school board faced with

the situation of not only having their tax base slashed drastically, but being

told that the government was going to tell them how much they could spend.

[ Page 4976 ]

In June 1982 the primary swim program was cut. In a province like

British Columbia, where we have so much water access, and in a district

like Cowichan, which has lots of salt water, lots of fresh water and

lots of rivers, is it not important that those children learn to swim?

Well, the program was cut. Five instructors were laid off. The primary

consultant's position was cut.

In August 1982 the board was told they had to submit a third budget.

This time they had to cut by $441,500. We're still all in the same

school year. In September they were told they had to close the schools,

or at least that the teachers had to have six days off without pay,

which meant that they had to cut back on their school year, or somehow

reduce their budget by six days per teacher. In October the ministry

advised the school board that there would be no allowance for

inflation. I'm still in 1982.

Then I think we got to the real crux of the thing. In October 1982 the minister

announced what his real intention was: to set the pupil-teacher ratio at a base

rate of 19.14. In a district like Cowichan, where we had concentrated on classroom

teachers rather than on administration, and where we were really involved in

getting that close relationship, we had a fairly low PTR — I think it was 17.

If we're going to work to 19.14, it's a drastic change.

In November the school board prepared its 1983 budget. They closed the school

for three days at Christmas to make up the six days' loss. Then in September

1983 they again had to reduce the budget that they had submitted earlier, this

time by almost $350,000. This meant the closure of one school. They cut out

their camping program. They cut out their itinerant music program. Then, when

they did all that, the minister announced a new fiscal framework, where tax

spending and allocation of funds became a provincial responsibility.

In October we had the grade 12 exam policy announced. Cowichan found

they had to close another school. This was at the point where we were

having problems with the buses. They were being charged $9 per month

for transporting the children.

Another five teachers were dropped at Christmas time, and then another seven

in June 1984. In November 1984, three days before the issuing of the layoff

notices, the board received from the ministry a new budget informing them that

they must cut from the January-June budget a further $573,000-plus. They tried

the Burns plan and that was turned down. So nine more teachers were laid off.

Now I've talked about teacher layoffs, a great many of them. They had to

lay off nine more as a result of the latest decision at the first of this year.

You might think: nine teachers, what does that amount to? It's very interesting:

I have in my hand here a letter sent by the principals in the Cowichan School

District to the board of trustees saying to them exactly what this means in

the classroom and in the various schools. This is just a layoff of nine teachers

at this point, after all these other things have been going on, so you can imagine

the kind of upheaval that has been occurring in those classrooms year after

year and month after month, when for the layoff of nine teachers you have these

things happening. In the Cowichan Senior Secondary there was only one position

lost. But that meant that seven teachers have program changes, four classes

go up to 35 students, and there are 240 students affected by that change. That's

just for the layoff of one teacher at Cowichan Senior Secondary. Chemainus Secondary:

one position has been lost. There they had to make a choice of either wrecking

their learning assistance program or creating havoc in the science classes.

Mount Prevost Junior Secondary: one teacher is gone, with similar results. George

Bonner Junior Secondary: the same thing — a position has been lost, with drastic

results.

[3:45]

Then we get to the elementaries. In Alexander School there was one learning

assistant position to be lost. That was to be split between two staff members.

Primary classes have gone up to close to 30 pupils. Special-needs students such

as native students, the transient population and those from split families create

an intolerable situation in classes of that size.

At the Cowichan Station School, first- and second-year pupils are 29

to a grade. Second- and third-year pupils are 30 to a grade. All

classes but two have to be realigned, and the third-year class had two

teachers due to the realignment. That's hard on young children just

beginning school. The teacher becomes a role model, and to have those

kinds of changes occurring in the first or second year of education is

very difficult for those students. That's just one position lost, and

the total number of students affected is 75. In Crofton, with one

position, we have all split grades, and the lowest class size is 27.

The total number of students affected is 80.

All of these things are occurring, Mr. Minister, as the result of the need

to lay off nine teachers. This is the kind of disruption that is caused in what,

by your own words — as I pointed out earlier, when you were out of the chamber

— is one of the best administered school districts in the whole province.

In Drinkwater two temporary teachers have been burnped, and there will be some

classes there — and this again is an elementary school — with three teachers.

A student in an elementary school — grades one, two and three — with three teachers

in one year.... There has been a disruption of 45 pupils. One teacher is

gone from Maple Bay, and 104 out of the total 155 students in that particular

school have been affected by that. They will either have a new teacher or will

have to go into larger classes during the year. The pupil-teacher ratio has

gone up to 27.

Mill Bay. The class sizes there, as the result of the loss of a

teacher, have gone to 27, and in the grade 3 class, which is an open

class, they have 58 students in one open area, with two teachers.

That's an impossible learning.... My next door neighbour's son is

in that class. He is a bright little boy who has been doing very well

at school, and she is quite concerned about what's happening as a

result of this. If we turn that little boy off his interest in

education and his desire to learn, the cost to society down the road

and the human cost to him are going to be immeasurable.

At Maple Bay School there are 123 students who will have new teachers. Again

we have open areas there, and split grades. Then we come to the schools like

Cedar Lodge and Charles Hoey, where we have the children with learning disabilities

— some of them extremely emotionally disturbed. At Cedar Lodge, four out of

five staff members received termination notices. At Charles Hoey, two-thirds

of the staff received termination notices.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MRS. WALLACE: It's just a disgrace. That's what happened as a

result of what that minister has done over the past two or three years.

He has taken the tax base away and has left only the residential tax

base available to the local school districts. He has reduced and

curtailed the amount of moneys

[ Page

4977 ]

available from the province, down to the point where education can scarcely

be called education any more in this province,

AN HON. MEMBER: He makes Vander Zalm look good.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right — very good.

If he's done that to a well-run, well-administered school district, goodness

knows what kind of reductions have had to be made in other school districts,

Now he comes to us and says.... When he introduced the bill he said: "I've

proved I'm listening." He's going to let the school boards raise

more money through taxation, if they have a referendum.

In Cowichan, in the days when we had referenda, they never passed. The local

taxpayer — and you people art all so fond of saying it on that side of the House

— can only afford so much at the local level. The government is responsible

for administering the provincially collected taxes, the general revenue. They

have seen fit to use it for everything except education.

It takes me back a great many years to the days of the Columbia River Treaty,

when we sold the Columbia downstream. We were scrounging in every possible way,

through cuts in education spending and health spending, to try to recoup some

of those moneys. Now we have a government that has splurged its money on projects

that should have had a far lower priority — certainly some of the spending is

questionable — and we are faced with this situation where they're not loosening

the purse-strings.

They are going to have referenda if we are to improve the standard and quality

of education in the school districts. In the first place it's going to be

impossible to get those referenda through. In the second place it's instituting

something that could be termed representation without taxation, inasmuch as

the commercial and industrial interests on a school board have the right to

vote on whether residential taxpayers will pay the tax. If there are enough

of them, maybe they will impose that tax on the residential people. That is

an injustice in this bill. It's an injustice to have that sort of referendum

provision in a bill. As has been said before, there will be many school districts

that will not be able to pass the referendum. That means that those poorer districts

which do not feel prepared to do this, or who have a lower proportion of residential

property, will have a different kind of educational system than do areas that

are highly populated with well-to-do homes. I think of West Vancouver as an

example; you could probably get a referendum through West Vancouver.

We have two classes of people in British Columbia. We have those who are entitled

to a good education, if they can afford it, and we have those who are not.

We will find that the parents of children in areas that are not able to get

a referendum passed, or who do not propose to present it because they realize

it's farcical.... We will find that the parents who can afford it will

be putting their children into the private school system, which will reduce

enrolment in the public school system and again reduce the funding from the

provincial government. It's interesting to note that for every student who

goes into the private system, it costs the minister 30 cents on the dollar,

as compared to the student who is in the public school system.

It seems to me that that may be the minister's whole intent with these

referenda. He wants to create a two-class educational system in which there

will be those who can afford to have an adequate education, have access to university

and be able to continue with a post-secondary education, and those who will

not be able to have that kind of opportunity. Those who are poor will be poorly

educated year after continuing year. It's a two-class system. That's

what this referendum is all about — that's what this bill is all about.

It's based on a situation that that minister has created which is untenable

and intolerable, and it will simply exaggerate the differences that are already

there and continue to push us down the road to a system where only those who

can afford it will be able to have an adequate and quality education.

[4:00]

MR. MITCHELL: Earlier on, when we started this debate, my colleague

said that he was happy to enter this debate — I want to go on record right

now, Mr. Speaker, that I am extremely disappointed that in 1985 we will be returning

to referendums in education.

[Mr, Pelton in the chair.]

I say, as one MLA out of 57, that if we are going to turn the clock back to

an improper and unfunded educational system that depends on referendums, then

at this time in our history each one of us individually should be ashamed. I

say that, Mr. Speaker, because when I hesitated for a few seconds to rise, I

was expecting one of the government members to rise in his place and defend

this piece of legislation. I think each of us knows that really none of the

private members can get up and defend the turn-back of education funding to

what we're doing today.

I was looking forward to the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) rising in

his place, because I was sincerely hoping that he would state what he said back

on March 8, 1973. Mr. Speaker, if you would like to go back into our Hansard

you can read what our hon. Minister of Highways stated about referendums. He's

a very sincere person, and he was speaking from the heart. I'd just like

to read it into the record. He was talking about elementary schools in rural

areas. "Funding is most inadequate. In a lot of cases they haven't

any libraries. They have no activity rooms and no proper playgrounds."

School boards cannot plan programs from year to year if implementation depends

on going back to the voters for funds this province's fiscal framework fails

to provide.

He was saying that every time they wanted any capital projects, they

had to go back to referendums. He was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the

rural areas and those areas that do not have a large tax base will not

have the same education as those that are from the rich residential

cities in the core areas.

I find, Mr. Speaker, as an ex-serviceman and as a Canadian and as a British

Columbian, that we are treating any child in any part of this province any different

than we would teach children in other areas. In this whole history of education

cutbacks that have taken place since 1982, we find they have been very systematic

and very deceptive.

I remember when the Minister of Education, who is now our Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Smith), when one particular school district in my riding settled the

wage negotiations with their teachers, wrote a letter and complimented both

parties for very positive and constructive negotiations. But then he was replaced

by Mr. Bill Vander Zalm, and the first thing he did was start to cut back on

education, cut back on the funds based on the years prior to the agreement that

his predecessor had complimented the two groups for negotiating.

[ Page 4978 ]

But the interesting part about that is that in 1982, when he brought

in his first restraint budget on education, he had an 18-month

grandfather clause. It was only going to be for a short period. But

then we got into 1983 and that minister was no longer with us. So the

new Minister of Education brought in another bill, which removed the

18-month grandfather clause that restraint would end, because the

election was all over. But he wrote into the new restraint program a

grandfather clause that would run out in 1986. When we read that

particular section, each one of us knew that it was put in there

because somewhere between 1985 and 1986 there would be an election. At

that time they could say: "Now don't worry; we have written the change

into the legislation, and it will all be finished. We'll go back to

some solid education funding. We will change it" — to fit whatever

particular plank they had in the program for that election. We realized

it was very cynical, but we accepted it.

But what happens is that we keep changing the goal posts from year to year.

We talk about cutbacks, and that 1986 is going to be the final cutback, and

that it's going to amount to something like 25 percent of what we were enjoying

in 1982. But we have not accepted that we are in a new world. We're in a

world of new technology; we're in a world where we need different studies.

As many have said in the job market, you can nearly predict that a job that

you have today will change so much that five or seven years down the line it

will either no longer exist, or that the retraining needed to keep up with the

technology will have to already be in place.

Take any worker in any workplace; if you are going to have to

retrain him, whether in new technology or in a new job, he must have a

solid base in general education — not necessarily just academic

education, but general education. What is happening in our school

system today is that we are slowly cutting out the support for those

who are slow learners. We are squeezing out the funds that were going

to handicapped students. We're cutting them back....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. MITCHELL: Although the handicapped or the slow learners are being

provided for to a certain extent, the others must have larger and larger classes

to fall under the the minister's guidelines saying that we must go back

to the class sizes — the teacher/pupil ratio — of 1972.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read the guidelines? Have you read the service levels?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I have read the service levels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You have not.

MR. MITCHELL: Not only have I read the service levels of your proposed

cutbacks to the 1972 teacher/pupil ratios, but I've also toured many of

the schools that were designed for smaller classes. Those classrooms were not

designed for the 35-, 40- and 45-pupil classes. The designers had faith that

the Education ministry was not going to go back to pre-Depression days; they

built schools that were cost-efficient in that time. Those were schools that

could be heated economically for the sizes of class that were in place before

this minister again moved the planning goal posts. All the planning and all

the investment that has taken place over the last ten years has been made inadequate

or redundant. I know that it's easy for us in this very spacious building

— with our 57 people in here when we're crowded — to think that there's

lots of space. But when you look into a classroom in my riding, which has up

to 38 and 40 pupils — and that is only the beginning — jammed into the corners

and at each end....

You can read the statistics today and they'll change tomorrow. But

the real world is out there in those schools. The real world is where

you're jamming more kids into smaller classrooms, and you are putting a

larger burden on those teachers who must took after them. Not only

that, but you have an overflow. We are getting classes now that are not

only full, but they have grades 4 and 5, or 5 and 6 together. They have

mixed classes. Because there is not enough room in some areas, they are

cutting down classroom space.

We'll have move and more dropouts in our education system. I was a student

who went through the 40 and 45 size classes in my day. As I said before, and

I'm going to repeat it again, the big dropouts came in grade 8, and the

next third left school in grade 10. This is what is going to happen. It's

predicted by all those who are involved in education: if the students are not

getting proper help, if you're not helping those who are not academically

bright, they are going to be frustrated and are going to drop out of school.

What's going to happen, Mr. Speaker? You are going to have these people

out looking for work, and with the present economy they are not going to be

able to get a job, because they don't have the academic requirements of

many personnel managers.

But the worst

part is not this year or next year. Two or three years

down the road, once the economy gets rolling again and we get closer to

full employment in our communities and the new technology comes along,

you have to retrain the workers. Those out in the workplace aren't

going to have the basic education that is needed, and they are going to

have more frustrations.

So not only are you going to frustrate those who are not the academic elite

at the school level, but down the road you are going to build another time-bomb

that will go off. It's not me who says this; people in the minister's

own ministry are predicting this. School trustees and people in the industry

are all making this prediction. Education is so important, and each one of us

must master it. We must provide for the students of today.

[4:15]

When you look at it from an economic point of view.... This is what

this session should be zeroing in on: creating jobs and putting people

to work. All economists in all universities have stated time and time

again that when you look at a dollar invested into education, it has a

spinoff in creating other jobs — six to eight in the ripple effect

through the community.

When you compare that with megaprojects or defence spending, which

only has a two to one ripple effect in the community.... If you are

going to look at providing more jobs, we must look at education,

vocational training and retraining for new technology, because this is

not only needed for our communities but also to create the jobs that

are needed out there. Every time we cut another school teacher or

another janitor or we don't repair the school grounds, we're losing one

and two and three and four more jobs out on the open market. If we are

going to get employment up, we have to stop what is happening right

now. The economy is going down because people are not spending. They're

not taking a chance; they're not going on holidays. They are investing

[ Page

4979 ]

their money in bonds, because they have a fear of unemployment. This type of

legislation is just adding to it.

It's interesting when you look at the speeches that were made by the Minister

of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). He was opposed to referenda in 1973. There is

another speech made by the Premier on November 14, 1974. He talked about assessments

and how the cost of education should be divided between the homeowner and industry.

At that time he stated that 8 percent of school taxes should come from the homeowner

and 92 percent from the commercial and industrial base. I believe he said then

that the property tax on industry should be 15 times more than on homeowners.

I'm surprised that the Premier is not up repeating those statements that

he made in 1974. Now he's saying that.... I'm not saying that he's

saying it. Maybe he lost the payment in caucus or in cabinet. The minister is

saying that any increase in education funding must be 100 percent from the homeowners'

tax base. I say it's wrong.

I feel sorry for the present Minister of Education, because he is carrying

the can for the whole history of Social Credit government mismanagement: the

pre-'72 Social Credit governments, and especially the Social Credit governments

in 1976 until this date.

HON. MR . HEINRICH: No change in 1974 or 1975, eh?

MR. MITCHELL: Only changes to the good, only improvement. As

my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat said, Cowichan-Malahat was the start

of the debt of this province. When British Columbia, under the previous

Social Credit government, sold the downstream benefits of the Columbia

River to the Americans for $650 million....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On a point of order, Mr, Speaker. I always enjoy

listening to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, but I'm just wondering

if perhaps we could get to Bill 48 and away from the Columbia River Treaty.

As much as he may like it and find it quite interesting, I'm having a difficult

time because I don't know if you would permit me to respond to those issues,

sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you. Mr. Minister. I've been listening very

carefully. I heard the word "referendum" on a number of occasions,

but I don't think there was one involved with the Columbia program. I would

ask the member if he would kindly stick to the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I was just working up to the referendum, Mr. Speaker.

I am just laying the groundwork of why we're having this referendum today.

The debt of mismanagement by the Social Credit government was created by selling

that power and then spending nearly $3 billion to replace the power that they

gave away. It's caused by the high taxes and the high interest that we're

paying on the debt of Hydro, the high cost of servicing the debt of northeast

coal, the high cost of Expo, the ALRT. The high cost of servicing that debt

is the reason why this minister does not have any money to provide the needed

education for the province of British Columbia. That is why I was saying that

it all started back in 1966, 1967.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Can you read block letters'?

MR. MITCHELL: No, I can't read that. Mr. Speaker. If the minister

has any additional notes that I could work on, would he send them over?

I would be more than happy to incorporate them into my talk.

We have before us a bill that is calling for referenda....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MITCHELL: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the cooperation that we are

having today. The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) tells me that I've

got a phone call from Sooke. I really enjoy that cooperation. I know it's

positive. I know he has nothing but my best interests in mind, but what he is

afraid to realize.... He's not getting up and protecting the mismanagement

of this government, and why we have to have a referendum for school costs. He's

not defending the debts of this government that have caused the shortage of

money. He's not making any effort: he just wants to deflect it, because

he's afraid to look at the whole picture of British Columbia, not some narrow

little bill that is going to add more and more taxes to the homeowner and going

to deny more and more kids a fair and proper education. I know the minister

realizes that, because he is an ordinary person and he understands it. I know

he is packing the problem for his government. As a good lawyer, he's defending

it; lawyers can defend all kinds of cases. He's doing an excellent job on

it. He knows he's not competent. He's not happy with it. He is a lawyer.

He came through the educational system and he learned all the techniques of

taking it away and not letting people zero in on a whole problem.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If we're going to have referenda, why didn't we have a referendum on

the $1.6 billion that is poured into northeast coal? Why didn't we

have a referendum on the ALRT and how much it was going to cost per ride? One

of your colleagues across the floor had the decimal point in the wrong spot.

Instead of $2.70 a ride, it turned out to be $27.00 and some-odd cents a ride.

All the way along we've got half information or misinformation, but we've

never had referenda to approve it.

But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, there's going to be a referendum in

the next election. The debt in this province has increased from $4 billion in

1976 to $14 billion under this present Social Credit administration. That referendum

will be there at the next election. I know what the results are going to be.

In fact. I think a lot of people in this House know the results, because the

public have had enough. The people in British Columbia do believe that the future

leaders of this province must have the broadest and the best education opportunities

that are available. We cannot afford to have our leaders, who are going to make

sure that this world does not blow up.... We cannot continue with uncontrolled

debt or with 1.5 million people unemployed — 200-and-some-odd thousand in this

province.

We must have education that is not restricted solely to those who

are rich enough to afford it or to those who are academically elite who

can win and earn their education because of God-given brains that they

were lucky enough to have. We must have an education program that is

going to give a broad education to every student. We cannot afford to

have the dropouts in grade 8; we cannot afford to have

[ Page 4980 ]

dropouts in grade 10. We cannot afford to have

people suffering because of some fear that if they get a good education

it's going to break the homeowner on his next year's taxes.

Education is as important as health. I know that this government,

when they thought they had an opening to raise more money for health,

added a surtax on our income tax to take in twice as much money as the

predicted shortage of money needed for health.

[4:30]

We must change our approach. If the government is going to continue to take

all the industrial and commercial tax base for their general revenues, if they

are going to continue to add surtaxes onto the income tax for health....

I say that education is every bit as important as health. If the income tax

is a new system that we must look at, it must be fair and it must be fairly

based on income, not on how many children you have, like your Health Act. The

surtax on your health was based on the size of the family, which is wrong. A

tax on income should be based not on how many children you have, or on how many

you don't have, but should be based on income. And if there is more money

needed, it should be raised properly, democratically, up front. We should not

allow this legislation to pass that is going to play one school district off

against another. It will create unfair education standards or opportunities.

I, like all my colleagues on this side of the House, will be voting against

this legislation. It's wrong, it's unfair and it's undemocratic.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this bill has more to do with

politics than it has to do with education. It's a bill which attempts

to bail out the Minister of Education from a very difficult position in

which he finds himself in this province, as well as to bail out the

government in the face of all the criticism that it has been facing on

the issue of education in the last little while.

Mr. Speaker, we have this bill before us because the finances of the province

are not there, largely because of the approach taken by government in this downturn,

in this time of recession, an approach which has been totally inadequate, has

been a total failure and has resulted in such a shortage in funds in this province

that the government is still borrowing $60 million a week just to stay afloat.

As a result of this mismanagement, Mr. Speaker, the government attempted to

do two or three things. It tried other bail-out programs. First of all, it adopted

the very popular word "restraint" and felt that the people of the

province would accept massive cuts in education in the name of restraint. They

found that didn't work, so the minister then embarked upon a program of

visiting around the province, a real public relations effort on the part of

the Minister of Education. But that didn't work either. The people of the

province were still objecting to the massive cuts in education and to the effects

those cuts were having on the students in the schools.

They tried another tack, Mr. Speaker: they introduced a paper called "Let's

Talk About Schools," in the hope that that would divert the anger and

the frustration and the feelings of hostility of the people of the province

towards this government on education issues. They thought to deflect those feelings

by introducing a paper so that people could then get involved in discussing

other educational issues, issues other than the massive cuts and the disruption

that was taking place.

While they were using these various tactics, Mr. Speaker, they were

able to centralize authority, as this government, of course, has been

attempting to do in nearly every front in this province. They denied

the school boards the right to set budgets. They ensured that the

school boards would have virtually no authority over education. They

cut revenues drastically and began a process which led only to the

firing of teachers.

Mr. Speaker, that was the political agenda. It was announced by

government that they would have to increase the pupil-teacher ratio,

and the only way you do that is to fire teachers. That was the

political agenda. Centralization was also the political agenda. The

diversionary tactics used by the minister and the government — and this

is yet another diversionary tactic — have not been effective, nor will

this one be effective, because turning to a referendum at this stage is

not going to solve the very deep, serious problems that currently exist

in our school system.

Mr. Speaker, education has never been a priority with Social Credit.

One of the areas that they were most willing to cut, one of the areas

that was the first to be affected when the revenues of the province

dropped so drastically, was education. That is so typical of the

attitude of Social Credit to education ever since I can remember. In

1972, when that previous Social Credit government was finally defeated,

education was one of the major reasons.

But there is no clearer demonstration of what I am saying today than the attempt

made by School District 71 to ensure that the level of education was retained

as much as possible and to ensure that there was not the disruption that took

place in early February in that school district.

The secretary-treasurer of School District 71, Bill Burns, came up with an

innovative program to ensure that students would not have to be relocated, put

into new classes, taken out of some classes or added to others; that grades

would not have to be put together and teachers fired. They came up with a plan

that would ensure that disruption did not happen in the middle of the school

year. Mr. Burns, through the Burns plan, devised a system which would ensure

that the government would not have to pay out more money, which would ensure

that the disruption in our school district did not take place, because he devised

a plan whereby the teachers would be paid over a 12-month period rather than

on the current ten-month basis.

When the members of the school board of School District 71 met with the education

officials, they were told that this plan did not fit the political agenda. We

all know what that political agenda is: it is to fire teachers in order to raise

that pupil-teacher ratio. Here we had a chance for the Minister of Education

to demonstrate that it's not all PR, that it's not all talk on his part.

He could have accepted a plan which would have ensured that the hundreds and

hundreds of students in that school district would not have faced the disruption

that they had at the beginning of this month. It was a simple plan. It was ingenious,

but it was unacceptable because it did not fit the political agenda.

The members of the school board met with the minister in order to

discuss the Burns plan with him. They left that meeting saying: "I'm

sorry. We can't accept this plan, because it presents an unfunded

liability." I have talked to accountants and all kinds of people who

are involved in this kind of thing all of the time, and they say that

the Burns plan does not represent an unfunded liability. The money

would have been there for those teachers. There is no way that the

[ Page

4981 ]

minister, in rejecting the Burns plan and stating that there was an unfunded liability, was correct. I think that is tragic.

Going to a referendum at this stage is not going to solve the problems in education.

The low morale and the dispirited feeling among the teachers, the students and

the parents who are concerned about education are not going to be resolved by

turning the clock back and going back to a referendum, which is based on an unfair

premise in the first place, in that the ability to tax commercial and industrial

properties has now been removed from school boards. It's only the residences

that will pay for any referendum, which is totally inappropriate to undo the

damage that you people have done in the school system through your cuts and

lack of interest in the field of education. Your policies and your approach

only mean that the students of this province are suffering needlessly.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, if I've had a concern about education in

recent years, it's been the progressive centralization of decision-making

in Victoria as opposed to out in the school districts. In other words, progressively

the important decisions have been made here at the centre, at one point in the

province rather than in the many school districts and by the school trustees

out in the area where the democratically elected representatives on the school

boards have had less and less say about what happens locally. I'm supporting

this bill because it's a step in the opposite direction. It's a decentralization

to a degree. It's at least a step in the right direction.

One of the very real problems is overall funding ,

I know that most members opposite believe that education should be

funded entirely — certainly largely — out of general revenue. Education

should not be funded in any way out of the local property tax. If they

take that view, they raise the very difficult problem of responsibility

at the local level; in other words, the school boards would receive all

the funds they were to spend from the provincial treasury. The totality

of their budget would be administered out of Victoria and presumably

decided in Victoria, because that's where all of the money would

originate.

One of the main arguments for retaining some element of property tax

in the funding of schools is that it puts some responsibility on the

shoulders of the local school trustees. If they're directly responsible

for the amount in property tax that goes to schools, they'll have to

defend that amount. What better way than for them to defend that

amount, both when they're up for election and when they come in for

some exceptional levy via a plebiscite. They are going to be asking

the electorate for their support when they're elected as school

trustees, and if they have some exceptional requirement over and above

the norm for the rest of the province, they also have to put that to

the local voter, the local property owner or the local renter — the

local people who have a say in their election. So it is a return in

some measure to local responsibility. I'm all for retaining some

element of funding for schools out of the local property tax. I find no

inconsistency in the local property owner, renter, whatever, who

directly or indirectly pays that tax, having some say. If they don't

have a say, it's taxation without representation, and I think that's

intolerable in our society.

[4:45]

What amounts of money are we talking about? Today — and I'm generalizing

over the entire province — of the total school budget about 8 percent is funded

out of the residential property tax. The rest is funded out of the general revenue

of the province: income taxes, sales taxes. etc., and out of a uniform industrial-commercial

property tax. So we're focusing on 8 percent of the 100 percent. We're

not talking about a style of taxation which is supposed to put up a very large

percentage of the total budget of a school district: it's of the order

of 8 percent.

I also believe that the province should fund what I'll call the essentials,

the basic budget, that it should be providing so many dollars per student to

each school district, if I can simplify the formula: and that the local school

trustees, if they want in some manner to add to that basic amount that comes

from the provincial treasury, do so out of local taxation. But they have that

latitude.

The device for getting approval — and, indeed, keeping them in office — is

an election. It's democracy at work. Members opposite were talking this

morning about the desirability of one man, one vote. They were at least purporting

to be in favour of democracy generally. They should, I believe, be in favour

of democracy at the local school board level and in seeing it work.

One of the real problems with government these days is not only its

scale, size and growth, but also the fact that the average individual

in the community can no longer relate decisions made by government to

things that he experiences on a day-to-day basis. Taxation flows into

one great pot, whatever the mode of taxation is. One level of

government, in its wisdom, spends all the money. There is no direct

relationship between what people pay taxes for and what they see in

return, so they are disfranchised in the process. This is why I believe

there should be some contribution from property, some contribution

within the authority of local government to local school budgets. So

I'm quite happy to vote for this bill.

I want to briefly quantify, if I may, the amount of tax that would

be involved, the increment which would be requested if, for example, a

school district wished to increase its operating budget by 2 percent

this year. It's of the order of $15 or $20 per homeowner in some school

districts. The highest is of the order of $60 or $80 per homeowner. The

nature of the problem, as it's been explained to us by educators across

the province, certainly by members opposite, seems horrendous — at

least the way they put it; they're certainly persuasive. If those same

people can not go out to the taxpayers locally and convince them that

they are getting a bargain for this 2 percent increment, for example,

in the school budget.... Is the quality of education, they might ask,

worth another $20 on your yearly tax bill? But they would have to

quantify it, price it, put it out there in front of the people. And the

people will decide.

So basically, Mr. Speaker, I'm in favour of this legislation. It is, to

some extent, returning the say over education, certainly the quality of education,

to the people, certainly to the school trustees. I'm all in favour of that.

Let's hear no more from the opposition side about centralization of the

decision-making process. We've swung too far in that direction in the last

dozen years: we're starting in the opposite direction, and I'm glad

to hear it.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I haven't got the same speech. Never the same speech.

[ Page 4982 ]

I hadn't yet got to the

chapter in the book which the previous

member spoke about. For anybody in the Legislature, it's an excellent

book, if you get a chance to read it. I think a lot of things that you

were talking about were pertinent.

But looking at school districts in my riding, in a rural part and

the most remote part of this province, there are some special

circumstances that I don't think this bill really covers. I'll take

one, for instance: School District 92. I know the minister has always

been receptive, when it came to dealing with the Nishga in School

District 92; any time we've ever had to discuss 92, the minister has

been excellent.

One thing I wanted to state, when we're talking about presenting property

taxes increased in the case of a referendum: I would like to see referenda used

more in this province, to allow people to have a say in decisions that affect

them directly.

In School District 92 there are very few people who own homes. The people who

reside in that school district reside on reserves in the four communities of

Kincolith, Greenville, Canyon City and Aiyansh. If you took a referendum of

property-owners for School District 92, you'd be talking about seven to

ten people who own houses off the reserve. It's drastically unfair for

a school district to come up against being pressured to bring in a referendum

for the seven or ten people who are property-owners. I think the minister knows

that. For seven or ten residential homeowners off of the reserve to make a decision

concerning property taxes and school taxes is totally unfair. I would like to

see something in this legislation discussing what would happen on that, and

I'm sure when the minister gets up to close debate he will be saying something

very favorable about School District 92.

In other school districts in my province, particularly School District 87,

in which we've seen mines close down, school figures stayed relatively high

even though the mines closed down, because people had no other place to go to.

One of the concerns I have that maybe the minister can answer when he closes

debate is in regards to property taxes in company towns. For instance, let's

talk about Stewart, where the company owns a lot of homes for its employees.

When the mine is closed down, how is this referendum going to affect the company

town? Because it appears it is just for residential property, and there is no

commercial property tax per se. I don't know the legalese on who exactly

owns the homes in a company town — if it was Kitsault or Stewart or Cassiar.

How are taxes generated in a company town in a so-called referendum? How would

you be able to succeed in getting money, let's say, from the company? Are

there exemptions in this act in reference to company towns? Because with the

three different school districts in my riding, it would be very difficult to

implement a referendum in a company town if a company owns the homes. I would

like to see something in that act in regard to commercial property, if the company

owns the homes in the area.

I think we also have to look to other school districts, where many

people live off of reserves, when making decisions of this nature.

I disagree with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour in regard to the reference

he made to property taxes. I understand his point, and I don't agree with

it, but I respect it. I think this is something that all members of the Legislature

have to look at, in regard to this bill.

That's basically what I wanted to bring up: School District 92 and the

seven or ten homeowners who live off the reserve, and the company towns and

how this bill will be put into effect in regard to them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would just like to speak briefly in

support of this bill and perhaps make some attempt to rebut some of the

accusations that have been made here during the afternoon's discussion.

There seem to be a lot of accusations that this government has not considered

education a priority. I certainly challenge that. You should be in some of the

other ministries that are trying to get money in order to keep going and to

do all of the things that people in the province say are essential, only to

learn that you can't have it because it's gone to Education, to Health,

and to the social services type of function. It has been a priority, and I think

it must be preserved forever as a priority. Certainly as the economy improves,

if we are at that time taking the revenue that comes in to pay out in interest

charges, as is happening at the federal level now because of spending, then

obviously the more money we are paying on interest charges, the less we are

going to be able to put back into education to maintain those services. So it's

a case of where you want to put the money. Certainly everyone says there should

be more money here and there should be more money there.

I spent some 26 years in the education business, and I saw both

underfunding and waste. I saw a lot of quality education. To me, the

quality education was really based on the attitude and performance of

the people involved. I cannot relate quality education just to more

money spent. I also saw and read and studied what went on in the United

States when they decided some years ago that the way to quality

education was to pump massive amounts of money into the programs.

Fifteen years later, after horrible debts had been incurred, they found

out through testing that it was an abysmal failure. They had a lot of

debt, and then they had to go back to try to do something about getting

back quality education. So quality education does not depend on the

amount of money spent.

We've been accused of teacher-bashing. What this government has

basically said is: look, there's only so much money available. Do the

teachers need higher pay? Does someone give better-quality education at

$35,000 a year than he does at $32,000? In the rhetoric, we hear:

"No, we're really interested in quality education." But this year in

the negotiations.... When the minister made it clear two years ago,

a year ago, that there was a finite amount of money available, it

became clear that.... The question was asked: "Do you want in your

district, instead of a 3 percent raise, to leave 19, 20, 40 or 70 of

your colleagues working?" The answer that came back was: "No, I'd

rather have the extra money." If the B.C. Teachers' Federation is going

to say that its primary objective is quality education in the

classroom, then I think they're going to have to start supporting those

stated objectives by their actions.

[5:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair. ]

I can tell you that I looked at it very closely in my own district,

and there the 3 percent raise.... Remember, they were fighting for

5 percent in these times when the rest of the people in my constituency

are suffering because oil and gas sales are down, agriculture is

hurting, lumbering is hurting. These people are taking cuts and taking

shorter work weeks, and they are the ones who would have to provide

more money to pay teachers. That 3 percent that they ended up getting —

[ Page

4983 ]

subject to Mr. Peek's ruling, of course — could have employed about 19

more teachers in my district. The choice is really theirs. You can talk

about quality education but you want higher pay. I think people have to

start backing it up,

From having been in the profession, I do know that most of the teachers out

there are interested in doing a good job with kids. Whether or not they get

paid, they will do that good job with kids.

This government has not indulged in teacher-bashing. What has happened is that

their organization has very carefully orchestrated a campaign to point out that

since the government said there's only so much money, they have said: "You

are against education. You are against teachers. You're teacher-bashing.

You don't care about kids." That is patently untrue. I think we have

to recognize that if we devote all our money to education.... You say we

have to have better trained people. We have to have that, and it is true. There

is certainly a positive correlation between trained and educated people and

the services and skills that they perform on the job. But some of the members

of the opposition are saying that all the money should go to training these

people and none to promoting or stimulating the industries that will provide

the jobs.

For instance, you say we need more engineers. But then you say we should not

build B.C. Place, not put money into Expo, the Coquihalla highway or any of

these things. If we quit building highways and facilities in this province,

why in heaven's name would we need engineers? We have to recognize that

some money has to be spent on creating the climate and the jobs that trained

people can go to. Look at the extreme situation: if we had enough jobs, if we

put all the money into creating the jobs, those people then would be able to

train, and so would the employers, instead of the taxpayers. We've got to

put some other money into that.

There are two other points I would like to make very briefly. You

should not put this on the backs of the taxpayers; it should come from

the province. I don't know in what way the taxpayers, through industry,

commerce or whatever.... The

taxpayers of this province also provide the funds available to the

provincial government. As the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has

just pointed out, these people have to contribute the money. If you

want the Minister of Education to provide the total funding, obviously

he has to decide how much and to whom, and then you have centralized

control, the very thing you are speaking against. Local autonomy may

mean the authority to spend. It may also mean the authority to raise

the money, because the same taxpayers end up paying the bills. You say

that the province should pick up 100 percent of the bill but should

leave 100 percent of the tax base with the local people. Obviously that

cannot possibly work.

Finally, I would like to point out that the minister has been accused of a

massive PR campaign in going around to all parts of the province to find out

what the people think. If it's a PR campaign to go and find out what the

local boards and the local people think, then I think the minister is guilty,

and I'm glad that he has done that. There was a reference to "Let's

talk about schools" to try to find out what the people of this province think

about what should be done in education. The minister is accused of using that

as some sort of a diversion ploy. If going to the people and asking them what

they think is a diversion ploy, then I guess the minister has to be classed

as guilty. Surely that is what it's all about. Should we not let the people

have some say? The opposition was saying earlier — not in this debate in the

House but certainly earlier — that the local people should have some say. The

guidelines are there. If they want to spend more they should be allowed that

opportunity. Now that that opportunity has been provided to them, they say this

is a political stunt by the minister. To allow the people to have a say in whether

they want to go beyond spending on education from what the basic guidelines

for quality education provide: there's something wrong with that? I'm

sorry, but I cannot accept that. The people need to have a say.

Unfortunately, I agree with some members of the opposition. I was in the system

when we had operating referenda, and the people often said: "No. Do with

what you've got. You've got to utilize the money that you have."

Do you know something? In times when we had to cut corners, the education didn't

collapse. The members of my staff did not turn around at that time and say:

"We're not going to teach the kids as well as we can." They all

dug in and did the best possible job they could. I am convinced that 95 percent

of the teachers in this province still will. They might grumble, as anyone grumbles

when they get less money. But they will do the job the best they can with the

pupils, and they will continue to do that job. So let's not say that less

pay means less quality in education, because most of those people out there

are professionals rather than gripers.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, let's get the record straight. The government

is saying one thing and doing something else.

Referring to the voters at this stage to consider any shortfall that may exist

in the various school districts is nothing more than a political ploy. The government

has no intention of involving itself seriously in the matter of quality education,

because quite frankly, the two things don't mix. Dollars and quality of

education are not really the same thing: cost is one thing, quality is another.

When the minister suggests that we should start talking about education and

lays down rules that suggest a direction in which the debate will go, he is

not serious. What he should be doing is sitting down and learning about the nature

of British Columbians, the demography of the people and the communities.

When you talk about referring to the voters, you're not just talking

about a certain class. You're talking about a variety. We're a mosaic.

The member from Atlin was describing a situation where if you had a

referendum there you'd only have seven people eligible to vote because

there are only seven people who have property.

In the West End in my constituency, you have people living in

apartments who don't own property. They have children and they care

about the quality of education, but they probably....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You say they can vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Whatever the rules are, you're going to have discrepancies with respect to who is eligible to vote.

Interjection.

[ Page 4984 ]

MR. BARNES: No, not everyone is eligible.

The member is suggesting that everyone is going to be entitled to a

fair vote, but I can suggest to you that the cost of education should

be borne by all citizens. That is the whole idea of public education.

It should not be broken up and split off in the way in which the

minister is suggesting, because it's not an equitable system. Some

people can afford it and others cannot, but everybody benefits from a

well-educated population. Our concern is for quality education that's

relevant, that rationalizes our economic community and the use of our

resources and with planning as far as the future is concerned. All

these things have to do with the equality and the relevance of

education. This is the issue.

We've been listening to people make presentations to the school

boards and hearing them discuss the pro