1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7189 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Gloucester property. Mrs. Wallace –– 7189

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Barrett

Education (Interim) Finance Act (Bill 27). Second reading.

Mr. Lauk –– 7191

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Visiting the House today in the members'

gallery is the newly arrived trade commissioner and consul for Finland,

Mr. David Nemes. Mr. Nemes arrived recently as the new consul in

Vancouver. I would like the members to welcome him.

MRS. WALLACE:

Today I am pleased to welcome a group of grade 11 students from

Chemainus who are in the gallery. They are making their annual visit to

the Legislature and they are accompanied by their teacher, Tom Lewis. I

would hope the House will be on its best behaviour for this very fine

group of students from Chemainus.

MR. BRUMMET: In the

gallery today and in the precincts is a group of representatives from

the village of Fort Nelson. They have come to Victoria today to meet

with several ministers to express their concerns about taxation and to

make some positive suggestions about how the government can maintain

the incentives necessary for resource development in this province. I

would like to introduce Mayor Dick Neufeld of the village of Fort

Nelson; Colin Griffith, the village administrator; Mary Eaton, the

regional district director for that area; Mr. Keith Lutsiak, president

of the chamber of commerce; Mr. Bruce Walker, vice-chairman of the

school board; Mr. Gary Roth, chief executive officer of School District

81; and Dr. Tony Kenyon who is also a member of the group, with him

Mrs. Judith Kenyon and their daughter. I would like the members of this

House to make them very welcome to Victoria.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, somebody left five BCRIC shares on my desk. I don't know

whom they came from. I don't know whether it's an attempt to buy or

bribe me, but it's not enough.

Oral Questions

GLOUCESTER PROPERTY

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On Friday the minister

announced that cabinet had overruled the Land Commission and that the

Gloucester property would remain out of the ALR. My question is: was

that decision made because the Gloucester property suit against the

government is still on the court register and cabinet ministers are

afraid to appear under oath?

MR. SPEAKER: A part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Whatever

part is in order, the answer is no.

MRS. WALLACE:

Will the minister then tell us what reason there could possibly be?

Certainly the explanation he gave when he made his Friday afternoon

announcement made no mention of any point that would be exclusive to

that Gloucester property. Would he care to agree that the words he used

on Friday would apply equally well to any piece of land in the Fraser

Valley?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure to

what words the member refers, but I do want to clarify one thing: we

did not overrule the Land Commission. We did not accept their

recommendation.

I don't know why the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) finds that humorous. It's a statement of fact.

MR. BARBER: We find you humorous.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Secondly, to try to elaborate on the reasons, for the benefit of the

member for Cowichan-Malahat, who wasn't at the conference on Friday,

first of all, there are 32 separate titles to the property involved.

This means that even within the ALR, the land could be broken up into

32 different titles, into 32 pieces of property owned by separate

property-owners. The land ranges from class 2 to class 7. There are

also 20 acres of pondage in that land. Present cost of putting the land

into agriculture production would be substantial. Highway and railway

access to the property is conducive to an industrial park concept.

Finally,

Mrs. Kuurne's report, which was done for the Land Commission, says:

"The major limitations of the Gloucester properties are inundation by

streams or lakes, topography, excess water, an undesirable soil

structure and low permeability." Those are some of the major factors —

there are others — why this wouldn't apply to every property in the

Fraser Valley, which was really the member's question.

MRS. WALLACE:

The minister indicates that I was not at his press conference. If he

had invited me, I certainly would have been there. To sneak a press

conference in on a Friday afternoon after everyone is gone doesn't seem

quite fair.

Will the minister tell the House whether or not

the Gloucester suit against the government has at this point been

withdrawn, and if so at what date?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In reply to the member's first comments, we're here to work all day,

not leave at 1 p.m. The press conference was held at 1:15 p.m. I'm sure

she could have been there had she made an effort.

Second, my

responsibility is to deal with the Agricultural Land Commission and its

recommendations to cabinet. I am not the minister responsible for

lawsuits, etc. I refer you to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams)

if you wish an answer.

MR. LEA: Why? Is he in charge of bribes?

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I find that remark objectionable, and I ask the member for Prince Rupert to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The statement referring to bribes is offensive to the House. Would the member for Prince Rupert please withdraw.

MR. LEA: Certainly. I can't think of another word to call it, so I'll have to withdraw it — same thing, though.

MR. SPEAKER: An unqualified withdrawal is all we need.

[ Page

7190 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the

member is trying to say "bribe" in a different manner, I wish he'd say

it outside the House and back it up. Otherwise, he should withdraw

unequivocally.

MR. SPEAKER: I assume that we do have an unqualified withdrawal.

MR. LEA: Yes, you certainly do. It is not bribes; it's Socred campaign funds.

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Agriculture on the same subject, what's

the minister's estimate of the amount of private capital gain that this

decision of cabinet has put into the hands of the consortium which includes

the former campaign manager for the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland)? Is it $100 million or $200 million?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's a lie.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, order, please. I hear a reference across the floor to the

word "lie." I trust that the Minister of Energy would withdraw any

improper motive which may have been imputed to another member of the

House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know

what that member's motive was; I would assume as an hon. member of this

House that he had no improper motives, even though the statement that

he made is absolutely incorrect. I will withdraw, in the interests of

the propriety of the House. I would invite that member to come outside

and say that in public.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. May we now proceed with the business of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: A campaign worker for you — Ainslie Loretto.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Come on out and tell the press that!

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on outside, Alex! Chicken!

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. All members be seated, please. Hon. members, perhaps we

can proceed to orderly business. I trust that that outburst has made

all members feel a little better.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. At the ELUC hearing when these lands were first recommended

to be released, the Minister of Energy made a fiery speech in favour of

the applicants and then piously refrained from voting in the committee

after counting the votes. I ask the minister: did he participate or was

he present when this last cabinet decision was made to put huge private

capital gain into the hands of this consortium?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Questions regarding matters of cabinet are out of order in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Energy whether or not Ms. Loretto was a campaign worker in the 1979 election.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, having had a very good campaign organization in the

district of Langley and the constituency of Langley, almost everybody

there worked for me during the election.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister directly whether or not Ms. Loretto was a campaign worker for him in that campaign.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I don't know how urgent the question has to be at this time, but it's

public knowledge — it's been published in newspapers over the last two

years — and I'm not denying it.

MR. BARRETT: Was the minister aware that Ms. Loretto was a director in the Gloucester estates at the time she was a campaign worker for him?

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

MR. BARRETT:

When the minister made his appeal to cabinet in July 1979, did he

disclose to the cabinet that one of his key campaign workers was Ms.

Loretto and that he was aware that she was a director of Gloucester

estates when he made his statements to ELUC?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That's a nonsensical idea that the member for Vancouver East puts

forward. I had perhaps 1,000 people actively working for me in the

campaign. Because that member perhaps can't conceive of that kind of

community effort, I can't help that on his behalf. But I'm sure that

out of those 1,000 people there would have been probably 200 or 300 who

had connections with some kind of company which would have some kind of

dealings with cabinet somewhere down the line.

I am very

proud of the way in which my election campaign was organized and

handled, and I'm very proud of all of the people who helped to get me

elected. I hope that they'll all be there working for me in the next

election as well, and I'll be re-elected too.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will come to order.

MR. BARRETT:

If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House why

he did not vote at the ELUC meeting after having made his speech? For

what reason did he avoid voting? Was it because of Ms. Loretto or for

any other reason? Can we have the reason publicly why the minister felt

that after making the speech he decided not to vote?

[ Page

7191 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder how urgent these questions

are, but I would refer that member for Vancouver East to the public transcript

of two years ago in which all of those statements are contained. Perhaps he

will take a little time and read them.

MR. BARRETT:

I have read those statements. In the body of the statements the

minister acknowledges that he is not a soils expert, and yet many soils

experts, including Mr. Runka, testified that that land was good

agricultural land. Can the minister tell us what scientific knowledge

he has, without any acknowledged expertise in soil, that makes him so

agitated today and is contrary to every expert in the field?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I haven't made any decisions regarding soil

classifications on any property that I know of. I'm not the one who is

agitated here; it's that member across the way. Since he's asking

questions that are now two years old, I would really like him to take a

few days to read all of the transcripts and evidence that was given at

the public hearing in Aldergrove. All of it is public, Mr. Speaker. He

will find that many experts also said that that land was not suitable

for agriculture.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I refer to

the minister's statement that he is not an expert in soils. Can the

minister tell us on whose testimony he based his opinion that it was

not agricultural land?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr.

Speaker, this is also two years old. I would ask the member to read the

comments made at that time. They are very clear. Sometimes MLAs make

decisions, and they represent their constituencies in the best way they

possibly can. I do that, and I hope that member does as well.

do know that I'm not an expert in classification of agricultural land.

That member and the other members on that side are the experts on

different kinds on dirt.

MR. BARRETT: Does the

minister recall making the statement that it is none of the

Agricultural Land Commission's business to know whether there is enough

need for industrial land or whether industrial land that should be used

for agriculture is being taken from the ALR? Did you say it was none of

their business?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I

would ask again that that member read the transcript. It's all down

there for the public to see. It's not some secret document that has

been hidden away.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, it was until it came out.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's public. I've said on many occasions,

Mr. Speaker, after reading the legislation which governs the Agricultural Land

Commission — again, as that member should do — that their terms of reference

do not provide them with the opportunity to talk about zoning or the need for

industrial land. Their terms of reference are strictly in terms of what is agricultural

land and what isn't. As a member of a committee that is asked to make an

awful lot of decisions in that regard, I have to look at the legislation in

existence and follow that legislation to the best of my ability. I wish the

member would then read the the best of my ability. I wish the member would then

read the legislation as well.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 27.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Before

the member proceeds, I would remind all hon. members: please, if you

are leaving the chamber, do so as quietly as you can. I would also

remind all hon. members that we are in that clumsy transitional period

between the budget debate, in which there was virtually no limit on the

scope, and the very narrow limit on the Education (Interim) Finance

Act. The rules of relevancy are in force, and I must remind you of them

from time to time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, you

may have noticed that the two and a half hour speech that I gave on

Friday did not receive the widespread public attention that I had

hoped. Bloody but unbowed, I have taken the liberty of obtaining a copy

of the Blues. I thought it might be helpful to the press if I reread

that speech. No objection having been taken to its relevancy at that

time, it would seem appropriate that I refer to extensive passages of

that brilliant and well-researched speech that was delivered on Friday,

if I say so myself.

Over the weekend, though, there have

been a number of school boards and lay people who are interested in

education.... These are telegrams from interested parties pertaining to

the school financing bill, and I wish to bring them to the attention of

the House. The first telegram is from Terry Clark of the Perley

Elementary School in Grand Forks: "The proposed bill will likely result

in larger class sizes and cutbacks in services to special needs

children in our district. Will minimal impact on the economy be worth

it?" That's a question that perhaps the Minister of Education and the

government should address themselves to.

Another telegram is from the Grand Forks Teachers Association: "The Grand

Forks Teachers Association urge you to oppose cutback legislation such as the

school financing...."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, there are a few teachers in this province who care about

what happens to kids. I don't know whether the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has such a cynical attitude that he

feels that teachers are only after salaries and their own benefits;

some are, I suppose, like some politicians are. But at the same time, I

think it would be a disservice to say that because they are teachers

and are paid through the educational system, they don't also have

foremost in their minds the grave concerns shared by most of the

community that this government's action, particularly in relation to

this bill, is causing the kind of harm to the educational system that

will cut back services for an entire generation of children.

[ Page 7192 ]

The Grand Forks Teachers Association sends along this message:

THE GRAND FORKS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION URGE YOU

TO OPPOSE CUTBACK LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE SCHOOL FINANCING FORMULA

BILL. RECENTLY IMPROVED STUDENT SERVICES SUPPORTED LOCALLY WILL

UNDOUBTEDLY BE ELIMINATED. CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATION HAS MORE THAN

DOUBLED IN THE PAST THREE YEARS. TEACHERS CARRY THE LOAD WITH INCREASED

PAPERWORK, MEETINGS, AND NOW, LARGER CLASS SIZES WITH DECREASED SUPPORT

FOR SPECIAL NEED STUDENTS, DRASTICALLY CURTAILED EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND

REPLACEMENT, LESS DESIRABLE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT DUE TO REDUCED

CUSTODIAL AND MAINTENANCE TIME.

These are all the results taken in the Grand Forks area of the government's

actions.

have another one from a special education teacher, Maxine Ruzicka from

Grand Forks: "For the past five years parents, teachers and the

community have dedicated themselves to attaining the current level of

local programming and individualization in Grand Forks. The restraint

program will seriously harm programs and student development. Please

oppose the legislation."

There are many other telegrams. I

will just give an example of the kind of telegrams that are coming in.

School District 7 in Nelson reports cuts of $333,356 in the operating

budget for 1982. Included in the cuts are elimination of the elementary

swim program, the elimination of planned library clerical staff,

reduced per-pupil allotment for instructional supplies, possible

elimination of improved working conditions for teachers and reductions

in many other services. "I urge you to speak and vote against the

education finance bill and support quality of education service in the

Nelson School District." It is signed by Frank Burden, President of the

NDTA.

This is addressed to the Hon. Bob McClelland. A copy was sent to me.

DEAR MR. McCLELLAND:

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IF LEGISLATION PROCEEDS TO REQUIRE LANGLEY

SCHOOL BOARD TO CUT $897,000 FROM ITS 1982 BUDGET, THE BOARD HAS SERVED PUBLIC

NOTICE THAT THE FOLLOWING CUTS WILL TAKE PLACE:

1. THE LOS S OF 30 TEACHING POSITIONS, INCLUDING SEVERAL IN SPECIAL

SERVICES EDUCATION.

2. A REDUCTION OF PROFESSIONAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT.

3. THE REDUCTION OF SUPPLIES FOR ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND THE

DISTRICT PROGRAMS.

4. ELIMINATION OF DISTRICT SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAMS.

5. REDUCTION OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES.

THE BOARD HAS INFORMED

THAT OTHER CUTS ARE ALSO SLATED. I WILL FORWARD YOU BY MAIL A FULL LIST OF THOSE

CUTS AND THE RESPONSE OF THE LANGLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.

KEN NOVAKOWSKI,

PRESIDENT,

LANGLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Speaker, we have several more. There are bundles of letters on my desk

sent to me as education critic for the NDP, all opposing this bill and the moves

made by the government with respect to the education system. I have received

more mail on this subject, I think, than I have received on any other subject

in the last 10 years. It is a clear indication, I think, to any politician that

there is grave concern out there. These telegrams are mostly from teachers.

I have something like 150 letters from people who are not teachers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Read us the letters from the ones who aren't NDP.

MR. LAUK:

The ones that are not from the NDP? They didn't identify their party

support, but I would suspect that after this bill they are all

supporters of the NDP. I would think that in that member's constituency

a supporter of the Social Credit Party is an endangered species. The

fact is that quite likely, prior to the introduction of this bill and

prior to the minister's announcement, a great many of the people who

have written me may have voted for this government party in previous

times. They certainly indicate that their faith in the government has

been shattered by this government's cynical and inhumane approach to

financing with particular effect on the education system.

Friday, Mr. Speaker — you may not recall because you were out of the

chamber for a brief period — I was trying to bring to the member's

attention the very serious impact that these cuts will have on young

people. I was taking issue with the minister's opening remarks on the

bill. He stated that everything was fine, that all they were doing is

assuming the responsibility of the local, commercial and industrial tax

base, that even though he is taking upon himself supreme power over

education in this province, he was a man to be trusted, that he would

personally guarantee the protection of special needs education in this

province, that he would guarantee that no homeowners would have

increased taxation and that education would remain as it was. In the

face of 150 letters and these telegrams, I wonder if the minister is

now prepared to admit that the approach he took on Friday morning may

be somewhat mistaken, that he has been misled into thinking that these

drastic actions that he and his government are taking will have the

negligible effect that he argued. The fact is that the immediate effect

is massive cutbacks in programs in almost every school district in the

province. The fact is that schools are closing everywhere — not just

neighbourhood schools — and they're doubling up. If this financial bill

goes through, I foresee a time when some school districts in this

province will return to the old shift system. I remember going to

school on a shift system right after the war, when we'd get up at five

or six o'clock in the morning and go to school until one in the

afternoon. Then we were on the afternoon shifts, and as little children

we would have to walk several miles, going to school at one o'clock

until after dark at night.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) remembers teaching me in those days. She was a teenage teacher and I was a....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I was a juvenile delinquent — the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) still is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I'm just quoting the ombudsman's report, Mr. Speaker.

the face of the kind of protests that are coming from all over, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says: "Well, it's

just teachers." If I read him a letter

[ Page 7193 ]

from

somebody complaining about their children in the school system, he'll

say: "Well, they have a vested interest — they're just parents." If

somebody sends in a complaint about the school cutbacks, he'll say:

"Well, that's just one taxpayer." If I read in ten letters, he'll say:

"Well, that's just ten." Or if there are several — like 150 — the

minister will say: "Well, they're all New Democrats."

I'm

grateful to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because at least he has

the honesty and candour and lack of deceit to reveal the true nature of

this government and their true attitudes toward the people they are

supposed to represent. I suppose he represents the government, and the

government are the type of people who say: "We'll make up our minds and

anybody against us doesn't count. Anybody who doesn't agree with our

policies doesn't count. Their protests don't count. They don't count.

Their children don't count. Their communities don't count and their

schools don't count, because we have made up our minds."

Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that there is a theme to this bill based on the movie The Sting .

The movie, as you recall, is divided into several parts. The bait in

this case is the promise of lower property taxation. You'll recall that

on September 13, 1975, the then Leader of the Opposition and now

Premier of the province said: "I believe that property taxation has

become obsolete as a major source of local government revenue." Little

did we know at the time, Mr. Speaker, that the insertion of the word

"local" was a very well-considered one, because property taxation — at

least, commercial and industrial — had been confiscated by the

provincial government and is no longer a major source of local

government revenue. Nevertheless, we believed at the time that what the

Leader of the Opposition of that day meant was that property taxation

would be de-emphasized by any administration of which he was a head. We

found that, on the contrary, since 1975 property taxation has more and

more been relied upon to finance our education system. The provincial

government, on the contrary, has given back-of-the-hand treatment to

that education system financially and has not made any commitment in

line with that statement made by the Premier of this province or, as he

then was, the Leader of the Opposition.

We've come to the

logical conclusion of that philosophy and that approach to the

education system. The argument has been made that the confiscation of

the industrial and the commercial land tax base by the province will in

some way lower homeowners' taxes in the school districts. Even by using

the minister's own background papers to his announcement a month or two

ago, we have seen very clearly that very few school districts will

receive lower taxes this year than they otherwise would have paid, very

few indeed out of the 75 school districts. So that claim is not true.

It doesn't hold water. Pointing to a handful of districts that may have

lower taxes this year does not support the claim that the confiscation

of that land tax base will lower homeowner taxes. The claim, therefore,

is not true.

Secondly, the minister claims that the province

will share more of the operating costs of education in each school

district. That is totally incorrect. This year, for example, I believe

the share of the government's contribution to local school systems will

be less than at any time in the history of the province, with or

without this bill. You may recall that in 1975, the share of local

school costs borne by provincial revenue was 48 percent; it is now down

to well below 40 percent. It has been a steadily declining share of

provincial contribution to local school systems. As a result, we can

only believe that although the minister says one thing, we've got to

take the opposite of what he says as being what's actually going to

happen.

As I pointed out on Friday, the bait in this matter

was lower taxation for homeowners. The mark is the homeowner. The

government has picked the homeowner to be the mark. That homeowner is a

person who they hope — "they" being the government — will believe the

minister's statements, and who will go along with this new education

financing formula. They hope that by holding out a bit of a carrot they

will be able to fool the homeowner into believing this bill is good for

them.

I've already pointed out that only a handful of school

districts will have, on average, lower taxation this year than they

otherwise would have paid. In the face of the drastic increase in

assessments, this is small comfort to them, in any event; but the

majority of the 75 school districts will have the same or higher taxes

than they otherwise would have paid as a result of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

My friend says that the government has a lottery mentality. That was

part of the theme I was trying to express on Friday: that this

government really thinks the economy — and we've known this for some

time — is one great big casino. To have that extrapolated to the

education system is a bit more disturbing to those of us on this side

of the House. To have the education system as one big casino is a big

problem. I ask the people of this province: "Do they want their

children and grandchildren to have an education, the quality of which

will depend upon a roll of the dice, will depend upon the hit or miss

proposition of this formula 35 being applied to each and every school

district?" The answer has to be no.

The homeowners are in a

class separate and apart from other groups of people in society. Most

homeowners have children or are responsible for children in the school

system. Most homeowners are provincial taxpayers, income taxpayers and

so on. So homeowners aren't an identifiable separate group, but they

have been singled out to be the mark in this case. They're hoping to

hold out this carrot that the promise will be believed, and that

they'll be sucked in.

Do you know who a shill is at a

carnival? The shill is the guy who pretends to win the solid gold

Bulova watch. He's the guy who pretends to win at the crown and anchor

game on the midway. He's not really responsible for the con. Those are

the people behind the scenes. The shill plays the role; he pretends

that he's won, or is winning on behalf of. I charge that the Minister

of Education plays that role in the scheme. He's the one who's making

the statement that I don't think any other minister — particularly the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — would dare to get up in his

place and make in this Legislature. Would the Minister of Finance say

that this theft or this confiscation of commercial and industrial land

taxes from the local school districts is, as the minister described it,

the province's assuming responsibility for it? I gave the example on

Friday. It's like a bank robber going into the local bank, holding up

the teller and saying: "I want to assume responsibility for the money

you have in your cash drawer." It's the same thing. The words used are

designed to put people to sleep so they don't see the real issues

behind this financial formula. So the shill has already opened

[ Page 7194 ]

and

done his work. He's done his press conference. He opened debate on this

bill on Friday. He said there's no harm done. He said, as a matter of

fact, that children, parents, taxpayers and school trustees are going

to be better off.

Who are the con men in all of this? Well,

we have to look at the scheme itself. The whole scheme is derived from

the proposition that the province has expended its money in such an

irresponsible and inept way that it needs to make money grabs

elsewhere. So they've decided on this scheme. They've committed

themselves to the northeast coal project to the tune of billions of

dollars. They are starting to develop their infrastructure for that

project. They have no guarantee that even the private sector will

fulfil its part of the bargain. The BCR is already borrowing heavily to

complete its part of the Anzac Line and so forth. Now what does that do

to government finances? It has put them in a deficit position. This

year the government has had to raid the perpetual funds and the special

funds to balance the budget. That wasn't sufficient, though. They have

to also raid the local tax base to balance the budget. I'm using the

minister's figures. They are going to get $840 million from

confiscating the industrial and commercial tax base. They need that

almost $1 billion to juice up their finances so they can build B.C.

Place, so they can build the northeast coal project — at the direct

expense of the school system of this province.

Need I read

these telegrams again, Mr. Speaker? Already the cutbacks have started

to hurt ordinary people. When that northeast coal project — if it is

ever completed — or the B.C. Place project is completed, there should

be a plaque put up in a prominent place, so people going into the

stadium can see it. "This edifice, this monument was built because of

the sacrifices and the suffering of kids in school, of single parents,

of the the health system, of rural landowners." Underneath it there

should be one phrase, "Bennett for pharaoh, because it reminds me of

the time when the great mass of people in a state were expended to

build monuments to its monarch.

So I say that the scheme was

developed not by the shill but by the con men, by the people who are in

charge of the province's overall finances. Who are they? Are the

members of the cabinet? Well, I suppose the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) plays something of a role, but my suspicion is that it's

the people from the east — it's the Spectors and the Kinsellas of the

world, and, yes, the Deputy Minister of Finance. They have constructed

this vast scheme that will hoodwink the mark and cause all kinds of

victims in the education system. They developed what I call the new

math. They say: "Well, it isn't really what it appears to be. Trust

me." They take unto themselves massive power and hold out the promise:

"We know what's best for the educational system."

I'll give

you an example. The shill doesn't even have the right, under this

legislation, to define what is equal and what is monthly under

section

4 of the act. You know who has that power? The Minister of Finance — as

if those questions were decisions for the Minister of Finance and not

for the Minister of Education. Those are questions, obviously, for the

man or woman in charge of the ministry itself — to define what is equal

and what is monthly — because of their direct effect on the system. So

section 4 empowers the Minister of Finance. So we know who the con men

are.

Now what is the hook? The hook is this fictional finance formula. It has no

legislative provision any more; it makes the 75 percent share only an empty

promise, like the so-called $10 BCRIC shares. The hook is this formula, and

again we're seeing that now, where a finance formula that sounds good to

some school districts has yet to really be written in the cabinet room. None

of the details of this formula have been written into legislation; all we have

are some indications by the minister in his speech on Friday and his announcement

a couple of months ago. The real formula can be written and rewritten in the

cabinet room at their pleasure. Massive amounts — hundreds of millions of dollars

— going one way or the other will be based on decisions that can be made in

secrecy in the cabinet room on a day-to-day basis.

the game is this: put forward a formula; pretend it is written into

legislation, but have it give absolute power and flexibility to the

minister and the cabinet, so that from one day to the next the people

of this province will not know whether their education system can be

financed and, if so, at what cost and, if so, by whom. They will depend

completely upon cabinet — and cabinet working in secrecy.

When

the NDP was the government of the province, Mr. Speaker, a number of

pieces of legislation were passed that you and other members of the

Social Credit Party got up and condemned as being sweeping, awesome,

dictatorial, jackboot, blank-cheque legislation. I defy any member of

this House to produce any piece of legislation from those days — or any

piece of legislation since — that comes even close to the usurpation of

power to one man and to one cabinet that this legislation is doing

under Bill 27. I defy anyone to show me where this discretionary and

absolute power has been so usurped and centralized into one person.

What

is the sting? That's what the homeowner is going to get when he finds

out what the school taxes are really going to be. The average increase

in the province this year under this formula is going to be 32 percent

over last year from your department.

Interjection.

MR. KING: They haven't told you yet, Brian?

MR. LAUK: The minister keeps on asking where I get these figures. Well, I get them from his department.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr.

Speaker, the sting is the increase in taxes this year alone, but the

increases in taxes for next year are going to be phenomenal, and I'll

tell you why. This government, with its huge capital-cost projects,

with its profligacy in office and, yes, with its personal expenditures

on travel and furniture from ministerial offices is going to be in no

position next year to balance its budget. They're going to need all or

most of that money they confiscated from the school district base, and

therefore financing of education at the local level will be placed once

again — but ever more so burdensome than in the past — on the shoulders

of the homeowner. The residential taxpayers will be paying more and

more of the school costs in their school district, and that's the

surprise — that's the sting.

Who are the victims? As I've

said before, a whole generation of students are the victims, even if we

take the term of the bill itself, which is three years — that's three

grades — three years in the education of a young person, particularly

[ Page

7195 ]

junior and senior high school, that could and may well deprive them of opportunities

for the rest of their lives. So I say without exaggeration that the victims

are a whole generation of students. We have chosen them, because of the scam,

to balance the budget; we've chosen them to do with much less than any generation

in the past — and, I certainly hope, no generation in the future. They're

the people who are the victims: no jobs, no skills for the ever-increasing demand

for skilled employment; no quality education. And the school system becomes

centralized; they can't even make up for it, because the college system

and the adult-education services are also being drastically cut back. Those

are the victims, Mr. Speaker. For the immediate, short-term gain of the government,

a whole generation of students not only will do with less but may well do without

that promise of a fulfilled occupation and a belonging to a modern generation

of highly educated citizens in Canada.

want to talk about the old formula in relation to the new one proposed

in the legislation. We all argue that the old formula needed a lot of

improvement — that it was complex. The major argument against the

formula was that there was too much power in the provincial government.

Instead of addressing that problem the government has gone even

further. The features of the old formula over which this government had

maximum control.... I want to point out the remarks I made last year

about how the old formula worked. I said: "The NDP favours increased

funding from general revenue" — I pointed out specifically what general

revenue meant: sales tax, income tax and other government revenues,

resource taxes and so on — "and less from the local property tax. The

NDP accepts the recommendation of the McMath commission of 1976 that

the ratio should be 75 percent provincial and 25 percent local property

tax revenues."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What did the NDP do? Tell us that.

MR. LAUK:

I am glad the hon. minister raised that question. From 1972 to 1975 we

lowered the reliance on property taxes by 10 percent. In addition to

that, between those years there was a program introduced that would

have taken only three or four more years to completely relieve the

homeowner, the residential taxpayer, from paying school taxes. This

government, in 1976, abolished that program and moved the pendulum in

the opposite direction, so that now this government is paying less

towards education as opposed to land taxes than any other government in

the history of this province.

I am glad the minister asked me that question. That was a very good question. He gets nine out of ten for that question.

The

75 to 25 split was accepted by the B.C. School Trustees Association on

behalf of the province's 75 school districts, the B.C. Teachers

Federation and an Oak Bay municipal politician named Smith who is

presently the Minister of Education.

Now getting back to the question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the

NDP pledged in 1972 that residents would be relieved of the burden of school

property tax. That was our political promise. In the 1974 budget the Premier

announced a five-year program to give effect to the promise. The Legislature

approved the school tax removal fund, and in the first two years of the program

$40 per year per homeowner was put into that fund and used to defray school

costs at the local level. The plan was to escalate the provincial contribution

to $200 per year per owner by 1980. This $200, coupled with the $200 homeowner

grant of the time, would have relieved homeowners of all school tax liability

by 1980. In retrospect, the costs of the scheme were considerably underestimated,

but adjustments would have been made each year when revenue surplus appropriation

bills were brought forward.

The

NDP had two other major strategies for meeting school costs: to hold

the basic mill rate relatively steady — in 1972 it was 24.7 mills, in

1975 around 26 mills — and increase the provincial support of the basic

education program from 46 percent to 48 percent. In 1976 the McMath

commission recommended that school costs be shared on the 75 to 25

split. McMath argued in essence that if Victoria paid the whole shot,

central control would follow. As mentioned before, the NDP was one of

many to accept a continued role for the school boards.

What

is the government's record? Social Credit has failed to state just what

portion of basic education costs they believe should be met by the

province. The government did, however, wipe out the School Tax Removal

Fund in 1976 and abandoned the NDP plan to get the property tax burden

off the backs of residents. They have also reduced the provincial

contribution from 48 percent, its highest point in 1975, to 35 percent

in 1981. It's now down to 32 percent, by the way, the lowest it has

ever been. And they've increased the basic mill rate from 26 mills in

1975 to 41.8 mills in 1981. Last year's budget, 1981, has had a

particularly shocking impact on B.C. homeowners — particularly in the

lower mainland. The average taxpayer in Vancouver pays 35 percent more

in school taxes for 1980-81, and there are cases of net school taxes

doubling and tripling. We found the repeat this year.

The

trend of all these changes has been to saddle residents with sharply

increased school property taxes. If the situation continues, by 1985

the province will be paying no part of public school taxes. I remember

that when I made that statement I had no idea the government would have

the nerve and audacity to take the action which they have taken through

this Bill 27. It's the confiscation of $840 million in local taxation.

That never occurred to anyone. Under the old formula, after each board

of school trustees had prepared its budget for the year, the Minister

of Education had to approve it, and this should be remembered when the

government members try to put the blame for higher property taxes onto

local trustees. Several other things happen before the school property

tax levy is finalized. First the Minister of Municipal Affairs decides

whether to change the homeowner grant — it's been frozen since 1979.

Then the Minister of Finance decides what proportion of assessed

property values shall be subject to school property tax. The Minister

of Education then decides what the basic mill rate will be and whether

any districts are entitled to special aid. Now that is already a

massive amount of control vested in the government.

If you

want to draw interprovincial comparisons, particularly of government

spending, I'll tell you what other provinces do. This should be treated

with caution because no two provinces have identically divided sets of

provincial and local responsibility. However, six of the other nine

provinces meet over half of the total costs of their respective

programs, and we're now down to 32 percent. Saskatchewan, Manitoba,

Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick pay well over half of the

school budgets. Manitoba pays 80 percent, Saskatchewan 75 percent, and

Quebec and New Brunswick pay 100 percent of school costs.

[ Page 7196 ]

School

district budgets are prepared each year by the local school board and

submitted to the Minister of Education for approval. The budget is

divided into three main sections: operating, non-operating and capital.

Each of these sections of the budget is divided into a number of

accounts. The education finance formula is legislated by the School Act

and it is really three formulas in one; there's one for operating,

non-operating and capital. The complexity of that formula attracted

much criticism from all sectors of the educational system as well as

from the public. The response demanded was an implementation of the

McMath commission report.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Under

those provisions, the government had full and absolute power in many

ways to at least lower taxation for homeowners and expend more money

from provincial revenues. Unfortunately, Bill 27 has confiscated what

already has been used for local taxation purposes and it has paid out

even less of the provincial revenues for the education system. I'm sure

all hon. members have received letters from their constituents with

respect to the very grave assessment problems that we all experience.

This letter comes from Chase, B.C. It was sent out this year from Mr.

and Mrs. J.L. Connelly of Chase, British Columbia. It says:

"Hi, Gary Lauk:

"We

were very interested in the panel discussion on school taxation and the

proposal for a new system that took place on March 14" — that was a

television program that I was being interviewed on. "It was the first

time that we were able to see you, and we were impressed by the quality

of the discussion by the whole group. We sort of felt, as usual,

however, that the lower mainland is the great Dane and we up here are

its tail. Thus we are going to try to add a few fleas and tell them to

crawl up the tail.

"While it is obviously true

that in rural districts 50 percent, I guess, living on single lots in

villages or towns pay little or no tax over and above the homeowner

grant, it is also true that many live on larger properties already

taxed highly to the rebellion point. We agree with your point that the

system was set up so that we would pay less tax up here because we not

only have too small a tax base but we have less enhancement of

education opportunities and have the extra expense of sending our

children out of here to seats of higher learning."

I want to pause there because this is a very essential point. This letter from

Mr. and Mrs. Connelly is an example of the dozens of letters we're receiving

from rural ridings. I want to bring to the attention of all hon. members, particularly

the back-bench members of the government side, that if you're supporting

the finance formula under this bill, you're turning your backs on the people

in your own constituency, because the rural taxpayers are going to be paying

not just small amounts but huge amounts more on their residential taxes than

they otherwise would have paid. The justification for that, says the minister,

is that he wants to be even-handed between school districts. But by his idea

of even-handedness he's working an injustice on those who live in rural

ridings. The reason that there's that injustice is the very point that Mr.

and Mrs. Connelly make in their letter. "We live in the rural areas. We

do not have the same opportunities. We don't have the large tax base; we

cannot fund enhancement education for our children; and we have to send our

children for higher learning outside of our districts." All of these reasons

have been expressed in other communications to me, and they point out the fact

that this government has turned its back on its traditional constituencies.

It's turned its back on the ordinary people of the rural districts who cannot

afford to pay these higher taxes yet are being required to pay even higher taxes

to maintain the educational system that they have today — not even an improvement.

Going on with the letter:

"To disturb this now, which caused no comment

before, seems screwy, simply because of a temporary, irrational price

spiral on the lower mainland and the island. You see, we're struggling

up here with the fact that the huge tax assessment this year is kicking

an already dead horse. We had a big increase in 1980. The assessment

remained the same in 1981. Then we got two years in one in 1982 because

the assessors say they got behind. The dead horse is that the economy

of subdivision of lands peaked in this area in 1979, and it hasn't paid

to subdivide since.

"In a visit to Vancouver

Island for a month this winter, it was learned that many subdivisions

from Victoria outward were not making cash flow and are similar to this

area where that has been the case to a large extent since 1979.

"The

point is that under this type of economy it is wrong to state that

market value has risen. In the extreme case, as long as one property

changed hands to an irrational buyer in any year, that could be used to

claim that all property in the area had increased in value, regardless

of the economy."

This is something that you and I, Mr.

Speaker, have run across time and time again in these past 18 months.

The irrational attitude of the Assessment Authority, spurred on by the

irrational policies of this government, have increased assessments

unfairly and irrationally. If some kook comes into a housing

subdivision and spends twice as much for a house than what it's really

worth, the Assessment Authority will take that as an example of rising

market prices. They did it in all kinds of neighbourhoods so that huge

tax increases would flow from that. The letter goes on to say:

"The

assessment steamroller keeps rolling along. It tells you that it agrees

with your argument, but it has this book of rules that it must follow.

The Assessment Act, under "method of valuing," specifies a solvent

owner. Literally translated, this means that there has to be a desire

to sell and a willingness to buy. In the majority of the

non-transacting properties in any year, one or the other of these

requirements is absent. Therefore, we argued to no avail, the system as

practised is in violation of the act.

And they enclose another story to illustrate.

"We would appreciate your critical comment. We are not politically aligned. We are looking for a tax revolt group.

"Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. J. L. Connelly."

That was the most explicit letter of the many dozens I received, Mr. Speaker — and, I'm sure, of the many dozen you received.

The

very essential problem that we are dealing with here is that this

government's unable to think out the very critical effect of its

policies on ordinary people or they don't care

[ Page 7197 ]

what

happens to ordinary people. My suspicion is that with the advice of

Spector and Kinsella — these people from Ontario — the government has

decided to take the approach that if they can get away with it they'll

do it, and they don't give a damn what happens to ordinary people in

ordinary communities in this province. If they have to balance the

budget by confiscating taxation, they will, as long as they can put a

face on it that will hide the real stink.

I want to point

out again the kinds of restraints that are being experienced. As of

April 22, 1982, these are the cuts to be made to special-needs children

in each district. I want to reiterate that this party is very much in

support of mainstreaming. By mainstreaming, I mean that children who

are disabled — either they have Down's syndrome or they are physically

disabled or require medical attention on an ongoing basis — should not

be institutionalized. First, we believe that has an essence of

inhumanity to it; second, it does them no good to be institutionalized

and to think of themselves as separate and apart and, yes, perhaps

inferior to the mainstream of society. It was felt by this government —

and we applauded them for it — that to mainstream these children into

the regular school system would enhance their educational

opportunities, improve their lifestyle and increase their self-image

and feeling of worth. To a large extent, I think that I has started.

Where there has been mainstreaming of disabled children, we are finding

that the regular students have learned just as much, or more, and are

developing qualities, built into their personalities and attitudes,

that can only benefit this community in generations to come. It's not

only a question of tolerance between the ordinary student and the

disabled student, it's a question of understanding that we belong to

each other in human society. It's of great benefit and should continue.

But the government dumped, if you like, these children onto the regular

school system and provided not one penny in support. The NDP in this

chamber, school teachers and parents clamoured for greater assistance

for special needs. We were in here for hours and days demanding that

this government give extra support to fulfil its pledge to mainstream

disabled children. Very little was forthcoming. Modest announcements

and modest grants have been made in the last 18 months to two years.

It's just starting to provide the kind of special needs necessary to

make the concept of mainstreaming workable and practical.

With

the restraint program, with this budget and these cutbacks in this

bill, we're already seeing cutbacks in special needs. I have a report

of the effects of this bill and the restraint program in the area of

special needs, as of April 22, 1982. If the minister wants to know

where I got this from, I think it's from his finance department, but

it's from the Ministry of Education. Here are the types of cutbacks:

speech therapist in Port Alberni, one position; Maple Ridge, one

pathologist — and one in the Gulf Islands; loss of teacher aides in

Port Alberni; Kitimat, four positions; in Nanaimo they've cut $41,000

from their budget for teacher aides. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when

disabled children are in the main school system the teacher hasn't got

time to push wheelchairs, to spend special time with certain students

who have speech defects and so on. Teacher aides are required.

will run through that again. Kitimat lost four positions; in Nanaimo

$41,000 was cut off that budget; in Campbell River there is a cutback;

in Kamloops they have lost six positions; in Coquitlam they've cut

$90,000 from the teacher aide budget; in Shuswap $12,000; they've lost

teacher aide positions in Prince Rupert; and in the Gulf Islands

they've cut $34,000 off that program.

Learning assistance —

again, this does not apply only to disabled children but to all

children who have problems — has been cut back. In Kitimat, for

example, one secondary school position has been lost because of the

school district's cutback.

Special education teachers. In

Port Alberni another position. Windermere has cut $3,600 from its

budget. Langley has lost six positions and three district staff

persons. They have cut back on special education teachers in Prince

Rupert and in Summerland.

Programs

for the gifted and talented. I am sorry the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is't here, because Golden has an

interesting report for him. They want to see him up there very soon.

Kamloops has cut four positions, and in Shuswap they've cut back

positions. In Golden they've cut their program entirely.

Travel

for special education: in Coquitlam they've cut back S5,000 there.

Special program aide: Maple Ridge has a 10 percent cutback. Hospital-

and home-bound students: in he Gulf Islands they've cut that program.

The blind program in Alberni has been cut.

The salutary

philosophical and policy decision of this government to mainstream

disabled children on the one hand, to be niggardly with the funds on

the other and yet go on to cause such hardships that these programs are

being cut out altogether.... What are the teachers going to do? What is

the school system going to do? Are these kids going to go back to the

Jericho Hill schools? Are they going to go back to the institutions

around the province? Are we going to once again cut them out of the

mainstream of life in this province, all because they want to balance

the budget to build the northeast coal project? Where are the values of

this government? The values are contained, indeed, in this bill and in

the budget.

The other very serious problem that I have

raised, I don't know how many times, with the Minister of Education is

that if you're going to mainstream children you've got to provide the

proper services to maintain the system. It is not being done. The

minister gave a very Marie Antoinette response to my concerns last year

about the problems of administering medication to children like this in

the school system. He shakes his head. He is getting a little

exasperated.

There is a legal opinion that the School

Trustees Association has obtained. This legal opinion was obtained from

an independent firm of solicitors in the city of Vancouver and has been

supported by other legal opinions as well. It states clearly that the

teachers and the school district themselves are liable to millions of

dollars in damage suits when they administer medication if it is

improperly administered. The teachers in the school districts have said

to the minister: "Look, you're endangering us here and you're

endangering these kids. We're not trained to administer medication. We

cannot do it. We are liable to make a mistake. It is by the grace of

God that a fatal or serious mistake has not been made to this date."

The

minister has done nothing about that problem. He has ignored the

problem. He has stood in this House on occasion and given a

double-shuffle routine I wouldn't believe about the administering of

medication in the schools. He is endangering the system from that point

of view. With this new bill there is no chance that the school

districts can fund the temporary or part-time medical personnel

necessary

[ Page 7198 ]

to administer medication and to deal with these special problems.

Special-needs

education, teacher aides — all these positions are being cut back.

There is also going to be a revolt on the part of teachers, and I

suppose parents and trustees too, about the problems of administering

medication to the disabled children in the system. It's not a question

of an aspirin; some of these people who have been asked to go into the

mainstream of the educational system from these institutions have very

complex medication routines. The timing and dosage of this medication

is extremely important. It is not left to an ordinary worker in the

hospital to administer medication; it's usually left to a paramedic, at

the very least, or a nurse or a doctor. Yet in our schools the minister

is asking teachers who are trained to teach social studies or trained

in physical education to administer medication. The legal implications

are awesome and frightening, but the lack of humanity and insensitivity

to what harm can be caused to these students is something that I look

upon in disbelief.

Mr. Speaker, it's very frustrating indeed

to try to encourage the back bench of the Social Credit Party to look

more carefully at what this bill does. They yawn. I'm grateful that

they're still here, particularly the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

He's very attentive. He's looking over at the treasury benches to see

who he's going to put there when he is the leader of the new Western

Canada Concept and will be forming the government. I understand there

is a secret lineup to his office lobbying for cabinet posts, but I

think the member for Omineca wants to preserve minister of war for

himself. He wants to declare war on the rest of Canada. Seriously, with

respect to Bill 27 the Social Credit backbenchers have been very, very

silent.

Mr. Speaker, this announcement was made two months

ago, but there has not been a word from any of the Social Credit MLAs.

I've already outlined as carefully as I can the effect on the rural

taxpayer and the effect on school districts within those members'

constituencies, and I have not heard anything from them outside of this

House — and they wouldn't dare say anything in their own constituencies

— critical of Bill 27. I have to admire the government's discipline, I

really do. But discipline at what cost? At the expense of the school

systems within their own constituencies. I should remind them — and I

shouldn't have to, but I will — that their solemn responsibility and

duty as elected members of this Legislative Assembly is to represent

the people in their constituencies and not to represent or play today —

that's the expression — to the policies of that central treasury group

in this very right-wing government. Their responsibility is not to

accept the dictates of the treasury benches but to stand up and be

counted and represent their own constituency.

I'm going to

separate the letters that I have from constituency to constituency, and

I'm going to give copies of letters to all of those backbenchers. I'm

going to inform the people who have written me from their

constituencies that I have given them copies and that I fully expect

that those members will write replies. I expect that those replies will

eventually be read out in this chamber. If you do not reply to those

letters, I'm afraid I'm going to have to write to these people and tell

them that you have not replied. I hate to do this, but I may even have

to go to their constituencies and point out to some of the teachers and

some of the parents in the Kootenays, Omineca and Kamloops....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) as well.... I have

several letters from Dewdney complaining not only about the cutbacks in

education caused by this finance formula but — and I hate to say this —

the complete lack of representation they're receiving in this

Legislature. It was not always the case in Dewdney. That member at one

time did stand up on occasion in this Legislature and represent the

individual members and groups within his constituency, and he did it

very fairly — at least his performance was fair. I will say that since

1979 that member has given very, very poor representation to his

constituency.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must now

ask you to return to the principle under discussion on Bill 27. We've

had quite a bit of latitude in the member's discussion. I must now ask

him to return specifically to Bill 27.

MR. LAUK:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm referring to the member for Dewdney

under this bill is that he has received complaints. I've received

letters from his own constituents on this bill. He has not said one

word about his position vis-à-vis this finance formula — not one word.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

Is Maple Ridge in your constituency? Before I sit down, I want to point

out to the hon. member that there have been cutbacks at Maple Ridge in

the special program for disabled children. There's been a cutback there

and there have been complaints; there have been telegrams; they've

queried the minister. Do you mean to say that the hon. member did not

receive copies of that? Nonsense, of course he has. Has he replied? No,

he hasn't. It's nothing short of a scandal and a conspiracy of silence

by the government backbenchers, and don't think people outside of this

chamber will not be bringing that to the attention of their

constituents.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing has

not arrived, but here's another example. Even people in the cabinet

have a responsibility to represent their constituencies. Has the member

for Columbia River said anything about the school cutbacks in his own

constituency that were caused by this bill? Not a word. Has he replied

to any of the inquiries? He has not replied to one. He too is part of

the conspiracy of silence. In the Kimberley school district, the

following cuts have been made: gifted children courses; computer

courses; tutoring for disabled students who have to stay at home for

long periods; district counsellor is gone; there'll be 40 percent fewer

relief teachers, and classes therefore will be doubled or closed;

custodians and maintenance procedures have been cut back; speech

therapy aid is gone; school bus maintenance has been reduced.

I'm going to ask the Minister of Lands if he truly represents the

constituency of Columbia River. School bus maintenance is to be reduced

in a rural constituency? Is he going to have on his head and on his

shoulders the responsibility of having in his riding school buses that

are not fit or safe for driving kids to school? Is that what he's going

to stand for in this Legislature? How do you reduce school bus

maintenance without expending safety? You can't do it; you know it and

I know it. You either shut down the buses, which he knows he can't do,

or you endanger the lives and safety of the school kids in his riding,

and that is a scandal. Do I ever see in the House during the debate the

minister, who is aware of this information? Will he even stand up

during this debate? I

[ Page 7199 ]

really

doubt it. And do you know why the members for Kootenay and Omineca and

Columbia River won't stand up and speak on this bill? Because they are

ashamed. They've seen all their work in the constituencies go down the

drain, because they'd sooner hold public office than speak out for

justice in their own constituencies.

The Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) took office and succeeded the member for

Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) as Minister of Education some time ago.

His promise was that he would conduct a tour — and at great public

expense, I might say — to find out what was required to change and

upgrade and improve the education system in the province of British

Columbia. At great expense he travelled throughout the province and we

waited very, very long....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

No, he wouldn't eat in the cafeteria. You see, the Minister of

Education and his predecessor have one philosophy of life: no contact

with other human beings. His predecessor, the good doctor from Point

Grey, who is now.... You know the fellow who suggested a tunnel running

from Vancouver to Victoria?

MR. KING: Dr. Strangelove.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I wouldn't call him Dr. Strangelove. No, Dr. Strangelove had style.

But do you remember that crackpot scheme of a tunnel going from Vancouver to

Victoria? Do you know how much the government of the province of British

Columbia spent on that crackpot scheme just to find a couple of engineers to

tell them it wasn't feasible? One hundred thousand dollars. Can we go through

the list of cutbacks in special needs alone that I have just read out? It was

$40,000 in Nanaimo; $90,000; $12,000 in Shuswap — cut down teachers'

aides in Shuswap. We

could have saved some of those provisions had we not had that crackpot

tunnel scheme proposed to and funded by the government. The other

cabinet ministers knew full well it was a crackpot scheme; they rolled

over and played dead.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the heroin treatment that he knew all about?

MR. LAUK: I hear a voice reminding me of the heroin treatment project that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland)....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hope you also hear a voice reminding you that we are on Bill 27.

MR. LAUK: I've just heard one.

The

point should be made, though, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of

Energy's Langley.... He wasn't in the House. This was addressed to the

Hon. Bob McClelland, and he has not replied to it. I expect that he

will not be getting up and debating this bill, because this says:

DEAR MR. McCLELLAND:

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IF LEGISLATION PROCEEDS TO REQUIRE LANGLEY

SCHOOL BOARD TO CUT $897,000 FROM ITS 1982 BUDGET, THE BOARD HAS SERVED PUBLIC

NOTICE THAT THE FOLLOWING CUTS WILL TAKE PLACE:

(1) THE LOSS OF 30 TEACHING POSITIONS, INCLUDING SEVERAL IN SPECIAL

SERVICES EDUCATION; REDUCTION OF PROFESSIONAL AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT;

REDUCTION OF SUPPLIES FOR ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND DISTRICT PROGRAMMING; ELIMINATION

OF DISTRICT SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAMS...

This

is madness, Mr. Speaker. I've got to point out the insanity, the

catch-22 situation. You've got so many students in the school system

that need to beef up on some courses or they won't pass their year.

They do that by going to a summer school program, getting their course

and going into the next grade. Without the summer school program, in

many cases, they have to repeat the course or even the grade at great

additional expense to the education system on the one hand or, if they

drop out, a great loss of human resource on the other.

MR. BARRETT: Did he respond?

MR. LAUK: He hasn't responded.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

I'm very sorry that the Minister of Energy has that kind of a

street-gang mentality, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying to be fair and point out

that this telegram was received by him. It points out the drastic cuts

in his own school district, and all he chooses to do is to throw

insults across the floor.

As I said, the telegram points out:

...REDUCTION OF MAINTENANCE SERVICE. OTHER CUTS ARE ALSO SLATED.

I WILL FORWARD YOU BY MAIL A FULL LIST OF THOSE CUTS AND THE RESPONSE OF THE

LANGLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.

SIGNED,

KEN NOVAKOWSKY,

PRESIDENT,

LANGLEY TEACHERS

ASSOCIATION.

AN HON MEMBER: What date is it?

MR. LAUK: It's today.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, if the bill is up today, he should be responding.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Then sit down.

MR. LAUK:

The minister says sit down, and then he will get up and debate. So

that's one commitment he has made. Has he ever breached a commitment?

MR. BARRETT: He was going to solve the heroin problem.

MR. LAUK: That is one. Can anyone recall whether the hon. minister has breached one of his commitments?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 27, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Did he breach a commitment on Bill 27?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he'd never tell a lie.

[ Page 7200 ]

MR. LAUK:

He has made a commitment to speak but he says he wants me to sit down

first. Let me tell you something. The reason I am going through some of

this material in great detail is to ensure that all the hon. members on

the opposite side, when they do speak on this bill, are fully informed.

As I said, the Minister of Education went on his grand tour of the

province because he promised that he wanted to reform the school

system. As a result of that tour, he made this statement on page 155 of

"Education — a Report from the Minister, 1981":

"A specific problem has occurred in 1981 because of the

rapid increase of home values in some of the urban areas of the province and

the resultant rapid increase in school tax to be paid. In order to ensure that

this problem is not allowed to continue, I have established a school tax committee,

with the following terms of reference."

The

one term of reference that I'm going to refer to says: "...(

e) to

examine alternative ways of revising assessment to protect homeowners

from the immediate impact of inflationary real estate markets, while

retaining the basic integrity of the assessment system and the

educational finance system."

You see, Mr. Speaker, his new

system is, once again, the old tradition of robbing the north to pay

for social services in the south, in one sense.

"The

amount to be raised by homeowners across the province will increase by

44 percent in 1982 over the 1981 figures, although some areas will get

some reductions. People in industry-free centres, such as West

Vancouver, will get an average of $645 reduction in tax."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that again?

MR. LAUK: West Vancouver. You know, the people who don't have good educational services.

"Meanwhile,

people in industrial centres, like Powell River and Howe Sound, will

get an increase of between $100 and $200 in their average taxes."

I want to read from a very well-known Social Credit supporter, Allen Garr, who writes for the Province .

Everybody knows he's been a rabid Social Credit supporter, so what he's

going to say now on this bill should come as quite a surprise:

"What

I like best about the new Socred school financing formula is the way it

just reinforces an old B.C. tradition. It robs the north to pay for

social services in the south. Education Minister Brian Smith has

greased the squeaky wheel of the big-city property tax payers in West

Vancouver, and the grease has all been drawn from industrial towns in

the outlying areas of the province. Instead of simply saying that there

is real relationship between property value and school cost, which is

why this mess developed in the first place, Smith wipes out one

inequitable funding formula and replaces it with another.

"With a delightful bit of distorted logic, he argues that,

while one pile of taxes should stay in the local neighbourhoods, another pile

should be spread around the province. Property taxes on houses rightfully belong

to local school districts, he claims, because residential taxpayers have more

local concerns. If you extended that argument to its logical conclusion, all

taxes paid by people on the businesses they own would only be spent locally;

that includes sales tax, property tax, corporate taxes and personal income tax.

"What

Smith and the Socreds have done to solve their immediate problem of a

noisy, powerful bloc of voters is bleed off one of the few benefits

people upcountry receive for putting up with the smog and noise of

industrial development. Taxes gathered from assessments on commercial

and industrial property now go into a common pot.

And it's becoming more and more of a cracked pot, Mr. Speaker.

"As a result, the Socreds can claim they are contributing

more from general revenues to school costs. People in industry-free centres,

such as West Vancouver, are doing backflips because their school taxes are going

down. Meanwhile, people in industrial centres such as Powell River, Port Hardy

and Fort St. John" — where is he, at a separatist meeting? — "get

their property taxes hiked.

"So

much for the argument that building your industrial base is a good way

to reduce residential taxes for local services. The very towns that are

already suffering from layoffs and high unemployment because of a soggy

economy get it in the teeth again. Kick them while they're down, I say."

Mr.

Speaker, the reason I have read that into the record is because it

greatly exemplifies one of the chief problems of this new formula.

Politically I don't seem to understand it. No British Columbian would

have advised the Social Credit government to kick their rural

supporters in the teeth. No person who knows the history of British

Columbia politics would have so advised the cabinet, so I have to

conclude, once again, that it has to be the two fellows from the east —

those hired guns, those dirty tricks artists who were hired out here to

do the leg work and dirty work for this government. One of the

two-edged swords of hiring hired guns from the east is that they don't

know the local folks out here. I have a feeling there's going to be a

very strong message to this government by those former rural supporters

of this government who have been kicked in the teeth by this minister's

new financing formula.

Going back to the 1981 education

report by the minister, in that report he quotes statements made by

people who made presentations to him. The Coquitlam board of school

trustees said: "Assessed values per pupil vary considerably throughout

the province. We have to levy twice the mill rate of either New

Westminster or Vancouver." This is an example of what happened in the

Coquitlam School District. Under this new formula these discrepancies

still apply. The new bill does nothing to improve that.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has left the chamber. He must have had a very pressing appointment.

The

Surrey administrators' association said: "The accumulated shortfalls

and continuing burden on the local taxpayer leave it in a uniquely

unfortunate position of having to provide a rapidly expanding service

while struggling with largely inadequate facilities and equipment

already." Does the new bill do anything to help them? Not a thing.

There's no change.

Alderman Sigrid-Ann Thors of Vernon — the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is not here — said: "The need

[ Page 7201 ]

for

an immediate review of educational services and their funding is quite

evident. Inequities occur in this school district that do not occur

elsewhere, but this bill for Vernon has made it worse."

The

minister himself said on page 149 of his report: "When comparing

provincial and local sharing of education, many people do not have

complete information. As a result, some inappropriate conclusions are

reached." That's one of the problems.

We had, I would say,

90 percent more information in the old formula than we have under this

one. There is no information at all about how this formula is going to

be calculated in the final analysis, and no commitment to the promise

made by the minister two months ago. You'll notice he has not mentioned

the figure "75 percent of school operating costs" since his press

release two months ago. I shouldn't think he would want to mention it

again.

In this bill, local autonomy is seriously eroded due

to the provincial government's taking on arbitrary control. Gary Begin,

who is the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, states:

"An incomplete solution to a difficult problem. With proper planning

and consultation between government and elected boards, the same

objectives could have been achieved with much less damage to the

education system." Mr. Begin is referring to the announcement made by

the minister.

It was difficult for me to believe that this

ministry and government would move on the school formula without having

consulted the school trustees of the province. I found that almost

impossible to believe. The formula came as a complete and utter shock

to all school trustees in the province.

The member for

Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) should be interested in this statement from the

senior education staff of the Kamloops School District: "There appears

to be lack of coordination at times between the departments within the

Ministry of Education. One example of this is the lack of direction

given to the facilities branch by the special programs branch." This

bill is causing a moral crisis in the Ministry of Education. Examples

of this occur every day.

Another person from the principals'

and vice-principals' association of Quesnel is quoted as saying:

"Ministry officials need to see what is happening in the schools, and

to interact with principals and teachers. This would improve

communications and give a greater understanding of the problems facing

teachers." I don't see anything in this bill that will help — this, the

Larry Bell bill. It's creating dependency and despondency in the

Ministry of Education.

Many fine statements were made as a

result of the ministers' tour, all of which could have had some

expression this year in a legislative program or policy statements by

the government. Instead, they have come up with this savage taxation

bill and ignored the needs, as found to be the needs by the minister

himself.

Here's a statement that I find very peculiar in

relation to this bill. Remember last year when the minister thought

that he was the Minister of Education? He was making policy statements

for the improvement of the system. He also made statements, such as

this one at page 154, that indicated at least some commitment to local

school district autonomy. He said: "School boards are duly elected

statutory taxation authorities, just as municipal, provincial and

federal governments are, and our system assumes that they will budget

appropriately. They are fully accountable to the voters in their

district. No level of government is in a position to overrule the

budget of another." The minister is not in his seat, but I wonder if

he's embarrassed by that remark.

Bill 27 completely usurps

the power of the local school district board. They have their budgets

controlled. I'll give you the example of last Friday where the

Courtenay School District has received word from the minister himself

that if they don't set their own budget within so many days, he will do

it for them. Additionally, this bill has taken over the powers of the

school board almost absolutely. I cannot think of any power left to the

local school trustee.

At least I must say that the minister

did concede on a radio show on January 26, 1982, that there definitely

will be some reduction in autonomy for trustees because the province

will be setting the overall budget guidelines. That was a hint of

things to come, but

section 12 of Bill 27 allows the Minister of

Education to be judge, jury and executioner. Given that

section 58

provides that the Regulation Act shall not apply to these directives,

there is no obligation on the minister to be publicly accountable for

his control of local budgets.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Since

the provincial government has arbitrary control over the local share of

the budget, and hence the degree of autonomy of boards is controlled by

the government entirely, all of the educational priorities are now

going to be set by the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker,

when the minister did his tour last year he received a number of

complaints from people involved in the education system — from

teachers, parents and taxpayers — that the ministry itself seemed to be

lacking internal coordination, clarity as to authority, and contact

with the field. There were charges made that the ministry was assuming

a controlling and authoritative stance using inconsistent formulas and

being poor educational planners. This didn't come from one or two

groups; it was a consistent criticism of the Ministry of Education. Now

we see that rather than give more local control through this bill, it

usurps central control. With the power of the purse strings, the

Ministry of Education, in controlling every aspect of the local school

district's budget, leaves no authority to the local school district but

usurps it all to the ministry, in the face of widespread criticism of

the ministry's ineptitude to respond to the needs of the educational

system. I would think that if I saw a criticism like that as Minister

of Education, I would either improve the ministry or give more control

to the local school district. The minister has done neither. What he

has done is he has taken control over decision-making of the local

school districts to the ministry level.

Mr. Speaker, what

are the requirements of a new education finance formula as should be

developed in contrast to that proposed by Bill 27? We believe that such

a system of financing should be simple, fair in the spreading of the

burden of school property tax equally from area to area, and

predictable.

The Fleming report on school taxation

identified five general principles inherent in the present legislation

and which should be retained, says the associate deputy minister. It

says:

"1. Equality of educational opportunity for all students wherever in B.C. they reside.

"2. Equalization of fiscal capacity through the distribution

of provincial resources so that districts less able to raise funds for educational

programs receive larger shares of provincial support.

[ Page 7202 ]

" 3. Local school district autonomy in setting the final

budget level without provincial intervention and using property tax to meet

the extra costs that result.

"4. Local school district discretion in the application

of revenues to particular levels of expenditure on each item, regardless of

the cost of the item in that district compared to other districts.

"5. Equity of tax effort within each taxpayer class (e.g.

as homeowners, commercial firms, industrial firms, farms, etc.) in relation

to the relative values of property."

I would add to this one more: The need to protect the taxpayers against aberrations

in elements of the system, like rocketing assessments.

was the failure of the government to exercise the powers they had,

under the old legislation, to do this that has brought the whole system

of education finance into disrepute and set the scene for an interim

education finance act.

Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the

Fleming report. Does this legislation meet any one of the five criteria

that the deputy minister himself has proposed? Not one. "Equality of

educational opportunity for all students wherever in B.C. they reside."

I have already pointed out that if there is a school district that has

predominantly industrial and commercial land tax.... That's been

confiscated, so they have much less in their school budget this year to

provide for the special needs and enhanced programs that have been

developed over the years in their school districts. So the bill fails

on point one.

"2. Equalization of fiscal capacity through the distribution

of provincial resources so that districts less able to raise funds for educational

programs receive larger shares of provincial support." This bill completely and utterly ignores that proposal by the deputy minister.

This bill in no way guarantees or even promises equalization of fiscal capacity

— that's equal funds in various areas for educational programs. You will

see that some school districts will suffer much more greatly than richer school

districts.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: As the member says, they listen to no one.

"3. Local school district autonomy in setting the final budget level

without provincial intervention and using property tax to meet the

extra costs that result." Now, Mr. Speaker, what has this bill done? It

has said: we're taking away your commercial and industrial land tax,

we're providing you with a basic program and funding it, shareable, but

anything extra you pay for. On the other hand, they're saying: however,

we're going to control your budgets; however, we're going to limit you

to a certain amount.

The proposition by the deputy minister, Mr. Fleming, was a

carefully considered one that has come from a great deal of experience

in the field of education and financing education. He's the deputy

minister of finance in the ministry. His statement is surely a

recognition of the fact that local school boards represent, more than

anyone else, families and parents in the local school district, and

they can express more clearly the needs and desires of the local

taxpayer than a provincial government can. I think that through history

this has been proven time and time again. If a local school district

wishes to support special programs, through consultation with taxpayers

and voters in that district, then they should be allowed to do so

without interference. Has the bill done that?Not in the slightest. It has directly interfered with that school district's ability to provide those special needs.

"4. Local school district discretion in the application

of revenues to particular levels of expenditure on each item, regardless of

the cost of the item in that district compared to other districts," should not be interfered with by the provincial ministry. Need I say any more

with respect to the bill before us, Mr. Speaker? No effort whatsoever is made

to protect the integrity of the school district, and every effort is being made

to usurp total control to the central ministry.

"5. Equity of tax effort within each taxpayer class, such

as homeowners, commercial firms, industrial firms and farms in relation to the

relative values of property." Has that equity been approached in this bill? It's been completely ignored

in this bill, Mr. Speaker. If the minister pretends that Bill 27 is a result

of the Fleming report, nothing could be further from the truth. None of the

real recommendations made by the Deputy Minister of Education have been exemplified

in this bill or been written into legislation. All this bill then becomes is

a money-grab. It doesn't fulfil any of the propositions that Mr. Fleming

asked for; it does, in most of the five points, the opposite.

There

are a number of propositions that the B.C. School Trustees Association

put out in their background report, Mr. Speaker, that will be helpful

in analyzing whether or not the members should be voting for or against

this bill — and this was right after the announcement of the finance

formula itself:

"1. Does the new education finance formula recognize that

it costs more to heat a classroom in Fort Nelson than it does in Vancouver?" I wonder if the hon. members from the north on the government side have taken

that question into serious consideration. It does cost more. Does this finance

formula allow for that? Not at all. There is no provision for provincial funding

of the differences in cost for heat at these establishments. Am I talking about

something small? Not at all. We're talking in some cases about a great percentage

of the local school budget in total.

"2. Does the new education finance formula recognize that

education is labour-intensive?" We all know that 80 or 90 percent of a budget goes for salaries, and it should.

That's what the education system is for. It's to teach; it's not

to provide money for unnecessary plant, and so on.

"Does the formula provide for different funding according

to different salary levels in different parts of the province?" I think that that clearly has to take into consideration that there are some

school districts that attract and keep teachers for a number of years, and if

a teacher has been teaching 10 or 20 years, he makes more than somebody who's

been teaching five. It would be a sad day indeed if school districts went and

fired senior, more experienced teachers because they had to pay them more in

the increment level of payments to keep the school budgets down.

if you juxtapose the two facts, one is that the budget is

labour-intensive — so you're really paying salaries — and two is that

in many school districts they've got veteran school teaching staff that

demand or receive more in salary than in school districts that have

younger teachers. Is there any way that the government suggests to

these school boards that they can deal with that dicey problem? Can

they suggest, for example, that there be an amendment to the School Act

that will allow the district board to fire everybody who worked there

for more than five or ten years? To make it really worthwhile, perhaps

some school districts should only have

[ Page 7203 ]

teachers

who are freshly graduated from the University of British Columbia.

Maybe even the principal or vice-principal should have just recently

graduated from the Department of Education, but in any event why should

the difference in the teachers' share not be considered in the

financing formula?

"3. Does the new formula recognize the different costs involved

in different programs? For example, it costs much more to teach industrial arts

to whether or not the new formula took into consideration the costs of the various

programs. Quite often special courses, if you like, or extra courses from the

so-called core curriculum are sometimes the most expensive. Is this an argument

that we shouldn't have? The Minister of Labour has indicated that by 1984

we will need people to fill 5,000 jobs in the skilled area. Are we training

them? The answer is no. Are we taking any steps to train them? The answer again

is no. There has been little or no provision in the budget for vocational or

industrial training. Certainly, with these local school district cutbacks that

are being imposed by this new formula, industrial arts programs will also go

by the wayside.

"5. Will decisions as to what programs are funded be made

according to educational rather than political criteria?" I suppose that's an important question, Mr. Speaker. We have, for example,

the tinkering with the social studies program by the ministry. We also have

the so-called consumer education course. The choice of introducing a consumer

education course does not come from the grass roots of the education system;

it comes as a political response to political pressure on the government from

their cronies and friends in the economic system. Brief after brief from the

various chambers of commerce has argued for a free enterprise course in the

school system, and that's precisely what consumer ed is supposed to be.

At least that's the effort that the government is making. I don't think

too many teachers are going to view it as a free enterprise course — I certainly

hope not. They'll teach a more broader view of consumer education. However,

I'm quite afraid of the encroachment upon local autonomy, that the ministry

can perhaps punish one school district as opposed to another with the special

grant system under this new bill. By saying that if they don't teach consumer

ed.... The funds available from that $75 million slush fund this year, and

that $250 million slush fund next year, will be used to reward or punish school

districts.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

And my colleague points out that the imposition of the consumer

education course has been rejected quite strongly by the independent

schools association as an unwarranted interference in their autonomy

and independence. So it's a very appropriate question that we ask of

the government today: will decisions as to what programs are funded in

the basic program that the Minister will come out with soon be made

according to educational criterias? We've had some very bad examples

with respect to education of how decisions made by this government have

been primarily political and not educational.

The sixth

question they ask is: "Does the new program provide funding on the

basis that the government will add three dollars to every dollar

collected from the local property tax, as recommended by the McMath

commission?" We now know through the legislation that it doesn't. We

know that theMcMath commission was not even considered in the drafting of this legislation. It is really a money grab and nothing more.

" 7. Will the government provide funding in such a way as

to provide relief from the provincial tax on property without increasing the

local tax on property?" And the answer to that question is clearly no. Any way we look at this new

formula, the taxation on residential property is going to zoom up in rural areas

this year and next, and in most urban areas homeowner taxation will increase

as well.

was interesting, Mr. Speaker, when I was watching the press reports of

the last Social Credit convention, that some Social Credit groups put

forward a resolution to have the government impose a referendum for

school board budgets. My understanding was that it was passed

overwhelmingly at their convention. I think that's what happened. The

interesting

part is that the minister himself spoke against the motion.

My information is that he argued that if they wanted to restrict

increases in school board budgets, they should elect fiscally

parsimonious trustees, and not hold referendums. The ironical point of

that is that now the minister has established a one-man referendum. He

is the only person in the province who has a vote on school board

budgets.

You could see the transition, Mr. Speaker. When he

was running for public office, he promised the McMath commission

formula of 75 to 25. He was sort of being kicked around a bit by that

right-wing Social Credit cabinet, and sometime last year he still had

to tour the province and develop proposals on education. He came back

with a glossy, very expensive report — it cost $6 a copy — that listed

all kinds of needs and directions. The result is the most backward and

regressive legislation that anyone could have imagined. He's sort of a

born-again Socred. He started out as a Liberal and a progressive in

education, and has turned right around and does the bidding of the

right-wing groups — the bottom-line types — in the Social Credit

cabinet.

I want get on the record the effect that this new

financing formula will have in the various school districts, with

specific reference to the confiscation of the industrial and commercial

tax base. In Fernie, for example — and the member is not here — the

residential tax base is 14 percent and the non-residential tax base is

85 percent. I want all the folks in Fernie and the member for Kootenay

(Mr. Segarty) to listen to that difference in figures. The amount of

taxation that has been confiscated — or as the minister has

euphemistically put it, the amount that they "have assumed

responsibility for" — is 85 percent of their total assessment. Their

total assessment is $244, 238,000, and the government has confiscated

$208 million of that amount.

In Cranbrook the residential

tax base is better. It's 39 percent. The non-residential — the

industrial and commercial — is 60 percent. Out of a total budget of

$116,500,000, the government has confiscated $71 million from Cranbrook.

was so hoping the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) would come back, because there's a message here from the school

district of Kimberley.

MR. MUSSALLEM: What's the school district number, please?

MR. LAUK:

Do you want the school district number? Fernie is School District 1,

Cranbrook is School District 2, Kimberley is School District 3.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Don't go any further; that's it. If you get to 5, he's stuck.

[ Page 7204 ]

MR. LAUK:

In Kimberley the residential is 20 percent and the non-residential is

80 percent. The total budget in Kimberley is $99 million. The amount

confiscated by the provincial government from Kimberley is $79 million

for 1982 residential and non-residential assessments.

School

District 4 — Windermere. Windermere is a bit better. In Windermere the

residential portion is over 50 percent. Windermere's total budget is

$73 million; I'm rounding off the figures. The total amount confiscated

from that budget by the provincial government is $36 million.

In Nelson the total budget is $194 million. They've confiscated $148 million from that budget.

Castlegar the total budget is $101 million. The total amount

confiscated by this government from the school district of Castlegar is

$74 million.

The Arrow Lakes. Who has got the Arrow Lakes?

MR. NICOLSON: I have — and Patsy.

MR. LAUK:

The total budget for the Arrow Lakes School District is $37 million.

The confiscation by this government is $27 million. It's unbelievable,

isn't it?

MR. BARBER: By "budget" do you mean "assessment base"?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I'm sorry, assessment base.

Trail

is the most scandalous example. I can't believe it. In Trail the

percentage of residential is only 18 percent, and there's 81 percent

non-residential. That's what's been confiscated. Out of an assessment

base of $252 million, the provincial government has confiscated $206

million.

In Grand Forks they've confiscated $20 million out of a $38 million budget.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

I mean "assessment base." You know what I mean. You're listening

carefully. I'm glad there's one person here who is listening to this.

Do you want me to get to Chilliwack right away, or shall we just leave

that for a minute?

In Kettle Valley, they have confiscated

$13.5 million from a $22 million assessment. In the South Okanagan, the

Premier's own constituency, from a $73 million assessment they have

confiscated $33 million. Penticton is another example. From a $153

million assessment the government has seized, stolen, confiscated $71

million. Is the minister from Penticton going to pay that back

personally? Keremeos: again, from a $16 million assessment, $8 million

has been confiscated. In Princeton only 22 percent of the taxation base

is residential; 77.8 percent is commercial and industrial. That means

the assessment base is $52 million, and the province has seized $41

million of that. Can you imagine what is going on here? In Golden there

is a 24 percent residential assessment and 75 percent non-residential,

or industrial and commercial. Their assessment is $39 million and $29

million of that goes to the province. There is no guarantee we will get

a penny of this back. This is all going to northeast coal.

The

member for Kamloops should be listening. There is a 30 percent

residential and 69 percent industrial and commercial tax base in

Kamloops. I wonder if, during that by-election last May, the member

made a promise to the people of Kamloops that the provincial government

would come in and seize 69 percent of their assessment. I wonder if he

made that promise when he was running for election. From an assessment

base of $658 million, the province will seize $458 million. Quesnel is

interesting. From an assessment of $222 million, the province will get

$182 million. Chilliwack is also an interesting one — Mr. Speaker's own

school district. From a total assessment base of $196 million, the

government is going to take away from your school district $101

million. In Powell River, District 47, the tax base is $270 million;

and the confiscation, the highest so far, is $223 million.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They are going to take it all, take the whole town. What about 46? That is in my riding too.

MR. LAUK: The Sunshine Coast: from a base of $199 million, they are going to take $83.2 million.

could go on forever. Just a glance at the school financing formula, and

one would not believe what kind of a money grab this really is. It is a

terrible money grab. There is no guarantee that any of this

confiscation will be returned to the school districts in any form

whatsoever. Nothing in the bill guarantees anything of the sort. We are

supposed to trust the minister. He asks us to trust him. School

District 84, Vancouver Island West, has a total assessment of $68

million, and guess what the seizure is, guess what the theft is? It is

$64 million from that amount.

It is a total usurpation of

local control, with no guarantee of anything going back to Chilliwack.

How are you, Mr. Speaker, going to go to those people in Chilliwack and

tell them this is okay? Can you guarantee those people in Chilliwack

that this money will not go to the northeast coal project? Will you

stake your seat on going to Chilliwack and saying that not one penny of

this confiscated money going into general revenue is going to the

northeast coal project? You can't do it; you know you can't, because

there's nothing in the legislation that prevents this government from

taking all $840 million in taxation that they've confiscated.... All or

most of it or even part of it may well go to the northeast coal project.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes. Well, they'll still be a billion dollars in the hole after they've blown all our money.

One example of the kind of thing that's happening out there happened recently in Cowichan. On April 22 in the Cowichan Leader — I'll read this into the record:

"It

was an outrage, but School District 65 was forced at its April 19

meeting to extend its borrowing power from $2.5 million to $4.5 million

to meet its costs until the provincial government can get organized and

resume normal payments to school districts.

"Board

secretary-treasurer Bill Brown said the board would have to borrow

additional money simply to meet such basic costs as its payroll because

of proposed changes in the way and amount the province pays each school

district. Noting the proposed provincial changes are presently before

the Legislature, Brown said no money, not even what is owed to this

district under the old financing formula, is coming through. He warned

the board it should be prepared to fend for itself, possibly until the

end of the school year.

[ Page 7205 ]

"'This

is really outrageous, that we have to borrow because they, the

provincial government, haven't got their legislation through in a

proper way,' fumed trustee Anne Murray. 'I just can't believe it,' said

trustee Phyllis Bomford. 'They're telling us to cut back and they're

forcing us to borrow from the banks at high rates of interest.'"

you think that's exceptional, Mr. Speaker? I wonder, if you gave a

little call to the Chilliwack School District, whether the

secretary-treasurer there couldn't tell you what the district is doing.

I'm reliably informed that they're borrowing heavily to make up their

budget, and they're paying interest. Who pays that interest? A budget

is supposed to be funded by taxation, and they have to borrow from the

banks. It's another way in which the financial institutions,

particularly the banking institutions, of this province are benefiting

from this government's ineptitude. As if the banks need the money!

School districts all over the province are borrowing millions of

dollars at 25, 20, 19 or 18 percent interest, and we're getting into

tremendous debt at the school district level. Who pays for that

interest? Who pays for that accumulated debt? The residential taxpayers

in the following year. That won't come from the provincial government;

that won't come from the money they've confiscated. That will come from

homeowners and from the increases in taxation on them in the following

year.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. member would like to do his studying at a time other than the time of the House.

MR. LAUK:

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I noticed you were in conversation with

someone, and I didn't want to speak while you weren't paying absolute

attention.

A very simple mathematical formula was used to

determine the amount of the cut to school districts with regard to

district need, unique situations in a district, unique needs of

students in a district, surpluses or deficits in last year's budget. In

fact, districts with a surplus in 1981 were punished under this formula

and asked to cut more. Districts with a deficit in 1981 got a bonus in

1982, whether or not the district had already cut its provisional

budget — such as Penticton, Victoria and Saanich, which had already cut

their budgets before sending them in February 15. The formula worked in

such a way that two districts received notice that their semi-final

budgets were too low. Soon after districts received notice to cut by a

specified amount. Some were told changes would be made. Stikine was to

make a cut of approximately $80,000 and not add money, as the first

order from the minister stated. Other districts were told their cuts

would be less — on second thought — such as Nanaimo, Burnaby and

Smithers. This is the kind of department you're running. You don't even

know what's going on.

[Interruption.]

HON. MR. SMITH: You just made a baby cry.

MR. LAUK: Listen, the minister has made more than just one baby cry. He's sunk a whole generation of students.

The

minister kept announcing that some districts might get special

consideration. I wonder if he remembers that? Do you want me to repeat

the letters and quotations of the minister? He made many statements

that some districts might get special consideration if they had a case.

He didn't state the criteria. He just made the promise. There were

three legal opinions, as I recall, that stated that school boards did

not have to comply with the request to cut. This is earlier on. On the

basis of all this confusion many school boards quite rightly decided

not to make cuts until legislation was in place.

The cuts

themselves are inequitable. On a per-pupil basis they vary from zero

per pupil in the central coast situation to $220 per pupil in the Gulf

Islands. I can't understand how that formula came into play, because

this new interim act states that districts may be punished for not

making cuts when ordered. Will these districts be punished

retroactively?

Section 12 says that these districts would be punished

if they didn't make the cuts.

There are a few districts

which can make the cuts without severe consequences. I recognize that

there are a few, but in most districts the cuts will have drastic

effects. I cite Abbotsford, Langley and Fernie as being three that come

to mind. These are districts with a growing enrolment, where it has

been impossible in the past to keep up due to inadequate government

funding. So the high taxation to residents there will continue and

increase to a great extent.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

the various school districts we've calculated what the cut-per-pupil

has been as a result of this new formula. I've given the example of

$221 per pupil in the Gulf Islands,

whereas in the central coast it was

zero. Anywhere along here the average is well above, I would say, $70

to $75. I would reckon the average cutback in all the school districts

is about $88 per pupil.

As I stated before, the features of

this bill are such that there is no commitment. As the minister

indicated earlier, there will be a 75 percent sharing of costs with the

school districts. It follows that: (1) equality of educational

opportunity for all students is not guaranteed as it is even in the

present School Act; (2) equalization of fiscal capacity is not

guaranteed as it is in the present School Act; (3) local school

district autonomy is violated in a shabby and tawdry way, and that the

minister can put his finger into every budget and can reallocate any

portion of the school board budget as he sees fit; and (4) local school

district discretion is totally removed, because the minister gives

himself the power to issue what he calls "directives," which he does

not have to publish and for which he is not accountable to local

taxpayers and is barely accountable to the Legislature.

you don't know that something has been done, how can you possibly make

the minister account for it? There is no requirement that the so-called

directives, which are virtually orders-in-council without even the

necessity of being orders-in-council.... They are virtually laws or

bylaws that do not have to be promulgated in the ordinary course of

events. No other statute like this in our law in this country has been

proposed. No other

section like it has been proposed. The minister can

directly interfere with school board budgets without accountability to

anyone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like the War Measures Act.

MR. LAUK:

Oh, the War Measures Act was a piece of cake compared to this section.

It conjures up all kinds of bizarre situations where the minister sends

a messenger in a

[ Page 7206 ]

cloak

and hood, travelling by horseback from school district to school

district, delivering the secret message: "This is a ministerial

directive." I wonder if he'll do it that way. Perhaps he'll summon them

into a private chamber, and anyone spilling the beans about what the

directive says might have their tongues cut out or perhaps have

thumb-screws put on them. It smacks of a very bizarre situation. These

directives are like orders-in-council, and they're not publishable.

Again, there's no formula in this bill. Equity of effort in tax

restraint or equity, of effort between taxpayers of a different class —

commercial or residential — is not guaranteed. We noticed with great

interest during the minister's announcement....

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could give me some

guidance. My point of order is that I notice a member reading a

newspaper in the House. I'm just wondering whether or not that's within

the rules of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is

well taken. The Chair must advise all members that our parliamentary

rules are quite clear: newspapers should not be read in the House

unless a member is going to use a specific part of the text for a

speech. All members are reminded to avoid reading newspapers.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I note that the same member is reading the same newspaper

— obviously, he doesn't learn too readily. I know it's very difficult

for him to read in his office, but at the same time I would advise that

that is what he should do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point

is well taken. I will ask the House to please come to order. I'll

remind all hon. members that our parliamentary rules prohibit us from

reading a newspaper unless one is going to use part of the newspaper

for his speech. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre continues.

I'll ask the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to please come to order.

MR. LAUK:

The fifth point under this formula is that the government, through the

minister, suggested that there would be some equity with respect to

taxes from residential as opposed to commercial and industrial. There's

no guarantee, no formula within this statute or any other kind of

legislation, that will protect that promise. With respect, we have

heard promises from the minister before and he hasn't kept them. This

is another critical example of why this bill should not pass. It's a

bill that is designed to give the power to the government to operate

the educational system in secrecy. How will parents be able to find out

what is going on with their kids when the school trustees won't even

know?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Speaker, that ferocious member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is harassing

this little member for Vancouver Centre. This might amount to a

question of privilege.

Having made that promise, we see no

guarantee in the legislation. We see an education system that is going

to be designed and run and controlled by one person in absolute secrecy.

The

sixth point that has to be made about this bill is that property tax

payers are not protected against arbitrary increases due to any quirks

in the system. On average, property taxes will rise about 42 percent

this year. Urban areas will get a break, perhaps, for this year only.

Next year, things will be as bad as they ever were and even much worse.

If there's any message that we have to get out there, that's the

message that is clearly part of this bill: that all the taxpayers in

the province are giving up control over local taxation for the sake of

a small decrease this year, but with a definite promise of tremendous

increases, even on the urban taxpayer, next year.

There is

no guarantee in this bill that payments to school boards by the

Minister of Finance will occur or, if they do occur, will be regular.

The school boards could be forced to borrow to meet operating expenses

on a continual basis, as Kitimat, Cowichan, Chilliwack, Prince George

and other school districts have already had to do. I wonder how many

hon. members of this House, particularly on the government side, have

called their school districts and asked them: "Are you borrowing to

meet your operating expenditures now, because this government is not

making payments?" If that's happened this year, Mr. Speaker, it's going

to happen again. It's going to happen often throughout the year. If

they're unable to borrow, I suppose we could have teachers paid in

script or some sort of Social Credit funny money, because it's more

convenient for the Minister of Finance to hold those funds in term

deposits and earn interest for the government than to pay them to the

school boards. You can see what's happening by this confiscation, Mr.

Speaker. I ask that the public pay special attention to what this

government is doing.

Cowichan and Kitimat have had to

borrow. Prince George, Chilliwack and other schools districts have

indicated that they're now borrowing funds from banks at exorbitant

interest rates because they're not receiving provincial payments. There

is nothing in this bill that requires the government to make any

payments at all, or if they do make payments, when or how regularly. If

they're short or late for a payment, the districts have to immediately

borrow to make the payroll. That borrowing has tremendous interest on

it. That interest accumulates on the debt of the school district, which

debt has to be taxed off the residential homeowner in some form,

because we know full well that the government is not going to provide

money for interest. They're barely going to provide money, according to

the minister, for the basic program — whenever that is discovered.

The

Minister of Finance is going to be very happy with this, because he's

going to have $840 million that he can invest in the short term and

gain that interest. With all of that money — again at the homeowner's

expense, at the school district's expense — they can finance the Anzac

line. It's a very clever scheme. It's politically quite clever,

because, as you may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking now

for four or five hours, I guess, and my remarks and criticisms of this

bill have not received the press attention I'd hoped they would. Have

you noticed that, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

The hon. member, the minister for fertilizer, has indicated that all

the press are falling asleep. Well, the government do not; they're

always alert. I'm going to make one last stab at getting some press —

and I'll do it by doing this: we have the finest press gallery anywhere

in the Commonwealth. It is alert, keen and highly educated, because

[ Page 7207 ]

they

are the lucky generation that got an education before these cutbacks.

They went to journalism school when there was a journalism school.

That's another thing they're cutting back in Oak Bay. All the Oak Bay

high schools are cutting back on their journalism course.

Mr.

Speaker, this very clever scheme is not only a financial grab. It has

another sting to it. That is that we have school districts today

borrowing at high interest rates, and they will in the future too,

because there is no guarantee in this bill that this government is

required to make payments regularly as needed in accordance with

approved budgets at school district level. So when they need to make

the payroll, they're going to be borrowing from the banks at very high

interest rates, while this government takes their money and makes money

on it in short-term deposits. If that's not theft, I have no idea what

that is. If that's not embezzlement of proper funds from a local school

district, I don't know what that is. Perhaps someone here can tell me

what that is, if that isn't embezzlement. It's happening today, and I

predict that, without some definite spelling out in the legislation,

it's going to happen again.

So this bill violates principles

that the government itself has said were operating requirements: "(1)

equality of educational opportunity" — and I'm quoting here from some

of the ministerial statements made last year — and (2) equalization of

fiscal capacity." Why does the Minister of Finance (Hon.