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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7291

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Municipal tax arrears. Mr. Nicolson –– 7291

Therapeutic abortions. Mr. Cocke –– 7291

Hospital bed closures. Mr. Barber –– 7291

Exclusion of Prince George land from ALR.

Mrs. Wallace –– 7292

WCB coverage for farmworkers. Ms. Sanford

–– 7293

WCB coverage for domestic workers. Ms.

Brown –– 7293

Public release of studies commissioned by

government. Mrs. Dailly –– 7293

Education (Interim) Finance Act (Bill 27).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

section 1 –– 7293

Mr. Lauk

section 2 –– 7293

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Sanford

Division

section 4 –– 7295

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Howard

Mr. Gabelmann

Division

section 5 –– 7297

Mrs. Wallace

section 6 –– 7297

Mrs. Wallace

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

section 9 –– 7300

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lauk

section 12 –– 7300

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Division

section 20 –– 7303

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Brown

Division

section 58 — 7307

Mr. Lauk

Division

On the amendment to third reading motion

–– 7308

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Nicolson

Division

Third reading –– 7309

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill

15). Second reading.

Mr. Lockstead –– 7309

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: This morning I

was pleased to greet some students from Prince of Wales School in

Vancouver. With them were some exchange students from the province of

Quebec. Some of these students are in the gallery and others are in the

precincts. I would like the Legislature to offer them a very warm

welcome.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Seated somewhere in the

galleries are my niece, Brenda Field from Edmonton, Alberta, and her

friend Kate Grundy, and I think my wife Jeanne. You'd better welcome

them.

MR. GABELMANN: For the second day in a row

students from North Island are in the galleries in Victoria; today it

is a group from North Island Senior Secondary in Port McNeill. I would

ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery or in the

precincts are members of the Federation of Agriculture executive. I ask

the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER:

In the visitors' gallery today are two keenly interested young visitors

from the province of Ontario — my son Rick and his new wife Karen. I

hope the members will be at their scintillating best and in model mood

and behaviour this afternoon.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr.

Speaker, once again we have Hope in the gallery. I would ask the House

to please welcome a group of students from the Hope Secondary School.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) on numerous occasions has made reference in this House to

standing order 8. Only a few days ago he raised the question again and

was concerned because there weren't enough members listening to him in

the House. Standing order 8 says: "Every member is bound to attend the

service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the

House." On each occasion that that has been raised you have responded

that if the member is within the precincts of the chamber he's deemed

to be attending the House. I wonder if when Bill King, Lorne Nicolson,

Jim Lorimer and Gordon Hanson were on Cedar Hill Golf Course that was

considered to be within the precincts of the House.

There

are just two other very brief questions about standing order 8. I am

wondering if you could answer whether being on the Cedar Hill Golf

Course is legislation by recreation, and whether the NDP's slogan,

"Let's get to work," means golfing out at Cedar Hill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I observe

for the review of all hon. members that standing order 8 is deemed to

be in effect and deemed to be satisfied if members are present in the

precinct. My second observation is that if we refer to members of this

House it would be best to refer to them by their constituency

designation. Thirdly, may I remind the minister that any complaint laid

against any member of this House must be made by substantive motion.

The order paper is, of course, available to every member. I think that

ends the matter.

Interjections.

MR. KING:

On a point of order, an allegation has been made, and I have a right

under the rules of the House to correct an allegation and

misinformation that has been put before the House. Mr. Speaker, it is

not true that the members named were on the golf course before 6 p.m. I

would suggest that perhaps the minister and his informant might be

prime candidates to act as campaign manager for the member for North

Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER: The appropriate time for

debate on any complaint would be when the motion, which is on the order

paper, is called.

Oral Questions

MUNICIPAL TAX ARREARS

MR. NICOLSON:

I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week the

minister spent considerable time in question period explaining that

deadbeats who take advantage of the McCarthy loophole and refuse to pay

the municipal taxes are not criminals. Is the minister aware that three

companies owned by Raymond B. McCarthy have been in arrears for two

years for the sum of $18,163 to the town of Creston?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Speaker.

THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

The medical executive of the Victoria General Hospital are asking you

to intervene in the current dispute between the doctors and the

hospital board. The medical executive wish to comply with the

provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, yet the hospital board voted

last night to eliminate the therapeutic abortion committee. Can the

minister advise whether he has decided to put the Victoria General

Hospital under trusteeship as his predecessor did during a similar

dispute at the Vancouver General Hospital in August 1978?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I haven't received any communication as yet from the Victoria General

Hospital, either from the medical staff or the board. At least, if I

have, it hasn't been brought to my attention, although I anticipated it

after hearing news reports last evening. To answer the member's

question, I have not made such a decision at this time, and what action

may be necessary would depend largely on what the request may be from

either the medical board or the board itself, and I await that

communication.

HOSPITAL BED CLOSURES

MR. BARBER:

Also to the Minister of Health, in this case regarding cutbacks in

hospital care, the board of directors of the Royal Jubilee Hospital,

the second-largest hospital in British Columbia, is meeting tonight to

discuss proposed hospital bed closures. I ask the minister whether or

not he is aware of a senior staff proposal to be presented to the board

tonight that would see this 966-bed hospital shut down all together,

effective as soon as possible, 181 of those 996 beds. Is he aware of

this staff proposal going to the board tonight?

[ Page 7292

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I'm not aware of any

such proposal at

this time. Such a proposal, if one exists, has not been brought to my

attention and I don't know whether it's been communicated to anyone in

the ministry.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister

would be prepared to look into this matter and advise us whether or not

it is the case that senior staff propose to shut down 39 beds in the

Bay Pavilion; seven beds in Centre Block 2; 85 beds at the Eric Martin

Pavilion; seven beds in the Hospice program, which, by the way, would

shut down that program totally; 81 beds in the Richmond Pavilion; and

ten beds in the Homer wing of the Memorial Pavilion. I wonder if he

could inquire to find out whether or not this is the proposal, in

detail, to shut down a total of 181 beds at the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would remind all hon. members that in framing questions it would be

wise to remember that the purpose of question period is to seek

information and not to bring information to the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a question there nonetheless. The

Ministry of Health, in advising all hospitals of their budget figures

this year, asked each hospital board or each administrator to respond

as to their intent. I don't know whether that information has been

communicated to the ministry yet. If the Royal Jubilee Hospital board

is meeting tonight, then perhaps the information has yet to be sent to

the ministry. I would be pleased to respond to the member's question as

the information becomes available.

MR. BARBER: The

minister has indicated several times that Socred budget cuts will not

result in the closure of hospital beds. I wonder if he's prepared to

give that commitment prior to this evening's meeting of the board of

directors of Royal Jubilee Hospital, in order that they will not be

required to shut down even one of the 181 beds otherwise to be closed?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is whether the

commitment has been made, it's in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if the member is using information or

providing his own material. The closure of beds is a common occurrence

at most hospitals in the province, and I would be pleased to give that

member the information as to how many beds have been closed last year,

the year before and the year previous to that for various reasons. I'm

not familiar with the statement that not one hospital bed would be

closed in British Columbia. I would be pleased to see a copy of such a

statement, Mr. Member.

MR. BARBER: Do you deny making that promise?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If you'd like to offer me

a copy of that statement, I'd appreciate it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No debate.

EXCLUSION OF PRINCE

GEORGE LAND FROM ALR

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Can the minister confirm that

the Prince George district horticulturist and the field-crop

specialists who found that the Moffat property is equal to the best

arable land in the central interior have been sent a ministerial

directive ordering them to refrain from making public statements?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have not made any such

directive.

MRS. WALLACE:

To be very clear, Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling the House that

his ministry has not sent a directive to employees within his ministry,

including the two mentioned, that would forbid them from making public

statements?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is a

different question.

MS. BROWN: No, it's the same one.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if it's the same one,

it's not in order.

MRS. WALLACE:

In spite of my colleague, it was a different question. I'm asking the

minister whether or not his ministry has sent a directive to his

employees, including the two I mentioned, instructing them to refrain

from making public statements.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not to my knowledge, Mr.

Speaker,

MRS. WALLACE:

The mayor of Prince George has stated that the Moffat property was not

needed for urban development. Has the minister now decided to recommend

to cabinet not to accept the recommendation of ELUC and not to issue an

order-in-council approving the release of this property from the

agricultural land reserve?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is: has the

minister decided? It is in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to recall the question. It was rather

confusing. In regard to any comments about the mayor of Prince George,

that is a comment that he has made, and I can't answer as to whether or

not it is factual or accurate. Maybe the member would like to rephrase

it, Mr. Speaker. I was confused by the previous question she asked, and

I want to make sure I get this one right.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that the member

can rephrase the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MRS. WALLACE: If the minister is confused

by the first question, I'm certainly confused by his answer, and we'll

be looking at that later.

Has

he now decided, as a result of the statements of the mayor of Prince

George and for other reasons, to recommend to cabinet not to accept

ELUC's recommendation and not to pass the order-in-council taking the

Moffat property out of the reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The matter was dealt with as an appeal of a decision of the

Agricultural Land Commission. It was put forward to the Environment and

Land Use Committee and was a decision of that committee. It does not

require

[ Page 7293

order-in-council to deal with that issue. I might mention, though, for

the member's benefit and for the benefit of the House, that I am in

possession of a resolution by the municipal council of Prince George

that supported the exclusion of the land in question.

WCB COVERAGE FOR FARMWORKERS

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last June when I asked

the minister about the matter of WCB coverage for farmworkers, the

minister said that the matter had been under review in his ministry for

eight weeks and he implied that a decision was at hand. I'm wondering

if the minister can advise the House why he has decided to delay

implementation of WCB coverage for farmworkers for yet another year.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I don't recall the expressions of the member for Comox, but I would

like to advise the House that the matter of implementing coverage in

the area referred to is subject to the decision of the chairman and

commissioners of the Workers' Compensation Board. I think the member is

well aware of a recent announcement concerning potential coverage for

farmworkers. This is a subject of a task force and also an invitation

to a number of people who are interested in this particular area of

coverage to make a contribution to what the ultimate decision will be —

whether it be in the form of regulations, assessments, etc. It's well

in hand.

WCB COVERAGE FOR DOMESTIC WORKERS

MS. BROWN:

On the same question, I'm hoping to get a clearer answer from the

minister than the last one, because he's now had a few minutes to get

his thoughts together. Since the struggle to be covered by the Workers'

Compensation Board is one that not only the farmworkers but the

domestic workers have been involved in for some time, can the minister

tell me why, in making the promise, which he cannot now recall, he did

not include that he would work for the coverage of domestic workers by

the Worker's Compensation Board as well?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN:

The Premier has indicated that that question was argumentative, so I'm

going to try to put it in a less argumentative way. Can the Minister of

Labour explain why, out of the goodness of his heart, he did not

include the overworked, underpaid, exploited members of the domestic

workers community when he was promising coverage by the Workers'

Compensation Board for farmworkers?

MR. SPEAKER: The nature of the question

could lead to quite a lengthy answer and perhaps even some debate.

MS. BROWN: All he has to say is that he

doesn't care about the domestic workers. That's the reason they're not

covered.

PUBLIC RELEASE OF STUDIES

COMMISSIONED BY GOVERNMENT

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the

Attorney-General.

Does the Attorney-General believe that materials containing proposals

or recommendations for cabinet or investigations and studies

commissioned by the government — for example, the horse-racing study —

should never be released to the public?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I think that the question is probably out of order in the sense that it

asks for a legal opinion, but I would say that it would depend upon the

circumstances of the particular report.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to

public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 27, Mr.

Speaker.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

Section 1 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

It greatly helps in the passage of these particular sections if, when

the number is called, the member wishing to speak would rise in his

place at the appropriate time before the particular

section is passed.

In view of the fact that there was considerable noise, etc., I

recognize the first member for Vancouver Centre on

section 1.

MR. LAUK:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't quite hear the sections as they were

being called because there was general movement in the chamber. I thank

the committee's indulgence in allowing me to return to the clause.

With

respect to the whole of Bill 27, the opposition is of the view that in

committee, because most parts of this bill covered in second reading

are so offensive and designed to attack the education system as a

whole.... Although we had prepared amendments to each and every

section, we will not propose them. The reason we won't propose them

either on

section 1 or on any other

section is that no matter which way

we look to try to repair this bill and make it at least partly

reasonable, we find ourselves in an impossible situation. That does not

in any way mean that we will not make one or two comments on each

section as it arises — with respect to

Section I and all other sections

of the bill.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. LAUK:

Section 2 provides for payment of various grants, but contains nothing

by way of commitment that the grants will be in line with stated

government policy. Stated government policy is, at the very least, a 60

percent total provincial contribution to an as yet unannounced basic

program. The original press release and statement of the minister

indicated a commitment that the provincial government

[ Page 7294

would

make a 75 percent contribution to district costs. That is nowhere in

section 2. This, in point of fact, is a clear confession of guilt on

the part of the government that their original statements may not be

the policy from day to day or from time to time, as the government may

see fit. The absence of such a provision in

section 2, or anywhere in

the bill, is a clear indication that the government's credibility is at

stake. It provides for various grants but does not enshrine in the

legislation the commitments made by the government when first

announcing the bill. We therefore are going to specifically oppose

section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one of the

complaints we hear continually with respect to the way the Education

ministry handles school districts concerns the time they get the

grants: always late; always borrowing money. The ministry has indicated

by this bill that they're going to work in an inappropriate fashion in

the future. Has the minister anything to say about the way he and his

ministry have handled the school districts in the past?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'm advised that the grants have not been late. If the hon. member will

look at

section 4, which we'll be dealing with shortly, I think he'll

see provision to make not only regular payments, but additional payment

twice a month instead of once a month. I think that's an improvement

and not a retrograde step.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman,

yesterday I raised the matter of special grants as they apply to DND

students. The minister has brought in this legislation without altering

the federal-provincial agreement that relates to the funding of

students who are the sons and daughters of people living on Department

of National Defence property. This change in the formula could well

mean that School District 71 will, in fact, face quite a reduction in

the amount of money that the province makes available to those

students. That money, of course, comes from the federal government

through that federal-provincial agreement.

I want to know if

I can assure School District 71 that the province, whether or not that

agreement is renegotiated, will provide the nearly $1,400 per pupil

that the school district has been receiving under that

federal-provincial agreement. Or will the province in fact be

subsidizing Prime Minister Trudeau's government, because if the

agreement is not renegotiated, that's what it's going to mean? It's

going to mean that either the school district is going to face less

income, or the province is going to face less income, thus subsidizing

the federal government.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't

really think that arises under

section 2, but I can tell the member

that the agreement does not need to be renegotiated. The moneys will

still be paid and will be shared between the province and the board in

relation to what the shareable percentages are between the province and

the board. It may mean that fewer actual dollars will flow to the board

as a result of the existing agreement, but that the province will be

paying, if that is the case, additional provincial revenue to that

board. The money was always received in the past on a shareable basis,

and will be in the future; that's a matter I'd be quite happy to take

up with her outside this chamber when we have some actual figures. But

there is no intention to renegotiate the agreement or to further

subsidize any federal operation.

MS. SANFORD: The

only way that the same amount of money can be coming to the province,

and through the province to the school district, is to renegotiate that

agreement. The agreement is based on the amount of money that's raised

locally, through the local tax, and that's all been changed in this

bill. The commercial and the industrial tax will no longer be raised

locally; it will be collected by the province directly. The local

amount of tax is divided by the number of students in the province to

come up with that formula. That formula then is relayed to Ottawa, or

at least the number of students who are affected by this is relayed to

Ottawa and Ottawa pays nearly $1,400 per pupil directly to the

province. That money is then transferred directly to the districts

involved.

School District 71 is affected because it has a

large number of DND students. Other constituencies are affected, such

as Esquimalt and North Island. As I understand from the people within

the ministry itself, the formula is going to have to be changed and

renegotiated. Either the province must come up with more money on its

own to pay the local school districts, or Ottawa, through a

renegotiation, is going to have to pay the province more.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Chairman, until now I really didn't get the member's point, because

she didn't fully articulate it yesterday. I now get her point and I

will be glad to give her an answer either later during the debate of

this bill, outside the House or in question period. I think that she

has articulated something that I didn't get yesterday.

MR. LAUK:

This is an example, Mr. Speaker, of the minister's inability to grasp

the effect of this bill. He derided our speeches in second reading. Now

we're on section-by-section accountability with respect to this bill

and the first detailed question that the minister is asked.... He has

no idea what the effect of that

section will be with respect to the

question asked by the member for Comox. It's a clear demonstration that

this bill in its entirety has been ill-advised, not well thought out

and is a knee-jerk reaction to the Premier's restraint announcement.

Section

2(

l) states "...the Minister of Finance shall pay to the board of each

school district a base grant for that year consisting of a percentage,

prescribed by the Minister of Education, of the school district's

current year operating expenses." In the minister's original statements

and in second reading of this bill he indicated that there would be a

basic minimum of a 60 percent provincial contribution to the school

district. Why is that not stated in that section? Why has the minister

proposed that the percentage be prescribed by the minister?

might say that later in the bill we'll find out, Mr. Chairman, as we

indicated before in debate, that that directive of a percentage of base

grant need not be published or promulgated as a regulation. I would ask

the minister why it is the government's policy not to fulfil its

promise of at least a 60 percent provincial contribution to the school

district?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I think this

member knows that mathematical formulas and percentages are often

inappropriate to be embodied in bills...

MR. LAUK: Why?

[ Page 7295

HON. MR. SMITH: ...particularly

when there may well be a need to improve and adjust such a formula in a

more beneficial way, depending on conditions. I see nothing sinister

about not placing percentages in this bill. It has been clearly and

publicly announced in writing and verbally to the school boards of this

province that those percentages will apply during the restraint period

save and except if they're improved.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Chairman, there's an old expression: you have to put your money where

your mouth is. The minister's mouth says 60 percent. The money is

nowhere in the bill. If you're promising 60 percent, put it in the

bill. The minister's response clearly indicates that the government

intends to downgrade the percentage that will be prescribed to the

school districts. If it were not his intention to downgrade the

percentage from 60 percent, he could have put in the bill "at least 60

percent," as it is usually stated in legislation of a similar

character. It is a clear confession by this minister that he intends to

give less than 60 percent to the school districts of the province of

British Columbia.

Section 2 approved on following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Brummet

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

division in the Journals

of the House.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this is the actual

payment of

provincial grants.

Section 4(2), as worded, would allow the Minister of

Finance to make monthly payments at a time to suit the minister. There

is nothing in this legislation.... I wonder if I could draw all hon.

members' attention to this very important section, because school

districts are now having a very difficult time funding their programs

and have had to go to the local financial institutions at very high

interest rates. I wish the Premier would take this more seriously too.

There are school districts in the Okanagan district that are borrowing

money at high interest rates because of the ineptitude of your

government.

the government were serious, under

section 4 they would specifically

indicate that these payments must be made on this particular day of

each and every month, because as the

section presently reads, even

though monthly amounts can be paid, those monthly amounts could be

several months in arrears, coming from the provincial government.

There's nothing in that

section that will guarantee that those monthly

amounts will be paid even within the month that they're calculated.

There's nothing requiring the ministry to make those payments even

within that month. More precisely, the government should put in the

legislation that those monthly amounts shall be paid, let's say, on the

first business day of each and every month. They have not. This clearly

indicates to me a deliberate design on the part of the government to

hold this money back, collect their own interest on interim investments

and force local school districts to borrow money, even for the

provincial part of the program, at high interest rates at the local

school district level.

We do not believe that the Government

is sincere. The payments, when made, may not be consistently made at

appropriate times. Secretary-treasurers in all school districts have

lodged complaints about this scheme. How are they going to make the

payroll payments, maintenance payments and the other necessary payments

for the.... If the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has nothing better to

do, Mr. Chairman, than sit there and cackle, I wish he would leave for

his office and let the committee get on with its work.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this province would

be infinitely better off if all the members of cabinet played golf

every day.

Mr.

Chairman, I am trying to point out to the hon. members that are

interested that

section 4 of this bill is hardly a way in which to

encourage the support and confidence of the public in this government.

If the government were sincere in making timely and prompt payments to

school districts, it would say so in the section. The government cannot

get up constantly and say "trust me." We've done that before, and we've

been burned. Sincerity can only be encouraged in the public if you said

it out specifically in the legislation. There's nothing that's going to

harm the situation if the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) show some discipline and have to

meet a deadline every month for those payments as the school districts'

secretary-treasurers do every month. In the rural ridings you have a

situation.... What are you smiling about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You are too short for

your tie.

MR. LAUK:

School districts in this province are borrowing money at high interest

rates that accumulate a deficit that has to be paid by residential

homeowners in his riding, and everything else, and what does the

Premier have to say in response? I'm too short for my tie. Very clever.

The personal remarks from that Premier, over the past several years,

indicate that he is unfit for high public office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are on

section 4 of the bill before us. Let us stick to

section 4.

[ Page 7296

MR. LAUK: I did not make the comment, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, hon.

member.

MR. LAUK:

He says I am too small for my tie. I didn't say that. On this side of

the House we measure the worth of a member from the neck up, not from

the neck down. I happen to be taller than the Premier when he's not

wearing his elevator socks.

Back to

section 4. The monthly

payments that are required to be made, as I say, are not set out in

section 4. What the government can and will do, because they do it with

payments to municipalities, with homeowner grants, with other

accumulated moneys that by statute they must pay to the municipalities

and school districts.... They withhold them, keep them in arrears,

invest them on short-term interest and force the municipalities and

school districts, which are on a fixed budget, without surpluses, to

borrow money from banks at high interest rates. It is an indirect and

dishonest way because it is not open on the part of the government,

through its policy, to force increased taxes on the homeowners of the

various school districts in the province. Those increased taxes will be

caused by the interest rates that they will have to pay.

the minister were sincere he would say, in

section 4: "They will be

paid promptly, on the first business day of each and every month." Why

not impose the same discipline on the government that he is trying to

impose on the school districts? This is a government of

inconsistencies, and

section 4 is a clear example of it. We oppose

section 4.

MR. HOWARD: I want to put forward some

thoughts connected with those just expressed by my colleague the first

member for Vancouver Centre.

The

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has consistently extolled as a

virtue, in financial matters, the idea that one should not borrow for

operating purposes. Consistently he says that this is the policy of

this government. Yet here we have the same government seeking to carry

forward an abuse against the school districts in the very clause that

is before us now, forcing school districts to borrow money for

operating purposes, contrary to their own stated declarations.

my own constituency of Skeena, in excess of $100,000 a year is paid by

school districts to banks for money they are forced to borrow because

this government is tardy and delinquent in the making of its payments

to those school districts. That is $100,000 a year in one constituency

alone that could be made available for educational purposes: for

special education that is going to be curtailed under this government,

to provide a better quality of education. But the government says they

are more intent and more interested in seeing cash flow through the

school districts into the hands of the chartered banks. That is

precisely all that is happening, and it is a shameful and a disgusting

way to have to look at things, on the part of the government.

They

just don't care very much, I submit, about the quality of education;

otherwise, they would alter this particular provision. The minister

would stand up, like the honourable gentleman I know he is, and say

that he made an error, that he didn't realize that all this was going

on and that he will now correct the situation by bringing forth an

amendment to pay the money on time instead of forcing school districts

to go into debt for operating purposes. The extent to which they go

into debt, and the extent to which they have to pay interest on that

debt, can be equated directly to the extent to which they have to have

a poorer quality of education for the kids in this province.

They

use great and glowing terms in the budget about levying tax on banks

now. It's going to net the province some $15 million in extra income.

Well, part of the income from that bank tax provision is going to come

by way of school districts having to borrow money and pay the interest

to the banks. The result is simply a poorer quality of education.

The

minister can wander around the province and say, and say in this House:

"Oh, this is a lovely piece of legislation. People enjoy it all over

the province. It's going to give them a better deal on taxes and so

on." Will the minister — honest person that he is — tell them also that

he is responsible for driving those school districts into debt? That he

is responsible for money just flowing through their hands into the

hands of the bank? That he is responsible for denying the kids in this

province the level of education to which they're entitled? Will the

minister be that honourable as well? Will he exhibit his honesty — and

I know that he is an honest gentleman — by standing up and admitting

that he's made an error here, and correct it by bringing in the

appropriate amendment? If he will do that he will find unanimity in the

House to support that type of amendment. If he won't he'll find at

least partial condemnation of it.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr.

Chairman, the

section is exactly the same in relation to the monthly

payment provision as the old

section — 186 — except that there is an

improvement in subsection (2), an improvement which allows for

variation of the payments within the month. Therefore the payment can

be done in several instalments instead of once a month. It allows the

Minister of Finance to make some additional payments, so you should be

very pleased with it.

MR. HOWARD: After listening to

that explanation, I now understand why the minister, in circulating

memos within the ministry, signs them with the initials of his name.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the minister's answer is quite good

enough. There are students in the gallery this afternoon from the

school district of Vancouver Island North, students of the North Island

Senior Secondary School, who are quite directly affected by the

implications that flow from the fact that money is not paid on time and

has not been over the years. That will get worse when a much larger

proportion of money now needs to come from Victoria to the school

district. They cannot now rely on that transfer of money from local

government from the industrial and the commercial sector. That money

doesn't come automatically and on time as it did. At the moment the

school district of Vancouver Island North, through two borrowings, is

$3.2 million in debt on a demand loan to the bank in Port Hardy at 18

percent. That is costing them more than the special-education programs

that have been cut off and shut down, and the ones that will be closed,

and the track they need in Port Hardy, and the variety of other

services required in that school district.

Instead of making

sure that that money goes into education, the minister is making sure

that there is a repayment to the banks for that little bit of extra tax

that they were levied through the budget. Is that the quid pro quo for

the political gains that might have been made by the government in

assessing that minimal tax on the banks — that in exchange

[ Page 7297

they will make sure they can make more

profits from bank loans to school districts?

Why

can't we have in this

section a guarantee that the money will be paid

on time and regularly so that district secretary-treasurers can be

assured that they won't have to go running to the bank every time they

need to make a payment or meet a payroll?

MR. LAUK:

Clearly the minister does not know the answer to that question. I can

see him busily conferring. It's something that happens not only in

North Island but in other areas as well. It astounds me that this comes

as a surprise to the minister. I wonder if the minister is now prepared

to withdraw this bill for further consideration by himself? The

minister has not indicated.

I'm going to ask a question of

the minister: why did the minister decide not to put in a commitment

under

section 4 that these monthly payments would be made as calculated

on the first business day of each and every month?

HON. MR. SMITH:

As I've already said to the member, the

section is an improvement over

the old

section 186. His complaints are really not legislative

complaints; they're administrative complaints. The Minister of Finance

can now pay more than once a month under the proposed new section. It

should be hailed as an improvement.

MR. GABELMANN: On

the same basis that the Minister of Finance could pay more, he can also

pay less, because there is no mandatory requirement in the section. Why

is the

section not written in a way that will assure local

administrators that they will get the proper share of money at a fixed

time, guaranteed? It would be easy to amend the bill to say that.

MR. LAUK:

The minister has indicated now on two sections that he does not believe

in putting figures into the bill. I want to point out that on April 23,

1982, during second reading, the minister said, and I quote from page

7173 of Hansard :

"Another feature of

this new formula under this legislation will be that school districts

will not be shipping moneys back to Victoria. This was one of the

complaints before. The residential taxes that are collected by the

school district will be spent entirely within the boundaries of that

school district. The figures of 60 percent, 35 percent and 5 percent

were chosen for these two years because they approximate the portion of

school district costs resulting from provincially required programs,

optional programs and purely local ones.

Although

the figures themselves are not included in the bill, they will be the

firm minimum basis for allocations during the restraint period, and

then they will be embodied in that form, or in an improved form, in the

final revised School Act which replaces the period of restraint."

That

was the minister's statement. I took from that statement that the

minister was not opposed to putting figures in the bill. It's just that

he's choosing now not to put figures in the bill. As I stated before,

as far as the actual percentage is concerned, at least 60 percent will

be prescribed by the Minister of Education. In

section 4, "on the first

business day of each and every month...." The minister refuses to do

so. There's only one conclusion that can be reached by such a refusal.

He intends not to do so, in practice.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Gardom

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

NAYS — 21

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

division in the Journals of the House.

section 5.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have concerns on the very vagueness of this particular section,

because night-school instruction is certainly very important in the

rural areas and in rural schools. I note that it says that the minister

may provide, not that he shall provide, a grant to partially cover

provision of these services. Does that mean that some schools that are

offering night classes are going to get assistance and others aren't,

seeing that the word is "may" rather than "shall"? Also, "to partially

cover" — I wonder if the minister has any comments on that. Is he

expecting to cover the same portion of the cost as he will with regular

classes? Most particularly, I am concerned with the "may." It seems to

me that if any school is offering a night class, then that class should

be covered, and not just at the option or the whim of the minister.

HON. MR. SMITH:

A portion of night-school costs has been paid in the past and will be

paid and shared in the future. There's no change in that policy. Those

percentages, if I remember, are already provided for in regulation, and

there's no change.

MRS. WALLACE: Why "may" instead of "shall"?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it's "may" now, and

it's "may" as proposed in the bill.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MRS. WALLACE:

The special aid. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to tell

the House just what he is proposing to cover under this section. Of

course, in this instance I'm thinking particularly of Lake Cowichan

School District, which has been hit very heavily by the changes the

minister is bringing about in this act. It would certainly seem that

this is the area, as I would read it, where there might be

[ Page 7298

some provision for a district like

Lake Cowichan. Is that what the minister is proposing to cover under

section 6?

HON. MR. SMITH:

The proposed use of the special-aid section, which was announced with

the restraint program and the financial formula in March, is to produce

a result in school districts that had, as a result of the formula,

increased residential taxation, but the increases on the operating side

for the average home would not exceed more than $95. That is being

uniformly applied to give special aid to those districts. I must tell

the member that I am presently considering some other criteria for

special aid, which I can give under the old School Act, or would be

able to give under

section 6 in the event that it passes. I feel there

have to be uniform criteria for special aid and that one cannot simply

select one district that one might think was deserving, except on the

basis of some rationale that would apply to others who might meet the

same criteria.

I can certainly tell the hon. member that I

heard her comments on Lake Cowichan and I also did receive and did

reply to the letter the chairman sent me. I am actively considering

additional special aid to districts that could meet common criteria,

but I think it has to be applied on a criteria basis, so that it's not

just on an ad hoc basis.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I

am really concerned about this clause because of one basic thing. On

one hand we have this Minister of Education tightening up because the

Premier, the cabinet and the minister believe in tightening up on what

the school boards can spend. Nobody denies we're in a time of need for

some tightening. But the point is, why don't they let the school boards

set their own priorities? The school boards are fiscally responsible.

What

the minister is really doing, to my mind, is rather a crass political

move. On one hand your're tightening up your budgets to the school

boards, and then on the other hand you're saying: "Look how good we are

to the public. We're going to give extra money for special aid for

children who have special needs." I consider it a very crass move. Why

don't you let the school boards determine within their own districts

what they feel is needed? Instead the minister is going to sit up there

on high and say: "Look how good I am; I'm going to hand out this to

this district and that to that district." What I'm saying is, let's get

back to letting the school boards make some decisions and give them the

money so they can work within it.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr.

Chairman, first of all I would repeat the remarks I made to the hon.

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), in relation to other hon.

members on both sides of the House who have brought to me some

particular cases. Certainly the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet) and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) have raised

those matters in the House. Further special aid, as I said before, will

be considered on some uniform criteria.

Listening to the

remarks of the gracious member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), if she

was so concerned about the power proposed under

section 6 — which is

really the same power as under the old School Act,

section 187, and has

been in that act since 1960 or earlier — I wonder why she didn't have

that

section repeated, and why she gave out a number of grants under

that

section when she was minister, if she thought that that was

somehow destructive of the autonomy of school boards.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, one of the major moves made by the NDP in government was

indeed to increase those special grants to the districts, because when

we inherited an education system run by Social Credit for 20 years, we

had to provide special grants.

MR. LAUK: One of the

problems of this new Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, is that he

wasn't here in those days or wasn't listening. Those special grant

provisions were made as an emergency measure. After six years of his

administration the minister can't claim that

section 6 is now an

emergency measure. It's a begging-bowl section; you're issuing begging

bowls not only to the local district and disabled kids but to the

various members of the Legislature to come to you to beg for funds for

their school district.

That kind of arrogance is just beyond

belief, Mr. Chairman. Who does he think he is? Some sort of monarch?

We're trying to get some rational funding for school districts for

disabled kids who are mainstreamed in the school system, and he makes

out to be Marie Antoinette. He can sit on his throne and have people

come to him and beg with a begging bowl, and he may — he just may, if

he likes the colour of your eyes — give you some money. And then again,

he may not; he may just give you a bottle of Pouilly-Fuisse.

you know what, Mr. Chairman? This government and this minister

particularly — has given a new definition to arrogance. "Brought to

me," he said; he wants to say with all of his gracious noblesse oblige

that "the MLAs have brought to me their requests for the disabled kids

in their districts." He's got a begging-bowl mentality; he wishes

people to be subservient in this province, and that kind of personal

arrogance is not fit for a person in the cabinet. I will oppose

section

6 on that basis.

MR. GABELMANN: I have mixed feelings

about even standing up to make comment on this section, because I

disagree so much with the principle that decision-making should be

brought to Victoria and not left in the local school district. I resent

very much that I'm put in the position of having to make decisions and

be an advocate for educational systems and decisions in various parts

of my constituency, because I wasn't elected to make those decisions.

The voters in my constituency elected three separate school boards to

make those decisions, I think that's where it should be.

Yes,

I was one of those members who made a plea in this House for special

consideration for two of the three districts in my constituency, but I

don't like having to do that. I don't think that's the way it should be

done. School districts should have the right to make those kinds of

decisions locally, and we should not have to resort to going to the

minister to put pressure on him to give special consideration.

Does

it mean that those school districts that are able to find some money to

travel down to Victoria for a day or two to meet with the minister will

have some special advantage? Does it mean that those school districts

that are represented by a pushier MLA will have some advantage? How

will the decisions be made? Is that list which was initially prepared

several weeks ago, of the school districts that would get some special

consideration the final list, or are we now to go on bended knee to add

each of the districts in our constituencies that need it? What's the

process? I'm sure this is going to pass, as much as I don't like it. We

have to live with it. When will those school districts know? When will

they be able to plan? When will the minister notify them of the

procedures

[ Page 7299

they can go about to make sure the

basic minimal standards are maintained, particularly in those rural

districts?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby North.

I'm sorry, Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: I wouldn't mind sharing North

with her, actually. Together we could do them both.

Maybe

if I gave a couple of examples, the minister would have a better

understanding of what my colleagues are talking about. The Burnaby

School Board talked about some of the special programs that are going

to have to be cut as a result of having to meet the restraint

guidelines set down by the government in this particular legislation.

What this

section says is that it's not good enough for the Burnaby

School Board to identify these special-needs programs and put them into

place; what the school board has to do is pass this onto the minister,

and then the minister will decide whether they are worthy of being

financed and how many dollars will go towards financing it.

This

is no different, for example, to the way in which the Lottery Fund is

handled at this time. Whether it's the sailing club, the bowling league

or whatever in Burnaby that needs funding in order to carry on their

work, they have to go directly to the Lottery Fund in Victoria, and the

minister, in his wisdom, decides whether they get that money. What the

minister is doing through this

section is placing education in the same

category as these other decisions that are dealt with under the Lottery

Fund. That's what we're concerned about.

As the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out, when the Burnaby School

District decided that some of the disabled children who were integrated

into the school system needed special transportation, for example, in

order to attend the public school system, Burnaby School District was

able to put aside the money needed to implement that and see to it that

those kids had the special transportation to attend a public school

system. When the Burnaby School District decided that some of these

children who attended the public school system needed the services of a

special aide with them while they were attending school, the Burnaby

trustees could make the decision to put aside a number of dollars to

deal with that out of the budget. When, for example, the Burnaby School

District trustees decided that some of the children who were attending

kindergarten needed the attention of a personal-care attendant to

provide support for those children during the period of time they were

attending kindergarten, the Burnaby School District was able to put

aside the funding necessary to implement that service. What this

particular

section is saying is that that is not good enough. First of

all, in order to meet the guidelines, these services are going to be

cut. In order to have these services reimplemented, the Burnaby school

trustees have to go — as my colleague, the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk), said — to the minister with their begging bowl and

say: "Mr. Minister, please, sir, may we have a number of dollars to

ensure that we can afford the services of a personal care attendant for

one particular child in kindergarten or a number of personal-care

attendants for some of our disabled children in special programs in the

school or to cover the cost of transportation for those disabled

children who are integrated into the public school system?"

In another area, Burnaby has the unique experience of having a

second language. Until this bill becomes law, the school trustees have

the autonomy and the right to decide how many dollars are put aside to

cover the special needs of this community of students. What this

section is now saying is that, after making that decision, before the

school trustees can do anything, they have to go to the minister — as

my colleague from Vancouver Centre said — with their begging bowl and

say: "Mr. Minister, please, sir, may we have a number of dollars to

cover the cost of attending to the special needs of this special

community of students in our school district?"

other words. the minister has taken unto himself in this

section all

the powers which the voters of Burnaby had, until this time, given to

their school trustees. The voters of Burnaby voted those people in to

make these kinds of decisions, and the minister is arbitrarily — as a

result of this

section — saying: "I want to make those decisions for

Burnaby. I don't want you, as a parent, to vote for the school trustees

to make those decisions about your child's education. I, the Minister

of Education, want to have the right to make those decisions even

though you, as a parent, had nothing to do with electing me." That is

why we are opposed to this section.

HON. MR. SMITH: I

don't think the member for Burnaby-Edmonds' concern is with

section 6,

which has nothing to do with what she is complaining about. There is

absolutely no intention under that section, and never has been under

its companion

section in the old act, to replay local decisions on

matters involving special education or anything else. Those don't come

to my desk under that section. Under the power to grant special aid,

section 187, ministers before me, and I for the past two or three

years, have always had some school districts who have requested special

aid under that section. I must say that it doesn't particularly make

one feel like Marie Antoinette, theSun King, a monarch or anything else

— to summarize and collect all the mixed metaphors of the first member

for Vancouver Centre, who is very funny and humorous and mixes his

metaphors. What you try to do under a power such as

section 6, or the

old

section 187, is to put some special, emergent aid into some school

districts that have a particular problem with their tax base or mill

rate. You certainly don't look over or try to set priorities that are

within school board prerogative to determine solely. That isn't the

purpose at all. I don't think it's been used that way.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister tell me whether

Burnaby is eligible for that? I have been told that School District 41

isn't.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Every school district is technically eligible. I'm not going to hold

out to any school district that they're more eligible than others.

MRS. DAILLY:

Just a final question to the minister Could you perhaps explain to us

some of the guidelines you might use to give this special aid?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'm not going to announce any further guidelines until a decision to

grant any additional special aid is made, but I will set them out and

set out the rationale. I won't just give them on a piecemeal basis. The

guidelines I did announce for the special aid that's been agreed to so

far, as I've indicated, was to keep the school tax increases down to

$95 on the operating side for the average home.

[ Page 7300

The

other criteria that have been proposed to me by various school boards

who have come to see me or have written — factors that I should

consider in special aid, really — have been the inability of that

district to maintain a reasonable mill rate because of a limited

residential tax base; the fact that some school boards had already

brought in a restrained budget prior to restraint; and a lower

per-pupil operating cost in other districts that are in roughly the

same situation. These have been all criteria that have been put

forward. If any further special aid is granted, I will certainly

indicate the basis upon which it was done, so that it will apply

uniformly to a number of school districts and not just to one.

MRS. DAILLY:

I appreciate the minister's answer, but I want to make this point

again. Having gone through this experience myself, may I say to the

minister that I think this is a very dangerous thing to embark upon,

because no matter how you attempt to do it, you're never going to

please any district. They're all going to say: "How come this district

got the money and I didn't?"

My basic premise to you, Mr.

Minister, is that this new educational finance formula should be

constructed in such a manner that this kind of thing is not needed.

This is why we are expressing our disappointment that despite all the

study and the time spent, you still seem to have a need for this kind

of section, which I think is going to cause you considerable trouble.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MRS. DAILLY:

I have a question for the minister.

Section 9 says: "...the Minister of

Finance shall pay out of the consolidated revenue fund, in the manner

directed by the Minister of Education for the calendar year of 1982,

$75 million." Is this $75 million being given out following the

acquisition by the government of the commercial and industrial

assessment tax base, which you are taking unto yourselves?

HON. MR. SMITH:

No, I think there was perhaps some perception at one time that that

might be the case, but that is not the case. It is from a separate

fund, and I think a perusal of the estimates makes that clear. That $75

million is quite separate from the non-residential tax base money.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, the minister again, by the use of the terminology, does

not understand what estimates, budgeting and consolidated revenue are,

and I wish he'd take proper advice someplace. The point is that

section

9 says: "consolidated revenue fund." There's no other fund. If the

minister is referring to an account, that's simply an accounting

situation that develops at the ministerial level. There's no separate

designated fund. This is money to be paid out at the minister's

direction out of the consolidated revenue fund. That's the only fund

there is.

The minister, through this legislation, is

confiscating industrial and commercial land taxes throughout the

province — $850 million worth. That goes into consolidated revenue. I'm

saying to the minister that if he gives us the answer that this $75

million is new money, how on earth are the public going to find out for

sure that it's new money? They can't. They don't know how much of that

$850 million is being paid out. It goes into the consolidated revenue

fund. There's no separate accounting for it. There's no indication that

if the ministry doesn't spend all of that money on its obligations

through the course of the year.... We don't get a final accounting

through financial papers at any time from the government on how much

specifically was made on interest and investments on $850 million. We

don't know specifically how the provincial government has benefited

from that confiscation of tax money, through investments. We don't know

whether even one penny of that $75 million is going to be new money. So

the minister's just talking through both sides of his ears.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. LAUK:

This

section is greatly offensive. It's difficult, when you're looking

at all sections of this bill, to try to find the most offensive one.

They're all so awful and so offensive to the democratic system and to

this Legislature that it's difficult to pick out one and say this is

the worst. This is the one that offends, or should offend, the real

democratic sensibilities of all hon. members and of right-thinking

members of the public.

Section 12 states:

"

(1) The minister may, at any time before May 1 in any year, issue

directives (

a) limiting the amount of the budget of the school district

in the calendar year, and (

b) establishing the portion of a school

district's budget for special education programs.

"

(2) Where the minister considers that

the board of a school district has failed to follow a directive issued

under subsection (1), the minister may recommend to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council that a grant otherwise payable under

this act be reduced, and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may reduce

the grant by any amount that he considers appropriate."

"He" means the minister. That is taking on the most incredible

amount of personal power to a cabinet minister. No school district in

this province can plan for education anymore; no school district can

set any priorities on a community basis. The parents whose children are

in school have lost any residual control over what their children are

getting from the school system. The idea of the family being sovereign

over education in our democracy is now gone. Under state centralism,

under this very right-wing government, we now see the sovereignty of

the family over education completely and utterly destroyed.

MR. KEMPF: Nonsense!

MR. LAUK:

The hon. member for Omineca does not believe it; he says it's nonsense.

Thank you, hon. member. I'll repeat the

section for the hon. member:

the minister may, at any time, issue directives limiting the amount of

the budget and establishing what portion of the budget will be for

special education programs. Does the hon. member for Omineca understand

that section? Can he nod his head? He's reading a newspaper, but maybe

he can nod his head. He obviously doesn't understand. Without knowing

what the debate was in this committee, he looked over and said

"nonsense." He's the hon. marshmallow from Omineca.

[ Page 7301

It's

an absolute disgrace, Mr. Chairman, that members of the Legislature do

not pay attention to debate in this committee. It's an absolute

disgrace. That hon. member for Omineca....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, we are currently on

section 12 of Bill 27. The member is

engaged in a debate on the pertinent section, which is

section 12. I

would ask him to carry on with that debate.

MR. LAUK:

You realize, Mr. Chairman, how frustrating it is to get through to some

hon. members in this committee who have not paid attention to the

section, who are in this House like burnps on a log. That's a scandal,

Mr. Chairman. They're spending the taxpayers' money — some of them like

drunken sailors — and they come and sit in this chamber and don't even

pay attention to the business of the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you this morning?

MR. LAUK: I was out looking at the school

closures in your district, Mr. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's not true.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't in his district. I was

in my office on the phone, and that hon. member's district....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, that's not what you

said.

MR. LAUK: The Premier is out of his seat,

Mr. Chairman. It's the old expression: out of seat, out of mind.

Mr.

Chairman, this

section is a power grab for the Minister of Education.

As I said before, the traditions of school boards of this country,

which is one of the freest, democratic countries in the world — and

probably the freest, most democratic country in the world — developed

in spite of governments like the hon. member's. I say "in spite of

governments," because at least we have a small opposition on this side

trying to hold up the banner of democracy against this very

state-centralist government.

Education developed in small

villages and towns around this country. There weren't school boards;

there were just parents, mothers and fathers, who would meet and decide

when to hire a school teacher or when to build a school. The

sovereignty over education in this country rested with the family. As

the villages and towns grew in size and educational matters became more

complex, some villages and towns decided they would elect or appoint

two or three of the parents to become a board of education. But the

concept of the school board was always that it had direct

responsibility to the family whose children would be taught in those

schools. As it developed, it didn't matter whether you personally had

children in school, because either you had children in school or your

children had children in school and so on. It became a community

responsibility. But the concept in a free, democratic Canada was always

that the family had sovereignty over education.

Section 12

destroys that in all areas of the province.

Section 12 gives to the

Minister of Education the power to control education in every level of

every area of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, it's a

very sad day indeed when the minister looks blankly over at me while I

make these statements. He has ignored the opposition criticism that

this bill is awesome in its effect and is a power grab in its practical

application. It is not required, it is not needed, and it destroys the

sovereignty over education exercised by local school boards, which

means by parents, by the family. We oppose it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I am going to be quite brief in my remarks with regard to this section.

I attempted to make my point during second reading of this bill in the

matter I am about to discuss.

I have received a copy of a a

letter that went to the Premier, a copy of which also went to the

Minister of Education. I would be pleased to table it. The person who

wrote this letter is a school teacher in one of the school districts in

my riding. I won't use her name in Hansard although

I'd be

pleased to; I'm sure she wouldn't object. I do not know her personally.

I don't know what her political affiliation. But this I do know: she

has some concern for the children in the school in which she works. I

am going to read the full text of this short letter because it applies

directly to this

section on funding for special needs, This teacher is

like many hundreds of other teachers in my riding.

I have received a great deal of mail, as has the minister,

from

teachers and school trustees in my riding, and I am expressing, on

behalf of these people who have taken the time to write, their very

special concern about these young children who have special needs and

the proposed and possible cuts in funding for this purpose. There will

be cuts under this bill. We know that government will cut, because next

year, in order to balance their budget, what are they going to do? They

haven't got much choice. We know resource revenues are down — I don't

want to get off on a tangent here. We know very well they are going to

cut back on health services and the special and educational services of

this province in order to come up with a so-called balanced budget,

because the budget's not really balanced. I want to read into the

record this letter to the Premier. I suspect that Kathleen wrote to the

Premier because, while she probably doesn't know the Minister of

Education personally, she has quite frankly lost faith in the ability

of that minister to perform his duties:

"As a kindergarten teacher of several

special

needs students, I strongly oppose the government's cutbacks in budget

for educational needs. The education of the students could be crippled

by this harsh imposition, and these special-needs students require much

individual attention and support. Children are our greatest resource.

They are the hope of the future. Signed, Kathleen —"

This

is from a younger teacher on the job, dealing on a day-to-day basis

with students who require special needs. I attempted to make this point

during debate on second reading of this bill but I didn't cite the

number of letters and correspondence we've all received. I wanted the

Premier and the Minister of Education to know — and I've used this

letter as an example — the concerns under this

section of the people

who actually have to deal with the students.

MR. GABELMANN:

As the minister knows, I too have received quite a number of letters,

some of which I read excerpts from in the debate on second reading. I

haven't done a count but I would assume I have somewhere in the order

of 150 letters, some from teachers, most from parents, most, obviously,

from taxpayers. There were two recurring themes in the mail I've

received on this issue, and one is that they did

[ Page 7302

not

object to paying additional taxes for better education. I was surprised

by that. The other theme was that special needs was the essential part

of the school system that they saw slipping away from them in remote

and rural parts of northern Vancouver Island. Those special-needs

programs — not very well developed yet, nowhere close to meeting the

needs that we do have in those isolated communities — have literally

saved the lives of many children, in my judgment, over the years.

There

have been some remarkable things done with kids by some of these

special-education teachers and the special-education programs. I think

of one particular classroom where I spent some time in one community. I

won't identify it simply because it would be very clear who I'm talking

about. There are two teachers with six kids, and I suspect — and this

is true as each year goes by — that were it not for the efforts and the

hard work of those teachers with those six kids, most of those kids

would not be able to leave the school system literate. As it is, they

won't leave the school system well educated, but they will probably

leave the school system able to read. They might leave the school

system with some ability at socialization, some ability to make human

contact with their fellow human beings. That's the level of the problem

that's being dealt with in that particular classroom. Those kinds of

programs — not this one particularly yet, but similar programs — have

already been cut back as a result of the legislation and the restraint

program, and there is the fear that further cutbacks will occur. I

think it's the inevitability of it, because there certainly isn't

enough money being promised by the minister to sustain an already

minimal level of special needs programs.

If ever there is a

time in society when special-needs education is most important, it is

at a time when there is an economic downturn. That's the time when

family tensions increase, when drinking and alcoholism increase and

when those children are most vulnerable, most battered and most in need

of some special service and some special provision by government. This

is best provided through the Ministry of Education. Now we're being

told that the people who know about those needs and who are able to

deal with it on a day-to-day basis in their own community will no

longer be able to make the decisions about whether those programs can

continue or not.

School boards in my riding have made

decisions that some hard programs, like tracks for physical education

and other programs of that nature, would have to go by the board in

order to provide that special education for special-needs children.

They've made those decisions, hard as they might have been. They've

made them and they made the right decisions, in my mind. Particularly

at this time when the need is so much greater, they're being told they

will have to cut back. To add insult to that injury, the decisions from

now on are going to be made by somebody in Victoria. I resent that and

I object to it and I think it's wrong in every conceivable way. I think

it's a disgraceful bill and a disgraceful section, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN:

I'm going to be very brief because I think we're fighting a losing

battle here. I just want to repeat what some of the school trustees

pointed out to me, in discussing this section. There really is nowhere

in this

section where they. have the right of appeal. Maybe the

minister can tell me whether we've been reading this

section wrong.

It's

been pointed out to me that there really is no right of appeal. Once

the minister in his wisdom has made the decision that he doesn't like

what the school board is doing with the funding and wants to terminate

the funding for a special program, neither the school board, any member

of this Legislature, a parent or anyone has the right of appeal of

going to the minister and pleading the case on behalf of that

particular program and asking the minister not to cut it. Maybe the

minister can tell me if that's the correct

interpretation.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, there is no statutory right of appeal from a

directive under that section. You're quite correct, but I get people

from all segments of the educational community who wish to challenge a

decision that a school board has made or has been made in the system,

and their concerns are considered. You're quite right, there is no

statutory or formal appeal procedure. That's clear.

MS. BROWN:

Well, I don't know how this is possible in a democracy. I don't

understand, Mr. Chairman, how the minister can really expect to

implement this section. I'm not going to read this

section in its legal

one can at this point. What the

section says is that when the Burnaby

School Board, which was duly elected by the parents of the children who

attend the Burnaby school system, make a decision to spend X number of

dollars on a special program, the minister, first of all, can limit the

amount of the budget of the school district that is spent on special

programs; then after the program is in existence — once it's gone over

the first hurdle and it's met the minister's guidelines — the minister

can decide that he's not satisfied with the way in which that program

is being run and without consulting anyone he can decide either to

terminate the funding for that program or reduce the funding for that

program.

Neither the school board, which was duly elected by the

parents of

the children involved in the program, the parents of the children

involved in the program nor any member of the Legislature who would

have been elected by the parents of the children in that program have

the right to in any way change the minister's decision. We have no

right of appeal. The minister makes a decision and that's it. The

children, parents, and trustees can write letters to the minister. The

three MLAs from Burnaby can speak, phone or write letters to the

minister, but under this

section there is no formal way of getting the

minister to change his mind. There is no way of bringing in a third

party to arbitrate. There is no way of even having a public debate over

the minister's decision. It's not enshrined in this section. That's the

kind of totalitarian act on the part of the minister that we are

opposed to.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if the minister could

give us an

example of

section 2, which the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has just

asked you about. You must have put it in with a reason in mind. It is

going to give you the right to reduce a grant to a school board. I

think'we should consider the implications of such a clause. It has

never, before been in the hands of a Minister of Education in this

province and, who knows, maybe in any other province in Canada — in a

democratic society, as both members have pointed out before me. Could

you give us an example of where you would find it necessary to reduce a

school board's grant?

[ Page 7303

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll try and reply

generally, but I'll reply specifically to the last member while I have

her point ready at hand.

Hon.

member, you may remember that

section 192 of the present School Act,

which allows the reduction of grants by the Lieutenant Governor in

Council for a variety of purposes, has been in the legislation since

prior to 1960 and during the time in which you occupied the same office

that I have. There is no question that the power to issue directives is

an extraordinary power and one that under this bill is limited, as far

as the budget is concerned, to the power to limit the total amount of

the budget and not parts of the budget, save and except that portion

that is devoted to special education. I have heard concerns about

special education from a number of members today and during debate on

principle in second reading. While they do not like the use of

directives and philosophically disagree with this approach to the

legislation, I have no doubt that they would want to see special

education protected in a period of restraint, and protected it can be

under

section 12(l)(b).

To give the member an example of when 12 (2) could be used, or

might

be used.... I'll wait until she is listening. The prime use of the

directives in any event would be to restrain budgets and the limit of

the restraint budgets. I don't mean to set the various priorities

within it — I have no intention of doing that — but to calculate the

restraint budget on the basis of the restraint program which calls for

only a 12 percent increase in the last quarter. A school district might

well say: "We're not going to do that, because we do not believe that

anyone should restrain our right to set the budget at any level we

wish." They might well believe that honestly and philosophically. But

the government's policy and the legislation that is before this House,

both in this bill and the Compensation Stabilization Act, provide a

different policy. If a school board were to refuse to pass a budget

that was restrained in compliance with that policy but was to pass a

larger budget, then a directive would be issued, and if that directive

were disobeyed, then

section 12(2) could be used. That is the kind of

circumstance in which that directive could be used.

It should also be pointed out that by having the extraordinary

power of being able to limit the ceiling of the budget in one district

in a time of restraint, it does enable the minister to ensure that

money available for grants can be shared fairly among all the other

districts who are abiding by the restraint program. You may not like

that philosophy, but I really think that the hon. members opposite are

not telling us what it really is they don't like. What they really

don't like is the imposition of restraint. They are debating and

arguing this bill philosophically, but it is the restraint program that

they don't like.

MR. LAUK: The audacity of the hon.

minister in suggesting that Her Majesty's loyal opposition is opposed

to restraint, in the face of personal ministerial profligacy that we've

seen in this government, is beyond belief.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

This is not a time for general debate. This is a time for

section 12 on

Bill 27.

MR. LAUK:

What this minister is doing, quite simply, under

section 12 is taking

to himself the power that rested with the people prior to

section 12.

There was a time in this province when there were local referenda with

respect to school budgets. We eliminated them for special reasons. We

felt that the referendum really verged on mob rule in certain

situations where elected representatives at the school board level,

over a longer period of time of consideration, could best come up with

the complications of a budget at the school district level and would

eliminate the very unfair different quality of education you would

receive from district to district because some communities, being more

progressive, would vote in stronger budgets for quality education.

Other districts, being regressive and, I think — in many cases that I

saw — politically- manipulated by provincial politicians, some of whom

in those days were associated with the hon. minister's party.... Those

referenda failed and, as a result, the young people in that school

district received less than an adequate education and certainly less

than a quality education. So we felt that in fairness we would return

to the original concept of school boards and not referenda.

Now

we have the most absurd extension of the referendum system. We have one

vote in the entire province on the referendum. The school board, in its

deliberation, comes up with a budget and now this section, if you like,

declares that there shall be a referendum and the Minister of Education

shall have the only vote. That is what he is saying. He is saying: "Are

you going to return to referenda?" Mr. Minister, we already have, only

you've narrowed the franchise down to one person — Louis XIV. Vasco da

Gama, the man who has now an $80,000 travel budget for himself this

year, says: "You're against restraint." He asked the Treasury Board for

$80 million, and they only gave him $80,000. The minister who has asked

for and received $80,000 so he can personally travel around more of the

world than Vasco da Gama is saying that we're against restraint. What

we are against, Mr. Chairman, is a usurpation, on the whim of the

minister and on the whim of this government, of legitimate, democratic

authority that has come down to us through generations.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

Richmond

NAYS — 20

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Sections 13 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

[ Page 7304

MR. LAUK:

I'm glad that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is in his seat

because I want to bring to his attention

section 20 of this bill.

Mr.

Chairman, subsection (2) reads: "For the 1982 taxation year, each

municipality collecting taxes under this Part shall pay to the Minister

of Finance..." and then there are paragraphs (a), (

b) and (c).

Paragraph (

d) says: "...on December 31, 1982, the balance of all taxes

imposed under this Part, whether or not they have been collected."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: I bring to your attention, Mr.

Chairman.... I wonder if the committee could settle down.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Good point, hon. member. Will the committee please come to order. The

hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has taken his place in the

debate and we should be polite and parliamentary.

MR. LAUK:

We've had examples during question period of the McCarthy problem — the

McCarthy loophole in taxation. They will not pay their taxes, and their

taxes are in arrears. When taxes are in arrears, school districts and

municipalities have to borrow money to pay the government. The family

of one member of the government does not pay its taxes. I can't think

of a greater irony.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

Did you not hear the point? Well, it's been before the chamber. We've

heard no reply. That's what I said. Ray McCarthy, I understand, is a

relative of the Minister of Human Resources — her spouse. Those taxes

are in arrears. There are many other people who take advantage of the

McCarthy loophole.

As a result, they have to borrow money.

But borrow money for what, Mr. Chairman? This minister, who doesn't

even talk to the Minister of Human Resources, I take it, is imposing

upon the municipalities that on December 31, 1982, the balance of all

taxes imposed under this part, whether or not they've been collected,

shall be paid to the Minister of Education. But the minister has been

kind about it. The minister is being generous. As the municipalities

are borrowing money at interest rates of 18 and 19 percent, under the

next subsection he says: "Commencing in the 1983 taxation year, a

municipality may deduct from taxes payable to the Minister of Finance,

under this section, an administration fee" of one-quarter of 1 percent.

Isn't he generous? Isn't the government being generous? On the one hand

they seem to be encouraging people to go into tax arrears at the

municipal level, and on the other hand they are penalizing those

municipalities. It's an absolute scandal.

I wonder if the

minister has any suggestions to make about people like Ray McCarthy,

the husband of the Minister of Human Resources, who go into arrears in

municipal taxes. In cases where Mr. McCarthy has tax arrears, is the

minister going to grant relief to those municipalities? Perhaps the

minister can answer that question.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I am not

going to respond to the rather despicable and improper use of a....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would advise the hon. minister that we must be parliamentary. I'm

sure no imputation of dishonour was implied to another hon. member.

HON. MR. SMITH:

No. I was referring to remarks made about the member of the family of

another hon. member, which really don't befit the hon. member who made

them.

I will say that the provision he's concerned about,

contained in

section 20(2)(

d) of the bill — that is, the imposition of

payment of these taxes whether or not they've been collected — is

exactly the same provision that was always in the old Schools Act and

Public School Act and is presently

section 196(9). So there is no

departure whatsoever. It is a typical taxation provision, one which the

member opposite apparently didn't quarrel with when he was on the

benches on this side of the House —

MR. LAUK: With

respect, Mr. Chairman, that was before this government stole $850

million of local tax at the district level. It's the same problem, but

it's now $850 million, with people going into tax arrears at all times.

We're opposing this section, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

If the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has some explanation for

people who are in tax arrears, like Ray McCarthy, why doesn't he give

it? Does the government have any solution for these people who are

delinquent in their taxes and who are not fulfilling their

responsibility as good citizens in paying their taxes on time? Do you

have a suggestion, Mr. Attorney-General?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the hon.

member for Dewdney, I will ask the hon. Attorney-General and other

members not to interrupt.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I never thought I would have to rise in this House to make a

statement.... Any party that can throw pure mud like these people are

throwing, and laugh with hilarity while they are doing it, is beyond my

conception of fair play and judgment. The man they referred to as Mr.

McCarthy is properly connected and is the husband of one our members. I

would prefer not to mention the name, but I can't avoid it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if we could

return to the strict relevancy rule and to

section 20, we could avoid

the whole argument.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The relevancy is the impropriety of attacking someone who can't defend

himself. That is relevancy. Further in relevancy, there are large

corporations in Vancouver — good citizens too — who aren't able to pay

their taxes. I know individuals who cannot pay their taxes and would

always do so when they can. This is not an issue. This is a red herring

brought here to embarrass a man who cannot reply. I take my place in

this House to reply for him and say it is dastardly and mud-slinging

and the worst kind of unparliamentary procedure. I regret that it is

possible and would happen in this House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I would like

the hon. member for Dewdney to withdraw the word "mud-sling-

[ Page 7305

ing," as it imputes an improper motive

to hon. members who have merely brought the facts to this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Your point of order is well taken. I will ask the hon. member for

Dewdney to withdraw if he imputed any improper motive to another member

of this House.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I did not mention any hon.

member of this House. I referred to a party principle, and that I am

entitled to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has stated he

did not impute any improper motive to any member of the House.

MR. NICOLSON:

This section, as it has been pointed out, says that where there is a

village, municipality, township or city, it is its obligation and

responsibility to take on the onerous task of administering and

collecting this non-residential tax base. Yet the minister, in his

opening remarks during second reading, said that he was going to assume

the responsibility. That is one of the things we are debating here

today. I would like to say that this is one heck of a responsibility

and an onerous load imposed by

section 20 particularly on towns and

villages. When a village has about 800 people, like the village of

Kaslo, and over 20 percent of all taxes collectable overdue.... There

happens to be a case of a company which is trying to sell out to

Crestbrook Forest Industries — T & H Sawmills. They have been

unpaid for a long time. Yet this minister is saying that we are going

to have to continue this practice, which was not a problem during the

days of the NDP, because there was not such a huge gap between the

rates prescribed in the act and the actual rates of interest that could

be earned through short-term bonds.

We have got people in

other parts of my riding, such as in Creston. We have Calray Properties

which owns the Neil Building. This isn't because of some recent

financial problems. Their 1980 taxes are unpaid to the tune of

$2,665.91 and for 1981 to the tune of $2,336, 41. That isn't this year.

That isn't 1986 taxes. This has been going on for a couple of years

simply because they have been making money, while almost all the

resident property-owners of that area pay their taxes, their phone

bills and their income taxes. They don't go around evading, but they

end up having to pay the shortfall and the interest when the

municipality has to pay out in full to the school board, in full to the

regional district, and now under this act it's going to be in full to

the centralized provincial government — this centralized type of

government, Social Credit state centralism.

Mr. Chairman,

West Power corporation, which owns the McKay-Ward building, also paid

no taxes in 1980: $2,473.02; no taxes paid in 1981: $1,735.40. Also in

the community of Creston, Blake Valley Developments, which owns the old

medical clinic, taxes unpaid for 1980: $4,461.2 1; 1981: $4,491.48. The

1982 taxes for those three separate companies are not yet determined,

but the total of those amounts for 1980 and 1981 are $18,163.46.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are they in a

profit-making position?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of

Agriculture and Food come to order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He's misleading the House.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, the Minister of Agriculture has on several

occasions made unparliamentary cross-comment, but he has just charged

that the hon. member on his feet has been deliberately misleading the

House. I would ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food to

withdraw that charge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not

hear that, but would the Minister of Agriculture and Food like to

withdraw, or at least correct, any improper motive that might have been

imputed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member

for Vancouver Centre misquoted me. He said my remark was that the

member was deliberately misleading the House, and that was not my

remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You withdraw then, do you?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I did not make that

remark. I said he was misleading the House: I didn't say he was

deliberately misleading the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you withdraw any

implication against the member?

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, the minister said: "I said he was misleading the House. I

didn't say he was deliberately misleading the House." I will accept

what the minister has just said, and ask him to withdraw the charge

that the hon. member for Nelson-Creston was misleading the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

On a point of order, the statements by the member for Nelson-Creston

dealing with taxes not paid concern three separate companies. If he now

is going to go into the ownership of those companies, that is

irrelevant, in my opinion, to the

section of the bill under discussion.

I'll withdraw any imputation but I will be responding in a moment on a

point of order as to just how far that member is going to go.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, who owns Blake Valley Developments, which owes almost

$10,000 to the town of Creston? The registrar of companies lists the

director of Blake Valley Developments as Raymond Blake McCarthy;

president: Raymond Blake McCarthy. The same thing for West Power

development. As to Calray Properties, its annual report is not

presently available in the registrar of companies, but it does have the

very same address for the company. So I guess it is safe to assume that

that is the company which owes almost $5,000 in taxes to the town of

Creston.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I would like

somebody — yourself preferably, or that member — to draw the relevance

of his remarks with regard to ownership of companies to this particular

section of the bill. If he is not in order, would you please rule him

out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister rose and

reminded us all of relevancy. I must concur. In committee we are

relevant; we speak strictly to the

section that is under debate, and I

would ask all hon. members to remember that.

MR. NICOLSON:

The Minister of Agriculture has brought up a good point, Mr. Chairman.

The relevance is that Raymond Blake McCarthy has a residential address

of 4610 Beverly Crescent, Vancouver, B.C., Larry Dang has an address of

2710 Dundas Street, Vancouver, B.C., Gilbert Dang has a residential

address of 1138 East Pender Street, Vancouver, B.C., and the same

principals are also listed for Blake Valley Developments. I cannot

conclude that they have the same addresses for Calray Properties at

this moment, but the companies do have the same address.

[ Page 7306

What

I am saying is that those people live in Vancouver, but the people who

have to pay the difference in taxes are the people who live in

Nelson-Creston, and the minister has said that he is "relieving" the

rural properties of this burden of non-residential assessments.

Relieving us indeed! He is leaving all the onerous obligations on the

people resident in the area to make up the difference that the sharp

operators, who have made the decision that the place where the action

is now is to swoop into small towns and pick up commercial property in

some of the small, growing towns like the town of Terrace in my

colleague's riding, and towns like Creston.... Don't pay your taxes.

Play it just as close to the line as you possibly can. I am saying that

that type of a policy in a community the size of Kaslo, which is much

smaller than Creston, is absolutely crippling to the community. They

can't even collect enough taxes to run the town. They are left with a

net of zero after they've paid off the school board, the regional

district and the others that they have to pay up front. Now, under

section 20, they are going to be left with zero after they've paid up

everything, whether it's collected or not, to the provincial

government, which has made this tax grab.

It has been said

that I have been misleading this House. I can't say that anybody has

misled me, but I was certainly given the wrong impression by the

minister's opening remarks in second reading when he said that he was

going to "assume responsibility." This is not assuming responsibility;

this

section 20 does the exact opposite of that. This does nothing to

change the status quo. He is quite right. He says this is the same

provision that is in the present School Act, but I'll tell that

minister that because of national policies and other policies — things

which have happened in the last three or four years with interest rates

— this has been a problem that the government has done nothing to

rectify.

This very same problem was brought up in the House

last year. This particular

section continues this inequity. It

continues to reward investors from Vancouver who come in and inflate

the costs of commercial properties in small communities and defer their

taxes. Who has to pay the interest rates then? Who has to make up the

difference? It is those good, honest, decent resident citizens who

never consider deferring the payment of their property taxes; that is

who has to make up the difference. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says: "That is not criminal." No, it is not

criminal, but I guess if those were the words that first came to his

lips, he must have been considering that perhaps it was, and it must

have been bordering that very fine line.

I would hope that

the minister, having considered these remarks and the effect that this

is going to have on municipalities, and remembering that that minister

is not only the Minister of Education but was formerly the mayor of one

of the large municipalities in this province, might consider adjourning

this debate in order to bring in some amendments to this

section that

would help to address that problem. I ask the minister: is he willing

to bring in such amendments?

HON. MR. SMITH: This is

not a

section to fix the interest on unpaid taxes. That is a matter for

other statutes. The mill rate levy on non-residential land and

improvements will be fixed by the province under the

section that was

already passed —

section 18. Those funds are specifically to be used

for the public schools under that same section. In that sense,

responsibility for that levy is assumed, and the municipality continues

to collect those levies, as they did before, under the provisions of

the old School Act.

MS. BROWN: What the minister

didn't understand was that an individual has the right or the

opportunity not to meet their tax deadline, either because, as the

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said, they can't afford to meet it

financially because they just haven't got the money to pay the taxes

or, as the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said, they

deliberately decide not to meet their tax deadline because this is a

loophole through which they can increase their income — the McCarthy

loophole. Although individuals, commercial and industrial businesses,

and other groups have this opportunity to avoid meeting that deadline,

municipalities haven't got that. They have to pay their taxes based on

a

schedule outlined by the minister in this particular section, which

section 20(2)(d). The final balance of their taxes has to be in the

minister's hand by December 31, 1982. In order to do that many

municipalities have to borrow at whatever the going rate is.

What we find is that some people, who may deliberately avoid

paying

their taxes because it is in their own best financial interest to do

so, as the interest on unpaid taxes is not as high as the interest you

can make through investment, are an additional burden on the

municipality — in many instances, even on municipalities in which they

do not live. The minister has two options: either he can extend to

municipalities the opportunity, if they find they cannot meet their

deadline, to be charged interest the way individuals, corporations and

other businesses are allowed to do, or he can petition the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to do something about that

particular loophole to see that it is closed.

I would like to suggest specifically to the Minister of

Education that municipalities be permitted, in the event that they

cannot meet this tax deadline, to have the option of paying interest on

unpaid taxes. One of the things I mentioned earlier was the statement

of Vic Stusiak, the alderman from Burnaby, who said that he anticipated

that there would be a large percentage of unpaid taxes in Burnaby this

year as a result of the increased taxes that people have to meet. What

that means is that the municipality of Burnaby may find itself having

to go to the bank or some other financial institution to float a loan

in order to meet its taxes. Rather than do that and force the

municipalities to fall victim to the money-lenders of the land, would

it not be better for the minister to permit them to pay interest on the

unpaid balance of the tax until they're able to pay it? Would that not

be possible?

HON. MR. SMITH: As I said before, the

problem with the interest rate is a problem for a different statute,

but I hear what you're saying and what the other members have been

saying about that.

Section 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 23

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gablemann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

[ Page 7307

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

division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 21 through 56 inclusive approved.

section 57.

MR. LAUK:

Under this section, Mr. Chairman.... I'll read it: "The Regulation

Act.... Pardon me, my eyes are failing me. Let's pass

section 57 and

get on to

section 58.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I agree with you.

MR. LAUK: It's the way the bill was jig-jog

there; I didn't know whether 57 was part of it.

Section 57 approved.

section 58.

MR. LAUK:

Under

section 58 it states as follows: "The Regulation Act does not

apply to the following: (

a) the prescribing of a percentage under

section 2(

l) or of an amount under

section 2(2)." What does that mean?

It means that there is no prescription in the act giving the actual

percentage of shareable funds to the school district. But whatever

percentage that is, that order and that decision could be made in total

secrecy. There's no provision that will require the minister to make

public an order for the percentage of shareable funds or of the

provincial contribution to the cost of education, or to promulgate it

in the ordinary course under the Regulation Act.

Again, the

Regulation Act does not apply to a determination under

section 4(2).

Remember

section 4(2): "The minister may determine the manner and

frequency and payment of each monthly instalment."

Mr.

Chairman, you can see why we are so concerned about this cabinet that's

taking the power unto themselves in secret.

Section 58 is called the

"secret order" section. If you read

section 58, the Regulation Act does

not apply. I appreciate the honourable and learned member who is the

minister of....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Learned! Point of order! I

take it you went too far.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Garde, I tried my

best. It's a conspiracy to try and change Garde's reputation.

MR. COCKE: What a nice little club you guys

have.

MR. LAUK: It's cosy.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 58, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: It's pretty hard for me to get a

roll on this debate, isn't it?

Section

58 excludes — and I don't know of any other legislation that excludes

orders made by any cabinet minister or an order-in-council that isn't

published under the Regulation Act. This is a very far-reaching

section. Could you name a few? Will you enter the debate and tell me a

few?

HON. MR. SMITH: How many few do you want?

MR. LAUK: One.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair,

hon. members.

MR. LAUK:

In secret, this minister can make his pronouncement about what

percentage of contribution goes to school districts. He and the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) do not have to disclose their

decision on monthly payments to school districts. He doesn't have to

disclose the form required under

section 10. He's going to keep that a

secret. What are they afraid of, Mr. Chairman? Under 12(

l) the minister

may send directives to school boards, and he doesn't have to deal with

them under the Regulation Act. So we would have to depend on somebody

intercepting the mails or some school board member or civil servant

providing us with information that a directive to a particular school

district was cutting back their budget. The people of that school

district may not even know what's happened if the school board members

decide to keep quiet.

This minister wonders why I had the

temerity to announce one day ahead of time this scandalous finance

formula — because this government is a government of secrecy. It's a

Star Chamber government. If we don't expose what they're going to do,

when are we going to find out what they've done? The

section under

section 58 puts a blanket of secrecy on the actions of this minister.

You know, if I was proposing to pass this act and take the powers that

it's giving to the minister, I'd want to keep it from the public too.

I'd want to keep every move I made away from the public, because I

would be ashamed to let the public of British Columbia know what I have

done to them. We oppose

section 58.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Division is called.

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order of the

first member for Vancouver Centre must be related to the mechanics of a

division.

MR. LAUK:

I don't know if this relates to the mechanics of the division, but I

want to know if the people of British Columbia shouldn't be concerned

that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) is reading the want ads.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order,

hon. member.

Section 58 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

[ Page 7308

NAYS — 22

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

division in the Journals

of the House.

Sections 59 to 61 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a

third time?

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

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver

Centre seeks the floor on a point of order, I presume.

MR. LAUK:

The motion is debatable, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.] What are you laughing

about? It is difficult for me to carry on a debate when there is so

much interruption.

I want to discuss the reasonableness of

reading this bill a third time now. The debate on other readings of

this bill has indicated a clear dissatisfaction, not only from the

members of the New Democratic Party and in this chamber. School boards,

parents and teachers throughout the province — taxpayers too — have

indicated their desire to have a closer look at the provisions of this

bill.

Mr. Speaker would not be aware that in committee

several times the Minister of Education was unable to answer questions

put to him by members on this side of the House, a clear indication

that the Minister of Education did not understand the specific sections

of the bill. It is clear that this bill has not been thoroughly thought

out by the government itself. There is a clear and present danger that

the ramifications of this bill as suggested by the NDP members of this

House are true and that the practical impact of the implementation of

this bill will carry through as a systematic attack on education in

this province. I got the impression that it was the desire of the

Minister of Education that this bill pass, and he fully knew that in a

short period of time its tremendous negative effect would destroy the

education system that's been built up and known over many generations.

therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that the word "now" in the minister's

motion be deleted and the following words added: "six months hence."

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment appears to be in

order. It only needs one signature. It is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the amendment. I am shocked and surprised

that the member would move an amendment of this kind at this time,

because this member knows that school-tax deadlines are very close and

are pending; that the entire system of collecting taxes in this

province to defray the costs of schools would be shattered irreparably;

that school boards would be borrowing money across this province at a

rate far beyond that mentioned and predicted by this hon. member; that

there would be absolute fiscal irresponsibility and chaos in the

system; and that the tax relief that this bill brings to residential

taxpayers in 50 school districts would not occur. Mr. Speaker, it's an

absolute shocking, inexplicable motion and indicates that he has not

purported to understand the bill during the debate in this House.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that the tax relief that this affords

would be denied to the people. I think that's a rather questionable

judgment. It depends where you live whether this is going to be a tax

relief or a tax burden. As the minister well knows that is no problem,

because the bill itself has remedies; it has retroactive sections in it

which give it force and effect. Indeed when fiscal legislation, or even

when statements are made in the budget speech, they have force and

effect immediately and are ratified in due course.

But the

details of this particular piece of legislation have simply been sprung

on the people very suddenly. There has not been ample opportunity for

the people to respond. Tax collection agencies, such as the

municipalities, have had inadequate opportunity to look at this bill to

suggest amendments and have input. It has met with strong opposition.

If this were to be delayed for six months to prevent the minister from

implementing the provisions, it might provide for at least another six

months or one more financial year where there would be some equity and

some opportunity for people to continue to enjoy the benefits of a

non-residential assessment base in their particular constituencies

before they're snatched before their very eyes.

I say, Mr.

Speaker, that this particular amendment is well considered inasmuch as

that people have not had ample opportunity to, interact with this

government. The govern ment has brought in much less dangerous pieces

of legislation and has brought them in as White Papers, such as....

Well,

I won't even dignify this by drawing comparisons, but many other pieces

of legislation have been brought in that way. There has been an

opportunity for municipal people in particular, and other elected

officials, to react.

This particular measure, I think, needs

more time. I think it needs six months, because it is tantamount to the

federal government invading the taxation base of provincial

governments. It would be the very same as if the federal government

came in and took away all of the prerogatives of provincial governments

and said: "Now we will pay for those services, but we'll distribute it

among the provinces the way we see fit. It is no, different than that.

For that particular reason, a six month delay, a little bit of time for

reflection, perhaps a little time for a bit of contrition, a little bit

of time for that famous second look, would well serve this particular

bill.

[ Page 7309

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member for Vancouver

Centre stand on a point of order?

MR. LAUK:

To close the debate. [Laughter.] Under standing orders, I moved the

motion. Aren't I entitled to close the debate? What kind of a House is

this?

MR. SPEAKER: This is an amendment, hon.

member.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that one of our members

is not in his place. I am confident that he is in the precincts, and

I'm prepared to let the vote go. I just want to draw to the Speaker's

attention that the bells are getting very erratic again.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. We'll take that under advisement. Nonetheless,

the time provided for in the standing orders has expired. The motion is

that the word "now" be deleted and the following words be added: "six

months hence."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

Bill 27, Education (Interim) Finance Act, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 15.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this

opportunity to briefly make my remarks in second reading on the

principle of Bill 15.

Mr.

Speaker, there's a very important event starting at 5:30, and I'll

understand if those members who must leave leave right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is this a golf game?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, this is the hockey game

in which Gary Lupul is once again going to come out scoring.

MR. SPEAKER: Would those who are moving

please move silently. A member has the floor.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Be brief.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm usually pretty brief,

Mr. Minister.

a matter of fact, members who have already spoken on this bill,

particularly the urban members, have pointed out to the government and

the minister the concerns they have on the cutbacks — what the result

will be of the proposed cutbacks if this bill passes. And I'm sure the

bill will pass. The government has the majority in this House, and

every time we have had a vote so far the government has won. We still

do have the right to present the concerns of the ridings,

municipalities and regional districts that we represent.

Since

my riding is a large rural area, I want to point out to the

minister.... The minister is very much aware of my riding and the

nature of my riding. In fact, he paid us a visit as recently as last

December on another matter. Although the dollar figures are smaller, it

is the rural areas, particularly the smaller villages and

municipalities, that are going to take the brunt when the effects of

this bill are felt at the municipal level. Overall, just for the record

— the minister is very much aware of this — the program is being cut

from $162 million to $99 million. This is going to have some drastic

and dramatic effects on the financing of sewer programs and perhaps

other programs within municipalities and regional districts.

would very much like to give the minister some figures. I did take the

trouble, Mr. Speaker, to contact all the municipalities and regional

districts in my riding, and I have some figures for the minister. When

the minister closes debate on this bill, I hope he will respond and

tell me that I am wrong. The municipalities' councils, administrators

and financial planners agree with these figures, and they have been

forced — not asked — to comply with the directive sent out from the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

The municipality of Powell

River will lose $228,000 this year when the effects of this bill are

felt, which means that jobs will be lost. Certainly a lot of part-time

jobs will be lost, and some full-time jobs, or taxes will have to be

increased within the municipality to make up the money differences to

comply, or programs will have to be cut. That's probably what the

municipal counsellors are looking at at the present time. The minister

has not looked at those effects in that municipalities the size of

Powell River. The worst

part is, of course, if it's a sewer program or

a sewage treatment plant or that kind of thing, that means that that

sewage will be outfalling in the ocean untreated. The minister is very

much aware of this.

Last year, the village of Sechelt

received $108,000 under the revenue-sharing program. This year they

will be receiving about $85,000, a cut of about 20 percent — once

again, jobs down the tube, programs cut or increased taxation.

The

village of Gibsons last year received $201,734 under the

revenue-sharing program. This year it will receive $186,429, down

$50,305. This means, once again, programs slightly cut, an increase in

taxes through one form or another, or a cut in programs.

[ Page 7310

I'll

be fair: some of the regional districts are not quite so badly

affected, depending on the programs that they have in progress. If a

particular regional district has a large sewer or waterline program

going on, then they will feel the effects quite badly.

As it

develops, the Powell River Regional District doesn't have too many of

those programs in progress at the present time, but theSun shine Coast

Regional District has a large number of those programs, relatively

speaking, in progress, so they will be dramatically affected by this

particular bill at this time.