1985 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5065 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Mrs. Wallace –– 5065

Tabling Documents –– 5066

Oral Questions

Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Mr. D'Arcy –– 5066

Mr. Williams

Mr. Lockstead

Expo 86 site. Mr. Barnes –– 5067

Special enterprise zones. Mr. Williams –– 5067

Provincial contribution to Ethiopian relief. Ms. Sanford –– 5068

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Committee stage.

section 1–– 5068

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

section 2 –– 5073

Mr. Rose

Mr. Passarell

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Howard

Mr. Cocke

Third reading –– 5079

Division

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 42) — Committee stage.

section 1–– 5080

Mr. Macdonald

section 3 –– 5080

Mr. Macdonald

section 9 –– 5080

Mr. Macdonald

section 11 –– 5080

Mr. Macdonald

Third reading –– 5081

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 40). Committee stage.

section 19 –– 5081

Mrs. Wallace

section 25 –– 5082

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Passarell

Third reading –– 5082

Transport of Dangerous Goods Act (Bill 45). Committee stage.

section 4 –– 5082

Mr. Passarell

section 11 –– 5082

Mrs. Wallace

Third reading –– 5083

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 39). Committee stage

section 3 –– 5083

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Wallace

section 4 –– 5084

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

section 23 –– 5084

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

section 25 –– 5085

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

section 26 –– 5085

Mrs. Dailly

section 27 –– 5085

Mrs. Dailly

section 41 –– 5086

Mr. Cocke

Third reading –– 5086

Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Committee stage.

section 1 –– 5086

Mr. Williams

section 2 –– 5086

Mr. Williams

section 3 –– 5087

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Williams

section 4 –– 5087

Mr. Passarell

section 7 –– 5087

Mr. Barnes

Mr. MacWilliam

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, gung hay fat choy. This is the

year of the ox, and I'm sure all members would like to wish our

Chinese-Canadians and our Chinese friends a very happy and successful

new year.

Secondly, I'd like to welcome to the assembly and to B.C. a group of

nine political science students and three professors led by Prof. Don

Alper, good friends from Western Washington University.

MR. MACDONALD: Gum yat hai sun men. Gung jook gock wai sun nien fai lock. Ngow nien. This is the year of the cow, not the ox.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr Speaker, on your behalf, I would like

to ask the House to welcome two British Columbians from Delta, Mr. and

Mrs. Don Ellenson.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today, visiting from the

Cowichan-Malahat constituency, is a group of ten parents; Kelly Winter, Mr.

and Mrs. Norman Walker, Jim Ayers, Jim Bomford, Stu Fuoco, Mrs. Mary Anne Bieling,

Pam Campbell and Eva Towner, who is the president of the parent-teacher association

there. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Visiting with us in the members' gallery

today is Mr. Libran B. Cabactulan, who is director of the division of

international economic cooperation and development in the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs of the Philippines. With him is Dr. Gordon Jones,

director of the Pacific Rim program at Vancouver Community College. I

hope the House will make them welcome.

MR, REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have Mr.

Robin Williams, president of the Young Socreds of British Columbia.

With him is another member from West Vancouver, Kevin Falcon, who is a

director of the Young Socreds. I would like the House to make them

welcome.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery there are, in fact, not just

two members but ten members of a dynamic young group of British Columbians.

They represent the board of directors of the B.C. Young Socreds. I would like

to bring special notice to the fact that we have one member from Maillardville-Coquitlam,

Miss Kristy Ilic; another from Burnaby-Edmonds, Mr. Ken Sadowski, and one from

Nanaimo, Mr. Les Barclay. Please make them welcome.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have the

secretary of the Young Socreds, Mr. Ed Parker, who is from the riding

of Burnaby-Willingdon, and Mr. Paul Keenleyside from Burnaby-Edmonds. I

would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. PELTON: Mr, Speaker, seated with my wife in the member's gallery

today is a lady who has lived in this beautiful city all of her life and has

never before been in this chamber. I would ask all members to give Mrs. Dorothy

Ludvigson an appropriate welcome.

We also have a dynamic young gentleman from Dewdney here, who is

also a director of the Young Socreds. I would like to introduce and ask

the House to welcome Scott Leaf.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, today members of our caucus met

with some parents who are interested in the subject of education and

wish to have ongoing input into that subject. Of course we all concur

with that. May I introduce their leader, Miss Chris Taulu.

MR. REE: With the group of concerned parents we met with today is the

president of the parents' council in North Vancouver. I'd like the House

to welcome Lynne Bogardus to Victoria and to this chamber.

HON. MR, GARDOM: May I also welcome to the assembly Miss Mary

Anne Badun, who is the director of the Young Socreds and who

contributed so greatly to the re-election of my colleague the Hon.

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

and myself.

Presenting Petitions

MRS. WALLACE: I ask leave to introduce a petition.

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE: The petition is:

"To the hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of

British Columbia in legislature assembled, the petition of the

undersigned parents and residents of School District 65 (Cowichan)

humbly showeth:

"That rising class sizes, termination of programs,

loss of highly qualified staff and closure of smaller schools are all

unacceptable to us and our young people in the schools of District 65.

"Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your hon.

House may be pleased to act immediately to restore funding to our

school district at the 1983 level, taking into account inflationary

factors;

"And to return the power of local taxation to our school

board.

"And as in duty bound your petitioner will ever pray.

This is dated Monday, January 14, 1985. It is signed by over 1,400 parents and residents in Cowichan.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming — if not

in the gallery, certainly in the precincts — representatives of the B.C. Central

Credit Union, whom we had the pleasure of meeting with a while ago — and, particularly,

a long-time friend of mine from Prince Rupert, and a long-time active member

of the credit union movement, Mr. George Viereck.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to ask the House to welcome two other

members of the young Socred group. Darin Nielsen, the vice-president of the

Young Socreds, is, as our House would want to know, the son of our Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). In addition, I don't know whether

[ Page 5066 ]

Mr. Ed Parker, the secretary, has been recognized, but because I have a long-standing friendship with Ed, Id like him to be recognized specially.

In addition, I would like the House to also welcome two members of the Coquitlam

area who are in the precincts — and I believe in the House, although I can't

find them right now; they are certainly going to be visiting the House this

afternoon — Mr. and Mrs. Harry McKelvie.

Mr. Speaker tabled the ombudsman's special report No. 9 to the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia.

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the annual report of the Fraser River Joint

Advisory Board, the annual report of the Creston Valley Wildlife

Management Area and the annual report for the 1983-84 fiscal year for

the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

MR. D'ARCY: Just very briefly, I'd like to say that if

there's anybody in the precinct, the House or the James Bay district of

Victoria who has not been introduced, I welcome them to Victoria and to

this chamber.

To my friend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: in view

of the Premier's television address announcement that he intends to obtain

federal funding for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, can the minister assure

this House in good faith that, in order to convince Ms. Carney and Mr. Wilson

to allocate some very scarce federal resources to this project, he will issue

an energy certificate to B.C. Hydro so they can get along with the design and

engineering — not the construction — so that they will be able to proceed forthwith

when this promised federal government assistance becomes available and to show

good faith to the federal government that the province intends to proceed with

its share of the project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: An energy certificate is not required for such an undertaking.

MR. D'ARCY: In that case, in view of the fact that the minister

is not only Minister of Energy for the province but also a director of B.C. Hydro,

why can he not have B.C. Hydro proceed with the design and engineering if, indeed,

the government fully intends to proceed with this project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's the government's intention to proceed

with this project at such time as the federal government honours its

commitment and its obligation to British Columbia by way of a cheque.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy could advise

us why, if the government is as serious as it says it is about this project

that would create employment in British Columbia, they've fired all of the

staff at B.C. Hydro — why there are no desks, no secretaries, no engineers on

the Island gas pipeline project whatsoever?

HON. MR. ROGERS: At such time as we have a commitment, the people that

are required for the design and the construction of this particular pipeline

will be retained by B.C. Hydro. But until such time, the taxpayers of this province

do not have an obligation or a commitment to maintain employment which is not

necessary until such time as that commitment is honoured.

MR. WILLIAMS: On the question of credibility with respect to this project, which is fading fast in view of the minister's responses....

With respect to a gas pipeline to Island communities, as proposed,

could the minister explain why there have been no hearings with respect

to the extension of the system on Vancouver Island itself, if they are

indeed serious about the project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it's a question of expense. If

the federal government is prepared to honour its obligation to British

Columbia and prepared to go ahead and do that, then there's ample time

and ample opportunity to hold what hearings are necessary under the

Utilities Commission Act for the various proponents who wish to build

pipelines on Vancouver Island.

At such time as we have a commitment from the federal government.... The federal

member for Nanaimo — I apologize for not knowing the proper federal name for

the constituency — made an announcement in Ottawa today. Again, it's fine

for the federal member to make that announcement, but I am waiting to see if

I get confirmation of that from the federal minister. At such time as it happens,

I can assure this House and assure the member, I will instruct the Utilities

Commission to commence hearings forthwith on development of the pipeline on

Vancouver Island. But I don't believe it's either prudent or wise to

undertake hearings on the Island until such time as we have a commitment to

build the gas pipeline to the Island.

MR. D'ARCY: Has the Minister of Energy been in touch with the

Premier since Monday night to advise the Premier that indeed the

minister has no commitment from the federal government regarding the

Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member has never

been in cabinet, but discussions between ministers are not subject to

discussion in the House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a supplementary question to the same

minister. In view of the further delay in construction of the Vancouver

Island pipeline, has the government decided to take another look at the

northern crossing route and the possible inclusion of a fertilizer

plant at Powell River, which, by the way, would create 400 new

permanent jobs in that area?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise us if he has assured

the new mayor of Nanaimo that the government is serious? The mayor has expressed

some very serious doubts to both him and the Premier about their intent with

respect to this project.

HON . MR. ROGERS: The mayor of Nanaimo and I have had very extensive conversations about the Vancouver Island

[ Page

5067 ]

pipeline, as has the mayor with the federal member for Nanaimo and also the federal minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise us how he has

responded to the mayor's concern regarding the present stalemate,

hesitancy and seemingly political posturing that puzzles the new mayor

of Nanaimo, as he indicated in correspondence?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

EXPO 86 SITE

MR. BARNES: To the Minister of Tourism. I had hoped to serve

the minister notice earlier, but we were unable to make contact, This

concerns the Expo north gate to Chinatown. Construction of a north gate

on the Expo site recently cancelled by the government would have

created construction jobs, operating jobs, and jobs in the Chinatown

community. If the city of Vancouver and the Chinatown community succeed

in raising the necessary funds, will the minister agree to build the

gate?

HON. MR, RICHMOND: I made it very clear that I met with many of the

leaders of the Chinese community, the Vancouver Townsite Renaissance Corp. and

other business leaders from that area as long ago as last October; in fact,

I think at the meeting there were some 12 to 15 people present. I said to them

at that time: "Come back to us with a proposal. Get your act together quickly

and come back to us." They have failed to do that to this day. I also explained

to them that the window for doing that is quite probably closed now. They have

yet to come back and make contact with me, and the plans have progressed far

enough along at Expo that they may possibly be too late.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the minister's response; that's some

information that I'd hoped to get earlier. I do have a concern I'd like

to convey on behalf of the merchants in Chinatown who feel that the

gate was cancelled to provide a captive market for food services at

Expo by eliminating competition from Chinatown. In view of this matter

and the jobs involved, has the minister decided to reconsider his

decision in response to that local initiative?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, that allegation is totally

incorrect, and I don't know why they would make such an assumption. I'm

still waiting for that same group to contact me. They have contacted

the media, it seems, and nearly everyone else, and if they would like

to come and discuss the matter, my door is always open on the subject.

I issued that invitation to them yesterday and they have yet to come

back and talk. But I can assure you that we have no desire to take any

kind of food business, or any other business, away from the merchants

in that area.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education,

system. Apparently the minister met last Thursday night, I believe, with a Strathcona

as a second language in the Vancouver schools. Has he reconsidered it, as he

promised those people?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not sure I heard the first part of the member's

question, Mr. Speaker, but was it something about meeting on Thursday with a

group from Strathcona? I don't recall meeting with a group from Strathcona

last Thursday evening.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, apparently it was indicated last

Thursday night, according to some correspondence that I have, that you

were reconsidering ESL funding for Vancouver schools, especially in the

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The only comment I can make as a result of

meeting with the Vancouver school board is that there was some

discussion — as a matter of fact, it took about an hour of the meeting

months, some discussion about the demands for funds for ESL, and I am

advised that in the 1985-86 budget.... Now I'm going from

recollection, Mr. Speaker, so you can't pin me down exactly on the

figures, but it seems to me that under the special needs

section of

that budget, something over $30 million is provided, of which about $20

million, I believe, has been allocated for ESL, which I think is an

increase of some $3 million or S4 million.

All I can really do, if the member is looking for the exact figures,

is take the question as notice and bring back to the House those

figures, which are available in the '85-86 budget.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that the budget

for ESL was cut in previous years and an emergency allocation of $2.5

million is required to retain the present level of services for the

next 18 months. When does the minister intend to provide the House with

the kinds of answers that these people are obviously desperately

looking for'?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the amount of funding

provided to the Vancouver school board for ESL is adequate. The question as

to the allocation of those funds which have been provided in their budget is

a function of the school districts.

SPECIAL ENTERPRISE ZONES

MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. With respect to the special enterprise zones referred to by

the Premier and a new productive partnership with the municipalities,

could the minister explain which municipalities he has discussed the

special enterprise zones with, or the other arrangements referred to in

the earlier speeches?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I am unable to go into

any details with regard to any future programs. I will be only too pleased

to do so when the appropriate time arrives.

MR. WILLIAMS: Supplementary, Mr Speaker. The cabinet document last July of the Minister of Industry and

[ Page 5068 ]

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) referred to a prime

site in Delta municipality. Could the minister indicate whether there

have been any meetings whatsoever with Delta municipality in this

regard?

HON, MR. RITCHIE: I really am at a loss to know what

document he may be referring to. I would suggest that in order to

properly answer the question he may wish to table it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I take it the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL CONTRIBUTION

TO ETHIOPIAN RELIEF

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Health. To date, the

people of British Columbia have donated nearly $1.5 million to relieve the famine

in Ethiopia. Last November the Minister of Health rejected a request for a provincial

contribution to the Ethiopian relief program, stating, in effect, that this

case was no more important than thousands of other requests that were coming

in to government, Has the government reconsidered the request of the B.C. Federation

of International Agencies to make a significant contribution to famine-stricken

Ethiopia?

[2:30]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't suggest it t was less

important than other requests. I simply advised the people that they

cannot make a request for $2 million and expect an answer in a couple

of hours. And no, we have not reconsidered their request, to the point

that we have not agreed with their request. We advised them that we

were not in a position at that time to agree to their request. We have

been working with the federal government in a coordinated effort with

respect to aid to Ethiopia.

MS. SANFORD: Based on what the minister is saying, I'm

wondering if he's working with the federal government in terms of

funnelling moneys from the provincial government a to assist the

federal government in matching those funds. What is the minister

saying? Is the provincial government making any contribution at all

to famine-stricken Ethiopia?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the government of B.C. has not made a decision

as to what form of assistance it may offer to Ethiopia, whether it will be through

one of the many hundreds of agencies which seem to have sprung up in recent

months or whether we are going to work through the federal government. I think,

quite appropriately, that since it is another nation that is making a request,

it should be coordinated through the federal government, notwithstanding the

fact that other provinces have taken independent action.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 48.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

The House in Committee on Bill 48; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Committee on Bill 48 will come to order. Let me just say that in reviewing he debate yesterday,

all sides of the House discussed and canvassed ministerial estimates, second

reading debate, the Vancouver Canucks and the salary of Mr. Gretzky. I think

today we could probably relate our remarks more specifically to

section 1 of

the bill before us.

section 1.

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying when I was so

rudely interrupted at 6:00 last night, we object to the idea that the public

should be asked to vote on specific expenditures, expenditure by expenditure.

I said last night that it would be just as absurd to ask the residents of Campbell

River to vote on a referendum about whether or not Vancouver should have a publicly

funded rapid transit system. I'd like a vote on that, because like many

residents in Campbell River, I see higher priorities. But that's an inappropriate

request of me to make there or of the people in any part of this province, because

governments are elected to govern.

The same principle applies when it comes to funding education. I made the point

that when we did have referenda for operating budgets in the school system,

as bad as they were, at least in those days the school districts had some reasonable

tax bases from which to collect taxes. In many districts in this province —

in several of the ones in my constituency — there is virtually no residential

tax base to speak of. It would cost hundreds of dollars per home just to bring

educational levels up to last year's levels, much less that of previous years.

So in principle the idea of a referendum is wrong, and I would suggest that

in this particular application it is also wrong because it does not apply fairly

or equally to all people in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make one more point: that is, that education has been

in turmoil for some years now. No one knows from day to day what to expect next.

Some weeks or some months ago now, the minister advised that the public would

have a say in what should happen in terms of education in this province through

the "Let's Talk About Schools" process. Some suspicions were raised

that that was — and I'm talking about the referendum, and you'll see

that in a moment, Mr. Chairman — just a smokescreen, that in fact decisions

had been made.

The minister said: "Oh, no, no, we're genuinely listening, We want

to find out what to do. I'll extend the deadline for the process."

But in the middle of that process, he brings in a fundamental change in the

way schools are operated in this province by introducing the referendum principle

for operating. Now he can't have it both ways. Either he believes that hero

should be a process to determine what the structure should be, how the whole

process should operate following he consultation, and then bringing in recommendations

for a

[ Page

5069 ]

whole variety of areas, including financing.... If the process

leads to a suggestion that there should be a referendum, then we'll

deal with that when it happens.

But why in the middle of the process does the minister bring in

legislation that fundamentally changes the way education is funded in

this province? It's wrong, and I suspect that what we're debating

here.... The referendum is in fact the clearest illustration we've

had to date that the "Let's Talk About Schools" process is a farce,

that the government knows exactly what it intends to do and is going

through a sham hearing process in order to pretend to the public that

it is in fact consulting with them, when it is not in fact consulting

and has already determined what it wants to do.

The proof of that is that in the middle of this process the minister

would introduce legislation calling for referenda for operating costs

in school districts. I just find the whole thing, as I said before,

wrong in principle, wrong in fairness and contradictory to what is

alleged to be the public participation in this process.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the member for

North Island has made reference, in particular, to the very last point

— I acknowledge and appreciate why he may have raised the comments

which he did. I can assure the House that this is not a diversionary

tactic at all. I think what's important, Mr. Chairman, is that this

particular bill is an amendment to the Education (Interim) Finance Act.

As I have discussed with my critic opposite, there is one particular

provision of this bill which, of course, the government will not be

supporting, and I presume that the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Rose) has so advised his caucus.

This is an interim measure, and that is understood. However, during this interim

period, while we as a government feel that the amount of funding provided for

education is adequate, if those within the community wish to top up their operating

budgets, I should be the last ever to deny that opportunity.

Now I would like to make reference to the foundation that we are

establishing. If ever there is a member who ought to be advocating

equity in funding between districts, it is the member for North Island,

because when we look at the districts.... I've been to all of your

school districts, Mr. Member — Vancouver Island West, Vancouver Island

North — and I agree with you that Campbell River is quite capable of

looking after itself for a number of reasons which you and I probably

both know.

But if you look at the averages, for example — the amount paid under

the foundation funding, as provided by the service levels and the

fiscal framework — you will find that the total cost per student there

is $4,501. The provincial average is $3,267. I think we as a

government have proven that what we were out to do was to establish

some equity between districts.

I don't think there's really much more. I would like to assure the

member that the idea of "Let's Talk About Schools" is just that.

I am anxiously awaiting the receipt of that report, as everybody else is. I'm

on the mailing list to receive that report. I agreed that it ought to be made

public so that everybody could see it. It is that report which is going to provide

the foundation for a new School Act. Remember, there's a sunset provision

under the existing education interim bill. That sunset clause remains. We must

bring in the appropriate legislation before December 31, 1986, at which time

I truly hope that we are going to resolve, once and for all, the education debate

which has been going on in this province for a long, long time.

I have made it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I have reduced the size of my ministry

considerably. We are presently at 61 percent of our original complement. The

object is to put right back to the school districts the authority and autonomy

which they once enjoyed. What is even more important, when it comes down to

raising funds for those districts, it is the rural districts in British Columbia

that have problems with funding. It's those districts which have difficulty

with respect to a residential tax base. That's why we have already established

a huge differential in the cost per student. When I see the cost per student

in the lower mainland deviating in some places by as much as $1,000, even after

taking into consideration the differential between the average teacher salaries

within those districts, then I think I've accomplished what I set out to

do. Remember that the clarion call — and I've used that word often — in

1982 was that the funding of education must be brought into some sane balance

and there must be a better way. I think we've gone a long way to do it;

I'm not saying it's perfect.

As far as the referendum concept is concerned, I do not deny anybody

that opportunity, particularly when I look at the amounts which could

conceivably be raised. If any of those residential property owners or

people in the community wish to raise money, when I see the amount that

they can raise and still have no effect on their education tax....

Even with a 2 percent increase, other than in a handful of perhaps 12

to 15 districts, every one of them will still end up paying zero

education tax.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that the debate

around education is never going to cease, because I don't think

education is static. It's dynamic and it's changing, and its inability

to change would be a very sad thing for us to have to deal with in this

province. I'm in support of the debate continuing, not coming to an

end.

I am opposing this

section 1 on behalf of School District 41. If the

minister wants to pull out all of his statistics on School District 41,

this is his opportunity to do so.

I think that Burnaby School District 41 has been one of the most

responsible school districts in terms of living within the budget,

dealing with the cutbacks and still trying to give the students the

best possible education that they could have under the circumstances.

As a direct result of doing that, if the minister had permitted

Burnaby to have its needs budget, not only would there not have been an

increase in the taxes that the households in Burnaby would have to pay,

but actually there would have been a decrease. The Burnaby households

would have had a decrease of about $30 each in their taxes. That's what

they were looking at.

[2:45]

What the minister is saying is that the referenda will make it possible to

meet the needs budget and wipe out the $30 decrease. In other words, not only

are they probably going to have to pay more — we don't know by how much

at this point — but they're going to lose that $30 benefit that they really

worked very hard to build up. So the school board is in opposition to it. I

can see why that is the case. As I said, they really have gone to the bone on

this. As you know, we've closed schools in Burnaby, reduced our teaching

staff. We've done just about everything that it was possible to do in order

to stay within the budget as outlined by the minister last

[ Page 5070 ]

year. There was actually a drop of just over $11 million in the budget, I think;

between 1982 and 1986 there would have been a decrease of something like $11

million.

This year the 44,400 households were hoping they wouldn't have to

deal with the $1.3 million, which would have been a 5 percent decrease

and have meant $30 to each of them. However, if their needs budget is

the one about which the minister says, "I will give you your budget,

but you have referenda to meet your needs budget," then what we're

talking about is going back to the households, the taxpayers, to pick

up that $1.4 million. That would wipe out the $30 per household, but it

could also cost more — maybe not very much more, but more. So there

really was no benefit in being responsible and trying to meet the

government's budget line, was there? No benefit really accrued to the

households in Burnaby. They have made all these sacrifices, and they're

still going to end up, in the long run, losing whatever benefit there

was and, as I said, finding that they have to pay more.

Basically I'm opposed to referenda, even though I'm schizophrenic

about it, the same way the government is, because I support the peace

referenda and supported the municipalities going along with that. When

I lived in Vancouver I supported the idea of the referendum on the ward

system. But basically I'm opposed to referenda. As a matter of fact,

when a parent group met with us recently, they pointed out that any

referendum introduced that indicated an increase in taxes was

automatically defeated in this particular school district — not

Burnaby. It was Cowichan, I think, where they said there had never been

an instance when a referendum that had increased taxes tied to it had

ever been approved, no matter what the reason was for that referendum.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It was Cowichan.

I haven't done a study of how Burnaby responds to referenda with tax increases

tied to them. But I know that the school board has done everything within its

power to ensure that the households don't have to deal with the burden of

an increased tax. We're complimenting them, and we're hoping that you

compliment them too. Certainly the householders were pleased with that. Then

this bill comes in, and we find that all of that is wiped out. So I'm going

to oppose this.

I believe that the needs budget submitted by Burnaby, which calls

for an additional $1.4 million, is one which the minister should be

prepared to meet. As a result of closing the schools and laying off

teachers and cutting back services to the children, and unless that

$1.4 million is met, we're going to have more oversized classes and

more multiple-grade classes in Burnaby. There is going to be a loss of

some electives and of some course options for those students seeking

specific educational programs. We've been told that already there is

reduced curriculum development activity.

Is there something wrong, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It sounds like estimates debate, hon. member. To the referendum principle.

MS. BROWN: Oh, no. Your ears deceive you, Mr. Chairman. Believe

me, they do. I'm dealing with

section 1 of the bill, the referendum section.

I'm just outlining for the minister, on behalf of Burnaby School District,

why I'm speaking in opposition to it, and why it's not possible for

School District 41 to support this particular section. But I won't go on

and on about the fact that, as I said, Burnaby has already virtually eliminated

all of the fat — district supervision, coordination, evaluation of instruction,

all these things are already gone. I'm reading from a brief which was prepared

by one of the Burnaby school trustees, so I'm not talking off the top of

my head. In addition, some other devastating results are that preventive counselling

and early intervention programs are going to be lost to the students.

I know the minister says that if Burnaby is really serious and wants to put

these things in place, they now have the right to have a referendum, and that

the taxpayers can say: "This is important enough to us and to our children's

future that we're prepared to pay for it." I'm just pointing out

to the minister that that's unfair. I think the children of Burnaby have

paid enough in terms of making do without in order to meet the budgets imposed

on them by the minister in the last couple of years. The parents should not

be asked, at this time of high unemployment and high bankruptcies — all of those

kinds of things — to reach into their pockets. They really thought that by sticking

close to the line and meeting the minister's budgets they would have some

kind of reprieve this year, but it's not going to happen. Anyway, they have

no guarantee, even after that, that this is the way it's going to be. As

you know, the minister has it within his power to change the ratio in terms

of the funding. He could decide that 60 to 40 is not all that it's cracked

up to be and decide to go for 70 to 30 instead, or something like that. So basically

we have no protection, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the reason we're opposed

to this

section and would like to ask the minister to repeal it, or anyway not

to proceed any further with it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Just quickly to the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, I recognize the job that the Burnaby School Board has

done. They have had a very difficult task, and for a reason that has

fallen upon a number of boards within the province: a significant

decline in enrolment. Between 1981 and the school year 1984-85 they've

lost 2,500 students, so it's no wonder they have to face the difficult

task of closing some schools. But I would like to point out to the

member that even with school closures and the current enrolment, the

PTR, which in 1981 was 16.83, in September of 1984, for 1984-85, was

17.16, and the provincial average is 17.73. I think we must take into

consideration that Burnaby is a reasonably compact area geographically.

The problems in Burnaby are not those which are experienced in the

rural and remote parts of British Columbia where there's a huge

diversity.

I recognize that we have to be very careful when we use figures, but

I think the member would also find that the average class size in

Burnaby, elementary and secondary, is probably in the area of 24. I

concede that there will be classes of 30, 31, 32, but by the same

token, when you look at the timetables within the school districts —

and that's something I always look at — you will find a number that

have five, six, eight, ten, twelve students — That's why the average

class size is 24. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that in

the secondary school it's even less than that.

As far as the referendum is concerned, in Burnaby I recognize that

you're talking about the difference between a needs budget and what the

government is prescribing under the current budget allocation for

1984-85. I think you'll find that a referendum looking at 2 percent

will bring in the difference. In Burnaby — in 41 — it's worth something

in the order of $24 per average home at the midpoint range.

[ Page

5071 ]

I pass that information on to the member because I think it's

important to recognize that in a reasonably compact school district

there still is a PTR of 17. 16. I don't recall the hullabaloo in 1981

when it was 16.83, and what are we talking? Thirty-two one-hundredths.

MS. BROWN: That's the problem when you start playing around with figures. They never tell you the whole story.

Mr. Chairman, I intended to be very brief — I'm still going to be very

brief — but I think the minister has to be very careful how he uses those figures.

He didn't mention the very high proportion of split classes that we have

in Burnaby, especially in the elementary schools. There's no comparison

between the urban schools and the rural schools — I know that. That's not

a problem. He didn't talk about what mainstreaming has done to the schools

in Burnaby, where we have a large number of disabled children now in the classroom

— where they should be — but not the support services for them, and the impact

that that has on a classroom — A PTR of 17.16 may not sound like very much,

but when at least two or three of those children need special attention, 17.16

is too great. So I don't think that the minister should throw those figures

around. An average doesn't mean anything; it's not going to be $24;

it's going to work out to be more than that. The $30 that they were hoping

to save is going to be wiped out, and possibly, if they trimmed their jib to

meet their whatever.... I'm never quite sure what these things are.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Their sails to meet their jib, or their jib to meet their

sails — they'll be able to keep it just a little bit over that $30 which

they had hoped they were going to retrieve.

But remember that we also have a very large immigrant community

there in our schools. For a large number of the children in the Burnaby

students the teacher can handle in the classroom. So don't throw those

statistics around, Mr. Minister, because they really don't even begin

to tell the story.

MRS. WALLACE: Statistics can be interesting things, all

right. The other morning, when we were walking into the building

together, the minister suggested to me that really I shouldn't be

worried about what was happening in Cowichan-Malahat, because the

homeowner's grant is going to cover all these extra costs anyway. Well,

I took it upon myself to do a little digging, Mr. Chairman. What I

found was that in the city of Duncan, for example, the average

homeowner's tax is about $880. Of that, $330, on the average, is school

tax. So with the $380 homeowner's grant off, the householder pays $500

taxation.

[3:00]

What the minister is trying to suggest is that because the school tax is only

$330, that could be upped by $50 and the grant would cover it. But I've

been looking at the Home Owner Grant Act, and there is nothing in there about

that being strictly applicable for school tax. It's to reduce the total

tax bill. So when you increase the school tax portion, whether or not that is

compensated by the homeowner grant, that doesn't mean that people's

taxes aren't going up, because they are going up by the amount of that referendum.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

When you have a figure where the average tax bill in the city of

Duncan, with the homeowner's grant off, is already $500, I suggest to

you that the average resident of the city of Duncan is not in a

position to pay any higher taxes than that. I would also suggest to you

that that is also happening in other areas, where school taxes have

a....

I have one here from Eagle Heights, 1984, comparative to the Duncan

one, where the school tax was $335.76 — very similar to Duncan city. So

$44.24 was applicable to the general taxation, which helped reduce the

tax burden to that individual and that family.

I have another instance in the south end of the constituency where the actual

residential school tax — and this is in the Shawnigan Lake area, and it's

an average home in that area, the kind that you or I would live in — the school

tax is $490.21. So the $380 homeowner grant doesn't even cover the school

tax. So for the minister to say that I don't need to worry, that it's

all going to be covered by the homeowner grant, is simply playing with figures,

because it is going to affect the residents of Cowichan, and they are going

to consider that when they consider a referendum.

I would like to suggest to the minister, as I did in second reading, that this

is the wrong place to start with a referendum. When we had referenda before,

bad as they were — back in the 60s and 70s — at least they were based on reasonably

adequate funding for education. It was a better sort of standard than we're

at now in many of the schools. And it also gave you a broader tax base: the

commercial and industrial. When you've pared to the bare bones and when

you have confiscated two-thirds of the tax base, that's not the time to

then say: "Okay, if you want to do anything extra, have a referendum."

That's not the time.

The Cowichan School District, as the minister agrees, was one with very low

administrative costs. It was a well-run institution. One would think that if

that were the case, it wouldn't be so hard for them. But you know, Mr. Chairman,

when you have a well-run institution with low administrative costs, you're

able to devote more money to the classrooms. The result is that you have a lower

pupil-teacher ratio. Our ratio was about 17 to 1.

If the minister's objective were to pare the administrative costs, Cowichan

would be okay. But the minister has now said that's not his objective at

all. His objective is to get the pupil-teacher ratio up to 19.14. What has happened

is that a school district that ran a good show and had a lower pupil-teacher

ratio has no fat to cut. Our classes are up to 23 and 24 now in actual classroom

situations, and I gave those figures to the minister in second reading. If we

are forced to go to 19.14, there's hardly going to be a class that is below

30 pupils per teacher. That is not a good environment for education. It's

not fair to young people, and it is not going to provide the kind of training,

interest in learning and background for advanced learning that we need in this

province if we are going to produce the kinds of technologists, scientists and

foresters with the expertise that we need to deal with our resource economy.

It's all so unfair. The figures are startling as to the difference — and

these may have been quoted in the House before, I don't know.... Cowichan

comes fairly much in the middle when you look at what it would cost the taxpayer,

the average homeowner. In fact, if you were to increase the cost per pupil by

$100 — if that was what a referendum was

[ Page 5072 ]

asking for.... Assuming you were going to do something that was

going to cost an extra $100 per pupil, Cowichan sits at a place where

it would cost us, per taxpayer, an average of $44.94 in Cowichan School

District and $45.81 per household in Lake Cowichan.

Right next to that district, as it happens, in the order of school districts

is School District 64 in the Gulf Islands: $14.90 per household there will provide

an additional $100 per student. Does that seem fair? Of course, if you want

to go to the other end of the scale, School District 92 in Nishga would need

$778.48 per household to provide an additional $100 per pupil.

There's something wrong with a financial framework that provides for those

kinds of inequities. We know it's not feasible to have exactly the same

kinds of facilities in School District 92 as it is in the heart of Vancouver.

That is too much discrimination. But when we're starting from that kind

of base, there is no possible way that, by the use of a referendum, we're

going to begin to achieve any form of progress in the way of equality of opportunity.

Surely that should be the direction in which we're going. Surely we believe

that young people all around this province have an equal opportunity to have

an education. We should be fostering that, not making it less and less possible

and not making it so discouraging as to make it utterly impossible.

There's one other point I would like to raise with the minister. I'm

not entirely clear as to whether these are the implications, but it

seems to me, from my understanding of how the system works, that if a

referendum is placed on March 15, which is the time that it would have

to be put into place, that school district drawing up what it was

proposing and setting as the amount of the referendum would have to

base it on a projection which had not yet been approved. It seems to me

there is a possibility that if that referendum passed, the budget the

ministry allows might simply be reduced by that amount, and they would

be right back where they started from. There's no assurance that that

won't happen, as I understand it. I would like the minister to deal

with that matter.

One other point: one of the problems we have in Cowichan, as in many

of the rural communities, is that it is a scattered school district.

Both of the school districts are very scattered. There are a lot of

small schools. Since 1982 we have lost something over 500 students.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Six hundred.

MRS. WALLACE: I have 520; you say 600.

If we had all those schools in close proximity, it would be relatively simple

to accommodate. But when you have them scattered through Chemainus, Crofton,

Duncan, Shawnigan, Mill Bay, Cobble Hill and all those areas around Glenora

— Glenora, of course, has been closed — Cowichan Station.... It is much

more difficult to accommodate those pupils without a terrific disruption. Actually,

the figure of 520 that I have is the number of students that were disrupted

in January as a result of your insistence, Mr. Minister, that that school board

cut their budget by an amount that affected nine teachers. By getting rid of

nine teachers, the changes that were required throughout that school district

affected 520 students from kindergarten right up through senior high.

Those are the kinds of things that happen in a rural district with a lot of

schools, because you have to make so many moves — it's like a domino game,

and it changes, and one goes here — and to do that in mid-term, particularly

with young people, although it also has had some drastic effects on some of

the enriched courses, as well, at the high school level.... As I said before

in second reading, those students make a role model of their teacher, and they

either become excited about the learning experience or they're turned off.

When they have to deal with two or three teachers in a short period of time,

it turns them off, Mr. Chairman. That is an expensive price to pay for these

kinds of curtailments in the cost of education.

Those are the points I would like to raise with the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I know that the critic wishes to speak,

but I think I'd like to respond for one moment, if I may, to the questions

which have been raised.

I recognize that Cowichan is a little more dispersed than the school

district which we find at the south end of the Island and the districts

in the southern part of British Columbia and the lower mainland. That's

a given.

In 1981, by the time most of the special needs children had been

mainstreamed in the classroom.... And that is a question which I've

often asked superintendents and school board trustees: "When the policy

came into effect in 1976, tell me, is it your view, after the

expiration of five years, that most of those kiddies having

difficulties, who have been mainstreamed, have been accommodated?" The

answer is, inevitably, yes, but there are some exceptions. There are

some exceptions in some parts of British Columbia because of people who

wish to gravitate to larger centres where they feel that their children

who are affected by some form of disability might have a better

opportunity.

Between 1981 and 1984-85 — that is, the current school year — the

pupil-teacher ratio in Cowichan went up from 17.38 to 17.48 — ten

one-hundredths. Now at the same time, there was a decline in student

enrolment of 600.

There is a rule of thumb that I understand is given by school

districts, and that rule of thumb is this: usually when there is a loss

of around 20 students, it means that one fewer teacher is required. In

this particular case, one teacher left the district for a little over

every 22 students.

I'm getting that information from school districts. That's not me,

or the ministry; that's what I've picked up during my travels. And I

thought it was a fair assessment.

[3:15]

Now the other item. Lake Cowichan — the very small district — has

had a precipitous drop in enrolment. Now when we're talking about a

school district with 1,019 students, when they lose.... You know, they

have a big party in Cowichan when a family with six children moves into

the district. This is how important it is to some school districts,

because of the loss of half a dozen children. I couldn't believe, when

I was travelling around, how people were counting heads for those

coming in — and you've got to in your area, too, Mr. Member, believe

me. But Lake Cowichan is a small district, and sometimes small is

great, to be honest with you. The more I move around, I sometimes find

that the smaller it is, the better. But there's a pupil-teacher ratio

over a period from '81 to '85. Do you know what the difference has

been? 15.28 to 15.35 — seven one-hundredths.

So I recognize that these people had to, in some of the

administrative areas under function four, tighten up a bit. I don't

think they're really arguing against that.

[ Page

5073 ]

I think the major point that you have raised, though, Madam Member, is with

respect to.... It's another portion of the bill, and I don't know

whether I'm permitted to comment on it…

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Go ahead.

...but your concern was this. If a school district goes to referendum and

is successful in raising, let's say, in your district, $250,000 — because

there's great support in your community to maintain the status quo; that's

been made very clear to me — if that be the case, what happens is that the budget

which is submitted to the ministry is the amount which we have allocated — then

attached to it is the resolution, and the resolution incorporates the amount

of money which they wish to raise by referendum. If that referendum is successful,

that is the amount of their final budget.

The reason that we have to have it that way, and the reason for those dates,

is very critical. That's why it's March 21 until April 14. Because,

you see, on April 20 we must send back to the school districts the approved

budget including a successful referendum, and then establish what the mill rate

will be. The school district then has the legal obligation to pass a bylaw validating

its budget on May 1. So the amount which they authorize by resolution and succeed

in obtaining by way of referendum is incorporated and added to the budget and

added on top of the amount which we have allocated.

Is there some…?

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, that doesn't answer it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Then I misunderstood the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to repeat the question, hon. member?

MRS. WALLACE: It seems the question is whether that is

stacked or whether it is integrated — the referendum. Is this the

assurance that that is in addition to anything that has been previously

okayed and that that will be the amount that is accepted? And how does

that affect next year? What happens next year?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This is for the 1985-86 budget commencing

July 1. The referendum applies to that. If the referendum is

successful, it is added to the amount which has been allocated as an

adequate budget by the ministry. So that provides additional funding to

the school district.

MRS. WALLACE: What about next year?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That is for '85-86.

MRS. WALLACE: What about the next year?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: For '86-87? Let me put it to you this way. I am hoping,

believe me, to have a School Act presented to this assembly which is going to

resolve all of these problems once and for all. And whether or not it's

going to be '86-87, we'll see. That is my objective. I will do anything,

believe me, to see if I can deliver on that.

MR. GABELMANN: Including resigning if you don't?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Member....

MRS. WALLACE: Colin, he may not have to.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Member, I will do what you do for your constituency: the very best you can.

MR. COCKE: Can we have one word of assurance that when that

School Act does come in there there won't be any of this stupid

referendum stuff?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I suspect that we're talking

about future legislation, and I don't think that I am permitted, by the

rules of the House, to make a comment or even respond to that type of

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I believe that to be the truth. I would love to answer it, but I know I would be ruled out of order by the Chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. ROSE: I didn't realize that the minister has such a

profound and detailed knowledge of the rules. The way it goes is that

you answer, Mr. Minister, then you get ruled out of order. Then we have

both the benefit of your answer and also you have displayed a

tremendous knowledge of parliamentary procedure that allows you to

break the rules with impunity, as a lot of us enjoy doing. I think that

has to do with the law of anticipation or something like that.

I know the minister is anticipating a very important meeting and he's courteous

enough to say that even though his meeting started at 3 o'clock he is going

to stay here and hear us out. I have no desire to prolong his agony.

However, I do have a few things to say on

section 2. Before I do,

though, I didn't speak on

section 1 and perhaps I'd be, as the minister

was, permitted a little bit of latitude on this.

First of all I'd like to explain to the minister that in the

question period today I asked him about a meeting, but it was really a

telex from the Strathcona group about ESL, to which be replied and

indicated he was considering it. So I'll just put that down as a

correction so that the fact that I confounded him during the question

period was due to the fact that I didn't have the letter before me.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't remember the telex.

MR. ROSE: It's here if you care to see it before you go to your other meeting.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair to say, despite the minister's

stout-hearted defence of his new referendum legislation, that he has

hardly won an Emmy award for his efforts. I don't think that the public

generally, as represented by the media, has been terribly impressed

with this regression to earlier times.

I'll read to the minister from the editorial pages of the Vancouver Province , which you'd hardly call a socialist rag:

[ Page 5074 ]

"The referendum idea is a clever government ploy." A ploy they call

it. "Very clever of Premier Bennett to offer school boards a way out of

the financial crisis he foisted upon them." It goes on to say that points

have been made here a number of times. Only 30 percent of the adults have children.

Referenda are indirectly discriminatory. The bedroom suburbs of Richmond and

Delta, with a comparatively high residential base and lots of kids, will probably

have an easier time than some of the other districts. Those points have been

made over and over again. Anyway, that's one.

Here again, with apologies to Jim Hume, is the Times Colonist — again, hardly

a radical, wild-eyed, left-wing journal. I'll quote from an editorial called

"One Step to the Side." I'm sure the minister's read this,

so I won't bore him with the whole thing. "Most taxpayers, almost three

out of four, don't have children in the school system. Human nature being

what it is, the chances of a school board getting a referendum approved are

nil, particularly in these difficult times." So maybe the Minister of Education

isn't really offering the districts all that much. The editorial goes on

to say: "Does that make the bill unfair? Not unfair — but not useful either.

Ratepayers in general remain in the dark on the fundamental question: are genuine

education needs being met?" Some people will say yes and some people will

say a profound no. I go on to quote: "Citizens rely on government to weigh

priorities, employ expertise and make these kinds of assessments. The government

is saying: 'You do it.' This bill represents one step to the side. It will

stifle school boards but not help answer the hard question."

I've got one or two more short quotes. This is from the chairman of

the school board in School District 59, represented by the hon.

minister of industrial development and perhaps trade, travel and all

these other juicy things. "Introduction of a referendum to approve

supplementary taxation on residential assessment only is a further

departure from the concept of equality of educational opportunity, to

the benefit of lower mainland and south Island districts far more than

northern districts with small residential tax bases…relative wealth of

districts already distorted by the removal of local access to

commercial-industrial assessment...." It's signed by L. Haddow — and I

presume that's how you pronounce his name — chairman of the board....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Her name — Mrs.

MR. ROSE: I presume that's how we pronounce her name —

chairman of the board, School District 59, Peace River South. Well,

again I say it hardly qualifies for an Emmy Award.

Here's another letter — and again, I won't read it all — from a

teacher. He says: "I know I speak for a large number of teachers when I

say we're fed up with this government's vendetta against teachers." It

then goes on to close by saying: "It has been a very difficult three

years to be part of the teaching profession. I look forward to your

talk to the Surrey Teachers' Association next week, and I hope that you

may be able to give us something to look forward to." Well, I think

I'll perhaps disappoint that teacher, because I really don't know what

there is to look forward to in education. I don't think that this

teacher is particularly a crybaby.

I think that you can talk all you like, Mr. Minister, and other people can

defend it all on PTRs and funding and all those other items that appear to be

convincing to some people whose interest is in the bottom line. I don't

deny that there is an important point to the bottom line. But I think the bigger

point here is that there's not much point in worrying about PTRs if you've

got people who are in the mood just to work to rule because their morale, their

confidence and their self-respect have been damaged by constant attacks, such

as the one we heard from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) yesterday, when he attacked schoolteachers as greedy and rapacious

and school board members as spending like drunken sailors. I haven't checked

it out. I've asked for the figures. But I do believe that if you looked

at the teachers' salary graph over the years he mentioned — the last ten

years — and if you looked at federal, provincial and municipal governments'

budget graphs, the lines would be parallel, and you would find that all anybody

was doing during those years was trying to protect themselves from the ravages

of inflation. The question is, you know: do salaries cause inflation, or do

they just respond to the needs of inflation? I'm quite sure we're not

going to settle that one immediately.

[3:30]

Let me proceed, if I can. I have a committee meeting going on over here to

my left, but if I could cut through the committee meeting long enough, I would

just like to say that, yes, it is true that certain districts have a far greater

chance of being successful in a referendum than other districts. I have a little

list here which has been prepared just on the basis of the tax impact of raising

$100 per pupil. It varies widely throughout the province. Because it varies

so widely, it seems to me that it's going to be easier to pass these referenda

in some areas than in others. It's likely that the poorer areas will have

a more difficult time.

Let's take the Queen Charlottes. It costs $75.88 to raise $100; Prince

Rupert, $78.12 to raise $100; Kitimat, $73. What's the reason for this?

I could go on to some more: Vancouver Island West, $73; Vancouver Island North,

$66. So here we are, and what's the reason for it? The reason is the balance

between the residential and the non-residential tax base. That's an extremely

important concern for a lot of people. That's why people say that it's

unfair and tends to be discriminatory; that's why the referenda route was

abandoned a long time ago and, to my knowledge, exists nowhere else in Canada.

I don't know that for certain, but the information I have would indicate

that that would be true.

Let's deal now with the bill. First, if you look at

section 1 of clause

2 — I'm sorry,

section 2 of the bill.... What I was talking about was

that in order to spring the minister out of here as early as possible, so he

can attend his other meeting, I did not speak on clause 1. But some of that

stuff that I was just using might, of course, be attributed, partially at least,

to clause 1, if not clause 2.

It says in

section 2, concerning 13.2(1), that for the next fiscal

year boards may now raise part of their annual budget on a

supplementary amount to be raised by an imposition on residential

taxation. I've already stated that the percentage of residential to

non-residential tax base in various school districts in this province

varies tremendously.

1 don't understand why the minister didn't allow this extra levy to

be applied on both portions, if he had to apply them just on the

residences. Yesterday his answer was that he didn't do that because he

felt that the commercial-industrial were already being taxed unfairly,

and that really there was

[ Page

5075 ]

only 8 percent of the tax now contributed to the total educational

cost by the residential people — the renters or the tenants or the

single-family dwellings.

He also said a little while ago here that with the homeowner grant there wasn't

really much added to the burden in many districts anyway. But he knows as well

as I do that the homeowner grant adds to the taxation in a municipality, whether

you bang it onto the top of it directly or add it to the municipal portion.

I have a direct quote here, if I can find it. There's no question, I think,

that that is true.

In order to be fair; if you're going to add a referendum…and I was

on the point of introducing an amendment, but my colleagues talked me

out of it. They said: "If you don't like the bill in the first place,

what's the point in trying to patch it up with certain kinds of

amendments?" I was going to add an amendment here that would include,

under clause 2,

section 1(1), the non-residential as well. After all,

if you've only got 8 percent of your tax base in your residential —

that's not quite the same thing as what the minister said; I understand

that, and I want to be fair about it — why not add to the portion that

the minister confiscated when he took away the commercial-industrial

base from the school districts two years ago? It seemed to me then that

it would spread the load far more evenly, and there would be more

likelihood of having it passed. Furthermore, it would do one other

thing: it would prevent one group of taxpayers — the owners of

industrial and commercial property — who are eligible to vote, from

voting to oppose a tax on the residential group. Whether or not they

will do that, judging by the voter turnout in most municipal and school

board elections, I can't say. But I think the element of fairness

should be introduced in that part.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Sections 2 and 3 have to do with the time frame. I understand that the minister

has given us some information about the time frame — why it needs to be done

this time, and has to be ready by a certain period for budgetary reasons, and

all the rest of it — but I don't think there is time. I don't think

many school boards.... Now he may have Delta or some school board like that

ready to go now, but there really isn't very much time. You know, it's

the 19th or 20th of February today, and this time has to be submitted to the

minister not later than March 15. While it's not impossible, if school boards

decide to go ahead with referenda — and I don't think many will — then it

really doesn't give them a great deal of time. I question the time frame;

I think it's wrong, certainly in sections 3 and 4. What's the point of

having this in here if people can't take advantage of it even if they wanted

to — and I wouldn't want them to. We're against the referenda; I think

we've made that amply clear.

Subsection (4) says: "The form and content of a referendum ballot shall

be prescribed by the minister." Well, that's interesting, because the

minister then has total power over the wording. That worries us a little bit.

I'm not going to amend this, for the reasons I stated earlier. But one of

the things that does concern us is that the minister can change and slant the

wording to suit himself and his own purposes, for whatever reasons might be

advanced. I find this minister pretty straightforward; some ministers are, I

think, a bit more devious. I'm not suggesting he will do this sort of thing,

but he could.

I'll give you an example. Suppose a board asked: "Are you in favour

of raising $75,000 over the amount of the provincially determined budget for

1986-86, for the provision of six aides to assist special needs students function

effectively in a classroom setting?" Suppose the minister didn't want

that wording and decided he'd like some other. Here the question is possibly

rewritten by the minister.

Here is the text of a

preamble taken from the actual Ministry of Education

leaflet he sent out: "Service levels for every recognized class of special

needs students are much more generous than for regular students. Many of the

resources generated by these levels are, in fact, used in regular classrooms

and regular schools." Now the question: "Are you in favour of providing

a massive $75,000 over the amount of provincially determined budget for '85

and '86 for the purpose of providing six aides that the province has already

determined are unnecessary?" Now he wouldn't do that.

I've got several examples here but just let me read one more. The

question asked by the school district is. "Are you in favour of raising

$50,000 for janitorial service to ensure that our schools are cleaned

each week and maintained?" The question is rewritten by the minister,

again adapted by the ministry leaflet that he sent out and immediately

withdrew because it got so much flack and so many people took shots at

it. It says here:

"The service level provides historic cost to every school

board to enable it to operate and maintain its schools. The school board could

only need more money for janitorial service if: (1) it has provided more teachers

than the most generous provincial service levels call for; (2) used operations

and maintenance funds to pad the administration; (3) met maintenance needs that

are less than essential (4) allowed community groups to use the school without

paying a fair share of the operations and maintenance costs; (5) there was no

active program to reduce vandalism and minimize costs; (6) the board and their

employees were more vigilant to reduce energy costs. Given all this, are you

still in favour of raising $50,000 for janitorial services when the schools

are cleaned once a month anyway?"

So again, these things are possible. There are all kinds of possible distortions to this kind of stuff.

Now if I haven't lost all my notes I am going to skip (5) and (6) of

proposed

section 13.2 and go to (7). It says: "All persons who, at the

time the referendum is held, are entitled to vote at an election of a

school trustee, are entitled to vote at the referendum." In other

words, if you're able to vote for the election of a school trustee,

then you can vote at the referendum. What groups does that include? It

includes people who rent, people who are homeowners and live in

single-family dwellings, people who own or are buying co-ops or

condominiums and/or rent them. But it also includes — and in some

districts it amounts to 75 percent or more — all those people who own

commercial and industrial buildings, real property, which is assessed

and taxed.

Why not have it along the lines I suggested earlier, that all owners

and users of property, who at the time the referendum is held are

entitled to vote in an election of school trustee, are entitled to vote

at the referendum? This makes certain that the residential and

industrial people will also bear the burden of any increased referendum

cost.

[ Page 5076 ]

Let's leave (7) and deal with (8), because I promised the minister I

would do this with rare dispatch and get him out of here as soon as we

could. I'm rather anxious to get him out of here as soon as we can.

There may be others who want to say a few words on this, but I don't

think we will have too many more speakers.

What happens if the referendum is lost? Subsection (8) says: "Where more

than 50% of the votes cast" are in favour of the referendum.... We

know that if the thing passes, the board gets the funds it needs, but what happens

if it's lost? The board pays. Where is it going to get the funds? The minister

put the ceiling on the funds; therefore the board is not going to get any extra,

so what's it going to do? It has to cut out either teachers or staff or

services. So there's no provision. In other words, it's kind of like

a lottery. Heads you win, and tails you lose. The thing is, the board is in

a position of taking some chances.

What is the cost of one of these referenda? It depends, of course,

on the size of the district. In Vancouver we had a referendum — a

by-election, it was called — as a result of the last municipal election

in that city, and it cost $250,000. What board budget can suffer that

kind of a raid, an attack, without cutting services or teachers or

staff? I don't know.

(9) What is the cost? Does the minister have any estimate — he can

write it down and tell me when I'm finished, and that won't be very

long from now — of what this whole thing is going to cost?

Finally, I think that there's an attack on kids here. I said that I

think kids are, being chiselled. Again, the government and the minister

are not doing anything illegal, but I think that there's a real attack

on schools and kids, and I don't think it's justified. Government has

its own priorities, but why don't we make kids a megaproject in this

province? Why don't we make our young people, to whom we owe a great

deal and to whom our future is tied, the megaproject? Why don't we

spend the kind of money on them that we're prepared to lose on other

megaprojects? What's the point?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: One and a half billion dollars is a megaproject.

MR. ROSE: I'm afraid the minister is also talking about the

amount for post-secondary education. He's adding all this in. Try and

think of that, Mr. Minister.

But I want to suggest to you too that I know that the minister came to me —

and it's important for me to say this, even though it's not strictly

in order, Mr. Chairman — and said: "Section 3 is repealed; we're going

to withdraw it." Actually it means we have to vote against it in here.

So what is

section 3?

Section 3 is the sunset provision. He was going to repeal

it. Now he's going to withdraw it, so it means the sunset provision is still

in, right?

Now, I alluded to the sunset provision, the referendum and the connection between

the two when I spoke on second reading. I'm glad it's withdrawn. I hope,

as the minister intimated — although I wouldn't want him to anticipate anything

he might do in the future — he's going to leave that sunset provision in.

Otherwise his case is in a cocked hat, and any time the Minister of Education

gets into any trouble we get a new one. The first interim finance cutback minister

is now the Attorney-General. Think of what could happen to you, Mr. Minister.

I think you've arranged to be even less popular than he is, and what kind

of promotion did he get? You might be agent-general in London or something,

You could have a lot of fun with Roy McMurtry. He went to his reward — oink,

oink! — from Ontario.

[3:45]

Anyway, then we had Mr. Vander Zalm. Well, we know what happened to him. They

promoted him to candidate for mayor. Anyway, he was also in interim financing.

He had sunset provisions, only he was part of the sunset.

So, Mr. Minister, we agree that you should pull this business where

you repeal the sunset provisions, because you made a commitment. You

made a commitment to the school trustees when they accepted your

blandishments that they could move things around within the budget. But

within three years all could be sweetness and light, and with a new

education act we wouldn't need the sunset provisions, and we won't need

the referendum either. So if nobody uses it this year, and we won't

need it two years from now, why do we need it at all, and what the hell

difference does it make what we do about the sunset provision? I don't

know.

Nevertheless, I take the minister at his word. I'm glad he told me

in advance that he was going to do this. I agree that it's a wise thing

to do, so I'll sit down and let him get to his meeting after he makes a

brief, turgid and intelligent reply to me.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a very quick question to the minister

in regard to

section 2(6). I think that this is a mousetrap that some

lawyer set up for the minister. The way I feel about about lawyers is

almost the same as Dan the butcher felt about lawyers in Shakespeare.

I'd like the minister's response on this section, where it says that

if there is a referendum it has to be published in a newspaper

circulated through the school district for two days. Now we always have

this. Every time the government.... I don't care what legislation it

is, I always have to stand up, because there are no bloody newspapers

that we can publish in. And even if it's published once a month — if

there is a newspaper — it says two days. Now what are we going to do? I

could send out...I mean, if there was a referendum I could put it in

the Democrat for the minister; it would probably get to more people

than a newspaper that doesn't exist. If you look at the three different

school districts in the constituency of Atlin, it would be pretty

hard.... Mind you, Cassiar does have a newspaper that comes out

once a month, but it's fairly restricted to Cassiar and to Dease.

I just can't vote for this bill, because of this section. How can you publish?

Section 2(6) here — it's pretty difficult for the residents of the constituency

of Atlin. So I'd like to know: are we going to tack these notices upon hydro

poles? But then, we don't have hydro poles either. Can I bring in an amendment

here so that we can tack them up on some jack pines or something, to facilitate

the passing of this bill?.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Legislative counsel has provided me with a

response for the member for Atlin. The

Interpretation Act,

section 38,

under the heading "Notice, " says:

"Where an enactment provides that notice shall or may

be given by publication in a newspaper published in a particular

municipality, district, county, jurisdiction, or other place, the

provision shall be construed to mean that the notice may be

sufficiently given, if no newspaper is published at the time when the

notice is to be given in the particular place, by publishing or

[ Page

5077 ]

advertising the notice in a newspaper published in the Province,

nearest to the place mentioned; and, in the enactment, 'newspaper' means

a newspaper recognized by the Canada Post Office and accorded statutory privileges

under

section 11 of the Post Office Act (Canada), and that, in addition, is

sold to the public and to regular subscribers on a bona fide subscription

list."

With respect to the.... I gather it's closing now, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There's more? Okay, fine.

My critic, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), had to leave,

but I would like to compliment him on his eloquent response. I think he

did a fine job. I would just like to respond to him on a couple of

items.

While he quoted the papers which he did, I find a very interesting editorial

which came from Comox. It would seem rather supportive of the concept of the

referendum. It's the Comox District Free Press in Courtenay. I think the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is aware of that publication. Secondly, this

morning I was shown an editorial from Nanaimo which was supportive of the referendum.

I don't have it with me.

Even more interesting, I find the following in the Comox District Free Press ,

from the chairman, Mr. McQuillan, whom I met in my office vis-à-vis the Burns

plan. I'll quote from the paper: "A controversial proposal by Education

minister…to allow school districts to raise funds by referendum might

not be a bad idea, says School District 71 board chairman Bob McQuillan."

He goes on, and I don't need to make any reference. But it's interesting

to note that I quote Nanaimo and Comox, and I know there are other editorials

within the province which are equally supportive. I recognize that there are

many which made the comment "a shrewd political move," and various

things like that.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody has left, Mr. Chairman, but I would

like to compliment him on his comments. I recognize what he said, in

particular on the ballot and the various forms which it could take, and

I would hope that he would rely upon the integrity and character of the

office of the Minister of Education to ensure that such

interpretations

or expressions would never appear on a ballot. As a matter of fact, one

of the very reasons why the

section is in the bill is to preclude

people doing the very things that he made reference to.

MS. SANFORD: The other day, during second reading on this

bill, the minister made reference to the Burns plan as being a

contingent liability.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Or unfunded.

MS. SANFORD: I understood that it was unfunded, but you

mentioned contingent. I'd like to know which one it is, and if the

minister would explain why it's either unfunded or contingent. As I

say, initially he said "unfunded" and now he is saying "contingent,"

and I'd really like him to clarify that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have some difficulty going into this. That was

during second reading, and now we're taking the bill

section by section,

and on referenda, and I don't know whether it's in order for me to respond.

All I will mention, again, is the advice which I received from the

accounting firm. I think that I have to rely upon that, and whether

there's a distinction between contingent or unfunded is immaterial to

me. The point that they made, and made in spades, is that any type of

liability like this must be backed up by a reserve, and that reserve

must be supported by cash. That cash would have been spent during the

current year. It would have been a debt due and owing in a future year

which was not going to be backed up by dollars. That was made very

clear to me, and there were a number of other reasons which gave some

concern. I think I made reference to the distinction between the

accrual accounting method and the cash accounting method. Now God

knows....

MS. SANFORD: He doesn't know that either.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Pardon me. I withdraw.

I am told that school districts would not be very happy if they were

placed on the accrual method of accounting. I don't know if it's

necessary to go into all the other reasons which were given, but that

was what was made clear to me, and I felt that the reasons were

adequate. Interestingly enough, there were many school districts that

didn't want to touch that proposal with a barge pole, realizing what

their obligations would be in the year following.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has listened to this accounting firm. I really

wish that he listened to other accounting firms. Obviously he hasn't understood

the terminology involved or what they're trying to say. He's got a message

somehow in his head that what they've told him is that there would be a

problem with this plan. But there are other accounting firms who say the exact

opposite. This is why I'm very concerned that this plan has been rejected

out of hand. The minister is not able to explain to me, because he doesn't

even understand the terminology; he doesn't care whether it's unfunded

or contingent or whatever, because the accountants have said so and so.

The minister is not clear in his own mind on the Burns plan, and

that is what concerns me. The Burns plan recognizes that teachers are

hired on an annual basis. The School Act recognizes that they're hired

on an annual basis.

Section 132(2) of the School Act says that school

boards can pay their teachers on a 12-month basis, if they so negotiate

with their teachers. I wish the minister would turn to that

section of

the act....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll do that.

MS. SANFORD: When, then, are they able to negotiate with

their teachers a 12-month pay basis? If the school board, at this time,

for the year 1985-86 negotiates with its teachers to pay on a 12-month

basis — and this is very important, because it hinges on whether

referenda will be held around the province.... If they can negotiate to

be paid on a 12-month basis, without any kind of deduction in the

amount of money that they're entitled to under their budget, will they

be able to pay on a 12-month basis for 1985-86? Would the minister

answer that specifically?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What would happen is this: we would then take the

actual amount which had been incurred

[ Page 5078 ]

by the school district for the first.... We would take six-twelfths of

that salary, not six-tenths, for the period January 1985 to June 1985 and put

that in the framework. You see, what the school district wanted to do was to

take six-tenths of the annual salary, put that in for six months, and then have

that surplus. The amount that they wanted was not six-twelfths; they wanted

six-tenths, yet only pay out six-twelfths in the first six months of 1985. And

if that's what they want to do, that's fine. All I do is reduce the

amount of money which they received so that they get six-twelfths of the annual

salary, not six-tenths for the first six months.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's exactly what the minister is saying. It's

fine to have this

section in the act which says that a school board may

negotiate with its teachers to pay on a basis of 12 months rather than

10 months, but, boy, the government sure will fix them if they do that.

They'll simply reduce the amount of money that's available to that

school district, and that's absolutely unfair It's not in the interests

of education or finances. I think that if W.A.C. Bennett were around,

he would have accepted this Burns plan, leaped on it, thanked them, and

gone ahead with it.

[4:00]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, it would have been called the Bennett plan, no doubt.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr., Chairman, this minister does not make sense on this issue in terms of

finances or education, and I think it's tragic. If he is talking about an

unfunded liability under the Burns plan, then how on earth can he justify the

unfunded liabilities that already exist with every school district in the province

with respect to sick leave or severance pay? Every school district would have

a large, unfunded liability if every teacher in that school district were suddenly

to become ill and utilized that sick leave. There's no money set aside for

that. The minister is being inconsistent. There is no more unfunded liability

there than there is in this plan. They are paid on an annual basis; it's

an annual salary. The school boards, saving the government money and saving

the people money, in the interest of education and in the interest of finances,

should be able to pay on that 12-month basis and avoid the kind of disruption

and upheaval that this minister has promoted in this province. It makes no sense,

Mr. Chairman.

I'm asking whether the minister will go to another chartered

accountant and say: "Look, here is the problem that we have. Would you

please advise me how I can adopt the Burns plan in the interest of

education?" I know there are accountants out there who have given that

advice to other school districts. There are accounting firms willing to

say that the advice the minister has received is indeed controversial.

In the interest of education the minister should say: "Go to it, school

districts. Work out a 12-month package with your teachers. Save us this money.

Improve the education in this province. Go to it for the 1985-86 year. We will

not penalize you." But the only thing the minister is saying here today

is: "My interest in education is not great enough to allow the boards to

operate under this Burns plan without some sort of penalty." It's short-sighted,

and it's another indication of the priority that this government gives to

education.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, could I just have a word or two? What disturbs

me about this is not so much the words in the bill; it's the absolutely

brazen hypocrisy behind it. I can't see myself supporting hypocrisy, but

that's what we're being asked to do. Here's a government that comes

in and says: "We want school districts and all the municipalities"

— because they're the ones that are going to run the referenda — "to

have that opportunity to conduct referenda among the electorate to see if they

want to approve certain things." That same minister, who brought this bill

in, sat in cabinet and took

part in a process that denied the district municipality

of Terrace the right to conduct a referendum about a sewage treatment plant.

There was no equivocation about it, no rationale, no reason. Just a few months

ago they said to the municipality of Terrace, which wanted to go ahead and serve

the needs of the people of Terrace by conducting a referendum about a much-needed

sewage treatment plant: "No, you can't do it." This same government,

through the Ministry of Environment, said to the municipality of Terrace: "Your

sewage treatment plant is inadequate. You're poisoning the Skeena River

with the sewage treatment facility that you've got there now. You've

got to go ahead and upgrade that sewage treatment facility in Terrace."

The municipality responded to the Environment ministry, and said: "Okay,

we'll do that. We'll conduct a referendum." Then along comes this

government and says: "No, you can't do it. You're denied the opportunity

to do it." They were refused the right to do it, dictated to by this government.

This minister sat in on that and took

part in it. He knows about it. Then he

comes in here and has the hypocritical gall to say: "Oh, but isn't

it nice? We want to give school districts the right to do something that we

have denied one municipality the right to do." Do you expect me to support

that? I can't do it. I can't go back home and say to the municipality

of Terrace and the mayor and the aldermen in that community: "No, I can't

stand up for your rights in the Legislature, because they've asked me to

approve this kind of thing."

Could I have some explanation? I'm sure the minister, from the

depths of his knowledge as a member of the Liberal Party, will be able

to rationalize anything. It needs some explanation as to why we have

hypocrisy here. Why is it also on a much larger scale? This same

government absolutely refuses to give the voters in this province the

right of referenda about borrowings. Here's a government that drove

this province into debt to the extent of more than $900 million last

year. There was no referendum there. On some particular day of every

week they borrow $60 million by treasury bills, regular as clockwork.

The money they borrow by treasury bills is used to pay off money that

they borrowed earlier. It's borrowing to retire debt, and so on.

There's no referendum on that. Absolute hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman;

there's no other way I can describe it,

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's not important. You know that. There's

no regard for the rules.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture and Food

(Hon. Mr. Schroeder) is giving us a little lecture. It's so nice to

hear from him from time to time. I'd like him to try to defend the

situation that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) just put forward.

[ Page

5079 ]

What he was doing was drawing an analogy in terms of a referendum; referendum is referendum.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're completely out of order, and you know it.

MR. COCKE: I'm completely out of order, and I know it.

Referendum, besides what it does, in terms of being used by this

government where it sees fit, because they got themselves into a

box.... But I'll tell you what referendum does to the people in New

Westminster — this referendum,

section 2 of this bill. It places them

in a position where they have to go to a public not on the original tax

base, as I outlined before, but on a tax base of 40 percent, because

homes in New Westminster represent 40 percent of the total tax base.

Sixty percent has been stolen. Sixty percent, which is commercial and

industrial, and which has always been part of the school tax base, was

stolen by this government a year or two ago, and they say that cannot

be included.

I have a question for the minister. I want him to tell us what the province-wide

percentage of tax base is in terms of commercial-industrial vis-à-vis residential.

Just before I sit down, I'd also like to suggest that the reason the minister

said, in reply to my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), that he is going

to have to see and approve the referendum is because the boards.... And

he didn't say these words, because he said that he wouldn't bias the

referendum, but that the boards might. Who in the blazes does that minister

think he is, calling boards across this province irresponsible, and saying that

they would bias a referendum? That, in essence, is what he said. We are holier-than-thou

over there, Mr. Chairman, in that ministry, and in that government. They would

never do any wrong, but school boards could, would or might.

Well, Mr. Chairman, to me the track record doesn't indicate any such

thing. The track record says that here is a minister in deep trouble —

not of his own making, because I don't suggest for one second that

these ideas were his; they were those of the government. They're in

deep trouble with all of the boards and with all of the people in the

province over their handling of education, so they bring in this

section to relieve the tension, a referendum section. Sheer nonsense.

Mr. Chairman. They're in deep trouble because they have mishandled the

children in our province, the most precious and important resource that

we have; and they're giving them the back of their hand. And in order

to bail themselves out he's quoting the Comox whatever-it-is, and some

Nanaimo paper, trying to justify his situation by those two isolated

little bits of support that he got.

There should be no support for this. We got away from the Dark Ages,

Mr. Chairman, in 1973, and we shouldn't be back there now. Referendum

on school budgeting is not fair. Some districts will approve; some

districts will not approve, and probably those districts that will not

approve are the ones that need it most. Not only that, it's an unfair

distribution in terms of the tax base.

So, Mr. Chairman, there's no question in our minds that despite all the

halos I see sitting across the floor, and despite the pontificating that I hear

from time to time, both from in front of a mike and from one's chair, that

pontificating doesn't influence me one bit. I say this is unfair; it's

unjust, archaic and stupid, and it's another way to crack open the education

system of our province, which is already bleeding, thanks to that government

and their attitude toward the children of our province.

Section 2 approved.

Section 3 negatived.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I report — where is that? Just a second,

I want to get the right one here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, excuse me. Now this is what I want to

be very clear about. That is not an amendment. It is? Okay, Mr.

Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

[4:15]

Leave granted.

Bill 48, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Fraser

Parks

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Veitch

Davis

Kempf

Reid

Segarty

Ree

Reynolds

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Skelly

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 5080 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 42.

LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I am acting as senior counsel in

the absence of the junior counsel in Vancouver today. The member for

Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has agreed to act as my junior counsel, so

the opposition is well represented.

I ask the Attorney-General this question about

section 1, which

covers a lot of ground. An infant agrees to leave his estate in a

certain way, or a house, while he's an infant, and he gets $ 1,000 to

do it, and then as he attains the age of majority he's got to

positively repudiate that contract within one year — he may have

forgotten all about it — or he's bound by it. It's a little bit

dangerous, isn't it, that business of requiring the infant to do the

positive act of repudiating something that he may have forgotten all

about and do that within one year of attaining the age of 19 years?

Does the Attorney-General see any danger in that?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't think so, because the evidence on the

repudiation would not be stringent. I don't think it would require a signed

declaration or anything like that. Some act that was consistent with repudiation

would be acceptable. The purpose of the amendments — not departing from, the

old rule of unenforceability of contract save for necessaries — is to try and

acknowledge that there are duties and responsibilities that accrue as a result

of contractual obligations with infants. I think that this is a move more to

modern practice in reality. I don't believe the repudiation onus would be

a harsh one. So I'm advised, in any event.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Attorney-General, and

it's spelled out in the

section here, that not much is required in order

to repudiate when the infant becomes an adult at 19 years. But he must do something,

and they're set out. I wonder if the Law Reform Commission thought about

this. I know these sections have been vetted by that estimable body. But in

life people often forget about having to do something positively to repudiate

a contract, and then in the twenty-second year it pops up and he finds he's

bound by something he did in his years of indiscretion. Most human beings only

have years of discretion when they're young — only twice, for that matter.

I think it's something that should be watched.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. MACDONALD: On the question of the jury, it gives me an

opportunity to ask the Attorney-General a question. What does he think

about majority verdicts…not majority verdicts of juries but in England

I think it's eight jurors and even in criminal proceedings six can

carry the day. Here we are bound by the rule of unanimity. The juries

are often perverse, and that's their strength and maybe sometimes their

principal reason for existence, as you could say of the Morgentaler

jury. But what does the Attorney-General think about changes to the

law? Have you made any representation to Ottawa in terms of having,

say, six out of eight or ten out of twelve deciding cases?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I have not done so on the criminal side and haven't

really directed my attention to it on the civil side. I think on the criminal

side, while there is support for that notion in other jurisdictions — and divided

opinion on it — the guiding principle in our law has been that if you're

entitled to elect a jury trial and you do elect a jury trial, the jurors have

to be unanimous, all twelve, in order for you to be found guilty. I guess my

view would be, hon. member, that while I recognize that it works reasonably

well in other jurisdictions to have a majority or a two-thirds or three-quarters

verdict, it's well embodied in our system in Canada and I would be reluctant

to make any recommendations that would erode the unanimous nature of that.

I think it's an issue worth consideration and certainly worth the

consideration of the federal Law Reform Commission. I don't have a

closed mind on it at all — I can remember some verdicts that I was a

party in obtaining when I practised criminal law where there were

holdouts and where I thought afterwards, regardless of which side I was

on, that the holdouts, who eventually gave in, were probably right.

But they eventually did what the majority did and they all stood

unanimously. But I can remember a few of them that I didn't think were

so hot, and they were in my favour.

MR. MACDONALD: You can get one that's either deaf or dumb.

Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. MACDONALD: Maybe the Attorney-General will tell us about cassettes.

Supposing a cassette is circulated? You've now got cable broadcasting and

television or radio in here in the Libel and Slander Act. But supposing you

circulate some particularly vicious rumour about somebody by way of a cassette

on a commercial basis. Would that be under the Libel and Slander Act if you

sell the cassette?

[4:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: No. You're quite right, hon. member. This

section

is dealing with protections and obligations on broadcasters and doesn't

cover cassettes. Maybe I'd be quite happy to have the commission look at

that in light of the distribution of cassettes, but we were concerned with obligations

and protections for the broadcasting industry here, and we didn't consider

cassettes.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, I realize that

there's paperwork involved in a bulk sales declaration, but when a small

business is sold, should there not be a declaration by the vendor as to what

debts he has run up? What's the alternative to just abolishing the bulk

sales declaration? How do you protect a purchaser? Do you

[ Page

5081 ]

leave it to the purchaser's lawyer to insist on some kind of a declaration or guarantee or something of that kind?

HON. MR. SMITH: I guess if the Bulk Sales Act had really

efficiently provided the kind of protection that you would seek, we

might have some more reluctance in proposing this amendment. It was

certainly the view of the commission that so many dispositions of

property now stand outside the reach of the act. Some examples are

accounts receivable, mortgage transactions, floating charges, and so

on. These are equally prejudicial to unsecured crediters, but are not

caught by the act.

The act therefore really drew a quite illogical distinction among

the kinds of sellers that had to comply with the act also — for

instance, wholesalers and service enterprises didn't have to comply

with the act for a sale of business.

I think the frustration with the act, hon. member, was that it was

very inconsistent, did not provide complete protection, and didn't give

the confidence to a purchaser that it should have; in addition to

which, it was commercially disruptive. It required compliance with very

time-consuming and costly formalities, which inflicted delay on every

transaction. While it may have provided some employment to our

profession, even in our profession I think the overwhelming body of

opinion was that it was high time that we removed it and left it to

registry systems — which require registration and the notice that goes

with that — to the provisions of insolvency legislation, to commercial

contracts, and to the obedience to the law of fraud, I suppose, as

well. That was at least preferable to having an inadequate,

inconsistent and bureaucratic red-tape provision which was largely to

the benefit of articled students and no one else.

MR. MACDONALD: I think the people in the commercial field, especially

small business, should be warned now, and forewarned. If you went to buy a small

store, at least there was some protection before in the fact that if you paid

so much for the business and goodwill and so much for inventory, the vendor

had to swear an oath — and if it was false could be prosecuted as a criminal

offence — saying what his debts were. Now you come along, and if the purchaser

doesn't protect himself by insisting upon the same thing, really, you might

find that one of the wholesale suppliers has a right to recall half the inventory,

to repossess it because it hasn't been paid for. There seems to be a gap

if you just repeal the Bulk Sales Act. I didn't think it was a big imposition.

There was a form, you filled it out, and the vendor had to list his debts. I

think the Attorney-General ought to put the public on warning that it's

caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware when there doesn't have to be a declaration

as to what's owed against the business that you're buying.

HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate those sentiments, but again,

with respect, the Bulk Sales Act and the Sale of Goods Act did not

provide that protection. It may have provided some false confidence

that there was protection.

This legislation was really a product of a time when most credit granting in

Canada was unsecured, when the credit information industry was relatively undeveloped,

and when the main vehicle for business activity was the simple proprietorship

or partnership. That's not the case now. In those days credit granting was

a hazardous business. Today in commercial financing secured crediting predominates,

and the credit-reporting industry is pretty sophisticated; in addition to which,

of course, we have a very intricate registry system which deals with the charges

and encumbrances that are against land and against corporations. This old legislation

is not efficient in protecting creditors, and its scope is irrational.

MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate that probably if you bought an inventory

in a small store as part of your purchase, the wholesaler in some circumstances

would have registered something at central registry against the goods, on the

basis that until they're paid for I can take them back; but I don't

think he had to. There was some protection. I'm just entering a caveat. I think

there could be a gap in the law that doesn't sufficiently protect innocent

purchasers. I hope that will not be forgotten.

Sections 11 to 14 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,

Bill 42, Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 40.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

MRS. WALLACE: It's a minor point, Mr. Chairman, but I would like

to raise it with the minister. This particular

section deals with changing the

provision which already exists to allow the transportation of a gun on any arterial

or secondary highway anywhere in the province of British Columbia. What this

does is add every other road. I have some concerns about this particular section.

It seems that it's a bit loose. I know that anyone who has a gun is supposed

to carry a federal government permit, but I am concerned that we have no knowledge

of who is carrying a gun on our arterial and secondary highways, and now it

is quite permissible even on our side roads.

One of the points that came up was the fact that it would allow the

import of guns from an adjoining province. Alberta, for example, has no

sales tax. B.C. does. So it would mean that anyone could buy a quantity

of guns in Alberta, bring them across the border and dispose of them

here to individuals, and there would really be no way of picking up on

that sales tax. It would certainly be in areas close to the

[ Page 5082 ]

border and quite a detriment to people who operate sporting goods shops. So that is one concern.

I also feel that it is a bit loose right from the beginning, even

from the arterial and secondary highway point of view. But to also

allow people to carry guns around anywhere on any of our roads without

any knowledge by anyone that they have those guns seems to me to be

stretching it just a bit far.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the member is reading far more into this than

is really intended. People are now allowed, subject to other gun regulations,

to carry a firearm on the particular type of highway that's named here,

and without having a hunting licence in their possession. Other licensing requirements

for guns are not affected here. We're saying that that should apply on any

highway designated as a highway under the Highway Act. As the member perhaps

knows, people come in who have a gun in a case. They're legally bringing

it into the country to go into a territory; their hunting licence is picked

up for them by the guide-outfitter. And yet they are in effect illegally carrying

that gun in that case because of this designation. So it's really saying,

instead of just Highway 1 or Highway 2, the same rule now applies on any highway

designated under the Highway Act. That's all.

Sections 19 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

MRS. WALLACE: This deals with the fund that is established

for habitat protection, according to my reading of the act. I just

wanted to ask the minister if, in providing these

classifications.... Clarifying that, is there any intent that the

total amount of contribution will decrease? Or is there an intent to

increase the amount that goes into that habitat conservation fund? It's

a very small amount as it is. I know that sports persons in this

province would certainly like to see more money going in there. I'm

wondering if the effect of this will be to leave the amount the same.

Or will it decrease or increase it?

[4:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, this does not deal with the actual amount of fees.

In effect, we have separate fees for seniors and other people. There are periodic

lobbies that we have special rates or increased rates — for changing the rates.

It was felt that technically and legally there may be an accusation that because

of discrimination on the basis of age, sex or something of that nature, we were

putting out different fees when we were not entitled to legally. This legalizes,

in effect, what the process is right now.

MRS. WALLACE: So what the minister is saying is that there

will be no change in the amount collected per capita in this fund —

that it's exactly the same as it was before. It's just clarifying that

and is nothing that will tend to increase or decrease the fund.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Chairman, no fee changes are implied here.

Those fee changes are set from time to time by regulation. This does not change

the fee. At the moment, they are remaining the same. So if next year fees are

raised or the habitat conservation fund is.... If we want to change that, it's

permitted under this. But this does not say bow much the fees will be. That's

under regulations.

MR. PASSARELL: On

section 25(b), hon. minister, I would like to congratulate

the minister for bringing in this piece of legislation. As we've had problems

in rural areas — in Atlin particularly with not having an individual from the

Ministry of Environment there for game and check-ins — I appreciate his adding

this new section, because it will help hunters in the far north. It's a

good piece of legislation.

Sections 25 and 26 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.

Bill 40, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr Speaker, I call committee on Bill 45.

TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, have we ever had a piece of legislation go through without somebody standing up and saying something?

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: As I said earlier, this is an excellent piece of legislation. I can't find anything wrong with it.

Sections 4 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure at all that this is

the right section, but my point certainly relates probably to part four

as much as anything,

What I am concerned about is that we seem to get into the

transportation of hazardous products without any prior overall studies,

and I am referring specifically to what's happened as a result of a

study that was carried on in Vancouver harbour. Now we're having the

possibility of hazardous material coming into Victoria harbour. I'm

concerned about it going up and down the Island.

Now, I know that an inspector could have a look at that, and I'm

going to try to tie it into this particular thing. He can have a took

at a specific thing on-site. But my point is that what I would hope

would be undertaken in connection with this act is not just having

inspections of given products at given areas, but having some sort of

much larger overall

[ Page

5083 ]

project — something similar to what was originally recommended by

the federal government relative to transportation of hazardous material

on the waters between and around Vancouver Island and the mainland — so

that there would be a much broader kind of thing and so that that whole

business of inspection could relate to a much wider concept and an

overall review of how and where this material should best be handled.

I'm afraid that I'm probably out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I didn't

know where else to put it in this act.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what the member

was getting at, but in a broad scope all this legislation does is to

support federal legislation regarding highways . The federal government

has complete jurisdiction over water and harbours and so on. There's no

change contemplated on that in this legislation. I don't know if that

answers the question or not.

Sections 11 to 27 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've heard the motion. All those in favour say "aye." Opposed? So ordered.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN . Did I hear a division called?

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Did I hear the

Chairman so order before a division call was made? A member who asked

for a division after that order was not in his chair at the time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. The vote was taken.

In response to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, certainly it's

not unusual for the chair to say "so ordered" and then for a division

to be called. In this particular instance, I would rule that a division has

been called, and it is in order.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[5:00]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,

Bill 45, Transport of Dangerous Goods Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NEILSEN . Committee on Bill 39.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not sure if I'm out of order, but I would

like some explanation from the minister of a problem that has taken

place in my riding. He may be aware of it, and if he could give the

community an update of the position....

The situation happened when one of the septic tank sludge operators

was caught dumping septic sludge in the bush in a rural area. The

Crown, the police and the prosecutor attempted to get charges laid, but

because of the wording of the act they didn't have sufficient

information to get a charge laid. I know that the Health minister and

the staff within his ministry have been attempting to reword the

legislation. This is very vague, and I am not sure if this is the time

that it should have come in. On behalf of the Western Community, could

the minister tell us where that legislation they're working on is

coming before the House — this session or next session? Obviously this

is not the section, but it is kind of a vague part of it. It's a

problem of what's happening with septic sludge in the communities.

HON . MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, that matter would have to be

addressed by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), under the

Waste Management Act, I believe. If there is a fault with respect to

definitions, it probably is in the Waste Management Act. This

section

is attempting to provide the Ministry of Health with what is deemed to

be a far better definition than was previously found in the section.

But I believe the member's question is a matter that would be dealt

with by the Ministry of the Environment, probably with an amendment to

the Waste Management Act. I think that's where the problem lies.

MR. PASSARELL: To be fair to the Minister of Health, even

though the amendment falls under his jurisdiction, this one

section

falls under the Minister of Environment. I have a legal question here

in regard to this section, particularly in light of a problem that

happened a few years ago with the Amax situation, in which 12,000

tonnes of mine waste were dumped into the ocean, and the legal case

that followed it. My concern is a legal clarification on the wording of

section 3. It says: "injurious to the health, safety or comfort of a

person shall…prevent and cease the discharge."

As much as I was in opposition to the dumping of 12,000 tonnes of

mine waste into the ocean, and the court case that followed afterwards,

is it now possible that an individual who believes that the comfort to

their individuality, because of the Amax mine dumping or any mine

dumping in this province…can be ceased if this act is brought in?

I know it's not really under the jurisdiction of the Minister of

Health, but I'm wondering if the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr,

Brummet) or the deputy minister could be found to address this question.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's

question, I wouldn't think it would change that situation. The

reference to the word "comfort" is common is several statutes.

Apparently there are certain conditions which may physically affect a

person which could not necessarily be proven to be injurious to health

or the person's safety, but for a specific period of time or at that

moment it certainly could affect his comfort.

[ Page 5084 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, do I take the minister to say

that if my comfort is affected by smo