1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7229 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Gloucester property. Mr. Macdonald –– 7229

Exclusion of Prince George land from ALR. Mr. Lea –– 7229

Skagit Valley flooding. Mr. Skelly –– 7230

Exclusion of Prince George land from ALR. Mr. Lea –– 7230

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

Ms. Brown –– 7232

Mr. Nicolson –– 7236

Mr. Passarell –– 7238

Mr. Mussallem –– 7239

Mr. Lockstead –– 7240

Mr. Hall –– 7242

Mr. Leggatt –– 7244

Mr. Lea –– 7245

Mr. Levi –– 7248

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

In the galleries today we have visiting the Legislature, with the

British Columbia Chamber Of Commerce, a few constituents of mine: Mrs.

Margaret Ferguson from Powell River, representing that part of the

coast, and Mr. Jon McRae from Gibsons on theSunshine Coast,

representing that region. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. STRACHAN:

All members of the Legislative Assembly are truly indebted to those who

work for our various parties and really help us through the years in

giving us policy and good advice. With that said, I would like the

House to welcome Dr. Barbara Foxwell and the British Columbia Social

Credit Women's Auxiliary, with us in your gallery, sir.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today are two groups of students from

Burnaby North Senior Secondary School. I hope the House will join me in

welcoming the two groups and their teacher, Mr. Cooper.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

We have a birthday to celebrate in our Legislature today. I would ask

all the members of the House to join in wishing happy birthday to Bonni

Kettner, part of the unseen press gallery of our House.

MR. LEA: Certainly unseen but not forgotten, Mr. Speaker.

would like to have the House join me in welcoming three people who are

in our galleries today — unexpectedly, I believe, because they had

planned to be back on the other side of the water but have further

meetings this afternoon. I would like to introduce to the House and

have us welcome the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, Robert

Hallam, who is in our gallery; the first vice-president, Norm McLaren

from Campbell River, who next year will not be in that capacity but

will be the president; and the general manager, Dan McCaughey of

Burnaby.

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

join me today in welcoming an ex-member of the Legislature and a former

colleague of mine, Elwood Veitch, who used to represent the great

riding of Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. HOWARD: With us

now, and at meetings earlier today, is Mr. Graham Wright, who is

counsel for the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. The chamber is

very well served by Mr. Wright's advice as counsel, particularly

because he learned a great deal of it when he practised law in Kitimat.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

In the gallery today is a good friend who also worked in our firm for

many years. Unfortunately he decided to take early retirement at the

age of 83 and has since been enjoying life profusely. Today he is

visiting the Legislature. I would like to introduce Mr. Gordon Cairns

to the House, and I would ask you to make him welcome.

MR. BRUMMET:

Also attending the chamber conference as a director is Mr. Bill Dyer of

Fort St. John, the publisher of the Alaska Highway, News. I would like

the House to make him welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that all members of the House would like to welcome

and, indeed, congratulate a young man who was named businessman of the

year by the junior chamber of commerce, the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey. (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

Oral Questions

GLOUCESTER PROPERTY

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food for

an estimate of the amount of private capital gain that the cabinet's

decision to release the Gloucester property put into the hands of the

consortium. Now he's had a chance to think about it, I'm asking him for

his estimate of the market value of those lands as farmland and their

value as industrial land.

MR. BARRETT: Call an election.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Surely we want to finish question period first.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The member knows full well that the question is not in order. It

doesn't fall within the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food

or the Land Commission.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of

order, is the government saying they have no idea what wealth they put

in the hands of that consortium by that decision?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

EXCLUSION OF PRINCE GEORGE LAND FROM ALR

MR. LEA:

Perhaps the minister would be a little bit more cooperative regarding a

similar situation in Prince George. Can the minister confirm that the

government has again overruled the Agricultural Land Commission in the

case of 132 acres being excluded from the land reserve in Prince George?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Maybe the member could be more specific. I'm not aware of what he's talking about.

MR. LEA:

I'm talking about land described as in district lot 2014, Cariboo

district, within the city of Prince George — application No ––

122-N-80-110112.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, that one. [Laughter.]

MR. LEA:

Can the minister now confirm that this 132 acres in the Cariboo

district has been excluded from the ALR against the unanimous decision

and recommendation of the Land Commission?

[ Page 7230 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Because of the number reference he's given, I'd like to take that

question on notice and check the files in my office so I can know the

actual property he's talking about and respond.

MR. LEA:

Is the Minister of Agriculture telling this Legislature that 132 acres

of prime agricultural land has been taken out of the agricultural land

reserve and the Minister of Agriculture has no idea that 132 acres have

been excluded by cabinet? Is that what the minister is trying to tell

us? I just want to confirm this. Does it happen so often that you have

no idea you've mislaid 132 acres?

Can the Minister of

Environment inform this House whether he's aware that the ELUC

Committee of cabinet, and therefore cabinet, has excluded from the

agricultural land reserve 132 acres in the Cariboo district, which I

described to the other minister, and that it has been excluded against

the unanimous recommendation of the Land Commission?

MR. SPEAKER:

That question has been taken on notice. The authorities provide that

repeating questions strictly by varying their structure slightly is not

permitted —

section 147.

MR. LEA: Can the Minister of

Environment confirm that he wrote a letter dated April 22, 1982 to

Messrs. McAlpine, Roberts and Hordo, Barristers and Solicitors, P.O.

Box 186, Vancouver, British Columbia, laying out the fact that the

cabinet has excluded 132 acres of land in the Cariboo district against

the unanimous expressed recommendation of the Land Commission? Can the

minister confirm that he wrote that letter?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

First of all, I believe that as a result of the Metric Commission, the

measurements have gone from acres to another measure which you may find

more in order. I cannot confirm or deny, but I will take the question

as notice and report back to the House whether or not I have in fact

sent that letter. My mail sometimes runs into 300 and 400 letters a day

and I don't remember every letter.

MR. LEA: Can the

Minister of Environment confirm that he's telling this House he signed

a letter stating that 132 acres of land have been excluded, and it

slipped his memory? Have the 132 acres disappeared?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's have a question.

MR. LEA:

Can the Minister of Agriculture confirm that this same piece of land —

and this has nothing to do with whether it's been excluded by cabinet —

was reported by the Prince George district horticulturist and a field

crop specialist to be suitable for a variety of crops including

strawberries, potatoes, cabbage, carrots and other vegetables, as well

as intensive pasture production? The question is not whether the land

has been excluded but whether he's aware that the land described has

had that recommendation from the people that I've just described.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert has raised a question about

land. He has given, I believe, lot number 2014, application

122-something-or other. I told him that I took that question as notice

to identify the land in question so that I could respond factually to

the questions that he's raised. I'll take that last question as notice,

and I'll bring back an answer to the House.

MR. LEA:

Would the Minister of Agriculture consider it fair — if what I say is

true — that we could now refer to the 132 acres in Prince George as

"Gloucester north?"

SKAGIT VALLEY FLOODING

MR. SKELLY:

I have another question to the Minister of Environment. The government

has publicly endorsed an undisclosed proposal to compensate Seattle for

not flooding the Skagit Valley. Can the minister advise why he has

abandoned British Columbia's long-standing legal position that Seattle

City Power and Light has no legal right to flood the valley in favour

of the compensation proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a legal opinion or is it an application of a legal opinion?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, a clarification would be in order. We have

responded to a proposal put forward by a subcommittee struck by an

International Joint Commission which was attempting to resolve the

dispute existing between Seattle City Power and Light and the province

of British Columbia. In view of the fact that the International Joint

Commission is meeting at this hour, I think further comments would be

unwarranted.

MR. SKELLY: In spite of the fact that

the IJC is meeting right now, it appears that when British Columbia

made its presentation to the IJC they said that the original decision

was a "nullity, " to use the words of the B.C. submission. If the

decision was a nullity because of the fact that at the time there was

no quorum on the IJC, and if the decision was a nullity because power

was no longer needed to provide for the war effort, which was an

urgency at that time, why has British Columbia abandoned its legal

position that the original decision was a nullity? Any agreement to

compensate the city of Seattle will be done on an illegal basis. I'm

asking the minister if he has abandoned the legal position as

originally presented by this government to the International Joint

Commission.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I believe I have given the answer. The question asks for a legal opinion. I'll take the rest of it as notice.

EXCLUSION OF PRINCE GEORGE LAND FROM ALR

MR. LEA:

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell me

whether he has made any representation either to the ELUC committee of

cabinet or cabinet as a whole in regard to 132 acres in Prince George

being excluded from the agricultural land reserve against the unanimous

recommendation of the Land Commission?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'm not a member of ELUC. It goes without saying that any discussions

in cabinet at any time are a matter of confidence. You, Mr. Member, are

well aware of that, having served there once yourself.

[ Page

7231 ]

MR. LEA: At any time in the past, has the Minister of Labour informed

the ELUC members that one of the owners of the land in question — the 132 acres

in the Cariboo district that I described earlier — was a very high profile worker

in the minister's election campaign in Prince George?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have no apologies to the family to which the gentleman

is referring. He can rest assured that any people who have been

involved in my campaign.... I have not brought that message here; I

brought myself, with their help.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the interruptions of question period are shortening the period itself.

MR. LEA:

I have another question to the Minister of Labour: in retrospect, did

the minister think it wise not to report, then, to the cabinet that the

people who were applying for this exclusion were very closely aligned

for a number of years with the Social Credit Party in Prince George,

that in fact people in that family have been campaign managers of

Social Credit in the past? In retrospect, does the minister figure that

he was unwise not to let other members of the cabinet know that that's

the case?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Further questions?

MR. LEA:

To the Minister of Labour: can the minister assure this House that he

made no representation whatsoever to any government group looking into

the exclusion... ?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding, following the rules of

this House and other authorities who have governed practices of

question period, that questions to a minister must be in the area for

which the minister has responsibility. I'd just like your advice on

that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the

screen through which all questions are necessarily placed is outlined

for us by Beauchesne, and there are some 25 to 30 prohibitions.

Technically there would not be a question in order at all if we applied

that screen absolutely. Therefore it is with the assistance of the

House that the Speaker tries to determine whether or not a question is

in order.

If in the mind of any individual a question is

clearly out of order, then it is the duty of that member to stand and

cite the prohibition which is being offended, and to draw it to the

Chair's attention. I would appreciate that kind of help.

The member for Prince Rupert was in the middle of a question.

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder,

when the minister is bringing back information on the question he took as notice,

whether he would also take a look into the land in question and see how close

it is to the Alaska panhandle, to see whether or not that would be an economic

reason for taking it out of the land reserve. I wonder if he could also see

whether there is a railway that runs within at least 20 miles of the land, to

see whether that might not be an economic reason for taking out this land. I

suppose we should call it Gloucester North, because the minister has no idea

where the 132 acres has gone. In other words, when the minister comes back with

his answer to this question, would he give the same economic reasons...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that one of the criteria

for questions in question period is that it be urgent. What the member

for Prince Rupert wonders from time to time, in my estimation, is not

urgent. I know he very seldom wonders, but....

MR. BARRETT:

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, considering the rate at which

we are losing agricultural land in this province to political friends,

it is a matter of urgency to deal with this every single day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, in order to clarify the kind of question which is in

order and the kind which is out of order, would it be in order for the

Speaker to circulate to all members the screen through which these

questions must pass? So ordered.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave

for the adjournment of the House to debate a definite issue of urgent

public importance.

The question is as follows: there is a

crisis of confidence in the health-care system of this province today.

Our healthcare system and the hospital system in particular have

enjoyed a reputation as one of the finest in the world, but that

reputation and the trust of the people in this province have been

betrayed by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), by his

announcement to the hospital administrators yesterday of sharp cutbacks

in hospital funds. All the hospitals had duly pared their budgets to

conform to the political guidelines announced by the Premier on

February 18. They did so knowing the 12 percent would not meet the

rising supply costs of 30 percent, 19 percent barge freight rate

increases for the Queen Charlotte Islands, and so on. There are

increases in supply, food, fuel, utility and water costs and on certain

labour costs because of the Premier's interference in collective

bargaining. Yesterday the minister told the hospitals they will not

even get the 12 percent. This is the awful truth that spells disaster

and a crisis of confidence in our health-care system. I have a few

examples of how those cutbacks will affect our hospital system.

MR. SPEAKER: Those examples would be out of order.

MR. COCKE:

The examples are part of the urgency of this question, but I will

abbreviate by saying that 12,000 British Columbians are on waiting

lists for elective surgery and they'll be joined by thousands more.

We're going to be forced to follow the example of hospitals such as the

Penticton Regional Hospital by setting up a crisis file. This file was

implemented in February this year after a man died while waiting for a

hospital bed. His death was described by a spokesman of the medical

society as: "one of long-term consequence of bed shortage."

summarize and finalize, the measures made necessary by the minister's

cutbacks will mean a decline in the quality of health care. The

minister has attempted to cover up this fact in public, but we in the

House must uncover the truth. The estimate is that 1,200 beds will have

to be closed to accommodate the cutbacks.

[ Page 7232 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

I think we do have the nub of the member's complaint. We will consider

it and bring a decision to the House. The motion will be read only if a

prima facie case is discovered.

MR. COCKE: It's a motion asking to debate the question.

MR. BRUMMET: You've been debating it.

MR. COCKE: It would seem to me that the member for the north doesn't care about the health system, but we do.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, in stating a matter of urgency under standing order 35,

it is only required that the nature of the complaint be stated, and in

as brief a fashion as possible. Certainly it's not an opportunity for

the debate of the issue. It is a motion to adjourn otherwise important

business in order to do exactly what the member is trying to do in

presenting the case. I would suggest that statements under standing

order 35 should be brief and should not be entering into the merits of

the argument itself.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of

order, the reason for the

preamble to reading a motion is in order to

establish urgency. This is the only opportunity that a member has to

present the case for urgency of the topic matter. With respect, you

might look at the examples that were given in the member's

preamble. I

would submit that they were arguing not the merits of the case, but

that these presented a prima facie case of urgency. The duty of the

Speaker is to decide whether the matter is urgent, but not to decide

whether the vote should go one way or another, obviously, on the

question. I would ask Your Honour to consider carefully the advice that

you've given to us today, but we should not impair a member's ability

to stress the urgency of the matter which we are seeking to bring

before this House under standing order 35.

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, normally when a person rises under

standing order 35, the Speaker indicates whether there's a prima facie

case, and, failing that, whether or not in the future he's going to

give some kind of judgment or verdict on this question. May I ask that

that be done now.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, sir I have given you that undertaking. Perhaps in the noise of the House it escaped the member's attention.

Orders of the Day

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask under what standing order members presume to interrupt the business of the House?

Leave granted.

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

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in his very able

debate on this legislation. What I would particularly like to talk

about today is what this bill is going to do to the municipality of

Burnaby, to the schools in Burnaby, to the school children of Burnaby

and, indeed, to the taxpayers of Burnaby.

On March 9 of this

year the school board passed a resolution at one of its meetings. It

protested the government's undue interference in the process of local

needs, expressed its disappointment in the provincial government's lack

of respect for the local democratic process and supported the B.C.

School Trustees Association's resolution to the Minister of Education

that budgets not be submitted until legally required.

The

second thing the Burnaby School Board did was to establish a series of

public hearings so that, unlike this legislation, the taxpayers of

Burnaby would have an opportunity to have some input in the debate and

have their views on the new interim finance formula that the minister

is introducing in this Bill 27 on record. I think I should point out

what this particular thing means to Burnaby. School District 41, which

is the Burnaby School District, has a non-residential tax base of

$596,255,332. That is 55.2 percent of its tax base. That is the amount

of money and the percentage of tax base now being confiscated by this

government. It is now being taken away from the municipality of

Burnaby, and the taxpayers of Burnaby are going to be placing it

directly into government coffers. They are going to lose that. I want

to repeat that that is 55.2 percent of the tax base — somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $596,255,332.

The school district is going

to have to operate with that much less money as a result of this piece

of legislation. That means that the homeowners of Burnaby, first of

all, are going to have to face an increase in their taxes from

something in the neighbourhood of $570, which they had anticipated, to

$633. Once again we find that the government is shifting the cost of

education away from general revenue, away from the government and onto

the backs of the homeowners. Burnaby is just one example of where this

happens. I know my colleagues will speak about their respective areas.

The homeowners of Burnaby are finding that this piece of legislation is

going to be absconding with 55 percent of Burnaby's tax base, and they

now find that they have to come up with an increase in their taxes as a

result of this piece of legislation.

I am totally opposed to

this piece of legislation and on behalf of the homeowners, students and

workers of Burnaby, I have to speak very strongly in opposition to

this. Despite the increases in taxes to the homeowners, the school

board still finds itself in a situation where it is going to have to

pare its budget and make some drastic decisions pertaining to school

closures.

I want to talk a little bit about what the new

education finance formula means. First of all, the arbitrary feature of

the legislation is that the amount of money available for provincial

government sharing is going to be set by the cabinet. Nobody else has

any control over that. There isn't going to be any input from the

taxpayers in general. The cabinet itself is going to decide exactly how

much money and what percentage of sharing they are going to be

responsible for each year. That is an arbitrary decision being made on

their part. The maximum level of 130 percent, which is now

[ Page

7233 ]

established to determine equalization index value, is subject to change. That

is not a set thing. The result of this is that local autonomy is very seriously

eroded. It will centralize funding and lead to tight control over programs as

well as s staffing. This is certainly not what anyone would refer to as a democratic

way of dealing with things. What we are dealing s with here is straight autocracy

and totalitarianism on the part s of the government.

In addition, glaring inequities are going to be entrenched as a

result of this legislation. We have, as the first member for Vancouver

(Mr. Lauk) pointed out in his debate, a discrepancy between West

Vancouver and Burnaby. In Burnaby we have a pupil-teacher ratio of

16.61. We have an assessment per pupil of $12,386, as opposed to West

Vancouver's assess- s ment per pupil of $23,195. The end result of that

is that West Vancouver gets away with a mill rate of 26.72 mills and

Burnaby is faced with a mill rate of 51.07 mills. The end result of

this is a drastic increase in the taxes which will have to be paid by

the homeowners of Burnaby.

The other point is the calculation of the provincial grant to the shared level

of the district's operating budgets. We've r been told the government

will pick up a base of 60 percent, and that some school districts will get a

further amount by the government sharing up to a further 35 percent. This is

not going to happen in Burnaby. Burnaby is not going to participate at all

in this additional sharing which is going to be open I to some other municipalities.

Burnaby is not alone in this, of course. Vancouver, New Westminster and other

areas will not be able to share in this. Specifically, since I'm speaking

on behalf of Burnaby, I want to point out that Burnaby is not going to be the

beneficiary of the additional sharing up to the 35 percent.

What is the impact of this additional cost going to mean to Burnaby? I'm

going to quote from a brief presented at one of the public hearings which was

established by the school board. There were two public hearings. At one of these

a brief was presented. This was the example given.

"Let us assume that Burnaby wanted to add in the future

$722,000 beyond the basic program approved by the government. If we use the

present assessed value of a Burnaby home — say, the average of $12,386 — under

the old finance formula it would have required a levy of .654 mills, at an average

cost of $8. 10 per average homeowner, in order to do this. Under this new finance

formula, however, it will require an additional levy of 1.42 mills, and an

aver age cost of $17.58 per average homeowner. It will cost, in other words,

the Burnaby taxpayer twice as much money in the future to expend additional

funds beyond what will undoubtedly be a very sparse basic program approved by

Victoria."

There

isn't any question, when we look at these figures, that we recognize

what a real and genuine hardship this bill is going to visit, first of

all on the taxpayers of Burnaby.

The other thing is that this new formula actually penalizes those school districts

like Burnaby which have been thrifty in terms of using their budget, because

the budget submitted by the Burnaby school trustees was based on actual expenditure,

and, of course, because last year there was a labour dispute and a number of

days were missed, the actual reflection of the budget was not a correct one

because it is not every year that Burnaby has to deal with labour disputes and

is able to, quite frankly, save money as a result of workers being on strike.

Yet the formula does not take that into account, so we find that Burnaby is

being penalized for being thrifty, and is being additionally penalized because

its budget last year was low as a result of labour disputes and hours lost as

a result of the strikes.

What

is this going to mean, not to the taxpayers but to the students in

Burnaby — the people who use the education system? The school board met

on March 23. As a result of the restraint put forward by the Minister

of Education and the Premier, they passed a resolution which called for

the closing of two junior-secondary schools: Burnaby Heights Junior

Secondary and Royal Oak Junior Secondary. They were to be effective as

of June 30, 1982. In addition, the school board passed resolution to

close a number of other elementary schools: Sussex, Riverway West,

Riverside — three schools on the south slope. In other words, there are

going to be five schools closed in Burnaby as a direct result of the

new finance formula which is outlined in this piece of legislation.

That has a far-reaching effect on the children and on the community.

We're talking about children who are going to have to travel further

distances in order to go to school, and when you recognize that three

of the schools are elementary schools, you realize that we are speaking

about very young children — children from kindergarten, age 6 and 7,

and up to the junior secondary age.

One of these schools in

particular is a very unique school in that it is not only a small

community school, but it's also very much a part of the ethnic

community in which it is located. The parents of children in that

school and the community in general are particularly upset by the fact

that their community centre, which is what that school is — the centre

of their community life — is going to be destroyed as a result of that

school being closed. In other words, the school board finds itself in a

situation where it cannot take into account the needs of the community

when making its decision.

What we have, in fact, is a school

board which ran on a platform of pledges to keep the community schools

open. All of the school board members who were elected in the last

election last fall made a commitment to Burnaby that they would do

everything in their power to keep the schools open; they were opposed

to school closings. Now we find, as a result of this government's new

finance formula — its new restraint program — that the school board

trustees are not going to be able to keep their commitment. They are

not going to be able to honour the promises which they made when they

were seeking re-election in some instances, and election for the first

time in others.

In other words, what we're really saying to

school trustees is that in the future, when seeking election, before

they make any promises at all, they have to vet them with the Minister

of Education. The Minister of Education is going to have to be the one

to say: "You can run on this platform. You can promise to do these

things and nothing else." So we have the local people in the community

having to vote for their school trustees based on decisions being made

centrally here in Victoria at the provincial level. That is not what

democracy is all about. It's as undemocratic as provincial MLAs having

to have their platforms vetted by the federal government before they

can participate in an election or make any promises in an election. So

this particular bill does a number of things.

Mr. Speaker,

what is going to be the end result, first of all, for the students?

What we hear from the Burnaby Teachers Association is that there is

going to be a loss of individual support in terms of special programs

and in-class contact

[ Page

7234 ]

time. That is what the teachers said to us. Some of

the Burnaby Teachers Association's representatives took the time to

meet with the Burnaby MLAs and share their concerns with us. They

wanted to be sure that when we spoke in the House about the restraint,

in whatever form it took — whether it was a bill coming out of

Education or a bill coming from the Minister of Finance — we had an

idea of the impact of this restraint program on the school system. So

they met with us. The first thing they talked about was the loss of

individual support in terms of special programs and in-class contact

time. They also told us that a number of the special programs, such as

music, would have to go by the board, especially in elementary schools.

I know there is a school of thought of the opinion that music, library,

physical education and those kinds of things are not an intrinsic part

of the educational system.

Well, I don't happen to agree

with that philosophy, and the people of Burnaby don't happen to agree

with that philosophy either. In Burnaby we recognize that education is

an all-encompassing thing, that you never stop learning, that the

learning process touches all areas of your life and goes on. It's not

just a matter of kindergarten to grade 12, Mr. Speaker, and it's not

just a matter of reading, writing and arithmetic. These special

programs, whether they be music or physical education.... Even the

libraries, which are such an important part of this school system, are

going to be eroded. Some of them are probably even going to disappear

as a result of the autocratic decisions which are being made in Bill 27.

They

talked about the fact that there would be fewer course options at the

secondary school level at a time when we are moving into a world that's

more complicated than ever before and it is more necessary than ever

before to have course options. We find that we have an education system

that's restricting the options open to our young people. That

definitely has a negative impact on their educational opportunities and

is not ensuring that the students of British Columbia are going to have

the quality of education that certainly they should be entitled to.

want to remind everyone that this is not a developing nation. We're not

a have-not province, we are not a nation that can afford not to ensure

that our children have quality education. In terms of the priorities of

the government, that's where we are running into problems. Education is

not a priority of this government; young people coming up through the

system are going to be penalized and are going to be punished as a

result of the fact that education is not now, nor has ever been, a

priority of this government. It doesn't have an important place in this

government.

I've received a number of letters and phone

calls from people who are concerned about the decrease in library

services. I know the pundits tell us that reading is a thing of the

past, that fewer and fewer people will have to know how to read in the

future. However, we have not arrived at that time yet. Books are still

important, certainly in terms of learning. You cannot have a good

quality education system without good quality library services. We find

that as a result of Bill 27, as a result of the government's restraint

program as articulated by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith),

there's going to be a decrease in the library services available to the

children of Burnaby.

Other possible effects that the teachers, school administrators and parents

talk about are the loss of the summer school program, as well as reduced clerical

assistance, less time for maintenance of classrooms and grounds, and decreased

community contact. All of these things impact not on the homeowners, but on

the students. We're talking about Burnaby's future when we start shortchanging

the kids in terms of the educational system. That is the reason I have to speak

in opposition to this particular piece of legislation.

The Burnaby Teachers Association issued the following press release:

"Education

standards in Burnaby School District, District 41, will decline as a

result of budget cuts, said the president of the Burnaby Teachers

Association. The provincially imposed cuts will see up to 55 teaching

positions disappear on top of the 42 positions that were slated for

reduction due to declining enrolment in the board's final budget in

January. Budget cuts mean program cuts, said BTA president Al Dahlo.

The impact will be felt by children throughout all the grades; in fact,

the loss in quality will affect the children through their entire

school life. They will never make it up."

I think that is a

very serious indictment of the education system. As I started out by

saying, the Burnaby School Board has always had a very lean budget;

there has never been any fat to cut. As a matter of fact, when you take

into account that it's a school district with a large number of

expensive ESL education component in its system; when you take into

account that integration of disabled children into the classroom is

something that it did willingly and with alacrity; to then turn around

and demand that this school district face additional cuts certainly in

terms of teaching positions — up to 97 teaching positions will be lost

— is not just shortsighted on the part of this administration, it is

very detrimental to the students in Burnaby.

The press

release goes on to say that parents and students will quickly be aware

of the reduced programs in such areas as physical education, French

immersion, library services, counselling services, skill development

and learning assistance programs, as well as those in a number of other

areas.

One particular special-needs area includes two

special programs for children requiring specialized services. These

have had to be delayed and may not even be implemented as a result of

the 1982 budget restraint programs. The first of these is the

elementary rehabilitation program for the behaviourally disordered

child, which was to have been located at Armstrong School. This

program, Mr. Speaker, was developed in response to concerns expressed

by the Interministerial Children's Committee. In case you're not aware,

Mr. Speaker, in Burnaby and in New Westminster there is a branch of the

Interministerial Children's Committee which is made up of

representatives from the school districts as well as representatives

from the Ministry of Human Resources and the Attorney-General's

ministry in that area. This committee comes together and deals with the

needs of the students as a whole rather than compartmentalizing it and

Human Resources looking at one thing, Health looking at another,

Education and Attorney-General looking at others. It's a marvellous

committee and it does good work. As a result of that committee's

recommendation, the school board came to understand that they had to

place in the Armstrong School a special program to deal with these kids

who are behavioural problems in the school. That program, we are now

told, has to be delayed and indeed may be scrapped as a result of the

restraint program.

[ Page 7235 ]

is so shortsighted, Mr. Speaker, because scrapping the program now

means that we pay for it later through Human Resources when these kids

became a serious behaviour problem. It means that ultimately we pay for

it through the Attorney-General's ministry when these kids run afoul of

the law, and through the Ministry of Health when it's decided that

these children need special psychiatric or mental health counselling.

So instead of having a preventive program now in place through the

education system to prevent this problem from going any further, we're

going to scrap that program as a result of this particular piece of

legislation. Two, three, five or ten years from now, we'll end up

paying for it and the Attorney-General's ministry through the delivery

of the justice system, through the Health ministry or through Human

Resources. From the point of view of economics it doesn't make sense,

and certainly from the point of view of serving the needs of the

children it doesn't make sense. Certainly the first priority should be

prevention rather than dealing with curing after the damage has been

done.

The second example, Mr. Speaker, to be scrapped has to

do with the personal-care attendants to provide for those disabled

children who are integrated into the school system. For example, there

are Burnaby children who attend Jericho School and need a personal-care

attendant to be with them. There are kids in elementary school or in

kindergarten who need a personal-care attendant to be in the classroom

with them while they are there so that they can live as normal

citizens, the way the minister indicated he wanted them to live when he

and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) hailed their grand new

idea of integrating disabled children into the school system. That is

not going to be possible. As a result of this restraint program, the

Burnaby School Board is saying it's going to either postpone or scrap

any plans to provide these personal-care attendants so that children

can function in the public school system.

The alternative to

this is that they won't be able to attend the public school system.

These children are going to be deprived of that experience. So they're

going to be the losers and we're going to be the losers in the long

run. This bottomline budgeting, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't take into

account the needs of people is so expensive in the long run. So many

more people pay so many more dollars in the long run, and so many more

people pay emotionally and psychologically in the long run as a result

of the shortsighted bottom line budgeting that we're continually having

to deal with from this particular government.

The business

of transporting those disabled children into the schools and into the

classrooms is going to have to be postponed or, indeed, may have to be

scrapped. The school board isn't going to have the money, even after

the homeowners have had their taxes increased from $570 to $633 as a

direct result of a government deciding to confiscate 55 percent of

Burnaby's tax base — something in the neighbourhood of $596 million.

This is where the hurt is going to come: transportation for disabled

children to get them to school, special education classes which are

remote from students' homes.... The primary and intermediate students

are finding that as a result of school closures they're having to

these are going to have to be postponed and in some instances totally

eliminated as a result of this piece of legislation.

I don't

know whether there's any point in asking that it be amended. I'm not

even sure if it would be possible to amend it. But certainly we have to

take a second look at what it's doing, first of all to the taxpayers,

and secondly to the children. Or do it the other way around: I would

prefer to look at what it's going to do to the students in Burnaby, and

then look at what it's doing to the taxpayers.

As I

mentioned earlier, the legislation threatens the autonomy of the school

system. It certainly deprives the community of the right to make any

decision about the quality of education in their midst. The minister

can interfere without any public debate at all. He can decide to cut

off funds without any input from the school district involved, from the

community or from any member of the Legislature. That kind of

autocratic power which this legislation gives the minister is certainly

something that we have to protest in the strongest terms possible.

Burnaby

also had a program of an early-retirement incentive bonus for its

teachers to encourage those who wanted to retire early, rather than

having to lay teachers off and hire other teachers. It put aside

something in the neighbourhood of $900,000 to run the program. In fact,

35 persons have availed themselves of that program to date. That's no

longer possible. It's now going to be eliminated, and teachers are

going to be forced to work until they reach their full retirement age —

even those who would rather retire earlier and allow new teachers to

enter the school system.

The thing that's so unfair about

all of this is that our universities are still churning out teachers

every year. We're graduating large classes of teachers at the same time

that the school population is declining naturally, and as a result of

the restraint program and this legislation, they're actually going to

be firing teachers, laying them off and cutting the number of teachers

in the school system. Nobody's saying anything to the young people who

are going into the education program. No one is telling them that when

they graduate there aren't going to be any jobs for them.

The

other thing about this program is that it's futile. It really doesn't

get at the excesses. That is not the way to deal with it. It only

succeeds in being a burden on the students — again because of the

school closures, having to travel greater distances to school. The

whole question of traffic safety is continually being debated at school

board meetings, because parents are concerned. As a result of this

restraint program they cannot afford to hire the number of crossing

guards that they need, and now that problem is going to be exacerbated

because the students have to go to farther schools as a result of the

school closings.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Communities

are being disrupted. I spoke earlier about the schools on the South

Slope in the primarily ethnic communities, catering to their needs.

They are going to find that school closed. Things like teacher aides

for slow learners are also going to be a result of it.

parent at one of the schools came to see me and complained about the

deterioration of the school buildings and the way in which the

schoolyard and other areas were being kept. When I contacted the

principal of the school involved, I was told the same thing: it just

was not going to be possible in this year's school budget to do

anything about the school. That's what the principal had been told by

the school trustees: There was nothing that could be done this year

about the deteriorating buildings, and certainly there was no money for

hiring additional custodians to deal with the schoolyard.

[ Page

7236 ]

The end result of that is that on Monday morning the first responsibility of

the older children is to go and clean up all the broken glass around the schoolyard.

That's what the educational system has come to.

Mr.

Speaker, in speaking in opposition to this piece of legislation I want

to say again that I attended a number of public meetings at which

briefs were submitted. At one there were 13 briefs from Burnaby

residents, from the Burnaby Teachers Association, from the

administrators' association, and indeed from some students themselves.

There were a number of outstanding briefs from some of the students as

well as from concerned citizens, the president of one student

association, and various individuals, teachers and others. The one

thing they all said was that this Bill 27, this restraint program, is

going to destroy the quality of education to be delivered to the

students in that area.

There was anger and frustration,

because the parents of Burnaby, as the people of Burnaby, honestly

believe that their children are entitled to quality education and that

it was possible for them to have quality education prior to this new

finance formula being imposed upon them. I cannot bring their message

to you strongly enough to get across the feeling of those public

meetings, at which hundreds of people turned up to protest the fact

that their school board was being forced to close five schools; to cut

back on important services like their library service, their

counselling service, their special needs services such as the

special-learners and special-teachers services — health and physical

education services; and to wipe out the summer schools and other

important things, at a time when those very same parents were being

asked to pay more taxes for the education system. We have the parents

paying more and the children receiving less. That is not good enough.

On behalf of the people of Burnaby, I am opposed this piece of

legislation and will certainly be voting against it.

MR. NICOLSON:

It is pretty obvious that those hot bags of wind that sometimes emanate

from the northern part of this chamber and supposedly pretend to

represent rural areas are not willing to take their place in this

debate today. I wonder if the Social Credit member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) — the person with the hit list — is going to get up and speak in

this House today about the kind of tax grab that this government has

come up with, and the devastating effect it is having on the hewers and

drawers and builders and suppliers of the resource wealth of this

province, as opposed to the giveaway to the people in West Vancouver

and the British Properties — those people who have a very nice, clean,

ecological environment, and who get absolutely upset if somebody so

much as burns a bit of garbage in the back yard, while we live in areas

that have to put up with contamination in the air and from pulpmills,

contamination of pulpmills in our waters and streams which we like to

fish in, which we use for our drinking and so on; the people who can

get so upset about some kind of a disturbance, maybe, to the University

Endowment Lands but who let whole mountains of bighorn sheep range be

levelled so they can continue to live off of the avails, work,

resources and exploitation of the interior of this province. I wonder

where those back-benchers are, particularly the one with the hit list —

the paper maverick. Where is he today?

Ironically enough, it was an education finance bill that got me into politics

in the first place. That was the little thing that tipped me over. You have

to be tipped over to get into politics, Mr. Speaker. I see that you agree with

that. I little thought that I would get up in this House to defend the

education finance formula which has become modified through the years, which

served the people of this province through the years, until 1976, when the provincial

government started to initiate a two-part plan. Part one of the plan was to

increase the basic mill-rate levy. It was about 24 mills when it was introduced

by W.A.C. Bennett in 1968; by 1975 it had not risen above 26.5 mills. But right

away it went up over 30 mills the first year, and then 35, 40 and 41.8 mills.

That basic education mill-rate levy now stands at almost 42 mills at the same

time as the government has brought in a 100 percent basis for valuation assessment.

What's

the effect of this? Assessments have gone up more than the rate of

inflation. The statutory mill rate has gone up almost to the rate of

inflation. This very complicated education finance formula which got me

into politics in the first place says that when a school board creates

its budget for the basic items, the basic education program — the bare

bones budget of providing a teacher, janitorial service, the basic

supplies, but not the things that aren't the same from district to

district, like busing and other amenities — it shall be set by a

formula.

The provincial government prescribes the value of

an instructional unit. It says what an instructional unit will be

worth. It started around $12,000. Of course it's way up over $20,000.

They say that to earn an instructional unit you must have so many

children in a school: 20 children gives you 1; 40 children gives you 2;

45 children is a part thereof, so they give you 3. So you create for

each school a number of instructional units, and in the entire district

you create a certain number of instructional units. You multiply that

by the instructional unit value, and it gives you the basic education

program, which is the amount of money that should provide the ordinary,

normal, bare bones part of an education program in a school district.

Then you took the total assessment of that area and multiplied it by

the basic mill-rate levy, which had now gone from 26 up to 41.8 mills.

Multiply those two numbers together, take that away or raise that

amount locally, and the provincial government would assist you with the

difference over and above the shortfall of that multiplication by

subtracting that from the cost of the basic education budget.

doesn't take a very advanced mathematician to realize that when you

increase assessments well beyond double the rate of inflation — well

beyond double in the last six or seven years — and when you take that

basic mill-rate levy and increase it almost at the rate of inflation,

then multiply the two numbers together, you get inflation squared; or,

if one thing doubles and the other thing doubles, you multiply them

together and it quadruples.

That is the burden that has been

placed on local school districts, local property owners and local

taxpayers. That was doing something very strange, because many years

ago when this first came in, in 1968, there were only two districts, to

my knowledge, that raised their entire budgets locally and actually

contributed to the coffers of the provincial government by donating the

excess of what was brought in when that basic mill rate was applied

against their assessment. Those two were Kitimat and Lillooet. Kitimat

happened to have Alcan in it, a very heavy tax base. They also

contributed. Over and above raising 100 percent of their education

costs locally to provincial coffers. Lillooet happened to have the

Bridge River dams which happened to be taken over by B.C. Hydro when

they took over B.C. Electric. They were always

[ Page 7237 ]

assessable and they remained assessable for school tax purposes.

Since

the government has brought in 100 percent assessments and an increase

in the basic mill-rate levy, it means that other districts like

Vancouver are now raising 100 percent locally. What they and other

districts — like one of the four school districts in my riding, the

Nelson School District, where 25 percent of the basic education program

is paid for locally — have started to say is: "If we're paying for all

of this locally, then why don't we have the autonomy? Why must we pay

the shot, but have Big Brother here in Victoria tell us how to run

things?"

The government was starting to get the message, but

they got the wrong message. They said: "No, Big Brother isn't going to

respond by letting you have local autonomy and more local

decision-making in your education process; Big Brother is now going to

grab the major source of your revenue: the non-residential tax base. We

are going to grab the assessment for those dams that have impaired the

environment locally, cut down the fishing industry and cut down on

tourism opportunities, and we're going to grab that assessment and tell

you what to do." Big Brother government is going to set the mill rates

totally, and there is going to be no local decision on whether a school

board can opt for a little better level of education with the

forbearance of its taxpayers. There will be no decisions to be made in

that way because it shall be commended by Big Brother government how

this will be put down.

Mr. Speaker, there will be no local

autonomy, and the government has seized the tax base and said that it's

going to be better for high residential areas but not so good for some

of the industrial areas. Well, there are four school districts in my

riding, and not one of them is going to benefit from this. I could see

where it might affect the Castlegar School District, which contains the

Can-Cel pulpmill and a couple of sawmills. I can see it affecting the

Nelson School District, where we have some dams, lots of railway line

and many assessable industrial assets. But, you know, this allegation

that the residential areas are going to benefit is totally misleading.

Look at areas like the Creston-Kaslo School District. There is very

little in the way of an industrial tax base. There are farms. A lot of

people live along there who try to scratch a living, out of the tourist

industry, out of the amenities of the lake and various other things.

The Arrow Lake School District has an industrial assessment that is

particularly low, and you don't see too many mills. There are a few

mills in that area, but compared with most areas it's very low.

The

only place where I suppose it's lower, of course, is in nice old West

Vancouver. You know, I look at what this is going to do for West

Vancouver. It's going to drop the average gross tax paid in 1981 from

$1,109 down to $620 for 1982. Then I look.... I suppose one can say:

"Yes, look in Creston. They're only going to have to pay $371." Mr.

Speaker, do they allow you to build one-bedroom homes in West Vancouver

any more? Do they allow people to have wood and coal stoves? What is

the demography of this kind of a so-called reform? This is the most

regressive kind of a tax change that one could ever imagine, and we're

talking about the people who produce the wealth, who suffer the layoffs

when a resource-based economy is turned upside down by benign neglect

in this government. And we think of the people who have the nice office

jobs and commute from their homes into downtown Vancouver, the

"two-hour lunch bunch, " and we bring about this kind of a so-called

reform.

Mr. Speaker, I want no part of this legislation.

This makes the 1968 legislation that drove me into politics look so

good by comparison. If I could go back, I might even apologize to

Donald Brothers for some of the things I might have said about him at

that time. This Minister of Education is making Donald Brothers look so

good because this legislation is so bad.

The minister has

said that this provides a basis by which school tax will be more fairly

spread between urban and rural and between residential and

non-residential taxpayers. That is absolutely not true. What is even

more misleading is the statement that under this measure the government

will assume responsibility for the non-residential tax base across this

province. The responsibility for the non-residential tax base, Mr.

Minister of Education, includes collecting the taxes, forwarding those

tax moneys and taking responsibility for delinquents such as those

mentioned the other day in this House — a certain spouse of a certain

cabinet minister who doesn't believe in paying taxes, who believes in

getting away with the 12 percent penalty and investing his money in

Lord knows what, but getting a higher rate of return. In

section 20 of

your act you are spelling out for the municipalities that they are

going to have to collect the taxes. You aren't going to be responsible,

Mr. Minister. The municipalities are going to have to collect the

taxes. By a certain date they are going to have to forward a certain

proportion and by another date they will have to forward another

balance. On December 31, 1982, the balance of all taxes imposed under

this part, whether or not they have been collected.... The

municipalities are going to have to fork up the money that the spouses

of certain cabinet ministers in this House withhold from

municipalities. It is a little bit much.

It really is a

serious matter in a small village municipality like Kaslo when two

industrial assessments withhold payment of their taxes and over 25

percent of the tax revenue that has to be collected is withheld and the

municipality is held responsible for it. It is a little tiny village —

800 people — and they've got to pay the taxes for a sawmill that hasn't

paid taxes for years and which, under your laws, takes advantage of

this 12 percent loophole, and nothing can be done about it. You say you

are taking the responsibility? Mr. Minister of Education, I listened to

what you said in your opening remarks, and when I listened to it I

thought: "Maybe at least there is something good here. Maybe it will

solve the problems of Kaslo. Maybe they won't have to pay their money

up front to the regional district, to the school district and all the

other areas in which they've had to pay up." But that minister, with

his record in the UBCM, with his experience as a mayor, should

certainly know the problem inherent in this. I won't go further, except

to identify the problem and burden that this type of representation in

the minister's opening remarks has brought upon the people.

taught school for several years. I have also had children go through

the school system. I've seen the problems of early reading

difficulties. This bill is creating confusion, a very negative

atmosphere and a very negative climate in the education system. It

doesn't matter where you upset people, you are going to create great

harm.

There was an announcement made the other day — one

that I thought might have been avoided — and notice given to people

that an intermediate-care home was going to have to be shut down in my

riding because of some dispute between the Ministry of Health and this

private-care home. I bring this out to illustrate that there was

tremendous stress put on the

[ Page 7238 ]

residents

there. It is a matter which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

and 1, I think, have under control. But the tremendous stress, and how

we should try to avoid putting stress on old people by giving them

notice that they're going to have to leave an intermediate-care home in

three months — giving three months' notice to staff and the problem

that creates.... Think of the problem that it creates when you create

stress in a school, when teachers have to become embroiled with their

own survival and have to search their own souls and say: "What are my

concerns here? Am I thinking of myself or am I thinking about the

educational environment of the children? Am I putting the children

first?" They may even second-guess themselves because of the kinds of

irresponsible statements that are made by some politicians on the

benches opposite.

But I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker.

Lay the blame where you may, I'll bet you there's a lot more stress

which emanates and is perceived and picked up by the young children in

the schools. Under this particular type of interim bill.... This bill

is, thank goodness, at least interim. It might even be more interim

than they think. This is going to create a group of people who will not

have had as good a chance as the children who came immediately before

them. Hopefully, if we are able to get rid of this bill as soon as

possible, it will be unnecessary for those coming after them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're boring, Lorne.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I will bore into the heart of this matter, if necessary.

That minister thinks that there's a simple answer for everything, and

if there is, then he's the answer.

This bill does not do

what the minister pretends it sets out to do, and it is going to create

great hardship. It's also going to create a disincentive to attract

industry into perhaps economically distressed areas. What is the use of

having a sawmill with a teepee burner spouting fly ash and dark smoke

all over the place if you can't at least rationalize it as part of your

assessment base and a special benefit to the local area? I've never

seen a government that has been so willing to sell out the entire

province for the benefit of a very few. It seems that this government

is convinced that from so few, so much shall go to so many.

This

government could well take a warning from some of the activities which

are going on in this province. We have seen the seeds of discontent

sown, and we have seen that the ground is fertile for a western

separatist movement. I would have to say that this particular bill is

going to be adding fertilizer to those seeds, which have already

germinated throughout this province. This bill exceeds itself in terms

of anything which is sought to divide rural from urban, and I have

resided about equal parts of my life in both environments. I don't like

to see things that set us against each other, but I can do nothing less

than speak out today on behalf of those people whom I represent. I only

hope that some of the members of the opposite party, particularly that

paper maverick, particularly that person with the hit list, will speak

out as strongly as we have tried to against this bill.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm glad the minister has come back into the House. I'll direct a few questions and statements towards him.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill will have a detrimental effect upon the rural and

isolated communities in the great white north. I guess in popular

Canadiana there's a term that Bob and Doug McKenzie have come up with,

with which you can describe this budget. But I find it strange that the

minister, a professional lawyer who represents the constituency of Oak

Bay, has been given this budget and told to stand up and take all the

flak for it. I wonder what his real feelings on this are. I know the

minister has travelled to the north. He came in a helicopter to the

community of New Aiyansh, and he must understand some of the special

problems that rural northern school districts are being faced with. I

guess, if you could be a teacher on this, you would grade the

minister's bill as the four-F policy: it is a failure for the parents,

a failure for the students, a failure for the teachers and a failure

for the trustees, because this particular bill penalizes the north.

see on the hi list that the biggest cutback per pupil was in the Gulf

Islands, followed by a school district in my constituency, School

District 92 (Nishga), with $195 per pupil. That is followed on the list

by School District 84 and then another school district in my

constituency, School District 87 (Stikine), with a cutback of $144 per

pupil. That is followed by Fernie and then another school district in

the north of my constituency, the sub-local of Terrace, with a cutback

of $136 per pupil. What we find is that the three school districts

which make up the Atlin constituency — Nishga, Stikine and the

sub-local of Terrace-Stewart — have three of the six biggest cutbacks.

have also seen that there has been a new tax placed upon the residents

in the rural, isolated areas of the north. That is a 20 percent

increase in the mill rate. What we are finding is that small school

districts, particularly small schools in the rural, isolated areas of

the north, are being penalized much more than the metropolitan, lower

mainland schools. The north is constantly being penalized by this

government with bills like the one we're debating presently.

One

of the things we've found out is that the Minister of Finance will make

monthly payments to the local school districts. Knowing the performance

of this government, what happens if those payments are late? Does the

school district have to go to the bank and get a quick loan to cover

the cost for that month? I wonder why that Minister of Education is

penalizing children by reducing grants to the local school districts.

It seems that the minister and this government, through their new

formula and through this bill, are attempting to centralize too much

power in Victoria, taking away from the hands of the school boards and

the trustees the involvement and input by teachers and parents in the

north.

Another interesting aspect of this bill is the

statements the minister has made in the last few days concerning $75

million in special funds. We see no restrictions on the way this fund

can be used. It is a dangerous precedent when you allow $75 million of

special funds, because it always runs a risk of becoming a slush fund.

I certainly hope the minister will use this, after listening to the

members of the opposition bring forth constituency problems, so that

there will be no adverse handicap of any school district in this

province.

Another strange aspect of this bill presented by

the Social Credit government is the dates. The formula program on this

bill is supposed to run from 1982 to 1983 and 1984 but then we see that

the restraint program that the Premier has spoken about is supposed to

run for just the first two years. I wonder why there is this

difference. Why penalize the children in the north for an additional

year?

On to some specific issues, we see that there are going to be some cutbacks in supplies. I would like to draw to the

[ Page 7239 ]

Speaker's

attention supplies such as art supplies, PE equipment, IE and special

education equipment. I hope the minister is aware that in many rural

schools in this province, particularly in the north, children have to

rely on the supplies they get from their school. It is not an easy job

just to go to the local supermarket or the local drug store to pick up

paper and pens. By cutting back on supplies to local school districts,

you are running the risk of affecting the child's education.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Maintenance.

I think the minister is quite aware of the problems northern school

districts face with schools isolated from each other by hundreds of

miles and with maintenance costs extremely high. By cutting back this

particular program in the north, you're running into another problem

affecting children — particularly in the area of safety for children.

If you're cutting back transportation and accommodation — which makes

up a vast majority of the maintenance program for local school

districts — you're jeopardizing the safety of children.

Health

services. Speaking from first-hand knowledge of when I was a principal

up north for a number of years, I can say that we used to provide a

medical service as a program for many children who were unable to go

30, 40, 50 and 100 miles to a first-aid station in a larger community.

By cutting back the health services in many school districts, you're

running the risk of once again jeopardizing the safety of children.

There were many times in the north that we as teachers had to provide

services that would normally be taken care of by a public health nurse.

As that service is being cut back across this province and there isn't

enough funding going in for the public health nurses, we know the

teachers are being relied on to provide this service. So once again,

the minister jeopardizes the safety of children and penalizes the north.

see cutbacks in special programs such as native language courses which

provide an essential learning experience for many children,

particularly in the north. I find another strange aspect in this

restraint program and in this particular bill that will be cutting back

hundreds of dollars to children in the north: that is the transfer

payments, the millions of dollars that this government receives for the

native students from the federal government in Ottawa. I just wonder

where these transfer payments are going. Are they going to build

football stadiums, or are they being put into general revenue?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They're going for ministers' travel.

MR. PASSARELL:

We have the transfer of payments from Ottawa for native students going

for ministers' travel. I would hope that the $2,400-plus would go to

those local school districts so we don't have to see the Nishga being

cut back by $195 per student, Stikine being cut by $144, Terrace School

District 88 being cut back by $136 per student.

Mr. Speaker,

if there is any geographic area in this province that this government

has hit hardest in cutbacks, it is the north. This new formula for the

north is penalizing the residents of the north through a centralized

government that grabs, grabs, grabs.

To put new increases upon residents in isolated villages and communities, particularly

in the north, is to penalize those residents for living in the north. We know

the statements made by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) when he told the residents in Cassiar that if they didn't

like living in the north they could move south. Now we see a Minister of Education

with his new tax formula in this bill penalizing the northern residents once

again — by forcing them in many instances out of the area because of the high

taxes they'll be paying for local education. This new tax increase and the

education formula only prove this government's lack of concern for the north

and where its priorities really lie: in the affluent subdivisions of Oak Bay

and West Vancouver.

Those

are a few notes that I made. I would certainly hope that the minister,

through guidance by the Premier or through his own initiative, would

take this bill and bring some amendments into it, because you are

affecting education in the north by these cutbacks per pupil.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I had very little intention of getting into this debate, but after the

remarks of the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I can hardly refrain.

He would give us the impression that the students of the north,

especially in his constituency of Atlin, the Nishga and Stikine, are

suffering greatly. What he did not mention to this House was the

magnanimous nature of the educational system in British Columbia, of

the money it allocates for his constituency of Atlin and other northern

constituencies. I would like to tell him now that in the Nishga and the

Stikine areas.... He refers to a reduction of $136 per pupil — I'm not

sure of the exact dollar.

MR. PASSARELL: It is $195.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

He says $136 to $195. I mention this now to merely tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that in the north country, in this constituency of Atlin, the

average cost of education per pupil is over $6,000,

whereas in the

lower mainland it's about half that amount. A reduction of $100 or so

is not a tremendous deterioration in the system.

I want to

say to you that the educational system of this province is indeed a

magnanimous and a gracious one. This government prides itself on having

two major priorities. The first is health and the next is education. I

think that's a very commendable attitude that we have in this respect,

and when we ask in a time of restraint that some restraints must be

made, I don't think that's asking too much. We are not living as high

as we were, and every part of our society must take some of the strain.

We must maintain the educational system, but we cannot maintain a

system over what we can afford to pay, because if we ever arrive at

that point, then the system itself will collapse under the weight of

its own funding. But this government is proceeding.

Mr.

Speaker, we've lost the purpose of the bill in this debate. The

minister made it clear that the purpose of this act is to introduce, on

an interim basis, a new financial formula to finance school costs in

the province. The new formula fits the tax base between the residential

and the non-residential component so as to ensure greater equity and

distribution of taxes from the non-residential tax base throughout the

province. The new formula will be effective for the 1982 school tax

year. Now that's the purpose of the bill. No mention, or hardly any,

has been made of this in the debate by this party. The hon. first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) spoke for two and a half days

and not once mentioned the purpose of this bill. Yet the debate goes

on. He just talked about the sorrowful nature of the poor children that

are being

[ Page 7240 ]

robbed

of an education. They are not being robbed of an education in British

Columbia. We have the best educational system in all of Canada. We have

colleges and universities, as small in our system....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Colleges, universities, public schools — I'm talking about the whole

educational system. It's the finest in Canada, and yet they would cry.

If they only knew that in the province of Ontario hospitals have been

closed down, schools are being closed down, willy-nilly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here too.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Yes, some are being closed here. The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown) said very clearly that five schools in Burnaby are being

closed. But do you know that just a few days ago the newspaper said

that those schools should have been closed last year because there

weren't enough children for them. And the paper followed up by saying

that it's high time they were closed. Burnaby is notorious for this

sort of machination with the system. But I let them go on. We do not

fight them that hard. I don't mind a few extra dollars; we let them

have it. The government of British Columbia has a magnanimous attitude,

but it's time they realize that money does not grow on trees. And the

poor taxpayer, off his back, has got to pay with the sweat of his brow.

It's high time to realize that every facet of our society must take

part in the cost situation we are facing, whether it be MLAs, industry

— that they share in playing down the costs we're facing today.

How

much are we talking about? We're talking about a less than 2 percent

reduction in the school system, and the first member for Vancouver

Centre spoke for two and a half days. For what purpose? He never once

mentioned the purpose of the act. The Speaker on three or four

occasions tried to say: "Will you speak to the bill?" Yes, he said, he

would speak to the bill — when he got around to it. But none of us

objected, because we didn't want to have a heavy hand on them. We stood

here and patiently listened for two and a half days while he abused

this House without any facts, without any judgment, for a simple

filibuster until, I regret to say, his voice gave out — or he would be

speaking yet. That is not the purpose of government; that is not the

purpose of legislation and not the purpose of this Legislature. It is

regrettable that we see a party defunct of purpose, with a negative

attitude, forgetting their responsibility to speak to the issues at

hand.

One of my school districts — I mention just one,

School District 42 in Maple Ridge — is one of the lower mainland

districts. It's not a wealthy district, yet they find no difficulty in

meeting the requirements of the Minister of Education and this bill.

They have set out the program here. I have it in my hand. They didn't

come crying to this Legislature or to their MLA. They never said one

word to me. I got this document in the mail that really said what

they're doing quietly.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

"What are they doing?" he asked. There are 27 points. I will not labour

the House by reading you all 27. Why go through them? They're not

listening. I'll tell them one or two. Number I is very commendable.

"Decrease district administration by 10 percent no later than September

1982." What's wrong with that? Number 2 was to decrease district

non-school based teaching staff by 10 percent by the same time. Did

they come crying to me? The honourable opposition would give you the

idea that all the teachers and school districts are crying about what

we're doing to them and how we're reducing education. Let me make it

clear now that education is not being reduced in British Columbia; it's

being upheld at the same high standard, but we ask for economy. I think

School District 42 has seen that.

The next one is number 3.

"Decrease district business maintenance staff by 10 percent effective

September 1982." The member for Burnaby-Edmonds said: "The schools are

deteriorating." The schools are not deteriorating. They simply said

"reduce the maintenance staff by 10 percent effective September 1982."

I think that's very commendable. They're not crying. I only give you

School District 42 because they see the facts as they are. All school

districts in British Columbia are doing it accordingly. I can go on and

read this, but I think nothing would be gained by it. One more, for

example, is number 17. "Continue to eliminate borrowed inventory of

leased portables." That's a saving of money. "Reduce nonteaching

clerical overtime by 10 percent." That's not reducing education, but

making savings where savings can be made.

I want to tell

this opposition that every business in British Columbia faces much more

stringent responsibilities than this, and they continue on facing

difficult times. Why don't they talk to those people of British

Columbia who are out of jobs? They are the people we should be

considering today — the people on fixed pensions and fixed income. We

are asking society to hold back a bit for an interim period. I think

we're making a logical request. It is with the deepest regret that I

hear this talk of hurting the children of British Columbia. This is a

very sad day in the Legislature. We are not hurting the people of

British Columbia. We are not hurting the teachers of British Columbia.

We are demanding, as you are demanding, a high standard of education.

speak again about our School District 42. There's also School District

75. I don't have the figures for them, but I'm willing to say that it's

the same there. This board, without being requested and simply by

following the guidelines, said: "We will make these savings. We will

meet the requirements of saving where necessary. We will reduce our

expenditures." They've done it so simply.

It's regrettable

that we find an opposition taking the floor of this House and talking

against reasonable reductions that are necessary at this time when our

economy is in a recession. We expect a turnaround. When a turnaround

comes this government will be the first to meet the challenge and let

it go again, but within reason. The poor beleaguered taxpayer has had

just enough and it's time that government put a halt to expenditures

that are unnecessary. It's time that government put a halt to every

single penny that does not need to be spent. That's the target and

purpose of this administration. I'm proud to be a member of it. I

support the minister and his bill wholeheartedly. Restraints must be

had. Restraints are firm with us.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That

member didn't have the figures, he said. I'm really truly shocked at

his presentation. The member for Dewdney gets up and makes a

presentation, and he doesn't know the figures. He goes on and on about

the poor taxpayer. Why is it that very nearly every school teacher

[ Page 7241 ]

and

school district in this province has made representation to every

elected member of this House except that member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem), who has not received a single presentation from his own

school district. I'm shocked about that. I think it's because they've

lost confidence in that member. I want to tell the members of this

House right now that, in fact, his two school districts — 42 and 75 —

have made representation to this side of the House to bring their case

to the Legislature, which we are doing. So when that member gets up and

says that the reduction of funding per pupil in the north for the

school district is no problem and that it won't hurt those kids up

north.... "Who cares about those kids up north anyway?" That's what

he's saying. He doesn't care.

Let me tell you what the

reduction per pupil does in his riding, and then he'll have the

figures. He's hiding under the chair — I can't see him. He must be

under his desk. The cut per pupil in that member's riding — under this

bill, under this so-called interim finance restraint bill that's going

to reduce the quality of education in this province significantly — in

Maple Ridge, will be $69. In Mission the cut will be $66 per pupil. I'm

shocked that that member, who should be getting up in this House and

fighting for the quality of education and for the children in his

riding, would get up and make a speech like that. No wonder they call

that member George Museum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

member, you're aware, as all of us are, of the rules of parliamentary

debate. Personal references and allusions are not allowed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed, I want to take this opportunity to

mention one of my constituents, Mr. Gary Lupul, and the Vancouver

Canucks, who are going to do well tonight. Gary happens to be a

constituent of mine....

AN HON. MEMBER: And a party member!

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Yes, and a party member! He hasn't paid his dues this year, yet, but I

hope he will out of his bonus. No, I don't know that Mr. Lupul is a

party member. Quite honestly, I don't know that, but he is a

constituent of mine, and I do want to wish him and his team-mates the

very best of luck while I have this opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Move adjournment. I think it's game time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I move adjournment of this....

Is it game time? This is going to be a short speech, Mr. Speaker.

Now

I will start into my presentation, and I do want to remind the House

that my riding has three whole school districts within its boundaries,

plus parts of two others. Once again, the topic is — quite seriously —

the quality of education. That's the topic that we're discussing and

the principle of this bill.

The long term effects of this

bill will mean that there will be obvious cutbacks, particularly in

special services and particularly — I did meet with a number of

teachers last week while I was home — to the physically and mentally

handicapped, some of whom, because of the lack of facilities in the

province, have been sent back to the community and put back into the

classroom. Fair enough for those who can handle it.

But can

you imagine how some poor teacher is to handle a classroom of 25 to 30

students — although the teacher-pupil ratio is not that great...?

Officially the fact is that in many instances the teacher-pupil ratio

is that great in some classrooms within my riding. That's because, of

course, they include the administrative staff in some areas; some

school districts have assistant administrators and the assistants have

assistants to the assistants. They include all of those people as part

of the pupil-teacher ratio when they're computing those figures of 17

to I in School District 47. But the reality is that I've been in

classrooms, particularly in the elementary grades, where I have seen up

to 29 students in a single classroom. How would you expect a teacher —

without a teacher's aide or other assistants — who, in some cases, has

to spend half of her or his time with one or two pupils suffering from

a handicap and ignore the other 26 or 27 pupils...? You know very well

it can't be done. As a result of this bill and these cutbacks, all of

the students will suffer.

Not to mention the lack of jobs.

There will be teacher layoffs in the riding — no question about it —

when this bill is passed, under the new budgets proposed by the

minister and the ministry. When those budgets are submitted, I'll make

you a wager right now, Mr. Speaker, that you will see a minimum of 40

jobs lost in my riding; I think it will be more, because I'm listening

to two sections. I'm listening over here to the representatives of the

trustees and over here to the teachers. The teachers give me one figure

and the trustees give me another. Anyway, I'll round it out by saying

that a minimum of 40 teaching jobs will be lost, a number of school

aides, and some maintenance people.

This point was raised

very well in the House yesterday by my colleague, but because I

represent a large rural riding I think this is worth repeating. When

you reduce the maintenance of school buses, you are placing the lives

of children who ride those buses in jeopardy. Some of my students

travel as much as 32 or 33 miles by school bus each way, approximately

60 miles return, each day. If you don't have the properly serviced

vehicle.... Brakes have to be checked particularly on school buses,

lights working properly, all the safety devices that we are used to on

school buses, the tires, the whole thing. When you know that that may

not be done properly, we are taking a chance with the lives of our

children. That is properly brought up under this bill, because this

bill reduces those budgets. There is no question about that.

The

duties and the powers of school boards are vastly curtailed under this

act. The centralization, once again, of more and more power in

Victoria, to the minister and the cabinet, under this bill is

horrendous. I suppose the next step is to do away with school boards.

Or is the minister planning to leave just enough power with the school

districts to take all the political flak about the initiation of

programs and for the lack of quality of education, but take all the

power and their teeth, in terms of how they are going to fund these

programs, away from the school trustees and school districts? I think

that is wrong.

Why isn't the government honest? Why aren't

they upfront in saying: "This is the way it is. We're going to take

over all the duties of school districts. We'll have one school district

here in Victoria in some office, maybe over in the Douglas Building.

We'll run everything from Victoria." A little room off to the side of

the minister's office might be a little handier. The minister is

travelling so much all over the world that he could have his deputy in

his office and they could hold their meetings in the minister's office.

[ Page 7242 ]

think that the principle of this bill will be fought vigorously. In the

next election the government is going to pay for the introduction of

this bill, but that is another story.

The confiscation of

revenues. I have a clipping here which I'll read from in a moment. The

government has not been honest with the people of this province,

because they put out press releases that say: "We are going to pick up

75 percent of the cost of operating each individual school district."

That is simply not true and simply not correct.

What they

have done in my riding — this is worth mentioning because it really

affects my riding, because it is a large rural area.... School District

47, for example, has a tax base of some $270 million. Of those

industrial base revenues, $223 million will now go to Victoria, leaving

the local school district a pittance. They have to go begging, hat in

hand, to the minister, and if they are good little trustees they just

might get some money. But they might not. School District 46 has a tax

base of $199 million; $83.2 million of that is to be confiscated by

this government, by the Minister of Education. I've been pleading with

the minister and Treasury Board now for two months for $870,000 for an

addition in this growing area — the population is increasing in School

District 46 — so that we can take these kids out of trailers and out of

shifts at the secondary school at Sechelt. So what do I receive from

the minister? A notice. He has decided to put a 120-day freeze on any

further funding to that school district for that purpose. That is what

I get from this government: a freeze. They have $1.1 billion for

northeast coal, they can build stadiums which no one will ever use.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

From rural areas? How many people are going to come down from Ocean

Falls, which you closed down? How many people are going to come down

from Bella Coola or Atlin or Omineca? That member sitting over there

should be up on his feet fighting for his school districts. What does

he do? He laughs. He'd better join the WCC, or he won't be here in the

next election.

So that's what they're going to be doing with our tax dollars that should be going to increase the quality of education.

There's one further effect of this bill. I want to quote from this

article which appeared on March 24 in the Powell River News .

"Under the new formula the municipalities must send half of the

non-residential tax money collected to the provincial government by

August 31." They didn't have the full story at that time. We didn't

know until the bill came down that they would have to send all of the

money. Under the old formula the municipality of Powell River collected

school taxes from industries, businesses and residential property

owners and then would pay the money to School District 47 in monthly

instalments. Because part of the money did not have to be paid right

away, the municipality would invest it to earn interest and in this way

could keep local taxes down because of the injection of interest

revenue. Not only does this bill affect every school district in the

province; it also directly affects the revenues to the municipality —

revenues that they are going to have to make up by increasing taxation.

They have been taxed to death already with assessments — water

assessment increases and on and on. Victoria. has continued to take

moneys out of these communities without putting those moneys back,

particularly in those large rural communities that most of us here

represent. I notice the government members sitting there; they are not

getting up to speak. They're not fighting for their school districts or

their municipalities; they're fighting for their lives — or they will

be in the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I have just about

completed my remarks, but just for the record I did want the House to

know that in my riding the cutback per pupil on the Sun shine

Coast area in School District 46 will be $88, and in Powell River $73,

which means that with that number of children in those two school

districts there'll be a reduction in the quality of education. That's

where it counts — the quality of education. So what are we going to do

— have these kids dropping out of school prematurely, not taught

properly perhaps? When we do need the type of technicians that this

government says we require for their northeast coal project, where do

we go? We go out of the country to hire these people. When they're

hiring administrators to operate their various Crown corporations and

what-have-you, they go out of the country. They go out of the country

to get these people when we should have qualified people here. We

should have qualified tradespeople here. Where do we get the

tradespeople from now? They come from out of the province. We have

people right now from the State of Washington doing certain technical

work in the Powell River area that should have been done by people from

British Columbia. I'm not opposed to people from other countries coming

in, but let's employ our own people first.

Anyway, back to

the bill. I have just about completed my remarks, and I just wanted to

go on record as fighting for my school districts, fighting for my

students and my teachers in my riding, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you so

much.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, this chamber has heard a

lot of educational debates over the years, and since I was first

elected in 1966 this chamber has seen a lot of debate on one of the

most important, if not the most important, subjects that we deal with.

That is the whole question of education of our young people. I was

reminded, when we started this debate last Friday, of the various

debates that have taken place in this chamber with the various

Ministers of Education. I can think of Donald Brothers from Trail and

Leslie Peterson, who defended government policy of the day in some very

spirited debates. I can remember the debates on construction freezes,

on the various formula changes and all of those things that we've done

for — or perhaps to — education over the 16 years that I can personally

think of, as far as educational policy is concerned and this House is

concerned. Over all of those years the school district I represent,

School District 36 in Surrey, has steadily improved over fairly huge

odds — odds not always of its own making, but odds that were sometimes

unforeseeable, sometimes caused by unplanned growth in areas of the

lower mainland like Surrey and White Rock, burgeoning rural areas

becoming urban perhaps as Burnaby did 35 years ago. In the fifties, for

instance, in Surrey we had the school district blacklisted, and

teachers would not go and work there. It wasn't until the late sixties

or the seventies that that blacklist, that awful declaratory knock on

the school district, was lifted. The ever-increasing school population

and the very complicated demographics have caused additional problems

in School District 36. Because there has been a lot of abuse.... This

is always the way in politics, because you have to stand up and defend

the authorship and legislation you're introducing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 7243 ]

Since

my re-election in 1979, I have worked with the Minister of Education on

a couple of pieces of emergency funding: first, on capital expenditure

program 6 — I was successful with the minister, and I want to thank him

for that; and just last week on more emergency funding for the South

Guildford Elementary School. I know that the Minister of Education was

also working for the Surrey School Board and for the pupils in Surrey

to make sure that that funding was passed in order to meet the tender

deadline so that dollars would not be wasted. Nevertheless, Mr.

Speaker, I think the course set by the Premier and the Minister of

Education on February 18, before we saw the bill, is perhaps the worst

decision made in education since 1966. You may think that's

exaggerating the point. I say it's the worst because it is really the

most severe in terms of the centralist nature of the decision. It's the

worst since 1966. The school board in Surrey, which takes in White Rock

as well as the whole municipality of Surrey and Crescent Park, is

seventh in the province in terms of average gross school tax. It's

anticipated that we're going to be paying $575 per home this year;

that's based on 1982 operating costs in excess of $3,000 per pupil, on

an anticipated residential assessment of $20,019 per pupil, and on a

pupil-teacher ratio of 16 to 1. That's a figure I happen to be very

proud of, and one that I hope the minister is very proud of. It's a

low, from one of the highest in the province since 1973. Between 1972

and 1975, as a member of the administration, I worked very diligently

to get down to this good figure of 16 to 1.

The average

gross tax paid in 1981 was $552; the average we expect to pay is $575.

Therefore we expect an increase. People are going to say: "That's not

much of an increase, compared to what some of the rural areas are going

to pay." But that's only this year. I'm not sanguine about the chances

of increases being kept down like that next year because of the cuts in

services. Also, I don't think that the time for cuts in some of the

programs is now, and I don't like the minister going about it in a

senseless way. It's about to become the financial plaything of the

minister. The action was well described by our lead-off speaker from

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). Those effects are quite evident in Surrey.

Over

the last six years we have seen a deliberate reduction in the

government's share of school costs from 48 percent to 32.5 percent. You

caused the problem. You caused hostility on the part of the school

teachers, the school trustees and everybody in the educational

industry, in the plants, and in the delivery of the service, and now

with this bill you're trying to patch up the effects of your own

program.

In 1974, just one year and four months after the

New Democratic Party administration took office, we began a five-year

program to raise the provincial share of school education costs to 75

percent. If this administration opposite hadn't killed that policy in

1976 we'd have reached the 75 percent level two years ago. We'd have

reached the level they're hoping to arrive at two years ago. On top of

that, Mr. Speaker, as you know because of your mail, which I'm sure is

just as heavy as mine, there's been no general increase in the

homeowner's grant since before the '79 general election. We wonder what

happened to the money that should have been going to this program over

all these years.

This bill also shows that the government's assessment law has caused chaos,

created deep divisions between rural and urban districts, and produced incompetent,

inaccurate individual assessments. We've seen that when I saw my own partner

— I use that word loosely — the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

appealing his many properties from Langley to Victoria. It's caused those

kinds of divisions between rural and urban property owners. I think there's

some kind of court hearing being handed down this week on the part of one lady

in Surrey who appealed the whole assessment roll in Surrey. We're also concerned

that the cabinet has now got complete control over industrial and commercial

land values and taxes. The sweeping powers they've given themselves in this

bill would make any school district worried.

can't think of another issue in recent times that's occasioned as many

letters as this particular bill and this particular program. The school

board advised me that, first of all, any program which used to cost $1

in Surrey will now cost $1.60. I don't think that's restraint. I don't

think that's saving money; I think that's wasting money. All the

community school system will be more expensive. The class-size decision

will be lost to the centralists in Victoria. Decisions about the works

yard in Surrey are going to be now made here in Victoria. Decisions on

trucks and maintenance are going to be made here in Victoria. Special

education is now jeopardized, as detailed by speakers on this side over

and over again. School Board 36 advised me that they are going to be

cancelling summer school programs. Children with learning problems will

be left out. There'll be no second chance, Mr. Speaker. I think the

newly arrived member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) made that the central

part of his speech the other day — the second chance. What is more

attractive than the idea of giving a youngster a second chance? In

Surrey there'll be no second chance unless you're prepared to pay $1.60

for it as against $1 last year. Why are we doing that at this time?

Mr.

Speaker, the programs for the academically gifted will be hurt as well.

That's the first time that's ever happened. Fair is fair. It's not good

enough to do away with the programs to assist the disabled, the slow

learner, the learner that needs the second chance, but it's also fair

now that we're going to have to slow down and reduce the programs for

the academically gifted. I wonder if this minister really wants to be

known as the minister that was responsible for doing away with the

programs for the academically gifted. That's not to say, of course,

that there shouldn't be some local input. We all know that. But taking

away the decision-making process in this way, taking away and

centralizing all these decisions in Victoria, is, of course, the

natural precursor to the kind of program I'm showing. There are

cutbacks in field trips, cutbacks in maintenance, as the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) outlined, and cutbacks in supplies. I'm

advised by the school board that they're going to have to go now and

simply reduce their inventory right down to zero, and obviously that's

going to hurt in the long run. That's going to cause inefficiencies and

replacing at higher and higher rates. Mr. Speaker, the mill rate's

going to go down this year, I would anticipate, and the assessment's

going to go up, and that means taxes are going to go up in Surrey, as I

gave you in that first set of figures.

Section 12 of the

bill is the thrust of the bill which gives the minister the sweeping

powers. The great centralist that we've mentioned over there.... Not

only do they want the sweeping powers, not only do they want the

centralization of the decision-making process, but they also want to do

it in secret.

Section 58 of the bill says that the Regulation Act doesn't apply.

Section 58 says they won't have to tell us the amount of

[ Page 7244 ]

the

base grant; they won't have to tell us when they're limiting budgets;

they won't have to post these details. All of this will be done in

secrecy or in the scaled envelopes that pass between the minister and

his ministry and the instructions that go out to the various school

districts. All of this will be done without the posting in the Gazette

or the posting by orders-in-council. The Regulation Act won't apply to

Bill 27. I think it's shocking that we won't know instantly what's

going on in the ministry. I frankly feel that this is probably the most

disconcerting aspect of the bill: that not only do they want the power

in Victoria but they want to cover it up.

The member for

North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is chipping in every now and again. He

should know something about what's going on; after all, he was a school

employee of some kind or another up in North Peace. If they are that

comfortable with the bill, if they are that interested, why don't they

stand up and speak in the debate? Only one of them has stood up and

spoken; that's the minister of defence from Dewdney making his swan

song in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, if they have anything to say,

they should please stand up at their microphones and say it after I

have finished.

Mr. Speaker, that explains clearly why the

minister sent these threatening letters out immediately following the

tabling of the bill. The bill was tabled on April 13, and on April 19

out went the letters: submit or else. What kind of style is that for

this happy cooperation that the minister expects to get from the school

boards? Submit or else; it sounds like a wrestling game.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to say that the further erosion of local

decision-making, the scapegoating of trustees and teachers, the

jeopardizing of special and local programs are the features of this

bill. Adult education, the ESL and G-section programs are all now

starved. The works yard project in Surrey is threatened. Surrey-White

Rock growth isn't provided for. The minister has got to start right

away to separate secondary from elementary enrolment statistics; that's

obviously one of the errors that's happening in his own ministry. I

don't blame his ministry any more than I blame the school board in

Surrey, who is probably the principal offender in that mistake.

The

majority of our future wealth, success, happiness and prosperity

depends on a good education program. What is the point of mortgaging

the future with this unwarranted adventure into the educational needs

of our children? It is an unwarranted adventure. I have notes from the

conversations I've had with the trustees. We've all cut clippings and

letters from people in the system. None bother me more than those I

received about advanced courses that are now in jeopardy. We can't

support this bill, and I trust that when this vote is called there will

be people with educational philosophies and a love for education who

will join with us in opposing the bill.

MR. LEGGATT:

I just want to make a few brief remarks about the bill. The first

question deals with the McMath formula, which the minister purported to

support. As the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) so

eloquently pointed out, it was a massive con on the McMath formula —

and the minister, of course, knows it — to abscond with the industrial

base and then claim it was built into the McMath formula. It is clearly

a piece of flimflam that hasn't flown and won't fly. On that ground

alone I think you can oppose this particular piece of legislation.

In the riding of Coquitlam, which I represent, the amount of confiscation is

about $421 million of taxable non-residential assets which have now been absconded

to the province to spend with their tender mercies in terms of the way they

want the school system to run. I want to tell the business community that this

is one of the most dangerous changes in education finance that we have ever

seen in this province. It is dangerous not just because this happens to be a

Social Credit government who may wish their own philosophy of cutbacks, for

example, to prevail. They may then decide that this is a great way to fly. "We're

going to cut everything to the bone and go to the three-hour program."

It is dangerous for any centralization of this formula. It could be dangerous

if the communists came to power in British Columbia and they held all the non-residential

tax base and imposed their particular educational philosophy on the province.

The key to this bill that makes it so disgusting and so bad is the centralization

and the vote of non-confidence by this government, not only in every school

trustee in the province of British Columbia but in the people who elected them

in every community in the province of British Columbia. This bill says to those

who went out and elected those school board members: "You didn't know

what you were doing, you people out there. We know better than those voters

who put those school trustees into office. We're going to tell them how

to spend that money. We're not going to let them do anything beyond the

basic program." That is an incredible position for a government that came

into office claiming it was a free-enterprise government. This is centralization

of the worst kind.

That

restraint program — admittedly, it is for two years says that school

trustees shall not, even if they want to, do anything beyond what we

tell them they can do. In the district of Coquitlam we have cuts of

$768,430.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of how much?

MR. LEGGATT:

I don't see the total budget, but I can easily get the figure. It is

probably a significant amount in terms of the total budget. The budget,

I think, is probably around $40 million or $50 million but I'll have to

look it up. In terms of the actual impact of the cuts and where they

lie, this idea that you can find $768,000 in a budget, freely voted by

the elected representatives of the people for the purposes of

education, and not hurt the education program at all is sheer garbage

and nonsense.

Let's look at the cuts in Coquitlam. To their

great credit, the school board in our district have done their

damnedest to try not to hurt the educational program; they were stuck

with no alternatives. Here are some of the things that they had to cut:

$225,000 off maintenance — well, that doesn't sound bad. What the heck

is maintenance? A few broken windows? No, it's a school bus that loses

its wheel and goes off the road and rolls over into a ditch. That's

maintenance.

Here's one that's interesting: the school

district in Coquitlam had to cut $196,000 which was a special program

that they had for an early retirement plan for teachers. They had ten

teachers ready to leave and retire under this plan. One of the most

important things you can do for education is to bring young people into

the educational stream and not leave them out. Young teachers have to

work. Everybody's got to have a chance to do something in this world.

Our people have given us an opportunity to be politicians. You over

there give the teachers an opportunity to teach. You haven't done that.

Oh,

we'll deal with the minister. I'm delighted that he's here. Because

every one of these cuts is a direct result of the plan of the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Develop-

[ Page 7245 ]

ment

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) to subsidize northeast coal. That minister who is

smiling and laughing is the most powerful minister in that cabinet.

Make no mistake. He has conned the entire cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: I trust that the hon. member is not imputing to another hon. member any improper motive.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I suppose influence-peddling is more appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed, perhaps selecting more temperate language.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

has taken.... Let's give you an example from my constituency of what

northeast coal subsidy really means. They have cut $30,000 out of the

travel and field trip program for our district.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How many contracts in your constituency? How many people working?

MR. LEGGATT:

We'll deal with that. But on this particular bill, how do you value the

loss to a child of a visit to the planetarium? How do you put a value

on that? How do you value the wonder in a child's eyes and the

curiosity when they have an opportunity to see the rest of the world

instead of just the inside of a classroom? How do you value that? Do

you value that in tons of coal and subsidy? No, you don't.

You

have to have a humanistic approach to the government of this province.

Mr. Speaker, this government lacks any sense of humanity about

operating the school system. You're looking at a cut in field trips.

You're looking at voluntary early retirement programs down the tube, so

young teachers have no chance to work. After all those years of

training, they'll have no chance to participate in their chosen

profession.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development was given a chance to participate in his chosen profession.

He earned his chance. He sold a lot of cars — a very successful

businessman. I think he was. Wasn't he? The story hasn't been told.

AN HON. MEMBER: The cost-benefit analysis is not in yet.

MR. LEGGATT: That's right, we're looking for the cost benefit analysis. We'll see what happens if we ever get it.

school district in Coquitlam sent a leaflet home to the parents

entitled: "The Future of Your Child's Education." It said: "The

provincial government has forced your school board to cut this year

$768,430." Next year it will be around $3 million, I guess. That may

not be the case, because it looks like next year they're going to get

some relief in terms of that particular figure. If that's inaccurate, I

know the school trustees in my district will be very happy to correct

any misinformation. Because I see the minister looking over, and I

think perhaps he could explain.

I am reading from the school

board's notes. Those are the elected trustees that you have no

confidence in, the people you've told can't spend their own money that

they have democratically raised in their own community. You know better

how to spend that money than the voters and taxpayers of my community.

This is what they go on to say:

"The future.

To meet the demands we are forced to cut now and for at least the next

two years. These cuts will mean larger class sizes, less personal

attention, more split classes, reduced program offerings, reduced

library services, less help for those children with special needs,

reduced maintenance of facilities and grounds and school closures."

How

do you put a value on special-needs children? How many Olsons do we

create by cutting back on education, cutting back on the kinds of

services that encourage people to compete within the school system and

contribute to society rather than try to take out of society? It is an

important question. It is not something you can just shake your head

at. It is this government's priorities which are under debate right

now. The question is: are these cutbacks going to have an adverse

effect on the future of your children and their contribution to

society? We think they will. We think that, in terms of the priorities

of any government, this is a program that was unnecessary, uncalled for

and will harm the most defenceless members of our community — our

children. They don't have a vote. They don't have a chance to....

AN HON. MEMBER: And the disabled.

MR. LEGGATT:

The disabled, the halt, the lame and, yes, bright kids too — not just

the disabled. Those children who have extremely high ability are now

being given fewer opportunities, pulled back. Those people are very

important in terms of the kind of contribution we have to have to

survive as a viable society.

This is an anti-education

government. It is a government which has made its choice. Children or

subsidy for coal? We'll take children.

MR. LEA: I am

surprised that the government doesn't have a more spirited defence of

this piece of legislation, especially from the government backbenchers,

some of whom have been involved with the educational system before

coming into politics. It is hard to believe that in a few short months

people can forget their roots, forget the communities they represent

and forget the principles that at one time they said they adhered to.

Over

the years there has been one sort of common thing that Social Credit

hurled at this side of the floor whenever we were talking about

education and what it means to society. First of all, they bluster at

us and they say: "You dirty communists. You union-lovers. You

bureaucrats. You centralists." But when they really run out of

everything that they consider to be bad in the world they always get

down to one thing, and they sort of sputter across: "You

intellectuals." If there is one thing that that group of people over

there think is airy-fairy, it is learning anything about history,

philosophy or sociology. If something doesn't smack of putting a bumper

on a car or something they would consider to be some sort of practical

production item in society, then they have nothing but a sneer and the

back of their hand and laughter and giggles.

I believe this

piece of legislation will pass because I believe that every Social

Credit member will vote for it and every New Democratic member will

vote against it, and they have more members in the House than we do.

That's how the system works. There won't be one Social Crediter who has

the gumption to get up and vote against his or her own government. It

happens with other political parties, but it

[ Page 7246 ]

doesn't

happen with Social Credit. They vote as they are told and they vote

like sheep. Never once in this House, in ten years, have I seen a

member of Social Credit vote against his or her own party.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to touch on education generally because this bill

applies to education generally. The centralization of the

decision-making process, the taking away of decisions from local

people.... Decisions that are going to affect local people should be

made by local people, not by some bureaucrat and a minister sitting in

the capital city. But it isn't only happening in the high schools, the

junior high schools and the elementary schools. The Socred brand of

education is also happening in the universities, where the new

financial formulas being pressed on the universities by the government

lead more and more to the universities becoming trade schools, as

opposed to places of learning. Universities were never designed to be

trade schools by the great thinkers that have gone before us. They were

designed as places where citizens could go and learn about the human

condition, and what our history is, so that we can better decide how we

arrived at this certain stage in our civilization and what we might

expect in the future.

In other words, our universities and

our school systems, as much as they should teach us some of the things

that we have to know practically in this society, must overridingly be

there to educate us — not train us for the workplace. We need a broad

education. One of the class distinctions that we have in our society,

Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we have adopted the attitude that people

who are going to doctors, lawyers, architects or engineers must have

some teachings in philosophy.and the humanities. We believe it's

necessary for a rounded person in our society to have that kind of

instruction and that kind of opportunity to learn. Yet, on the other

hand, we don'