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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7215 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Lauk –– 7215

Mr. Ritchie –– 7218

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7220

Mrs. Wallace –– 7224

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Education annual report, July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7227

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize

that the directors of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce are in

Victoria today. They have just completed their annual brief to the

Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. I believe they'll be meeting

with members of the opposition party later this morning. I'd like to

recognize the members who were here: Robert Hallam of Vancouver,

president; Norm McLaren of Campbell River, first vice president; Ron

Wood of West Vancouver, immediate past president; Wayne Allen of North

Vancouver, treasurer; Graham Wright, legal counsel; Bill Pekonen from

Delta, finance and taxation committee chairman. Also here were Margaret

Ferguson from Powell River, representing District 1; Jim Currie from

Victoria; Jon McRae from Gibsons; John Dance from Langley; Gerry

Fredrick from Summerland, Ray Suffredine of Nelson, who was to be here

but unavoidably could not; Gus Boersma from Fernie; Darwin Watt from

Quesnel; Fred Garnett from Prince George; Bill Dyer from Fort St. John;

and their general manager, Dan McCaughey from Burnaby. I'd like the

House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

(continued)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The call for order applies to all members of the House.

MR. LAUK : As we left off yesterday I was about to bring to

the attention of the House that the government, in a desperate action

because of its ineptitude in introducing this bill rather late in the

year, has, under

section 14 of the School Act, changed the statutory

dates of sections 196(7) and (8). That amendment — it applies to this

bill — reads: "The April 20 date referred to in

section 196(7) of the

School Act is extended to May 1 for the year 1982." Subsection (

d) says: "The May 1 date referred to in

section 196(8) of the School Act

is extended to May 15 for the year 1982." The reason I bring that up is

that the order-in-council allows the Minister of Education until May 1

to give notice to school boards of the details of grants to the boards,

assessed values in the districts and taxation to be levied, and the

board of each school district until May 15 to adopt the annual bylaw

respecting the annual budget and to file that bylaw with the Minister

of Education, the municipalities and the surveyor of taxes. There is no

authority for the cabinet to pass such an order-in-council.

Section 14

gives power to pass orders-in-council and regulations, but it is well

known in constitutional law that no government and no cabinet can amend

a statute. The statute has to be amended in the Legislature. This is

the well-known proposition of delegatas potestas non potest delegari.

Every hon. member knows that. This means quite simply that you cannot

delegate your entire power to another body or another person. This

Legislature couldn't pass its power on to any other group. Otherwise

this Legislature conceivably could pass its constitutional power to the

Victoria Chamber of Commerce or the Ku Klux Klan. Therefore I advise

that those dates are inoperative, unlawful and unconstitutional, and

the dates in the statute itself apply unless otherwise amended by this

chamber. This is an example, Mr. Speaker, of what this government is

doing with respect to its desperation as a result of its ineptitude in

dealing with this bill.

HON. MR. McGEER : How did you deal with it in Saskatchewan?

MR. LAUK :

I think any government in the west is in deep trouble. I notice that

the Premier is very nervous; he's laughing this morning. He knows full

well that the juggernaut of the people's will is moving west and it's

going to reach his doorstep fairly soon.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member has noticed, I am sure, that any straying from the principle of the bill creates disorder in the House.

MR. LAUK :

It's exactly the principle of this bill and the unconstitutional acts

of this government that are going to get this government thrown out.

The arrogance of this government is such that the people of this

province want to see it out of office, and if the Premier takes some

comfort from what happened in Saskatchewan, we invite him to call an

election right now.

If the honourable, the good doctor from

Vancouver–Point Grey is that confident.... Last year that hon. member

stood in his place and for 20 minutes praised Argentina. Do you

remember that? He's got that steel-trap mind, that rapier political

judgment.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK : Back to

the principle of the bill. The point is this: it is well known in

constitutional law that the government couldn't do this. The Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), recently honoured with the Queen's

Counsel appointment, would have been one of the first to advise his

colleagues that they were powerless to do this. But I suppose they went

ahead anyway. They said: "We can get away with anything." They cannot

amend the sections in question; I can therefore advise all school

boards that they can ignore those new dates. The old deadlines are

still in place, and the old budgets are still in place. The

constitution, which is now law, indicates clearly that the legislature

is the supreme legislative authority in each province, not the cabinet.

This is not new; it was the same under the old constitution. It appears

to me that the government has acted unlawfully to extend those dates.

Yesterday

I was canvassing for the hon. members the various cutbacks that will be

caused by this legislation. I pointed out clearly that several school

districts represented by several of the members on the government side

have had to make drastic cutbacks in services to children and to

students.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : How about Maple Ridge? None in Maple Ridge? Would you resign if I can prove to you that it...?

[ Page 7216 ]

The hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is so discouraged that he is about to resign.

In Maple Ridge there is an assessment base of $202,900,000, and the provincial government has confiscated $82 million of that.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK :

The hon. member says that I don't read it right. It's too early in the

morning for him, I guess. These are the figures supplied by your own

government, the one that you support.

In Maple Ridge we have seen special program aid.... I

don't have the telegram handy; I read it out yesterday for all hon.

members. We've been notified that under the special needs programs

alone.... I wonder if the hon. member can hear me. He asked the

question; I would like him to know. They want to know from the hon.

member for Dewdney why they have to cut their special program aid. In

Maple Ridge there has been a 10 percent decrease in services provided.

This is an area that possibly has an increasing enrolment. Is the hon.

member going to resign? Isn't that the rule of the House? He's ignoring

me. I guess he's not going to resign. Just another Socred promise.

South

Park School is a special school within the Greater Victoria School

District which emphasizes parental involvement in all school

activities. Parents make a commitment to take

part in decision-making,

assisting with teaching programs, special activities and so on,

enabling the school to offer enriched learning opportunities for the

students. Enrolment is district-wide, and students come from all over

the district to attend the school. There's always a waiting list to

enter this school. Hon. members will remember South Park students who

for three years collected newspapers from our offices here in the

Legislature.

Parents and staff are particularly concerned

that the excellent French program will be terminated in September and

that the philosophy of the school will change direction. If tenured

teachers from within the district replace those presently teaching at

the school who do not have contracts, the situation is going to change.

They've sent me a note that they've sent to all parents at South Park

School which I think would be of some interest to hon. members.

"Due

to the school board cuts our philosophy and services to our children

are endangered. It is essential that each of us writes to the editors

of the local newspapers with copies to the trustees and to Dr. Brayne,

director of instruction administration, expressing our concerns. Here

are some points which you may wish to address in your letter.

"Five

out of ten of our current staff will not be renewed for next year.

These positions may be filled by tenure teachers who are not

necessarily committed to the program of the school. One of the school's

strengths is that current staff work well with each other, the parents

and the children. The principal's administrative time has been cut from

15 hours per week to 1 1/2 hours per week; in that time he must deal

with the many issues involved in running the school. Our children will

receive fewer hours of services from the school counsellor, the speech

therapist and the school psychologist. The services of our French

specialist have been cut out completely. Contrary to school board

projections, our enrolment is not declining; we have a waiting list.

"Members of your executive will be attending the school

board meeting on Monday, April 26, at 8 p.m. in the Paul Building. Anyone willing

to state their concerns, please attend."

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday I read out similar messages to parents from school

boards. I understand that school boards across the province are issuing

such notices to parents. The impact of this bill is to cut back on

these essential and enriched programs in the school districts.

want to deal now, as I haven't dealt so far, with the school district

of Vancouver in my own constituency. This is the proposed list of

reductions required for the new legislation sent to me from the

Vancouver School Board. The reduction required in that school district

is going to be $2,066,000.

There has been a notice from the

Ministry of Education that it is advising school boards that special

education will continue to be funded by the ministry. This is another

unfortunate and misleading announcement by the Ministry of Education,

giving the impression that the ministry is going to continue to fund

special-education programs. The fact is that there are only two 100

Vietnamese children only and some programs for severely handicapped

children. The great majority of special-education programs have not

been funded from the ministry budget, like learning assistance classes

for the retarded, blind and deaf, as I pointed out yesterday. You've

always got to keep on your toes with the ministry because they make

these announcements, they don't elaborate on them, and they give the

appearance that they're still supporting special education when they're

not.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : This is a message directly from your ministry. If I don't know what I'm talking about....

HON. MR. SMITH : It's on special approvals. You know that.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. LAUK :

The minister is a little disturbed. I wish he'd got disturbed before he

was bludgeoned into supporting this kind of legislation. If the

minister wants to support education in this province, he should be

disturbed with his colleagues, not with the people in this chamber. I

didn't give my approval to this legislation. Now he's upset. You should

have gotten upset two months ago instead of making that silly

announcement.

MR. SPEAKER : Address the Chair, please.

HON. MR. SMITH : You made the announcement. It was your announcement.

MR. LAUK :

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the minister says that it was my

announcement. One of the motivations in my making the announcement a

day before the minister was to demonstrate to him and picture for him

the wrongness of such a statement so he could probably change his mind

the next day. It was my fondest hope that the minister would not make

such an announcement.

[ Page

7217 ]

HON. MR. SMITH : You praised the announcement.

MR. LAUK :

Nonsense! I didn't praise it at all. The minister said I praised his

announcement. That's the kind of statement that's akin to all the

statements coming out of his ministry now. They're really designed to

hoodwink the public, to give the appearance of something that's not so.

For example, I heard a statement on the radio last night that this bill

will lower residential taxes. It was a very simple but totally false

and totally incorrect statement. It will not lower taxes for

residential homeowners. It's going to increase taxes even the ministry

and the Minister admit that.

Under the special education

program, the ministry comes out and says we're going to continue to

fund them. Well, there are only two areas where the ministry funds

special education: on the ESL for Vietnamese children and some programs

for the severely handicapped. The great majority of special education

programs, including learning assistance classes for the retarded, the

blind and the deaf, have not been funded from the ministry budget. I

wonder if the Minister would not agree that they will fund all of those

as well so that we can get something out of this debate from the

Minister.

Why is there no definition of special education in

this act? What exactly is the ministry's definition of special

education? We don't know that. The bill is so vague and unspecific that

we don't know what is going to happen to us. And in the secrecy of

cabinet, legally or illegally — they don't seem to care — they will

pass orders-in-council and make unpredictable grants or withhold grants

on their whim or in their political judgment. Why isn't special

education defined in the act? Why are there no guidelines set out for

these grants? What special-education programs will be funded by the

ministry in 1983? Will they pull back from the ones they fund this

year, the two I mentioned? And what guarantee do the parents of

special-needs children have that the ministry will fund programs for

their children if it is not spelled out clearly and unmistakably in

this act? The answer is that there is no guarantee.

Back to

the school district of Vancouver: I indicated that the school board

there is going to make a reduction in its budget of $2,066,000. What

does that include? It includes first-aid reductions, five additional

staff assistants to provide substitutes to compensate schools for time

lost performing first-aid duties — $80,000. What does that do? I

indicated yesterday administering medication to severely handicapped

and disabled children, and to other children on medication, was

extremely dangerous if carried out by untrained people in the school

system. I indicated that the School Trustees Association has received a

legal opinion that clearly indicates that the school boards and

teachers are placing themselves in serious legal jeopardy if they

administer medication in a way that can be interpreted by the courts as

negligent, or if the board permits unskilled or untrained people to do

so. I don't know why this government has to wait for a disaster before

it does something about that problem. It is only through the tremendous

effort of schools, principals and teachers, because of this

unreasonable responsibility placed upon the school system, that

something terrible hasn't happened.

What are the other cutbacks? "The French immersion library collection

has been cut back, both elementary and secondary. Materials and services for

French immersion library resource centres are an integral part of the Vancouver

school board library services. The total amount proposed for this area was specified

to document our request for federal funds. These programs will be continued

to the extent possible through the library services budget. Should federal funds

be forthcoming, these will be directed to that account." That has been

reduced by $72,000.

Instruction

supplies, general school supplies, annual per capita allowance. The

portion of this line item provides a cash grant to schools to cover

postage and other expenses, and that has been cut back. Duplicating

supplies, art, education and safety supplies. More and more emphasis is

being placed on the need for the safe use of art materials,

particularly in secondary schools. These safety items have been

suggested in some cases by the ministry itself. They are separated from

general supplies so that teachers do not have to choose between safety

supplies and student supplies so that safety supplies will always be

available. That's been cut back. In other words, we are sacrificing

safety in the school district of Vancouver in the use of some of these

supplies as a result of this legislation.

Career-preparation

programs, communications, curriculum development — all of the budget

items there have been cut back. ESL, home economics, industrial

education; and they have had to cut back on supplies for their band

program in the school district; also in the performing arts and

professional development. There are cutbacks in special education for

the educationally handicapped; $50,000 has been cut back from the

replacement-of-equipment fund; $40,000 has been cut back from the

cleaning and maintenance of secondary schools; $50,000 has been cut

back so there will be no additional temporary clerical staff to assist

with the work overloads. Referring to that, the tremendous increase in

red tape and administrative work imposed by the ministry on school

administrations in the past four or five years is something that has to

be seen to be believed. Most teachers in the field would suggest that

the kind of testing and evaluation requirements imposed by the ministry

are not that useful. The other reports and form-filling required by the

ministry have placed a clerical workload on school administrations that

takes the principal and teachers away from their classroom duties.

Their teaching time is being lowered as a result of these cutbacks in

clerical assistance in the school district of Vancouver. Very highly

skilled teachers and others will be busy doing this administrative

overload. On the one hand, the ministry forces the reductions in

budget; on the other, they won't relieve the school administrations

from this nonsense of filling out forms on a constant basis, their

rather ill-advised evaluation testing, and so on.

Instruction

supplies have been cut back by $96,000. Art education has been cut

back. Audiovisual resource materials have been cut back by $14,000.

Business education has been cut back in two areas — career and

community education services. Summer school and so on have been cut

back. Counselling, supportive services for career education and

computer software were cut by $16,000. There's a long list here, Mr.

Speaker. Oral language, performing arts, physical education — physical

education supplies have suffered cutbacks. The swimming program for

grade 8 to 10 and the community recreational program have been cut. The

reserve account for students traveling to provincial high school

championships has been decreased.

Mr. Speaker, going through this list you can see the opportunities falling

off the tree for a, whole generation of students: substitute teachers; district

staff; custodial staff; cancellation of minor alterations and equipment replacement

- and health budgets. Let me deal for a moment with the

[ Page 7218 ]

health

budget for the school board of Vancouver. For many years the school

trustees have asked the provincial government, through the Ministry of

Health, to start funding some of the health programs in the school

district. It is not considered by school trustees to be the

responsibility of the local taxpayer to provide health services to the

students, even though it's at the school establishment; this funding

should be coming from the provincial government's Ministry of Health.

The

cutback for the Vancouver School District alone is $114,000. What are

the implications? Some staff reductions will be required, and they will

drastically reduce services in this area. The school board emphasizes

that these cutbacks will be made in consultation with the Vancouver

health department. But, again, rather than moving forward in health

services to students in the city, they've had to move backward.

Mr.

Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the member for Kootenay (Mr.

Segarty) and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) are here; that's

four government members who are taking an interest in education in this

province. I'm just wondering about the other members of the government

side. They have no interest in what's happening under this bill; that's

very surprising. Their constituencies are being drastically affected.

They have no real understanding, I suppose, of the effect of this very

serious bill.

In the last three days I've been trying to

point out to the government members the folly of their approach to

restraint, particularly in education. I've attempted to outline to them

and the public as best I can how I feel the legislation itself is

misguided and how it goes a long way to destroy the concept of

education as we've known it in British Columbia for many years. The

control of the educational system over the past six years has been, bit

by bit, absorbed by the central ministry. It is the philosophy of the

New Democratic Party that the Ministry of Education be a resource and

not an authority; that it provide support for the school boards and

school districts in the provision of education to people in their

districts, not as an authority. Every move that a school board now

makes comes under the scrutiny or directive of the minister himself.

told you before, Mr. Speaker, that the clerical and administrative

overload has been quite heavy in all school districts. I'm reminded

that in the minister's report of his 1980 fall tour he stated: "The

public school system, in response to demand" — demand from his ministry

— "has taken on more than it can handle and now suffers from

institutional overload." As he indicated in his report, there's nothing

in the act to relieve this overload. In fact, the effect of this bill

is to increase the overload rather than reduce it. When staff and

services get chopped, other people who are still kept on have to fill

in the void.

I think I'm about come to the end of my little

talk on this bill. I've covered in some detail the areas that I think

will be affected by this bill. I pointed out to the Legislature, as

best I could, where this financial formula will increase taxes to the

homeowner in the various 75 school districts, not only next year but

this year as well.

In addition, I tried to point out that

the bill itself is really a very clever political device to hoodwink

the public into thinking there will be a reduction in taxes. Some press

reports, I regret to say, are still making that statement, even though

the direct statement of a reduction of taxes has never been claimed by

the government. The confiscation of the industrial and commercial tax

base has been such that there is virtually no way in which a school

district can predict how high taxes will be from any given year to the

next. Under the interim finance bill for education we have seen a

deliberate attempt by the minister and this government to get an iron

grip on the education system in this province. In so doing they have

strangled a whole generation of kids that will have less of an

opportunity to obtain an education than you and I did. I predict that

we will be going on to a shift system of schooling, that the cutbacks

in enriched programs in our school districts will continue, and that

the money that was confiscated by the provincial government in all

likelihood will not be used entirely for education but used to balance

the provincial budget. It will be used, perhaps, for major projects

announced by the government and underway in some cases.

is a regrettable bill. I don't think that the New Democratic Party, if

it were in government, would ever conceive of taking unto itself this

kind of power. If Mr. Speaker casts his mind back to the 1972-75 era,

if a bill like this were ever introduced by the NDP I think that there

would be a move on by the Social Credit Party and others to have the

legislation reserved or disallowed by the Lieutenant-Governor or

Governor-General. Yet it is of some sadness to us that the import and

effect of this bill is not completely understood by the public. I think

that people working in the field of education understand it full well.

There are hundreds of thousands of those people, and those people are

going to be asking questions not only of this minister but of each and

every government MLA, how they voted and where they stand. It is clear

to me that if they vote for this bill, that is going to be one of the

major election issues in the next election. The impact of this bill

will be felt, clearly, on every family in the province, starting this

year and well into next year. The response of these families at the

ballot box, I suggest, is going to be very clear. This move by the

government is a power grab and a money grab. It is designed to balance

their budget and to get an iron grip on the education system. They have

destroyed and are about to destroy any feature of local control and

autonomy. They have cut off and silenced the parents of students

throughout the province. The only way they can express their

unhappiness will be at the ballot box.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for sending me this birth control pill. It is a plot.

summary, the members of the NDP intend to vote against this bill in

every stage of its process through this House. They intend to go on the

hustings and in the constituencies — not only our constituencies, but

Oak Bay and Chilliwack and others — and inform the good people there of

the passage of this bill and the impact on education. I charge all hon.

members to think carefully before the vote is taken.

MR. RITCHIE :

I am going to be fairly brief, but I just thought, in view of the fact

that that member did make such an attack on the independent school

system, that a few points should be made here for the record.

First

of all, he said that we didn't like his message. That is correct. We

didn't like his message because it is like the messages of all his

colleagues over there. It was negative, with a great deal of doom,

gloom and the usual scare tactics.

He also said that he

believed in democracy in the school system. Yet that same member would

deny the students and parents of these students the choice of whether

they send their children to public or private schools. Yes, it all

depends whether we're in an election campaign or not as to what the

type of democracy is. If we're not in an election, democracy

[ Page 7219 ]

means:

"You do it our way, or else." But if we are in an election, then as a

famous letter said: "Vote for us and we will continue with the support

for the independent school system." I think that is absolutely

disgusting, misleading, and a terrible sham of democracy in our school

system.

He also said: "They want to control the minds of the

kids in this province. They want to control education from a central

level in a right-wing arbitrary fashion." I always hesitate to get into

the past, but I think it's very important that periodically we refer to

the past. In this particular case I refer to the NDP Waffle Manifesto —

I believe it's

section 23 — that says that they will use schools and

other bodies in order to socialize Canada. That comment that he made

here during his long, weary, dull talk is very misleading, and is a

coverup for their plan to socialize Canada.

He went on to

say that independent schools under this government are getting a 40

percent increase this year, while the public education system has been

thrown into chaos. He says: "Now why is this happening?" Enrolment in

the independent school system is growing. That is a very good reason

why it is happening. He also says: "We are savaging the public school

system and are shovelling money out to the independent school system.

What kind of a government is this; a government that supports the

independent school system at the expense of the public education

system?" That's absolute nonsense. I can't understand that member,

whose name is on that letter to the independent-school people telling

them that they would continue to receive their funding under a

socialist government. How misleading!

He also said: "If you

vote the wrong way in a particular district in this province, you're

not going to get any of that $75 million." How ridiculous a statement,

when he himself signed a letter on behalf of his caucus saying: "If you

vote for us, we will support you." How misleading! What a terrible

statement to make!

Then he goes on to say: "All those

millionaires over there are all right. They've got the money to send

their kids to the private schools, to send them to expensive places in

the summer and give them all the breaks in the world." Mr. Speaker,

both you and I know many people throughout this province who are not

millionaires — far from it — and certainly not as wealthy as the member

who made this ridiculous statement. Many families who are average

working families and average wage-earners are dedicated to making sure

in their minds their children get the best. Some of them really

scrounge to gather up enough funds to make sure their children get the

type of education they want. I would like to remind that member, who

seems to want to use all those scare tactics and knock down those who

have had any success in life for political gains, that there are

many.... In fact, I would say the largest percentage of those students

who are attending independent schools are not from homes of

millionaires.

He also went on to say: "Every school trustee

has called this bill a confiscation of local power and autonomy. There

isn't one school trustee in this province who hasn't made that charge."

He has left the chamber. I'm sure he has heard enough. He doesn't like the truth.

would like to tell the House that this is quite untrue, and certainly

isn't true in the Central Fraser Valley, because I had the opportunity

and privilege of speaking to our School District 34 people, the

trustees and all the teachers. They called a meeting there not too long

ago, Mr. Speaker, and out of approximately 600 members — teachers —

they had between 70 and 80 show up, and only a few of that group

listened to the trash that we hear from the opposition. In one little

positive note, he said in here: "I have been a very great admirer of

the influence of the Scottish immigrants to this country." That indeed

makes me feel very proud, because we had to go to work for these

things; we felt that education was something we should work for, and we

did work for it. He talked about poor immigrants coming to this country

and suffering under our system. No, we didn't suffer under the system,

nor did my children; they benefited greatly under the system. But in

any case, I appreciate his remarks and I only wish that he would talk

to more of those Scottish immigrants who have benefited from the

system, particularly in British Columbia, and he'd find out that we are

used to having to exert ourselves and work for those things that we

think are valuable to us.

AN HON. MEMBER : He just talks to Kinnaird.

MR. RITCHIE :

Oh, yes, he talks to Kinnaird, but that's another type. Some of us come

out to this country for the opportunities it offers and others come out

to perpetuate the mess that they and their types helped create back

there in Britain. But we have to put up with that, Mr. Speaker.

I've

noticed one other item. He said that the basic underpinning of that

influence was the sovereignty of the family over education. We can have

our schools, we need our teachers and we need our programs, but the

family has the final say. What a terrible statement for one who would

walk out of this House and refuse to vote on a matter which gave people

some say in education, which gave them the opportunity to select a

private or independent school system for their children! What

misleading statements— all the way through his whole dull, gloomy-doomy speech —

for anyone to make, particularly that member who would sign that

terrible letter saying: "Vote for us, put us back into office, and we

will continue to support the independent school system." Where do you

stand? Are you for it or are you against it? You can't play this game

all the time. Your philosophy is catching up with you, as we have just

witnessed in another part of Canada yesterday. You just can't carry on.

I know that the people out in my community, who are very proud of our

independent school system, are terribly annoyed at the way those who

would stand up here for political gains attempt to deceive and to cover

up some of the statements— a disgusting performance.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a very strong supporter of the independent school system and I'm also a strong supporter of the public system —

I believe in both. I was not fortunate to have had the opportunity of

going to a private or independent school, but it hasn't done me any

harm, nor do I believe that going to a public school today will do

anyone any harm— it's a good system. But as in anything else,

competition is healthy; people should have a choice. As the member

said, we should have democracy out there. Parents should have an

opportunity to send their children to either an independent school or a

public school.

Mr. Speaker, I want it on record here, on

behalf of all of those people out there whose children are attending

independent schools, that they should know what is being said in this

House. I will make sure that they will learn of the things that are

being said here. I am very concerned. We hear so much t talk about loss

of democracy, about the poor and the starving,

[ Page 7220 ]

the

hunger and all the rest of it. I just feel that this restraint program

is a cleansing process; it's a good program. We have waste in our

schools like we have in many other areas. I suspect that if we go out,

listen to and talk with all those people who are really serious out

there in the school system, they will say the same thing: there is

absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's waste that is the biggest

threat to our education system or any other program that we have in

this province— it's waste, and there is waste out there.

want to make sure that that member realizes that his scare tactics are

not going to work, and that I will make sure that all of those people— certainly in my community, and further afield — will know just what the tactics are.

MR. GABELMANN :

I'm not going to react to the comments made by the member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). He was debating a bill that is not before

the House. This is not a bill that comments on whether or not we should

have independent schools in this province. I'm all in favour of there

being independent schools for those people who want them— but not with my tax dollars. That's all I want to say on that issue.

The

bill that we're debating this week in the Legislature has generated

more correspondence and more activity in my constituency than any other

act of this government since 1979. Shortly after the bill was

introduced, I was asked to attend a meeting in Gold River that was

called on short notice by the school board, in conjunction with the

school teachers' association in that community. Somewhere in the order

of 200 to 250 parents and taxpayers came out to that meeting in that

small community of Gold River to discuss what they see as a very, very

disastrous piece of legislation for them.

Today I want to go

through, in as careful and rational a way as I can, some of the reasons

why I think this legislation should be withdrawn. I would like to

propose that if the government would agree to withdraw the bill— and I don't feel very confident about that —

they would do so, and then look at the McMath report, which they've had

in their hands now for five or six years, and which I think provides a

fair and equitable formula for preserving and maintaining a very

important balance between the rights of the province and the rights of

the local school districts in education.

Members of this

Legislature know that the McMath report called for 75 percent of school

financing to be home by the provincial general revenue, while leaving

the full tax revenue— commercial, industrial and residential — in the

hands of local school boards. That was a rational report. Its

conclusions were reached after extensive travel and discussion with a

variety of people around this province, and in my judgment, that is the

way to go. I don't understand why the government has decided to go in

an entirely different way, because what the bill essentially does in

rural British Columbia is to deny revenue to local school boards so

that they can operate a school program independent from Victoria.

the school district of Vancouver Island West, 92 percent of their tax

base has been removed. Under this legislation, that school district is

going to have to provide its share of the program and its local

programs with a tax base of 8 percent. They have gone from being the

eleventh richest school district in British Columbia to the

seventy-fourth. The reason they're not seventy-fifth and last is

because Nishga district is seventy-fifth. Special considerations are in

play in that district because of DIA involvement and special provincial

funding because of their unique situation. In effect, the school

district of Vancouver Island West has gone from the eleventh richest to

the seventy-fourth, virtually the last or the poorest.

The

other day in this House, during the budget debate, the member for North

Peace River (Mr. Brummet) made an eloquent plea for those rural parts

of this province— what he called the northern parts — which he quite

rightly described as those areas that produce the wealth. He made an

eloquent plea for them. I think those of us on this side of the House

who represent those kinds of constituencies have done the same thing.

There is a resentment in those kinds of industrial communities in rural

British Columbia that do produce the wealth. There is a resentment

against Victoria and the lower mainland that is akin to the resentment

felt by western Canadians about Ontario and Quebec. There is that same

kind of relationship. The people in Tahsis, for example, wonder why

they pay somewhere in the order of $17 million to $20 million a year in

income tax and receive somewhere in the order of $1 million to $1.5

million in benefits from the province. There are some good reasons why

there might be some disparity but it is very difficult to explain to

them why there is that kind of disparity. What happens in the face of

that already inequitable tax system is that these people will be faced

with losing yet another of their tax-producing revenues. As I say, in

Vancouver Island West 92 percent— $64 million out of $68 million — is stripped away.

The

board of trustees for School District 84 and the Vancouver Island West

Teachers Association felt so incensed by Bill 27 that they were

inclined to spend the money to jointly take out a full-page newspaper

advertisement in The Record, the paper that serves the west coast of

Vancouver Island. They talk about the effects of this bill. The

headline reads: "School Taxes Skyrocket: Gold River Up 80 Percent." I

am going to read some of the copy from this ad:

"The

new education finance formula recently unveiled by the provincial

government attempts to equalize taxes provincewide but does not provide

equal- educational opportunities. Gold River school taxes will be

closer to lower mainland taxes, but education in Gold River will not be

equal to that in the lower mainland."

MR. MUSSALLEM : Why is that?

MR. GABELMANN :

To the member for Dewdney, who represents a lower mainland riding, it

is because school districts in rural British Columbia have for a long

time provided basically an inferior level of education as compared to

those provided in bigger cities. Five schools in Vancouver Island West

have no libraries and the school district has no library resource

centre. If a kid going to school has no access to a library, I would

say that is an inferior level of education. The ad goes on to talk

about other implications of the bill:

"School

District 84 will no longer benefit from Tahsis company taxes. We will

share those taxes with the rest of the province, but they will not be

sharing their residential taxes with us. This district will not be able

to provide the facilities and resources that other districts take for

granted."

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my remarks this

morning I intend to read from a sampling of the letters I have been

receiving in the last few weeks which will illustrate those points

further.

[ Page 7221 ]

There

are some interesting statistics concerning school children and the

number who are able to go on to full-time university of non-vocational

college programs year by year. It is unfortunate we don't have

television in the House because I could more effectively demonstrate by

showing this graph. Since 1975 there is a line almost straight down

which represents the number of rural or, as it says on the graph,

nonmetropolitan school graduates who are able to go on to fulltime

university or non-vocational college programs. In 1975, after a rapid

increase in the three previous years, about 31 percent of those

children in rural areas were able to go on to university. At that time

roughly 34 percent of metropolitan kids went on. The disparity was not

particularly large: 34 percent urban, 31 percent rural. The latest

figures I have are for the 1979-80 school year, so we are talking about

June 1980. Since 1975 the metropolitan percentage has stayed roughly

the same— about 33 percent or 34 percent of the kids going on to

post-secondary education at the university level. In the

non-metropolitan area the figure has dropped to about 21 percent, so

we've had a drop from, 31 percent to 21 percent of kids going on to

that kind of post-secondary education in the rural areas. And the

member for Dewdney asks me why education standards are inferior in

rural areas. The documentation is there, it's clear and the trend is

really rather disturbing.

The effects of this bill in terms

of rural versus urban is further dramatized when you look at the budget

cut in each school district. I have in front me a list of the cuts in

dollar amounts per pupil this year, and they range from $221 less per

pupil down to zero. When you look at the school districts that have had

the largest cuts per pupil, you see they are the same rural districts

that are already suffering under an inferior education system. They are

already suffering because their students are not going on to university

at the same level as urban kids. Vancouver Island West is third in this

list of rural districts. Vancouver Island North is further down; it

looks like it's about tenth or twelfth. The districts that have

suffered the largest cuts are: Gulf Islands, Nishga, Vancouver Island

West, Stikine, Fernie, Terrace, Agassiz-Harrison, Lillooet, Qualicum,

Windermere, Kitimat, Smithers, Bums Lake, Kimberley, Vancouver Island

North, and Queen Charlottes. There isn't a lower mainland or Victoria

school district among them in the first group that I've read. These

districts all have between a $96 and $221 cut per pupil. The cut in

West Vancouver is $25; the cut in North Vancouver is $32; and in

Vancouver Island West it's $151.

Mr. Speaker, the average

residential assessment in 1981, plus full-time enrolment, produced a

provincial average residential assessment per student of $14, 952.45— just short of the $15,000 average residential assessment per student. That $15,000 average in the province — not the high figure but the average —

compares to the three school districts in my riding as follows:

Vancouver Island West, $4,700; Vancouver Island North, $7,900; and

Campbell River, $10,500. Those figures are important because they have

to he read in conjunction with figures that the ministry has accepted

over the years: costs of education in rural districts are about 10

percent higher than they are in urban districts. We're saying to those

school districts: "You no longer have the tax base needed to raise the

kind of revenues to attempt to produce some kind of equitability for

rural school children."

Mr. Speaker, the minister is back. I

appreciate that he can't sit forever, and I don't expect him to sit in

his chair every minute of this debate. I wouldn't be critical of him

for not being here for the first 15 minutes of my comment, but I hope

he'll have a chance to quickly go through the Blues. I am sure he will.

Mr. Speaker, there are basically two concerns about the legislation: firstly,

property taxes are going to skyrocket in rural constituencies, particularly

in mine; and secondly, education standards are going to be dramatically affected.

I'm not going to spend very much time talking about the property tax issue,

because as I read the people in my constituency, they're prepared to pay

more if they get more for their education. But what they're faced with now

is paying more and getting less. The Vancouver Island North district council

of the teachers federation prepared a brief. They argue that when you combine

this bill together with the restraint program, the cutbacks will do. As far

as they're concerned there are seven very important things: (1) it will

erode educational service, and I've talked a little bit about that;

(2) it will perpetuate inequities in funding and service and ignore specific district

needs; (3) it will undermine the traditional right to local self-government;

(4) it will increase unemployment; (5) it will fail to control inflation;

(6) it negates the collective bargaining process; and (7) it punishes past self

restraint.

I want to pick up on number 7. One of the —

I was going to say beautiful ironies, but really one of the tragic

ironies of this legislation is that those school districts that

practised very careful budgetary measures over the last few years.... I

think of Vancouver Island West in particular. They had a very tight

school board, in terms of their budget. They are hit harder by this

legislation than more profligate school districts. If you spent a lot

before, you aren't hit as badly now. But if you were very careful with

the taxpayers' dollars before, the implications of this new legislation

are that you are hit even worse today. That seems to me a terrible

irony.

Some things are really concerning. The Vancouver

Island North School District has made two trips to the bank in the last

few weeks. They have now borrowed $3.2 million at 18 percent on a

demand loan so they can meet their operating costs. Why is that? It's

because the taxes that normally come to them through the local

municipality from the industrial and commercial sector are no longer

coming.

What kind of restraint program forces school

districts to pay 18 percent on borrowed money? I understand that

several other districts in the province have already done the same

thing: borrowed money to meet operating costs. I don't know how many

more there will be in the coming days and weeks. Does that not seem to

be somewhat illogical? Why would we force school districts to borrow

money from the banks at 18 percent at a time when, theoretically at

least, the government's talking about restraint? It leads one to

believe that the whole so-called restraint program is really pretty

phony and is just a political gesture to try to demonstrate to the

public that the government cares about costs. If it cared about costs,

they wouldn't be paying 18 percent to the bank in Port Hardy.

One

of the problems with time limits is that you have to leave out a lot of

material, and it's really difficult to make the argument effectively

when you're dealing with a complicated piece of legislation like this.

I'm going to have to hurry along.

I mentioned earlier that

in Vancouver Island West there are five schools with no libraries. They

have no library resource centre. In a time when computer technology is

increasingly important and when children should be at least familiar

with, if not trained in, computer technology, the Vancouver Island West

School District has one computer in

[ Page

7222 ]

Gold River. There's nothing in the rest of the

district. There's another one that one of the teachers owns personally

and privately; he brings it to school with him. This is in an age when

computers are central and essential to the lives of school children.

The

Minister of Education hasn't been in the school in Port Eliza. The last

time I went to the school it had to be closed down because of an

infestation of lice. The minister hasn't been in the school in Kyuquot.

There are two there. When I was there attempting to answer for the kids

in general, we couldn't hear each other because the generator that

provides the electricity was so loud outside the almost paper-thin wall

of the building. Somebody has to teach in that situation, and kids have

to learn in that situation. The minister hasn't been with me or, I

think, even by himself in the school in Zeballos where a school that

was built in the 1930s, falling apart.... It is a nice old building but

totally inadequate to the needs of school children in that area. People

in those communities wonder why it is that we sports freaks can have a

football stadium but they can't have a decent school. They wonder why

it is that hundreds of millions of dollars appear to be available for

big projects but they can't have a library.

Taxpayers and parents and kids in Port Hardy — a community with two big shopping centres and another small one —

don't have a track. That doesn't seem a big deal to those of us who

have gone to school in bigger places or who represent urban ridings.

Every school has a track, don't they? Or, if not, there is one down the

road within busing distance. But the actions of this bill and this

government in its programs recently mean that the Jay budget and the

proposed $100,000 to build a track are being cut back so that in Port

Hardy— where there has somehow been enough money to build two and a half shopping centres — they can't build a track for the kids.

One

wonders why the bill was introduced. Is it because taxpayers in West

Vancouver were clamouring about the fact that they had to pay $800 on

school taxes and they didn't like it? Is it because taxes were getting

a little high in West Vancouver, in Shaughnessy, in Point Grey and in

Oak Bay, and those Socred members representing those constituencies

felt that they needed to do something to head off the "taxpayers'

revolt" in those rich areas?

Let me repeat something that

the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) said a week or so ago during

the budget debate which I thought was an excellent point, one that I

know a lot of urban MLAs don't understand. He said: "People wonder why

people choose to live next to the smelter in Trail. One of the reasons

they choose to live next to the smelter in Trail is because that's

where the jobs are and it is cheaper to live there than it would be to

live in Fruitvale or in Rossland. The closer you are to the industrial

site, the cheaper it is."

That's the nature of the way

assessments are calculated in this province. If it's an "undesirable

area," your assessments are lower. People who choose to live in Oak Bay

or in West Vancouver, away from the smog, away from the pollution, away

from the industrial hurly-burly, have to pay a price for that luxury.

Those people who choose to move to communities like Zeballos, Gold

River, Port Hardy, Port McNeill or Woss, or to any other number of

communities around this province, should receive some benefit for their

lack of luxurious living surroundings. One of those benefits in recent

years has been that they pay less for property taxes, less on their

school taxes. The minister has wiped out that advantage by this

legislation. That's why I'm getting letters by the carload from

northern Vancouver Island, as is the minister. There are reasons why

there are inequities. There are reasons why West Van and Oak Bay pay

more; and they should continue to pay more.

In the 15

minutes that I have left, I want to read from as many of the letters as

I can. I'm not going to read them all and I'm not going to read all of

any of them; but I want to read some highlights from a few of them. I'm

not going to name the people but I'm quite prepared to have the names

made available if there's any doubt about what I'm reading.

The first letter is from a taxpayer in Gold River. He makes a very important opening statement:

"It

would appear that the new school finance formula has not done what

surely its goals must first have been. The goals I would suggest should

have been prioritized with a view to ensuring (

a) the opportunities of

all school students be assured; (

b) the opportunities of all school

students be equal; (

c) the necessary tools be made available to

accomplish this.

"It would appear that (

a) opportunities are to varying degrees; (

b) opportunities are not equal;

(

c) the necessary tools are abundant in some areas and lacking in

others."

He then goes on for two and a half

pages to tell the minister and myself what he thinks is wrong with the

legislation. The next letter is from the vice-chairman of the school

board in Vancouver Island West. I won't read all of her letter, but a

part of it reads:

"This new formula has hurt

this district more than any other in the province because we have had a

very small residential tax base— 8 percent. Local share of the budget

will be extremely expensive because it will be paid by very few people.

Districts with large residential and low industrial bases are even

better off than before because the entire industrial base of the

province helps to lower the homeowner taxes in those areas.

Unfortunately they are not sharing their high residential base with us.

Under the old system we were the eleventh wealthiest district in the

province. Now we are seventy-fourth out of 75. The only one lower is

Nishga, who has such a low residential base that special provision will

be made for them."

This is a letter from the village of Zeballos:

"Dear Minister Smith:

"The council of the village of Zeballos strongly protests

the loss of School District 84's non-residential tax base, which represents

a 92 percent drop in revenue generated for school purposes. Equalizing school

taxes throughout B.C. does not mean equalizing the standard of education throughout

the province. Our area is already lacking in the services, facilities and equipment

that other school districts already have, and this new finance formula affords

no opportunity to rectify this imbalance. If taxes are to be equalized, the

council of the village of Zeballos urges that your ministry grant the necessary

concessions to also equalize the standard of education."

The village of Gold River sent this, from the mayor to the minister: "The

council of the village of Gold River wishes to protest in the strongest terms

the proposed new education finance formula and its effect on School District

84." She goes on in her letter.

[ Page 7223 ]

A letter to the minister from a taxpayer in Gold River said this:

"We in the west bitterly complain of the policy by which

the federal government take the wealth generated in the west without a proportional

return. This exact same thing has now occurred at the provincial level. In Gold

River we have an isolated town lacking many of the advantages and cultural resources

available to those in larger centres. What we did have, though, was the opportunity

of improving the educational facilities available to our children and bringing

them up to the level obtainable elsewhere in the province. In the past, in this

town, it was not an uncommon reason for a happily settled family to leave when

their children came of secondary school age.

"It

is time that such cities as Victoria and Vancouver accept the fact that

they are sustained only by the wealth generated in the outlying

forestry and mining industries. In order to attract and keep families

in these often isolated communities, there should be some benefits. A

good education for our children should be the very 'minimum benefit'

that we seek. I therefore urge that you rearrange your formula in order

to redress the financial loss that School District 84 has experienced."

letter to the minister from another parent and taxpayer in Gold River

says: "I used to be a passive taxpayer, but with this latest new scheme

of being fair to the multitude, I see red. Are we denied the right to

qualified teachers, librarians, school psychologists, qualified trained

counsellors, etc.?" In another letter from Tahsis a parent says: "We

desperately need the resource moneys generated here to stay here to

help us catch up to standards taken for granted on most of the

mainland." Another letter to the minister from Gold River says: "I have

lived in Gold River for 15 years, and our schools have never had

adequate equipment or enough teachers to give our students an education

which could in any way compare with the Vancouver districts." Another

Gold River taxpayer says: "The costs of our schools in remote

settlements, such as Kendrick Arm, Esperanza, Port Eliza, Zeballos,

etc., is inordinately high. Maintenance, travel time and, of course,

the pupil-teacher ratio result in a considerable drain on an already

strained budget."

A letter from a mother in Gold River says: "The following points affect us" — and she makes four points:

"1.

We have a low residential tax base, therefore our educational services

will not be on the same standard with the rest of the province. I

believe this will hurt our children, not only now but in the future

when they leave Gold River to attend university.

"2.

Our largest industry, Tahsis Co., pays taxes which will be shared with

the rest of the province. Will others share their residential taxes

with us? No, probably not.

"Over the last

several years, the board of School District 84 have struggled to keep

their spending down. Now those who spend wildly are going to be

subsidized. This is really unfair. Is there no justice? Is there no

justice? I believe that some equipment and personnel that some schools,

say, in the lower mainland have, i.e. computers, libraries, special

teachers or counsellors, are taken for granted at these schools. The

same equipment would be a luxury in our school district if we had it,

which under your plan there is not a hope of ever getting it.

Therefore, Mr. Smith, as a homeowner and a mother of two school

children, I strongly urge you to amend the school taxation formula as

soon as possible so it will be fair to all concerned."

The

minister will note, I'm sure, as I read these letters from concerned

residents of North Island, that they're not complaining about their

taxes. The traditional, typical kind of complaint about higher taxes is

not being made. The taxes are higher, but that's not their chief

concern; their chief concern is the level of education.

This one is from a teacher:

"It's

beyond me how your new formula could reflect equalization when our

educational delivery potential is now so low that eventually it will be

virtually impossible for the Tahsis Co. and the school district to

attract competent professional people to work here.

"Ironically

we share our rich industrial tax-base money generated here with the

rest of the province, while they do not share their rich residential

taxes with us. We have a low residential tax base."

I'm not

going to read all of the letters, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to pick on

one or two others as we go through this. This is from a newly arrived

resident of Gold River:

"This district, which

has for a number of years returned some portion of taxes collected to

Victoria, is now being penalized for its past frugality. Even basic

maintenance of the buildings becomes a problem when more than 50

percent of your maintenance budget is absorbed by transportation and

accommodation expenses alone."

How many school districts in the lower mainland or the lower Island even think about accommodation costs?

"The

majority of schools in this district have no library or resource

facilities, and those which do have them do not enjoy the same

amenities which are taken for granted in larger centres.

"Your

restraint program curtailed some of the projected improvements, but

your new finance formula has rendered it virtually impossible for this

school district to maintain even the standards of education now being

offered, which are already lower than many parents would like,

particularly in the outlying communities of our district."

There

is a theme through all of this that makes it unnecessary for me to read

all of the letters, but let me read this one from a husband and wife— parents:

"Our

schools are desperately lacking in services of qualified librarians,

school psychologists, trained counsellors and adequate library

facilities, to name a few. As well, the schools need maintenance had

the same school facilities and educational opportunities as the lower

mainland children have."

Here's another letter from a woman in Gold River:

"The

school district lacks many of the services, facilities and equipment

which many districts helped by your new formula already have. The

schools in this district will not be able to provide the cultural

activities that our rural community lacks and that children in the

lower mainland have at their doorsteps. We will be forced to send our

children away from home to benefit from a first-class education. We

will pay equal taxes as residents of the lower mainland and get an

unequal education."

[ Page 7224 ]

And she goes on in much the same vein as the others.

I'm running out of time so I'm not going to read all of these many letters. Here's one from a woman in Gold River:

realize that real estate values have escalated assessments in the lower

mainland, but shouldn't these homeowners pay something for their higher

equity? If they sold their homes, they would realize a great profit.

Why should I pay so they can avail themselves of these advantages,

while your programs are not allowing our schools to provide an

equitable standard of education? I'm willing to pay for my children's

education, but I want a better quality for my extra money."

Again,

that same theme. There is not an unwillingness to bear an extra burden

on taxation but they want some reasonable standards of education in

exchange. They don't want to have to send their kids out, or have to

move to a different school district to avail themselves of a reasonable

education. Society should recognize that those people who work in

isolated and remote communities in this province provide a very real

benefit to all of us in this society, and in exchange we should be

providing, through education, some benefit to them.

Mr. Speaker, here's a letter from a woman in Zeballos:

"Our

school is very antiquated. It appears to have been built in the 1930s,

making the facilities over 50 years outdated. Our grades in this

five-room school go from kindergarten to grade ten with an enrolment of

75 pupils, a teaching staff the equivalent of five, with no clerical

employment, leaving these responsibilities also to the teachers. The

bathroom facilities are in the basement. The school looks like

something out of the skid row district"— I can echo that. "There is no

playground, but there is some surrounding bush that the kids can play

in. There is no gym. There is no physical education teacher. There is

no French program. There are no special education teachers, no

counsellors, no home economics teacher, no industrial arts teacher, no

science teacher. I can go on and on."

Some people will say

that's the choice you make when you move to Zeballos. But somebody has

to move to Zeballos. Somebody has to work those forests. Somebody has

to work in that mine. Somebody has to work in the fishing industry out

of Zeballos, and those somebodies who do that are likely to have

children. But are we going to say to them that the facilities which are

available in the rest of the province are not available to them? I

think that is wrong. Finally, Mr. Speaker— I know my time is almost up —

I want to say that I was in Port Hardy on the weekend. I learned that

three special education classes have been cancelled in the Vancouver

Island North School District as a result of the program. Special

education, while a frill to some people, is probably one of the most

essential basics that exists in rural Vancouver Island and, I suspect,

in most of the rest of this province. Special education services have

been cut back and three programs specifically eliminated as a result of

the minister's programs. I find that highly objectionable and, I think,

wrong.

MRS. WALLACE : I would certainly be more than

happy to yield the floor to any of the four back-bench members of the

government who are in the House. I don't know where they all are today.

was very interested in listening to my colleague for North Island tell

of some of the conditions that exist in those outlying schools in the

northern reaches of Vancouver Island. But let me tell you that we don't

have a particularly good picture in the more central part of Vancouver

Island either. Certainly in the two school districts which are

encompassed in the confines of my provincial constituency, we are

facing some extremely severe problems as a result of this government's

change in the finance formula. The conditions in both of those school

districts are different because of the financial structure of those

districts but, nonetheless, are severe in both areas. Certainly when

you look at the budget figures and realize that the public school

education system has been limited on the part of the provincial

government to a 9.6 percent increase from last year at the same time

that a provincial arbitrator has ruled that salaries will be increased

by 17.5 percent, you recognize the confines within which school boards

are being asked to work. It is an impossible task that has been put

before our local school boards, and they are not even fully aware of

what the restraint program is all about. They have not been advised

what the core curriculum consists of or what share the provincial

government will actually be making towards the educational costs. It is

certainly true that the Minister of Education has sent them reams of

material and tables. But the real facts are not there, because they do

not know what is going to be included in the core curriculum. One of

the major problems facing school districts right now is trying to

calculate what they will or will not be able to do within the restraint

guidelines set up by this government. I'd like first to deal with the

Cowichan School District. One of the first things that it's meant in

that school district is that they've had to go out and borrow an

additional $2.5 million because of delays in funding on the part of

this government. At today's interest rates, that's an outrage.

Certainly the front-page story in the local paper indicated just that

by saying "Outraged Board Must Borrow Money to Cover Costs."

"The

treasurer of the board said the board would have to borrow additional

money simply to meet such basic costs as its payroll because of

proposed changes in the way and amount the province pays each school

district. Noting the proposed provincial changes are presently before

the Legislature, Brown said no money, not even what is owed to this

district under the old financing system, is coming through."

Various

school trustees also spoke about it. One is quoted as saying: "This is

really outrageous, that we have to borrow because they, the provincial

government, haven't got their legislation through." Another school

trustee said: "I just can't believe it. They're telling us to cut back,

and they're forcing us to borrow from the banks." That's the situation

facing the Cowichan School District.

This government is

putting such restraints on that district that they are talking about

closing some of the small schools in the outlying areas. One of those

schools is on Thetis Island. They're going to ask small children,

rather than just go to their little school on Thetis Island for the

first six grades, to get on a ferry, be brought across to Vancouver

Island and then be bused somewhere else if there's a bus available, or

maybe make their own way into one of the Chemainus schools. At the same

time, they're talking about closing one of the Chemainus schools. This

is very upsetting to parents who live in a community and work for that

school through their home and school society. In a small community

[ Page 7225 ]

school becomes the focal point. It's not only used during school hours,

from nine to four; it's used for a great many activities. The parents

are interested in playground equipment, classes and extracurricular

activities. If you take the school away, you destroy the social

structure of that little community on Thetis Island, or that little

community wherever it may be, which is so important to our way of life

in British Columbia.

The figures are very interesting. Under

the old system in the Lake Cowichan School District, one mill would

raise $333,346 in taxes; under the new system that the minister is

bringing in, one mill will only raise $126,140— one-third of what could

be raised last year by the school board. The government is proposing to

make some refund; they're talking about limits of $95— that no tax base

for operating costs is going to increase by more than $95. But, Mr.

Speaker, those tables that the minister is circulating include that

$95. It's hidden away in those figures; it's already there. So if your

taxes are going up, you don't have that $95; it's already worked into

the formula. So there's Cowichan, with a third of its tax base left,

trying to accommodate the kind of educational system that that very

dedicated school board wants to provide for their integrated community,

trying to provide the kind of language opportunities, and where we have

gone into French immersion. That may be considered a frill and will

probably have to go under this system, because I very much doubt that

that minister is going to consider French immersion as part of the core

curriculum.

Those are the kinds of programs by which we're

trying to improve the quality of our education in Cowichan. The

children with special needs that have been mainstreamed by this

government.... The extra costs that are involved in trying to

accommodate those children in the system are, in all likelihood, not

going to be considered as part of the core curriculum, not going to be

funded by this government, and are going to have to be picked up by the

local taxpayer on the basis of one-third assessment in Cowichan.

Certainly those services are essential. They are preventive services.

We all know that if you prevent problems, it's a lot easier and cheaper

than trying to cure those problems.

This restrictive kind of

measure of withdrawing funds and limiting the allowable increases that

a school board can make is certainly going to hamper the quality of

education, and in the long run is going to make it much more expensive

to deal with those children that need those special kinds of services.

It's going to take away from the quality that we have been trying to

encourage in the Cowichan Valley.

I want to turn to Lake

Cowichan. If you think Cowichan is bad, Lake Cowichan is certainly a

lot worse. Under the old system, one mill would raise $63,442 in the

Lake Cowichan School District. Under the new system this minister is

trying to bring in with this piece of legislation, that tax base is so

eroded that one mill will raise only $12,869. One-fifth is all that's

left for Lake Cowichan. On March 30 the chairman of the Lake Cowichan

School District wrote to the Minister of Education. There had been a

lot of correspondence with the minister before this. There has been a

lot of correspondence with me. I attended a meeting out there of the

Lake Cowichan School Board at their request to try to delve into some

of the problems they were facing.

This letter was written on

March 30, with copies to a great many people, including me, the Premier

and the teachers. A lot of people got copies of this letter. Having

received the copy on April 13, I wrote to the minister, asking him to

follow up on the letter. To the best of my knowledge, neither I nor the

chairman of the school district has received any response. I am only

going to read one letter, this letter from Mrs. Brown, the chairman of

the Lake Cowichan School Board:

"Dear Mr. Smith:

"On behalf of the trustees of School District 66,

I wish to voice strong concerns regarding the process involved in the

recent provincial restraint program and the new finance formula, which

will have a severe impact on our district. We worked for many months to

bring in a final budget 17.67 percent higher than our 1981 budget. In

reality, this budget increase was lower than most school districts and

reflected our awareness of the need to exercise moderation and

responsibility. Nevertheless, we were informed unilaterally that we

were required to reduce our budget by $88,515.

"We

firmly believe in the spirit of consultation with all staff in our

district, and it is to their credit that we were able to effect cuts in

all areas of the submitted final budget report. The areas that were

reduced the heaviest were: (1) the purchase of replacement equipment

that will keep us competitive in the field of education; and (2) the

maintenance of existing buildings and grounds. Many structures in our

district are old and require constant maintenance.

"We

have a responsibility to our children to provide a viable education

which will enable them to face the future, knowing they can cope with

whatever lies ahead. The budget restraint program combined with the

increased tax burden to our residents could not have come at a worse

time for our community. This is a forest industry area depending on

logging and sawmills. Two mills have closed permanently and the third

is down to one shift. Logging operations are currently less than 50

percent of normal operation for this time of the year. A majority of

members of this community are unemployed, and many have been without

work for several months. An increase in taxes which would have been

difficult in normal years is a crushing burden at this time.

"If

any possibility exists for special consideration due to the severe

impact of these changes, we expect that an opportunity for a

presentation from School District 66 will be guaranteed. It causes

grave concern that in all of the correspondence, meetings with the

ministry officials and phone calls, the effect of these changes on the

quality of education and the child in the classroom was never mentioned.

Jean Brown,

Chairman,

Lake Cowichan School Board"

It was written on March 30; it's now, I believe, April 28, and there has been no response from that minister, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

reduction in their basic assessment to one-fifth of what it was in a

town that has been hit by the closure of sawmills, by the unemployment

in the logging industry, by the depletion of the forest reserve in that

area as the result of poor logging practice in the past— a town that's gasping for breath — and now those residents are being asked to foot the bill so

[ Page

7226 ]

that the people who live in West Vancouver, who, under the old system found

that a mill would raise $374,402, and under the new system find that a mill

rate of one mill will still raise $305, 955.... There is practically no

reduction in the assessment, but a drastic reduction on those million-dollar

homes in West Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, at the expense of the people in Lake Cowichan.

That's why we object to this bill, that's why we're opposing it,

and that's why we believe that that minister is bringing into this province

a system that is aimed to help the rich — the people in West Vancouver and Oak

Bay — and to take away from the poor.

The

Minister of Education is a Robin Hood in reverse, and he should think

again. He promised, when he introduced this program, that he would

listen, but he hasn't listened to what the people are saying. He is

going right ahead with this program that is doing nothing but harm for

the quality of education in the province of British Columbia in the

areas where it is so badly needed: in the areas that have been outlined

by my colleague for the North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) in the areas I

have talked about in Lake Cowichan and in many other areas around the

province. He is not thinking about what it is doing to those areas; he

is thinking only about what he can do for Oak Bay and for West

Vancouver. That is not government for all the people. That is only

government for those who least need those kinds of benefits.

Ms. Brown moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, before we proceed, during the debate on the budget

address the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) sought to

raise a point of privilege, alleging that the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) had misled the House in

describing a document as "protecting the taxpayers for a public

investment." It is clear from the member's statement in support of the

application that he and the minister have a difference of opinion as to

the effect of the document in question. Such a difference of opinion is

the very essence of parliamentary debate, and Hansard

reveals that the member discussed the matter in his subsequent speech

in the budget debate. As pointed out by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and as

stated in Citation 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition: "A dispute

arising between members as to allegation of facts does not fulfill the

conditions of parliamentary privilege." I must rule that no prima facie

case of breach of privilege has been made.

Further, last

Wednesday the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) sought the floor on a

point of privilege. The gist of his complaint was that the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) had written a letter to the editor of the

Vancouver Province which

discussed the merits of an editorial in the paper, while a notice of

motion concerning the same subject matter appeared on the order paper.

In Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , on page 34 it states that the categories of privilege claimed by the House are as follows:

"The

individual privileges are: (

a) Freedom of speech or debate; and (

b) Freedom from arrest. The collective privileges are: (

a) Access to the

Crown; (

b) The right to provide for its due composition; (

c) To

regulate its own proceedings; (

d) The power to punish for contempt; (

e) The power to summons witnesses; and (

f) Those privileges enumerated in

the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act, RSBC, 1979 ."

The

action complained of does not come within any of the aforesaid

categories, nor can I find any precedent for the proposition that

members of the House cannot discuss the proceedings of the House

outside of its environs. The action of the minister constitutes an

exercise of the first privilege.

At the time of the member's

application, the order paper contained 7 notices of introduction of

bills, 20 notices of motion, 9 written questions and 29 bills slated

for future consideration of the House. If the member's argument were to

apply, there could be no discussion of any of these matters outside of

the House by any of its members.

My perusal of Hansard

reveals that in his application the member stated: "Such action, if it

were to continue, could easily tend to bring the position of Your

Honour and the Chair into greater disrepute." An attack on the Chair is

an attack on the House itself, and I must caution the member that such

an attack will necessitate the Chair's immediate intervention.

MR. LAUK :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, out of deference to the Chair on

questions of motions of privilege, the House has permitted the Speaker

that rather than to deal forthwith and rule on motions of privilege,

Mr. Speaker will take it under consideration and deliver his opinion in

due course.

I find it upsetting, to say the least, that at

one minute to noon, when the members who raised these points of

privilege are not in their seats...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. LAUK :

...the Speaker will then see fit to deliver that decision. It has been

the practice of the Speaker to deliver such opinions either at 6

o'clock or when the members can be expected to be in their seats.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the point of order.

MR. LAUK : I would ask that the Speaker take that into consideration.

Further,

on the two points of privilege upon which Mr. Speaker has just ruled, I

would ask for copies of those decisions so that they can immediately be

put into the hands of the members.

MR. SPEAKER : They will be in Votes and Proceedings .

Hon.

members, in order to acquaint the members with the dilemma the Chair

faces from time to time, these decisions, of course, are sought to be

brought to the House at the earliest possible convenience. One decision

was prepared by Friday at adjournment hour, at which time usually

members are here. However, the business of the House went beyond

adjournment hour, and the Speaker could not presume at that late hour

to introduce yet another order of business.

The second

decision was ready last night at adjournment time. Seeking to bring the

decision to the House as quickly as possible, I had both decisions

prepared for last evening. But

[ Page

7227 ]

again, last evening the business of the House ran past the 6 o'clock adjournment hour.

So lest it appear that the Speaker was not giving the decisions as quickly

as possible, the Speaker brought these decisions now. If there's any inconvenience,

that inconvenience is brought about by the non-attendance of the members who

are present. I seek to bring these decisions when the member is present. The

member is quite right.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education for the period July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1982, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada