[ Page 7171 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

System Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7171

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7171

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7171

Ferry Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 25). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 7171

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 7171

Hon. Mr. Gardom

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

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7172

Mr. Lauk –– 7174

FRIDAY, APRIL 23, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. BRUMMET: In the galleries today we have a group of representatives from the northern interior branch of the school districts in that area. The representatives: are Mr. Ed Olsen, who is president of the northern interior branch; with him are Mr. Abe Unruh, trustee and executive member in the northern interior branch, and Mrs. Edna Barber, secretary treasurer for School District 60. All three are from School District 60. With them are: Mrs. Liz Haddow from School District 59, chairman of the board in Dawson Creek; Mr. Bruce Walker, vice-chairman of the northern interior branch board, who is from Fort Nelson; and Marian Nielsen, chairman of the board in School District 28 in Quesnel. They are here to discuss some of the concerns about educational financing with the Minister of Education and I would like the members of this House to make them very welcome.

Introduction of Bills

SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled System Amendment Act, 1992.

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FERRY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ferry Corporation Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 25 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. MACDONALD: In view of the fact that tomorrow, April 24, is a day of international protest against the arms race, the impoverishment of millions of people by the cost of the arms trade, the accelerating danger of a war that would mean annihilation for all, I ask that the rules be suspended and leave be granted that we proceed to discuss today, without further delay, motion 22 standing on the order paper in my name.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The standing orders provide that Committee of Supply has precedence over everything. Leave would be required even to entertain such a motion. Shall leave be granted?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in the House or really anyone in his right mind who agrees with nuclear proliferation, but I would like to draw to the attention of all hon. members here that the House has decided on a course of business for this morning. All sides of the House have been informed of that, and all sides are aware of what the government intends to proceed with.

The Whips have not been approached concerning the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we proceed with the order that had been agreed upon. If my colleague for Vancouver East would like to have a chat with his Whip, and his Whip can have a chat with the government Whip, we can perhaps see what can be done later this morning.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know under what standing order the House Leader obtained the floor on this point of order. There is no standing order that automatically gives the floor to anyone in this House, and I ask the Speaker to rule on the fact or point out to me under what rule the House Leader got up.

Mr. Speaker, the rules apply to everyone in this House. My colleague asked for leave of the House that the rules be suspended; and that leave, as I understand it, automatically goes before the House without any statement from anyone.

MR. SPEAKER: And certainly no debate. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

On vote 5: minister's office, $164, 608.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[ Page 7172 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: This bill is an important transitional step between the old educational system and the system of the future. It is a bill that will be in place only until the end of 1984, and will be replaced with a revised public schools act. That revised public schools act will be made public during the next three or four months as an exposure bill for comment. It will embrace a number of reforms and will set out a framework to cover the educational finance of the school system following the restraint period. So this bill is the bridge bill, if you like; it's the bill that takes us through restraint into the new public schools act.

The bill introduces both new taxation and new budgeting measures. It provides for an additional government contribution this year of $75 million to defray property tax. That is in addition to lifts in grants and other amounts of money that are available to finance public schools under the non-residential tax base and the traditional sources. It also will provide, next year in a separate bill, a further contribution of $175 million for that purpose, for a total of a quarter of a billion dollars to defray and redistribute property tax burdens.

The bill retains and enshrines a number of the good features of the present system — the old Schools Act — and also replaces and suspends some parts of that act and features of the old act that were no longer valid. It also enables me as minister to carry out the restraint-on-government program announced in February as it affects education.

The reasons for this bill, I think, are well known and historic. The present system of financing public-school education has become unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. The main reason that gave rise to the crisis was the rapid increase in assessments brought about by skyrocketing real estate values in certain parts of the province during 1980-81. What those soaring real estate prices did was to place a heavier tax load on residential taxpayers in some school districts, while in other school districts assessments and school taxes remained relatively stable. This undermined the assumption that real estate values would rise more or less uniformly across the province, which had been the general experience in the past and which had allowed the previous finance formula to operate with a reasonable equity of burden for residential and commercial property owners across this province. That was really the setting that gave rise to the measures — this measure and, in part, the compensation stabilization legislation — and accelerated the studies and efforts being made to find a more equitable method of financing the school system and redistributing the tax burdens.

On the finance side as well, the experience with school costs was that education expenditures rose more rapidly in recent years than the cost of living. The old finance formula, based on the basic levy and the calculation of that levy, with an instructional unit base being used, provided very little check on the escalation of costs under the old legislation. It meant that every year the rapidly increasing budgets of the last year would form the new base for the value of the instructional unit for the current year. I think it's no secret that the budgets of school boards across this province not only exceeded the inflation level, but rose from 1979 to this year by over 60 percent.

It was a matter of great concern to the government that residential taxpayers, particularly in some school districts, were becoming antagonistic to the public school system because of increased school costs and increased budgeting. There were a number of proposals submitted to us that suggested what I felt would be unfortunate and arbitrary methods of restricting school board expenditure — that is, a return to methods such as the referendum, which was in place in the past and which caused expenditure in some school districts to come to a total halt, with resulting dislocation, hardships and ultimately further additional expenditures being needed. That was the experience, as well, following the passage of the Jarvis resolution in California.

It should also be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, that under the old system the government's contribution to operating costs from general revenues had difficulty in keeping pace with rising school board costs. Only part of the increased budgeting, even local additions to the basic education program, were paid for locally, but they were also reflected in increased provincial cost. Each year these new costs rolled over into the province as part of the total education bill and were included in the following year's provincewide basic program. So, in short, each year the educational base became higher and higher and required an increased tax contribution at the provincial and the local level. In the economic climate this year, continuations of those increases were becoming intolerable.

Many school boards expressed the sentiment to us that some review of the system was needed and that some measure should be taken by the government to not only review but also reform the method of financing public school education. The restraint program gives an opportunity to do that, because it not only allows a pause and the brakes to be applied to expenditure, but it also provides wage guidelines at the same time. This means that in most cases services will be maintained at an existing level without the necessity of closing programs and having major layoffs of people employed in the education community.

In the face of rising educational costs the government had a number of options available. We might have chosen to raise taxes significantly. That was an unacceptable solution and one that I believe the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) properly rejected in a time of economic slowdown — just as he rejected the option of deficit financing. The other option would have been to underfund the system, produce cuts in programs and effect major school closures and layoffs. But that would have destroyed a number of the positive and cherished gains of the past and would have impacted upon the lives and the future of children.

The government's conclusion was that the restraint program, together with the educational finance reforms embodied in Bill 27, would provide a pause in rapidly escalating costs and the ability to retain almost all of the vital educational services enjoyed in this province. It would provide a framework for the future and begin the redistribution of residential property tax burdens.

There are other features in the principles of this bill which I commend to the Legislature. I have underlined that the bill provides for significant new funding of $75 million, with a commitment for a further $175 million next year.

It also provides a basis by which school tax will be more fairly spread between urban and rural and between residential and non-residential taxpayers. Under this measure, the government will assume responsibility for the non-residential tax

[ Page 7173 ]

base across this province. That is a fair principle, in my submission, Mr. Speaker, because that is a tax base which should be available for education for the entire province. It should not simply be a resource for one school district which may have an industrial base in one corner near the border of another school district. The industrial base should be used to finance education for the entire province. Also, Mr. Speaker, by assuming responsibility for the non-residential tax base, the government permits the commercial mill rate across the province to be lowered and equalized, and that is another principle embodied in this legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret to draw your attention to the fact that a member opposite has on two occasions in the last couple of moments accused one or more members on this side of the House of theft, which I find unacceptable and offensive.

MR. SPEAKER. Order, please. It escaped the notice of the Chair, but perhaps I should ask whether or not any improper motive has been imputed to any other member of the House. If it has, I must ask that it be withdrawn. The member has not been identified — perhaps this shall go as a warning.

HON. MR. SMITH: The non-residential tax base will provide a basis for the province to reduce the mill rate and set a common mill rate. This year the mill rate will be 55 mills for non-residential taxpayers in all school districts that had mill rates last year that were higher, and for those that had mill rates lower than 55, those mill rates will be frozen. The intention is that businesses in this province will be able to locate where they choose without a postage-stamp mill rate system, paying a common mill rate. The intention is that the commercial mill rate will be further reduced to a lower combined provincial level so that there will be one mill rate in every school district. I think that is an important gain and a gain for the business taxpayer just as a major part of the rest of this legislation contains great benefits for residential taxpayers who were overassessed and overtaxed in the past.

The bill also provides a basis upon which the government will now be able to directly finance the cost of public schools in excess of 75 percent. During the years that this bill is in force — until the latter part of 1984 — the government will pay 60 percent of the restraint budgets by direct provincial grants and then the next 35 percent will be shared between the province and the school district in a manner that reflects the size of the residential tax base in comparison with the number of pupils in the district. That is a change from the old equalization formula and an improvement indeed. The old formula took into account the residential tax base, but it did not directly take into account the number of pupils. The equalization will be fairer and more accurate on that 35 percent of the budget that will be shared. The last 5 percent of the budget will be paid for by residential property taxes solely within the district.

Another feature of this new formula under this legislation will be that school districts will not be shipping moneys back to Victoria. This was one of the complaints before. The residential taxes that are collected by the school district will be spent entirely within the boundaries of that school district. The figures of 60 percent, 35 percent and 5 percent were chosen for these two years because they approximate the portion of school district cost resulting from provincially required programs, optional programs and purely local ones. Although the figures themselves are not included in the bill — it may be possible to make further and better adjustments to those figures in the future — they will be the firm minimum basis for allocations during the restraint period and then they will be embodied in that form or in an improved form in the final revised School Act which replaces the period of restraint.

It also should be noted that the homeowner's grant remains in place and unchanged. This government has not reduced its commitment in any way to homeowners under the homeowner's grant to seniors and to others who receive the supplements. That popular measure will still provide relief to homeowners because it will now be applied first to relieve school tax and the balance to relieve general municipal taxes. In those school districts where, under the revised financial formula contained in this bill, some additional tax burdens will be felt — 25 school districts out of the 75.... Fifty school districts are better off in a dollar way under this system than under the old system, but in most of the 25 that are not, taxpayers in those districts originally paid no school tax and will continue to pay no school tax, but they will have less of a credit toward their municipal taxes from the spillover.

The government has also committed itself under this new legislation to ensure that in districts where taxes increase, the average homeowner's operating-cost side of the tax bill will not increase more than $95. There may be some additional increases in some school districts brought about by non-shareable parts of the budget, but maximum increases of $95 on the average home will be brought about by the distribution of moneys under this bill, should it pass.

The equalization principle I mentioned before is retained and entrenched in this legislation. The province, now taxing non-residential property across the province and moving, as I have said, towards a uniform mill rate on such property commencing this year, will use the non-residential property revenues together with the additional revenues that are being placed into the financing of schools as a resource for children across the entire province, regardless of where they live or the size of the industrial commercial plants in their own school district.

This new bill also gives the government the legislative machinery to collect and allocate funds and to ensure that school board expenditures remain within the restraint guidelines. It allows the issuing of directives. I do not anticipate that a great deal of use will be required of such directives or that they would remain following a period of restraint, but I think this House will agree that it is imperative that the program which is embodied in the compensation stabilization bill, the government's restraint program, must be applicable to all parts of the public sector and in all parts of the public sector equally.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the restraint program has been implemented in relation to public schools in a very special and sensitive way. The budget lifts of 12 percent only being restrained in the last quarter of the year means that a school board that had a provisional budget of a 20 percent lift this year prior to the restraint program need only reduce its overall budget this year by 2 percent to comply with the last quarter ceiling lift of 12 percent. In the two years that follow September of 1982, school boards will be required to operate within a 12 percent maximum lift, or whatever cost-of-living figure the government might decide in the second year. But that will be balanced on the other side with wage guidelines.

[ Page 7174 ]

They will not be this year because of those 17 percent lifts across this province in wages, which school boards will have to meet.

In addition to giving the minister authority to issue directives, the legislation gives authority to protect special education programs and school board budgets. Treating special education separately should ensure that the integrity of these programs is recognized and that the serious special needs of children in those categories will be met. Again, I do not anticipate that directives will be required under that provision, because I have noted that in almost all cases boards have been very careful under the restraint program not to make unreasonable reductions in the services for special needs children.

The act, then, allows full restraints to begin in the last quarter of 1982. It also continues to enforce the present School Act during the life of the Education (Interim) Finance Act, but provides that a number of sections are suspended: sections 81 to 83; 85 to 90; 93; 94; 96 to 208; 210; and 211. The bill also has a sunset clause in it. It has an expiry date of December 31, 1984. That is important. It is not a permanent piece of legislation. It permits time to bridge, during restraint, the old educational financing system with the new. It also allows time to have a new public schools act in place, which will not only include a number of changes and reforms and refinements that are needed in the old public schools act but will also set out the framework for education finance in the future.

This act and the public schools act that will replace it will give full ambit for local decision-making and autonomy on the part of school boards within the limits of restraint. The time during which this bill is in place, before the new public schools act is introduced, will give boards, teachers, parents and other groups in this province a chance to comment on the proposed schools act and the proposed definitions of funding which will replace the interim finance bill following restraint. After the restraint period the province's share of 60, 35 and 5 will have to be defined as to what those improved percentages will actually pay for in the sense of programs and cost. There will be ample time to define that and to discuss that with the educational community and the public.

The interim act sensitively addresses the interests of children, teachers, school boards and taxpayers, who still count in this province. It does so by giving students access to soundly funded educational programs and policies, and it prevents school boards and schools from becoming the enemies of taxpayers. I have great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LAUK: There should be no difficulty for people on this side of the House or for the public to understand this bill. The complexity of the formula notwithstanding, I think it's clear that whatever the minister says by way of explanation of this bill, if you take the opposite view, that is the correct explanation.

In my ten years in this chamber I have never heard a speech totally wrong in almost ever particular and not based on any facts borne out by the legislation, the minister's first announcement with respect to the formula and its practical effect in the school districts. Not one thing that the minister said, by way of opening the debate this morning, is correct. What is the minister trying to do? I've heard of honesty in political life, but this is the most reprehensible experience I've had in this chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every time you get up you say that.

MR. LAUK: That is simply not true. I deny that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's proceed to the debate on Bill 27 and refrain from personal allusions. Imputing improper motives to other members of the House is out of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm entitled to say that the minister's statements were not correct. I'm entitled to show by the evidence that in every particular his explanation of Bill 27 is wrong. Because all hon. members in this chamber tell the truth as they see it, I can only believe that the minister is so inept and incapable of understanding the practical effect of this bill that he is incapable of holding that high office. A lot of the things that the minister said this morning will come back to haunt him and, I hope, will end his political career.

I will deal with the minister's comments and then go through the opposition's view of this bill in detail. The minister has presented himself, by this speech of incorrect information, as a soft-spoken, reasonable individual, the reservoir of stability and guidance, the fatherly, paternalistic figure for education in this province. The bill and its ramifications, however, point out that he is nothing more or less than a schoolyard bully. His attitude towards education is dictated not by himself but by at least one other cabinet colleague, and his promise in taking office has been betrayed.

The minister states that this bill is a transitional step to the new School Act. I will deal with each one of his statements, Mr. Speaker, and prove to you that every statement is incorrect. That is, I suppose, part opinion, but a new formula could have been put into any existing act. Any new formula could have been incorporated in the School Act. The statement is meaningless and without foundation. He says that the new act provides for new government money of $75 million. This money is nothing more than a slush fund. There are no criteria in the bill for distribution of the money. It is money that can be used at the discretion and dictatorial, arbitrary will of the minister. He can punish one school district and reward another, We know this government does that very well. He says it keeps the good features of the old act. Not so, I will deal with this in greater detail later on. This act gives more power to a Minister of Education than is held by any Minister of Education in any free democratic country. It gives him dictatorial power over course content in each and every school district. It gives him dictatorial power about which kids in which school district will get special needs. It gives him dictatorial power over which enrichment programs will proceed in which districts. He can arbitrarily, with a stroke of his pen, a wave of his hand, wipe out a generation of opportunity for ordinary kids in this province. In no other jurisdiction has a Minister of Education taken unto himself as much power as this minister has. You've got to ask the question why. Why are they doing it?

I argue that they are doing it for two reasons. 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. They want to limit education on an elitist basis to a select group of persons in this province and they want to deny an entire generation of ordinary kids the opportunity to be fulfilled and to work in a free and democratic country.

[ Page 7175 ]

Secondly, they want to grab the tax base of the school districts as a first step and the municipalities as a second step. They want to virtually eliminate local government. They want to wipe out local government because, as a right-wing government, it is their view that local government is an embarrassment to the central government.

The minister argues that the old finance formula is unsatisfactory because of assessments, as if there were no responsibility on the part of the government, and it automatically happened through the old legislation. The old formula was very flexible. The minister dictated what the mill rates would be. He had, through the government, power over assessments and the basic education program. It was the government that had all those flexible decision-making powers under the old system, and for him to argue that the old system caused high assessments and high taxes is not true. It cannot be believed. The minister obviously has not read the old act and not understood the old formula. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if he believes what he says today, then he does not understand the new formula either.

HON. MR. SMITH: You never understood the old formula.

MR. LAUK: The minister, in his own defence, when I charged that he does not understand the old formula, said: "Neither did you." That is some excuse for a minister of education. He says: "You didn't understand it either. Don't complain. Nobody's perfect." It is the responsibility of the minister to apply himself and learn about these things. I'm not going to put undue pressure on the minister. I understand his limitations. But I do feel he should take the time, and if he wants I will attend in his office anytime to explain either the old or the new formula to him. I will do so very carefully, because I understand the need for special education, even when it come to the Minister of Education himself. For him to argue that assessments in high taxation in the school districts were caused by the old formula....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Personal allusions are not in order in debate under a bill. I know that it is very difficult, after a continued debate under the budget — where essentially the scope is unlimited — to come to a kind of debate where relevancy falls squarely into focus. I will try to assist members so they will not be embarrassed. Personal allusions certainly are out of order. Perhaps during the estimates of the minister himself those areas can be canvassed in a more orderly fashion.

MR. LAUK: The minister suggests that high taxation in school districts was caused by the old formula. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was caused by the deliberate policy of the Social Credit government. They were in financial trouble last year, they're in financial trouble this year, and they hoped to slip by with high local taxation so that money "shipped to Victoria" — to use the minister's expression — could help balance the budget.

But the people were too smart for them. An assessment revolt took place, and the government, with its tail between its legs, had to give instructions to the Assessment Authority to pull back, which they did. But they needed another solution. If one con game doesn't work, you try another. So we've come up with the school financing formula. That's complex. It's politically ingenious. It's designed to hide the truth from the people of the province of British Columbia in every intricate political example.

The minister suggests that education expenditures increased more than the consumer price index. Again, how can the minister stand up and argue that education expenditures increased more than the CPI and act as if his government, his office, had no authority or responsibility? What was he doing? Where was the government when these education costs were going up? He had control over the mill rate, basic education program, special grants and all those financial ends of financing school districts under the old formula. Where was he? It's a confession of ineptitude and negligence. He's brought in today a new formula which is infinitely worse: it centralizes power into the ministry itself away from local government and confiscates the local taxation base.

He argues that there is no check on costs under the old act. I would argue that the system was predictable under the old act. It needed a lot of improvement. A lot of the funding was guaranteed under the old act. When he says, again, there is no check on costs, that's incorrect. The minister knows it's incorrect. Under the old formula, the ministry and the government had control over those costs.

He admits today that the government's contribution towards local school districts has fallen since 1975 — the NDP administration. That's a deliberate policy on the part of the government; an avoidance of responsibility. Since 1975, the government has taken every possible step to avoid financial responsibility for local school costs, but in a time when they are in financial trouble the very powerful Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — or should I say deputy minister — looked around, surveyed the situation and picked out the weakest person in cabinet. He saw there a tremendous opportunity for a money grab. They identified the source of the money. They are not interested in improving education at all. They just needed the money to balance the books.

The minister argues that the cost base went higher and higher. This bill makes the cost base in the school districts even higher. In announcing this new formula, the minister very carefully says that some school districts are going to pay less tax. Then you try to find out what he means. What the minister means by saying that some homeowners in school districts are going to pay less tax is that they're going to pay less tax than they would have because of this year's higher assessments. But they're going to be paying 32 percent more, on average, across the province than they paid in the last year — 32 percent more in taxes. You have to watch these people very carefully because they don't tell you all the facts. They make a suggestion that homeowners are going to pay less tax. What does that mean? That means, in the minister's terminology — this newthink, newspeak type of terminology — less tax than they would have paid, had we been as mean as we were going to be with the old formula. But this year we're going to give you a break, and instead of paying a 100-percent increase, you've got to pay a 32-percent increase. Some break!

The minister argues that in conjunction with this bill the restraint program sets limits. The restraint program in conjunction with this bill is a bungled effort on the part of the government — beyond belief. Independent schools have been given a whole year to plan; independent schools under this government are getting a 40-percent increase this year, while the public education system has been thrown into chaos. Now why is that happening?

[ Page 7176 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: You're in chaos.

MR. LAUK: The minister says that I'm in chaos. Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn't draft the bill.

HON. MR. SMITH: Thank God!

MR. LAUK: I didn't introduce this new formula that is so confusing.

They're asking for restraint in the final quarter of the public education system....

HON. MR. HEWITT: You stole the document that announced it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to withdraw the remark that I stole the document.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Speaker has said on many occasions that no improper motive can be imputed by one member to another hon. member. If the Minister of Agriculture has suggested theft on the part of another member, I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my terminology was wrong: he acquired the document.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for withdrawing.

Mr. Speaker, the government bungled their approach to restraint. I'll point out something to you: under this bill they have asked school districts to restrain themselves in the last quarter of this year. The last quarter of this year is a financial period that is, as you would assume, attached to the first three-quarters of this year, and the total year is based upon contracts for wages and salaries with teachers and personnel, which is always 80 percent or more of a school district's budget — and so it should be. These are locked in, and by government policy locked in under mostly arbitrations of increases to the teaching personnel of the school district. So they've imposed price controls, if you like, for the last quarter, but wage controls don't come in until the next year.

Now what happens to the school district? The school district is in chaos in the last quarter of this year, scrambling to cut back on an even-handed, sensitive basis, and they're finding it almost impossible to do so. That is the kind of ineptitude, Mr. Speaker, that we have faced with this government, and continue to face. Again, a 40-percent increase to independent schools during a time of restraint. How did it happen? Here we are savaging the public school system and we're 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? What kind of an elitist government is this that wishes to destroy mass public education at the expense of a generation of young people simply because of their narrow, elitist views?

The Minister of Education himself doesn't have enough confidence in the public education system to send his own children to it; he sends them to the private schools, Mr. Speaker. Here he is, the Minister of Education, the so-called protector of the public education system, and he sends his own kids to private schools.

Mr. Speaker, how did this happen? You impose restraints, cutbacks on local school districts in the public education system, and grant a 40 percent increase to the independent school system. Forty percent is quite a hefty increase. It happened because they neglected, failed or deliberately did not deal with the School Support (Independent) Act in relation to this new formula. Under the independent schools act the base of contribution per student to independent schools was related to the previous cost experience of the public education system, so the independent schools will feel the pinch next year. I understand that, but they'll have a year, which is reasonable and humane, to deal with the necessary cutbacks in their system and deal with whatever layoffs they might have in terms of teachers and personnel. Did the minister give that kind of humane treatment to the public education system? Not at all. He savaged them and is delighted to do so.

The minister has a fine way to use the language. Everybody in the province has called the takeover of the industrial and commercial tax base in school districts by the province as a confiscation. Some less charitable members of our community have referred to it as theft of the taxation base. Do you know what the minister calls it? He says: "The provincial government is pleased to assume the responsibility of the industrial and commercial tax base." It's not confiscation; it's not a money grab; it's not theft from the local school districts; it's assuming the responsibility. The next time a bankrobber goes into the Bank of Nova Scotia, he's going to pull the gun on the teller and say: "I want to assume the responsibility for the cash in the till." The Minister of Education is developing a new language. We're going to have the Smith glossary of new terminology.

Do you know what he calls this savaging of the public education system where disabled kids, special needs, and special education are going to go without, and enrichment programs for an entire generation — art, music, sculpture, and the basis of the culture of our great country — will not be known to a whole generation of kids because of the savaging of the public education system by this minister? What does he call it? Let me quote him: "We have designed a formula so that the positive and cherished gains of the past will be maintained and children will not be made to suffer." Would you tell it to the Nanaimo School District, where they're cutting back on enrichment programs? Would you tell it to the Courtenay School District, where they don't have summer school and kids won't be able to beef up their courses. They'll have to repeat a year and add to the cost of the system next year.

Five schools are closing in Port Alberni, six schools are closing in Burnaby, and three schools are closing in North Vancouver. Who closed them? I'm opposed to the arbitrary closing of neighbourhood schools. I know the minister doesn't take any interest in neighbourhood schools because the limousine drives his kids to the private school they go to.

HON. MR. SMITH: You are inaccurate and unfair.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are on Bill 27.

[ Page 7177 ]

MR. LAUK: The minister says I'm unfair. If the minister had a true commitment and interest in neighbourhood schools, he wouldn't just with the wave of his hand look at school closures as being a necessary economic venture.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I've got a suggestion. If the criteria.... The NDP have asked the government now through two successive Ministers of Education: "What is your philosophy of education? What is your mandate? What do you think education should do in this province? Should it teach you just the free enterprise system? Should it just teach you guerrilla warfare? Should it just teach you math? Should it teach you nothing?" We've asked them for some statement, even if it's that the education system should perpetuate the free enterprise system. That's a statement. We know how to deal with that. Nothing comes from the other side — no philosophy and no mandate. That's a very serious problem, Mr. Speaker. The only thing we're hearing is that the school system must be more economical and that the school system must be efficient.

Well, if that is the only goal of an education system, then I suggest that the minister shut down the education system. We'd save over $1 billion a year in provincial revenue. You would not have younger people growing up as citizens voting for the wrong party, because you could keep the consumer education program and teach them how to vote.

MR. BARRETT: They'd have a lot of material for their back bench.

MR. LAUK: Yes, they'd have a lot of material for their back bench.

Mr. Speaker, you could shut down schools everywhere. Shut down the colleges. Shut down elementary schools. Shut down the PE program — because if neighbourhood schools are closed, kids will have to walk 20 miles to school and won't need a PE program anymore. Of course family fuel bills will go up, because you'll have to drive 20 miles each night to pick up your six- or seven-year-old child and make sure that he or she gets home safely.

The ramifications of this savage approach to the public education system have not even been remotely thought of. If they have been thought of by this government, they don't care. They don't care what the effect is on kids. To them it's balancing a budget. To them it's grabbing taxation for the provincial revenue at the expense of the kids.

We are assuming the responsibility of the industrial and commercial tax base; we are going to protect the positive and cherished gains of the past. I want to repeat those two phrases in the chamber, Mr. Speaker, and I'll repeat it out there and I'll repeat it in Oak Bay. Yes, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to do that. When the programs are cut in Oak Bay, when the programs are cut in school districts across this province, I'll say: "But you didn't hear the minister. You don't seem to understand. The minister said that we're going to protect the positive and cherished gains of the past and children will not have to suffer."

He cannot see. He cannot hear. He doesn't know about the tremendous, savage effect of the school finance formula at the local school district level. The minister suggests that the industrial and commercial mill rate may be reduced. Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to realize that when you pay taxes it doesn't quite matter out of which pocket you pay them. They're still hard-earned dollars, and they come from ordinary people. If I own a commercial space and pay less taxes, but my home goes up in taxation, what difference does it make to me? Beyond that, if I do not own a commercial space and I don't get tax breaks on my ownership of industrial or commercial property, I am penalized; I am bearing the burden of increased costs at the local level. And as we all know, homeowner taxation does not test the ability to pay. A great many homeowners who have lived in their homes for 25 and 30 years will suffer greatly from this uneven, unfair approach to taxation.

The minister constantly tries to explain the finance formula, but it should be pointed out that the details of the application of that formula have only been spoken of by the minister. They are not enshrined in the bill; they are not mentioned in the bill. There's no formula in the bill. He takes unto himself, then, that flexibility to be arbitrary. And we know full well this government likes to punish and reward. They operate purely on the Pavlovian theory that if you vote the wrong way in a particular district in this province, you're not going to get any of that $75 million. If a college board does not act properly, they're not going to get any of that $55 million for vocational spending. If there's an NDP chairman of a school board, I'm sorry, the minister in his arbitrary fashion will withhold funds. We know that they'll punish and reward the school districts. They do it and they're going to do it under this formula.

There's no guarantee that there'll be 60 percent of the budget by direct provincial grants. It's merely the minister's word. We know all about the government's word, Mr. Speaker, don't we? We've had the promises they've made in the past.

Let's start out with BCRIC shares — remember that promise? BCRIC shares are now in an orphanage someplace looking for parentage. Remember when the Premier announced BCRIC shares? He held up the little baby in his hands said: "Here I am, the proud father." BCRIC shares went down to $3 and he says: "Never saw them before."

We heard promises before from this government, promises of lower taxation. I remember when the Premier was the Leader of the Opposition on September 13, 1975. I have a long memory. I just can't forget these things, because I was raised in a way that when someone said something, they stood by it. When somebody made a promise, they tried very hard to keep it. I know that nobody is perfect, and we all make promises that sometimes we can't keep. The Premier or Leader of the Opposition, as he then was — said: "I believe...." By the way, if you read this statement in its subtlety.... This is the kind of thing I am trying to suggest to you about this government. You've got to read more than just between the lines. You have to read between the words, behind the lines, in front of the lines, on each side of the lines and in the margins in order to try to figure out what slippery thing the government is trying to get past us now.

Here is what the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, said in 1975: "I believe that property...."

HON. MR. GARDOM: That was seven years ago.

MR. LAUK: Oh, seven years ago. Is it now inoperative? There is the Nixonian government: "I know I said that yesterday but today it is inoperative."

[ Page 7178 ]

The Minister of Education is very good at this. He is not very good at finance, so he leaves it up to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). But he is good at doublespeak doubletalk. I like the glossy report — that is what I call it — of his 1980 fall tour. He says things like: "The general mandate structure outlined here can therefore can be seen as an initial statement to be used in reshaping school legislation." "The general mandate structure" — don't you like that?

There is more. It's marvellous. Here is another thing. When he made a statement about colleges he said: "Our advanced educational system offers diverse opportunities provided through internationally reputable universities and research facilities, community-based colleges and institutes." Then he failed to mention in his report that the participation rate in those colleges and institutes is about ninth in Canada.

Here is what I want to get at: policy statements by the minister and his department. "Student contact hours" — I mentioned that before; I love that. Remember in Viet Nam? It wasn't a bomb; it was an anti-personnel device. Do you remember that? Now we have student contact hours. That is their newspeak.

There is no longer universal access to whoever wishes to enrol in colleges and schools, but "equity in the provision of opportunities." I love these new phrases that the minister and his staff have come up with.

In case anyone has forgotten, I was going to quote the Premier of the province. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says: "That was seven years ago. Don't hold me to it." I am quoting old stuff. I'm not quoting it because it's old. He didn't say it when he was an owner of a motel in Kelowna; he was the Leader of the Opposition. He was challenging the province. He said: "Vote for the Social Credit Party." That was what he said in 1975. It wasn't as if it was an offhand comment at a cocktail party. He made it as a policy statement. He said: "I believe that property taxation has become obsolete as a major source of local government revenue." At the time we thought he meant that the form of homeowner taxation was obsolete, but we failed to realize that for seven years he's been plotting. It is only obsolete as a form of local government revenue.

It is like your neighbour saying: "Look, that colour TV is too good for you. It would be okay for me, but it's too good for you. You've got to let me have it. These poor ordinary country burnpkins who run school boards shouldn't have an industrial and commercial tax base. They don't know what to do with it, but we do. We know how to spend that money."

Do you know how the Minister of Education knows how to spend that money? The minister gave us the figure this year; we thought it was $600 million. Do you know what the confiscation of that base will mean to provincial revenue? — $840 million. That's over a quarter of a billion dollars which he has picked out of the pockets of the local school districts. And what is he going to use it for? Well, folks, this is the minister. I'll remind you that in this ministry there was a travel budget of $24,300 in 1980. In the last year of his predecessor, by the way, it was only $14,000. Do you know what his travel budget this year is? Does anybody know? Can anyone take a guess? Did it go up from $24,300?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. LAUK: What do I hear — any figures? Would you believe $50,000?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. LAUK: Would you believe $60,000?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. LAUK: Would you believe $70,000?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. LAUK: Do you know what it is? There's $79,053 in his travel budget. That's an increase of 166.2 percent over last year.

MR. BARRETT: How many times can you go around the world on $79,000?

MR. LAUK: This Minister of Education will be known as Vasco de Gama.

I went into a school the other day in the school district of Vancouver. There are disabled kids there. They have a marvellous program. What was the increase for disabled kids? Can anyone tell me? Do you know what the increase was from last year?

HON. MR. SMITH: Twenty-four percent.

MR. LAUK: Wrong. Your ministry tells me....

MR. BARRETT: You failed again!

MR. LAUK: You get two out of ten for that.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister go back to his deputy and to Mr. Bell, the Deputy Minister of Finance, who's running the minister's department now, and he will tell you, as he tells us, that the increase for special education has gone from $5.4 million to a whopping $5.8 million — a 7 percent increase.

HON. MR. SMITH: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. LAUK: I don't know what I'm talking about! I don't want to confuse the minister with the facts, but I do take exception to the minister attacking his own ministry. His civil servants can't come into the House and defend themselves, but I suppose after the minister gets to them they'll say: "Well, what we really meant was not...." The minister has some money in his back pocket that he plans to shell out at Christmas by sending grocery hampers to the kids in special needs.

MR. BARRETT: How does he spend 79 grand on his office?

MR. LAUK: There is $80,000 for travelling. Vasco de Gama Smith is planning to visit every school classroom on the face of the earth. He is going to go to Bangladesh and regale grade 3 students with stories of his accomplishments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member, I must ask at this time if you are the designated speaker.

MR. LAUK: I'm the DH, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7179 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The DH?

MR. LAUK: It's better than being the DR.

Mr. Speaker, $80,000 is an awful lot of travelling money. You know, that's a bit more than you need for that bus ride to Delta, two stops and a lunch. That's a bit more than you need to travel anyplace in British Columbia, even if you travel by government jet — and, you know, that doesn't come off his travel budget. A government jet is free — well, it's free to the minister. The taxpayers, of course, pay millions of dollars a year for these guys to bird-dog all around the province spreading Social Credit propaganda under the guise of government business. So let's exclude the government jets.

What's it going to cost him for travelling the province?

I've finally discovered, by digging out that old press clipping from when he was on his tour.... He wanted to have breakfast. Do you remember that? He wouldn't show up at a meeting at which the whole town — the school board, principals and students — was in attendance. They all wanted to talk to this minister, who said: "I have a vital interest in your education needs." He was very late, and they sent out one of his assistants to look for him, and he found the minister hunched over his bacon and eggs. The minister was furious. He looked all over Kelowna and couldn't find a decent place that had Robertson's marmalade. This minister is very precious. With his very delicate system, he needs a good breakfast. He knows what's good for him, and he's used to good service.

Eighty thousand dollars indeed. Does he eat $80,000 in one year of breakfasts? No, that can't be it. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether he's planning a detailed three- or four-month study of the educational system on the Riviera or Monaco. Kidding aside, that increase in his travel budget juxtaposed with the savage cutbacks on the school district level is not only the height of cynicism in politics but extravagant hypocrisy on the part of the government.

He's also reorganizing his bureaucracy. There's the old Roman adage that Mr. Speaker knows full well, being an old Roman: change gives at least the appearance of progress. The Minister of Education knows that full well. At a time when services to children should be at the front of this minister's mind, especially in times of economic downturn when opportunities become scarce, the signs are of preoccupation with reorganizing his own ministry.

I pointed out before, and I'll point out again, that the deputy minister's office has 11 more staff, education finance has another 38 people.... We know that — they've got $840 million that they have to count and pass on to Larry Bell. There are another 40 people in management operations. The overall increase is about the same, so I said to myself: well, okay, if he wants to shuffle bureaucrats from one department to another, that's reasonable. He has his own priorities. If he wants to take 38 people away from educational services and put them into finance to count money, that's on his conscience. From a strict accounting point of view, he has not increased the establishment. What he has increased is the furnishing budget. When you move 38 people....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is having a little bit of difficulty in discerning whether the member is now engaging more in the estimates of the Ministry of Education than in the specifics of the Education (Interim) Finance Act, Bill 27. I'm sure that if the member will reflect on his remarks he'll find that the Chair has some validity in bringing up this point.

MR. LAUK: Thank you for drawing that to my attention. I'd like to point out, however, that the increase of 38 people in the finance department, I'm going to argue, has a direct relation to the confiscation of the industrial.... This Minister of Education is moving needed, skilled, trained people who deliver services to kids in this province from what they're trained to do into finance: or, what's worse, he's firing them and hiring accountants instead of providing services to kids.

At the same that this finance formula is cutting back on special needs in Vancouver and Delta, and when there are savage cutbacks for enrichment programs across this province.... There isn't any family that doesn't want enrichment programs for its kids. There isn't any family in this province that doesn't believe that this generation is just as entitled to music, art and culture, just as entitled to visit museums, see plays and learn about our great history and culture as his generation was. That's what the issue is.

There are always times of economic downturn and recession. There is boom and bust in a resource economy. But one of the things that W.A.C. Bennett, the Premier under the NDP, and most administrations have done since the time of Confederation in this province was to protect the education system as their solemn and sacred duty, and never let it decline in its quality and in its equal opportunity for all the citizens of this province and all of their children and children to come. This government, in its weakness and collective cowardice, has faced a financial crisis that other governments have seen before, and they've shrunk from their duty. They've shrunk from their responsibility. They've taken the weakest in our society and cut them off at the pass, and they've kowtowed to the strongest.

This minister has increased his furnishings budget. He wants $602,479 for new furnishings this year — over half a million dollars for furniture,

HON. MR. SMITH: That's not correct.

MR. LAUK: The minister says it's not correct. Would the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) like to withdraw the estimates?

HON. MR. SMITH: Deal with that in estimates and get on with the bill.

MR. LAUK: He says: "Deal with it in estimates." I will. I wanted to bring it to your attention. I know the minister is uncomfortable about this. I'd be uncomfortable too. I'd be so uncomfortable and embarrassed that I would resign.

While Bill 27 is cutting back and savaging local school districts and school programs throughout this province, the minister wants another $1,000 per staff member for new furniture. I know that the people in his department would want that money to go to services for kids. I know that the people in his department would want that money to go to enhance education programs. Let them sit on the old furniture; it doesn't look that bad.

In his opening remarks on this bill, the minister suggested that school districts will not be sending money to Victoria. Did you hear him say that? This is the greatest doublespeak, doubletalk, double shuffle I've ever heard. He means that,

[ Page 7180 ]

under the old formula, if the school districts taxed more than they were allowed to tax by the minister's order, the excess — whatever few million dollars it was — would be sent back to consolidated revenue, never to be seen again. That was a bad thing, and we all complained about it. It's no longer going to happen, because that few million dollars that was sent by the school districts is a drop in the bucket, a grain of sand on the infinite oceanside, compared to the $840 million ripoff that this bill is doing to the local taxpayers.

The industrial and commercial tax base is taken away from the school districts to the tune of $840 million. The minister said: "By the way, we're going to lower the mill rate for industrial and commercial." I haven't talked to Mr. Bell or the Minister of Finance. I wouldn't mind seeing some more background papers. I've never seen more background papers to a budget that tell us so little. Surely, under this act, the minister has some responsibility. If he's going to get $840 million — I think it was a little over $600 million last year — and assessments are going down, how is the mill rate going to go down? Didn't he make a little mistake there? Hasn't he sort of made a little slip-up? You know, these guys with the doubletalk usually trip themselves up once in a while. How is he going to make more money by lowering the mill rate? Or did he mean it? Was he only fooling when he said that the mill rate for industrial and commercial taxation would go down?

The homeowner grant will be retained. That's going to be of some comfort, Mr. Speaker. The homeowner grant is a good thing. He said it's going to be maintained. That's going to be a great comfort to those people in Kitimat, to those people who have lost their commercial and industrial tax base. It's not going to be as bad this year; there's only a 32 percent increase in school taxes. We're going to pay for the minister's furniture; we're going to pay for the trips; we're going to pay for all his extravagances; and our kids are going to be cut back in the programs available to them. This year there's a 32 percent tax increase on homeowners. What about next year?

You see, the minister has only dropped one of this galoshes; we're waiting for the other galosh. The other galosh is this: he's the guy who is going to decide what the basic program is going to be; he's the guy who's adding that key piece of the puzzle. You all saw Raiders of the Lost Ark. You know that key, the missing piece of the puzzle? The Clerks shake their heads. We keep them working so busily that they don't even have time to go out and see a movie. Did you know that, Mr. Speaker? I will talk about that some other time, under the legislative vote.

In Raiders of the Lost Ark there was this whole movie about seeking the lost puzzle. The same can be said about the finance formula. Here we have this latter-day schoolyard bully dropping one galosh. That galosh is confiscation of the tax base. He has committed, he says verbally — it's not in the bill — to 60 percent of the budget by direct provincial grants, and if school districts kiss his ring and the hem of his garment often enough he may share 35 percent of the other part of the budget. We're not sure yet whether he will deign to do so.

The other galosh is: what is the basic program going to be? The minister has absolute power to decide what that will be. He may get up one morning and say: "I am disturbed that the children of this province are learning too much history. They are learning about the history of the Social Credit government, and that is embarrassing. If they learn any more history in schools about the way we run things they may not vote for us, so I'm going to abolish the social studies program and substitute Free Enterprise 101." The minister has that power. He is the one who will decide what the education program will be. He may decide that everybody in grade 8 will spend six hours a week reading Major Douglas' Social Credit Economic Theory.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's worse than capital punishment.

MR. LAUK: He may do that. This is the mentality of this poor chap from the Kootenay. He was brutalized all his life himself and he wants to take it out on everybody else. "By God, if it was good enough for me...."

MR. SEGARTY: You're doing your share of it this morning.

MR. LAUK: I am only verbally brutalizing you.

MR. SEGARTY: The poor kids in the gallery are getting sick.

MR. LAUK: Well, they are going to be a lot sicker when this generation is deprived of the basic programs of education that this government is trying to cut back. Nobody likes the message I am delivering now, and I can understand that. It is not a good message. I'm sorry you weren't born at the right time and at the right place, but this government has decided that you're going to come out second best because we're having money problems. But there are certain basics, especially in families, that nobody sacrifices even though they are having money problems. That is that precious future of their own children. They will never sacrifice that. It is the height of arrogance to say that "because I'm all right...." 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. They can hire their own private tutor so they can sit in the frontistery of their mansion and teach their children. It is the kind of mentality of that government that moves in and says: "We're okay. What's wrong with you?" They find it easy to savage the public education system.

The problem is the inequity. This minister may decide that the basic program of education will not include English literature. Everyone knows that English literature is much too radical. Do you know what English literature and teaching people to read and write can do? That can defeat a government. Teaching people to be literate is very dangerous. We on this side of the House believe that education and literacy are the very protection of the democratic system.

There are countries around the world that are suffering now under dictatorships. Vast populations cannot read or write. They do not understand what is happening to them on a day-to-day basis, and the governments in those countries like it that way. The only protection and the....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, good heavens! You know, one of the problems of that government over there is that they do not understand the delicacy of our freedoms in this country; they do not understand how fragile our democratic system is. If you tinker at all with the educational system, if you bias it in

[ Page 7181 ]

any way or cut it back in any way in future generations, it is an attack on the democratic system. I'm looking at the socialist countries and I'll tell you something: why do you and I live in the freest country in the world?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Because we're non-socialist.

MR. LAUK: "Because we're non-socialist!" I mean this with respect, no disrespect to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but had he been primarily educated in Canada, I believe he would not make such a silly statement. One of the reasons we are the free country that we are is because of mass public and free education. That does not exist in the Soviet Union; that does not exist in right-wing countries; it exists in a free democratic system.

MR. RITCHIE: Nothing is free.

MR. LAUK: Oh, "nothing is free," he says over there. There is the man who deals in agricultural products. Since his arrival in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, I fear he has dealt much more with one agricultural product than he has with others.

It is only through an educational system that protects those values and helps people to become literate and understanding that we can protect our democracy. What programs are going to suffer under this bill? English second language. Do you know that 45 percent of the elementary school population of the school district of Vancouver has English as its second language? Now what are we going to do — send them all home? Their home is Canada now. Are you going to say to them — and you understand this, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs — "Do you want to go back to Europe?"

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They didn't give me any special courses.

MR. LAUK: I know you didn't have any special courses, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister. The course that he got was inheriting a fortune when he got to Canada. Then he stands up on his hind legs and says: "Why don't you have the gumption, the fortitude and the industry to inherit a fortune like I did?"

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't deal in townhouses and I didn't come here in a Mercedes, as you did. Don't be a phoney.

MR. LAUK: I won't ask him to withdraw that. He's just giving me advice.

The question of the protection of the democratic system is affected by this bill. The reason I say so is because 45 percent of the elementary school population has English as its second language in the school district of Vancouver.

Ours is a complex system. It's no longer like the fifties or even the sixties; technological advancement in the world has made demands on young people that were never made on us. The retention rate in our high school system is 80 percent from the elementary level. When you and I went to high school, it was 35 percent. The strain in the classroom, the diversity of people going into different walks of life, the tremendous pressure for skills and training was not there as it is today. Special training, special needs. We've developed a new attitude toward society since the war, one that is reflected in the educational system. Yes, the costs have grown, but the demands have been there.

Do you expect a kid with English as his second language, particularly in the younger grades, to be treading water, to be shunted over to one side because he is an immigrant or the child of an immigrant? Is he not entitled, in a democratic system, to equal opportunity for an education, and can you say he gets an equal-opportunity education when he can't speak English? Can you not say: "I'm going to eliminate that barrier as best I can, because we're living in a free and democratic system, and these kids belong to us too?" They all belong to us. It's our responsibility. Rather than the minister saying, "I'm going to assume responsibility for the taxation base," just once I wish he'd say "I'm going to assume responsibility for the kids that can't speak for themselves in the educational system." That's the kind of responsibility I'd like him to assume in the English as a second language program. At least eliminate one of the three strikes against these kids as they're trying to proceed through the educational system and get a job and establish themselves in Canada.

The ESL programs are going to be cut back and you won't hear from those kids. Have you ever heard of an eight-year-old holding a press conference and saying "Wait a minute. You're putting me through." Being the child of immigrant parents, they're reluctant too. They're not familiar with the democratic system. These people are savaged and punished in silence. It takes a keen and sensitive eye to see them travel through life and know that those scars that were created by this arrogant government.... Some of them may carry them for the rest of their lives. In 20 years, I would ask the Minister of Education, if he sees some Chinese person unemployed, or some person with a broken English accent working some place on a work crew.... I want him to ask himself this question: "If I had not brought this program in 20 years ago, would that kid be a doctor today? Would he be a lawyer? Would he be a teacher? Did I do something that held that kid back from his full potential?" That's the question I want this minister to ask, and he should ask it. It's not just a bill reaching to 1984; that's three years, Mr. Speaker. What are three years in a child's educational life? You know what it is. It's a generation; it's a lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, the minister argues that the bill will retain equalization. Section 4 gives the Minister of Finance power to define "equal" in the context of payments to boards. The government cannot trust the Minister of Education to make that definition. They've given it to the accountant. Now we know where education stands in the province of British Columbia; it's on an adding machine. Automation has taken over, and the Minister of Finance now controls the definition of "equal." What is this new formula going to do in terms of equalization? What if a school district has only a residential and a heavy-industrial tax base that's now been confiscated — such as Kitimat? What happens to their locally developed programs? What happens to their enrichment programs in Kitimat? Is this minister, comfortably ensconced in Oak Bay, in a very mild climate, wearing his ascot and sipping lemonade, going to suggest that if you chose to live up in the harsh north in an industrial town.... "Anyone doing that, of course, is not interested in art, culture, theatre, enrichment, or advanced physical education; you don't need any of those things. If you do, we've rationalized the system for you." Do you know what "rationalize the system" means in the minister's new terminology? "If you want those pro-

[ Page 7182 ]

grams, come to Oak Bay. There's freedom of mobility in British Columbia. Buy a $700,000 house in Oak Bay and move in. There's no problem; we've got freedom of choice in a democratic system."

Equalization, my foot! It's exactly the opposite, Mr. Speaker. There's going to be no equalization, and I'll tell you when the other galosh drops. In the school district in Delta, in the city of Vancouver, and in Prince Rupert, taxation on residential homeowners will soar. It will go through the roof, because the parents and the taxpayers of the school districts will say in the final analysis: "We need these programs. We're going to fund them. We used to fund them by using industrial and commercial taxation; now we'll have to fund them ourselves." They'll suffer and put up with it, because they don't want their kids to suffer. The government in Victoria will be sitting on that pile of gold — $840 million this year. Who knows how much next year? Will it be a billion, a billion and a half?

The minister says he won't have to make much use of the directives that will be available to him in the act. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The minister is saying. "Trust me. I know you're giving me absolute dictatorial power over the educational system. But remember what an educated and wonderful fellow I am. Trust me."

I have to concede that when the minister sees things clearly, he usually makes a right decision — which leads me to believe that he hasn't seen anything clearly in some years. But what about other ministers, Mr. Speaker? Who's his successor? Will it be someone even more arbitrary and more dictatorial? Maybe it will be an anti-intellectual. There's no shortage of those on the other side. Maybe somebody like that will be Minister of Education with these awesome, sweeping, dictatorial powers in this act.

The minister already had flexibility and directive power under the old act. He could replace boards with an official trustee. And this brings us to the basic issue of local autonomy. The taxpayers are going to be savaged. The kids are going to suffer. A whole generation will lose the opportunity for an enhanced and enriched education. Taxpayers are going to suffer.

School boards — and this is the third issue — have lost their power. It was bad enough before, Mr. Speaker: the school boards did not have sufficient local autonomy to reflect the needs and aspirations of their community. Now they have none at all. Did the minister need that kind of savage power? Under the old act if a school board was so gross in its behaviour, it could be replaced by a trustee. So he can't argue that he needs that power to deal with a very maverick school board. It's already there.

The real third issue is a power grab. It's centralization of power and control over the education system. Through his directives, he can dictate virtually everything that goes on in a classroom in every school district in this province. Does anyone find that frightening? Am I the only one reacting to that? Are you not concerned with that, Mr. Speaker? Is there so much unity on that other side that it doesn't trouble you that a virtual education dictator is now being set up in this province? Everything that goes on in a classroom can be dictated by that one man. One man, the new Sun King.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know of any other jurisdiction in a democratic world that has that kind of power. A long time ago I was told that we should distrust people who want that kind of power. People who want that kind of power are frightened people. They are frightened and confused. They are afraid of the community. They are afraid of their neighbours. They are afraid to let truth stand out and be judged.

The more control you want over your neighbours, the more afraid you are of them. You're afraid of the truth if you want more control over information and truth.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's socialism.

MR. LAUK: It's also fascism, my friend. It's communism and fascism. You think in those two terms, and you don't understand anything in the middle. You don't understand it at all. There are too many people in this life who think in terms of black and white. Thank God that the majority of people in Canada know that they can't be fooled by either extreme side.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can run around the province and do the red-baiting and commie-baiting all he wants. He knows how to do it very well. Demagoguery. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) can go around and spread falsehoods about secret police forces. They know how to do that very well. But the people of this province don't believe that kind of right-wing balderdash, and they're never going to.

In this country we stand in a delicate balance between the totalitarian right and the totalitarian left. There is no room for compromising with either. You can't compromise with Argentina, and you can't compromise with imperialist Russia. If you play games within a democratic system with those two delicate issues, you betray the very precious democratic ideals that this country is based on.... This bill is very far-reaching. The argument has made already by the Ministry of Education.

The new education financing formula brought in by this act is a direct attack on the services to kids in many areas. I've mentioned before that English language courses, learning assistance teachers, computer education, libraries and business and industrial education will all suffer. Cutbacks have been made already, and they're being planned in all those areas.

I emphasized English in the first part of my address. The reason I've emphasized English is because of the importance of language and literacy in a democratic system. If you don't learn the language, you can't learn anything else. It's the medium of communication. English second-language courses, developmental and remedial reading and modified for minimum-essentials courses in learning assistance centres are all going to be eliminated or cut back in school districts around the province.

The minister has said that he won't make much use of directives, but I have information this afternoon that the minister has already threatened the very savage and dictatorial way to use the powers that are going to be available to him. He is going to use that power, and he's already threatened to do so in the case of the Courtenay School District. He's told the Courtenay School District: "If you don't deliver your budget to me, I'll write it for you." That's what he said. He had the temerity to stand up in this chamber this morning and say: "I won't make much use of the directive powers, folks." He carries that soft velvet glove, and underneath it is a pair of brass knuckles.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 7183 ]

The minister makes the claim that special education is separate and he's going to deal with that separately. He didn't bother to point it out in the act. It's not there. I wonder when he thought about it. This morning over breakfast? When will he change his mind? This afternoon after lunch? Where's the predictability? Where's the reliability? Do you play with the education system in that way? Do you suggest to kids that that kind of resource can be played with from minute to minute, day by day?

"What is that special education protection?" he argues. I point out that it will be at the expense of the regular education system. If you've limited your budget to a certain amount, you can't enlarge one piece of the pie without diminishing the size of the other piece of pie.

HON. MR. SMITH: You don't want to protect it. Say so.

MR. LAUK: This is very interesting. I charge the minister that at the expense of the regular education program, he argues he's going to protect special education. He says: "If you don't want it protected, say so." I want both protected. I think that's obvious. Why has he got the right to tell us that we're not entitled to both? Both are essential. It's like saying: "I'm going to provide food for my family, but I can't provide them with shelter." When one of your children says "Can I not have shelter," you'd say: "Well, do you want food or don't you?" What kind of nonsense is that? They're essentials.

We don't have special education defined in the bill. We have nothing but the minister's promise that he'll protect it, but we know he'll protect it at the expense of the regular education program.

He argues that 1984 is the expiry date of this bill. I think that I would agree with him, but I'm going to be cautious, because I've been trapped before. I'm confused, by the way, about why this bill has a three-year application and the so-called restraint program has a two-year application. I think some elaboration is needed on that. Let's speculate. Could it be that the new finance formula is not interim after all? Could it be that the allegations I've made about a permanent power and financial grab are true? I think so. I think that the restraint program being for two years and this finance formula being for three years is clear evidence that the government is not only reacting to the economic recession in education, but is also moving for control of education.

The next thing that the minister said is the most outrageous remark I've ever heard. Up to that point I was only mildly outraged and fearful. The next statement that the minister made so flies in the face of the facts that I'm sure the minister would like to get up under standing order 42 after my speech and correct the record. He said that this act still leaves a full ambit for local autonomy for local boards within the limits of the restraint. Not one aspect of the school board's operation....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to ask leave to introduce some guests who are leaving the building.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We do it all the time, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I appreciate the member allowing me to have this opportunity. A group of young people who hadn't planned to visit the Legislature, but got permission from the Sergeant-at-Arms, are here with us today from Fort Langley: Mike Cox, his assistants and members of the fourth troop — I think it is — of the Fort Langley Boy Scouts. I'd like this group of assembled legislators to make them very welcome to Victoria.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd like to just comment — recognizing, of course, the urgency of the member's introduction — that it is common that a member rise with that type of introduction between speakers and not while someone is speaking.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: There's no chance of that.

I'd like to welcome those young people from Fort Langley, too, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sorry they're here to hear this sordid tale about what the government is doing to the educational system.

The minister said, when he opened debate on this bill, that the bill still leaves local autonomy intact. Every school trustee who was weaned at W.A.C. Bennett's knee has called this bill a confiscation of local power and autonomy. There isn't one school trustee in the province who hasn't made that charge, and any schoolboy — sorry, school person — who reads this bill can see clearly that it is a confiscation of local power.

You know, that's not bad enough. The Deputy Speaker now in the chair was a distinguished chairman of a school board in the city of Prince George, one of the most advanced school districts in the province and in the country. Their secondary education system is first class. It costs money. They have introduced peer counselling, they've introduced conflict management in situations, and they've introduced enrichment programs in Prince George that are second to none in the country. That was partly under the chairmanship of the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan), who is now in the chair, and I take my hat off to him. I know full well that member will stand with this side of the House and vote down this savage piece of legislation, because the work that that member has done to bring about those programs in that school district, to give those kids the best break they've ever had, is now going down the tube. Prince George is a highly industrialized area, where the taxation base has been whipped away from the school district. There are no more guarantees of enrichment programs — those special programs that that chairman of the school board brought in over so many years. The reason why the member for Prince George South, who is now in the chair, is in this chamber is because of his record as a school board chairman who brought in these programs. I know that he is going to stand in his place with the rest of us, vote down this bill and say enough is enough.

It's a savage confiscation of local autonomy. As if that's not bad enough, in a fundamental and fatal way it has attacked the very precious democratic concept in education: the sovereignty of the family in the education of their kids. The protection against fascism and totalitarianism, the protection against centralized education and thought control in any country in the world is best accomplished when you give sovereignty over education to the family. Parents, in con-

[ Page 7184 ]

sultation with their children, should have the final overall say about education. It's safe to say that in most school districts at most times school boards were the legitimate, legal governance and representation of the sovereignty of the family over education.

It just drives me wild when I can't get through to the members on that side of the House how important the sovereignty of the family is in relation to the education system. They don't understand it at all, Mr. Speaker. You do, but some hon. members on that side of the House haven't got a clue. If you take away the sovereignty of parents to influence and control the education of their kids, then you've got a dictatorship and a centralized government that destroys the democratic system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston seeks the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: I regret to interrupt the speaker on a question of privilege. I rise at the first opportunity with the Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Speaker, during the opening remarks of the Minister of Education — and I have just been able to obtain the preliminary copy of the Blues — I heard him say that under this act which is under debate, "the government will assume the responsibility for the non-residential tax base across this province." I have examined Bill 27. I draw Mr. Speaker's attention to section 20, which says that the act will be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Act. An investigation of section 20 makes it quite clear that the "levy, collection and recovery" of taxes remains the responsibility of the municipality — in the case that there is a municipality — and that the balance of taxes must be submitted by a certain date, whether or not they have been collected. So even where people are withholding tax, it is the responsibility of the municipality.

I would submit that this was misleading the House. It would appear to me to be deliberately in contravention of the facts of the act which the minister has placed before us. Should Mr. Speaker find that a prima facie case exists, I have a prepared motion, which I would not move at this time. The motion would read that a Special Committee of Privileges be appointed to consider the matter that the Minister of Education may have deliberately misled the House when he said, during debate on Bill 27 on April 23, 1982: "Under this measure the government will assume responsibility for the non-residential tax base across the province"; and that the said committee report its findings to the House, the said committee to be comprised of eight members to be named by a Special Committee of Selection; and the committee so named to have the powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the evidence is to be found on tape 651-1-ph, 10:25 a.m. I am referring to section 20 on page 9 of the act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter will be taken under advisement.

MR. NICOLSON: And reported back?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: I mentioned the sovereignty of the family over the education system. I want to spend some time in emphasizing that with all members of the House. I think it is something they have all learned in their education and upbringing. They all understood it to be a valuable and protective device in our free and democratic country of Canada. The Scottish have a nice way of putting it: "The home is the university." It certainly is. Being of non-British background, I have been a very great admirer of the influence of Scottish immigrants to this country, most of them, and the contribution those generations of Scottish people — many others as well, but I am singling out the Scottish for the moment — have made to our educational system. I want to bring some of the members of this House back to some of those concepts that, I charge, are attacked by this new finance formula and the powers that are being usurped by the minister. 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.

We saw in this country that we could not have situations in large population areas where only families met to decide the educational needs of their kids. Let's go back. When my ancestors arrived in this country, that is precisely what they did do. They lived in a farming village in Canada. Mom and Dad and all the rest of the parents in that village met periodically and decided to hire a teacher. Usually in the Prairies you can only hire a teacher for one year because they wouldn't last much longer. Some did. Some stayed there and raised their own families, but most didn't. They were young people and they moved on. Those families would meet and decide on a schoolhouse. They'd take a weekend off, and all the menfolk and womenfolk would go down and build the schoolhouse. They provided the money for the heat; they raised among themselves the money for the teachers; they provided the extra things needed for the school. They didn't know much. Most of them were relatively uneducated. They worked very hard. They were the bulk of the population of this country at one time. They built this country and built the freedoms upon which it is based today.

The reason we are so free — not without need for improvement.... I wouldn't be a member of the New Democratic Party if I thought Canada was perfect. A lot of improvement is needed, but the reason we are the freest and greatest country in the world started back there in the Prairies and the little villages and towns of Nova Scotia, the Maritimes, Ontario and Quebec. Well, that's exactly what parents did. They would meet, they would decide education policy and they would consult with the local school teacher in their little redbrick house and so on. That's where the educational system came from. What is the essential ingredient there? Maybe they didn't have visual aids and enrichment programs in those days. Okay, it was not the kind of high-quality enriched education program we have today, that's true. I don't want to go back to those days. What's the one thing that's been passed down to us from those days that we have to preserve, that would be fatal, foolish, stupid and negligent of us not to preserve? It's the sovereignty of the family over that education system, even today.

Mr. Speaker, when the population centres grew to a size where it would be impracticable for families to meet and act as their own school board, they decided through their elected representatives to establish school districts. They elected lay people — parents usually — to those school boards, and they would sacrifice the extra time that was required to run the school district. But the principle of the sovereignty of the

[ Page 7185 ]

family was maintained. For a hundred years, Mr. Speaker, school board trustees listened primarily to parents, and that's as it should be.

There have been periods of time when people tried to change the language. They say: "Never mind the parents and the kids; I want to protect the taxpayer." I don't know of any parent that isn't a taxpayer. I have real trouble with that kind of an argument, and so do most school boards. I know that Mr. Speaker in the chair never ran on a program to protect the taxpayer first; he ran on a program to protect the kids and the school system first. Of course we protect the taxpayer. How do you protect the taxpayer? Do you protect him by shutting down the school system and saving him money? That's the surest way to attack the taxpayer that I've ever heard of. Do you think the taxpayers don't believe in funding education? What nonsense! In the last seven years in this province very few school trustees who ran on a program of fiscal taxpayer protection won a place on a school board. You know that as well as I do. They lost, because most people know that that kind of demagoguery is balderdash; it's nonsense. The logical extension of someone who runs solely on that kind of a restraint program is to shut down the school system.

These school boards developed out of the family system of running education in the local areas. They maintain that contact with parents and the family, and they developed the education program step by step. Somewhere around the turn of the century and just through and past the First World War in Canada, we found that some school districts, because they were relatively impoverished, were not able to provide the kind of education to their youngsters that other school districts in urban or richer areas were providing, It was then, and only then, that Ministers of Education in the provinces were appointed to provide equalization of opportunity. They made the solemn promise: yes, we are going to be Ministers of Education, but our ministries will be small and we're going to be a resource for the school districts, not an authority. What happened between the wars is that that generally developed fairly well. Ministers of Education kept their noses out of local education, only interrupting when they saw inequality. They said: "Wait a minute. We live in a democratic system. If you go to school in Creston you should have the same, or reasonably the same, opportunities if you go to school in West Vancouver." That worked out pretty well. Throughout that there was never an attack on the sovereignty of the family. The parents were still providing their contribution and controlling and developing the education for their children.

What has happened since the Second World War? Ministers of Education began to centralize power a little bit and struggles started to take place. We began to lose the idea of sovereignty of the family over education until finally the logical extension, as embodied in the current minister, is a total usurpation of all power, decision-making authority and taxation authority to one person. We've moved silently, treacherously, dangerously and secretly towards a dictatorship in the education system without us realizing what the consequences are — what we've lost.

I believe that when the New Democratic Party forms the government soon, we'll be able very quickly to reverse that. But I'll tell you this: if one Socred right-wing cabinet minister can usurp that power, so can another. The public of this province should be very wary indeed about what's happening here today, because a right-wing government always starts with the education system. That's where they start. Then they move into areas of the economy, and into other areas to control and direct and dictate. They're essentially the same as totalitarian regimes. That's the direction that's being taken.

I went around the province — that's where I met you, Mr. Speaker — as often as I could to visit school districts when I was appointed as spokesman for education by our party. I was really very pleasantly surprised. I thought the efficiency with which they conducted their business, the sensitivity towards the education system in the local school district, their feelings and contribution and understanding of their own community were second to none. I think we lose something in this chamber when we all come to Victoria. We're separated from the people who voted for us, we're separated from the families who have their hopes and aspirations to express almost on a weekly or daily basis, and we miss the opportunity to keep in touch. In this great chamber we begin to believe we exist separate and apart from the province. We begin to believe we are the raison d'etre for our own existence. We are here to perpetuate ourselves. We belong to an exclusive club. No one else belongs.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why you don't go home on the weekends.

MR. LAUK: I'll only take that kind of an insulting remark from a member of this House, Mr. Speaker. We all full well know that yes, we do make sacrifices in terms of our families. That's the price of public life and I have no apologies. Although we all have our regrets, we have no apologies for that. We choose public life.

The point I'm trying to make is that in this chamber we lose contact with the constituencies, the people, the families that have elected us. One of the advantages I always saw, particularly in relation to many essential services to local municipalities and communities, was that local councils and school boards were closer to the people; they had access to the people. As I was saying, in the tour of school districts that I take from time to time, I'm very impressed with the respect and the deference shown by trustees to the parents with whom they come into contact, and with the sincere and real effort that the school trustees make to seek out the consensus of opinion within their community before they act on an important educational issue.

I am content with the school board's system. I think it works, and it works very well. In respect to education it works better than the Ministry of Education itself in this province, and it should be continued. For the minister to argue that this bill leaves local autonomy is not a true statement. He's not interpreting the statute correctly. The statute usurps the local autonomy in power of the school board: when you usurp the local power and autonomy and the school board you take away the sovereignty of the family to control education, and when you take away the sovereignty of the family to control education, you've got a dictatorship. It's as pure and simple as that.

Since this bill has been introduced, and also since the minister's announcement detailing what the bill would show in the new education finance formula, I have visited with a great many school trustees. I have discussed the contents of the formula with them. I've talked to them on the telephone and I've corresponded with them. I've spoken to people who have been trustees in some cases for 12 and 15 years, off and on, some of them for 20 years, and I have never seen them so discouraged and dismayed. They are usually people with

[ Page 7186 ]

such positive, encouraging attitudes. They are leaders in their communities. I've never seen them, almost to a man and a women, so discouraged and so depressed about what's happening to the education system in this province. They can't believe that even this government would take such an expedient approach to education as to bring in this finance formula. They think they can get away with it; they think they can pass it by the ordinary Mr. and Mrs. B.C. without too much notice.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, my colleague points out that under the cover of a recession they are savaging the school system.

It is a very sad and terrible waste to see the leaders of our communities and school districts throughout this province in such a state. I've never seen them so discouraged and depressed about the educational system. There have been bad times before. On school boards you don't always agree with what others are doing. You lose some battles on the board and you lose some battles with the ministry, but you carry on. Most of these people I am talking about always had a positive attitude. They would always say: "There is always a tomorrow. We are going to pick up the pieces and get started again." But not lately. They are telling me they are not going to run again. They are telling me: "What's the point? There is no need for school boards. We were getting ready to battle Vander Zalm's county system...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It is unparliamentary, hon. member, to mention another member's name.

MR. LAUK: I apologize to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs for mentioning his name.

They were ready to battle the county system. Now they've found out that there's not even going to be a county system. The school boards are gone in terms of power. It reminds me of company law. There are two ways to buy a company: you can buy its assets or you can buy its shares. If you buy its shares it is an upfront way of purchasing a company, or you create a shell of a company by buying its assets. This bill does not come in the front door and say: "We're doing away with school districts." It has taken away all their power. It is like buying the assets and leaving the company name only.

I concede it is clever. It is politically clever. This bill and the whole restraint package is ingenious, politically. The real premiers of the province of British Columbia — Norman Spector, Patrick Kinsella, the hired guns from Ontario — have designed this, I swear. There's a little trio there: Larry Bell, Spector and Kinsella. They're running this government. They have designed this very cleverly, because we know that that group over there, even on their best day, aren't that clever. But this is clever. It's designed to hoodwink the public of British Columbia. There are so many false doors, it's a maze. You expose one problem and they put up another roadblock.

The real truth and thrust of the legislation is hidden, not only by the statements of the minister that are completely contrary to the facts as exposed by the bill, but by the language of the bill and the force of the bill. Sometimes to see the total plan you have to read this bill with other policy statements, regulations and bills that are being brought in by other ministers. As I told you, the total plan is not yet clear, but it's clever.

I have confidence that the people of this province are going to see through even this complex network of fabrication and misrepresentation. They're going to see through that, and they're going to vote the right way in the next provincial election and heave these people out of office.

As the minister wrapped up his introduction to this bill.... I should point out that when I delivered my speech in the budget debate, the minister indicated to me in this House that he would answer the points I raised. He answered none of them — not one.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is mistaken. The minister, during the budget debate, suggested that when he opened debate on this bill he would answer the criticisms I made in the budget debate. He didn't answer one of them. I raise that only to point out: can we rely on what he says? When he says that he's going to give 60 percent to the basic program, protect special education and not make much use of the directive powers in the bill, can we trust what he says?

He told me he was going to respond during the opening of the bill to the criticisms made, and pursuant to the finance formula that I made. He hasn't done so. He did not condescend to deal with one point I raised. But he closed by saying: "This bill is a sensitive approach to children, parents and taxpayers." I'll deal with them in reverse order, Mr. Speaker. The taxpayers in this province on a school district basis are paying 32 percent more taxes this year and will be paying much more of an increase next year. That is what the minister calls a sensitive approach to taxpayers? I think the taxpayers of this province will wish that the minister would be a little less sensitive and lower their taxes.

The minister says that the bill is a sensitive approach to parents. I've already pointed out that parents are virtually excluded from control of or contribution toward the education of their children. That power has been usurped by a dictator, by a central ministry headed by the minister. Parents have no say. Is that a sensitive approach to parents, telling them that they have no say in the education of their children, telling them that today's generation of children will not have access to enrichment programs in their school districts, the same programs that you and I had access to?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is so boring.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Municipal Affairs says my speech is boring. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely apologize to the House if they're bored. Nobody is perfect. I believe I'm bringing to the House a message of critical importance that must be understood, because I believe that the members of the Social Credit Party sitting in this House are voting on something they couldn't possibly vote for if they knew its true impact. If I have to be boring to press that point, I intend to be. I intend to repeat these charges time and time again until they're completely understood, because if ever there was a bill in this province that needed to be fought by this party and by the people of this province, it's this bill. It has to be fought; it has to be defeated; it has to be stopped.

Sensitive approach to parents, Mr. Speaker — it's a taking away of any possibility the parents have of contributing to the guidance in the education of their children.

[ Page 7187 ]

Finally, the minister says that the bill is a sensitive approach to children. The minister claims that a sensitive approach to children includes the cutting back of enrichment programs, learning assistance centres, English as a second language, enriched physical education programs, locally developed courses and the closing of neighbourhood schools: six in Burnaby, three in North Vancouver and five in Alberni. Neighbourhood schools are closing every day. Children in elementary schools are having to walk miles to school, sometimes in the dark. At their own expense and sometimes great inconvenience, parents are having to take the time to drive their children to and from school at great distances. There is the extra stress on a family and the uncertainty and worry of the parents. This is what the minister calls sensitivity towards children.

I have proven in my remarks so far that every statement the minister made in opening debate on this bill was not based on the facts. As a matter of fact, I have been able to take every statement he has made and prove that the opposite is true. What can you say about a Crown minister who will state the exact opposite of what is true in a piece of legislation? What is his motive? What is he trying to get past the people?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to stay in cabinet.

MR. LAUK: Yes, he has been ordered to play his role. By being ordered to play his role and by willingly rolling over and playing the marshmallow to the restraint program through this finance formula, he has turned his back on the kids, the parents and, indeed, the taxpayers of this province.

Now I want to get into the main body of my speech. This bill reminds me very much of a film that was produced in the early 1970s called The Sting. Do you remember that film? I thought it was an ingenious film. It was a story of a couple of con men who set up a program to con another crook. I think the The Sting was divided. The first part of the movie was called "The Bait." There was a second one that was called "The Mark," that introduced you to who was going to get taken. The next part was "The Hook." Remember that? You saw the film, Mr. Speaker. There was "The Hook," then there was "The Game," and then there was "The Sting." I want to analyze this bill using those various segments of that motion picture to demonstrate how this is a classic con job. It couldn't have been done better had Robert Redford and Paul Newman got together and put the bill.... Whoever wrote the script of The Sting, obviously put this bill together. I'm going to add a few other segments — I'm going to be creative.

HON. MR. GARDOM: When?

MR. LAUK: Creativity is in the eye of the beholder.

This bill has several parts to it. First there is the bait. Second there is the mark. Third there is the shill. Do you know what the shill is? We'll talk about him in a minute. Then there's the con man. Then there's the hook, the game, the sting, and I'm going to add one last thing. That movie ended too quickly to be a complete analysis of this bill, because there is one other area we haven't discussed. That's the victims.

The victims are not always the mark. The victims could include other people. We all know what the bait is. That was lower property taxes. We heard many statements from ministers saying: "Look, we're going to provide a new finance formula. We're going to lower property taxes." They went through this little facade about assessments. We had the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) appealing his own assessment on one of his mansions. We went through all of this thing where the cabinet ministers themselves that set the assessment and taxation rates were pretending to appeal on their own behalf. It was beautiful. I could hear Scott Joplin playing in the background as the bait was being set up. The bait was lower homeowner taxes.

Who was the mark? Well, the mark at this stage is the homeowner. He's being sucked in. He's going to vote for this government on a promise of lower homeowner taxation, so he's the guy they're approaching.

I was trying to figure out a role for the Minister of Education. Was he the shill or the con man? He's playing such a wonder-wimp role in the restraint program — and he's really doing what he's told — that I have to call him the shill. He has come in here and talked like one of these very protective, reasonable types; he has given the facade of reason. But he's really the shill. He's setting up himself to deceive the mark about lower homeowner taxation, but the real con man has got to be the Premier. He's got to be the real con man when it comes to this sting, Mr. Speaker.

They've set up....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. In debate of bill 27, the relevancy rule requires that debate be held strictly to the principle of the bill. Certainly personal allusions would be beyond the scope of that particular bill.

MR. LAUK: I'm trying to construct a way of analyzing the bill, and I don't impute any improper motive to any hon. minister. I'm using the movie The Sting as an example of how I think the legislation cons people.

I think the minister, a bit inadvertently, has fallen into the trap. The con man, I say, is the Premier himself, and his sidekick is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). They have set up the situation where they needed to balance their budget, and they're going to pretend to fund education and lower homeowner taxation while, in the meantime, they're grabbing the industrial and commercial tax base of the local municipalities.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre is making accusations against members of this House and suggesting they're con men. I don't know if that kind of language is permissible or not, and I suspect it's not. If it's not, Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd ask him to withdraw those statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has cautioned members of the House regarding the rule of relevancy on Bill 27. The Chair has also, cautioned against the use of unparliamentary language and personal allusions. I trust that all hon. members would adhere to the rules of their own House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, is it permissible for the first member for Vancouver Centre to call the Premier a con man? If it isn't, I wish he'd withdraw it.

[ Page 7188 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The minister is apparently offended by the phrase. Would the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre please withdraw the offensive phrase.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, at the expense of my analogy, I'm certainly not going to impugn any improper motive, or label someone a con man in this chamber. That would be unparliamentary. And the con men of the country are greatly relieved.

MR. SPEAKER: The accusation is then withdrawn, so I understand? So ordered.

MR. LAUK: I should make a comment that the hon. minister who interrupted this debate to ask for the withdrawal has not been in this chamber all day,

HON. MR. GARDOM: Order, order!

MR. LAUK: Could someone send a nurse in for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. He seems to have indigestion.

As I was saying, there is the bait, there's the mark, there's the shill, there's the con man, and now let's talk about the hook.

The hook is the fictional finance formula itself. It has this promise of 75 percent but it's just another empty promise like the BCRIC shares. But it hooks the homeowners and the taxpayers and the voters onto this whole con-game. We're at the stage now where the game is taking place. The game is when the shill stands up in the House and gives the appearance that there is nothing wrong with this legislation; as a matter of fact, that it's going to be very beneficial. We're going through the process of having the opposition attack it and hoping that the press goes to sleep, which they have done. It's not going to get covered, and the people aren't going to hear the truth about the bill. That's the game; they've set it up in such a beautiful way.

And eventually the sting: The sting is this year a 32 percent increase in taxes on homes, next year 65 percent and 70 percent, and the year after that 150 percent. Year by year the ministry is going to cut back on its programs to the districts and use the money they've confiscated for their own general revenue programs in the local district. They'll subsidize northeast coal, they'll subsidize the furniture and travel of the various ministers. The children of this province will suffer, and that's the sting. The sting is on the taxpayers.

Who are the victims? The victims are a whole generation of kids who've been caught up in this whole con game. They're going to suffer, they're going to lose in their educational opportunities, and they're liable to carry those scars with them for the rest of their lives. Quality education for them is lost because local control is lost, the enrichment of education programs is lost. They won't be able to get jobs; they can't get skills because the colleges are being cut back too. And the more sophisticated our industrial system in this province becomes, the more we'll have to rely on importing foreign workers to work in our plants, mines and factories, because the con game has hooked and stunned the taxpayers. It has affected a generation of students.

I congratulate the minister on one aspect. I understand he managed to fight off the cabinet, which wanted to finance education through the sale of lottery tickets. We might as well. With this bill, Mr. Speaker, it's just a money grab anyway. Why don't we have authority given to local school districts? It'll give the local school districts something to do now that they have no power to control education. Let them run their own lotteries. How about massive bingo games in Prince Rupert? "Come out to bingo. If we get 700 people out tonight, we'll be able to include social studies next year in grade 9." Why don't we have a lottery to fund local education programs? Better still, now that you've confiscated the commercial and industrial tax base, and all that money is needed to build the BCR into Tumbler Ridge, and so on, why don't we have a lottery throughout the province and see if we can't fund education? I've got a better idea. Why don't we set up a great big ship out at sea — a casino? Maybe we can turn Victoria into a gambling mecca. We could turn these tables around; the Clerks could become croupiers and wear the shades. We can have dice in the corner; we can have a roulette wheel over here; and for Mr. Speaker, a bridge game out in the corridor. I'll tell you, we could make a fortune, Mr. Speaker. Money will be rolling in and those American tourists will be paying for our higher education.

You know, the hon. member for Victoria once said last year that it's a terrible thing in this province that the education of our young is so reliant upon how high real estate values go, and that's our education system. We can go one better: the roll of the dice. If you're going to get grade 9 this year, roll the dice. Let's sell lottery tickets. So I congratulate the minister. He did fight off that serious proposal by some of his colleagues. I think he missed the boat though. I think that with his new consumer education program he could have announced that all grade 9 in the province could pass the consumer education course if they could explain any one aspect of the new finance formula. That's a full-time task. As a matter of fact, I put out this challenge: if any school student in the province can explain any aspect of this finance formula, he or she should be made Deputy Minister of Education. Knowing what I do about the consumer education program, perhaps the minister can suggest that either you pass the course material by going to school and learning the material or you sell 500 lottery tickets. That might be a good approach too.

I do not mean to be too facetious with this minister's approach, but I want to demonstrate that there is very little philosophical underpinning to the educational system through this government. They have turned their backs on the educational system. It is a money grab, a power grab. It is centralizing power. It is destroying the sovereignty of the family over education. It is a sting, a con game, and the victims are an entire generation of school students.

Mr. Lauk moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.