[ Page 7189 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Gloucester property. Mrs. Wallace –– 7189

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Barrett

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

Mr. Lauk –– 7191

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Visiting the House today in the members' gallery is the newly arrived trade commissioner and consul for Finland, Mr. David Nemes. Mr. Nemes arrived recently as the new consul in Vancouver. I would like the members to welcome him.

MRS. WALLACE: Today I am pleased to welcome a group of grade 11 students from Chemainus who are in the gallery. They are making their annual visit to the Legislature and they are accompanied by their teacher, Tom Lewis. I would hope the House will be on its best behaviour for this very fine group of students from Chemainus.

MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today and in the precincts is a group of representatives from the village of Fort Nelson. They have come to Victoria today to meet with several ministers to express their concerns about taxation and to make some positive suggestions about how the government can maintain the incentives necessary for resource development in this province. I would like to introduce Mayor Dick Neufeld of the village of Fort Nelson; Colin Griffith, the village administrator; Mary Eaton, the regional district director for that area; Mr. Keith Lutsiak, president of the chamber of commerce; Mr. Bruce Walker, vice-chairman of the school board; Mr. Gary Roth, chief executive officer of School District 81; and Dr. Tony Kenyon who is also a member of the group, with him Mrs. Judith Kenyon and their daughter. I would like the members of this House to make them very welcome to Victoria.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, somebody left five BCRIC shares on my desk. I don't know whom they came from. I don't know whether it's an attempt to buy or bribe me, but it's not enough.

Oral Questions

GLOUCESTER PROPERTY

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On Friday the minister announced that cabinet had overruled the Land Commission and that the Gloucester property would remain out of the ALR. My question is: was that decision made because the Gloucester property suit against the government is still on the court register and cabinet ministers are afraid to appear under oath?

MR. SPEAKER: A part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Whatever part is in order, the answer is no.

MRS. WALLACE: Will the minister then tell us what reason there could possibly be? Certainly the explanation he gave when he made his Friday afternoon announcement made no mention of any point that would be exclusive to that Gloucester property. Would he care to agree that the words he used on Friday would apply equally well to any piece of land in the Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure to what words the member refers, but I do want to clarify one thing: we did not overrule the Land Commission. We did not accept their recommendation.

I don't know why the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) finds that humorous. It's a statement of fact.

MR. BARBER: We find you humorous.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Secondly, to try to elaborate on the reasons, for the benefit of the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who wasn't at the conference on Friday, first of all, there are 32 separate titles to the property involved. This means that even within the ALR, the land could be broken up into 32 different titles, into 32 pieces of property owned by separate property-owners. The land ranges from class 2 to class 7. There are also 20 acres of pondage in that land. Present cost of putting the land into agriculture production would be substantial. Highway and railway access to the property is conducive to an industrial park concept.

Finally, Mrs. Kuurne's report, which was done for the Land Commission, says: "The major limitations of the Gloucester properties are inundation by streams or lakes, topography, excess water, an undesirable soil structure and low permeability." Those are some of the major factors — there are others — why this wouldn't apply to every property in the Fraser Valley, which was really the member's question.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister indicates that I was not at his press conference. If he had invited me, I certainly would have been there. To sneak a press conference in on a Friday afternoon after everyone is gone doesn't seem quite fair.

Will the minister tell the House whether or not the Gloucester suit against the government has at this point been withdrawn, and if so at what date?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In reply to the member's first comments, we're here to work all day, not leave at 1 p.m. The press conference was held at 1:15 p.m. I'm sure she could have been there had she made an effort.

Second, my responsibility is to deal with the Agricultural Land Commission and its recommendations to cabinet. I am not the minister responsible for lawsuits, etc. I refer you to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) if you wish an answer.

MR. LEA: Why? Is he in charge of bribes?

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I find that remark objectionable, and I ask the member for Prince Rupert to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The statement referring to bribes is offensive to the House. Would the member for Prince Rupert please withdraw.

MR. LEA: Certainly. I can't think of another word to call it, so I'll have to withdraw it — same thing, though.

MR. SPEAKER: An unqualified withdrawal is all we need.

[ Page 7190 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the member is trying to say "bribe" in a different manner, I wish he'd say it outside the House and back it up. Otherwise, he should withdraw unequivocally.

MR. SPEAKER: I assume that we do have an unqualified withdrawal.

MR. LEA: Yes, you certainly do. It is not bribes; it's Socred campaign funds.

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Agriculture on the same subject, what's the minister's estimate of the amount of private capital gain that this decision of cabinet has put into the hands of the consortium which includes the former campaign manager for the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland)? Is it $100 million or $200 million?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. I hear a reference across the floor to the word "lie." I trust that the Minister of Energy would withdraw any improper motive which may have been imputed to another member of the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what that member's motive was; I would assume as an hon. member of this House that he had no improper motives, even though the statement that he made is absolutely incorrect. I will withdraw, in the interests of the propriety of the House. I would invite that member to come outside and say that in public.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. May we now proceed with the business of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: A campaign worker for you — Ainslie Loretto.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Come on out and tell the press that!

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on outside, Alex! Chicken!

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. All members be seated, please. Hon. members, perhaps we can proceed to orderly business. I trust that that outburst has made all members feel a little better.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. At the ELUC hearing when these lands were first recommended to be released, the Minister of Energy made a fiery speech in favour of the applicants and then piously refrained from voting in the committee after counting the votes. I ask the minister: did he participate or was he present when this last cabinet decision was made to put huge private capital gain into the hands of this consortium?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Questions regarding matters of cabinet are out of order in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Energy whether or not Ms. Loretto was a campaign worker in the 1979 election.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, having had a very good campaign organization in the district of Langley and the constituency of Langley, almost everybody there worked for me during the election.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister directly whether or not Ms. Loretto was a campaign worker for him in that campaign.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know how urgent the question has to be at this time, but it's public knowledge — it's been published in newspapers over the last two years — and I'm not denying it.

MR. BARRETT: Was the minister aware that Ms. Loretto was a director in the Gloucester estates at the time she was a campaign worker for him?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: When the minister made his appeal to cabinet in July 1979, did he disclose to the cabinet that one of his key campaign workers was Ms. Loretto and that he was aware that she was a director of Gloucester estates when he made his statements to ELUC?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's a nonsensical idea that the member for Vancouver East puts forward. I had perhaps 1,000 people actively working for me in the campaign. Because that member perhaps can't conceive of that kind of community effort, I can't help that on his behalf. But I'm sure that out of those 1,000 people there would have been probably 200 or 300 who had connections with some kind of company which would have some kind of dealings with cabinet somewhere down the line.

I am very proud of the way in which my election campaign was organized and handled, and I'm very proud of all of the people who helped to get me elected. I hope that they'll all be there working for me in the next election as well, and I'll be re-elected too.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will come to order.

MR. BARRETT: If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House why he did not vote at the ELUC meeting after having made his speech? For what reason did he avoid voting? Was it because of Ms. Loretto or for any other reason? Can we have the reason publicly why the minister felt that after making the speech he decided not to vote?

[ Page 7191 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder how urgent these questions are, but I would refer that member for Vancouver East to the public transcript of two years ago in which all of those statements are contained. Perhaps he will take a little time and read them.

MR. BARRETT: I have read those statements. In the body of the statements the minister acknowledges that he is not a soils expert, and yet many soils experts, including Mr. Runka, testified that that land was good agricultural land. Can the minister tell us what scientific knowledge he has, without any acknowledged expertise in soil, that makes him so agitated today and is contrary to every expert in the field?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I haven't made any decisions regarding soil classifications on any property that I know of. I'm not the one who is agitated here; it's that member across the way. Since he's asking questions that are now two years old, I would really like him to take a few days to read all of the transcripts and evidence that was given at the public hearing in Aldergrove. All of it is public, Mr. Speaker. He will find that many experts also said that that land was not suitable for agriculture.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the minister's statement that he is not an expert in soils. Can the minister tell us on whose testimony he based his opinion that it was not agricultural land?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this is also two years old. I would ask the member to read the comments made at that time. They are very clear. Sometimes MLAs make decisions, and they represent their constituencies in the best way they possibly can. I do that, and I hope that member does as well.

I do know that I'm not an expert in classification of agricultural land. That member and the other members on that side are the experts on different kinds on dirt.

MR. BARRETT: Does the minister recall making the statement that it is none of the Agricultural Land Commission's business to know whether there is enough need for industrial land or whether industrial land that should be used for agriculture is being taken from the ALR? Did you say it was none of their business?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would ask again that that member read the transcript. It's all down there for the public to see. It's not some secret document that has been hidden away.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, it was until it came out.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's public. I've said on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, after reading the legislation which governs the Agricultural Land Commission — again, as that member should do — that their terms of reference do not provide them with the opportunity to talk about zoning or the need for industrial land. Their terms of reference are strictly in terms of what is agricultural land and what isn't. As a member of a committee that is asked to make an awful lot of decisions in that regard, I have to look at the legislation in existence and follow that legislation to the best of my ability. I wish the member would then read the the best of my ability. I wish the member would then read the legislation as well.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Before the member proceeds, I would remind all hon. members: please, if you are leaving the chamber, do so as quietly as you can. I would also remind all hon. members that we are in that clumsy transitional period between the budget debate, in which there was virtually no limit on the scope, and the very narrow limit on the Education (Interim) Finance Act. The rules of relevancy are in force, and I must remind you of them from time to time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that the two and a half hour speech that I gave on Friday did not receive the widespread public attention that I had hoped. Bloody but unbowed, I have taken the liberty of obtaining a copy of the Blues. I thought it might be helpful to the press if I reread that speech. No objection having been taken to its relevancy at that time, it would seem appropriate that I refer to extensive passages of that brilliant and well-researched speech that was delivered on Friday, if I say so myself.

Over the weekend, though, there have been a number of school boards and lay people who are interested in education.... These are telegrams from interested parties pertaining to the school financing bill, and I wish to bring them to the attention of the House. The first telegram is from Terry Clark of the Perley Elementary School in Grand Forks: "The proposed bill will likely result in larger class sizes and cutbacks in services to special needs children in our district. Will minimal impact on the economy be worth it?" That's a question that perhaps the Minister of Education and the government should address themselves to.

Another telegram is from the Grand Forks Teachers Association: "The Grand Forks Teachers Association urge you to oppose cutback legislation such as the school financing...."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there are a few teachers in this province who care about what happens to kids. I don't know whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has such a cynical attitude that he feels that teachers are only after salaries and their own benefits; some are, I suppose, like some politicians are. But at the same time, I think it would be a disservice to say that because they are teachers and are paid through the educational system, they don't also have foremost in their minds the grave concerns shared by most of the community that this government's action, particularly in relation to this bill, is causing the kind of harm to the educational system that will cut back services for an entire generation of children.

[ Page 7192 ]

The Grand Forks Teachers Association sends along this message:

THE GRAND FORKS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION URGE YOU TO OPPOSE CUTBACK LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE SCHOOL FINANCING FORMULA BILL. RECENTLY IMPROVED STUDENT SERVICES SUPPORTED LOCALLY WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE ELIMINATED. CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATION HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED IN THE PAST THREE YEARS. TEACHERS CARRY THE LOAD WITH INCREASED PAPERWORK, MEETINGS, AND NOW, LARGER CLASS SIZES WITH DECREASED SUPPORT FOR SPECIAL NEED STUDENTS, DRASTICALLY CURTAILED EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, LESS DESIRABLE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT DUE TO REDUCED CUSTODIAL AND MAINTENANCE TIME.

These are all the results taken in the Grand Forks area of the government's actions.

I have another one from a special education teacher, Maxine Ruzicka from Grand Forks: "For the past five years parents, teachers and the community have dedicated themselves to attaining the current level of local programming and individualization in Grand Forks. The restraint program will seriously harm programs and student development. Please oppose the legislation."

There are many other telegrams. I will just give an example of the kind of telegrams that are coming in. School District 7 in Nelson reports cuts of $333,356 in the operating budget for 1982. Included in the cuts are elimination of the elementary swim program, the elimination of planned library clerical staff, reduced per-pupil allotment for instructional supplies, possible elimination of improved working conditions for teachers and reductions in many other services. "I urge you to speak and vote against the education finance bill and support quality of education service in the Nelson School District." It is signed by Frank Burden, President of the NDTA.

This is addressed to the Hon. Bob McClelland. A copy was sent to me.

DEAR MR. McCLELLAND:

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IF LEGISLATION PROCEEDS TO REQUIRE LANGLEY SCHOOL BOARD TO CUT $897,000 FROM ITS 1982 BUDGET, THE BOARD HAS SERVED PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THE FOLLOWING CUTS WILL TAKE PLACE:

1. THE LOSS OF 30 TEACHING POSITIONS, INCLUDING SEVERAL IN SPECIAL SERVICES EDUCATION.

2. A REDUCTION OF PROFESSIONAL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT.

3. THE REDUCTION OF SUPPLIES FOR ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND THE DISTRICT PROGRAMS.

4. ELIMINATION OF DISTRICT SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAMS.

5. REDUCTION OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES.

THE BOARD HAS INFORMED THAT OTHER CUTS ARE ALSO SLATED. I WILL FORWARD YOU BY MAIL A FULL LIST OF THOSE CUTS AND THE RESPONSE OF THE LANGLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.

KEN NOVAKOWSKI,
PRESIDENT,
LANGLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Speaker, we have several more. There are bundles of letters on my desk sent to me as education critic for the NDP, all opposing this bill and the moves made by the government with respect to the education system. I have received more mail on this subject, I think, than I have received on any other subject in the last 10 years. It is a clear indication, I think, to any politician that there is grave concern out there. These telegrams are mostly from teachers. I have something like 150 letters from people who are not teachers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Read us the letters from the ones who aren't NDP.

MR. LAUK: The ones that are not from the NDP? They didn't identify their party support, but I would suspect that after this bill they are all supporters of the NDP. I would think that in that member's constituency a supporter of the Social Credit Party is an endangered species. The fact is that quite likely, prior to the introduction of this bill and prior to the minister's announcement, a great many of the people who have written me may have voted for this government party in previous times. They certainly indicate that their faith in the government has been shattered by this government's cynical and inhumane approach to financing with particular effect on the education system.

On Friday, Mr. Speaker — you may not recall because you were out of the chamber for a brief period — I was trying to bring to the member's attention the very serious impact that these cuts will have on young people. I was taking issue with the minister's opening remarks on the bill. He stated that everything was fine, that all they were doing is assuming the responsibility of the local, commercial and industrial tax base, that even though he is taking upon himself supreme power over education in this province, he was a man to be trusted, that he would personally guarantee the protection of special needs education in this province, that he would guarantee that no homeowners would have increased taxation and that education would remain as it was. In the face of 150 letters and these telegrams, I wonder if the minister is now prepared to admit that the approach he took on Friday morning may be somewhat mistaken, that he has been misled into thinking that these drastic actions that he and his government are taking will have the negligible effect that he argued. The fact is that the immediate effect is massive cutbacks in programs in almost every school district in the province. The fact is that schools are closing everywhere — not just neighbourhood schools — and they're doubling up. If this financial bill goes through, I foresee a time when some school districts in this province will return to the old shift system. I remember going to school on a shift system right after the war, when we'd get up at five or six o'clock in the morning and go to school until one in the afternoon. Then we were on the afternoon shifts, and as little children we would have to walk several miles, going to school at one o'clock until after dark at night.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) remembers teaching me in those days. She was a teenage teacher and I was a....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I was a juvenile delinquent — the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) still is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I'm just quoting the ombudsman's report, Mr. Speaker.

In the face of the kind of protests that are coming from all over, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says: "Well, it's just teachers." If I read him a letter

[ Page 7193 ]

from somebody complaining about their children in the school system, he'll say: "Well, they have a vested interest — they're just parents." If somebody sends in a complaint about the school cutbacks, he'll say: "Well, that's just one taxpayer." If I read in ten letters, he'll say: "Well, that's just ten." Or if there are several — like 150 — the minister will say: "Well, they're all New Democrats."

I'm grateful to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because at least he has the honesty and candour and lack of deceit to reveal the true nature of this government and their true attitudes toward the people they are supposed to represent. I suppose he represents the government, and the government are the type of people who say: "We'll make up our minds and anybody against us doesn't count. Anybody who doesn't agree with our policies doesn't count. Their protests don't count. They don't count. Their children don't count. Their communities don't count and their schools don't count, because we have made up our minds."

Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that there is a theme to this bill based on the movie The Sting. The movie, as you recall, is divided into several parts. The bait in this case is the promise of lower property taxation. You'll recall that on September 13, 1975, the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier of the province said: "I believe that property taxation has become obsolete as a major source of local government revenue." Little did we know at the time, Mr. Speaker, that the insertion of the word "local" was a very well-considered one, because property taxation — at least, commercial and industrial — had been confiscated by the provincial government and is no longer a major source of local government revenue. Nevertheless, we believed at the time that what the Leader of the Opposition of that day meant was that property taxation would be de-emphasized by any administration of which he was a head. We found that, on the contrary, since 1975 property taxation has more and more been relied upon to finance our education system. The provincial government, on the contrary, has given back-of-the-hand treatment to that education system financially and has not made any commitment in line with that statement made by the Premier of this province or, as he then was, the Leader of the Opposition.

We've come to the logical conclusion of that philosophy and that approach to the education system. The argument has been made that the confiscation of the industrial and the commercial land tax base by the province will in some way lower homeowners' taxes in the school districts. Even by using the minister's own background papers to his announcement a month or two ago, we have seen very clearly that very few school districts will receive lower taxes this year than they otherwise would have paid, very few indeed out of the 75 school districts. So that claim is not true. It doesn't hold water. Pointing to a handful of districts that may have lower taxes this year does not support the claim that the confiscation of that land tax base will lower homeowner taxes. The claim, therefore, is not true.

Secondly, the minister claims that the province will share more of the operating costs of education in each school district. That is totally incorrect. This year, for example, I believe the share of the government's contribution to local school systems will be less than at any time in the history of the province, with or without this bill. You may recall that in 1975, the share of local school costs borne by provincial revenue was 48 percent; it is now down to well below 40 percent. It has been a steadily declining share of provincial contribution to local school systems. As a result, we can only believe that although the minister says one thing, we've got to take the opposite of what he says as being what's actually going to happen.

As I pointed out on Friday, the bait in this matter was lower taxation for homeowners. The mark is the homeowner. The government has picked the homeowner to be the mark. That homeowner is a person who they hope — "they" being the government — will believe the minister's statements, and who will go along with this new education financing formula. They hope that by holding out a bit of a carrot they will be able to fool the homeowner into believing this bill is good for them.

I've already pointed out that only a handful of school districts will have, on average, lower taxation this year than they otherwise would have paid. In the face of the drastic increase in assessments, this is small comfort to them, in any event; but the majority of the 75 school districts will have the same or higher taxes than they otherwise would have paid as a result of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: My friend says that the government has a lottery mentality. That was part of the theme I was trying to express on Friday: that this government really thinks the economy — and we've known this for some time — is one great big casino. To have that extrapolated to the education system is a bit more disturbing to those of us on this side of the House. To have the education system as one big casino is a big problem. I ask the people of this province: "Do they want their children and grandchildren to have an education, the quality of which will depend upon a roll of the dice, will depend upon the hit or miss proposition of this formula 35 being applied to each and every school district?" The answer has to be no.

The homeowners are in a class separate and apart from other groups of people in society. Most homeowners have children or are responsible for children in the school system. Most homeowners are provincial taxpayers, income taxpayers and so on. So homeowners aren't an identifiable separate group, but they have been singled out to be the mark in this case. They're hoping to hold out this carrot that the promise will be believed, and that they'll be sucked in.

Do you know who a shill is at a carnival? The shill is the guy who pretends to win the solid gold Bulova watch. He's the guy who pretends to win at the crown and anchor game on the midway. He's not really responsible for the con. Those are the people behind the scenes. The shill plays the role; he pretends that he's won, or is winning on behalf of. I charge that the Minister of Education plays that role in the scheme. He's the one who's making the statement that I don't think any other minister — particularly the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — would dare to get up in his place and make in this Legislature. Would the Minister of Finance say that this theft or this confiscation of commercial and industrial land taxes from the local school districts is, as the minister described it, the province's assuming responsibility for it? I gave the example on Friday. It's like a bank robber going into the local bank, holding up the teller and saying: "I want to assume responsibility for the money you have in your cash drawer." It's the same thing. The words used are designed to put people to sleep so they don't see the real issues behind this financial formula. So the shill has already opened

[ Page 7194 ]

and done his work. He's done his press conference. He opened debate on this bill on Friday. He said there's no harm done. He said, as a matter of fact, that children, parents, taxpayers and school trustees are going to be better off.

Who are the con men in all of this? Well, we have to look at the scheme itself. The whole scheme is derived from the proposition that the province has expended its money in such an irresponsible and inept way that it needs to make money grabs elsewhere. So they've decided on this scheme. They've committed themselves to the northeast coal project to the tune of billions of dollars. They are starting to develop their infrastructure for that project. They have no guarantee that even the private sector will fulfil its part of the bargain. The BCR is already borrowing heavily to complete its part of the Anzac Line and so forth. Now what does that do to government finances? It has put them in a deficit position. This year the government has had to raid the perpetual funds and the special funds to balance the budget. That wasn't sufficient, though. They have to also raid the local tax base to balance the budget. I'm using the minister's figures. They are going to get $840 million from confiscating the industrial and commercial tax base. They need that almost $1 billion to juice up their finances so they can build B.C. Place, so they can build the northeast coal project — at the direct expense of the school system of this province.

Need I read these telegrams again, Mr. Speaker? Already the cutbacks have started to hurt ordinary people. When that northeast coal project — if it is ever completed — or the B.C. Place project is completed, there should be a plaque put up in a prominent place, so people going into the stadium can see it. "This edifice, this monument was built because of the sacrifices and the suffering of kids in school, of single parents, of the the health system, of rural landowners." Underneath it there should be one phrase, "Bennett for pharaoh, because it reminds me of the time when the great mass of people in a state were expended to build monuments to its monarch.

So I say that the scheme was developed not by the shill but by the con men, by the people who are in charge of the province's overall finances. Who are they? Are the members of the cabinet? Well, I suppose the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) plays something of a role, but my suspicion is that it's the people from the east — it's the Spectors and the Kinsellas of the world, and, yes, the Deputy Minister of Finance. They have constructed this vast scheme that will hoodwink the mark and cause all kinds of victims in the education system. They developed what I call the new math. They say: "Well, it isn't really what it appears to be. Trust me." They take unto themselves massive power and hold out the promise: "We know what's best for the educational system."

I'll give you an example. The shill doesn't even have the right, under this legislation, to define what is equal and what is monthly under section 4 of the act. You know who has that power? The Minister of Finance — as if those questions were decisions for the Minister of Finance and not for the Minister of Education. Those are questions, obviously, for the man or woman in charge of the ministry itself — to define what is equal and what is monthly — because of their direct effect on the system. So section 4 empowers the Minister of Finance. So we know who the con men are.

Now what is the hook? The hook is this fictional finance formula. It has no legislative provision any more; it makes the 75 percent share only an empty promise, like the so-called $10 BCRIC shares. The hook is this formula, and again we're seeing that now, where a finance formula that sounds good to some school districts has yet to really be written in the cabinet room. None of the details of this formula have been written into legislation; all we have are some indications by the minister in his speech on Friday and his announcement a couple of months ago. The real formula can be written and rewritten in the cabinet room at their pleasure. Massive amounts — hundreds of millions of dollars — going one way or the other will be based on decisions that can be made in secrecy in the cabinet room on a day-to-day basis.

So the game is this: put forward a formula; pretend it is written into legislation, but have it give absolute power and flexibility to the minister and the cabinet, so that from one day to the next the people of this province will not know whether their education system can be financed and, if so, at what cost and, if so, by whom. They will depend completely upon cabinet — and cabinet working in secrecy.

When the NDP was the government of the province, Mr. Speaker, a number of pieces of legislation were passed that you and other members of the Social Credit Party got up and condemned as being sweeping, awesome, dictatorial, jackboot, blank-cheque legislation. I defy any member of this House to produce any piece of legislation from those days — or any piece of legislation since — that comes even close to the usurpation of power to one man and to one cabinet that this legislation is doing under Bill 27. I defy anyone to show me where this discretionary and absolute power has been so usurped and centralized into one person.

What is the sting? That's what the homeowner is going to get when he finds out what the school taxes are really going to be. The average increase in the province this year under this formula is going to be 32 percent over last year from your department.

Interjection.

MR. KING: They haven't told you yet, Brian?

MR. LAUK: The minister keeps on asking where I get these figures. Well, I get them from his department.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Speaker, the sting is the increase in taxes this year alone, but the increases in taxes for next year are going to be phenomenal, and I'll tell you why. This government, with its huge capital-cost projects, with its profligacy in office and, yes, with its personal expenditures on travel and furniture from ministerial offices is going to be in no position next year to balance its budget. They're going to need all or most of that money they confiscated from the school district base, and therefore financing of education at the local level will be placed once again — but ever more so burdensome than in the past — on the shoulders of the homeowner. The residential taxpayers will be paying more and more of the school costs in their school district, and that's the surprise — that's the sting.

Who are the victims? As I've said before, a whole generation of students are the victims, even if we take the term of the bill itself, which is three years — that's three grades — three years in the education of a young person, particularly

[ Page 7195 ]

junior and senior high school, that could and may well deprive them of opportunities for the rest of their lives. So I say without exaggeration that the victims are a whole generation of students. We have chosen them, because of the scam, to balance the budget; we've chosen them to do with much less than any generation in the past — and, I certainly hope, no generation in the future. They're the people who are the victims: no jobs, no skills for the ever-increasing demand for skilled employment; no quality education. And the school system becomes centralized; they can't even make up for it, because the college system and the adult-education services are also being drastically cut back. Those are the victims, Mr. Speaker. For the immediate, short-term gain of the government, a whole generation of students not only will do with less but may well do without that promise of a fulfilled occupation and a belonging to a modern generation of highly educated citizens in Canada.

I want to talk about the old formula in relation to the new one proposed in the legislation. We all argue that the old formula needed a lot of improvement — that it was complex. The major argument against the formula was that there was too much power in the provincial government. Instead of addressing that problem the government has gone even further. The features of the old formula over which this government had maximum control.... I want to point out the remarks I made last year about how the old formula worked. I said: "The NDP favours increased funding from general revenue" — I pointed out specifically what general revenue meant: sales tax, income tax and other government revenues, resource taxes and so on — "and less from the local property tax. The NDP accepts the recommendation of the McMath commission of 1976 that the ratio should be 75 percent provincial and 25 percent local property tax revenues."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What did the NDP do? Tell us that.

MR. LAUK: I am glad the hon. minister raised that question. From 1972 to 1975 we lowered the reliance on property taxes by 10 percent. In addition to that, between those years there was a program introduced that would have taken only three or four more years to completely relieve the homeowner, the residential taxpayer, from paying school taxes. This government, in 1976, abolished that program and moved the pendulum in the opposite direction, so that now this government is paying less towards education as opposed to land taxes than any other government in the history of this province.

I am glad the minister asked me that question. That was a very good question. He gets nine out of ten for that question.

The 75 to 25 split was accepted by the B.C. School Trustees Association on behalf of the province's 75 school districts, the B.C. Teachers Federation and an Oak Bay municipal politician named Smith who is presently the Minister of Education.

Now getting back to the question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the NDP pledged in 1972 that residents would be relieved of the burden of school property tax. That was our political promise. In the 1974 budget the Premier announced a five-year program to give effect to the promise. The Legislature approved the school tax removal fund, and in the first two years of the program $40 per year per homeowner was put into that fund and used to defray school costs at the local level. The plan was to escalate the provincial contribution to $200 per year per owner by 1980. This $200, coupled with the $200 homeowner grant of the time, would have relieved homeowners of all school tax liability by 1980. In retrospect, the costs of the scheme were considerably underestimated, but adjustments would have been made each year when revenue surplus appropriation bills were brought forward.

The NDP had two other major strategies for meeting school costs: to hold the basic mill rate relatively steady — in 1972 it was 24.7 mills, in 1975 around 26 mills — and increase the provincial support of the basic education program from 46 percent to 48 percent. In 1976 the McMath commission recommended that school costs be shared on the 75 to 25 split. McMath argued in essence that if Victoria paid the whole shot, central control would follow. As mentioned before, the NDP was one of many to accept a continued role for the school boards.

What is the government's record? Social Credit has failed to state just what portion of basic education costs they believe should be met by the province. The government did, however, wipe out the School Tax Removal Fund in 1976 and abandoned the NDP plan to get the property tax burden off the backs of residents. They have also reduced the provincial contribution from 48 percent, its highest point in 1975, to 35 percent in 1981. It's now down to 32 percent, by the way, the lowest it has ever been. And they've increased the basic mill rate from 26 mills in 1975 to 41.8 mills in 1981. Last year's budget, 1981, has had a particularly shocking impact on B.C. homeowners — particularly in the lower mainland. The average taxpayer in Vancouver pays 35 percent more in school taxes for 1980-81, and there are cases of net school taxes doubling and tripling. We found the repeat this year.

The trend of all these changes has been to saddle residents with sharply increased school property taxes. If the situation continues, by 1985 the province will be paying no part of public school taxes. I remember that when I made that statement I had no idea the government would have the nerve and audacity to take the action which they have taken through this Bill 27. It's the confiscation of $840 million in local taxation. That never occurred to anyone. Under the old formula, after each board of school trustees had prepared its budget for the year, the Minister of Education had to approve it, and this should be remembered when the government members try to put the blame for higher property taxes onto local trustees. Several other things happen before the school property tax levy is finalized. First the Minister of Municipal Affairs decides whether to change the homeowner grant — it's been frozen since 1979. Then the Minister of Finance decides what proportion of assessed property values shall be subject to school property tax. The Minister of Education then decides what the basic mill rate will be and whether any districts are entitled to special aid. Now that is already a massive amount of control vested in the government.

If you want to draw interprovincial comparisons, particularly of government spending, I'll tell you what other provinces do. This should be treated with caution because no two provinces have identically divided sets of provincial and local responsibility. However, six of the other nine provinces meet over half of the total costs of their respective programs, and we're now down to 32 percent. Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick pay well over half of the school budgets. Manitoba pays 80 percent, Saskatchewan 75 percent, and Quebec and New Brunswick pay 100 percent of school costs.

[ Page 7196 ]

School district budgets are prepared each year by the local school board and submitted to the Minister of Education for approval. The budget is divided into three main sections: operating, non-operating and capital. Each of these sections of the budget is divided into a number of accounts. The education finance formula is legislated by the School Act and it is really three formulas in one; there's one for operating, non-operating and capital. The complexity of that formula attracted much criticism from all sectors of the educational system as well as from the public. The response demanded was an implementation of the McMath commission report.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Under those provisions, the government had full and absolute power in many ways to at least lower taxation for homeowners and expend more money from provincial revenues. Unfortunately, Bill 27 has confiscated what already has been used for local taxation purposes and it has paid out even less of the provincial revenues for the education system. I'm sure all hon. members have received letters from their constituents with respect to the very grave assessment problems that we all experience. This letter comes from Chase, B.C. It was sent out this year from Mr. and Mrs. J.L. Connelly of Chase, British Columbia. It says:

"Hi, Gary Lauk:

"We were very interested in the panel discussion on school taxation and the proposal for a new system that took place on March 14" — that was a television program that I was being interviewed on. "It was the first time that we were able to see you, and we were impressed by the quality of the discussion by the whole group. We sort of felt, as usual, however, that the lower mainland is the great Dane and we up here are its tail. Thus we are going to try to add a few fleas and tell them to crawl up the tail.

"While it is obviously true that in rural districts 50 percent, I guess, living on single lots in villages or towns pay little or no tax over and above the homeowner grant, it is also true that many live on larger properties already taxed highly to the rebellion point. We agree with your point that the system was set up so that we would pay less tax up here because we not only have too small a tax base but we have less enhancement of education opportunities and have the extra expense of sending our children out of here to seats of higher learning."

I want to pause there because this is a very essential point. This letter from Mr. and Mrs. Connelly is an example of the dozens of letters we're receiving from rural ridings. I want to bring to the attention of all hon. members, particularly the back-bench members of the government side, that if you're supporting the finance formula under this bill, you're turning your backs on the people in your own constituency, because the rural taxpayers are going to be paying not just small amounts but huge amounts more on their residential taxes than they otherwise would have paid. The justification for that, says the minister, is that he wants to be even-handed between school districts. But by his idea of even-handedness he's working an injustice on those who live in rural ridings. The reason that there's that injustice is the very point that Mr. and Mrs. Connelly make in their letter. "We live in the rural areas. We do not have the same opportunities. We don't have the large tax base; we cannot fund enhancement education for our children; and we have to send our children for higher learning outside of our districts." All of these reasons have been expressed in other communications to me, and they point out the fact that this government has turned its back on its traditional constituencies. It's turned its back on the ordinary people of the rural districts who cannot afford to pay these higher taxes yet are being required to pay even higher taxes to maintain the educational system that they have today — not even an improvement.

Going on with the letter:

"To disturb this now, which caused no comment before, seems screwy, simply because of a temporary, irrational price spiral on the lower mainland and the island. You see, we're struggling up here with the fact that the huge tax assessment this year is kicking an already dead horse. We had a big increase in 1980. The assessment remained the same in 1981. Then we got two years in one in 1982 because the assessors say they got behind. The dead horse is that the economy of subdivision of lands peaked in this area in 1979, and it hasn't paid to subdivide since.

"In a visit to Vancouver Island for a month this winter, it was learned that many subdivisions from Victoria outward were not making cash flow and are similar to this area where that has been the case to a large extent since 1979.

"The point is that under this type of economy it is wrong to state that market value has risen. In the extreme case, as long as one property changed hands to an irrational buyer in any year, that could be used to claim that all property in the area had increased in value, regardless of the economy."

This is something that you and I, Mr. Speaker, have run across time and time again in these past 18 months. The irrational attitude of the Assessment Authority, spurred on by the irrational policies of this government, have increased assessments unfairly and irrationally. If some kook comes into a housing subdivision and spends twice as much for a house than what it's really worth, the Assessment Authority will take that as an example of rising market prices. They did it in all kinds of neighbourhoods so that huge tax increases would flow from that. The letter goes on to say:

"The assessment steamroller keeps rolling along. It tells you that it agrees with your argument, but it has this book of rules that it must follow. The Assessment Act, under "method of valuing," specifies a solvent owner. Literally translated, this means that there has to be a desire to sell and a willingness to buy. In the majority of the non-transacting properties in any year, one or the other of these requirements is absent. Therefore, we argued to no avail, the system as practised is in violation of the act.

And they enclose another story to illustrate.

"We would appreciate your critical comment. We are not politically aligned. We are looking for a tax revolt group.

"Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. J. L. Connelly."

That was the most explicit letter of the many dozens I received, Mr. Speaker — and, I'm sure, of the many dozen you received.

The very essential problem that we are dealing with here is that this government's unable to think out the very critical effect of its policies on ordinary people or they don't care

[ Page 7197 ]

what happens to ordinary people. My suspicion is that with the advice of Spector and Kinsella — these people from Ontario — the government has decided to take the approach that if they can get away with it they'll do it, and they don't give a damn what happens to ordinary people in ordinary communities in this province. If they have to balance the budget by confiscating taxation, they will, as long as they can put a face on it that will hide the real stink.

I want to point out again the kinds of restraints that are being experienced. As of April 22, 1982, these are the cuts to be made to special-needs children in each district. I want to reiterate that this party is very much in support of mainstreaming. By mainstreaming, I mean that children who are disabled — either they have Down's syndrome or they are physically disabled or require medical attention on an ongoing basis — should not be institutionalized. First, we believe that has an essence of inhumanity to it; second, it does them no good to be institutionalized and to think of themselves as separate and apart and, yes, perhaps inferior to the mainstream of society. It was felt by this government — and we applauded them for it — that to mainstream these children into the regular school system would enhance their educational opportunities, improve their lifestyle and increase their self-image and feeling of worth. To a large extent, I think that I has started. Where there has been mainstreaming of disabled children, we are finding that the regular students have learned just as much, or more, and are developing qualities, built into their personalities and attitudes, that can only benefit this community in generations to come. It's not only a question of tolerance between the ordinary student and the disabled student, it's a question of understanding that we belong to each other in human society. It's of great benefit and should continue. But the government dumped, if you like, these children onto the regular school system and provided not one penny in support. The NDP in this chamber, school teachers and parents clamoured for greater assistance for special needs. We were in here for hours and days demanding that this government give extra support to fulfil its pledge to mainstream disabled children. Very little was forthcoming. Modest announcements and modest grants have been made in the last 18 months to two years. It's just starting to provide the kind of special needs necessary to make the concept of mainstreaming workable and practical.

With the restraint program, with this budget and these cutbacks in this bill, we're already seeing cutbacks in special needs. I have a report of the effects of this bill and the restraint program in the area of special needs, as of April 22, 1982. If the minister wants to know where I got this from, I think it's from his finance department, but it's from the Ministry of Education. Here are the types of cutbacks: speech therapist in Port Alberni, one position; Maple Ridge, one pathologist — and one in the Gulf Islands; loss of teacher aides in Port Alberni; Kitimat, four positions; in Nanaimo they've cut $41,000 from their budget for teacher aides. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when disabled children are in the main school system the teacher hasn't got time to push wheelchairs, to spend special time with certain students who have speech defects and so on. Teacher aides are required.

I will run through that again. Kitimat lost four positions; in Nanaimo $41,000 was cut off that budget; in Campbell River there is a cutback; in Kamloops they have lost six positions; in Coquitlam they've cut $90,000 from the teacher aide budget; in Shuswap $12,000; they've lost teacher aide positions in Prince Rupert; and in the Gulf Islands they've cut $34,000 off that program.

Learning assistance — again, this does not apply only to disabled children but to all children who have problems — has been cut back. In Kitimat, for example, one secondary school position has been lost because of the school district's cutback.

Special education teachers. In Port Alberni another position. Windermere has cut $3,600 from its budget. Langley has lost six positions and three district staff persons. They have cut back on special education teachers in Prince Rupert and in Summerland.

English as a second language. Cutbacks are going to be occurring in Vancouver. Nanaimo has cut back $8,800.

Programs for the gifted and talented. I am sorry the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is't here, because Golden has an interesting report for him. They want to see him up there very soon. Kamloops has cut four positions, and in Shuswap they've cut back positions. In Golden they've cut their program entirely.

Travel for special education: in Coquitlam they've cut back S5,000 there. Special program aide: Maple Ridge has a 10 percent cutback. Hospital- and home-bound students: in he Gulf Islands they've cut that program. The blind program in Alberni has been cut.

The salutary philosophical and policy decision of this government to mainstream disabled children on the one hand, to be niggardly with the funds on the other and yet go on to cause such hardships that these programs are being cut out altogether.... What are the teachers going to do? What is the school system going to do? Are these kids going to go back to the Jericho Hill schools? Are they going to go back to the institutions around the province? Are we going to once again cut them out of the mainstream of life in this province, all because they want to balance the budget to build the northeast coal project? Where are the values of this government? The values are contained, indeed, in this bill and in the budget.

The other very serious problem that I have raised, I don't know how many times, with the Minister of Education is that if you're going to mainstream children you've got to provide the proper services to maintain the system. It is not being done. The minister gave a very Marie Antoinette response to my concerns last year about the problems of administering medication to children like this in the school system. He shakes his head. He is getting a little exasperated.

There is a legal opinion that the School Trustees Association has obtained. This legal opinion was obtained from an independent firm of solicitors in the city of Vancouver and has been supported by other legal opinions as well. It states clearly that the teachers and the school district themselves are liable to millions of dollars in damage suits when they administer medication if it is improperly administered. The teachers in the school districts have said to the minister: "Look, you're endangering us here and you're endangering these kids. We're not trained to administer medication. We cannot do it. We are liable to make a mistake. It is by the grace of God that a fatal or serious mistake has not been made to this date."

The minister has done nothing about that problem. He has ignored the problem. He has stood in this House on occasion and given a double-shuffle routine I wouldn't believe about the administering of medication in the schools. He is endangering the system from that point of view. With this new bill there is no chance that the school districts can fund the temporary or part-time medical personnel necessary

[ Page 7198 ]

to administer medication and to deal with these special problems.

Special-needs education, teacher aides — all these positions are being cut back. There is also going to be a revolt on the part of teachers, and I suppose parents and trustees too, about the problems of administering medication to the disabled children in the system. It's not a question of an aspirin; some of these people who have been asked to go into the mainstream of the educational system from these institutions have very complex medication routines. The timing and dosage of this medication is extremely important. It is not left to an ordinary worker in the hospital to administer medication; it's usually left to a paramedic, at the very least, or a nurse or a doctor. Yet in our schools the minister is asking teachers who are trained to teach social studies or trained in physical education to administer medication. The legal implications are awesome and frightening, but the lack of humanity and insensitivity to what harm can be caused to these students is something that I look upon in disbelief.

Mr. Speaker, it's very frustrating indeed to try to encourage the back bench of the Social Credit Party to look more carefully at what this bill does. They yawn. I'm grateful that they're still here, particularly the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). He's very attentive. He's looking over at the treasury benches to see who he's going to put there when he is the leader of the new Western Canada Concept and will be forming the government. I understand there is a secret lineup to his office lobbying for cabinet posts, but I think the member for Omineca wants to preserve minister of war for himself. He wants to declare war on the rest of Canada. Seriously, with respect to Bill 27 the Social Credit backbenchers have been very, very silent.

Mr. Speaker, this announcement was made two months ago, but there has not been a word from any of the Social Credit MLAs. I've already outlined as carefully as I can the effect on the rural taxpayer and the effect on school districts within those members' constituencies, and I have not heard anything from them outside of this House — and they wouldn't dare say anything in their own constituencies — critical of Bill 27. I have to admire the government's discipline, I really do. But discipline at what cost? At the expense of the school systems within their own constituencies. I should remind them — and I shouldn't have to, but I will — that their solemn responsibility and duty as elected members of this Legislative Assembly is to represent the people in their constituencies and not to represent or play today — that's the expression — to the policies of that central treasury group in this very right-wing government. Their responsibility is not to accept the dictates of the treasury benches but to stand up and be counted and represent their own constituency.

I'm going to separate the letters that I have from constituency to constituency, and I'm going to give copies of letters to all of those backbenchers. I'm going to inform the people who have written me from their constituencies that I have given them copies and that I fully expect that those members will write replies. I expect that those replies will eventually be read out in this chamber. If you do not reply to those letters, I'm afraid I'm going to have to write to these people and tell them that you have not replied. I hate to do this, but I may even have to go to their constituencies and point out to some of the teachers and some of the parents in the Kootenays, Omineca and Kamloops....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) as well.... I have several letters from Dewdney complaining not only about the cutbacks in education caused by this finance formula but — and I hate to say this — the complete lack of representation they're receiving in this Legislature. It was not always the case in Dewdney. That member at one time did stand up on occasion in this Legislature and represent the individual members and groups within his constituency, and he did it very fairly — at least his performance was fair. I will say that since 1979 that member has given very, very poor representation to his constituency.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must now ask you to return to the principle under discussion on Bill 27. We've had quite a bit of latitude in the member's discussion. I must now ask him to return specifically to Bill 27.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm referring to the member for Dewdney under this bill is that he has received complaints. I've received letters from his own constituents on this bill. He has not said one word about his position vis-à-vis this finance formula — not one word.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Is Maple Ridge in your constituency? Before I sit down, I want to point out to the hon. member that there have been cutbacks at Maple Ridge in the special program for disabled children. There's been a cutback there and there have been complaints; there have been telegrams; they've queried the minister. Do you mean to say that the hon. member did not receive copies of that? Nonsense, of course he has. Has he replied? No, he hasn't. It's nothing short of a scandal and a conspiracy of silence by the government backbenchers, and don't think people outside of this chamber will not be bringing that to the attention of their constituents.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing has not arrived, but here's another example. Even people in the cabinet have a responsibility to represent their constituencies. Has the member for Columbia River said anything about the school cutbacks in his own constituency that were caused by this bill? Not a word. Has he replied to any of the inquiries? He has not replied to one. He too is part of the conspiracy of silence. In the Kimberley school district, the following cuts have been made: gifted children courses; computer courses; tutoring for disabled students who have to stay at home for long periods; district counsellor is gone; there'll be 40 percent fewer relief teachers, and classes therefore will be doubled or closed; custodians and maintenance procedures have been cut back; speech therapy aid is gone; school bus maintenance has been reduced.

I'm going to ask the Minister of Lands if he truly represents the constituency of Columbia River. School bus maintenance is to be reduced in a rural constituency? Is he going to have on his head and on his shoulders the responsibility of having in his riding school buses that are not fit or safe for driving kids to school? Is that what he's going to stand for in this Legislature? How do you reduce school bus maintenance without expending safety? You can't do it; you know it and I know it. You either shut down the buses, which he knows he can't do, or you endanger the lives and safety of the school kids in his riding, and that is a scandal. Do I ever see in the House during the debate the minister, who is aware of this information? Will he even stand up during this debate? I

[ Page 7199 ]

really doubt it. And do you know why the members for Kootenay and Omineca and Columbia River won't stand up and speak on this bill? Because they are ashamed. They've seen all their work in the constituencies go down the drain, because they'd sooner hold public office than speak out for justice in their own constituencies.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) took office and succeeded the member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) as Minister of Education some time ago. His promise was that he would conduct a tour — and at great public expense, I might say — to find out what was required to change and upgrade and improve the education system in the province of British Columbia. At great expense he travelled throughout the province and we waited very, very long....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, he wouldn't eat in the cafeteria. You see, the Minister of Education and his predecessor have one philosophy of life: no contact with other human beings. His predecessor, the good doctor from Point Grey, who is now.... You know the fellow who suggested a tunnel running from Vancouver to Victoria?

MR. KING: Dr. Strangelove.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I wouldn't call him Dr. Strangelove. No, Dr. Strangelove had style.

But do you remember that crackpot scheme of a tunnel going from Vancouver to Victoria? Do you know how much the government of the province of British Columbia spent on that crackpot scheme just to find a couple of engineers to tell them it wasn't feasible? One hundred thousand dollars. Can we go through the list of cutbacks in special needs alone that I have just read out? It was $40,000 in Nanaimo; $90,000; $12,000 in Shuswap — cut down teachers' aides in Shuswap. We could have saved some of those provisions had we not had that crackpot tunnel scheme proposed to and funded by the government. The other cabinet ministers knew full well it was a crackpot scheme; they rolled over and played dead.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the heroin treatment that he knew all about?

MR. LAUK: I hear a voice reminding me of the heroin treatment project that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland)....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hope you also hear a voice reminding you that we are on Bill 27.

MR. LAUK: I've just heard one.

The point should be made, though, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Energy's Langley.... He wasn't in the House. This was addressed to the Hon. Bob McClelland, and he has not replied to it. I expect that he will not be getting up and debating this bill, because this says:

DEAR MR. McCLELLAND:

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT IF LEGISLATION PROCEEDS TO REQUIRE LANGLEY SCHOOL BOARD TO CUT $897,000 FROM ITS 1982 BUDGET, THE BOARD HAS SERVED PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THE FOLLOWING CUTS WILL TAKE PLACE: (1) THE LOSS OF 30 TEACHING POSITIONS, INCLUDING SEVERAL IN SPECIAL SERVICES EDUCATION; REDUCTION OF PROFESSIONAL AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT; REDUCTION OF SUPPLIES FOR ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND DISTRICT PROGRAMMING; ELIMINATION OF DISTRICT SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAMS...

This is madness, Mr. Speaker. I've got to point out the insanity, the catch-22 situation. You've got so many students in the school system that need to beef up on some courses or they won't pass their year. They do that by going to a summer school program, getting their course and going into the next grade. Without the summer school program, in many cases, they have to repeat the course or even the grade at great additional expense to the education system on the one hand or, if they drop out, a great loss of human resource on the other.

MR. BARRETT: Did he respond?

MR. LAUK: He hasn't responded.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm very sorry that the Minister of Energy has that kind of a street-gang mentality, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying to be fair and point out that this telegram was received by him. It points out the drastic cuts in his own school district, and all he chooses to do is to throw insults across the floor.

As I said, the telegram points out:

...REDUCTION OF MAINTENANCE SERVICE. OTHER CUTS ARE ALSO SLATED. I WILL FORWARD YOU BY MAIL A FULL LIST OF THOSE CUTS AND THE RESPONSE OF THE LANGLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.

SIGNED,
KEN NOVAKOWSKY,
PRESIDENT,
LANGLEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.

AN HON MEMBER: What date is it?

MR. LAUK: It's today.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, if the bill is up today, he should be responding.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Then sit down.

MR. LAUK: The minister says sit down, and then he will get up and debate. So that's one commitment he has made. Has he ever breached a commitment?

MR. BARRETT: He was going to solve the heroin problem.

MR. LAUK: That is one. Can anyone recall whether the hon. minister has breached one of his commitments?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 27, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Did he breach a commitment on Bill 27?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he'd never tell a lie.

[ Page 7200 ]

MR. LAUK: He has made a commitment to speak but he says he wants me to sit down first. Let me tell you something. The reason I am going through some of this material in great detail is to ensure that all the hon. members on the opposite side, when they do speak on this bill, are fully informed. As I said, the Minister of Education went on his grand tour of the province because he promised that he wanted to reform the school system. As a result of that tour, he made this statement on page 155 of "Education — a Report from the Minister, 1981":

"A specific problem has occurred in 1981 because of the rapid increase of home values in some of the urban areas of the province and the resultant rapid increase in school tax to be paid. In order to ensure that this problem is not allowed to continue, I have established a school tax committee, with the following terms of reference."

The one term of reference that I'm going to refer to says: "...(e) to examine alternative ways of revising assessment to protect homeowners from the immediate impact of inflationary real estate markets, while retaining the basic integrity of the assessment system and the educational finance system."

You see, Mr. Speaker, his new system is, once again, the old tradition of robbing the north to pay for social services in the south, in one sense.

"The amount to be raised by homeowners across the province will increase by 44 percent in 1982 over the 1981 figures, although some areas will get some reductions. People in industry-free centres, such as West Vancouver, will get an average of $645 reduction in tax."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that again?

MR. LAUK: West Vancouver. You know, the people who don't have good educational services.

"Meanwhile, people in industrial centres, like Powell River and Howe Sound, will get an increase of between $100 and $200 in their average taxes."

I want to read from a very well-known Social Credit supporter, Allen Garr, who writes for the Province. Everybody knows he's been a rabid Social Credit supporter, so what he's going to say now on this bill should come as quite a surprise:

"What I like best about the new Socred school financing formula is the way it just reinforces an old B.C. tradition. It robs the north to pay for social services in the south. Education Minister Brian Smith has greased the squeaky wheel of the big-city property tax payers in West Vancouver, and the grease has all been drawn from industrial towns in the outlying areas of the province. Instead of simply saying that there is real relationship between property value and school cost, which is why this mess developed in the first place, Smith wipes out one inequitable funding formula and replaces it with another.

"With a delightful bit of distorted logic, he argues that, while one pile of taxes should stay in the local neighbourhoods, another pile should be spread around the province. Property taxes on houses rightfully belong to local school districts, he claims, because residential taxpayers have more local concerns. If you extended that argument to its logical conclusion, all taxes paid by people on the businesses they own would only be spent locally; that includes sales tax, property tax, corporate taxes and personal income tax.

"What Smith and the Socreds have done to solve their immediate problem of a noisy, powerful bloc of voters is bleed off one of the few benefits people upcountry receive for putting up with the smog and noise of industrial development. Taxes gathered from assessments on commercial and industrial property now go into a common pot.

And it's becoming more and more of a cracked pot, Mr. Speaker.

"As a result, the Socreds can claim they are contributing more from general revenues to school costs. People in industry-free centres, such as West Vancouver, are doing backflips because their school taxes are going down. Meanwhile, people in industrial centres such as Powell River, Port Hardy and Fort St. John" — where is he, at a separatist meeting? — "get their property taxes hiked.

"So much for the argument that building your industrial base is a good way to reduce residential taxes for local services. The very towns that are already suffering from layoffs and high unemployment because of a soggy economy get it in the teeth again. Kick them while they're down, I say."

Mr. Speaker, the reason I have read that into the record is because it greatly exemplifies one of the chief problems of this new formula. Politically I don't seem to understand it. No British Columbian would have advised the Social Credit government to kick their rural supporters in the teeth. No person who knows the history of British Columbia politics would have so advised the cabinet, so I have to conclude, once again, that it has to be the two fellows from the east — those hired guns, those dirty tricks artists who were hired out here to do the leg work and dirty work for this government. One of the two-edged swords of hiring hired guns from the east is that they don't know the local folks out here. I have a feeling there's going to be a very strong message to this government by those former rural supporters of this government who have been kicked in the teeth by this minister's new financing formula.

Going back to the 1981 education report by the minister, in that report he quotes statements made by people who made presentations to him. The Coquitlam board of school trustees said: "Assessed values per pupil vary considerably throughout the province. We have to levy twice the mill rate of either New Westminster or Vancouver." This is an example of what happened in the Coquitlam School District. Under this new formula these discrepancies still apply. The new bill does nothing to improve that.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has left the chamber. He must have had a very pressing appointment.

The Surrey administrators' association said: "The accumulated shortfalls and continuing burden on the local taxpayer leave it in a uniquely unfortunate position of having to provide a rapidly expanding service while struggling with largely inadequate facilities and equipment already." Does the new bill do anything to help them? Not a thing. There's no change.

Alderman Sigrid-Ann Thors of Vernon — the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is not here — said: "The need

[ Page 7201 ]

for an immediate review of educational services and their funding is quite evident. Inequities occur in this school district that do not occur elsewhere, but this bill for Vernon has made it worse."

The minister himself said on page 149 of his report: "When comparing provincial and local sharing of education, many people do not have complete information. As a result, some inappropriate conclusions are reached." That's one of the problems.

We had, I would say, 90 percent more information in the old formula than we have under this one. There is no information at all about how this formula is going to be calculated in the final analysis, and no commitment to the promise made by the minister two months ago. You'll notice he has not mentioned the figure "75 percent of school operating costs" since his press release two months ago. I shouldn't think he would want to mention it again.

In this bill, local autonomy is seriously eroded due to the provincial government's taking on arbitrary control. Gary Begin, who is the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, states: "An incomplete solution to a difficult problem. With proper planning and consultation between government and elected boards, the same objectives could have been achieved with much less damage to the education system." Mr. Begin is referring to the announcement made by the minister.

It was difficult for me to believe that this ministry and government would move on the school formula without having consulted the school trustees of the province. I found that almost impossible to believe. The formula came as a complete and utter shock to all school trustees in the province.

The member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) should be interested in this statement from the senior education staff of the Kamloops School District: "There appears to be lack of coordination at times between the departments within the Ministry of Education. One example of this is the lack of direction given to the facilities branch by the special programs branch." This bill is causing a moral crisis in the Ministry of Education. Examples of this occur every day.

Another person from the principals' and vice-principals' association of Quesnel is quoted as saying: "Ministry officials need to see what is happening in the schools, and to interact with principals and teachers. This would improve communications and give a greater understanding of the problems facing teachers." I don't see anything in this bill that will help — this, the Larry Bell bill. It's creating dependency and despondency in the Ministry of Education.

Many fine statements were made as a result of the ministers' tour, all of which could have had some expression this year in a legislative program or policy statements by the government. Instead, they have come up with this savage taxation bill and ignored the needs, as found to be the needs by the minister himself.

Here's a statement that I find very peculiar in relation to this bill. Remember last year when the minister thought that he was the Minister of Education? He was making policy statements for the improvement of the system. He also made statements, such as this one at page 154, that indicated at least some commitment to local school district autonomy. He said: "School boards are duly elected statutory taxation authorities, just as municipal, provincial and federal governments are, and our system assumes that they will budget appropriately. They are fully accountable to the voters in their district. No level of government is in a position to overrule the budget of another." The minister is not in his seat, but I wonder if he's embarrassed by that remark.

Bill 27 completely usurps the power of the local school district board. They have their budgets controlled. I'll give you the example of last Friday where the Courtenay School District has received word from the minister himself that if they don't set their own budget within so many days, he will do it for them. Additionally, this bill has taken over the powers of the school board almost absolutely. I cannot think of any power left to the local school trustee.

At least I must say that the minister did concede on a radio show on January 26, 1982, that there definitely will be some reduction in autonomy for trustees because the province will be setting the overall budget guidelines. That was a hint of things to come, but section 12 of Bill 27 allows the Minister of Education to be judge, jury and executioner. Given that section 58 provides that the Regulation Act shall not apply to these directives, there is no obligation on the minister to be publicly accountable for his control of local budgets.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Since the provincial government has arbitrary control over the local share of the budget, and hence the degree of autonomy of boards is controlled by the government entirely, all of the educational priorities are now going to be set by the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister did his tour last year he received a number of complaints from people involved in the education system — from teachers, parents and taxpayers — that the ministry itself seemed to be lacking internal coordination, clarity as to authority, and contact with the field. There were charges made that the ministry was assuming a controlling and authoritative stance using inconsistent formulas and being poor educational planners. This didn't come from one or two groups; it was a consistent criticism of the Ministry of Education. Now we see that rather than give more local control through this bill, it usurps central control. With the power of the purse strings, the Ministry of Education, in controlling every aspect of the local school district's budget, leaves no authority to the local school district but usurps it all to the ministry, in the face of widespread criticism of the ministry's ineptitude to respond to the needs of the educational system. I would think that if I saw a criticism like that as Minister of Education, I would either improve the ministry or give more control to the local school district. The minister has done neither. What he has done is he has taken control over decision-making of the local school districts to the ministry level.

Mr. Speaker, what are the requirements of a new education finance formula as should be developed in contrast to that proposed by Bill 27? We believe that such a system of financing should be simple, fair in the spreading of the burden of school property tax equally from area to area, and predictable.

The Fleming report on school taxation identified five general principles inherent in the present legislation and which should be retained, says the associate deputy minister. It says:

"1. Equality of educational opportunity for all students wherever in B.C. they reside.

"2. Equalization of fiscal capacity through the distribution of provincial resources so that districts less able to raise funds for educational programs receive larger shares of provincial support.

[ Page 7202 ]

" 3. Local school district autonomy in setting the final budget level without provincial intervention and using property tax to meet the extra costs that result.

"4. Local school district discretion in the application of revenues to particular levels of expenditure on each item, regardless of the cost of the item in that district compared to other districts.

"5. Equity of tax effort within each taxpayer class (e.g. as homeowners, commercial firms, industrial firms, farms, etc.) in relation to the relative values of property."

I would add to this one more: The need to protect the taxpayers against aberrations in elements of the system, like rocketing assessments.

It was the failure of the government to exercise the powers they had, under the old legislation, to do this that has brought the whole system of education finance into disrepute and set the scene for an interim education finance act.

Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the Fleming report. Does this legislation meet any one of the five criteria that the deputy minister himself has proposed? Not one. "Equality of educational opportunity for all students wherever in B.C. they reside." I have already pointed out that if there is a school district that has predominantly industrial and commercial land tax.... That's been confiscated, so they have much less in their school budget this year to provide for the special needs and enhanced programs that have been developed over the years in their school districts. So the bill fails on point one.

"2. Equalization of fiscal capacity through the distribution of provincial resources so that districts less able to raise funds for educational programs receive larger shares of provincial support." This bill completely and utterly ignores that proposal by the deputy minister. This bill in no way guarantees or even promises equalization of fiscal capacity — that's equal funds in various areas for educational programs. You will see that some school districts will suffer much more greatly than richer school districts.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: As the member says, they listen to no one.

"3. Local school district autonomy in setting the final budget level without provincial intervention and using property tax to meet the extra costs that result." Now, Mr. Speaker, what has this bill done? It has said: we're taking away your commercial and industrial land tax, we're providing you with a basic program and funding it, shareable, but anything extra you pay for. On the other hand, they're saying: however, we're going to control your budgets; however, we're going to limit you to a certain amount.

The proposition by the deputy minister, Mr. Fleming, was a carefully considered one that has come from a great deal of experience in the field of education and financing education. He's the deputy minister of finance in the ministry. His statement is surely a recognition of the fact that local school boards represent, more than anyone else, families and parents in the local school district, and they can express more clearly the needs and desires of the local taxpayer than a provincial government can. I think that through history this has been proven time and time again. If a local school district wishes to support special programs, through consultation with taxpayers and voters in that district, then they should be allowed to do so without interference. Has the bill done that?Not in the slightest. It has directly interfered with that school district's ability to provide those special needs.

"4. Local school district discretion in the application of revenues to particular levels of expenditure on each item, regardless of the cost of the item in that district compared to other districts," should not be interfered with by the provincial ministry. Need I say any more with respect to the bill before us, Mr. Speaker? No effort whatsoever is made to protect the integrity of the school district, and every effort is being made to usurp total control to the central ministry.

"5. Equity of tax effort within each taxpayer class, such as homeowners, commercial firms, industrial firms and farms in relation to the relative values of property." Has that equity been approached in this bill? It's been completely ignored in this bill, Mr. Speaker. If the minister pretends that Bill 27 is a result of the Fleming report, nothing could be further from the truth. None of the real recommendations made by the Deputy Minister of Education have been exemplified in this bill or been written into legislation. All this bill then becomes is a money-grab. It doesn't fulfil any of the propositions that Mr. Fleming asked for; it does, in most of the five points, the opposite.

There are a number of propositions that the B.C. School Trustees Association put out in their background report, Mr. Speaker, that will be helpful in analyzing whether or not the members should be voting for or against this bill — and this was right after the announcement of the finance formula itself:

"1. Does the new education finance formula recognize that it costs more to heat a classroom in Fort Nelson than it does in Vancouver?" I wonder if the hon. members from the north on the government side have taken that question into serious consideration. It does cost more. Does this finance formula allow for that? Not at all. There is no provision for provincial funding of the differences in cost for heat at these establishments. Am I talking about something small? Not at all. We're talking in some cases about a great percentage of the local school budget in total.

"2. Does the new education finance formula recognize that education is labour-intensive?" We all know that 80 or 90 percent of a budget goes for salaries, and it should. That's what the education system is for. It's to teach; it's not to provide money for unnecessary plant, and so on.

"Does the formula provide for different funding according to different salary levels in different parts of the province?" I think that that clearly has to take into consideration that there are some school districts that attract and keep teachers for a number of years, and if a teacher has been teaching 10 or 20 years, he makes more than somebody who's been teaching five. It would be a sad day indeed if school districts went and fired senior, more experienced teachers because they had to pay them more in the increment level of payments to keep the school budgets down.

So if you juxtapose the two facts, one is that the budget is labour-intensive — so you're really paying salaries — and two is that in many school districts they've got veteran school teaching staff that demand or receive more in salary than in school districts that have younger teachers. Is there any way that the government suggests to these school boards that they can deal with that dicey problem? Can they suggest, for example, that there be an amendment to the School Act that will allow the district board to fire everybody who worked there for more than five or ten years? To make it really worthwhile, perhaps some school districts should only have

[ Page 7203 ]

teachers who are freshly graduated from the University of British Columbia. Maybe even the principal or vice-principal should have just recently graduated from the Department of Education, but in any event why should the difference in the teachers' share not be considered in the financing formula?

"3. Does the new formula recognize the different costs involved in different programs? For example, it costs much more to teach industrial arts than it does to teach English." No response was made. The question is a serious one. It was asked in relation to whether or not the new formula took into consideration the costs of the various programs. Quite often special courses, if you like, or extra courses from the so-called core curriculum are sometimes the most expensive. Is this an argument that we shouldn't have? The Minister of Labour has indicated that by 1984 we will need people to fill 5,000 jobs in the skilled area. Are we training them? The answer is no. Are we taking any steps to train them? The answer again is no. There has been little or no provision in the budget for vocational or industrial training. Certainly, with these local school district cutbacks that are being imposed by this new formula, industrial arts programs will also go by the wayside.

"5. Will decisions as to what programs are funded be made according to educational rather than political criteria?" I suppose that's an important question, Mr. Speaker. We have, for example, the tinkering with the social studies program by the ministry. We also have the so-called consumer education course. The choice of introducing a consumer education course does not come from the grass roots of the education system; it comes as a political response to political pressure on the government from their cronies and friends in the economic system. Brief after brief from the various chambers of commerce has argued for a free enterprise course in the school system, and that's precisely what consumer ed is supposed to be. At least that's the effort that the government is making. I don't think too many teachers are going to view it as a free enterprise course — I certainly hope not. They'll teach a more broader view of consumer education. However, I'm quite afraid of the encroachment upon local autonomy, that the ministry can perhaps punish one school district as opposed to another with the special grant system under this new bill. By saying that if they don't teach consumer ed.... The funds available from that $75 million slush fund this year, and that $250 million slush fund next year, will be used to reward or punish school districts.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: And my colleague points out that the imposition of the consumer education course has been rejected quite strongly by the independent schools association as an unwarranted interference in their autonomy and independence. So it's a very appropriate question that we ask of the government today: will decisions as to what programs are funded in the basic program that the Minister will come out with soon be made according to educational criterias? We've had some very bad examples with respect to education of how decisions made by this government have been primarily political and not educational.

The sixth question they ask is: "Does the new program provide funding on the basis that the government will add three dollars to every dollar collected from the local property tax, as recommended by the McMath commission?" We now know through the legislation that it doesn't. We know that theMcMath commission was not even considered in the drafting of this legislation. It is really a money grab and nothing more.

" 7. Will the government provide funding in such a way as to provide relief from the provincial tax on property without increasing the local tax on property?" And the answer to that question is clearly no. Any way we look at this new formula, the taxation on residential property is going to zoom up in rural areas this year and next, and in most urban areas homeowner taxation will increase as well.

It was interesting, Mr. Speaker, when I was watching the press reports of the last Social Credit convention, that some Social Credit groups put forward a resolution to have the government impose a referendum for school board budgets. My understanding was that it was passed overwhelmingly at their convention. I think that's what happened. The interesting part is that the minister himself spoke against the motion. My information is that he argued that if they wanted to restrict increases in school board budgets, they should elect fiscally parsimonious trustees, and not hold referendums. The ironical point of that is that now the minister has established a one-man referendum. He is the only person in the province who has a vote on school board budgets.

You could see the transition, Mr. Speaker. When he was running for public office, he promised the McMath commission formula of 75 to 25. He was sort of being kicked around a bit by that right-wing Social Credit cabinet, and sometime last year he still had to tour the province and develop proposals on education. He came back with a glossy, very expensive report — it cost $6 a copy — that listed all kinds of needs and directions. The result is the most backward and regressive legislation that anyone could have imagined. He's sort of a born-again Socred. He started out as a Liberal and a progressive in education, and has turned right around and does the bidding of the right-wing groups — the bottom-line types — in the Social Credit cabinet.

I want get on the record the effect that this new financing formula will have in the various school districts, with specific reference to the confiscation of the industrial and commercial tax base. In Fernie, for example — and the member is not here — the residential tax base is 14 percent and the non-residential tax base is 85 percent. I want all the folks in Fernie and the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) to listen to that difference in figures. The amount of taxation that has been confiscated — or as the minister has euphemistically put it, the amount that they "have assumed responsibility for" — is 85 percent of their total assessment. Their total assessment is $244, 238,000, and the government has confiscated $208 million of that amount.

In Cranbrook the residential tax base is better. It's 39 percent. The non-residential — the industrial and commercial — is 60 percent. Out of a total budget of $116,500,000, the government has confiscated $71 million from Cranbrook.

I was so hoping the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would come back, because there's a message here from the school district of Kimberley.

MR. MUSSALLEM: What's the school district number, please?

MR. LAUK: Do you want the school district number? Fernie is School District 1, Cranbrook is School District 2, Kimberley is School District 3.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Don't go any further; that's it. If you get to 5, he's stuck.

[ Page 7204 ]

MR. LAUK: In Kimberley the residential is 20 percent and the non-residential is 80 percent. The total budget in Kimberley is $99 million. The amount confiscated by the provincial government from Kimberley is $79 million for 1982 residential and non-residential assessments.

School District 4 — Windermere. Windermere is a bit better. In Windermere the residential portion is over 50 percent. Windermere's total budget is $73 million; I'm rounding off the figures. The total amount confiscated from that budget by the provincial government is $36 million.

In Nelson the total budget is $194 million. They've confiscated $148 million from that budget.

In Castlegar the total budget is $101 million. The total amount confiscated by this government from the school district of Castlegar is $74 million.

The Arrow Lakes. Who has got the Arrow Lakes?

MR. NICOLSON: I have — and Patsy.

MR. LAUK: The total budget for the Arrow Lakes School District is $37 million. The confiscation by this government is $27 million. It's unbelievable, isn't it?

MR. BARBER: By "budget" do you mean "assessment base"?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I'm sorry, assessment base.

Trail is the most scandalous example. I can't believe it. In Trail the percentage of residential is only 18 percent, and there's 81 percent non-residential. That's what's been confiscated. Out of an assessment base of $252 million, the provincial government has confiscated $206 million.

In Grand Forks they've confiscated $20 million out of a $38 million budget.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I mean "assessment base." You know what I mean. You're listening carefully. I'm glad there's one person here who is listening to this. Do you want me to get to Chilliwack right away, or shall we just leave that for a minute?

In Kettle Valley, they have confiscated $13.5 million from a $22 million assessment. In the South Okanagan, the Premier's own constituency, from a $73 million assessment they have confiscated $33 million. Penticton is another example. From a $153 million assessment the government has seized, stolen, confiscated $71 million. Is the minister from Penticton going to pay that back personally? Keremeos: again, from a $16 million assessment, $8 million has been confiscated. In Princeton only 22 percent of the taxation base is residential; 77.8 percent is commercial and industrial. That means the assessment base is $52 million, and the province has seized $41 million of that. Can you imagine what is going on here? In Golden there is a 24 percent residential assessment and 75 percent non-residential, or industrial and commercial. Their assessment is $39 million and $29 million of that goes to the province. There is no guarantee we will get a penny of this back. This is all going to northeast coal.

The member for Kamloops should be listening. There is a 30 percent residential and 69 percent industrial and commercial tax base in Kamloops. I wonder if, during that by-election last May, the member made a promise to the people of Kamloops that the provincial government would come in and seize 69 percent of their assessment. I wonder if he made that promise when he was running for election. From an assessment base of $658 million, the province will seize $458 million. Quesnel is interesting. From an assessment of $222 million, the province will get $182 million. Chilliwack is also an interesting one — Mr. Speaker's own school district. From a total assessment base of $196 million, the government is going to take away from your school district $101 million. In Powell River, District 47, the tax base is $270 million; and the confiscation, the highest so far, is $223 million.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They are going to take it all, take the whole town. What about 46? That is in my riding too.

MR. LAUK: The Sunshine Coast: from a base of $199 million, they are going to take $83.2 million.

I could go on forever. Just a glance at the school financing formula, and one would not believe what kind of a money grab this really is. It is a terrible money grab. There is no guarantee that any of this confiscation will be returned to the school districts in any form whatsoever. Nothing in the bill guarantees anything of the sort. We are supposed to trust the minister. He asks us to trust him. School District 84, Vancouver Island West, has a total assessment of $68 million, and guess what the seizure is, guess what the theft is? It is $64 million from that amount.

It is a total usurpation of local control, with no guarantee of anything going back to Chilliwack. How are you, Mr. Speaker, going to go to those people in Chilliwack and tell them this is okay? Can you guarantee those people in Chilliwack that this money will not go to the northeast coal project? Will you stake your seat on going to Chilliwack and saying that not one penny of this confiscated money going into general revenue is going to the northeast coal project? You can't do it; you know you can't, because there's nothing in the legislation that prevents this government from taking all $840 million in taxation that they've confiscated.... All or most of it or even part of it may well go to the northeast coal project.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes. Well, they'll still be a billion dollars in the hole after they've blown all our money.

One example of the kind of thing that's happening out there happened recently in Cowichan. On April 22 in the Cowichan Leader — I'll read this into the record:

"It was an outrage, but School District 65 was forced at its April 19 meeting to extend its borrowing power from $2.5 million to $4.5 million to meet its costs until the provincial government can get organized and resume normal payments to school districts.

"Board secretary-treasurer Bill Brown said the board would have to borrow additional money simply to meet such basic costs as its payroll because of proposed changes in the way and amount the province pays each school district. Noting the proposed provincial changes are presently before the Legislature, Brown said no money, not even what is owed to this district under the old financing formula, is coming through. He warned the board it should be prepared to fend for itself, possibly until the end of the school year.

[ Page 7205 ]

"'This is really outrageous, that we have to borrow because they, the provincial government, haven't got their legislation through in a proper way,' fumed trustee Anne Murray. 'I just can't believe it,' said trustee Phyllis Bomford. 'They're telling us to cut back and they're forcing us to borrow from the banks at high rates of interest.'"

Do you think that's exceptional, Mr. Speaker? I wonder, if you gave a little call to the Chilliwack School District, whether the secretary-treasurer there couldn't tell you what the district is doing. I'm reliably informed that they're borrowing heavily to make up their budget, and they're paying interest. Who pays that interest? A budget is supposed to be funded by taxation, and they have to borrow from the banks. It's another way in which the financial institutions, particularly the banking institutions, of this province are benefiting from this government's ineptitude. As if the banks need the money! School districts all over the province are borrowing millions of dollars at 25, 20, 19 or 18 percent interest, and we're getting into tremendous debt at the school district level. Who pays for that interest? Who pays for that accumulated debt? The residential taxpayers in the following year. That won't come from the provincial government; that won't come from the money they've confiscated. That will come from homeowners and from the increases in taxation on them in the following year.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. member would like to do his studying at a time other than the time of the House.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I noticed you were in conversation with someone, and I didn't want to speak while you weren't paying absolute attention.

A very simple mathematical formula was used to determine the amount of the cut to school districts with regard to district need, unique situations in a district, unique needs of students in a district, surpluses or deficits in last year's budget. In fact, districts with a surplus in 1981 were punished under this formula and asked to cut more. Districts with a deficit in 1981 got a bonus in 1982, whether or not the district had already cut its provisional budget — such as Penticton, Victoria and Saanich, which had already cut their budgets before sending them in February 15. The formula worked in such a way that two districts received notice that their semi-final budgets were too low. Soon after districts received notice to cut by a specified amount. Some were told changes would be made. Stikine was to make a cut of approximately $80,000 and not add money, as the first order from the minister stated. Other districts were told their cuts would be less — on second thought — such as Nanaimo, Burnaby and Smithers. This is the kind of department you're running. You don't even know what's going on.

[Interruption.]

HON. MR. SMITH: You just made a baby cry.

MR. LAUK: Listen, the minister has made more than just one baby cry. He's sunk a whole generation of students.

The minister kept announcing that some districts might get special consideration. I wonder if he remembers that? Do you want me to repeat the letters and quotations of the minister? He made many statements that some districts might get special consideration if they had a case. He didn't state the criteria. He just made the promise. There were three legal opinions, as I recall, that stated that school boards did not have to comply with the request to cut. This is earlier on. On the basis of all this confusion many school boards quite rightly decided not to make cuts until legislation was in place.

The cuts themselves are inequitable. On a per-pupil basis they vary from zero per pupil in the central coast situation to $220 per pupil in the Gulf Islands. I can't understand how that formula came into play, because this new interim act states that districts may be punished for not making cuts when ordered. Will these districts be punished retroactively? Section 12 says that these districts would be punished if they didn't make the cuts.

There are a few districts which can make the cuts without severe consequences. I recognize that there are a few, but in most districts the cuts will have drastic effects. I cite Abbotsford, Langley and Fernie as being three that come to mind. These are districts with a growing enrolment, where it has been impossible in the past to keep up due to inadequate government funding. So the high taxation to residents there will continue and increase to a great extent.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the various school districts we've calculated what the cut-per-pupil has been as a result of this new formula. I've given the example of $221 per pupil in the Gulf Islands, whereas in the central coast it was zero. Anywhere along here the average is well above, I would say, $70 to $75. I would reckon the average cutback in all the school districts is about $88 per pupil.

As I stated before, the features of this bill are such that there is no commitment. As the minister indicated earlier, there will be a 75 percent sharing of costs with the school districts. It follows that: (1) equality of educational opportunity for all students is not guaranteed as it is even in the present School Act; (2) equalization of fiscal capacity is not guaranteed as it is in the present School Act; (3) local school district autonomy is violated in a shabby and tawdry way, and that the minister can put his finger into every budget and can reallocate any portion of the school board budget as he sees fit; and (4) local school district discretion is totally removed, because the minister gives himself the power to issue what he calls "directives," which he does not have to publish and for which he is not accountable to local taxpayers and is barely accountable to the Legislature.

If you don't know that something has been done, how can you possibly make the minister account for it? There is no requirement that the so-called directives, which are virtually orders-in-council without even the necessity of being orders-in-council.... They are virtually laws or bylaws that do not have to be promulgated in the ordinary course of events. No other statute like this in our law in this country has been proposed. No other section like it has been proposed. The minister can directly interfere with school board budgets without accountability to anyone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like the War Measures Act.

MR. LAUK: Oh, the War Measures Act was a piece of cake compared to this section. It conjures up all kinds of bizarre situations where the minister sends a messenger in a

[ Page 7206 ]

cloak and hood, travelling by horseback from school district to school district, delivering the secret message: "This is a ministerial directive." I wonder if he'll do it that way. Perhaps he'll summon them into a private chamber, and anyone spilling the beans about what the directive says might have their tongues cut out or perhaps have thumb-screws put on them. It smacks of a very bizarre situation. These directives are like orders-in-council, and they're not publishable. Again, there's no formula in this bill. Equity of effort in tax restraint or equity, of effort between taxpayers of a different class — commercial or residential — is not guaranteed. We noticed with great interest during the minister's announcement....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could give me some guidance. My point of order is that I notice a member reading a newspaper in the House. I'm just wondering whether or not that's within the rules of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. The Chair must advise all members that our parliamentary rules are quite clear: newspapers should not be read in the House unless a member is going to use a specific part of the text for a speech. All members are reminded to avoid reading newspapers.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I note that the same member is reading the same newspaper — obviously, he doesn't learn too readily. I know it's very difficult for him to read in his office, but at the same time I would advise that that is what he should do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is well taken. I will ask the House to please come to order. I'll remind all hon. members that our parliamentary rules prohibit us from reading a newspaper unless one is going to use part of the newspaper for his speech. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre continues. I'll ask the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to please come to order.

MR. LAUK: The fifth point under this formula is that the government, through the minister, suggested that there would be some equity with respect to taxes from residential as opposed to commercial and industrial. There's no guarantee, no formula within this statute or any other kind of legislation, that will protect that promise. With respect, we have heard promises from the minister before and he hasn't kept them. This is another critical example of why this bill should not pass. It's a bill that is designed to give the power to the government to operate the educational system in secrecy. How will parents be able to find out what is going on with their kids when the school trustees won't even know?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, that ferocious member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is harassing this little member for Vancouver Centre. This might amount to a question of privilege.

Having made that promise, we see no guarantee in the legislation. We see an education system that is going to be designed and run and controlled by one person in absolute secrecy.

The sixth point that has to be made about this bill is that property tax payers are not protected against arbitrary increases due to any quirks in the system. On average, property taxes will rise about 42 percent this year. Urban areas will get a break, perhaps, for this year only. Next year, things will be as bad as they ever were and even much worse. If there's any message that we have to get out there, that's the message that is clearly part of this bill: that all the taxpayers in the province are giving up control over local taxation for the sake of a small decrease this year, but with a definite promise of tremendous increases, even on the urban taxpayer, next year.

There is no guarantee in this bill that payments to school boards by the Minister of Finance will occur or, if they do occur, will be regular. The school boards could be forced to borrow to meet operating expenses on a continual basis, as Kitimat, Cowichan, Chilliwack, Prince George and other school districts have already had to do. I wonder how many hon. members of this House, particularly on the government side, have called their school districts and asked them: "Are you borrowing to meet your operating expenditures now, because this government is not making payments?" If that's happened this year, Mr. Speaker, it's going to happen again. It's going to happen often throughout the year. If they're unable to borrow, I suppose we could have teachers paid in script or some sort of Social Credit funny money, because it's more convenient for the Minister of Finance to hold those funds in term deposits and earn interest for the government than to pay them to the school boards. You can see what's happening by this confiscation, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the public pay special attention to what this government is doing.

Cowichan and Kitimat have had to borrow. Prince George, Chilliwack and other schools districts have indicated that they're now borrowing funds from banks at exorbitant interest rates because they're not receiving provincial payments. There is nothing in this bill that requires the government to make any payments at all, or if they do make payments, when or how regularly. If they're short or late for a payment, the districts have to immediately borrow to make the payroll. That borrowing has tremendous interest on it. That interest accumulates on the debt of the school district, which debt has to be taxed off the residential homeowner in some form, because we know full well that the government is not going to provide money for interest. They're barely going to provide money, according to the minister, for the basic program — whenever that is discovered.

The Minister of Finance is going to be very happy with this, because he's going to have $840 million that he can invest in the short term and gain that interest. With all of that money — again at the homeowner's expense, at the school district's expense — they can finance the Anzac line. It's a very clever scheme. It's politically quite clever, because, as you may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking now for four or five hours, I guess, and my remarks and criticisms of this bill have not received the press attention I'd hoped they would. Have you noticed that, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member, the minister for fertilizer, has indicated that all the press are falling asleep. Well, the government do not; they're always alert. I'm going to make one last stab at getting some press — and I'll do it by doing this: we have the finest press gallery anywhere in the Commonwealth. It is alert, keen and highly educated, because

[ Page 7207 ]

they are the lucky generation that got an education before these cutbacks. They went to journalism school when there was a journalism school. That's another thing they're cutting back in Oak Bay. All the Oak Bay high schools are cutting back on their journalism course.

Mr. Speaker, this very clever scheme is not only a financial grab. It has another sting to it. That is that we have school districts today borrowing at high interest rates, and they will in the future too, because there is no guarantee in this bill that this government is required to make payments regularly as needed in accordance with approved budgets at school district level. So when they need to make the payroll, they're going to be borrowing from the banks at very high interest rates, while this government takes their money and makes money on it in short-term deposits. If that's not theft, I have no idea what that is. If that's not embezzlement of proper funds from a local school district, I don't know what that is. Perhaps someone here can tell me what that is, if that isn't embezzlement. It's happening today, and I predict that, without some definite spelling out in the legislation, it's going to happen again.

So this bill violates principles that the government itself has said were operating requirements: "(1) equality of educational opportunity" — and I'm quoting here from some of the ministerial statements made last year — and (2) equalization of fiscal capacity." Why does the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) want, in section 4, to have the power to determine what is "monthly" and what is "equal." Why would the Minister of Finance want that? The Minister of Education would know when a school district needs the payments to meet its payroll; the Minister of Finance would know something else. He would know what the government of the province needs in funds, and he wants to be able to hold back those funds when they need them for their own cash-manipulative purposes. It is a scandal beyond belief. Why does he want to give to the Minister of Finance the power to determine what the two words "monthly" and "equal" are, unless the Minister of Finance wants to use it for the Minister of Finance's purposes and not the Minister of Education's purposes?

We assume that the person who is Minister of Education wants to take care that all school districts are properly funded, on time, so that they won't have to borrow at high interest rates. The Minister of Finance wants to have that money in the coffers to finance the Anzac line, the stadium and Bill Bennett's pyramids and monuments across the country. This is where the money is going to be used, while school districts are running around being taken to the cleaners by the local financial institutions. Those payments for interest are going to accumulate onto next year's deficit in that school district and, without their being able to tax industrial and commercial land, that accumulated deficit will be paid for by an increase of taxes on the residences, on homeowners, on ordinary people.

Could you have believed, Mr. Speaker, when you were chairman of the school board and reluctantly agreed to run for the Social Credit Party, that they would have come out with legislation like this? I don't think you would have believed it in those days. Had you known that in the days that you accepted that offer to run for the Social Credit Party, I am sure you would have turned them down. I am sure, if you go to your office now, Mr. Speaker, the phone is ringing off the hook, because I understand that Prince George, in two weeks, will be in a position of having to borrow funds at high interest rates to fund the school district.

Do you see what is happening to this educational system because of the schemes composed by their advisers, the dirty tricks artists from the east — Spector and Kinsella and all the rest of the gang that thinks we're all a bunch of country bumpkins out here; those city slickers and their 16-piece suits who've come out here to tell us poor British Columbians how it's done in Ontario? Do you know how it is done in Ontario, Mr. Speaker? By patronage.

The minister is clapping his hands in a most peculiar and puerile fashion. Is he saying: "Goody, goody, goody"?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm praying for your soul.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the scheme that has been devised is politically ingenious but educationally disastrous. It is clever as far as hoodwinking the public goes, but in the long term it will put the education system of this province in such chaos that it would take geniuses to put it back on the rails.

Local school district autonomy is, as I have said, not only jeopardized but usurped by this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena rises for what purpose.

MR. HOWARD: To introduce guests.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is standard that leave be asked for.

MR. HOWARD: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you ask for leave?

MR. HOWARD: Yes.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: We have with us today in the gallery the daughter of a very distinguished member of this chamber, Miss Cleta Brown, who is the daughter of you-know-who.

I also would like to introduce some friends of mine from San Francisco, California, who are visiting with us: Mr. and Mrs. George O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien is a retired accountant. They are here visiting with us primarily to travel on the Marguerite, because they have fond historic memories of coastal travel. They are also going to take the B.C. Ferry Corporation's vessel to Prince Rupert.

Their reason for travelling at this particular time of the year is that this is the year of their fiftieth wedding anniversary. Fifty years ago Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien travelled the coast of British Columbia on their honeymoon and now want to revisit it and remember the beauty and glory of their moments together in 1932, as well as their fiftieth wedding anniversary. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. LAUK: I pointed out at least 12 different ways in which this bill has usurped the local autonomy of the school boards.

I wonder if the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is aware that his school board has been on the phone from Kimberley and wants to reach him. It would be nice if the hon. member would return his phone calls.

[ Page 7208 ]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The minister wants me to sit down when the call is from Kimberley. Is he afraid to answer the school district in Kimberley?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster rises on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask your guidance. How many members are allowed on their feet at one time in this House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Only one is recognized.

MR. COCKE: I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the minister was on his feet trying to grab the floor and savage it away from my friend from Vancouver Centre. I think that's unbecoming behaviour from a minister of the Crown.

MR. LAUK: Ah, the centre-piece to the scheme has just arrived with his red folder. What does that red folder represent — all of the figures and the amounts of money confiscated from the local taxpayers? Is that what it contains?

I'm certainly glad the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is in his seat. He should know that in his constituency the Kimberley School District has an assessment base of $99 million, and the province now has as its own taxation base $78 million of that. Does he know that? Does he also know that in Windermere, which has a $72 million base, the province gets $35 million? Will he answer the phone from the Windermere School District and tell them why he has allowed his own government to do that to them, the people he has solemnly promised to represent in this chamber?

What about the central Okanagan? Perhaps the Premier himself.... There he is — scooting away, scared. This is the first time he has come the chamber for debate, and he's going to run away.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Perhaps we could return to the bill.

MR. LAUK: I am. That's his first name.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill before us.

MR. LAUK: I am returning to the bill that's responsible for this bill, Mr. Speaker — the old three-dollar bill,

Let me tell the House and the member for Okanagan South what School District 23 in his riding will have to put up with under this new finance formula. They have a taxation base of $532 million, half of which is the Premier's home. The non-residential base that's going to be confiscated by the provincial government in that school district is $240 million. Is he going to go to the people of the central Okanagan and tell them why he and his government have confiscated their taxes? They are waiting on the phone now, Mr. Premier.

I'll read these from time to time as the honourable gentlemen deign to come into the chamber and hear the debate. I know they have pressing appointments outside in the Legislative dining-room, but I'm hoping that once in a while they'll wander in and hear something about the devastating effects of a bill which they purportedly are going to vote on later.

Getting back to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Kimberley School District has announced, as a result of this financing formula, the following cuts: the program for gifted children is gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: That sure wouldn't affect that minister.

MR. LAUK: Look at them both scoot out. There they go — the ministers of retreat. I'll get it on the record. I know the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing voraciously reads the Blues.

The program cutbacks in Kimberley are as follows: programs for gifted children are cut; computer courses are cut back; tutoring for students who have to stay at home for long periods, the disabled kids whom I talked about earlier, is cut; the district counsellor is gone — no such thing; there are fewer relief teachers; custodians are cut back; speech therapy aid is cut. Here's the one that really is a shocker: school bus maintenance in Columbia River has been reduced. How do you reduce school bus maintenance? Do you take the buses off the line? If you leave on unsafe school buses to carry our kids, that is an unbelievable tactic on the part of this government. But what can the Kimberley School Board do?

Before the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing came in and I was interrupted — I wanted to bring the problems in his own school district to his attention — I was describing the power given under section 4 to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to define what would be "monthly" and what would be "equal" payments. This is the surest sign of all that this money is going to be manipulated for narrow, partisan, provincial political purposes, and not spread equally and fairly to school districts as and when the funds are needed. I think I've made that point.

The local school district's autonomy is usurped in 12 or 13 different ways. How can school boards be autonomous when they do not have a line of supply of funding that is independent of the provincial government, one that is adequate to do their daily business safe from the vicissitudes of the Ministry of Finance? We know the vicissitudes of the Ministry of Finance include northeast coal, balancing a budget and whatever other shabby manipulations of the province's finances can occur from time to time under that ministry.

School district discretion is gone. It is conceivable and indeed likely that the minister will issue a directive saying that this month's grant is to be used for specific purposes like putting in a new shower or repainting the school, rather than paying staff or making essential repairs. We've come to that. One person in this province will be able to tell you whether you can change a light bulb at Lord Robert School in the West End. That's the power that the act could well give this minister. He can give directives on every penny of the budget. He can change it at any time, at his total discretion.

"Equity of tax effort" is the expression. That's gone, or at least jeopardized, because the amount on the local property tax will be increased to meet interest payments, extra educational costs and so on of the local school district. The life of this formula is three years, one year longer than the restraint program, so we know it has nothing to do with the restraint program. This is a power-and-money grab by the province on a permanent basis. We know that. Otherwise it would be for the same term as the restraint program and would lock into the other legislation. But it doesn't do that. This is designed to control and centralize education. It's three years in the bill.

[ Page 7209 ]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Why are you dealing with the last quarter of this year?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Why don't you give the same notice to the public school system as you do to the private school system?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I will ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to please address the Chair, and I will ask the Minister of Education to withhold his remarks until he is ready to enter the debate.

MR. LAUK: I seem to have prodded the minister into responding to some of the criticisms that I'm making of this bill. Unfortunately the responses were not very good. The minister indicates that it is a two-year bill and yet the bill indicates three years, in essence. Again the minister is backtracking.

As I was saying, equity of tax effort is jeopardized. I predict that through the life of this program, which is going to be permanent — let's not kid ourselves — residential homeowners will pay three or four times the amount of tax in 1984-85 as they paid this year. They will be paying for interest charges. They will be paying for the additional educational costs because of the very bare-bones basic program the minister will allow. They will pay for disabled kids. They will pay for special-needs education. They will pay for new school buses. They will pay for practically everything because there is nothing in this bill that guarantees the province will give them a penny for anything other than the barest essentials of an education in each school district.

With the slush funds the minister has at his disposal he will be able to punish and reward each school district on a political basis. I can even see that if a school district elects too many left-wingers or too many Liberals or maybe some WCCs, the Minister of Education will withhold the special grant funds from his slush funds. He will punish them. He will send them directives until they get into line and elect good old Social Credit trustees who will do the bidding of Victoria.

It is the system of patronage and control that exists in Ontario. It is controlled from the central level down, and because it exists in Ontario it is being transplanted by the Kinsellas and the Spectors of the world to British Columbia. Do you know how it works in Ontario? Patronage and partisan control through ministries that have gone back 40 and 50 years. That is the system that this government longs for. That is what they want established under its auspices. There will be no protection against capricious administration on the part of the minister acting in total secrecy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let me briefly summarize some of what I've said this afternoon. I have described the bill as a shabby, tawdry, total usurpation of school district power. I charged that education will perhaps now be controlled by one arbitrary man, accountable to no one, and that local education financing will now be set in a one-man plebiscite held at the office of the Minister of Education in which no one has a vote but him. School boards will now be forced to borrow money to raise operating funds. This has already occurred in three districts. This bill is full of holes in terms of the provincial obligation. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the province has to pay, to pay on time, or to pay in full. This is a dangerous new system. I pointed out that special-needs education is being cut. I can only describe that as an attack on children who cannot protect themselves. Under the new formula, local school property taxes will rise 42 percent in 1982. Under this bill the minister can actually penalize districts that do not toe the cabinet line. This bill is an intolerable assault on children, on the promise of their education and on the autonomy of their school districts. I think the minister should realize by now that he cannot get away with this trick and that he should withdraw the bill.

I charged on Friday that Courtenay has been told that its budget will be set by the minister if it does not comply with his act. I want to read a legal opinion that Courtenay and other school districts should take notice of. It is from the firm of Campney and Murphy. It is addressed to the British Columbia School Trustees Association, dated March 4, 1982, and it's concerning the restraint-program financing formula. It states as follows:

"You have asked us today for our opinion in respect to the following matters:

"1. Does the Minister of Education now have the authority to require boards of school trustees to resubmit their budgets to the Ministry of Education by March 31, 1982?

"2. What are the legal consequences if a board of school trustees does not comply with an act until it is proclaimed?

"3. Can a person be guilty of breaking the law retroactively?

"With respect to the first question, we confirm our previous verbal advice to you that, in our opinion, the Minister of Education has no authority under the School Act to require school boards to submit their budgets by March 31 of this year. Section 196(6) of the School Act provides for the review of school board budgets by ministry officials and for consultation between these officials and the school board. There is, however, no authority in the minister to at any time require a school board to alter the budget which it has submitted to the ministry.

"With respect to the second question, it is our opinion that a board of school trustees is not legally obliged to comply with an act which has not yet come into effect. An act generally comes into effect upon receiving assent; however, more recently the Legislature has tended to postpone the effective date by providing that an act will not come into effect until it has been proclaimed. In any event, until an act comes into effect there can be no legal consequences for failing to comply with it.

"So far as concerns the third question, we consider it unlikely that a person would be found guilty of breaking a law before it came into force, even it was made retroactive. The Legislature is, of course, supreme within its sphere of jurisdiction, but it would be quite unusual for legislation to provide for penalties for failure to observe its terms before it became effective."

Mr. Speaker, I raise this issue and read this legal opinion to show you that my first reference to the minister as some-

[ Page 7210 ]

what of a schoolyard bully is becoming a widespread opinion, not only among people of this party but all through the province. He has threatened school boards; he has played the schoolyard bully. He has threatened Courtenay, as of Friday, that he will draft their budget on his terms unless they comply with his artificial deadline. This is before the bill has even passed second reading in this Legislature. This is before the bill has even been fleshed out with any announcements of regulations or formulas by the ministry. He's not talking to just anybody; he's talking to publicly elected officials, elected as responsible trustees of the school boards. He's treating them as a bully would treat other kids in a schoolyard. I can't describe it in any other way.

There are some questions of principle with respect to the bill that I think I should point out at this time. Has there been any direction as to what items, programs or services should be cut when these boards are asked to do so? What if a local board says it cannot cut without severe consequences, and it refuses to do so? Has the minister considered, as I indicated earlier, the cost per pupil in terms of a cut; in other words, the dollar cut per pupil per district? Has he suggested it should be the same provincewide? Are districts which have used restraint in the past few years being asked to cut more? If the board cut in January or early February, were they asked to cut again? The answer to both those questions seems to be yes. Is it true that in districts 49 and 87 the 1982 restrained operating budget was greater than that submitted by the board?

I raise this complex, confusing, chaotic situation to show you how ineptly this legislation has been drafted, and what lack of thought and consideration has gone into it. It is legislation not drafted by a Ministry of Education but by financial bureaucrats in the Ministry of Finance who couldn't care less about education. It doesn't make any sense to me that restrained budgets in some school districts amount to more than their actual budgets. That's not restraint. That doesn't make any sense, does it? No.

The government's own material, attached to the press releases the minister made a couple of months ago, says: "Higher property taxes this year will occur in the following school districts...." I am looking for Chilliwack, Mr. Speaker. I am looking for them in the old floodplain. I wonder what the folks in the old floodplain are going to pay in taxes this year. Let's go through the list.

I will list those school districts that are going to be paying more taxes under this formula than last year, just to put the lie to the claim that under this formula they are going to be paying less taxes. It is difficult, when you say, "Yes, it is, and no, it isn't," but these are figures from the Ministry of Education. In North Vancouver the average gross tax for school purposes last year was $740; this year it will be $757. Richmond will be paying $709 as opposed to $625 last year. Saanich people will be paying $650 on the average as opposed to $578 last year. In Burnaby they'll be paying $633 this year as opposed to last year. In Surrey they'll be paying $575 as opposed to $552 last year. In Howe Sound — West Vancouver — they'll be paying $535 as opposed to $426 last year. In New Westminster they'll be paying $50 more in taxation this year. In Central Okanagan they'll be paying $40 more, on the average, in taxation. In Summerland they'll be paying an average of $81 more in taxation this year. North Vancouver Island will be paying an average of — this is phenomenal — well over $200 more in taxation per house this year. In Windermere they'll be paying $80 more per house. In Nanaimo they'll be paying $104 more per house. In South Okanagan — the Premier's constituency — they'll be paying over $106 more per house in school taxes this year as a result of this formula. In the Queen Charlotte Islands last year the average homeowner paid $330 for school purposes; this year they'll be paying $451. That's well over $100 more. In Qualicum they'll be paying $12 more, on average. In Campbell River they'll be paying an average increase of $100. In Kitimat they'll be paying well over $100 more per house. In Lake Cowichan they'll be paying almost $150 more on average. On the Sunshine Coast they'll be paying a $30 increase per home. Penticton, Courtenay, Abbotsford, Agassiz, Kimberley, Vernon, Creston, Nelson, Vancouver Island, Fort Nelson, Shuswap, Powell River, Trail, Kamloops, Castlegar, Mission, Lillooet, Fernie, Kettle Valley, North Peace River, North Thompson and Chilliwack. All those districts I have named will be paying an average increase of about $88 to $100 per house as a result of this bill.

The minister claimed lower taxes. These are figures from his own ministry. If that isn't a question of privilege in this House, I don't know what is. He said we'd be paying lower taxes. All of those school districts will be paying more.

Mr. Speaker, do you want to know how much more your constituents in Chilliwack will be paying as a result of this bill? Last year, they paid $272 on the average. Now, remember, 1981 is when school taxes skyrocketed; they went out of sight last year. Is this bill going to bring them down, as promised, in Chilliwack? No, they're going up to $320 from $272 — thirty or forty dollars a house. This is in the face of the claim that taxes are going down.

South Peace River is going from $272 to $308. They are going to suffer an increase of almost $140 per home as a result of this bill in the Nishga School District. South Cariboo has an increase from $176, average gross taxes to $295 average gross taxes. Hope, Alberni, Central Coast, Grand Forks, Keremeos, Quesnel, Burns Lake, Arrow Lakes, Revelstoke, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Nechako, Golden, Stikine and Princeton will all have substantial increases in taxation for this year as a result of this formula.

What districts are having lower taxation as a result of this bill. This should be interesting to the folks. West Vancouver. Last year the average West Vancouverite struggled to raise $1,109 per home. This year they're going to pay $620 per home. The average home there would comprise the Creston School District budget, if sold at face value.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Do you want Prince George? Prince George, School District 57, Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. minister of laborious activities. Of the taxation base in Prince George, 21.4 percent is residential and 78.6 percent is non-residential. Under this bill the total assessment base has been and will be $869 million. The provincial government has now, through this bill, confiscated from the school district of Prince George — "assumed responsibility for," swiped — $684 million of that tax base. Is the member for Prince George going to go up there and tell the folks in Prince George that he voted for a bill that allowed the provincial government to confiscate $684 million of their taxation base? You bet your life he won't. I'll bet he hasn't been to Prince George in months. I'll bet he hasn't been to Prince George since the Minister of Education announced this formula. I'll tell you, they've got a party waiting for you up there with a big pot of tar and a big bag of feathers. They are just waiting, to see you.

[ Page 7211 ]

But maybe the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) will decide not to vote for this bill. Maybe he'll stand up in his place and say: "Mr. Speaker, I will not sell out the people who elected me to this chamber for partisan, political interests. I am going to vote against this bill. I'm not going to let this government confiscate $684 million of rightful taxation belonging to the school district of Prince George." What can he say in Prince George about the taxation base up there? Surprise! The average tax increase in Prince George is only $1. Isn't that a surprise! For the sake of only a $1 increase he is allowing that government to seize $684 million of their taxation base. Boy, that is good economics! He is selling his constituency down the river. He is depriving a whole generation of children of an adequate education for one buck. We sure know what it is worth. We know what integrity is.

Oh, there are other places where taxation is going to go down. Do you want to hear about them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Other than West Vancouver, you mean?

MR. LAUK: Taxation is going to go down in West Vancouver and in Langley.

MR. LEA: Another Socred riding.

MR. LAUK: Yes. "The people of Langley don't come cheap," says the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). "We demand our rightful share of tax reduction under this bill. Even though in Langley we're going to give up millions of dollars of taxation to the provincial government, look what we get back," says the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In Langley, in 1981, the average homeowner paid $453 on their home for school taxes. "But this year," says the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, "you'll be paying $452." There's a $1 reduction.

The increases average $100 per house. The reductions, other than for West Vancouver, average a few dollars. That's all. On the strength of that, the minister has the audacity to stand up in this House and say this bill lowers taxation on homeowners. What utter nonsense! I count only 7 out of 75 school districts that will have anything more than a couple of dollars' reduction in their school taxes.

I'm very amused by the kind of memorandum that comes from the ministry to the board chairman. It's indicative of the kind of patronizing, paternalistic attitude that this minister has toward school boards and districts. He's not pleased with them. He has sent out to them, under one of his deputy ministers, the following memorandum: "Re: calculation of acceptable 1981 budgets." I like the ring of that: "What is acceptable?" This went out April 16, 1982. This is an arbitrary and bureaucratic formula as set out in this memorandum. It ignores the educational reality facing school trustees in their districts, particularly in school districts. There are quite a few with expanding enrolments, and they'll be seriously affected by only getting about three-quarters of the 1983 cost per pupil. It will be devastating to those school districts. In this definition of "acceptable school budgets," I want to read out some of the language to you to show you the effort that has gone in to smokescreen this money-grab and the details and complexity that are being forced upon school districts. Keep them working with complicated formulas and you've got the school boards off-base. They're off-balance, and they can't fight that.

Now I have several questions about this memorandum. I'm going to use most of them in estimates, but some of them will have to do.... I should point out to some of the hon. members who are not used to debate on bills that a debate on a bill is usually very, very short, but debates on estimates are very long. I would estimate that the lead speaker on a bill in opposition will spend about 20 times that length of time on estimates. That's a rough calculation, so that the minister knows how much time I'm going to spend on his estimates.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction, please?

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, sitting in the gallery is the newly nominated candidate who is going to be the new member for Dewdney after the next election, Sophie Weremchuk. I wonder if the House will join me in welcoming her.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the introduction should not disturb the House; it should only make it....

The first member for Vancouver Centre, who gave up the floor, continues.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, that kind of an introduction doesn't upset this side of the House. There is an example of what I've been talking about. Mrs. Weremchuk has been a school trustee and chairman of the board in Mission. She is concerned about kids and concerned about the quality of education in the school district of Mission and her constituency. She might have been chairman of the school board for 20 years had it not been for this government. She is angry now, and she's going to take that little member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and twist him up like a pretzel.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, an introduction also ought not take the member from the debating of the bill itself.

MR. LAUK: I was just trying to be courteous and deferential.

Perhaps the most offensive part of this bill is the attack on the local autonomy of the school boards. I've been trying to get that across to government members for some time, not just in the last six or seven hours of debate on this bill. I've tried, on a one-to-one basis, to impress upon them — particularly on the Minister of Education — the essential importance of local school board autonomy, that the school boards represent parental sovereignty over education, that parents of kids have that as their responsibility and right to be sovereign over what their kids are being taught. That is the essential building block of democracy in British Columbia and Canada and western democracies: the family is sovereign over education. Every time I say that to a government member, particularly the Minister of Education, his eyes glaze over and he looks out in the distance and he doesn't understand a word I'm saying, because he has no respect for the sovereignty of family over education. In his misguided and perverse political view of the education system he believes that central

[ Page 7212 ]

control over education is better than family control. That's what this bill is doing: attacking the very integrity of the democratic system, and education in that democratic system. The Coquitlam school board gives an example of the frustration of elected school board people through all the constituencies.

I notice that the Social Credit members aren't in any way interested in this debate. They know that with their crushing majority over this little party, they don't have to listen to a word the opposition has to say. They can vote us down. There isn't one person who has indicated a willingness to debate this bill. There is not one member of the government side who will speak on behalf of the local school districts in their community as those school districts are being steam-rollered by this right-wing government.

The Coquitlam School Board has sent a leaflet to parents. This is a transcript:

"The future of your child's education: a message to parents from the Board of School Trustees, Coquitlam District.

"The provincial government has forced your school board to cut $805,491 in the last three months of 1982. In 1983 we will have to cut $3 million, approximately, and in 1984 much, much more.

"The district's budget was designed to meet the educational needs of your child. It was a responsible commitment and an investment in your child's future. To meet the demands, we are forced to cut now and for at least the next three years. These cuts will mean larger class sizes, less personal attention, more split classes, reduced program offerings, reduced library services, less help for those children with special needs, reduced maintenance of facilities and grounds and school closures.

"This is a saving of 8 cents per day. Is 8 cents too much to invest in the future of a child? The saving will cost your child. Act now. We need your help. Please take the time to let us know that...."

And then parents are asked to write for more information or to express their concern to their MLA. That is not an example of partisan politicians. These aren't partisan politicians on the Coquitlam School Board. All of you who have had experience with school boards know that. They have been pushed to the wall so desperately that they've sent out and begged parents to respond. They have sent this to all parents. Here is a letter received from a library worker in Cranbrook, and a public statement. The people of Cranbrook would like to hear the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) speak out about the new educational finance formula:

"The government's restraint budget requires the Cranbrook School Board to reduce its 1982 operating budget by $334,642. The Cranbrook board of school trustees has thoroughly reviewed its 1982 operating budget and has made reductions that will have the least negative impact on the educational programs provided for the children of School District 2. These reductions include the closing of the one-room schools in Wardner and Moyie, and the people of those two communities would like to have word from you right away."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), since his election in 1979, has made about two speeches and three introductions. Now all of a sudden he's clamouring to get to his feet and talk to us, and not to the good folks of Wardner and Moyie.

The trustees of the good community of Cranbrook go on to say:

"...the termination of a number of day custodian positions, effective as of September, 1982; a 50 percent reduction in library-aide time, effective May 10, 1982" — they're going to save $40,000 by doing that — "the elimination of two district staff positions — a coordinator of physical education, and coordinator of language instruction — and a directed-studies aide position, which were budgeted for for September to December 1982; a decrease in equipment replacement, effective May 1, 1982; a decrease in buildings and grounds repair and maintenance expenditures; curtailments in moneys available for middle-school planning, salary negotiations, district testing and curriculum development...."

Do you remember district testing? Remember the battle we had with the predecessor of the minister? It's being cut now. Old Pat McGeer's hopes and dreams are going down the tube because of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a letter to Mrs. Doreen Peebles. This is a constituent of the hon. member for Kootenay. The letter was addressed to her from School District 2 in Cranbrook. Mrs. Peebles wants to know why the hon. member for Kootenay will not answer telephone messages and get up there and deal with this problem.

"Dear Mrs. Peebles:

As you are probably aware, the school district was instructed by the Ministry of Education to reduce our operating budget by $334,642." — Instructed! — "After careful consideration of all areas of the budget, a decision was made to reduce teacher aide time in all school libraries as one of the cuts. It is with regret that I inform you that effective Monday, May 10, 1982, the hours worked by all teacher aides in school libraries will be reduced by 50 percent. The board deeply regrets having to take this action. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me."

"Secretary-Treasurer of the School Board."

Mrs. Peebles is the only one who's been granted permission so far to use such letters, Mr. Speaker. These letters are going out all over the province. It's not just the teachers who are going to suffer — that's not the important issue in this case — it's the kids in these schools. A whole generation of kids are going to do with less and, in some cases, do without.

As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, it seems to be damn near impossible to convince members opposite that this school formula is going to destroy the hopes and aspirations of a whole generation of kids and that through this bill they have decided to destroy the enhancement and enrichment programs that we fought so hard for school district by school district throughout this province over so many years.

The important issue is that this government is destroying local autonomy and taking away that very precious and important democratic concept: that education of our young is the responsibility and the decision of parents. It is the responsibility of the family. They are destroying with one stroke of the pen the sovereignty of the family in the education system

[ Page 7213 ]

in British Columbia. It is only through local school boards that we have direct representation from parents and taxpayers. We know, Mr. Speaker, that this is the group of people at the school trustee level who can express the wishes, hopes and desires of families, not of this chamber, this ivory-tower chamber — it's hardly an ivory tower — away from the real needs of local communities.

I described on Friday how school districts and education systems were developed in this country. It wasn't centrally set down as they did in Nazi Germany or in other fascist and totalitarian regimes. It was set up through families getting together and hiring teachers. When the problem became too great and there were a greater number of families in the community, we elected school boards. But the authority came from the grass roots and the sovereignty of the family all the time.

This government is destroying democratic education in the province of British Columbia. They're destroying it by bleeding pennies off the backs of people who can't fight back — the kids of this province. They are building their northeast coal and their stadiums and their pyramids as monuments to themselves and they're doing that by attacking the people who can't defend themselves — the kids. They are depriving these kids of their future education. No matter what happens, the people of this province will not forget this final, dirtiest trick and blow from this government, which has attacked the people who are most defenceless.

The democratic system depends entirely upon its education system. That is what governments are for in a democratic system, not to build monuments and pyramids. Those are for the days of the pharaohs. Those were the days when they had massive groups and races of people who would die by the thousands every day to build monuments to their egos. But someone out there is striking back. Someone knows what that Premier is up to because, as I toured the stadium the other day, painted in bold paint on one side of the construction wall was: "Bennett for Pharaoh." Someone knows his number. This government and every minister in it since 1976 has demonstrated a total lack of respect and, indeed, contempt for education in this province.

Mr. Lauk moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.