[ Page 7215 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Lauk –– 7215

Mr. Ritchie –– 7218

Mr. Gabelmann –– 7220

Mrs. Wallace –– 7224

Tabling Documents

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

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7227

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize that the directors of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce are in Victoria today. They have just completed their annual brief to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. I believe they'll be meeting with members of the opposition party later this morning. I'd like to recognize the members who were here: Robert Hallam of Vancouver, president; Norm McLaren of Campbell River, first vice president; Ron Wood of West Vancouver, immediate past president; Wayne Allen of North Vancouver, treasurer; Graham Wright, legal counsel; Bill Pekonen from Delta, finance and taxation committee chairman. Also here were Margaret Ferguson from Powell River, representing District 1; Jim Currie from Victoria; Jon McRae from Gibsons; John Dance from Langley; Gerry Fredrick from Summerland, Ray Suffredine of Nelson, who was to be here but unavoidably could not; Gus Boersma from Fernie; Darwin Watt from Quesnel; Fred Garnett from Prince George; Bill Dyer from Fort St. John; and their general manager, Dan McCaughey from Burnaby. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT
(continued)

Interjections.

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

MR. LAUK: As we left off yesterday I was about to bring to the attention of the House that the government, in a desperate action because of its ineptitude in introducing this bill rather late in the year, has, under section 14 of the School Act, changed the statutory dates of sections 196(7) and (8). That amendment — it applies to this bill — reads: "The April 20 date referred to in section 196(7) of the School Act is extended to May 1 for the year 1982." Subsection (d) says: "The May 1 date referred to in section 196(8) of the School Act is extended to May 15 for the year 1982." The reason I bring that up is that the order-in-council allows the Minister of Education until May 1 to give notice to school boards of the details of grants to the boards, assessed values in the districts and taxation to be levied, and the board of each school district until May 15 to adopt the annual bylaw respecting the annual budget and to file that bylaw with the Minister of Education, the municipalities and the surveyor of taxes. There is no authority for the cabinet to pass such an order-in-council. Section 14 gives power to pass orders-in-council and regulations, but it is well known in constitutional law that no government and no cabinet can amend a statute. The statute has to be amended in the Legislature. This is the well-known proposition of delegatas potestas non potest delegari. Every hon. member knows that. This means quite simply that you cannot delegate your entire power to another body or another person. This Legislature couldn't pass its power on to any other group. Otherwise this Legislature conceivably could pass its constitutional power to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce or the Ku Klux Klan. Therefore I advise that those dates are inoperative, unlawful and unconstitutional, and the dates in the statute itself apply unless otherwise amended by this chamber. This is an example, Mr. Speaker, of what this government is doing with respect to its desperation as a result of its ineptitude in dealing with this bill.

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

MR. LAUK: I think any government in the west is in deep trouble. I notice that the Premier is very nervous; he's laughing this morning. He knows full well that the juggernaut of the people's will is moving west and it's going to reach his doorstep fairly soon.

Interjections.

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

MR. LAUK: It's exactly the principle of this bill and the unconstitutional acts of this government that are going to get this government thrown out. The arrogance of this government is such that the people of this province want to see it out of office, and if the Premier takes some comfort from what happened in Saskatchewan, we invite him to call an election right now.

If the honourable, the good doctor from Vancouver–Point Grey is that confident.... Last year that hon. member stood in his place and for 20 minutes praised Argentina. Do you remember that? He's got that steel-trap mind, that rapier political judgment.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Back to the principle of the bill. The point is this: it is well known in constitutional law that the government couldn't do this. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), recently honoured with the Queen's Counsel appointment, would have been one of the first to advise his colleagues that they were powerless to do this. But I suppose they went ahead anyway. They said: "We can get away with anything." They cannot amend the sections in question; I can therefore advise all school boards that they can ignore those new dates. The old deadlines are still in place, and the old budgets are still in place. The constitution, which is now law, indicates clearly that the legislature is the supreme legislative authority in each province, not the cabinet. This is not new; it was the same under the old constitution. It appears to me that the government has acted unlawfully to extend those dates.

Yesterday I was canvassing for the hon. members the various cutbacks that will be caused by this legislation. I pointed out clearly that several school districts represented by several of the members on the government side have had to make drastic cutbacks in services to children and to students.

Interjection.

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

[ Page 7216 ]

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

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

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member says that I don't read it right. It's too early in the morning for him, I guess. These are the figures supplied by your own government, the one that you support.

In Maple Ridge we have seen special program aid.... I don't have the telegram handy; I read it out yesterday for all hon. members. We've been notified that under the special needs programs alone.... I wonder if the hon. member can hear me. He asked the question; I would like him to know. They want to know from the hon. member for Dewdney why they have to cut their special program aid. In Maple Ridge there has been a 10 percent decrease in services provided. This is an area that possibly has an increasing enrolment. Is the hon. member going to resign? Isn't that the rule of the House? He's ignoring me. I guess he's not going to resign. Just another Socred promise.

South Park School is a special school within the Greater Victoria School District which emphasizes parental involvement in all school activities. Parents make a commitment to take part in decision-making, assisting with teaching programs, special activities and so on, enabling the school to offer enriched learning opportunities for the students. Enrolment is district-wide, and students come from all over the district to attend the school. There's always a waiting list to enter this school. Hon. members will remember South Park students who for three years collected newspapers from our offices here in the Legislature.

Parents and staff are particularly concerned that the excellent French program will be terminated in September and that the philosophy of the school will change direction. If tenured teachers from within the district replace those presently teaching at the school who do not have contracts, the situation is going to change. They've sent me a note that they've sent to all parents at South Park School which I think would be of some interest to hon. members.

"Due to the school board cuts our philosophy and services to our children are endangered. It is essential that each of us writes to the editors of the local newspapers with copies to the trustees and to Dr. Brayne, director of instruction administration, expressing our concerns. Here are some points which you may wish to address in your letter.

"Five out of ten of our current staff will not be renewed for next year. These positions may be filled by tenure teachers who are not necessarily committed to the program of the school. One of the school's strengths is that current staff work well with each other, the parents and the children. The principal's administrative time has been cut from 15 hours per week to 1 1/2 hours per week; in that time he must deal with the many issues involved in running the school. Our children will receive fewer hours of services from the school counsellor, the speech therapist and the school psychologist. The services of our French specialist have been cut out completely. Contrary to school board projections, our enrolment is not declining; we have a waiting list.

"Members of your executive will be attending the school board meeting on Monday, April 26, at 8 p.m. in the Paul Building. Anyone willing to state their concerns, please attend."

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I read out similar messages to parents from school boards. I understand that school boards across the province are issuing such notices to parents. The impact of this bill is to cut back on these essential and enriched programs in the school districts.

I want to deal now, as I haven't dealt so far, with the school district of Vancouver in my own constituency. This is the proposed list of reductions required for the new legislation sent to me from the Vancouver School Board. The reduction required in that school district is going to be $2,066,000.

There has been a notice from the Ministry of Education that it is advising school boards that special education will continue to be funded by the ministry. This is another unfortunate and misleading announcement by the Ministry of Education, giving the impression that the ministry is going to continue to fund special-education programs. The fact is that there are only two 100 percent provincially funded programs: English as a second language for Vietnamese children only and some programs for severely handicapped children. The great majority of special-education programs have not been funded from the ministry budget, like learning assistance classes for the retarded, blind and deaf, as I pointed out yesterday. You've always got to keep on your toes with the ministry because they make these announcements, they don't elaborate on them, and they give the appearance that they're still supporting special education when they're not.

Interjection.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: The minister is a little disturbed. I wish he'd got disturbed before he was bludgeoned into supporting this kind of legislation. If the minister wants to support education in this province, he should be disturbed with his colleagues, not with the people in this chamber. I didn't give my approval to this legislation. Now he's upset. You should have gotten upset two months ago instead of making that silly announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

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

MR. LAUK: Through you, Mr. Speaker, the minister says that it was my announcement. One of the motivations in my making the announcement a day before the minister was to demonstrate to him and picture for him the wrongness of such a statement so he could probably change his mind the next day. It was my fondest hope that the minister would not make such an announcement.

[ Page 7217 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: You praised the announcement.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense! I didn't praise it at all. The minister said I praised his announcement. That's the kind of statement that's akin to all the statements coming out of his ministry now. They're really designed to hoodwink the public, to give the appearance of something that's not so. For example, I heard a statement on the radio last night that this bill will lower residential taxes. It was a very simple but totally false and totally incorrect statement. It will not lower taxes for residential homeowners. It's going to increase taxes even the ministry and the Minister admit that.

Under the special education program, the ministry comes out and says we're going to continue to fund them. Well, there are only two areas where the ministry funds special education: on the ESL for Vietnamese children and some programs for the severely handicapped. The great majority of special education programs, including learning assistance classes for the retarded, the blind and the deaf, have not been funded from the ministry budget. I wonder if the Minister would not agree that they will fund all of those as well so that we can get something out of this debate from the Minister.

Why is there no definition of special education in this act? What exactly is the ministry's definition of special education? We don't know that. The bill is so vague and unspecific that we don't know what is going to happen to us. And in the secrecy of cabinet, legally or illegally — they don't seem to care — they will pass orders-in-council and make unpredictable grants or withhold grants on their whim or in their political judgment. Why isn't special education defined in the act? Why are there no guidelines set out for these grants? What special-education programs will be funded by the ministry in 1983? Will they pull back from the ones they fund this year, the two I mentioned? And what guarantee do the parents of special-needs children have that the ministry will fund programs for their children if it is not spelled out clearly and unmistakably in this act? The answer is that there is no guarantee.

Back to the school district of Vancouver: I indicated that the school board there is going to make a reduction in its budget of $2,066,000. What does that include? It includes first-aid reductions, five additional staff assistants to provide substitutes to compensate schools for time lost performing first-aid duties — $80,000. What does that do? I indicated yesterday administering medication to severely handicapped and disabled children, and to other children on medication, was extremely dangerous if carried out by untrained people in the school system. I indicated that the School Trustees Association has received a legal opinion that clearly indicates that the school boards and teachers are placing themselves in serious legal jeopardy if they administer medication in a way that can be interpreted by the courts as negligent, or if the board permits unskilled or untrained people to do so. I don't know why this government has to wait for a disaster before it does something about that problem. It is only through the tremendous effort of schools, principals and teachers, because of this unreasonable responsibility placed upon the school system, that something terrible hasn't happened.

What are the other cutbacks? "The French immersion library collection has been cut back, both elementary and secondary. Materials and services for French immersion library resource centres are an integral part of the Vancouver school board library services. The total amount proposed for this area was specified to document our request for federal funds. These programs will be continued to the extent possible through the library services budget. Should federal funds be forthcoming, these will be directed to that account." That has been reduced by $72,000.

Instruction supplies, general school supplies, annual per capita allowance. The portion of this line item provides a cash grant to schools to cover postage and other expenses, and that has been cut back. Duplicating supplies, art, education and safety supplies. More and more emphasis is being placed on the need for the safe use of art materials, particularly in secondary schools. These safety items have been suggested in some cases by the ministry itself. They are separated from general supplies so that teachers do not have to choose between safety supplies and student supplies so that safety supplies will always be available. That's been cut back. In other words, we are sacrificing safety in the school district of Vancouver in the use of some of these supplies as a result of this legislation.

Career-preparation programs, communications, curriculum development — all of the budget items there have been cut back. ESL, home economics, industrial education; and they have had to cut back on supplies for their band program in the school district; also in the performing arts and professional development. There are cutbacks in special education for the educationally handicapped; $50,000 has been cut back from the replacement-of-equipment fund; $40,000 has been cut back from the cleaning and maintenance of secondary schools; $50,000 has been cut back so there will be no additional temporary clerical staff to assist with the work overloads. Referring to that, the tremendous increase in red tape and administrative work imposed by the ministry on school administrations in the past four or five years is something that has to be seen to be believed. Most teachers in the field would suggest that the kind of testing and evaluation requirements imposed by the ministry are not that useful. The other reports and form-filling required by the ministry have placed a clerical workload on school administrations that takes the principal and teachers away from their classroom duties. Their teaching time is being lowered as a result of these cutbacks in clerical assistance in the school district of Vancouver. Very highly skilled teachers and others will be busy doing this administrative overload. On the one hand, the ministry forces the reductions in budget; on the other, they won't relieve the school administrations from this nonsense of filling out forms on a constant basis, their rather ill-advised evaluation testing, and so on.

Instruction supplies have been cut back by $96,000. Art education has been cut back. Audiovisual resource materials have been cut back by $14,000. Business education has been cut back in two areas — career and community education services. Summer school and so on have been cut back. Counselling, supportive services for career education and computer software were cut by $16,000. There's a long list here, Mr. Speaker. Oral language, performing arts, physical education — physical education supplies have suffered cutbacks. The swimming program for grade 8 to 10 and the community recreational program have been cut. The reserve account for students traveling to provincial high school championships has been decreased.

Mr. Speaker, going through this list you can see the opportunities falling off the tree for a, whole generation of students: substitute teachers; district staff; custodial staff; cancellation of minor alterations and equipment replacement - and health budgets. Let me deal for a moment with the

[ Page 7218 ]

health budget for the school board of Vancouver. For many years the school trustees have asked the provincial government, through the Ministry of Health, to start funding some of the health programs in the school district. It is not considered by school trustees to be the responsibility of the local taxpayer to provide health services to the students, even though it's at the school establishment; this funding should be coming from the provincial government's Ministry of Health.

The cutback for the Vancouver School District alone is $114,000. What are the implications? Some staff reductions will be required, and they will drastically reduce services in this area. The school board emphasizes that these cutbacks will be made in consultation with the Vancouver health department. But, again, rather than moving forward in health services to students in the city, they've had to move backward.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) are here; that's four government members who are taking an interest in education in this province. I'm just wondering about the other members of the government side. They have no interest in what's happening under this bill; that's very surprising. Their constituencies are being drastically affected. They have no real understanding, I suppose, of the effect of this very serious bill.

In the last three days I've been trying to point out to the government members the folly of their approach to restraint, particularly in education. I've attempted to outline to them and the public as best I can how I feel the legislation itself is misguided and how it goes a long way to destroy the concept of education as we've known it in British Columbia for many years. The control of the educational system over the past six years has been, bit by bit, absorbed by the central ministry. It is the philosophy of the New Democratic Party that the Ministry of Education be a resource and not an authority; that it provide support for the school boards and school districts in the provision of education to people in their districts, not as an authority. Every move that a school board now makes comes under the scrutiny or directive of the minister himself.

I told you before, Mr. Speaker, that the clerical and administrative overload has been quite heavy in all school districts. I'm reminded that in the minister's report of his 1980 fall tour he stated: "The public school system, in response to demand" — demand from his ministry — "has taken on more than it can handle and now suffers from institutional overload." As he indicated in his report, there's nothing in the act to relieve this overload. In fact, the effect of this bill is to increase the overload rather than reduce it. When staff and services get chopped, other people who are still kept on have to fill in the void.

I think I'm about come to the end of my little talk on this bill. I've covered in some detail the areas that I think will be affected by this bill. I pointed out to the Legislature, as best I could, where this financial formula will increase taxes to the homeowner in the various 75 school districts, not only next year but this year as well.

In addition, I tried to point out that the bill itself is really a very clever political device to hoodwink the public into thinking there will be a reduction in taxes. Some press reports, I regret to say, are still making that statement, even though the direct statement of a reduction of taxes has never been claimed by the government. The confiscation of the industrial and commercial tax base has been such that there is virtually no way in which a school district can predict how high taxes will be from any given year to the next. Under the interim finance bill for education we have seen a deliberate attempt by the minister and this government to get an iron grip on the education system in this province. In so doing they have strangled a whole generation of kids that will have less of an opportunity to obtain an education than you and I did. I predict that we will be going on to a shift system of schooling, that the cutbacks in enriched programs in our school districts will continue, and that the money that was confiscated by the provincial government in all likelihood will not be used entirely for education but used to balance the provincial budget. It will be used, perhaps, for major projects announced by the government and underway in some cases.

It is a regrettable bill. I don't think that the New Democratic Party, if it were in government, would ever conceive of taking unto itself this kind of power. If Mr. Speaker casts his mind back to the 1972-75 era, if a bill like this were ever introduced by the NDP I think that there would be a move on by the Social Credit Party and others to have the legislation reserved or disallowed by the Lieutenant-Governor or Governor-General. Yet it is of some sadness to us that the import and effect of this bill is not completely understood by the public. I think that people working in the field of education understand it full well. There are hundreds of thousands of those people, and those people are going to be asking questions not only of this minister but of each and every government MLA, how they voted and where they stand. It is clear to me that if they vote for this bill, that is going to be one of the major election issues in the next election. The impact of this bill will be felt, clearly, on every family in the province, starting this year and well into next year. The response of these families at the ballot box, I suggest, is going to be very clear. This move by the government is a power grab and a money grab. It is designed to balance their budget and to get an iron grip on the education system. They have destroyed and are about to destroy any feature of local control and autonomy. They have cut off and silenced the parents of students throughout the province. The only way they can express their unhappiness will be at the ballot box.

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

In summary, the members of the NDP intend to vote against this bill in every stage of its process through this House. They intend to go on the hustings and in the constituencies — not only our constituencies, but Oak Bay and Chilliwack and others — and inform the good people there of the passage of this bill and the impact on education. I charge all hon. members to think carefully before the vote is taken.

MR. RITCHIE: I am going to be fairly brief, but I just thought, in view of the fact that that member did make such an attack on the independent school system, that a few points should be made here for the record.

First of all, he said that we didn't like his message. That is correct. We didn't like his message because it is like the messages of all his colleagues over there. It was negative, with a great deal of doom, gloom and the usual scare tactics.

He also said that he believed in democracy in the school system. Yet that same member would deny the students and parents of these students the choice of whether they send their children to public or private schools. Yes, it all depends whether we're in an election campaign or not as to what the type of democracy is. If we're not in an election, democracy

[ Page 7219 ]

means: "You do it our way, or else." But if we are in an election, then as a famous letter said: "Vote for us and we will continue with the support for the independent school system." I think that is absolutely disgusting, misleading, and a terrible sham of democracy in our school system.

He also said: "They want to control the minds of the kids in this province. They want to control education from a central level in a right-wing arbitrary fashion." I always hesitate to get into the past, but I think it's very important that periodically we refer to the past. In this particular case I refer to the NDP Waffle Manifesto — I believe it's section 23 — that says that they will use schools and other bodies in order to socialize Canada. That comment that he made here during his long, weary, dull talk is very misleading, and is a coverup for their plan to socialize Canada.

He went on to say that independent schools under this government are getting a 40 percent increase this year, while the public education system has been thrown into chaos. He says: "Now why is this happening?" Enrolment in the independent school system is growing. That is a very good reason why it is happening. He also says: "We are savaging the public school system and are shovelling money out to the independent school system. What kind of a government is this; a government that supports the independent school system at the expense of the public education system?" That's absolute nonsense. I can't understand that member, whose name is on that letter to the independent-school people telling them that they would continue to receive their funding under a socialist government. How misleading!

He also said: "If you vote the wrong way in a particular district in this province, you're not going to get any of that $75 million." How ridiculous a statement, when he himself signed a letter on behalf of his caucus saying: "If you vote for us, we will support you." How misleading! What a terrible statement to make!

Then he goes on to say: "All those millionaires over there are all right. They've got the money to send their kids to the private schools, to send them to expensive places in the summer and give them all the breaks in the world." Mr. Speaker, both you and I know many people throughout this province who are not millionaires — far from it — and certainly not as wealthy as the member who made this ridiculous statement. Many families who are average working families and average wage-earners are dedicated to making sure in their minds their children get the best. Some of them really scrounge to gather up enough funds to make sure their children get the type of education they want. I would like to remind that member, who seems to want to use all those scare tactics and knock down those who have had any success in life for political gains, that there are many.... In fact, I would say the largest percentage of those students who are attending independent schools are not from homes of millionaires.

He also went on to say: "Every school trustee has called this bill a confiscation of local power and autonomy. There isn't one school trustee in this province who hasn't made that charge."

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

I would like to tell the House that this is quite untrue, and certainly isn't true in the Central Fraser Valley, because I had the opportunity and privilege of speaking to our School District 34 people, the trustees and all the teachers. They called a meeting there not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, and out of approximately 600 members — teachers — they had between 70 and 80 show up, and only a few of that group listened to the trash that we hear from the opposition. In one little positive note, he said in here: "I have been a very great admirer of the influence of the Scottish immigrants to this country." That indeed makes me feel very proud, because we had to go to work for these things; we felt that education was something we should work for, and we did work for it. He talked about poor immigrants coming to this country and suffering under our system. No, we didn't suffer under the system, nor did my children; they benefited greatly under the system. But in any case, I appreciate his remarks and I only wish that he would talk to more of those Scottish immigrants who have benefited from the system, particularly in British Columbia, and he'd find out that we are used to having to exert ourselves and work for those things that we think are valuable to us.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just talks to Kinnaird.

MR. RITCHIE: Oh, yes, he talks to Kinnaird, but that's another type. Some of us come out to this country for the opportunities it offers and others come out to perpetuate the mess that they and their types helped create back there in Britain. But we have to put up with that, Mr. Speaker.

I've noticed one other item. He said that the basic underpinning of that influence was the sovereignty of the family over education. We can have our schools, we need our teachers and we need our programs, but the family has the final say. What a terrible statement for one who would walk out of this House and refuse to vote on a matter which gave people some say in education, which gave them the opportunity to select a private or independent school system for their children! What misleading statements— all the way through his whole dull, gloomy-doomy speech — for anyone to make, particularly that member who would sign that terrible letter saying: "Vote for us, put us back into office, and we will continue to support the independent school system." Where do you stand? Are you for it or are you against it? You can't play this game all the time. Your philosophy is catching up with you, as we have just witnessed in another part of Canada yesterday. You just can't carry on. I know that the people out in my community, who are very proud of our independent school system, are terribly annoyed at the way those who would stand up here for political gains attempt to deceive and to cover up some of the statements— a disgusting performance.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a very strong supporter of the independent school system and I'm also a strong supporter of the public system — I believe in both. I was not fortunate to have had the opportunity of going to a private or independent school, but it hasn't done me any harm, nor do I believe that going to a public school today will do anyone any harm— it's a good system. But as in anything else, competition is healthy; people should have a choice. As the member said, we should have democracy out there. Parents should have an opportunity to send their children to either an independent school or a public school.

Mr. Speaker, I want it on record here, on behalf of all of those people out there whose children are attending independent schools, that they should know what is being said in this House. I will make sure that they will learn of the things that are being said here. I am very concerned. We hear so much t talk about loss of democracy, about the poor and the starving,

[ Page 7220 ]

the hunger and all the rest of it. I just feel that this restraint program is a cleansing process; it's a good program. We have waste in our schools like we have in many other areas. I suspect that if we go out, listen to and talk with all those people who are really serious out there in the school system, they will say the same thing: there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's waste that is the biggest threat to our education system or any other program that we have in this province— it's waste, and there is waste out there.

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

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to react to the comments made by the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). He was debating a bill that is not before the House. This is not a bill that comments on whether or not we should have independent schools in this province. I'm all in favour of there being independent schools for those people who want them— but not with my tax dollars. That's all I want to say on that issue.

The bill that we're debating this week in the Legislature has generated more correspondence and more activity in my constituency than any other act of this government since 1979. Shortly after the bill was introduced, I was asked to attend a meeting in Gold River that was called on short notice by the school board, in conjunction with the school teachers' association in that community. Somewhere in the order of 200 to 250 parents and taxpayers came out to that meeting in that small community of Gold River to discuss what they see as a very, very disastrous piece of legislation for them.

Today I want to go through, in as careful and rational a way as I can, some of the reasons why I think this legislation should be withdrawn. I would like to propose that if the government would agree to withdraw the bill— and I don't feel very confident about that — they would do so, and then look at the McMath report, which they've had in their hands now for five or six years, and which I think provides a fair and equitable formula for preserving and maintaining a very important balance between the rights of the province and the rights of the local school districts in education.

Members of this Legislature know that the McMath report called for 75 percent of school financing to be home by the provincial general revenue, while leaving the full tax revenue— commercial, industrial and residential — in the hands of local school boards. That was a rational report. Its conclusions were reached after extensive travel and discussion with a variety of people around this province, and in my judgment, that is the way to go. I don't understand why the government has decided to go in an entirely different way, because what the bill essentially does in rural British Columbia is to deny revenue to local school boards so that they can operate a school program independent from Victoria.

In the school district of Vancouver Island West, 92 percent of their tax base has been removed. Under this legislation, that school district is going to have to provide its share of the program and its local programs with a tax base of 8 percent. They have gone from being the eleventh richest school district in British Columbia to the seventy-fourth. The reason they're not seventy-fifth and last is because Nishga district is seventy-fifth. Special considerations are in play in that district because of DIA involvement and special provincial funding because of their unique situation. In effect, the school district of Vancouver Island West has gone from the eleventh richest to the seventy-fourth, virtually the last or the poorest.

The other day in this House, during the budget debate, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) made an eloquent plea for those rural parts of this province— what he called the northern parts — which he quite rightly described as those areas that produce the wealth. He made an eloquent plea for them. I think those of us on this side of the House who represent those kinds of constituencies have done the same thing. There is a resentment in those kinds of industrial communities in rural British Columbia that do produce the wealth. There is a resentment against Victoria and the lower mainland that is akin to the resentment felt by western Canadians about Ontario and Quebec. There is that same kind of relationship. The people in Tahsis, for example, wonder why they pay somewhere in the order of $17 million to $20 million a year in income tax and receive somewhere in the order of $1 million to $1.5 million in benefits from the province. There are some good reasons why there might be some disparity but it is very difficult to explain to them why there is that kind of disparity. What happens in the face of that already inequitable tax system is that these people will be faced with losing yet another of their tax-producing revenues. As I say, in Vancouver Island West 92 percent— $64 million out of $68 million — is stripped away.

The board of trustees for School District 84 and the Vancouver Island West Teachers Association felt so incensed by Bill 27 that they were inclined to spend the money to jointly take out a full-page newspaper advertisement in The Record, the paper that serves the west coast of Vancouver Island. They talk about the effects of this bill. The headline reads: "School Taxes Skyrocket: Gold River Up 80 Percent." I am going to read some of the copy from this ad:

"The new education finance formula recently unveiled by the provincial government attempts to equalize taxes provincewide but does not provide equal- educational opportunities. Gold River school taxes will be closer to lower mainland taxes, but education in Gold River will not be equal to that in the lower mainland."

MR. MUSSALLEM: Why is that?

MR. GABELMANN: To the member for Dewdney, who represents a lower mainland riding, it is because school districts in rural British Columbia have for a long time provided basically an inferior level of education as compared to those provided in bigger cities. Five schools in Vancouver Island West have no libraries and the school district has no library resource centre. If a kid going to school has no access to a library, I would say that is an inferior level of education. The ad goes on to talk about other implications of the bill:

"School District 84 will no longer benefit from Tahsis company taxes. We will share those taxes with the rest of the province, but they will not be sharing their residential taxes with us. This district will not be able to provide the facilities and resources that other districts take for granted."

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my remarks this morning I intend to read from a sampling of the letters I have been receiving in the last few weeks which will illustrate those points further.

[ Page 7221 ]

There are some interesting statistics concerning school children and the number who are able to go on to full-time university of non-vocational college programs year by year. It is unfortunate we don't have television in the House because I could more effectively demonstrate by showing this graph. Since 1975 there is a line almost straight down which represents the number of rural or, as it says on the graph, nonmetropolitan school graduates who are able to go on to fulltime university or non-vocational college programs. In 1975, after a rapid increase in the three previous years, about 31 percent of those children in rural areas were able to go on to university. At that time roughly 34 percent of metropolitan kids went on. The disparity was not particularly large: 34 percent urban, 31 percent rural. The latest figures I have are for the 1979-80 school year, so we are talking about June 1980. Since 1975 the metropolitan percentage has stayed roughly the same— about 33 percent or 34 percent of the kids going on to post-secondary education at the university level. In the non-metropolitan area the figure has dropped to about 21 percent, so we've had a drop from, 31 percent to 21 percent of kids going on to that kind of post-secondary education in the rural areas. And the member for Dewdney asks me why education standards are inferior in rural areas. The documentation is there, it's clear and the trend is really rather disturbing.

The effects of this bill in terms of rural versus urban is further dramatized when you look at the budget cut in each school district. I have in front me a list of the cuts in dollar amounts per pupil this year, and they range from $221 less per pupil down to zero. When you look at the school districts that have had the largest cuts per pupil, you see they are the same rural districts that are already suffering under an inferior education system. They are already suffering because their students are not going on to university at the same level as urban kids. Vancouver Island West is third in this list of rural districts. Vancouver Island North is further down; it looks like it's about tenth or twelfth. The districts that have suffered the largest cuts are: Gulf Islands, Nishga, Vancouver Island West, Stikine, Fernie, Terrace, Agassiz-Harrison, Lillooet, Qualicum, Windermere, Kitimat, Smithers, Bums Lake, Kimberley, Vancouver Island North, and Queen Charlottes. There isn't a lower mainland or Victoria school district among them in the first group that I've read. These districts all have between a $96 and $221 cut per pupil. The cut in West Vancouver is $25; the cut in North Vancouver is $32; and in Vancouver Island West it's $151.

Mr. Speaker, the average residential assessment in 1981, plus full-time enrolment, produced a provincial average residential assessment per student of $14, 952.45— just short of the $15,000 average residential assessment per student. That $15,000 average in the province — not the high figure but the average — compares to the three school districts in my riding as follows: Vancouver Island West, $4,700; Vancouver Island North, $7,900; and Campbell River, $10,500. Those figures are important because they have to he read in conjunction with figures that the ministry has accepted over the years: costs of education in rural districts are about 10 percent higher than they are in urban districts. We're saying to those school districts: "You no longer have the tax base needed to raise the kind of revenues to attempt to produce some kind of equitability for rural school children."

Mr. Speaker, the minister is back. I appreciate that he can't sit forever, and I don't expect him to sit in his chair every minute of this debate. I wouldn't be critical of him for not being here for the first 15 minutes of my comment, but I hope he'll have a chance to quickly go through the Blues. I am sure he will.

Mr. Speaker, there are basically two concerns about the legislation: firstly, property taxes are going to skyrocket in rural constituencies, particularly in mine; and secondly, education standards are going to be dramatically affected. I'm not going to spend very much time talking about the property tax issue, because as I read the people in my constituency, they're prepared to pay more if they get more for their education. But what they're faced with now is paying more and getting less. The Vancouver Island North district council of the teachers federation prepared a brief. They argue that when you combine this bill together with the restraint program, the cutbacks will do. As far as they're concerned there are seven very important things: (1) it will erode educational service, and I've talked a little bit about that; (2) it will perpetuate inequities in funding and service and ignore specific district needs; (3) it will undermine the traditional right to local self-government; (4) it will increase unemployment; (5) it will fail to control inflation; (6) it negates the collective bargaining process; and (7) it punishes past self restraint.

I want to pick up on number 7. One of the — I was going to say beautiful ironies, but really one of the tragic ironies of this legislation is that those school districts that practised very careful budgetary measures over the last few years.... I think of Vancouver Island West in particular. They had a very tight school board, in terms of their budget. They are hit harder by this legislation than more profligate school districts. If you spent a lot before, you aren't hit as badly now. But if you were very careful with the taxpayers' dollars before, the implications of this new legislation are that you are hit even worse today. That seems to me a terrible irony.

Some things are really concerning. The Vancouver Island North School District has made two trips to the bank in the last few weeks. They have now borrowed $3.2 million at 18 percent on a demand loan so they can meet their operating costs. Why is that? It's because the taxes that normally come to them through the local municipality from the industrial and commercial sector are no longer coming.

What kind of restraint program forces school districts to pay 18 percent on borrowed money? I understand that several other districts in the province have already done the same thing: borrowed money to meet operating costs. I don't know how many more there will be in the coming days and weeks. Does that not seem to be somewhat illogical? Why would we force school districts to borrow money from the banks at 18 percent at a time when, theoretically at least, the government's talking about restraint? It leads one to believe that the whole so-called restraint program is really pretty phony and is just a political gesture to try to demonstrate to the public that the government cares about costs. If it cared about costs, they wouldn't be paying 18 percent to the bank in Port Hardy.

One of the problems with time limits is that you have to leave out a lot of material, and it's really difficult to make the argument effectively when you're dealing with a complicated piece of legislation like this. I'm going to have to hurry along.

I mentioned earlier that in Vancouver Island West there are five schools with no libraries. They have no library resource centre. In a time when computer technology is increasingly important and when children should be at least familiar with, if not trained in, computer technology, the Vancouver Island West School District has one computer in

[ Page 7222 ]

Gold River. There's nothing in the rest of the district. There's another one that one of the teachers owns personally and privately; he brings it to school with him. This is in an age when computers are central and essential to the lives of school children.

The Minister of Education hasn't been in the school in Port Eliza. The last time I went to the school it had to be closed down because of an infestation of lice. The minister hasn't been in the school in Kyuquot. There are two there. When I was there attempting to answer for the kids in elementary grades questions about government, education and politics in general, we couldn't hear each other because the generator that provides the electricity was so loud outside the almost paper-thin wall of the building. Somebody has to teach in that situation, and kids have to learn in that situation. The minister hasn't been with me or, I think, even by himself in the school in Zeballos where a school that was built in the 1930s, falling apart.... It is a nice old building but totally inadequate to the needs of school children in that area. People in those communities wonder why it is that we sports freaks can have a football stadium but they can't have a decent school. They wonder why it is that hundreds of millions of dollars appear to be available for big projects but they can't have a library.

Taxpayers and parents and kids in Port Hardy — a community with two big shopping centres and another small one — don't have a track. That doesn't seem a big deal to those of us who have gone to school in bigger places or who represent urban ridings. Every school has a track, don't they? Or, if not, there is one down the road within busing distance. But the actions of this bill and this government in its programs recently mean that the Jay budget and the proposed $100,000 to build a track are being cut back so that in Port Hardy— where there has somehow been enough money to build two and a half shopping centres — they can't build a track for the kids.

One wonders why the bill was introduced. Is it because taxpayers in West Vancouver were clamouring about the fact that they had to pay $800 on school taxes and they didn't like it? Is it because taxes were getting a little high in West Vancouver, in Shaughnessy, in Point Grey and in Oak Bay, and those Socred members representing those constituencies felt that they needed to do something to head off the "taxpayers' revolt" in those rich areas?

Let me repeat something that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) said a week or so ago during the budget debate which I thought was an excellent point, one that I know a lot of urban MLAs don't understand. He said: "People wonder why people choose to live next to the smelter in Trail. One of the reasons they choose to live next to the smelter in Trail is because that's where the jobs are and it is cheaper to live there than it would be to live in Fruitvale or in Rossland. The closer you are to the industrial site, the cheaper it is."

That's the nature of the way assessments are calculated in this province. If it's an "undesirable area," your assessments are lower. People who choose to live in Oak Bay or in West Vancouver, away from the smog, away from the pollution, away from the industrial hurly-burly, have to pay a price for that luxury. Those people who choose to move to communities like Zeballos, Gold River, Port Hardy, Port McNeill or Woss, or to any other number of communities around this province, should receive some benefit for their lack of luxurious living surroundings. One of those benefits in recent years has been that they pay less for property taxes, less on their school taxes. The minister has wiped out that advantage by this legislation. That's why I'm getting letters by the carload from northern Vancouver Island, as is the minister. There are reasons why there are inequities. There are reasons why West Van and Oak Bay pay more; and they should continue to pay more.

In the 15 minutes that I have left, I want to read from as many of the letters as I can. I'm not going to read them all and I'm not going to read all of any of them; but I want to read some highlights from a few of them. I'm not going to name the people but I'm quite prepared to have the names made available if there's any doubt about what I'm reading.

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

"It would appear that the new school finance formula has not done what surely its goals must first have been. The goals I would suggest should have been prioritized with a view to ensuring (a) the opportunities of all school students be assured; (b) the opportunities of all school students be equal; (c) the necessary tools be made available to accomplish this.

"It would appear that (a) opportunities are to varying degrees; (b) opportunities are not equal; (c) the necessary tools are abundant in some areas and lacking in others."

He then goes on for two and a half pages to tell the minister and myself what he thinks is wrong with the legislation. The next letter is from the vice-chairman of the school board in Vancouver Island West. I won't read all of her letter, but a part of it reads:

"This new formula has hurt this district more than any other in the province because we have had a very small residential tax base— 8 percent. Local share of the budget will be extremely expensive because it will be paid by very few people. Districts with large residential and low industrial bases are even better off than before because the entire industrial base of the province helps to lower the homeowner taxes in those areas. Unfortunately they are not sharing their high residential base with us. Under the old system we were the eleventh wealthiest district in the province. Now we are seventy-fourth out of 75. The only one lower is Nishga, who has such a low residential base that special provision will be made for them."

This is a letter from the village of Zeballos:

"Dear Minister Smith:

"The council of the village of Zeballos strongly protests the loss of School District 84's non-residential tax base, which represents a 92 percent drop in revenue generated for school purposes. Equalizing school taxes throughout B.C. does not mean equalizing the standard of education throughout the province. Our area is already lacking in the services, facilities and equipment that other school districts already have, and this new finance formula affords no opportunity to rectify this imbalance. If taxes are to be equalized, the council of the village of Zeballos urges that your ministry grant the necessary concessions to also equalize the standard of education."

The village of Gold River sent this, from the mayor to the minister: "The council of the village of Gold River wishes to protest in the strongest terms the proposed new education finance formula and its effect on School District 84." She goes on in her letter.

[ Page 7223 ]

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

"We in the west bitterly complain of the policy by which the federal government take the wealth generated in the west without a proportional return. This exact same thing has now occurred at the provincial level. In Gold River we have an isolated town lacking many of the advantages and cultural resources available to those in larger centres. What we did have, though, was the opportunity of improving the educational facilities available to our children and bringing them up to the level obtainable elsewhere in the province. In the past, in this town, it was not an uncommon reason for a happily settled family to leave when their children came of secondary school age.

"It is time that such cities as Victoria and Vancouver accept the fact that they are sustained only by the wealth generated in the outlying forestry and mining industries. In order to attract and keep families in these often isolated communities, there should be some benefits. A good education for our children should be the very 'minimum benefit' that we seek. I therefore urge that you rearrange your formula in order to redress the financial loss that School District 84 has experienced."

A letter to the minister from another parent and taxpayer in Gold River says: "I used to be a passive taxpayer, but with this latest new scheme of being fair to the multitude, I see red. Are we denied the right to qualified teachers, librarians, school psychologists, qualified trained counsellors, etc.?" In another letter from Tahsis a parent says: "We desperately need the resource moneys generated here to stay here to help us catch up to standards taken for granted on most of the mainland." Another letter to the minister from Gold River says: "I have lived in Gold River for 15 years, and our schools have never had adequate equipment or enough teachers to give our students an education which could in any way compare with the Vancouver districts." Another Gold River taxpayer says: "The costs of our schools in remote settlements, such as Kendrick Arm, Esperanza, Port Eliza, Zeballos, etc., is inordinately high. Maintenance, travel time and, of course, the pupil-teacher ratio result in a considerable drain on an already strained budget."

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

"1. We have a low residential tax base, therefore our educational services will not be on the same standard with the rest of the province. I believe this will hurt our children, not only now but in the future when they leave Gold River to attend university.

"2. Our largest industry, Tahsis Co., pays taxes which will be shared with the rest of the province. Will others share their residential taxes with us? No, probably not.

"Over the last several years, the board of School District 84 have struggled to keep their spending down. Now those who spend wildly are going to be subsidized. This is really unfair. Is there no justice? Is there no justice? I believe that some equipment and personnel that some schools, say, in the lower mainland have, i.e. computers, libraries, special teachers or counsellors, are taken for granted at these schools. The same equipment would be a luxury in our school district if we had it, which under your plan there is not a hope of ever getting it. Therefore, Mr. Smith, as a homeowner and a mother of two school children, I strongly urge you to amend the school taxation formula as soon as possible so it will be fair to all concerned."

The minister will note, I'm sure, as I read these letters from concerned residents of North Island, that they're not complaining about their taxes. The traditional, typical kind of complaint about higher taxes is not being made. The taxes are higher, but that's not their chief concern; their chief concern is the level of education.

This one is from a teacher:

"It's beyond me how your new formula could reflect equalization when our educational delivery potential is now so low that eventually it will be virtually impossible for the Tahsis Co. and the school district to attract competent professional people to work here.

"Ironically we share our rich industrial tax-base money generated here with the rest of the province, while they do not share their rich residential taxes with us. We have a low residential tax base."

I'm not going to read all of the letters, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to pick on one or two others as we go through this. This is from a newly arrived resident of Gold River:

"This district, which has for a number of years returned some portion of taxes collected to Victoria, is now being penalized for its past frugality. Even basic maintenance of the buildings becomes a problem when more than 50 percent of your maintenance budget is absorbed by transportation and accommodation expenses alone."

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

"The majority of schools in this district have no library or resource facilities, and those which do have them do not enjoy the same amenities which are taken for granted in larger centres.

"Your restraint program curtailed some of the projected improvements, but your new finance formula has rendered it virtually impossible for this school district to maintain even the standards of education now being offered, which are already lower than many parents would like, particularly in the outlying communities of our district."

There is a theme through all of this that makes it unnecessary for me to read all of the letters, but let me read this one from a husband and wife— parents:

"Our schools are desperately lacking in services of qualified librarians, school psychologists, trained counsellors and adequate library facilities, to name a few. As well, the schools need maintenance had the same school facilities and educational opportunities as the lower mainland children have."

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

"The school district lacks many of the services, facilities and equipment which many districts helped by your new formula already have. The schools in this district will not be able to provide the cultural activities that our rural community lacks and that children in the lower mainland have at their doorsteps. We will be forced to send our children away from home to benefit from a first-class education. We will pay equal taxes as residents of the lower mainland and get an unequal education."

[ Page 7224 ]

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

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

"I realize that real estate values have escalated assessments in the lower mainland, but shouldn't these homeowners pay something for their higher equity? If they sold their homes, they would realize a great profit. Why should I pay so they can avail themselves of these advantages, while your programs are not allowing our schools to provide an equitable standard of education? I'm willing to pay for my children's education, but I want a better quality for my extra money."

Again, that same theme. There is not an unwillingness to bear an extra burden on taxation but they want some reasonable standards of education in exchange. They don't want to have to send their kids out, or have to move to a different school district to avail themselves of a reasonable education. Society should recognize that those people who work in isolated and remote communities in this province provide a very real benefit to all of us in this society, and in exchange we should be providing, through education, some benefit to them.

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

"Our school is very antiquated. It appears to have been built in the 1930s, making the facilities over 50 years outdated. Our grades in this five-room school go from kindergarten to grade ten with an enrolment of 75 pupils, a teaching staff the equivalent of five, with no clerical employment, leaving these responsibilities also to the teachers. The bathroom facilities are in the basement. The school looks like something out of the skid row district"— I can echo that. "There is no playground, but there is some surrounding bush that the kids can play in. There is no gym. There is no physical education teacher. There is no French program. There are no special education teachers, no counsellors, no home economics teacher, no industrial arts teacher, no science teacher. I can go on and on."

Some people will say that's the choice you make when you move to Zeballos. But somebody has to move to Zeballos. Somebody has to work those forests. Somebody has to work in that mine. Somebody has to work in the fishing industry out of Zeballos, and those somebodies who do that are likely to have children. But are we going to say to them that the facilities which are available in the rest of the province are not available to them? I think that is wrong. Finally, Mr. Speaker— I know my time is almost up — I want to say that I was in Port Hardy on the weekend. I learned that three special education classes have been cancelled in the Vancouver Island North School District as a result of the program. Special education, while a frill to some people, is probably one of the most essential basics that exists in rural Vancouver Island and, I suspect, in most of the rest of this province. Special education services have been cut back and three programs specifically eliminated as a result of the minister's programs. I find that highly objectionable and, I think, wrong.

MRS. WALLACE: I would certainly be more than happy to yield the floor to any of the four back-bench members of the government who are in the House. I don't know where they all are today.

1 was very interested in listening to my colleague for North Island tell of some of the conditions that exist in those outlying schools in the northern reaches of Vancouver Island. But let me tell you that we don't have a particularly good picture in the more central part of Vancouver Island either. Certainly in the two school districts which are encompassed in the confines of my provincial constituency, we are facing some extremely severe problems as a result of this government's change in the finance formula. The conditions in both of those school districts are different because of the financial structure of those districts but, nonetheless, are severe in both areas. Certainly when you look at the budget figures and realize that the public school education system has been limited on the part of the provincial government to a 9.6 percent increase from last year at the same time that a provincial arbitrator has ruled that salaries will be increased by 17.5 percent, you recognize the confines within which school boards are being asked to work. It is an impossible task that has been put before our local school boards, and they are not even fully aware of what the restraint program is all about. They have not been advised what the core curriculum consists of or what share the provincial government will actually be making towards the educational costs. It is certainly true that the Minister of Education has sent them reams of material and tables. But the real facts are not there, because they do not know what is going to be included in the core curriculum. One of the major problems facing school districts right now is trying to calculate what they will or will not be able to do within the restraint guidelines set up by this government. I'd like first to deal with the Cowichan School District. One of the first things that it's meant in that school district is that they've had to go out and borrow an additional $2.5 million because of delays in funding on the part of this government. At today's interest rates, that's an outrage. Certainly the front-page story in the local paper indicated just that by saying "Outraged Board Must Borrow Money to Cover Costs."

"The treasurer of the board said the board would have to borrow additional money simply to meet such basic costs as its payroll because of proposed changes in the way and amount the province pays each school district. Noting the proposed provincial changes are presently before the Legislature, Brown said no money, not even what is owed to this district under the old financing system, is coming through."

Various school trustees also spoke about it. One is quoted as saying: "This is really outrageous, that we have to borrow because they, the provincial government, haven't got their legislation through." Another school trustee said: "I just can't believe it. They're telling us to cut back, and they're forcing us to borrow from the banks." That's the situation facing the Cowichan School District.

This government is putting such restraints on that district that they are talking about closing some of the small schools in the outlying areas. One of those schools is on Thetis Island. They're going to ask small children, rather than just go to their little school on Thetis Island for the first six grades, to get on a ferry, be brought across to Vancouver Island and then be bused somewhere else if there's a bus available, or maybe make their own way into one of the Chemainus schools. At the same time, they're talking about closing one of the Chemainus schools. This is very upsetting to parents who live in a community and work for that school through their home and school society. In a small community

[ Page 7225 ]

a school becomes the focal point. It's not only used during school hours, from nine to four; it's used for a great many activities. The parents are interested in playground equipment, classes and extracurricular activities. If you take the school away, you destroy the social structure of that little community on Thetis Island, or that little community wherever it may be, which is so important to our way of life in British Columbia.

The figures are very interesting. Under the old system in the Lake Cowichan School District, one mill would raise $333,346 in taxes; under the new system that the minister is bringing in, one mill will only raise $126,140— one-third of what could be raised last year by the school board. The government is proposing to make some refund; they're talking about limits of $95— that no tax base for operating costs is going to increase by more than $95. But, Mr. Speaker, those tables that the minister is circulating include that $95. It's hidden away in those figures; it's already there. So if your taxes are going up, you don't have that $95; it's already worked into the formula. So there's Cowichan, with a third of its tax base left, trying to accommodate the kind of educational system that that very dedicated school board wants to provide for their integrated community, where we have a lot of non-English speaking children, where we're trying to provide the kind of language opportunities, and where we have gone into French immersion. That may be considered a frill and will probably have to go under this system, because I very much doubt that that minister is going to consider French immersion as part of the core curriculum.

Those are the kinds of programs by which we're trying to improve the quality of our education in Cowichan. The children with special needs that have been mainstreamed by this government.... The extra costs that are involved in trying to accommodate those children in the system are, in all likelihood, not going to be considered as part of the core curriculum, not going to be funded by this government, and are going to have to be picked up by the local taxpayer on the basis of one-third assessment in Cowichan. Certainly those services are essential. They are preventive services. We all know that if you prevent problems, it's a lot easier and cheaper than trying to cure those problems.

This restrictive kind of measure of withdrawing funds and limiting the allowable increases that a school board can make is certainly going to hamper the quality of education, and in the long run is going to make it much more expensive to deal with those children that need those special kinds of services. It's going to take away from the quality that we have been trying to encourage in the Cowichan Valley.

I want to turn to Lake Cowichan. If you think Cowichan is bad, Lake Cowichan is certainly a lot worse. Under the old system, one mill would raise $63,442 in the Lake Cowichan School District. Under the new system this minister is trying to bring in with this piece of legislation, that tax base is so eroded that one mill will raise only $12,869. One-fifth is all that's left for Lake Cowichan. On March 30 the chairman of the Lake Cowichan School District wrote to the Minister of Education. There had been a lot of correspondence with the minister before this. There has been a lot of correspondence with me. I attended a meeting out there of the Lake Cowichan School Board at their request to try to delve into some of the problems they were facing.

This letter was written on March 30, with copies to a great many people, including me, the Premier and the teachers. A lot of people got copies of this letter. Having received the copy on April 13, I wrote to the minister, asking him to follow up on the letter. To the best of my knowledge, neither I nor the chairman of the school district has received any response. I am only going to read one letter, this letter from Mrs. Brown, the chairman of the Lake Cowichan School Board:

"Dear Mr. Smith:

"On behalf of the trustees of School District 66, I wish to voice strong concerns regarding the process involved in the recent provincial restraint program and the new finance formula, which will have a severe impact on our district. We worked for many months to bring in a final budget 17.67 percent higher than our 1981 budget. In reality, this budget increase was lower than most school districts and reflected our awareness of the need to exercise moderation and responsibility. Nevertheless, we were informed unilaterally that we were required to reduce our budget by $88,515.

"We firmly believe in the spirit of consultation with all staff in our district, and it is to their credit that we were able to effect cuts in all areas of the submitted final budget report. The areas that were reduced the heaviest were: (1) the purchase of replacement equipment that will keep us competitive in the field of education; and (2) the maintenance of existing buildings and grounds. Many structures in our district are old and require constant maintenance.

"We have a responsibility to our children to provide a viable education which will enable them to face the future, knowing they can cope with whatever lies ahead. The budget restraint program combined with the increased tax burden to our residents could not have come at a worse time for our community. This is a forest industry area depending on logging and sawmills. Two mills have closed permanently and the third is down to one shift. Logging operations are currently less than 50 percent of normal operation for this time of the year. A majority of members of this community are unemployed, and many have been without work for several months. An increase in taxes which would have been difficult in normal years is a crushing burden at this time.

"If any possibility exists for special consideration due to the severe impact of these changes, we expect that an opportunity for a presentation from School District 66 will be guaranteed. It causes grave concern that in all of the correspondence, meetings with the ministry officials and phone calls, the effect of these changes on the quality of education and the child in the classroom was never mentioned.

Jean Brown,
Chairman,
Lake Cowichan School Board"

It was written on March 30; it's now, I believe, April 28, and there has been no response from that minister, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

A reduction in their basic assessment to one-fifth of what it was in a town that has been hit by the closure of sawmills, by the unemployment in the logging industry, by the depletion of the forest reserve in that area as the result of poor logging practice in the past— a town that's gasping for breath — and now those residents are being asked to foot the bill so

[ Page 7226 ]

that the people who live in West Vancouver, who, under the old system found that a mill would raise $374,402, and under the new system find that a mill rate of one mill will still raise $305, 955.... There is practically no reduction in the assessment, but a drastic reduction on those million-dollar homes in West Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, at the expense of the people in Lake Cowichan. That's why we object to this bill, that's why we're opposing it, and that's why we believe that that minister is bringing into this province a system that is aimed to help the rich — the people in West Vancouver and Oak Bay — and to take away from the poor.

The Minister of Education is a Robin Hood in reverse, and he should think again. He promised, when he introduced this program, that he would listen, but he hasn't listened to what the people are saying. He is going right ahead with this program that is doing nothing but harm for the quality of education in the province of British Columbia in the areas where it is so badly needed: in the areas that have been outlined by my colleague for the North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) in the areas I have talked about in Lake Cowichan and in many other areas around the province. He is not thinking about what it is doing to those areas; he is thinking only about what he can do for Oak Bay and for West Vancouver. That is not government for all the people. That is only government for those who least need those kinds of benefits.

Ms. Brown moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, during the debate on the budget address the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) sought to raise a point of privilege, alleging that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) had misled the House in describing a document as "protecting the taxpayers for a public investment." It is clear from the member's statement in support of the application that he and the minister have a difference of opinion as to the effect of the document in question. Such a difference of opinion is the very essence of parliamentary debate, and Hansard reveals that the member discussed the matter in his subsequent speech in the budget debate. As pointed out by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and as stated in Citation 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition: "A dispute arising between members as to allegation of facts does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." I must rule that no prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made.

Further, last Wednesday the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) sought the floor on a point of privilege. The gist of his complaint was that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) had written a letter to the editor of the Vancouver Province which discussed the merits of an editorial in the paper, while a notice of motion concerning the same subject matter appeared on the order paper. In Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, on page 34 it states that the categories of privilege claimed by the House are as follows:

"The individual privileges are: (a) Freedom of speech or debate; and (b) Freedom from arrest. The collective privileges are: (a) Access to the Crown; (b) The right to provide for its due composition; (c) To regulate its own proceedings; (d) The power to punish for contempt; (e) The power to summons witnesses; and (f) Those privileges enumerated in the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act, RSBC, 1979."

The action complained of does not come within any of the aforesaid categories, nor can I find any precedent for the proposition that members of the House cannot discuss the proceedings of the House outside of its environs. The action of the minister constitutes an exercise of the first privilege.

At the time of the member's application, the order paper contained 7 notices of introduction of bills, 20 notices of motion, 9 written questions and 29 bills slated for future consideration of the House. If the member's argument were to apply, there could be no discussion of any of these matters outside of the House by any of its members.

My perusal of Hansard reveals that in his application the member stated: "Such action, if it were to continue, could easily tend to bring the position of Your Honour and the Chair into greater disrepute." An attack on the Chair is an attack on the House itself, and I must caution the member that such an attack will necessitate the Chair's immediate intervention.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, out of deference to the Chair on questions of motions of privilege, the House has permitted the Speaker that rather than to deal forthwith and rule on motions of privilege, Mr. Speaker will take it under consideration and deliver his opinion in due course.

I find it upsetting, to say the least, that at one minute to noon, when the members who raised these points of privilege are not in their seats...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...the Speaker will then see fit to deliver that decision. It has been the practice of the Speaker to deliver such opinions either at 6 o'clock or when the members can be expected to be in their seats.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the point of order.

MR. LAUK: I would ask that the Speaker take that into consideration.

Further, on the two points of privilege upon which Mr. Speaker has just ruled, I would ask for copies of those decisions so that they can immediately be put into the hands of the members.

MR. SPEAKER: They will be in Votes and Proceedings.

Hon. members, in order to acquaint the members with the dilemma the Chair faces from time to time, these decisions, of course, are sought to be brought to the House at the earliest possible convenience. One decision was prepared by Friday at adjournment hour, at which time usually members are here. However, the business of the House went beyond adjournment hour, and the Speaker could not presume at that late hour to introduce yet another order of business.

The second decision was ready last night at adjournment time. Seeking to bring the decision to the House as quickly as possible, I had both decisions prepared for last evening. But

[ Page 7227 ]

again, last evening the business of the House ran past the 6 o'clock adjournment hour.

So lest it appear that the Speaker was not giving the decisions as quickly as possible, the Speaker brought these decisions now. If there's any inconvenience, that inconvenience is brought about by the non-attendance of the members who are present. I seek to bring these decisions when the member is present. The member is quite right.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education for the period July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.